RSS

A Great (Good?) Debate?

02 Mar

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

A man named “Colin” has recently taken an interest in this blog.  He’s reportedly graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, was briefly licensed to practice law, but has dropped out of the profession.

He is generally critical of the ideas and conclusions that I promote on this blog. The result has been a kind of “great debate” between Colin and myself and many of this blogs readers.  His comments are intelligent and articulate and have added enormous interest to the blog.  

Here’s an except from one of his recent comments. His comment was much longer.  But I need some sleep, so I’ll have to reply to the remainder of his comments later today.

The following begins with one of my earlier remarks in a previous comment, followed by a question from Colin, followed by my current comment:

Adask original:  But the one common denominator in all of these possible answers is this: the event, act or transaction is presumed by the government to have taken place outside of the perpetual Union; outside the borders of a State of the Union; outside the borders or jurisdiction(s) of The United States of America.

Colin reply:  Can you give us an example of such a transaction?

Adask reply to Colin:  I can try.

•  After the Civil War ended, the congressional Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, expressly readmitted “Texas” back into representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union. That Act expressly declared that the name of that State of the Union was “The State of Texas”.  The quote marks are in text of the Act.  Congress did not declare that the proper name for that State of the Union was “Texas,” “TX,” “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or “state of Texas”.  So far as I know, the proper name for the State of the Union where I am domiciled was and remains “The State of Texas”.

•  Glenn Hegar is the current “Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts”. Given Mr. Hegar’s title, most people would suppose that he’s the “comptroller” for the State of the Union that many people casually refer to as “Texas”—and whose proper State-of-the-Union name is “The State of Texas”.

I have some doubt.  Here’s why:

Suppose Dell Computers sold 1,000 hi-tech computers to the government of “this state” and comptroller Hegar wrote a check to Dell for $1 million to pay for those computers.  Most people would see nothing remarkable in that transaction, but I’d see a problem.

•  Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States declares in part that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; . . . .”

When Article 1.10.1 was drafted, the only kind of “States” we had were States of the Union.  Thus, the Article 1.10.1 prohibition on “States” using any “Thing but gold or silver Coin as a Tender in Payment of Debts” had to apply only to States of the Union, including whatever additional States of the Union (like “The State of Texas”) that might later added to the Union under Article 4.31.

In what I suspect may be the Founders’ single greatest oversight in the original Constitution, Article 1.10.1 does not expressly apply to districts (like Washington DC), or territories (like Guam or Puerto Rico) or even “states of the United States” (rather than States of the Union; i.e., States of “The United States of America” as per the Articles of Confederation).

Thus, while the States of the Union have always been prohibited by the Constitution from using any Thing but gold and silver Coin as a Tender in Payment of Debts—no such prohibition ever applied to districts, territories or even states that were not part of the Union.

•  In order to make this argument a little more persuasive, you might want to compare the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781)—which created/constituted the confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” (quote marks in the Articles)—to the Constitution of the United States (first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788).

If you do, you’ll see that “The United States of America” includes only the States of the Union.  There is no proviso in the Articles of Confederation for districts like Washington DC or territories like Guam, Puerto Rico of even “Tejas” before it became a State of the Union.

If you read the Constitution (A.D. 1788), you’ll see that two of the biggest changes from the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781), were the provisions for: 1) a district that we currently refer to as “Washington DC”; and territories that are owned and operated by the Congress under Article 4.3.2 and are not States of the Union.

•  I know this will generate a smirk but, technically, it could be argued that Washington DC and other federal districts and territories exist “in the United States” (as per the Constitution) but do not exist within the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

Get that?  Two different jurisdictional “planes”.  One within “The United States of America”; the other “in the United States”?

I know.  Makes you giggle.  But if you read and compare the two documents you’ll see that there was no proviso for districts or territories in the Articles, but there were in the Constitution.  My argument might be mistaken, but it’s not implausible.

Thus, the Article 1.10.1 mandate for use of gold and silver coins as tender in payment of debts applies only to the States of the Union.  It does not expressly apply to Washington DC (or any other “district of the United States”) or any territory “of the United States”.  In fact, that prohibition wouldn’t apply to “states of the United State”—if such “states” could be found or created.

Thus, it’s possible that we have gold and silver money within the States of the Union at the same time the federal government issued fiat currency in the administrative districts, territories or even “state” “of the United States”.  Both currencies would be constitutional, but not in both the “plane” of “The Unites States of America” and also the “plane” of the “United States”.

As I read and compare the Articles and the Constitution, gold and silver are required within the States of the Union; gold and silver is not required in the districts, territories or “states of the United States”.  Fiat currency is unconstitutional within the States of the Union, but is quite acceptable and constitutional within the districts, territories and “states of the United States”.

If there are two planes (The USA and US) they are overlapping and easily confused.  However, I’ve heard stories (not proof) that mere use of Federal Reserve Notes (fiat currency) may be deemed by courts to be sufficient evidence to warrant the presumption that the person merely using fiat currency is transacting his affairs “in the United States” and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the “United States” rather than the jurisdiction and laws of whatever State of the Union he might otherwise suppose he’s acting within.

  • The federal gov-co removed gold from domestic circulation in A.D. 1934; removed silver from domestic circulation in A.D. 1968, and removed gold-backing for foreign-held paper dollars in A.D. 1971. Under the terms of Article 1.10.1, how could the governments of the States of the Union continue to function?  Under Article 1.10.1, the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent when the feds removed all gold and silver from domestic circulation.

Our currency (including the hypothetical $1 million check drafted by Texas Comptroller Hegar to pay for the Dell computers and/or the currency that backs that check) has not been gold or silver, or even been backed by gold or silver for at least 45 years.  The governments of the States of the Union were seemingly rendered insolvent and inoperable by the federales removal of gold and silver from our national monetary system.

 

•  So, here’s the conundrum: given that Article 1.10.1 has never been amended or repealed, I can see only two, equally incredible explanations for Comptroller Hegar’s $1 million check:

1) If Mr. Hegar is the Comptroller for the State of the Union styled “The State of Texas,” he violates the Article 1.10.1 mandate for paying debts with gold or silver coin every time he writes a check payable in Federal Reserve Notes/fiat currency. If Hegar is the Comptroller of a State of the Union, he violates the Constitution of the United States every time he pays his employees or suppliers with any form of currency other than gold and silver.  And, that wouldn’t be true for only Mr. Hegar.  Every other “state” comptroller in the country would be violating the Constitution every time they paid a bill with fiat currency.  Or, in the alternative:

2) If Mr. Hegar’s $1 million check to Dell is constitutional, then Mr. Hegar is not the comptroller of a State of the Union (where the Article 1.10.1 mandate for gold and silver applies) but is instead the comptroller for some administrative district, territory or even “state of the United States” that is therefore not bound by the Article 1.10.1 mandate. e., if Hegar’s not violating the Constitution when he signs a check, he must be working for some kind of “state” that is not a State of the Union.

You can see the basis for my confusion.  It appears to me that Comptroller Hegar either violates the Constitution of the United States every time he signs a check, or Comptroller Hegar is holding office in a second kind of “state” other than a State of the Union.

Both explanations are so fantastic that they seem unbelievable.  But I can’t see a third explanation.

If the second explanation is true (and I believe it is), our government is running two sets of “states”—1) the States of the Union that the people presume to be functioning; and 2) a second set of “fictional” states that aren’t States of the Union, aren’t bound by much of the Constitution, and are presumed to exist by the government, but almost none of the People even imagines possible.

Again, these two choice are fantastic and seemingly unbelievable.  But I can’t see a third.  Of course, that may not be surprising since I only attended three semesters of college and most of my early life was spent in construction work

Colin, on the other hand, has graduated with a degree in law from one of America’s most prestigious law schools.  Therefore, I’m hoping that Colin’s law professors taught him enough about Article 1.10.1 that he’ll be able to provide me with a third alternative explanation for the problem I see in Article 1.10.1. Or maybe he’ll be able to explain how it’s lawfully possible for Comptrollers around the country to write checks that aren’t backed by gold and silver without either violating the Constitution or operating in some “official capacity” that is not part of the States of the Union.

 

Colin wrote additional questions or comments that I intend to respond to, but it’s after 3 AM and I have to get some sleep.  I’ll try to get to some or all of the Colin’s remaining comments/questions later today.    

 

Tags: , , ,

125 responses to “A Great (Good?) Debate?

  1. FL GIRL

    March 2, 2015 at 6:56 AM

    That’s the way I see it! You go Al, and go get some sleep! Ha!

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 13, 2015 at 6:42 AM

      FL GIRL
      @ > Truly, the Bible is clear, in Genesis, God created everything, and everything that exist is His, and part of His Constitution. We are already created, copy written and patented by God the creator. These men (or these demon/devil/fallen angels/entities) only mimic the word of God, His Kingdom and His creation, as they try to corrupt what is already established.

      Yes indeed and in EVERY aspect. This is another thing that becomes obvious when we love “God.” It’s like something “God” reveals to us. And, we are all on different planes, levels, etc., of understanding “God’s” overall plan & purpose.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 13, 2015 at 4:15 PM

        This is how the law works, however I hope you do not take this toooo far by reading this opinion.

        Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. Railroads
        Docket: 13-1080 Opinion Date: March 9, 2015
        Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law
        The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has priority to use track systems owned by the freight railroads for passenger rail travel, at agreed rates or rates set by the Surface Transportation Board. In 2008, Congress gave Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) joint authority to issue “metrics and standards” addressing performance and scheduling of passenger railroad services, 122 Stat. 4907, including Amtrak’s on-time performance and delays caused by host railroads. The Association of American Railroads sued. The District of Columbia Circuit accepted a separation of powers claim, reasoning that Amtrak is a private corporation and cannot constitutionally be granted regulatory power. The Supreme Court vacated. For purposes of determining the validity of the standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity. The D.C. Circuit relied on the statutory command that Amtrak “is not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States,” 49 U.S.C. 24301(a)(3), and “shall be operated and managed as a for profit corporation,” but independent inquiry reveals that the political branches control most of Amtrak’s stock and its Board of Directors, most of whom are appointed by the President. The political branches exercise substantial, statutorily mandated supervision over Amtrak’s priorities and operations: Amtrak is required to pursue broad public objectives; certain day-to-day operations are mandated by Congress; and Amtrak has been dependent on federal financial support during every year of its existence. Amtrak is not an autonomous private enterprise and, in jointly issuing the metrics and standards with the FRA, Amtrak acted as a governmental entity for separation of powers purposes. Treating Amtrak as governmental for these purposes is not an unbridled grant of authority to an unaccountable actor. On remand, the court may address any remaining issues respecting the lawfulness of the metrics and standards.

         
    • pesky nat

      March 18, 2015 at 9:18 PM

      FL Girl
      Your message of/on, March 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM

      WOW ! Yes indeed !! NOW Let’s see what the LEGAL response from COLIN & KENNEMORE JR is.

       
  2. Nat Stuckey

    March 2, 2015 at 6:58 AM

    @ I know this will generate a smirk but, technically, it could be argued that Washington DC
    and other federal districts and territories exist “in the United States” (as per the Constitution)
    but do not exist within the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    It will only generate a smirk, if at all, on those who have been taught diametrically the opposite from what some of us have learned. My argument might be mistaken too, but it’s not implausible either. Let’s put ourselves in Colin’s shoes.We go to “Law School” to learn same as we did in elementary school, first grade on up the ladder. WHO controls the Schools? Newspapers? AND just about everything else?
    Now, with Colin, he is only proclaiming what he has been taught. He speaks of the way it IS,
    and IT IS the way he says it is, in the current system, and, if it puts bread & butter on our table,
    this helps to sway our beliefs even more in our favor.WHO is to say what is right or wrong? ONE big difference in Colin, & some of “us” IS, we believe in a HIGHER POWER, Authority, aka “God”. And, although we do not understand everything alike, we understand enough of some things alike to see things different than he, Colin, does. Now, let’s say that we have our Constitution & only that Constitution without the added “war amendments.” NO 13th, 14th & on. IF our Country became engaged in a war with another Country/Nation,& IF we lost that war, it should not be too hard to see that our Constitution has no standing in the winner of the war, courts. When the Country that defeated us takes over & sets up their ruling ways, claiming our God given constitutionally “secured” rights in their courts is not going to carry any weight in their courts. WEll the bad news IS, there WAS a WAR.The War between the States of the United States of America, aka, the Civil war. Enter
    a NEW Constitution. The NEW Law of the Land.It begins with what we know in/as the 13th Amendment. This will be easier to see if we just put “our” Constitution on the back burner, or better still, let’s say it does not exist, for the sake of making a point. THEN, IF we study & research the new Constitution, & the “appropriate legislation” stemming from it. Guarantee you we should THEN see why we are where we are & why we have what we have. Some of us have to get bitten & bitten BAD before we even begin to think that something is just not right or adding up.

     
    • Pat Baker

      March 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM

      There are other mitigating factors that need to be considered: 1. Harvard quit teaching Constitutional jurisprudence/practice in 1848 when the new Head Master started teaching “Case Law”; 2. Case Law is what is used in ALL courts in “this country”; 3. The main thing that is taught in “Law School” is procedures NOT Constitutional definitions or even how to read the “language of law” that is NOT the English language but is a technical jargon of “defined terms of Art” just as any other technical language of a specific profession is.
      I speak 6 languages to include 3 major variants of English plus have had extensive training in the technical legalize dealing with both contracts and legal liability. The definitions of the terms of Art do NOT match the generally accepted spoken language definitions. There are no exceptions.

       
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 8:41 PM

        The words you’re using are English, but they don’t make any sense. “Constitutional jurisprudence” is just the law of the Constitution; “case law” is just the law of cases. Cases about the Constitution are both case law and Constitutional jurisprudence; they aren’t opposites. If you mean that law schools shouldn’t be teaching cases, then you’ll have to talk to the founders about that: they adopted English common law, which is the law of cases.

        I think what you’re referring to is Joseph Storey’s method of teaching law by having students read cases. That doesn’t have anything to do with what law you learn. You learn the same law you would by any other method. You just learn it by reading the cases, rather than having someone tell you what the law is. It’s like a doctor learning what an illness is by learning how patients express symptoms, rather than just memorizing definitions. Frankly it’s a pain in the ass.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM

        Pat Baker
        Message on, March 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM

        Excellent in every aspect.We see things alike, at least so far, & if ever you say something that is different from how I understand it, what you have said is going to make me go back to the drawing board. Most people are not like this. Thank you !!!!!

         
  3. NicksTaxFree

    March 2, 2015 at 7:22 AM

    My Brother was fighting an arrest in Court as a Pro Se. He had sent away for legal material from a “Augustus Blackstone” and he used this very argument that one had to use these fiat dollars since 1933 and to wave all benefit that was compelled against the defendants will buy use of this currency. There were other parts in his advice of course, but that was a major point he taught.. He didn’t fully explain why this was as important as it was. Now I can see the jurisdictional implications here. The courts can presume a person is a federal U.S. citizen, plus the drivers license application has everyone claiming to be a U.S. citizen. Which I now know does not include the Union states.
    State = U.S. federal territory under full control of Congress.
    state = a foreign state, states of the Union are foreign to each other and Washington D.C. plus other countries.
    !913 was a big year for legal deception. The 16th amendment should have been an act of Congress as it only applied to federal (territory, employees, officials and U.S. citizens) and not state of the Union citizens. The federal reserve act should have been the 16th amendment as it gave a power granted to Congress by the Constitution to a private foreign corporation.
    I hope you can see how that last topic fits into this discussion because I too have to go to sleep. I look forward to reading more from you and Mr. Colin about this debate.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM

      The “Devil” is in the details and you can take that to the bank.Very clever devil too. So vastly intelligent it defies description. Bob Dylan calls this intelligence, IT. Before he called it an IT, he referred to this intellegence as, The unseen ruler of the unseen world, & Bob said he now had to pay his dues to IT. Bob was asked, pay your dues for what? Bob said, to put me where I am. He truly looked like he regretted making a bargain with IT, from the expression on his face.You can see the 60 minutes program if you like.

       
    • russ

      March 2, 2015 at 12:43 PM

      I have had many phone conversations with “Augustus Blackstone” and he is one of the most knowledgeable men I have met in regards to the phony “DMV” “driver license” “motor vehicle” scam. Note that it is a scam because only commercial persons need license to do business on the public ways. People not engaged in the regulable activity of transportation do not. So the scam is the mis-application of the code, or better known as “color of law” under threat of arms. It is an “EXACTION” under 42 USC 1981 under color of Civil and Equal Rights for 14thers. “Augustus” studied under Sir Richard McDonald. Once one figures out that scam, all the other “color of law” scams are easy to figure out.

       
      • thecompanyofcreators

        March 3, 2015 at 10:21 PM

        This is Colin Derek.. not the other “Colin”… and you just nailed it!!! I am not “indoctrinated and an “educated idiot” as I call the “schoolers” with a “scroll” to prove on paper that they have been indoctrinated to believer that they have an exclusive absolute knowledge of any subject from which they learned from another educated idiot who has been indoctrinated the same way!
        As yo have stated once you figure out the “Scam” under “color of Law” you can see it everywhere!!! It all is nothing less than simple criminal acts multiplied by a million to create a huge monopoly of unlawful extortion’s and power for control in complete opposition to the Principles established by “The Unanimous Declaration of Independence”.
        The Declaration of Independence is a Trust and all the land, property, life and Divine Providence is the “res” or the “thing(s)” within the Trust. WE the people are the Grantors and the Beneficiaries and the Trustees (and yes you can hold all three IF there is more than one Trustee) Th problem is that the “Government” which is “meant to be Governed” by the people (individual trustees not hired or paid third parties by the trustees to perform their functions) have failed to “Govern” their “agents” in various “Forms of Government” and The Unanimous Declaration of Independence set out the “remedy” for this… “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to the shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (from memory so sorry if a dittle or term is off)
        So it really does not matter what the Puck there is of what “Form” of Government” is created or established from that point on, all that matters is that its Powers are being used in such manner as to “effect” or Cause, make it so, bring about “their Safety and Happiness.”
        What matters to any and all “Creations” or “institutions” of Government is that they conform to the law as it is written and in such manner as to fulfill the mission statement of the trust “Tat to secure these Rights..” and “.. To effect their Safety and Happiness”.
        As you will see that even though the founders were doing something so very novel for its time they still felt compelled to “institute new Government, laying it Foundation on such Principles,..” they recognized that “Government” no matter what “Form” it may be instituted, may not be the right way to go in the end. In fact they called it a “necessary evil”. as seen in the last sentence, “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
        So now having a Foundation from which to make assertions upon properly, the arguments disappear because it matters not if there is an “overlay” or two Governments, or foreign powers, States of the Union or “The State of Corruption” which is par to the “United States” corporation created to perform certain functions or any “derivative” thereof. What matters is, does it perform its purpose of “Securing these Rights and effecting our Safety and Happiness”????
        However, for fun (argument sake, to stab the wooden stake a little deeper) let’s look at the “establishment” of the alleged “United States” and all “The States of Corruption” that it may presume to have Power or Jurisdiction over. Did it come before or after the The Unanimous Declaration of Independence, before or after the Constitution? As “all Corporations are creations fo the State and presumed to be for the benefit of the people…” (Hale v Henkel P.74-75.. very good read) clearly that “presumption” is one that the people can and should rely upon because it is the “Principle” upon which all institutions of Government are Founded upon after 1776.
        But more practically for the “educated idiots”, (BTW, not yur fault! you were indoctrinated like everyone else that “College is the way to a better “education” and a better JOB” Which I completely refuted in both macro and micro economics classes to my professors amazement. As it turns out college is actually a very poor investment of both time and money and recent discoveries show that it does more harm to integrity than not. (80% of college grads admit to cheating to get their degree. (so to me it is a matter of “degree” you are willing to lie, cheat and steal and believe in lying, cheating and stealing to graduate) ….. it is a simple matter of the fact that all creations of the State or existing Forms of Government are subject to the Constitution which is subject to the Principles of The UDoI So it is impossible for those without power to create a different Form of Government to create a different /form of Government that is not subject to the Constitution and the Principles of The UDoI…!!! IN the same manner that this “Color of Law” bull shit going on is not authorized… why?
        This is the simplest way to share it with both the “turd grader” as well as the “educated, self proclaimed sophisticated, superior idiots” and all those in between.
        Do you have authority to ..Tax, Licence, prohibit, make rules, determine guilt, impose rules, regulate, intimidate, obviate, threaten, extort, pretend or misinform for unjust taking, order, bet, shoot, imprison, arrest, etc. anyone else? NO!!!! Does an “educated idiot with fifteen “degrees of stupidity” have the power? NO!! What about if he puts a long black Robe on? NO!! What if he buys a fancy colorful uniform and has a very special badge made and drives a fancy fast car? NO… what about the billion air.. surely he has the power to impose upon you right? NO!!! NO, NO NO NO.. none of us , none of them, no one has the power… thus where did the get the power from? NO-WHERE!!! “Zero times a billion is still Zero”… Since they derive all limited Power from the people and none of the people or People have the Right or Power, we can not delegate that which we do not have.. just as the State , The State of Corruption” or any other entity can sell that which it does not own (property taxes.. they sell an instrument which allegedly representing your property which is a violation of 18 USC 471 through 474.. counterfeit, because, as I confronted the Judge and District Attorney, “show me on the Land Record where I transferred rights, title an interest and exclusive use including the equitable value thereof to the State, for the State to sell it.”.. gulp… :-} so much fun….
        So if you do not have the power they can’t have the power! period. Simply ask them where they derive the power… show me, the properly enacted Promulgated Law which grants them this power???? (use Public information request.. send me a copy of the law, … court case.. “if it is not in writing it does not exist”)
        So if they can not show they have the authority then they do not have it and now you can see it is criminal acts.!!!
        Try my three Questions: 1.Is it true that you are obligated (by contract/employment) and Duty bound to obey any lawful order?” yes
        2.Is it also true that you are obligated and Duty bound to disobey any unlawful order?” errr ummm yes
        3. How then are you to know if you are obeying a lawful order or engaging in a crime if you do no know the law as it is written? (not as you have been told it says)
        Then I turn the knife a bit more… and get them to come to my side of the pavement (to defend them) “Do you think that your supervisor will come into Federal Court and get on the stand and say “oh it is not his fault, I am the one who told him to do the unlawful activity so put me in jail not him”?? NO I don’t think so….. And do you know why they don’t want you to actually read the Law.. because that way it is YOU who is doing the criminal act and will be charged not them…”
        This is extremely powerful in actually changing their perspective.
        For the first time they see that they can and will be held accountable. And they never thought of it that way before. I have used it and use it all the time and It works wonders.. I have other stuff that I use and works if your interested….
        So, in the end it is color of law actions times a million that constitutes a “Pattern” of activity over a year (RICO requirements) or a “Policy” of the State or municipality which is the requirement or “elements” of a 42 USC 1983 Depravation of Rights action. See James C. Treszevant v. City of Tampa.
        What I love about this Query… very valid I would say… is that finally this man has shown in a clear way that by them using anything other than Gold or Silver Coin in the payment of Debt is a violation of the “Supreme Law of the Land” which supersedes any secondary constitution, corporation, or anything “derived” there from. They do not have the Power because it was never granted and in fact it is clearly prohibited. End of Story. “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, (doesn’t say union States.. just sayin, not that is matters) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (notice here the people is not People to kill the BS of People being the only ones with power)… Now go up to the IX th.. that was the X th Amendment and find “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights and powers) retained by the people.” making it clear that the powers come from the people and they retain other rights not even mentioned… now go back to the Trust… “That t secure these Rights Governments are instituted among Men, .. (not above or over!!).
        Now, these activities they are engaging in unlawfully and without Authority are crimes and they are by the very office they presume to use (embezzlement of office) are Required to know this.. the laws, codes, Statutes, USC, Constitutions, etc. and on top of that because they do not know it becomes clear that they are “impersonating an officer” another crime “cognizable by a court of the United States.” (see 18 USC 4 misprision of Felony)
        Oh and by the way, the USC or United States Code is not United States of America code.. he he… So getting familiar with these US Codes can be very useful if it turns out that the United States is different from the United States of America… BTW, whenever I bring in the Constitution to a court case in a State I link it to the State Constitution “supremacy clause” which they all have.. which states “The State of Corruption is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” (Art 1 sec 1 of Oklahoma Constitution.. you will find similar ones in all State or The State of Corruption, Constitutions. Just a heads up….
        Your mission should you decide to accept it is to make and keep good records of their violations of rights and privileges so that you can have the evidence “Exhibits” to present to the Federal Jury in a 42 USC 1983 Violation of Civil Rights case. (see http://www.federalpracticemanual.org/node/3 for guidance)
        And now you have my twenty cents worth and not coin or even a Federal Reserve NOte but what is it worth??? Send donations to truthmonger2@gmail.com -this is all I do and literally live on donation :-} if you need any help with Fraudclosures, tickets etc. by all means send a message to truethmonger6gmail.com and listen or call in to discuss or contribute at talkshoe.com 126101# forewarned we do a lot of reading of case law and documents, Statutes etc…. not for “entertainment”
        Blessings all = may your desires be fulfilled ,,, Colin Derek (not for sale or obligation) Manifestor/Creator/Grantor by Faith and action

        P.S. Look at the NOte you Created… “In return for a Loan I have received,…” did you receive anything prior to giving your Note/property/credit instrument to them? No! thus there never was a “Loan” at bet there was an “exchange”.. you gave first an instrument they use as a credit instrument and gave you debt notes in exchange…. A “condition precedent” that was unfulfilled which means they are in Breach of the contract.. oh and BTW it is not a “Negotiable instrument” be cause the definition of “Negotiable Instrument” is an “unconditional promise to pay” This is not an unconditional but a very much “conditional” thus not a “negotiable instrument” see UCC 3… oh and lets not forget that you also gave a Deed of Trust which they use as the underlying asset in REMICS.. without compensation, disclosure or negotiations….= fraud in the inception and much more.. BTW the insurance payed every Mortgage off in any REMIC up to 24 times over.. because all that was needed was 21% to go bad and hey collected the full amount up to 24 times.. but all the mortgages were paid off not just the 21%!!!!!! …So why are you still paying then? Why have they not informed you and sent back your Noe marked “paid” and DOT as required by the Law of the instruments they presume t enforce even though they have no “entitlement to them… theft!!!! Are you waking up yet?

         
      • pesky nat

        March 18, 2015 at 9:57 PM

        Hi russ,
        @ You may even come to find out that one may send a first class letter from one of the 50 states to another one of the 50 states for 3 cents stamp.

        I have also been told by people who I believe are not liars that they had to “pay” the difference in the price of the then current price of a regular postage stamp to have the sent 3 cents stamp letter put in their hands too. In other words, if you send me a 3 cents postage stamp letter, I am notified of a “postage due” notice in “my” mailbox & IF I want the letter you sent, I have to drive to the Post Office to get it. That would be a 25 mile round trip for me. Anyway, There was a T.V. Program called, I led 3 lives, starring Herbert W. Philbrick. I have been advised it was based on an actual event. etc. Maybe somebody out there can lead 2 lives & get S.S. Checks on their paid up quarters that qualify them to receive such & also use the Passport info you gave to open a Bank account. Btw. what “ID” documents, or what is needed to get a passport? Thanks russ.

         
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 8:47 PM

      State = U.S. federal territory under full control of Congress.
      state = a foreign state, states of the Union are foreign to each other and Washington D.C. plus other countries.

      No. There is no difference between “State” and “state.” The word is sometimes capitalized in more formal settings, or when referring to a proper noun, but it does not distinguish between jurisdictions. There are “federal territories” like DC, and there are states like Arkansas and Maine. There is no “federal territory” of Arkansas, or anything like it.

      The 16th amendment should have been an act of Congress as it only applied to federal (territory, employees, officials and U.S. citizens) and not state of the Union citizens.

      No. The 16th Amendment is not limited to particular kinds of citizens. This is another argument that is occasionally trotted out by tax protesters who get caught. It never, ever, ever gets them off of tax liability, because it is absurdly false.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 2:49 AM

        Colin, why ia a military flag displayed in every court I have been in? I recall vividly that there was a time when they were not displayed. Old Glory, the Red White & Blue was displayed. Why the change? There must be a reason?

        Colin I DO KNOW this. It IS a proper flag in its proper place. I DO KNOW that this flag IS authorized to be displayed ia a court, BUT only a Military Court & this IS according to the rules & regulations of (ARMY-REG. 260-10 CH. 8),

        Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag! – APFN American Patriot …
        http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htmCached
        there are absolutely no provisions in the law for adding a fourth color (yellow fringe) to the title 4 u.s.c. 1,2 flag.

        Wholy 1. It’s my understanding that, Colin, retired. Everybody has that right. I’m not aware he, dropped out of anything.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:16 PM

        Colin, why ia a military flag displayed in every court I have been in?

        It’s not. Courts have considered this argument and roundly rejected it as frivolous. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#flagfringes, collecting specific citations making this point.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM

        Colin you are avoiding my questions lately. I asked you WHY is the yellow/gold fringed flag

        displayed in every Court I have been in? You replied, It’s not. YES Colin IT IS. When I say,

        displayed, I mean it IS INSIDE the courtroom. I also said I recall VIVIDLY when only Old Glory, the

        Red, White, & Blue was displayed/inside the courts. I asked WHY the change? You responded by

        saying, & re: the yellow/gold fringed being displayed in all the courts you said, IT IS NOT. I will add

        this to what I said Colin. I say it’s in the courtrooms enforcing Martial Law Rule to some degree & I

        also say it’s there for the overall purpose WHEN full Martila Law is in FORCE. This yellow/gold

        fringed IS IN the courtrooms & HOW can you say, IT’S NOT???

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 4, 2015 at 10:13 AM

        Nat
        who cares if there is any flag in the Courtroom? Can you cite any law or statute or code?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 9:38 PM

        Colin, go back & look at the early photos of the flag the “Union, aka Federal troops” were carrying & you will see it was Red, White, and Blue with yellow/gold fringe. It IS a war/Military flag. A gold fringed flag is a battle flag reserved to the General of the Army for use over military headquarters and to display at courts-martial. The Commander-In-Chief, as the civilian authority over a lawfully standing national militia or Army, may designate that flag’s use elsewhere. This gives a president, when acting as Commander-In-Chief, power to place the government’s battle flag wherever he wishes to establish jurisdiction of the military force.

        In 1925, an interpretation of statute law by the Attorney General of the United States clarified the intent and purpose of gold fringes or adornments to the national Flag to be within the discretion of the president as Commander-In-Chief. “Placing of fringe on national flag, dimensions of flag, and arrangement of stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of President as Commander- In-Chief of Army and Navy.”

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM

        Colin you are avoiding my questions lately. I asked you WHY is the yellow/gold fringed flag
        displayed in every Court I have been in? You replied, It’s not. YES Colin IT IS.

        Sorry, we miscommunicated. You asked why a “military flag” is displayed in court. It’s not. A flag doesn’t become a military flag because it has a yellow or gold fringe. (Even if it did, that wouldn’t change the court’s jurisdiction—it takes more than a decorative flag to do that. But in any event, it’s not a military flag.)

        There’s no law prohibiting fringes on civilian flags. It doesn’t matter whether military flags also have a fringe—after all, military flags have fifty stars and some stripes, too. The flag you see in civilian courts is not a military flag. The language you quote is apparently from an AG opinion expressing that the president has discretion over whether or not a military flag should be fringed, which has exactly nothing to do with whether or not a civilian flag should be fringed.

        As the TPFAQ says, “Because the Attorney General expressed the opinion that the President as Commander-in-Chief can put a fringe on military flags, tax protesters have leapt to the conclusion that all flags with fringes are military flags. This idea has been flatly rejected in numerous court decisions.” And then it cites a whole bunch of court cases in which people tried the fringes argument in court and lost. The argument has never succeeded. Ever. Like a lot of strange ideas being bandied around here, it’s just wrong. The fact that you feel like it should probably be true, or imagine that it could be true, doesn’t matter. The argument stands or falls on its own merit, and the argument has none.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 16, 2015 at 5:38 AM

        Colin, you say,
        @ No. There is no difference between “State” and “state.” The word is sometimes capitalized in more formal settings, or when referring to a proper noun, but it does not distinguish between jurisdictions. There are “federal territories” like DC, and there are states like Arkansas and Maine. There is no “federal territory” of Arkansas, or anything like it.

        No, Colin, It’s ALL FEDERAL. Just because the City Police wear “city uniforms” & the Sheriff & deputies dress different makes no difference ANYMORE. They ALL still wear the gold fringed military flag on their uniforms AND as I previously said, when a city policeman confronts me outside of the city limits, where is the boundary limits of jurisdiction there? We went from the Sheriff & the power of the County, meaning the People, to city police. WHY? What happend to the “Power of The County”? just another gradual change into another gradual change into what it is today. ONE BODY

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM

        COLIN, et.al.
        @ FL Girl, you have a very impressive imagination!
        You are not impressed with this, are ya COLIN? IMAGINATION RULES THE WORLD, I’ve been told. Then we must consider the “Source”.

         
  4. wholy1

    March 2, 2015 at 8:08 AM

    Has “Colin” ever disclosed exactly why he chose to “drop out of the ‘profession'”?

     
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 8:54 PM

      Yes, when Alfred and I first talked on the phone I gave him a brief personal bio. Basically I left the practice to become a consultant, because my girlfriend at the time (now my fiance) was moving across country. The law market was not very good where we were moving, and I had an opportunity to take an interesting consulting job that I can do from anywhere. So these days I work on the road, teaching and consulting in the field of negotiation for businesses. It’s a lot less money than lawyering, but a lot more fun and a higher quality of life overall. Rather than being in the office until 9 p.m., I can sit in my hotel room and chat with y’all!

      With all my new free time, a couple of years ago I decided to write a book about communicating with “irrational” people. (I know it’s a loaded term, and I apologize–I don’t mean any insult, but rather to use the term the way economists do. I haven’t come up with a better one.) I’ve been interviewing people with ideas that are (a) outside of the mainstream and (b) don’t work, and started listening to a lot of talk radio to find such people. Alfred struck me as someone with such ideas, and also as someone who was polite and intelligent, so I asked if I could interview him. He rather smartly suggested we interview each other on the radio, which was a lot of fun. That’s how I came to be here.

      I’m still a lawyer, just not currently practicing. I might go back to it one day, I haven’t decided. And, for the record, I love these conversations. It’s a hobby and a calling! Thanks for participating, and thanks again to Alfred for being a gracious host to a lively debate. Which I’m winning, hands down. :)

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 8:57 PM

        Lots of law school grads (Estimated now at 35%) never practice or take the bar so what does that mean “nothing” and yes you are winning hands down based on facts and law. Funny most of these people making these arguments doe not even know about elements or how they are used.

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 9:00 PM

        Here, by the way, is the website for my book: http://goodfightbook.net/

        Not much there yet, as you’ll see. Other than some lovely photos taken by yours truly.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 3:00 AM

        To: Colin,
        Hey Colin, I like ya. You say what the vast majority believe.

        @ I can sit in my hotel room and chat with y’all! With all my new free time, a couple of years ago I decided to write a book about communicating with “irrational” people.

        Colin you still may want to write a book about communicating with irrational people, but you don’t have too. You have your hands full with irrational people like me to communicate with on this blog. The question is, are you enjoying it? I sure hope so. I’m enjoying it. (:<

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:16 PM

        Yes, thank you!

         
      • Oliver Medaris

        March 4, 2015 at 12:22 AM

        “Which I’m winning…” In your mind.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 4:20 AM

        Colon,
        @ And then it cites a whole bunch of court cases in which people tried the fringes argument in court and lost.
        Non skimmer readers of all these lost cases will see that the argument was that the yellow fringed flag IS an Admiralty Flag & this IS WHY they lost. IT IS a MILITARY FLAG & I WILL get the low-down LAW that says so & just remember, IT IS LAW.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 1:23 AM

        Your Royal Highness, you say,
        @ Thanks for participating, and thanks again to Alfred for being a gracious host to a lively debate. Which I’m winning, hands down. :)

        We have not crossed the finish line yet. Yes, you are the pacesetter but we, the entry, will make our move in thw stretch & you will eat our dust. It’s the CLASS, Hoss. (:<

         
      • pesky nat

        March 18, 2015 at 10:17 PM

        A Military Flag – The Forbidden Knowledge
        http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/military_flag.htm – 27k – Cached – Similar pages
        “Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the .

         
    • thecompanyofcreators

      March 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM

      WEll I am impressed, you sir are he first “Colin” I have come into contact with that did not disappoint me.. thank you! I really don’t need to chime in here since Colin has done such a great job and being patient at the same time. But I do have a story to share that might allow a few others seeking truth to see how a “roomer” like this can get started and after you waist a few years of your life researching and going just deep enough to read the alleged quote and never actually read the case and where it comes from you will discover as I did the third time around that it is merely used “for special occasions”.
      So now if I were to say anything about it it would be “so nice to know that I am special and this is a special occasion because I should not be here for this procedure that is for and about agents or other “creations of he State” since I am neither nor does there appear on the record any evidence that I have any nexus (contract, agreement, special franchise) of the State so according to HALE v Henkel “He owes no duty to the State since he receives nothing therefrom except the protections of his life and property” (sorry if not perfect, best I can recollect but best you read it for yourself as you should so you will no longer need to listen to others nor rely upon others to answer your questions as the Gentleman above has done and I am attempting to help you jump a few years ahead in growth by sharing my story.
      I went into Court and noticed the Gold fringed Flag and so I made an issue of it by saying..”I see you are flying the military flag…. “I then got on my tip toes and looked out the windows and said “I don’t see any water out there… I then spread my feet apart as if when I am on a ship and wobbled my legs and said..” I don;t feel a ship beneath me and you don’t look like a captain to me.”
      IN hind sight I am embarrassed but I recall how calm he was and seemingly interested trying to real me in cause he knew he had a real gullible fish in his midst and did what they do most of the time anyway but here it could actually be justified,,, ordered a phyc evaluation to see if I was capable of standing at trial. In hindsight and not belligerent, accusatory and completely uneducated and unread in the laws of this country. I know as do all of us what we desire and as you read above what is the purpose for which Gov is instituted, yes it is we the people have allowed the corruptors to go unchecked for a few generations… Soo now for the kick in the pants….
      I DON’T GIVE A FLYIN FUKE WHAT FLAG THEY FLY, IT DOES NOT MATTER!! THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE MATTERS AT HAND, THE EVIDENCE, THE CHARGES THE TESTIMONY AND ULTIMATELY THE TRUTH AND PROPER PRESENTMENT TO THE COURT TO TAKE “ACTION” FOR YOU TO GET “RELIEF”. IF YOU CAN NOT SHOW (PROVE) YOUR CHARGES BOTH OF THE ACTION AND OF THE INJURY THEN YOU DON;T HAVE A CASE.IF YOU CAN… THEN YOU WILL GET RELIEF. Take notes, make your record and prepare for appeals by making your Judicial notices and objections and if they are acting improperly do not get upset that is what they Are supposed to do .. remember they are corrupted so you know they are going to do as they are told knowing that 99% will not take it any farther .. and the 1% that do?.. well we have the court of appeals to slow them down.. because they do not know that it is all part of the process because they think that it is a single magic document that will make it all go away…. and you get fleeced and will pussy out and not believe in yourself because you know you are not read in the law nor certain of it or how it works.. from beginning to end, so you go and get an attorney.
      They know this and they are just waiting for your desperate call to rescue you. And they will have you for lunch like the wolves they are… don;t be so damn surprised people.. we are way past he stage of complaining to change it .. your just a baaahhha sheEple, NO we aRe way past that. It is time to sharpen our pens which are mightier than the sword , arm our selves with the Law the processes and procedures and then bear those arms to Govern our agents as it was “ment to be Governed” .
      IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE FLOOR IS POLISHED, WOOD, MARBLE, CLAY, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE FLAG IS A DIAPER AND IT SURE AS HELL DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CRIMINAL IN THE ROBE IS WEARING PURPLE UNDERWEAR AND A BLACK ROBE AND IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THERE IS “ANOTHER CONSTITUTION” OR “SECRET LAW” OR ANY OF THAT BULL SHIT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FULFILLING ALL THE PROCEDURES PROPERLY AND USING THEIR FAILURES TO YOUR ADVANTAGE TO GET THINGS GOING YOUR WAY. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE WERE A CAPTAIN WHAT MATTERS IT THE LAW YOu PUT ON THE RECORD AND GOES UN-REBUTTED AND YOu BETTER REBUT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING YOU DO NOT LIKE THE OTHER SIDE SAYING OR PRESENTING .. LEARN TO USE THOSE AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR FURTHER LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ARE ICING ON THE CAKE BUT NOT ENOUGH TO LOOSE THE CASE OVER. Pound and pound and pound till you get your order that you want in accordance with the laws and the reasonable expectations gleamed from cases you discovered and read.
      If you do not read in this arena your toast… why do you think they don;t require students to hardly read to graduate? Not because your not capable, hell kids become proficient at anything fun…. it is because they want a “class separation” so they can set up the kingship kind of dictator ship which invariably requires the “consent of the masses” which must remain ignorant or other wise discouraged from challenging. Not so.. look at how you are able to “call him on it” and I bet you know a bunch of different rules of many different sports.. and lyrics of songs.. all you need do is make songs of these laws, procedures etc and make it a fun game and bang a whole generation that will not be fuked with because they know how to Govern their Servants because the manager must know the jobs of the subordinates.
      Read “the Federal Procedures manual for civil rights attorneys” and you will get some of an idea, then find a case or two and go through the file… after studying the case docket sheets which reveals the twists and turns of a case and how one will have to go through the same process… “do the due” …. In the same way a woman may want pregnancy to be much shorter… it is not the due course of developing a baby ready to be cut from the umbilical cord and breath air on its own.

      These are your rights, how serious are you about them? and what about the future? are you going to pass along your parents failures? or are you going to be a good parent and make sure that you use the courts to reign in the corruption and then work with people to “Alter or abolish it” so that it will fulfill its purpose from inception and the Principles Expressed. Learn why it is so damn complicated yet simple at the same time … to get to the truth. It is a reasonable suggestion that an Honorable man will follow through and a righteous man will see that Justice it done no matter the cost because he knows that any injustice is the snowball that causes the avalanche of corruption. ONce Justice s compromised then there really is’t any is there? As you know. So let us the People and all the people be glad and thankful to have the Power to Govern the Agents and hold them accountable and that we can actually “alter or abolish” and if nothing else works ..simply throw it off like a coat that has become too hot and uncomfortable “and institute new Guards for our future Security.”
      I used to think it was faster to Just ask someone who knows but in the end you will waist three times the energy and time chasing down the truth of some one else’s Bullshit STOP! Just STOP doing stupid stuff and wasting time on things that have nothing to do with the case, proper procedure, deprivation of rights, cases that explain the use of the law and how you can use those cases to force the corrupt officers to conform or else you will simply appeal it and get it over turned. They know 99% of the people will not appeal and if they do hey will loose because they will argue the case again and not the “errors” of the previous court and you will loose again because you are arguing the wrong thing.
      STOP learning the wrong shit and learn the right stuff, procedures and how this machine works and how you can get it to work for you. Make your record, do the Due, make your objections…. not because it will make a hill of beans to the corrupt but because you will be able to use it later on. This is more of a Monopoly game, where you slowly plod along using various leverages to acquire property to win the game and yes it has strategy involved too. The beauty about reading the laws an Statutes and rules of procedures is that you know what they are obligated and bound to do and when they do not then you got them.. and when you do it right and they deny you …Motion for a “more definitive statement of finding of fact and conclusion of law”… I’ve used the threat of a “declaratory judgement” requirement (after showing that I met all the required qualifications to require one) in which the court would have to declare it no longer was going to abide b the clearly written law which states in pertinent part “……” and that they are going to over turn the previous cases of this court 1…2…3… Fastest turn around I have ever had from a court 3 days. It took them six months to figure out the best course of action and as expected they threw the lower court Judge under the bus, vacated all his orders.. but still did mischief which I have called them on but not pursued as of yet…
      So in this corrupt legal ease world in which we find our selves in because of the failures of our parents and now us, we must learn the game far better than them and learn to “BOX Them in”.. so there is NO other way for them to go except the relief you seek in accordance with the law as it is written… but if you do not read it, study it and learn how to apply it you ain’t got no one to blame but yourself!!!!
      Instead of wasting this mans time on stupid Bullshit that has no merits what so ever and would not matter or make a difference anyway, be respectful and thankful of his time by asking real questions of strategy or procedures etc that will actually help you to win. (I herd of a Judge that got fed up with the “Flag Bullshit” so he told he bailiff t find a flag without the fringe and simply switched them out and said, “do you feel better now?”… of course the party had nowhere else to go because they had not done the real work on the case as they should of and were left standing there looking like an idiot… because they were.!!) Don;t show them your an idiot, at least let them guess whether or not you are one. Even an idiot can hold them accountable to the written law…. your move….
      As always – Blessings = may your desires be fulfilled Colin Derek (not for sale or obligation)

      PS sorry for the discombobulated writing… my mind goes so much faster then my fingers and it is/was really late and I am learning how to write short concise sentences… Grrr…

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 4, 2015 at 1:00 PM

        Whoever you are these people need to hear more of this, especially your vivid detail about the Court, the flag, and your attempts that were useless. As I have said I do not care if they have NO FLG or even if the floor is polished what I want is procedure.

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 2, 2015 at 6:02 PM

        Thank you!! What I can share as well is that once I stopped all the nonsense and just read what the law and the procedures of law were and created my own strategy based upon this and all my lessons of my own and helping lots of people, I began to win, and when I began to win I began to see why I won… I applied the law. The last win I had against two criminal charges was so damn easy and the public defender said I could not do it but the law said I can so I did and guess what it took the prosecutor two months to figure our what I had done and when I told the public defender I was filing for a summary judgement he said i could not, that we had to go to court and allow the prosecutor to present their case and then maybe move for dismissal due to lack of evidence…. No section 263 b says I can make a motion which the court can address any time before trial. They have not presented any evidence that contradicts my affidavit statement that I have no knowledge of either of the alleged crimes. so there can not be intent so there can not be a crime so without evidence to the contrary there is no point bringing the court and jury to trial.. end of story.. summary judgement. No fact was in controversy. Knowning the public defender was a direct conduit to the prosecutor I knew that the message would get through and if I was granted a summary judgement it would count as a loss for them so they did the only thing they could do “nole proscute”…
        But I made sure I gathered and made good record both in the district court and by filings in the circuit court for me to bring a Deprivation of rights suit due to them doing a color of law suit and depriving me of my “enjoyment of right or privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Wanna help put it together?
        Oh and by the way what flag? I don’t even notice a flag any more because I am busy making my record. Or as my mentor says, if you’re in court you didn’t do it right. So no flag when you file at the clerks office…. I did the same simple one page thing for a friend and she was dismissed never got a chance to make an oral record the attorney ran up and appologized profusely dn made excuses as to why she failed to let her know that she did not need to come to court becasuse she was dismissed… WEll that little mistake is going to cost her.. how much did she win on the case? $25k ok that’tle work. She was suing a massage therapist for malpractice .. so I guess she will be sued for malpractice too… she is a lawyer ad should have mad sure that this girls right to peaceful enjoy was not disturbed due to her negligence.
        We stuck around to see how to do it .. thank you very much…:-}

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 6:04 AM

        Flags stand for something. Remember the pledge of allegiance? There IS a reason OR reasons the Court decor CHANGED from displaying Old Glory 3 colors to a flag with 4 colors. WHY the change? I say it IS a piece of the puzzle. I am not poo-pooing the transfer as having no meaning. There MUST be a reason for the change. I think at first, everything stayed the same. Business as usual. BUT there have been gradual slow insidious changes. It’s like the frog in the water story and we are the frogs.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 1:07 AM

        To: thecompanyofcreators
        @ Your mission should you decide to accept it is to make and keep good records of their violations of rights and privileges so that you can have the evidence “Exhibits” to present to the Federal Jury in a 42 USC 1983 Violation of Civil Rights case

        A 42 USC 1983 Violation of Civil Rights case is a 14th Amendment Gov-co granted privilege & is due process of law via the 14th Amendment. Some of us cannot use this becaause we are not U.S. citizens. What in your opinion can we do to petition for a redress of grievances?

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM

        Again as stated above.. you do not have to “BE” a United States Citizen in order to be entitled to all the Rights, Privileges (which is considered property by the way and can not be taken without due process of law) and immunities (immunities from prosecution, protections) and the protections.
        What you’re failing to understand is that the 14th is a prohibitation of the States.. when you show that they have violated that law or any law for that matter.. which is why you want to study and make a list of the State laws they are violating as well and you have evidence substantial enough that any reasonably minded individual can see the violation AND (everyone misses this integral part) you show how and to what extent you were injured… then you have a case, no matter who you are or are not!!! Notice it says in the last two sections “Nor shall any State deprive any person..” here person does include you and anyone for that matter, citizen not citizen.. why do you think that the illegal aliens are getting “equal protections of the law”??? in fact there is a movement afoot to amend it to not include that .. but no strength there because the mission statement is in the Public Trust “Unanimous Declaration of Independence” “That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted…” So you see once you get that one statement state-ment govern-ment meant to be governed (by the people) meant to be stated or what is called in Trust Law as “Expressed” by “Declaration” You get the rest. It is all “instituted” to “secure these Rights” All of them, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Contact, sovereignty, religion, have and bear arms, secure (free from fear, free from anxiety) in your persons (how ever many persons (personas, masks) you want to have) houses (house of lords, assemblies, groups, families etc) papers (all of them) and effects (everything you desire to call your effects, boats, cars, trains, planes, paintings, jewelry, gold, silver, dogs, cats, everything that “pleases you”
        All this is established in law prior to the 13 and 14th just as the mission statement was established prior to the creation of the country and independence of the various States.. the Declaration came prior to the war.. it was the trust under which the war was fought and the Independence was gained and we still struggle against enemies within as well as enemies without to perfect the Form of Government or “other guards” to be established “to secure these Rights to all men (non gender) because “WE hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal..” Once we finally perfect the Forms and guards which fulfill this mission statement and can maintain it, then and only then will the struggles subside.
        That is why it is stated that these truths are “self evident” because if not then it would not be necessary to struggle for it. It would go away. it is an absolute truth and it always swill be so the only thing to do is to recognize it, embrace it and find ways to bring it about. Then and only then will the struggle for equality end. So if one wants peace and security one must insure others have it as well.
        “Just because the legal system has been running roughshod over the law does not mean the law is impotent but merely gathering evidence for when justice returns.”
        All we need do is educate ourselves and the next generation as to these fundamental “Principles” upon which every Form of Government shall be founded upon. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,..” notice it says nothing about citizens. You can be a citizen, Us citizen, citizen of your tim-buck-too and still “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property with out due process of law, nor deprive any person the equal protections of the law….. It is not in that amendment about who you are or are not or even your rights but about what the States are prohibited from doing. If they breach it and you are injured as a result you sue it like any other party to a case.
        “In all Cases … in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” (Art III Sec 2) Because how on earth can you get a fair and impartial trial in a court run by the adversary of your case???? This is the reason I challenge jurisdiction any time the State is a party to a case… it does not have “original jurisdiction” and as such anything it does it Void. Now if it is a case between you and someone else then fine you can grant jurisdiction to the court if you like and appeal it to the supreme court. How many people enforce that? it makes sense again… now if your a corporation, LLC or some other “entity” or “person” of the State (not that you are but that you hold a position as the “natural person” acting the role of…) such as “taxpayer” “fiduciary” “partnership” “LLC” “Officer of a Corporation” etc. to which you made “application to the State and were granted by the State subject to the laws of the State and the charter approved (see hale v Henkel..start at page 74 I think and then go back and read the entire arguments. Notice at the end even a fiction.. entity has certain rights… so you must have all of those rights first to be a grantor of those rights and grantor to the State the Power to delegate those rights under certain circumstances to other entities which must pay taxes for those state granted rights and privileges to conduct business usually for profit with less/limited or virtually no liability.. if the corp goes financially under your still safe… these are where the taxes come from.. the “income” or incoming into the empty vessel of the entity created by or through the State granted by the people to pay fees and taxes to manage these entities and pay for the services for the people. Surely you do not build a company that requires you and your grand children to constantly pay into it… no! you create the company to provide financial support for your families needs… including their Protections… “he owes no duty to the State since he receives nothing but the protections of his life and property.” You see it is a right not something you pay for. Granted with few companies to pay taxes as in the early days there was not much money for the government to do a whole lot with and that actually was by design to keep Government small and un-intrusive… but when the industrial revolution hit and companies sprung up by the thousands and were paying huge amounts of taxes.. well power corrupts and money is power…
        So it is as it always has been up to the people to educate themselves and to institute the laws and to enforce them. Almost every facet/Form of Government has become corrupted but it seems that there are still a few venues to get some form of justice and that is the Federal Deprivation of Rights suits.. so I’m going to keep using it as long as I can. I’s not easy but from those who have succeeded by doing it right and even a few that did not do it right but still prevailed it is possible. It is not about “civil Rights” and all that BS.. it is about Rights guaranteed or “secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States” to which every State of the Union are bound to and bound by…. for exactly these reasons.
        So stop finding excuses as to why you can not do something and use the reasons you can accomplish your goal, desire, needs. Work with people who are doing and succeeding even in some small way or by use of some fricken word, term “citizen” or whatever fricken works.. it is working .. get on board work it for yourself.. you ARE Entitled to these protections no matter what label you want to put on your self. if being a “Fonkey” will get my rights secured and left alone or a bunch of money in my pocket because they want to bury the case .. well Ok I’ll be a “Fonkey” then.
        It is not about the lable it is about the activity. Just as crimes, taxes, property taxes, and all the rest… it is about the activity.. am I engaged in a taxable activity? Is the property being used in a taxable manner through some entity of the State? Am I entitled to the equal protections of the law? Have I been “injured, oppressed, threatened or intimidated in the free exercise or enjoyment of any Right or Privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States”??? if so then I have a case End of story. Lets get busy helping each other put together really good prima facial cases with all the elements needed and get the balls rolling. Once corruption (deprivation of rights) no longer is profitable it will cease to exist! Remember, when you sue the State and the State has to pay off to keep it quiet what do you think happens to the agents that got caught? oh yes the new agents will do the same thing but to save face and to appear to do something as well as that they will have to use their bond to help pay for the payoff, they can not longer be bonded.. so the State will take care of them… Ok? If you want to help even if you don’t think it will work for you, help others who it will work for and it will make a difference for you too. Contact me directly at truthmonger6@gmail.com lets kick some corrupted ass!!

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 8:24 PM

        @ I went into Court and noticed the Gold fringed Flag and so I made an issue of it by saying..”I see you are flying the military flag… “I then got on my tip toes and looked out the windows and said “I don’t see any water out there…
        A Military Courtroom, at least everyone I have seen, & I’ve seen many, but I never saw one floating on water, This Military Flag IS authorized to be displayed in many places, e.g., U.S. Post Offices. BUT as far as a Courtroom goes, ONLY in a Military COURTROOM!!! NOW, do we have CIVIL COURTS, or, Military Courts? Actually, they are Martial LAW Courts. The reasons for saying this have already been given AND what the Courts SAY, not what I/we say.

         
  5. Toland

    March 2, 2015 at 9:52 AM

    “No state shall… make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts…” – U.S. Constitution

    At present, no state is making anything whatsoever a tender in payment of debt. So there’s no problem here, and no need for extraordinary explanations.

    The Constitution does not say the states must make gold and silver a tender in payment of debts. Rather, the Constitution only requires that, if a state makes anything a tender in payment of debts – i.e. if the state has its own legal tender law, this tender can only be gold and silver.

    Since, as it happens, none of the states makes tender for the payment of debts, it’s not possible for any state to be violating the Constitution in this regard.

     
  6. the-earth-plan-solution

    March 2, 2015 at 10:45 AM

    Bravo! Some intelligent conversation and dialog. Yes let’s not give up the ghost just yet. As you can see the “attorneys” have made quite a mess. Is the common man expected to understand all this malarkey? Their statutes codes revisions etc etc etc. I say no. If too complex for the common reasonable man then throw it and the 1000s and 1000s more pages in the trash bin. Debating the details is futile. Do we have evidence of deceit? Tricks? Are people going to stand idly by and watch these entities of various privledge cart off granny and all her possessions? Well that is what is happening folks in plain English. Any farmer can see and make sense of that. Get the attorneys involved is like inviting the fox to guard the hen house. OK great. We agree. Now what? Well keep reading… Peopleisim is a solution. Read about it. How was government formed in the first place? Missed that lesson in history books and school? Would you be surprised to find the same people carting off granny wrote the history book? Controlled the university funding and tenure committee? Well you see when you allow a group to print money from thin air and get first use of it and use it to build up a gang of criminals aka corporations who buy politicians news media etc are you really surprised? If you read the us Constitution you realize how adamant the founders were about who got to run the money printing and how money was defined. You also read about separation of powers. Well i would contend that when you print multi trillions of dollars you can just about corrupt Jesus Christ himself. Who did he throw out of the temple? Turn the other cheek shall we? Perhaps offer them your other grandma and all her possessions to ritual sacrifice. Are you getting it yet Leroy? Billybob? Take it back. Divorce the beast. Read the UPC sign it and tell your neighbors on by one. American idol can wait till this is done. http://theearthplan.com

    Peace to all who read this and please forward this post to your Facebook group of friends.

     
  7. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    March 2, 2015 at 12:46 PM

    Al
    great history info however it is all conjecture. That is the STATE OF TEXAS v the State of Texas is not found anywhere except in Patriot arguments. Need some historical law to stand on none of which I see cited. As Colin said decisions are written, laws are written so where is it?

     
    • Jethro!

      March 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM

      Where does TEXAS CODE make the claim that its STATE has any relation to “The State of Texas”? Just read its definitions of that *legal term*, taking care not to see things that are not there.

       
    • Adask

      March 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM

      I don’t agree that the argument concerning “Texas,” “TEXAS, “TX” and “The State of Texas” is conjectural.

      The congressional Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870 declared that the proper name for the State of the Union we routinely refer to as “Texas” was “The State of Texas”. That name was expressly included within quotes. Those quote marks tell me that the Congress has declared that the precise and only proper name for the this State of the Union is “The State of Texas”. It is not “the state of texas,” or “The STATE OF TEXAS,” or “this state,” or “TX,” etc. etc..

      I believe that the quote marks in the Act of March 30th, A.D.1870 are the proof that the proper name for this State of the Union is only and precisely, “The State of Texas”. Thus, if we want to eliminate any confusion when we refer to the State of the Union commonly referred to as “Texas,” I believe we should write “The State of Texas”.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 4:57 PM

        Al
        I still do not see any historical law to support what you say…historical law
        That is if an officer write a citation in dallas and only puts TX does that mean you were not in dallas when he cited you?
        Again frivolous arguments that waste people time and places them in jeopardy of prison time.

         
      • Really - you win - you are SO SMART...

        March 2, 2015 at 5:12 PM

        The real issue here is why you pansies keep wasting your breath debating the minutia when people are being abused and treated like chattel by these criminals masquerading as our “government” THEY ARE NOT OUR GOVERNMENT – wake the fk up. And if I offend you, well grow a pair – and stop it with all this semantic masturbation… OK – you are the smartest legal minds on the planet – you feel better now. Is that what you really need? Start putting the same energies into waking people up – read the earth plan and peopleisim – as it is our only hope… the ship is sinking fast and you are like the fking orchestra debating whether you should play a bach or betoven – get it,… for the love of god.

         
      • Adask

        March 2, 2015 at 5:56 PM

        I suspect that the officer’s use of “TX” is a statement of jurisdiction outside of The State of Texas. I see his use of TX as a rebuttable presumption. I’m not inclined to fight that presumption in court, but I am inclined to ask questions about that presumption before we get to court. See my articles on Notice” in my list of Categories.

        If you think that questions about “TX” are unreasonable, then please answer why the officers in “TX” usually have gold-fringed, US flags on their shoulders? If they were officers within a State of the Union, why don’t they all wear patches of the State of the Union where they’re working? Why fly the US flag within the State of the Union? To me, that US flag only makes sense as a notice that police are acting in a “US” jurisdiction, rather than the jurisdiction of a State of the Union.

        As for “frivolous arguments,” I’m usually careful to avoid making arguments. Instead, I ask questions. For me, the strategy has worked twice against the IRS and once against the Dallas Bar Association (who wanted to charge me with UPL). A friend of mine has also responded to IRS notices with questions and the IRS simply stopped writing to him.

        I’ve written scores of articles on MOOA, The State vs. this state, and Notice & right of inquiry. They’re all available under the Categories “Man or Other Animals,” “The State vs this state” and “Notice” on the right has side of this blog.

        If you’re saying that all of the “arguments” I present on this blog are “frivolous,” could you please describe and define what you mean by “frivolous arguments” and who is entitled to decide is or is not entitled to declare an argument to be “frivolous”. For example, are you entitled by law to tell me or others reading this blog if our arguments are or are not “frivolous”? Can we rely on you to do so? So far as I know, you are not licensed to practice law “in this state”. If so, are you subject to prosecution for Unauthorized Practice of Law whenever you tell others that their defenses are based on “frivolous arguments”?

        So far as I can recall, virtually all of your comments on this blog are critical of ideas advanced by me or the readers. If you think we’re all so ignorant, why do you hang around this blog? Aren’t you concerned that some of our “frivolous arguments” might rub off on you?

        You kinda stick out like a Pittsburgh Steelers fan at a Chicago Bears’ pep-rally. You seem eager to criticize and remind us of our flaws but, so far, unwilling to offer much in the line of positive education.

        I can’t help wondering about your motives.

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 8:57 PM

        Yes, when Alfred and I first talked on the phone I gave him a brief personal bio. Basically I left the practice to become a consultant, because my girlfriend at the time (now my fiance) was moving across country. The law market was not very good where we were moving, and I had an opportunity to take an interesting consulting job that I can do from anywhere. So these days I work on the road, teaching and consulting in the field of negotiation for businesses. It’s a lot less money than lawyering, but a lot more fun and a higher quality of life overall. Rather than being in the office until 9 p.m., I can sit in my hotel room and chat with y’all!

        With all my new free time, a couple of years ago I decided to write a book about communicating with “irrational” people. (I know it’s a loaded term, and I apologize–I don’t mean any insult, but rather to use the term the way economists do. I haven’t come up with a better one.) I’ve been interviewing people with ideas that are (a) outside of the mainstream and (b) don’t work, and started listening to a lot of talk radio to find such people. Alfred struck me as someone with such ideas, and also as someone who was polite and intelligent, so I asked if I could interview him. He rather smartly suggested we interview each other on the radio, which was a lot of fun. That’s how I came to be here.

        I’m still a lawyer, just not currently practicing. I might go back to it one day, I haven’t decided. And, for the record, I love these conversations. It’s a hobby and a calling! Thanks for participating, and thanks again to Alfred for being a gracious host to a lively debate. Which I’m winning, hands down. :)Yes, when Alfred and I first talked on the phone I gave him a brief personal bio. Basically I left the practice to become a consultant, because my girlfriend at the time (now my fiance) was moving across country. The law market was not very good where we were moving, and I had an opportunity to take an interesting consulting job that I can do from anywhere. So these days I work on the road, teaching and consulting in the field of negotiation for businesses. It’s a lot less money than lawyering, but a lot more fun and a higher quality of life overall. Rather than being in the office until 9 p.m., I can sit in my hotel room and chat with y’all!

        With all my new free time, a couple of years ago I decided to write a book about communicating with “irrational” people. (I know it’s a loaded term, and I apologize–I don’t mean any insult, but rather to use the term the way economists do. I haven’t come up with a better one.) I’ve been interviewing people with ideas that are (a) outside of the mainstream and (b) don’t work, and started listening to a lot of talk radio to find such people. Alfred struck me as someone with such ideas, and also as someone who was polite and intelligent, so I asked if I could interview him. He rather smartly suggested we interview each other on the radio, which was a lot of fun. That’s how I came to be here.

        I’m still a lawyer, just not currently practicing. I might go back to it one day, I haven’t decided. And, for the record, I love these conversations. It’s a hobby and a calling! Thanks for participating, and thanks again to Alfred for being a gracious host to a lively debate. Which I’m winning, hands down. :)

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 9:05 PM

        The state can define its own formal name, but nothing about that means that the formal name has to be used exactly or that variations of it don’t refer to the same entity. You can write Texas, The State of Texas, Texas the State, or THE STATE OF TEXAS. It’s all the same thing, which is why we have one state house with jurisdiction over the geographical area.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 9:51 PM

        To: Alfred Adask,
        @ The only things God didn’t create are lies and legal fictions. Those are the work of man and/or Satan.
        MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS EXACTLY !!

         
      • pesky nat

        March 19, 2015 at 12:01 AM

        Here, I believe is another thing to think about.
        Public Policy
        Examples Word Origin
        noun
        1.
        the fundamental policy on which laws rest, especially policy not yet enunciated in specific rules.
        2.
        Law. the principle that injury to the public good or public order constitutes a basis for setting aside, or denying effect to, acts or transactions.
        Origin Expand
        Examples from the web for public policy Expand
        In the first place, the courts have said that public policy requires the power of the master and officers should be sustained.
        He says the strength of the new school will be business and its interaction with technology and public policy.
        Recognizing that public policy must aim to influence culture is not the same as suggesting how.

        From, Dictionary.com

         
      • pesky nat

        March 19, 2015 at 12:42 AM

        Definitions of Public Policy and the Law
        http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/policy/definition.shtml – 8k – Cached – Similar pages
        In any society, governmental entities enact laws, make policies, and allocate resources. This is true at all levels.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM

      KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR. You GOAD, MISLEAD & DECEIVE.
      YOU ask me > who cares if there is any flag in the Courtroom? Can you cite any law or statute or code?

      FLAG Martial Law; “Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

      FLAG Martial Law;The Placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

      President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides.”

      FLAG Martial law; “The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation no. 260-10.” 34 Ops. Atty. . Gen. 483, 485.

      FLAG Martial law; “Ancient custom sanctions the use of the fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags.” The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924, (1925); 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483, 485.

      Authorization for indoor display
      Each military courtroom Any courtroom that displays these flags behind the Judge is a military courtroom. You are under military law and not constitutional law, or common law, or civil law, or statute law.

      Restrictions “The following limitations and prohibitions are applicable to flags guidons, streamers, and components.”
      Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, and streamers. Display or use of flags, guidons, and streamers or replicas thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by U.S. Army units, by other than the office, individual, or organization for which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated in below.
      Use only by recognized United States Army division associations . . . .” United States Army

      Regulation AR 640-10, October 1, 1979
      According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) “the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide,” and that, “such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms.” And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations.”

       
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 9:10 PM

        @ According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) “the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide,” and that, “such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms.”
        What people are apparently not grasping is, this IS NOT saying this “Flag” cannot be displayed anywhere else, for it most certainly can be, e.g. U.S. Post Offices. What the above excerpt IS saying IS, as far as a COURTROOM GOES, it is only authorized to be displayed in a MILITARY COURT. I am convinced this flag is THERE FOR A REASON!! And, I do believe I KNOW WHY,i.e., what the reason IS. The reason has been repeatedly given over the years & on this blog. We have too many CHIEFS & hardly any Indians.

         
    • pesky nat

      April 1, 2015 at 11:26 AM

      KENEMORE JR.LAWERNCE
      @ As I have said I do not care if they have NO FLG or even if the floor is polished what I want is procedure.

      PROCEED ON, KENEMORE JR.LAWERNCE. I see you are in good company with another CO/HORT/HEART, thecompanyofcreators, whose username should be thecompanyofdestroyers.
      YOUR Good company co/hort/heart limits the Military flag jurisdiction to WATER. Very SHALLOW of your co-hort/heart friend to do that. PROCEED KENEMORE JR.LAWERNCE, et.al.

       
      • thecompanyofcreators

        September 29, 2015 at 12:29 PM

        Excuse me???Where did I ever limit the use of the “gold fringed flag to WATER”??? You must have me mixed up with someone else!! I have not found any difference between a court that uses the gold fringe or not. IN fact a judge in Oklahoma mentioned to me during the opening of a case that he is very open minded about things and does not fly a gold fringe flag because he could not find any and because it was cheaper to buy the non fringed flags.
        My research after many years was that the Gold fringe in civilian settings simply means it is a “special event” and nothing more.
        What I did find on the practical side is that to argue the flag, floor, bar, wood, robe or anything other than the elements of the case and provide strong evidence and case law to bind them with, made no difference except to loose. When I left that behind me like a child that puts away their toys for more meaningful tools, I began to win. And the more I presented the law and case law and evidence by exhibit and followed proper procedures and most of all ARGUED THE RIGHT THING, I win more consistently!! So keep arguing this dumb stuff and you will get the same result. What you’re trying to argue is Jurisdiction… So argue it properly and win by doing it properly.
        If the State does not have jurisdiction to “subject” you to its corporate “administrative” rules because you are not a “person” (fiduciary, trust, partnership, LLC, Corporation or municipal subdivision of the State) then it does not apply to you. By using discovery tools requiring them to provide the application for and approval by the State of a legal state granted taxable “entity of the State” then you are not subject to the “administration” of the State. I do it simply by requesting a copy of the account with the state and to simply deduct the charge from that account and send all back pay to my address in care of the man “given name”.
        What everyone is missing is that the laws as is the Governments “any Form of Government” is ours, yours, to use for the “equal protections of the laws.” So when you alienate yourself from the law you are alienated by it. When you embrace it and use it properly you will get remedy and justice. Yes the actors are corrupted and misapplying it at every turn but by being persistent and laying foundation for appeal and gathering evidence of their deprivation of Rights suit you will prevail! But to piss all over it and to “war against the Constitution” is well pretty damn stupid since it is the only thing we have left to rely upon to get remedy.
        We the people have failed to govern our meant to be governed Govern-ment and as such it like a teen ager’ with a bit of power has abandoned it parents and become gang minded, selfish and corrupted. And like a anything corrupted it takes more effort to correct it.
        In short, if the Flag thing ain’t working stop doing it. !!! Stupid is as stupid does… insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
        If there were not anyone ever winning cases then perhaps we would have excuses, but there are people wining and I am one of them. I used to be a whiner but altered my approach and became a winner! You choice. You can call us winners, names all you like but in the end you are still whining and we are still winning and making a substantive difference and you are giving more fodder for the fabricators. Had a judge refer to several cases in which a good argument had been lost.She said it had been determined several times and gave the cases as case law. (the ones where idiots failed to argue properly and the court said “it was not argued sufficiently and thus was not going to address it” and the case was dismissed).
        STOP, just STOP giving them ammunition to use against those properly framing and argument!! Thank you!

         
  8. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    March 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM

    I highly reccomend you do a Shepherds search of Article 1.10.1 and read the case law on this section

     
  9. russ

    March 2, 2015 at 1:20 PM

    We all know that 14th Amendment US citizens are those created by Congress and subject to its jurisdiction “within the United States”. This status is voluntary for some and mandatory for others. One may have that status sub silentio through their own ignorance. They may have voter registration, bank accounts, 1040, driver license and passports signed under penalty of perjury in that status used against them without their full knowledge and consent. However, one may obtain a passport as a non-14th Amendment citizen. And then use that certified evidence to rescind and/or correct any and all contracts in that status. The rights and duties in that status are different than the 14ther. That is not my opinion. If you do not agree with it, you are not arguing with me, you argue with Congress, the US Secretary of State, and Supreme Court. And the many people who have accomplished this task and are living it. Without being harassed by people like Colin.

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      March 2, 2015 at 1:46 PM

      Russ
      I am not replying for Colin but in support of Colin, that is how is the status voluntary or mandatory it is great to make such broad based statements but where is your support such as Statutes, codes, laws?
      Where does it say that voter registration, bank accounts, drivers license passports make you a 14’th amendment citizen?
      I am not arguing with you tell us where the Secretary of State so says, or where Congress has said, or even the Supreme Court.

       
      • Jethro

        March 2, 2015 at 2:43 PM

        >Where does it say that voter registration, bank accounts, drivers license passports make you a 14’th amendment citizen?

        “It” doesn’t say it, YOU say it.

        Voter registration: First question is “Are you a citizen of the United States?” (e.g. http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/forms/ss-3010.pdf)
        Bank accounts: YOU sign a form certifying “U.S person” status
        Drivers license & passport: YOU check the box on the application saying “U.S. citizen”.

        By treating YOU as a (14th amendment) U.S. citizen, they’re just giving you what YOU said you want.

         
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 9:08 PM

      The rights and duties in that status are different than the 14ther. That is not my opinion. If you do not agree with it, you are not arguing with me, you argue with Congress, the US Secretary of State, and Supreme Court. And the many people who have accomplished this task and are living it.

      Just send your money and a self-addressed stamped envelope to the sovcit guru of your choice, and don’t ever ask for a refund, and don’t ever expect to receive actual proof that the magic citizenship incantations, signed and sealed under the UCC and 14th Amendment and Grover Cleveland’s tuxedo jacket, actually mean a thing in a court of law.

       
      • russ

        March 2, 2015 at 10:54 PM

        Actually you get a passport. And you can pay the fee afterwords to get the certified evidence you submitted to rebut the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen/resident presumption signed/certified by the U.S. SOS. In other words, you rebut it once and for all, so you do not have to rebut it in front of every administrative law tribunal or government/corporate agency every time a code is misapplied.

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 10:58 PM

        In other words, some guy takes your money in exchange for useless services papers that don’t actually accomplish anything. This “14th Amendment citizen” malarkey doesn’t stand up to the Slaughterhouse Cases. And it’s never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever worked in court to get someone out of paying taxes. Because it’s baloney. But it makes money for people who aren’t above taking advantage of the ignorance of their customers.

         
      • FL Girl

        March 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM

        Colin:

        Since you are educated, I have a few questions I’m seeking answers to…..Can you tell me if the organic “Republic” was created based on the word of God or masonic ideology and influence, and how the organic Republic became a Democracy and what spear of influence is Democracy, Biblically based or otherwise?

        Can you break down the court system in relation to the Judiciary Act of 1789, starting at the state level up to the federal level, including the United States, (circuit, district, federal, supreme and U.S. Supreme Court, etc…) and the effect upon the courts after the Organic Act of 1871, and the application of public/private treaties,(now private/public partnerships) as to who governs them, who runs them, who these courts apply to, and who benefit from them. Can you expand on the explanation of what bonds are (surety bond, bid bond, performance bond) and what they are used for, where they come from, and the necessity of them in these court cases?

        Also, can you explain why certain statutes have to convert “words” into ‘terms,’ such as “this state” in this paragraph shall mean….? In another example, the word “transportation” has no legal definition, however, traffic citations are issued daily on the people who are not in commerce, how can they, if a proper legal definition doesn’t exist, isn’t it extortion then, what provision of law allows this deception?

        And can you affirm or deny these courts conduct their “business” based on prize and booty, “just doing business” as registered corporations, as found on Dunn and Brad Street, Manta and on other sites? Also, where does USC Title 28, 3002, 15(a) apply to, just the 10 square miles or the entire nation? How can state courts proceed and make determinations in “Admiralty law”? Isn’t Admiralty Law International Law, (could it be because we are using private foreign federal reserve notes as a form of exchange?)

        Didn’t George Washington and Alexander Hamilton create “districts” to bring in the central bank, as it was repugnant to the organic Constitution, and doesn’t that fact make it fictional over layments upon the geographical boundaries of the land, resulting in “THE STATE OF XXXX, not recognized in the same capacity as the dejure spelling, i.e., “Florida State”? Didn’t Justice Marshall hold certain shares in the central bank at the time, which persuaded his decision in the case in Maryland? I’ve read there exists today an original map of North Carolina which proves this fraud and the physical boundaries and spelling of the states are depicted differently.

        Also,can you expand on the Vatican, The City of London, the DTCC/CEDE, the IMF, The Federal Reserve, the IRS, their function(s) their position of power and how they are inter-related and apply to us?

        Also, can you expand on what the birth certificate really is, and why it is created on watermark paper, much like a security, and what the all caps name on the certificate represents, mankind or a legal entity or a conversion of sorts? And can you expand on what is a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, is it something real or fictional, where is this information housed? Where is it written in the organic Constitution or otherwise, that a “certificate” of any kind can become a physical man or woman or even the law that allows for the improperly styled name (ALL CAPS, a “title/security”) to be recognized as us, and not by our “true given names? Is this why all credit cards, bank cards, business mail is always addressed in upper case styled name, not our true names (proper grammatical style). Are the recording of births, deaths and marriages still allowed to be kept in the family Bibles, when did this practice stop, and why? When did the state gain authority over God to require licenses to do that, which is by right?

        I was told by the office of vital statistics that my birth certificate made me a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and that I couldn’t reclaim, or demand the original paperwork back, and trade them for the certificate for the original paperwork; what did they do with it, and why, is it considered a pledge of some sort, is there a different owner of the original paperwork, since we only receive a “certificate” which evidence of a title but not the whole title. I’m sure it can’t be viable, because doesn’t the rule of law uphold anything done to a infant/minor is void on its face?

        Isn’t this whole system a creation in the minds of men (more like the devil/demons/fallen angels/supernatural entities) who created it, to gain control over mankind? Doesn’t the same theory follow the rule of law for the terms, Nation, Country, State, as they exist only in the minds of men (or these entities?)

        I also want to know where statutes, codes, rules and regulations apply to mankind. Can you clarify if all the statues, codes, rules and regulations are copy written by the U.S. Trade and Patent Office or clarify which office, and if so, how can they apply to a man or woman, as I haven’t found a “term” for a man or woman, only the term “person” not “word person” that is applicable (within commerce) to any code, statue, or regulation. I believe the book Isaiah, Job and others speaks of the Devil falling to earth with his areas of influence being the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce.

        Truly, the Bible is clear, in Genesis, God created everything, and everything that exist is His, and part of His Constitution. We are already created, copy written and patented by God the creator. These men (or these demon/devil/fallen angels/entities) only mimic the word of God, His Kingdom and His creation, as they try to corrupt what is already established.

        I can’t seem to understand how a fictional society can claim jurisdiction upon mankind. We have fiat money, fiat laws, for the fiat money, fiat states/districts, and now, fiat education to deceive us all…..help! I need some understanding.

        I know you’re travelling and probably very busy, and this is a lot to digest. You might even get a good laugh out of it, claiming more of patriot babble, so please go ahead and explain all this to me …you might even be inclined to give the typical attorney response as this being irrational, incoherent, and unconscionable, thinking, so you can’t respond to it. That’s okay, its just some food for thought and my inability to understand it all.

         
      • Adask

        March 3, 2015 at 12:47 PM

        The only things God didn’t create are lies and legal fictions. Those are the work of man and/or Satan.

         
      • russ

        March 3, 2015 at 11:59 AM

        FL Girl, that post is glorius. I printed it out just so I can read it again time to time for repeat enjoyment. You should post more often, ….please.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:31 PM

        FL Girl, you have a very impressive imagination! I’m not very knowledgeable about conspiracy theories, so I don’t have much to say about Freemasons or the Vatican or whatnot. I can answer your question about 28 USC 3002, though. That provision defines terms for use in Chapter 176. (Google the provision to find the LII page, which is my favorite source for reading statutes. You’ll see that sec. 3002 says that it defines terms “as used in this chapter.” The links at the top of the page show you how to get to the chapter to check and see what it’s referring to: “Title 28 › Part VI › Chapter 176 › Subchapter A › § 3002”)

        Chapter 176 relates to “Federal Debt Collection Procedure,” or how the government collects debts. The definitions in 3002 don’t apply anywhere but within this chapter. When the statute in question falls between 28 USC 3001 and 3308, though, they apply everywhere in the country.

        I know you’re travelling and probably very busy, and this is a lot to digest.

        Yep. Far too much for me to pick apart to find other serious questions. Sorry, but at least you had fun writing it and tickled Russ’s fancy!

        You might even get a good laugh out of it, claiming more of patriot babble, so please go ahead and explain all this to me

        Nope. I do think it’s mostly nonsense, but I don’t laugh at people like that. I get involved in conversations like this because I think they’re interesting, not to laugh at people. I actually assume that just about everyone believes at least some nonsense, including myself, although it’s hard to see for yourself what your own nonsense beliefs are (again, I assume that includes me).

        …you might even be inclined to give the typical attorney response as this being irrational, incoherent, and unconscionable, thinking, so you can’t respond to it. That’s okay, its just some food for thought and my inability to understand it all.

        Definitely irrational, in that these ideas are unusual, ineffectual, and not based on an informed or logical legal analysis. But not really incoherent, you’re writing fairly clearly (just a lot to digest, and mostly stuff I have nothing to say about, like religion and the Vatican and masons and such). And hardly unconscionable, unless you’re one of those people who encourages others to throw their life away by staking everything on totally ineffectual pseudolegal arguments like the gold-fringed flag or all-caps name stuff. There’s nothing wrong with having or talking about unusual ideas! Thanks for writing.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 19, 2015 at 12:23 AM

        Colin,
        @ You’re using “subject” in a different way than the amendment is.
        WHY is it written by the “Peace Officer” in his written report. “I advised the Subject of his Miranda Rights. The Subject said he was not a Mexican. The Subject would would not cooperate. The Subject called me & the Magistrate a Probate.” HAHHAHhaha I said they both were REPROBATES. The Subject did not have a driver’s License AT ALL,< He wrote at all in all caps. HAHHAHhahahah

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        September 29, 2015 at 1:54 PM

        WEll at this point if I can enforce my Rights, Privileges and Immunities, per the 14th it seems Im way ahead of those who can’t enforce basic Rights… Hmmm Now here is a question for ya.. if you the king and take your dog for a walk and pick up his poo are now now longer the king but merely a poo picker for all times? In other words just because you have a drivers license, just because you my use your ability to be a citizen of the United States and/or a citizen of a State to secure rights, privileges and immunities, does that mean you no longer are the sovereign created being??? I say no. See 9th amendment “The enumeration of certain Right is not to be misconstrued to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
        If a man called a “slave” ends up garnering the protections of more rights than man called “super duper sovereign” well call me “slave” and secure my damn Rights!
        “US Citizen” ? Secure my Rights, Privileges and immunities!
        It is not who or what we are it is what they are bound to do and how you can box them in to force them into doing it. Hell be guilty of a crime but bring enough evidence to indict the judge or prosecutor and see how fast the charges disappear! “Fraud eviscerates any obligation” and don;t forget the power of a “bona fide offer to pay”…
        So what evidence do you have of my obligation, duty? Who is witness to my taxable (or other ) activity? IN the mean time I do not wave any right, privilege, immunities or powers retained… as a citizen, us citizen, person or otherwise because they are all protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States!!!… if you embrace them.. but if you reject them then I am sure the wolves are happy to devour you even more… good luck with that sovereign, all by yourself nation of one found wandering ship-less in the borders of the United States…… :-}

         
    • NicksTaxFree

      March 3, 2015 at 6:49 AM

      Well said Russ, I could not have said it better and I totally agree. I read the other comments from Larry Kenemore and Colin. They need some law or statute that you can point to for proof of your statements correctness. The defacto federal government would never make it that easy. People have to use the legal definition of words to piece the truth that is hidden in the code sections.
      Thanks Russ for the IRS code section on “termination of Election” found in section 6213 (g)(4). where a taxpayer can regain their rightful legal status as a “Non-resident Alien” to the Federal U.S. government and stop the IRS for the rest of their life. The 1st step in not being a 14th amendment U.S. citizen/slave. My passport is next, and for Colin’s information, I’m not using some high price guru who is selling me some pie in the sky worthless program. You will find competent lay persons here who are capable beyond what any Attorney would/could do for them. Things they never were told in law school. Time for a self directed curriculum.

       
      • russ

        March 3, 2015 at 12:34 PM

        Nicks, you may come to find out that one may open a non-interest bearing bank account using that passport evidence, without a social security number, as a non-resident alien who is not engaged in a trade or business in the United States – see 31 CFR103.34 (a)(3)(x) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34. The bank manager will help you with that. They assist foreigners every day. Funny how if this is imaginary, the good Lord makes everything work. Does that qualify it as a miracle? All things are possible if you are with Him on His path.

        You may even come to find out that one may send a first class letter from one of the 50 states to another one of the 50 states for 3 cents stamp. Seems the original Post Office was never abolished, so they must honor the contract when you send non-domestic mail “without the United States”. Use the simplified mailing address without a zip code. They never raised the price, as it would reveal it still exists. Another case of the imaginary jurisdiction Colin says does not exist. I guess they don’t teach that nonsense in attorney school.

         
      • russ

        March 3, 2015 at 3:57 PM

        You may also use your passport evidence to correct the record at the SSA/IRS. You may change status from the U.S. citizen/resident alien to the corrected status of a non-resident alien. Since the number was never yours, you have the option to send the card back and never use it again. You do not need it to live and work in free enterprise in the private sector. Remember, no man can discriminate against you on the basis or race, creed, color, citizenship/nationality, religion, or even not having a number. I have found that after explaining my status, both man and persons are carefull not to trespass. Don’t deal with clerks, deal with a man/woman who can be held accountable.

        If you read the legal definition of “federal personnel” under 5 USC 552a (a)(13) you will find the SS# is used as evidence you are in a federal retirement program so you must be a federal personnel. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

        “(a)(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).”

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:41 PM

        I like the TP Faq’s response to this: “If you write to the IRS and say that you are a non-resident alien with no taxable income, the IRS will write back and say that you are not required to file a tax return. It means nothing, because you have lied to the IRS.” http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

        “Non-resident alien” doesn’t mean “someone who really doesn’t want to pay taxes and found someone online who told him he doesn’t have to.” I’d be very interested to read any case in which someone living anywhere inside the US (however spelled or capitalized, with or without article or other garnishes) succeeded in court with such a claim. You can google it to find lots of cases where it’s failed. In other words, you can create all the red tape you want; it’s worth less than the paper it’s printed on, and will not benefit you at all once the enforcement mechanisms catch up.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:43 PM

        Things they never were told in law school. Time for a self directed curriculum.

        Incidentally, why not study the law for yourself? As I keep saying, there are great free online classes. You can see for yourself that this split jurisdiction thing is a nonstarter–there’s no secret law being kept from you.

         
    • thecompanyofcreators

      March 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM

      Please share the actual sources you refer to. I am interested in learning about this because if it has merit I want to know about it as a friend did the ex patriot stuff and ended up not having a country to defend him and they killed him. So please post any and all of the sources that confirm that there really is a difference between a “United States Citizen” and a “non-citizen”???
      What i see is that a US Citizen “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States,…” where as a “Person” shall not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, nor be deprived of the equal protections of the law.”.. So on its face it seems that being a “citizen of the United States” is actually a bit better…. but I’m just reading what is written.
      What does strike me right off is the qualifier…. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” Well so far as I know I am not a “subject” of, nor “subject to” anything or anyone except my Creator and my free will, so long as I do “not trespass upon” anyone else’s “rights” (Hale v Henkel)
      Which is the one RED Flag for me that I do not hear being discussed.

      Just as no one is discussing that it is impossible for O’bummer to be President because his father is and was not a citizen (of an type) of the United States. (Natural born requires the parents to be citizens.. since it has not been amended, it stands as it was written under the times it was written. Women were not considered Citizens at that time so the man carried the family. Thus it is and always has been a requirement for the father at the least to be a citizen in order for one to be eligible for president. The verified birth certificate is needed to check the other qualification “age” which apparently he has offered only counterfeit rendition thereof which is a crime in and of itself and now he is stuck because if he brings forth his real birth certificate from which the fabricated one was created from, to prove his age, it will reveal he was not born in the US or USA…
      But again none of that really matters since it is not argued that his father is not and never has been a citizen…. End of Story!!! he is not nor ever has been “eligible” thus he is in fact an “impostor”. And I can prove he is an imposer in the same way I can prove that 99.99% of those in office are impostors… with the use of the “Ten Questions of Oath verification or Indictment”
      Blessings=may your desires be fulfilled .. Colin Derek (not for sale or obligation)

       
      • NicksTaxFree

        March 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM

        To thecompanyofcreators, said: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States,…” where as a “Person” shall not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, nor be deprived of the equal protections of the law.”.
        We already had most of all that in the 4th and 5th amendments. You are right to be concerned about “Subject to”. “Subjects” are granted “privileges and immunities from a Government that is “Master” of those “Subjects”. Free born citizens have inalienable Rights from the Creator. Aren’t we told it is a Privilege to drive on a public “Right of Way”?? That privilege can be taken away. The 13th amendment made illegal involuntary servitude, however, voluntary servitude can still be entered into by contract for some perceived benefit.
        There are numerous court decisions that affirm the Constitutional Right to travel was protected by the 9th amendment. U.S. citizens not protected by the “Bill of Rights” would need to have those Privileges and protection of due process inserted back into the 14th amendment so they still had some granted government privileges so as not to be made aware of what really just happened. They don’t want a mass revolt, they are not going to announce this in the news or law books.
        You should really be concerned about the 5th section of the 14th. Where is says, ” U.S. citizens are not to question the DEBT of the United States. Could it be there was a plan back in 1868 to have the U.S debt soar through the roof like it is today? I believe so, but can only offer our current situation as proof.
        Subject can’t question what there Master does! Think about that when you reread the 14th amendment.

        I suggest looking at this web site for answers:
        http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/AffTruth.html
        This is a MUST read:
        http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html

        This is from an e-book, click on Table of Contents to see all chapters
        Home will let you see all there is on there. Many Court cases, Status and commentary.

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM

        Good stuff..thanks!! one thing though, Priveleges are not grantedby the State and cannot be taken away by the State!!! The State does nothing on its own it is merely a vehicle of the people and in law a “privileges” is considered “property” and as you know “no property shall be taken without due process of law…
        WE really need to stop, Just STOP perpetuating this notion that the State is an entity unto itself and has some life of its own and can be like a fickle woman at a whim change its mind… it is not! it is an entity of the people no different than a bicycle we made to get us around better, faster easier. It is there to serve us… when is no longer is tolerable then the people will “alter or abolish it”.. But “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” They will make all sorts of excuses and pretend they can do nothing about it and are trapped in this abusive relationship and blame it on everything from UFO to demons to the ghost of Christmas past instead of simply turning the key and removing the evil from their lives…
        Comfortably uncomfortable, someone or something to blame their problems and shortcomings on… or what is the point after all the end of the earth already happened from what youtube is saying on the 23 of Sept… I missed it again.. damn.. someone wake me up so I can go too next time. Thanks

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 3, 2015 at 3:09 PM

        Went to the truth of the 14th and it started off well but then there are just too many links that are improper for those assertions to work.. I wrote a response to those sections which makes his already long dissertation even longer.. not sure people here want to read either, if so then I will post it.. you can write me and I will share it with you.
        It is so funny because I bought into all those links before but now that I have studied the law and cases and language and chased all the rabbit holes down it is so clear to see the fallacies.. everyone is arguing the wrong thing. It is not about you!! Who you are or are not, it is about what activity engaged in and under what “person” (fiduciary, partnership, LLC, Corporation etc.. all entities of the State!!! see the tax code of your state it defines person s or similar to above). If it meant everyone it would say “anyone” and it then would say “including any man or woman.. it does not. (BTW he is wrong in stating that when a Statute says “includes” it means it excludes everything else.. case law and anyone who knows contracts means “in addition to” and “to clarify that it does include”. That is one very important misnomer) Ok back to what this is all about… the government is meant to be governed by the people who institute it “to secure these Rights” because power corrupts… the laws and rules and Statutes are to govern the “creations of the State”, not the people. The Tax statutes are clear, you must first be a “person” to be a “taxpayer” and subject to the tax statutes.. google scholar “non-taxpayer”.. I was so surprised to read a case in which the court stated “the non-taxpayer may stand upon his Constitutional Rights to due process and is not subject to the tax statutes” or something to that effect. Thus clearly not everyone is a “taxpayer” as defined.
        The problem is that what is said and what you hear are two different conditioned things. You hear “do you pay your taxes” and because you are so conditioned to be defensive and not be a “criminal” who does not pay his taxes, you naturally say “yes I am a tax payer”, which is completely different than being a “taxpayer”. It is due to people not willing to read the entire Statutes to find the actual definitions and realize that they are not included in the definition. At least not when it comes to liability.
        However the opposite is true when it comes to Rights, Privileges and Immunities.. because you/we are the source of all that is Government and thus must have the power, Rights, etc in order to grant it to any other … thing, State, United States or otherwise, Corporation etc and every Form of Government which “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”.
        Again how the fuke can one have the Power to alter or abolish something and yet be “subject to” that same thing? Can’t never will except by coercion, intimidation, ignorance, manipulation, indoctrination, conditioning etc. which are all crimes!! Get it? Or there would have to be a criminal charge brought against you and a conviction by a jury (due process, (The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; Art III Sec.2) that you were engaged in a taxable activity under an assumed name not registered with the State. Look at Howard Hues, he had some businesses which he paid taxes on and many which he did not. Why? Because he knew that one has an unalienable Right to conduct his own business in his own way (see Hale v Henkel) “He owes no such duty to the State since he receive nothing from the State except the protections of his life and property.” Clearly indicating that those protections are by Right and do not constitute an obligation nor deprive or diminish ones other rights, privileges and immunities.
        Same thing for “driving” you can have a drivers license but if you are not engaged in the taxable or regulated ACTIVITY or “Transportation” (transporting of goods, animals or persons for pay on the public roadways) then you are not subject to the state road rules.. so long as you do not trespass, deprive or endanger any other, such as reckless driving. In which case an other one of the people or even a person or the principle of a person could bring charges and may also be a crime… which is why in traffic court the State has it that over a certain speed over the suggested speed limit is considered “reckless driving” However, that now requires due process doesn’t it and now that would go to Intent to be convicted wouldn’t it? Which is why a good lawyer will always ask the conditions of the road etc to establish that it is certainly possible that one was not being reckless but safe for their ability to handle their car under those conditions perfectly safely. Now the prosecutor has to prove that you did some actions which actually endangered others, with witnesses evidence the whole nine yards and they cannot in most cases.
        This is why I will not help anyone who is on the road under the influence of drugs or alcohol. To me it is by definition Reckless endangerment under any conditions except if there are no others on the road to endanger or one is fully capable of handling the car.. in which case how the hell did you get pulled over in the first place? Nope, you were sober before you took that firsts drink and you have an obligation to make arrangements to travel safely or not to have another and another. Tell the fucking bar tender that you have to drive home and to not let you get more than two drinks… especially today when you can call for a free ride from volunteers!! Grrrrr
        Ok back on point—If you did not go to the State and apply for some business license or Partnership, LLC, Corporation or any other entity and got it approved by the State and then (and this is the important part) engage in a taxable activity under that entity, its name, charter, business model approved, then you have no obligation to the State… You actually never do but the business entity you are operating does and if you hold a position of that business entity of liability and you fail to perform your duty then you can be held liable both as an agent and as a Principle who is liable for what your agents do. Just as the Government (in a corporate form) is liable for its agents.
        Check out Dunn and Bradstreet and look up the exact name of the Court you are going to… yup it is a chartered corporation.. not de jure government… oops So how does a corporation for profit or non profit gain or presume to have jurisdiction over anyone other than those who are agents or officers of that corporation??? hmmm???? That is why you are the one that grants it power or Jurisdiction over the subject matter and over you concerning the exact matter. But over time they have come to believe they have authority over you at all times. And the stupid sheriffs think they work for the Court and that is why they are there… oh contrai, they are there to insure the Rights of the people are protected and that there is no hanky panky of the Judge, clerk or any other which would even appear to be unjust or deprive you of any Right!!! But how many even know the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath? None.. which means they are as a matter of law “impersonators”.. criminals… no wonder they act like thugs,, they are and they stick together because it is business as usual. Even alleged “good sheriffs” will tell you that their hands are tied because they will loose their job… That is called selling out but that is the men and women our parents have raised. The same kids that will put their parents in a home instead of taking care of them and fight with their siblings over what they are going to get when they finally die.
        When was the last time you invited a public servant over for dinner, lunch or had a community meeting in which you or someone lead a dissertation on the actual laws, the Unanimous Declaration, the Principles expressed and upon them is the foundation of all Forms of Government. Read 18 USC 241 out lowed or have them read it to the group. This is how you alter things now, by educating them and bringing them back into the community. When you alienate them they will alienate you and make you a subject of abuse.
        Filing the 42 USC 1983 suits is one of the best ways to educate them and get paid to do it. Which is why I have been studying it for the last year and putting together several of them as we speak… In fact gotta go and get it done.. Blessings.

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:23 PM

        What does strike me right off is the qualifier…. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” Well so far as I know I am not a “subject” of, nor “subject to” anything or anyone except my Creator and my free will, so long as I do “not trespass upon” anyone else’s “rights” (Hale v Henkel)

        You’re using “subject” in a different way than the amendment is. This just means that you’re “subject to the law,” in that the law can be applied to you. (As opposed to a foreign diplomat, who could claim diplomatic immunity.) It doesn’t mean you’re a “subject of” the state. Basically a synonym.

        Blessings=may your desires be fulfilled .. Colin Derek (not for sale or obligation)

        Thanks! You don’t have to add “not for sale or obligation,” it doesn’t mean anything when referring to humans. Can’t sell a person in the US no matter what you do or don’t write after your name.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM

        Colin
        Good to see you correcting all the misnomers floating around I have been at it since 1992 want to beat them learn the rules and law then play the game.

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 2, 2015 at 5:26 PM

        thanks… not for sale or obligation means something to me… and it is notice to anyone that my work/words are not for sale nor to be misconstrued to obligate me in any way and for any entity that believes people can be sold or obligated it is notice to them as well.. ok with you?

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 3, 2015 at 11:43 AM

        Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition says;
        Subject to. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.”
        That is from Blacks Law…. Please notice it says at the start,
        “Subject to. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; ”
        It does not say “subject ot the Constitution or laws of the United States but subject to the United States. Not even subject to the United States of America…. hmmm
        Please address this if you can. In my opinion one can only be “subject to” if one is a subject of either by creation or by conquer (force) or by oath of allegiance. “Subject to” to me means to be obedient = to the will of, subservient, not free, not self governing.
        I have stated many times that we live by only one law “to not trespass upon anyone’s Rights” (Hale v Henkel) All the Statutes and laws and rules are for the government and those who willingly volunteer to service of that government which serves the will of the people and “to secure these Rights” it is by the littlest thing that corruption takes a foothold and begins to alter the Principles upon which this Government is founded. We can not be “subject to” “subjects of” citizens subjects or any variation, contraction of the term “subject”. We are only subject to our Creator an our own free will. “As it pleases us.. so long as we do not trespass upon any others Rights to the same.
        That does not mean that I can not have various “persons” which may be subject to or subjects of and as the 4th indicates, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,..” Notice it says “persons” plural clearly indicating we have and may have many “persons” or personas
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persona
        noun, plural personae
        [per-soh-nee] (Show IPA), personas.
        1. a person.
        2. personae, the characters in a play, novel, etc.
        3. the narrator of or a character in a literary work, sometimes identified with the author.
        4. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment and not representing the inner personality of the individual; the public personality (contrasted with anima).
        5. a person’s perceived or evident personality, as that of a well-known official, actor, or celebrity; personal image; public role.

        Definition of IN PROPRIA PERSONA
        : in one’s own person or character : personally; especially : without the assistance of an attorney
        Origin of PERSONA GRATA
        New Latin, acceptable person
        First Known Use: 1882
        Origin of PERSONA NON GRATA
        New Latin, unacceptable person
        First Known Use: 1904
        : personally unacceptable or unwelcome
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persona
        3. pl. personas The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one’s public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self.
        2. an assumed identity or character
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persona
        The words people and person derive from different Latin roots, the former from populum, referring to the people in the sense of the populace, the latter from persona, “an actor’s mask; a character in a play”
        http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm

        Just as we may have or be members of many “houses” and have many “papers” and lot of “effects” all of which make up the man or people. I personally believe that the Unanimous Declaration of Independence was a Divine or Spirit lead, writing and that the word “men” when used in “all men” meant mankind and was non gender as it obviously also meant non religious, non race etc. It is and stated “self evident”.. any idiot can see. Now the reference to “Nature and Natures God” clarifies it at the beginning and paints a vivid picture. A child create by its Creator is all alone in the woods, what “Rights” does it have? Can it hunt for food? Yes, can it steak out a territory and protect it from intruders, yes, can it travel as it pleases and by whatever means it chooses Horse, sled, bicycle, or any other contraption it may design and build? Yes, can it dress, talk, walk, climb trees, hug trees, plant and harvest, build a shelter of its own design and if it falls down rebuild it in a new design, perhaps this time with a toilet inside and hot running water or choose to keep the cold water for better health or just because can;t be bothered with hot water, collect rain water, dig a well..etc etc.. yes to all this. Can it make a list of rules to go by and break them from time to time as it pleases him/her? yes
        So all these Rights are endowed upon this man/wo-man (man with womb) in nature by the Creator.
        And once they find out that there are many others out there the same they can easily realize that they all have certain unalienable Rights and that there are those that would try to trespass upon these Rights so they get together and “institute” a thing called “Government” in which they grant some limited power in order “to secure these Rights”.
        Now how the fuke can you be busy securing peoples Rights and at the same time subjugating them? It is a contradiction on its face. it does not say “that to form a more perfect union and secure the borders we hereby institute Government to make subjects of us all so we can serve our creation and be deprived of our rights by this Government.” In fact they took the time and trouble to list all the intolerable activities that was going on so that a “candid” unbiased world could easily see that that type of domination was in fact contrary to the intent of the Creator that created each and every one of us unique and splendidly different and that Creator wants us free so that we can fully explore our own special reality, no less than the beauty of a variety of flowers and with the ability to change and adapt, experiment and experience and bet of all be Creators our selves.
        Thus it is “self evident” that one can not be regulated, boxed in, coerced, intimidates, oppressed, threatened or injured in order to conform to anyone or anything else’s will. Period. so long as we equally do not impose upon any others rights to freely express their unique life, use of their liberties and Pursue their particular brand of Happiness. To have and try on many persons/personas, to conduct business under many persons/personas under various “assumed names” via a vessel or entity of the State.
        So any time I see any words to the contrary I know it is in opposition to the Principles from which all Forms of Government are founded upon…
        However, at this time of such vast corruption, if this imposing corrupt government and in particular the supposed Courts which clearly do not recognize the people as their creators but believes we are subjects to … but will “grant settlements of millions of dollars for anyone who can show reasonably of “deprivation of rights” Well 50% is something is better than 100% of nothing… and if I have to enforce my rights by using a process meant for slaves, subjects, servants.. well so be it for now.

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 12:39 PM

        To: thecompanyofcreators

        The CREATOR(S) of ANYTHING is/are SUPERIOR to whatever The Creator(s) CREATED. The 39th U.S. Congress CREATED a U.S citizen.

        In U.S. v. Anthony the courts stated: “The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”

        Re:The Enforcement/ Power clause beginning with the 13th Amendment.Up until this time, many of the states did not recognize blacks as persons who could become citizens. Even with the passing of the 13th Amendment, the Federal Government had no power within the states to effect the necessary changes to force the issue. In the case of Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218,249, S.P. the Supreme Court held “Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward. Upon entering the Union, they retained all their original power and sovereignty…” The Federal Government, therefore, could not force the states to do all that was required on the issue without granting this additional power.

        Re:13th, “The amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery.” Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29. “…there was no such thing as citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873)

        “…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,…” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
        McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        October 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM

        Hmmm I think that most of that has been altered or amended however, it is an oxy moron to say the States retain absolute sovereignty when in each state constitution there is a supremacy clause which states the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that the State is”bound by it” Further the Constitution itself states Art VI “…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” and the X Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” “Nor prohibited by it” Clearly the States have signed on to be “prohibited by it” which means they no longer can act without impunity or absolute sovereignty. And excuse me but a bit of simple logic here.. remove the people what happens to the State? Does not exist. Remove the State and what happens? The people continue to live .. more freely! So how the hell can a thing, a State be “sovereign” no more than your bicycle can be sovereign and tell you what to do or not do. And if you do then you are truly a loony toons and probably do need to be in their insane asylum and guess what.. that is your right. I will not “trespass” upon your right to be “governed” so please do not trespass upon my right to govern myself.
        And as the case above states we the people never lost any Rights, Privleges, immunities, due process etc. and as such the fourteenth at the very least sets a standard for the “least” among you thus a “bottom line” to which everyone can be held to. Notice it says “no State” thus it is a prohibitation upon the States. And the ninth “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” which preceeds the 13th clearly states that it is the people who have the rights and they are the grantors and the ones who “retain” certain rights even when not enumerated by the Constitution. so how the fuke can any servant/officer of the Government “instituted among men” “to secure these Rights” can obviate and circumvent the purpose for which it and the office they presume to hold was create for?? “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
        Interesting site my help you to get it with case law. http://caught.net/caught/crime.htm
        and http://rvbeypublications.com/id92.html
        but most of all just read American Jurisprudence for yourself it has all the case law references and is the instruction book for all judicial officers on the law.

         
  10. Californian

    March 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM

    I think we all agree there is a State and state.
    Law is contract. Contract is the law.
    What is important, is that they are public servants. We are man. We are the Governors and they are our agents. They work for us and we should remind the so.
    I went to my local city and they had signs that read we will strike if we have to, we want a better deal.
    I reminded the head official we are the masters and they our are servants and it is a privilege to work for the people. You should have seen the look on his face as the color ran out. It’s our job to remind them.
    It matters not what state we are in. Thats so old news and that will never change. I need my job, home, insurance and medium of exchange, FRN’s. to function and it has worked out fine for my 48 years. it’s my responsibility to plan for ups and downs and everyone I know gladly takes the FRN as a medium of exchange. Maybe oranges will be the next medium of exchange. Why do I care.
    The sooner we know who we are and hold them as our servants the better.

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      March 2, 2015 at 2:36 PM

      Russ
      Funny you answer a question with a question? I did not know a 14’th Amendment citizen was ever created? But again I seeno support for such Patriot arguments.
      However, I can tell you if you shepherd Van Valkenberg v. Brown which is a California Supreme Court case it does not apply to anyone any more it has been overruled

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM

        Lawernce Kenemore Jr
        @ Funny you answer a question with a question?

        Really?!?! Well not as funny as your answers are to our questions. Btw, you said previously we need to learn & know how the system works. Here is another way of how the system works. Just saw this a few minutes ago.

        COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Dale Johnston was sent to death row in 1984 for a double homicide he didn’t commit. The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in Johnston’s latest attempt to win a wrongful imprisonment suit against the state.

        Now 81, Johnston described his years under a death sentence as “hell on earth.” Johnston already unsuccessfully brought a wrongful imprisonment action arising out of his criminal convictions,” Debra Gorrell, an assistant Attorney General, argued in a court filing last year. “This case seeks a do-over.”

        Three years ago, a Franklin County judge declared Johnston innocent, allowing him to seek compensation from the state, but an appeals court reversed the ruling.

        Arguing a series of technicalities, the state says because Johnston failed in an earlier attempt to prove wrongful imprisonment, he isn’t eligible to try again.

        Johnston’s attorney said with the real killer in prison, the state’s arguments help perpetuate a “monstrous inequity.”

        “Why didn’t the state just suck it up and say look, ‘The prosecution of this thing was dead wrong, the investigation of it was wrong, it was a mess, it was a miscarriage of justice for Mr. Johnston’?” said Justice Paul Pfeifer.

        P.S. Are you ready to say whatcha think about the City of Chicago v. Collins case yet or would you just rather not discuss it? Do you like my username? I am pesky ain’t I? Like my purty smile? > (:<

         
      • thecompanyofcreators

        February 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM

        Not to be rude but how can the constitution be “overruled” it can only be amended as prescribed by law…

         
  11. russ

    March 2, 2015 at 2:16 PM

    Lawernce, exellent question, glad you asked. Since you are an an intelligent person, and I value your opionion for this debate, answer this:
    1. When was the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen created?
    2. For what purpose was this new type of citizen created?
    3. What type of Citizen existed before the 14th Amendment citizen was created?
    4. Do you claim Congress abolished this original class of Citizen? If so, by what law? When?
    5. Does the U.S. Department of State only issue passports to 14th Amendment citizens or is there an option for the original class of Citizen as well?
    6 If one is forced in to this new second class citizenship, while the original Citizen option is still available, would not that violate the 13th Amendment?
    7. There are many case cites affirming the different classes of citizens, just give me your private interpretation of Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43 (1872)

     
  12. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    March 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM

    Al
    I am looking for your case you keep talking about that you went to jail over? Can you tell me the Court, case # etc so I can read?

     
    • Adask

      March 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM

      I don’t recall recently talking about any case I went to jail over. I have talked about a case where I was threatened with fines of $9 million per year. You can find my defense on that case at: https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/

      You might also be interested in my notions concerning genocide at https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 7:15 PM

        Al
        Thanks for the link I saw the case # can you tell me what Court it was In? I tried to look it up and cannot find it?

         
      • Adask

        March 2, 2015 at 11:27 PM

        I don’t recall. It was 8 years ago. We were in several courts. The Austin court system assigns pre-trial hearings to whichever court is open. We had six or eight different judges. I remember that Chief Administrative Judge John K. Deitz held the case for about 5 months–every other judge held the case for only one hearing. The case number may have been GV400268, but I don’t recall for sure.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 14, 2015 at 3:25 AM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ I am looking for your case you keep talking about that you went to jail over?

      You appear to see what some of us never saw & some of us cannot see what you do see. Anyway, I get weary of trying to find the thread & exact place where your message says something that I want to respond to but you said we need to learn how the system works & you also said dissenting opinions are for losers.

      Although Chief Justice Rehnquist was often a lone dissenter in cases early on, his views would later often become the majority view of the Court.

      Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
      545 U.S. 469, 518 (2005)

      This is how the system is working & you like it?

       
  13. FL GIRL

    March 2, 2015 at 6:42 PM

    Not to get off topic, but I just wanted to add I found something to consider within the argument of “man and other animals” which might support it being scientifically based in blood, as 85% of the world is RH+ and 15% is RH -. From what I understand about this RH factor in blood, it represents some type of DNA connection to a primate, the Rhesus Monkey (or maybe its a corruption of some sort). Maybe that’s why the courts look at us as animals, maybe that’s why various law enforcement offices have roadside stops to obtain DNA, maybe they’re trying to determine who is RH- or RH+. I’m sure they have known about this matter way before us, but just the same, its interesting indeed; but I’m still holding on to the Bible’s determination, we were made in the image of God.

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 4:58 AM

      FL GIRL, you say to Colin,
      @ > you might even be inclined to give the typical attorney response as this being irrational, incoherent, and unconscionable, thinking, so you can’t respond to it. That’s okay, its just some food for thought and my inability to understand it all.

      Ohhhhhh come on now FL GIRL. U R jus joshin. I know U R. U got 2 B. How could you even remotely arrive at such an irrationa, illogical, preposterous thought like that? >:) D (:<

       
  14. Colin

    March 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM

    Hi Alfred,

    I’m traveling for work this week and next, so I won’t be as responsive as I’d like. If I take too long to get back to you, especially during business hours, I apologize. And if I skip over something you wanted me to address in particular, please poke me about it.

    First things first, thanks for articulating your ideas here. As I’ve said elsewhere, I respect how open you are with discussions of your ideas. Because I’ve said before, and will probably repeat, that those ideas are completely preposterous, I should be clear: Alfred isn’t stupid or insane. I think he’s pretty smart. Unfortunately over the years he’s come to some very strange conclusions, partly because he hasn’t learned very much about how the law works. He’s building suppositions on top of ignorance, and not checking his conclusions to see whether they’re actually true or not. Alfred, once again I strongly recommend you take some of those online classes in law. You’d benefit a lot from a more formal education in law.

    As for your points, let me first say generally that you put much, much, much too much weight on technicalities. An odd thing for a lawyer to say? Not really. There isn’t a difference, legally speaking, between saying, “The State of Texas” and “Texas.” Perhaps you think there should be, but that’s a long way from there actually being a difference. When someone’s title says he’s the “Texas Comptroller,” that’s not a different jurisdiction than the State of Texas.

    As for Article 1.10.1, you’re assuming a particular definition that I don’t think is correct. I don’t think 1.10.1 says that states can’t use anything but gold and silver as tender, it says they can’t make anything but gold and silver legal tender. So Texas can’t issue Texas Dollars and call them legal tender—there’s one national currency, and the states can’t issue their own. Texas can use the national currency because it didn’t make that currency legal tender—the federal government did. So there’s no 1.10.1 violation. You might want to look for any case in which any court has ever ruled that a state can’t make payments with cash. I don’t think you’ll find any.

    As for the Articles of Confederation, I don’t understand the point of your comparison. So the Constitution acknowledged districts; so what? They aren’t states. The legal definition of “state” is often expanded to include territories, but that does not mean that territories are states in the usual sense of the word or that states magically become territories. For example, the tax code says that “state” includes DC so that when the code refers to states (as with provisions giving a rebate for state taxes paid), it doesn’t have to specify, “and DC and Puerto Rico etc.” every time. It’s easier to amend one definition than go through and make the change everywhere “state” is mentioned. That doesn’t make Texas and DC equivalent: Texas is a state (whether or not you say “The State of Texas”) while DC is a territory treated like a state for the sake of convenience. DC doesn’t get the actual legal status of a state, though, which is why it has no senators. Texas does, which is why we do have senators.

    I know this will generate a smirk but, technically, it could be argued that Washington DC and other federal districts and territories exist “in the United States” (as per the Constitution) but do not exist within the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

    Anything “could be argued.” But that argument is preposterously wrong. There is no legal difference between “the United States” used in the singular and “the United States of America.” (The Constitution refers sometimes to “the United States” in the plural, referring to all the constituent states of the US; the grammar and capitalization aren’t consistent with modern use because it’s an old document.)

    But if you read and compare the two documents you’ll see that there was no proviso for districts or territories in the Articles, but there were in the Constitution.

    This is irrelevant. The Constitution replaced the AoC. The AoC didn’t include provisions for lots of things the Constitution did, including a tax power.

    My argument might be mistaken, but it’s not implausible.

    It is both. Your argument is completely, 100% implausible.

    The federal gov-co removed gold from domestic circulation in A.D. 1934; removed silver from domestic circulation in A.D. 1968, and removed gold-backing for foreign-held paper dollars in A.D. 1971. Under the terms of Article 1.10.1, how could the governments of the States of the Union continue to function? Under Article 1.10.1, the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent when the feds removed all gold and silver from domestic circulation.

    As I’ve said, the constitution never prohibited the states from using federal currency. It prohibited them from making their own currency. You can interpret the provision however you like, but unless you can find a ruling that agrees with you, you’re just making assumptions to support your assumptions. While that may be entertaining, it’s not very serious analysis or research.

    Both explanations are so fantastic that they seem unbelievable. But I can’t see a third explanation.

    That’s your biggest problem, I think. As often as you say, “I could be wrong,” you don’t seem to actually consider the possibility that you don’t know what you’re talking about. So you pile supposition upon guess upon theory upon make-believe, and treat the resulting house of cards like an irrefutable position. But the fact that you can’t find any actual jurisdictional experts who take these hypotheses seriously should tell you something.

    Therefore, I’m hoping that Colin’s law professors taught him enough about Article 1.10.1 that he’ll be able to provide me with a third alternative explanation for the problem I see in Article 1.10.1. Or maybe he’ll be able to explain how it’s lawfully possible for Comptrollers around the country to write checks that aren’t backed by gold and silver without either violating the Constitution or operating in some “official capacity” that is not part of the States of the Union.

    I never studied 1.10.1; I’ve been reading up on it since hearing you expound on this theory on the radio. But your reference to professors is interesting. Law professors make their money and their careers by being scholars. They’re under huge pressure to publish articles in law journals, and have tremendous incentives to make those articles interesting and revolutionary. If your theory was within a million miles of being true, there would be hundreds of constitutional law experts lined up and champing at the bit to write articles about it. It would be the biggest legal breakthrough since Learned Hand’s negligence calculation (which, if you’ve never heard of it, was quite a big deal in legal circles). But… silence.

    I’m sorry Alfred, your idea is interesting but it’s based on nothing more than wild speculation. It’s not logical, not backed by facts, and not consistent with the real world, in which people who are in Texas are under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, period. There’s no shadow territory, which is why no one has ever won a court case on such a theory. It doesn’t work because it’s not true.

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      March 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM

      Great and to the point Colin and wild speculation is what fosters the Patriot movement and then gets them locked up.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 14, 2015 at 3:57 AM

        Lawernce,
        You say you are a “Born again” Christian. What is your opinion about this scripture? > and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Revelation 20:4

        Are you looking forward to ruling with Yeshua/Jesus? Do you expect to be beheaded? Is there any truth to the “rumor” that Guillotine laws are in the process of being made? I ask this because you do seem to have inside information on/about the current system.

        NBC News

        Appeals Judge Says Guillotine ‘Probably Best’ for Executions

        By Tracy Connor

        A federal appeals judge issued a blistering dissent in a death-row case on Monday, declaring that an execution system that relies on drugs is doomed and the guillotine would be better.

        Appreciate your feedback, Lawernce

         
    • Adask

      March 3, 2015 at 1:13 AM

      Once again, you disparage my notions as not only false but preposterous. But how to do you know? As I said in my previous response, nobody, not even the nine justices on SCOTUS, know all or even most of the law.

      If I say something “is” the law, it’s incumbent on you to prove I’m mistaken with facts and law and not merely ridicule my opinions as too preposterous to be believed.

      You haven’t disproved my hypothesis, you’ve only ridiculed it. I’m beginning to suspect that you equate a J.D. from Harvard as a complete education on the law. If so, you’re clearly wrong. The law schools teach you logic, how to debate, and mostly how to research the law to find out whatever law might apply to a particular set of facts.

      But, given that most attorneys never actually litigate in court, most law degrees are primarily a very specialized degrees in library sciences. Law schools teach law students how to research the law in a law library. Mostly.

      I’ve talked to you and I can hear how assertive and articulate your are. If you’d stayed licensed, you might’ve become an exceptionally effective attorney.

      But I’m beginning to think that either you’re at this blog because you have some ulterior motive to be here. Are you some sort of governmental investigator or agent–or are you just researching for your “book”?

      But maybe the problem is that you simply lack imagination. Believing that you already know all the law, you seem unable to even imagine the possibility that your don’t really “know” the law, that the “law” isn’t truly fixed but is instead extremely pliable. You ought to take a look at my article “Reading is Guessing” (https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/reading-is-guessing/) to see how malleable the law can be.

      I suppose that you would also disparage my contention that the law can sometimes be whatever a litigant can imagine. I contend that a lack of imagination can be a real handicap when dealing with the law. It really restricts your possibilities.

      Lack of imagination is not my problem. I have a pretty good imagination–or, more correctly, I have a sufficiently close association with the Good LORD that He sometimes lets me “see”. I can often “connect the dots” when other people can’t even see those dots.

      I envy your extraordinary education. But I feel sorry for you if you truly lack imagination and/or a sufficiently close association with the Good LORD that He’ll sometime let you “see”.

      It irritates me that you simply disparage my work and the work of some of the others who make comments on this blog. You seem determined to defend a system that ultimately caused you to give up your law license and stop practicing law. How odd. How seemingly inexplicable.

      In A.D. 1991, the IRS came after me and I responded with a letter that no one had ever before drafted or considered possible. If you’d been there at the time, I’m sure you could’ve ridiculed my letter as “preposterous”. But the letter worked. The IRS simply stopped contacting me (until A.D. 2008). That’s the result of imagination and exercising the power of perception that the Good LORD sometimes allows me.

      In A.D. 1992, based on my reading of an A.D. 1870 federal law, I ran for Place 1 of the Texas Supreme Court. My candidacy was supposed to be illegal since I’m not a licensed attorney. But I got on the ballot and received 201,000 votes. If you’d been present, I expect that you’d have ridiculed my interpretation of the A.D. 1870 federal law and informed me that my interpretation was crazy. In fact, I didn’t come close to winning, but I’m probably the first non-attorney to get on the ballot for the Texas Supreme Court since the Civil War. That’s imagination and exercising the powers of perception God gave me.

      Back about A.D. 2000, the Dallas Bar Association threatened to prosecute me for Unauthorized Practice of Law. About that time, they also threatened a friend of mine. He fought them in court and wound up losing and being subjected to a $10,000 judgment. I sent them 11 pages of questions and they dropped their threats and left me alone. So far as I know, no one else had achieved any such success. But I had imagination (and some God-given perception) and the case against me disappeared.

      In A.D. 2002, I was arrested without warrant, and extradited without warrant from Dallas, to Jefferson County, Missouri based on allegations of two felony counts of failure to pay child support. Each count carried a potential sentence of 5 years in the slammer. I understood that child support is a fiduciary obligation. I knew the charges against me were based on fraud, so I waived extradition hearing at Dallas (I wouldn’t do that again), but I qualified my signature on the waiver to indicate that I was agreeing to go to Missouri in a non-fiduciary capacity and that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” was merely an alias for my true name “Alfred Adask”. The waiver was signed by a Dallas judge and sealed by the court clerk. When I arrived at Missouri, the prosecutors realized that they couldn’t proceed against me because they’d agreed to accept me in a non-fiduciary capacity. They held me for 344 days in a Level 5 Maximum security jail. I didn’t mind. I knew the Good LORD had put me in that jail, so I just kicked back and waited for Him to turn me loose. I never thought He’d leave me sit in that jail for 344 days. But on the 344th day, I was called to the courthouse, offered a deal to be released without bond (which I refused). I also refused to be represented by a court-appointed attorney, so the judge refused to let me in his court room. Instead the judge simply released me and allowed me to head back to Texas without even having a probably cause hearing. I stopped the prosecution for two felonies by simply knowing how to sign my name and being blessed with understanding of how to treat the name “ALFRED N ADASK” as an alias. That’s imagination and the Grace of God.

      In A.D. 2006, I was sued civilly for $9 million per year by the Texas Attorney General. He’d invested six years and nearly $500,000 on that case. I submitted a Freedom of Religion defense that no one had ever seen before, and the Texas AG, dropped the case. Again, that’s blessing from the Good LORD and perhaps some imagination.

      In A.D. 2008, the IRS came after me for a second time. I responded with about 11 pages of questions. They left me alone. Again, that’s blessing and imagination.

      What’s the point to this list? It’s to illustrate I have a surprising capacity to defend against government lawsuits. In fact, I doubt that you can point to another pro se litigant in all of the US who can match my record.

      Again, what’s the point? The point is that some of my seemingly “preposterous” notions have been recognized by the IRS, the Texas Election Department, the State Bar, the Chief Administrative Judge of Austin County (John K. Deitz, a brilliant man) and the Texas AG as being plausible and perhaps potentially powerful. And yet, you sit here–after graduating with a JD from Harvard and standing up in one case to defend some criminal, insisting that my ideas are “wrong as wrong can be”.

      The record suggests otherwise.

      Your record suggests that you may be short on imagination.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM

        @ > Instead the judge simply released me

        Being Discharged is better, in my opinion.

        I told a Circuit Court Judge in Florida, I objected to being released,I demanded to be discharged. All I can recall is he said, your objection is noted for the Record. Hopefully, so it will not be confusing,etc., I had to waddle back to jail in leg-irons although I was released or discharged. I ask the Judge on the way out If you are not going to discharge me, how can you say I am released & yet I have to waddle to where ever the destination is? Why aren’t these leg-irons released? He did not answer.

        @ > And yet, you sit here–after graduating with a JD from Harvard and standing up in one case to defend some criminal, insisting that my ideas are “wrong as wrong can be”.

        Yale grads make Harvard grads look dumb in my opinion, but naturally, Harvard grads disagree. Since we are told that the time will come when bitter shall be called sweet, etc., it looks like preposterous means, in harmony with nature, reason, or common sense; wrong as wrong can be” means right as right can be. hehe

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:09 PM

        Thanks for responding, Alfred.
        You talk a lot about imagination. I think that’s a good summary of how you approach the law: by imagining things, and proceeding as if the things you imagined are or could be real. But understanding the law isn’t about imagination—it’s about understanding statutes, precedents, and the consensus understanding of the Constitution. In other words, as I was just saying to Nat, there’s a difference between saying what you think the law could be and what you think it actually is. I don’t think you’re putting any effort into distinguishing between the two.

        Yes, your MOOA argument is both false and preposterous. I know that because I’ve read it. There are very many problems with it, and I’d be happy to explain in detail if you’d like. The simplest problem is that your argument is irrelevant to the case in which you filed it. Even if you were right, and “man or other animals” was an illegitimate definition (it’s not, and the definition of man as a kind of animal predates the United States) or a constitutional violation (it’s not, because the definition does not infringe upon any rights), it wouldn’t matter. The court could just say, “If we struck ‘or other animals’ the law wouldn’t change, the elements of the action wouldn’t change, no extra defenses would be created, and there would be no effect on this case whatsoever. Therefore motion denied.”

        There are, as I said, lots of other and more fundamental problems with the argument. The definition doesn’t make any difference to your rights: man has been thought of as part of Kingdom Animalia for centuries, with no effect whatsoever on our rights. Calling man an “animal” doesn’t affect our rights because it’s always been recognized, since before there was a United States, that humans are animals with special, human rights. Nothing in the definition takes those rights away. Nor could it. The Due Process clause requires “due process” (as the name implies) before anyone’s rights are taken away, with the amount of process proportionate to the rights removed. So even if Congress intended the law to strip people of their rights, it wouldn’t work.

        But of course, Congress didn’t intend this random definition in a food and drug law to take away all humans’ rights. That’s one of the most preposterous things I’ve seen suggested here, which is, frankly, saying a lot. I think you even agreed that you don’t believe this when we spoke on the radio, saying instead (if I recall correctly) that you see it that way but that you understand that Congress didn’t. But from the perspective of the rest of the world and the law, so what? What Alfred Adask can imagine if he puts his mind to it is not a Constitutional violation. Only what the government actually does can violate the Constitution.

        So no, there is no realistic chance that your MOOA argument swayed any court, or would ever sway any court, in the real world. I’m sure you can imagine otherwise, but imagination not the law, nor an understanding of the law.

        That doesn’t mean your motion in that case was useless. I see you made a ton of arguments, many of which are quite silly (the whole “State of Texas” versus “Texas” thing), while others are potentially quite serious and correct. You claim you never received notice of a hearing, for example, which is the sort of thing that actually makes a difference in real, non-imaginary legal proceedings. I have no idea if your allegation is true, but it’s conceivably true. Motions based on assertions like that are granted every day.

        Once again, I strongly, strongly, strongly suggest that you put a little effort into actually learning about the law. You can take a free online class from Akhil Amar, one of the preeminent Constitutional scholars of his generation (and a much more renowned teacher than I had for Con law)! You’d learn so much about the law and the Constitution. You’re obviously smart enough to follow the material, and interested in the subject matter. It won’t be a comfortable class, because it’s going to disabuse you of ideas that I think you value very highly: the notion that you understand something about law already, and the idea that you can put together a coherent legal argument. Neither is really true, not for lack of ability but merely because you haven’t bothered to learn how law really works.

        You’re relying too much on imagination, and not enough on actual real-world knowledge.

        Some point-by-point responses:

        I’ve talked to you and I can hear how assertive and articulate your are. If you’d stayed licensed, you might’ve become an exceptionally effective attorney.

        Thanks! I think I was exceptionally effective as a litigator; I have (as part of a team, not on my own) recovered millions of dollars for clients in complex financial fraud cases. I am, incidentally, still licensed. I put my licenses on hold for the time being to save money (the dues are less that way) but can reactivate them whenever I need to. We’re moving to Kansas this summer, and I may need do it then to join the Kansas bar; I haven’t looked into how that process works yet.

        But I’m beginning to think that either you’re at this blog because you have some ulterior motive to be here. Are you some sort of governmental investigator or agent–or are you just researching for your “book”?

        Nope! I’m not a government agent. That’s a little paranoid, and a little—if you’ll pardon me saying so—arrogant. The government is not going to send a secret agent to debate with you. Nor am I doing research, except passively. I’m writing the book because I really enjoy conversations like this! This is interesting for me. I think it’s ethically good, too; I don’t expect to persuade you or Russ or Nat or anyone who’s tying their false notions about the law to their sense of identity, but I do expect there are people reading who are interested to see the difference between the wild speculations of some of your commenters and the fact-based refutations of someone who’s actually practiced law and won cases. But even if there aren’t, like I said, I enjoy these conversations.

        I suppose that you would also disparage my contention that the law can sometimes be whatever a litigant can imagine.

        I don’t know if I’d “disparage” it, but I certainly think it’s false. Law is like a storm cloud: it may be hard to define the shape of it sometimes, but it’s there whether or not you believe in it. Imagining that you see a duck in it doesn’t make that cloud a duck, nor will it save you from getting hit by lightning if you decide to go golfing. (I enjoy my metaphors, like my meats, overdone.)

        I contend that a lack of imagination can be a real handicap when dealing with the law. It really restricts your possibilities.

        This is an interesting idea. I don’t think I disagree with it, but you’re missing a HUGE piece of what it means to understand the law. Imagination is great for thinking of new ways to articulate an argument, or making connections between different concepts. But then you have to see whether or not your idea works. That’s the step you’re missing. You’re taking your ignorance of whether your MOOA argument ever worked, and assuming it means that it probably did (or at least could have). That’s a big mistake, because it leads you to believe there’s substance to the argument that just isn’t there. It doesn’t have the logical connections a valid legal argument would: here is my right, here is how the government violated that right, here is the precedent and argument supporting my contentions.

        I envy your extraordinary education.

        Do something about it—sign up for one of those online law course. I keep talking about it, because seriously, it is absolutely amazing that you can take free classes from some of the country’s best law professors. Blows my mind. I’m taking a Game Theory class now, it’s great. I feel like a kid in a candy store. And it’s all free!

        It irritates me that you simply disparage my work and the work of some of the others who make comments on this blog.

        I’m honestly sorry about that. I respect you, if not your MOOA argument, and I don’t want to annoy you. I can be short and sometimes disrespectful of silly ideas, and I will endeavor to reign that in. But I can’t pretend that ideas with no merit whatsoever are actually serious statements about the law. The idea that taxes only apply to federal employees, or that people aren’t “persons” under the law, and so forth—those have been tested and proved wrong over and over and over and over and over again. People who fall into believing these pernicious lies get seriously hurt when their crimes catch up to them; it can take decades, but the risk grows every year. I think it’s ethically and morally right to call baloney baloney when it runs the risk of misleading and hurting innocent people.

        You seem determined to defend a system that ultimately caused you to give up your law license and stop practicing law. How odd. How seemingly inexplicable.

        Where’d you get this from? No one caused me to give up my licenses, I’ve still got them. I changed jobs, I didn’t get disbarred. I even pay a fee every year to Illinois and Texas to keep them, even though they’re inactive.

        In A.D. 1991, the IRS came after me…

        What I get from your IRS anecdotes is that you don’t know what happened on their end. Were they scared off by your letters? I haven’t read them, but it’s unlikely. Did you slip between the cracks of enforcement? More likely. Did they put your file at the bottom of the pile because you seemed like you’d generate a lot of annoying paperwork? Also more likely. Did they decide that you had no significant assets so you weren’t worth the trouble? Maybe, I have no idea what your financial situation is like. But based on your reaction to the MOOA stuff, I don’t think you have a good sense of the effect your writing has in such proceedings: you overestimate your clarity and you have a very hard time distinguishing between plausible and completely fanciful arguments.

        In A.D. 2002, I was arrested without warrant…

        Again, I have no idea what happened in this case. But it sounds roughly like you were held on contempt for nonpayment of child support obligations (really?) and held until someone decided that you weren’t going to or couldn’t pay, and that there wasn’t much point in keeping you since prisoners don’t generate child support money anyway. I don’t claim that’s what happened, only that I imagine that it’s possible.

        It’s completely, 115% impossible that you wowed them with your claim that “ALFRED ADASK” and “Alfred Adask” are different people. That line of argument has been tested in court, many many many many times, and has always always always failed. Not something that the government nonsuits so as to keep it from being tested—it’s been tried and rejected. Your inability to distinguish between the plausible and the impossible is your biggest problem in articulating a coherent legal theory. An effective argument would be based on precedent that supports your position, not your own imagination. Why can’t you find precedent for your alias theory? Because the alias theory always fails—all the precedent is against you. Why doesn’t that affect your opinion about whether that theory could be valid? Because your opinion is based on what you want to be true, rather than what is most likely to actually be true. That makes you an entertaining blogger and radio host, but if you want to actually understand the law you’ll need to start scrutinizing your imagination more carefully.

        Again, what’s the point? The point is that some of my seemingly “preposterous” notions have been recognized by the IRS, the Texas Election Department, the State Bar, the Chief Administrative Judge of Austin County (John K. Deitz, a brilliant man) and the Texas AG as being plausible and perhaps potentially powerful.

        Nope. That’s your imagination again. You don’t know whether your alias or MOOA arguments had any effect. You’re assuming they did. But arguments that are actually effective actually win cases. The alias theory always loses, and while the MOOA thing has never been tested in court it has no logical coherence as a legal argument. (Once again, there’s no legal right violated by defining homo sapiens as a kind of animal, as has been done since long before Darwin’s day. Your idiosyncratic reading of the provision is not the government’s fault, nor their problem.) Your assumption that these are powerful arguments may be comforting and empowering for you, but there’s a world of difference between imagining it and proving it.

         
      • Adask

        March 3, 2015 at 7:00 PM

        You imply that my references to “imagination” are mere exercises in fantasy. But what I mean by “imagination” is the ability to “connect the dots” in a way not previously seen or attempted. Every landmark decision by the Supreme Court reflects some litigant’s attempt to “connect the dots” in a brand new way.

        The “imagination” that supports such connections and landmark decisions is not always subject to conventional opinions about the law.

        You claim that you’re read the defense I submitted in the MOOA case and that my defense was unwarranted, irrelevant etc. OK–if so, why did the Texas AG drop the case? Why did the Chief Administrative Judge for Austin County take control of the case and hold it for several months? Why did Assistant AG Raul Noriga tell us that after 22 years of working for the Texas AG’s office, he’d never before seen a case where the AG agreed to not only suspend all fines (which happens from time to time), but even suspend court costs that would otherwise be imposed on defendants as part of a plea bargain. Why did Chief Administrative Judge Dietz tell us at one point that he was “going to do something [he’d] virtually never done before–invite us back to [his] chambers to see if an out-of-court settlement could be reached”? Why did AAG Noriega tell us at one point that he’d never seen a judge work so hard to implement an out-of-court settlement? Why did the FDA (which initiated this suit in A.D. 2001) allow it to be suspended if the defense we provided was as lame as you imply?

        It may well be that I am a little paranoid and even a little arrogant.

        But your extraordinary confidence that the MOOA defense I drafted (and created–with the Grace of God) was nonsensical may also be evidence of your arrogance. Your stubborn insistence that MOOA defense makes no sense is based in large measure on your apparent determination to ignore one fundamental point: that defense worked. The Chief Administrative Court Judge figuratively busted his hump to negotiate an out-of-court settlement–presumably in order to keep the case from being heard by a jury. The Texas AG agreed to simply drop the whole case without trial, settlement or imposing court costs after investing six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings. These facts are anomalies.

        I don’t know exactly why the AG et al, dropped that case. They never said. I am left to infer that they dropped that case because of the MOOA defense.

        But “something happened” down there at Austin. “Something” caused the AG to simply stop prosecuting the case. You assure me that it couldn’t have been the MOOA defense. OK–then tell me why they simply stopped prosecuting against 7 defendants? Gimme a hint. Gimme a clue.

        From my perspective, on the one hand, I have one lawyer (you) who’s no longer practicing but who’s expressly telling me that my MOOA defense was nonsensical.

        On the other hand, I have one Chief Administrative Judge (who I know to be brilliant), one Assistant Attorney General (who wasn’t all that bright, but he’d been working as an AAG for 22 years and drove a Mercedes Benz provided by the AG’s office and must had some reasonable level of expertise in these matters), the Attorney General of Texas and the FDA who are implicitly telling me by their conduct that, actually, that defense was pretty cool.

        Who do you think I’m going to believe? You or the other four professionals–especially when I know for a fact that the case was simply dropped?

        When I listen to you, I feel like a bumble bee listening to a highly-educated and articulate aeronautical engineer who, after studying my aerodynamics, insists that it’s impossible for me to fly–even though I just flew in through the window. On the one hand I have a highly-educated and articulate man arguing persuasively that I can’t possibly fly and it would be impossible for me to do so. On the other hand, it’s a fact that I’ve been occasionally “flying” for years.

        So, who do you suppose is more arrogant? The man who stubbornly believes what he’s actually seen or the man who stubbornly believes what he’s been taught?

        As for the rest of my “successes” (the IRS twice, the Dallas Bar, running for the Texas Supreme Court) it seems to me that that your fundamental premise for disputing my version of what happened in those instances is that my theories can’t possibly be correct. Your fundamental argument seems to be that it’s not possible for a non-attorney to advance original arguments, strategies or defenses and therefore, whatever I say must be “wrong as wrong can be”.

        Maybe so.

        But what if I’m right? What if my theories were right just once? What if they were right five times? Are those possibilities something that you can even imagine? Or are you determined to presume that I must be wrong, every time, no matter what?

        If I understand correctly, you are preparing to write a book about how to communicate with unreasonable people. We’re having a debate of sorts where you seem to argue, “It can’t be, it can’t be, it can’t be!” And I’m arguing “It was, it was, it was!” You have theory to support your argument and I have facts to support mine. Which of us do you suppose is the most unreasonable? You or me? The one who relies on observable facts or the one who relies purely on theories? Who is in greatest need of reading your proposed book–you or me?

         
      • Roger

        March 3, 2015 at 7:44 PM

        Adask said: “Your stubborn insistence that MOOA defense makes no sense is based in large measure on your apparent determination to ignore one fundamental point: that defense worked.”

        So the AG admitted this? I thought the AG never said why, but simply withdrew without explanation.

        If the AG hasn’t admitted that the MOOA defense “worked” (your word or his?), how did you discover that the AG’s dropping of your case was due to the MOOA defense rather than some other, perhaps unknown, factor?

         
      • Adask

        March 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM

        As I’ve explained, the AG never said why they stopped proceedings. They just did. I inferred that they stopped because of the MOOA defense. We knew that the case was initiated by the FDA. We acquired copies of the FDA Commissions that both the Assistant Attorney General had, and the representative from the Texas Department of State Health Services had. Thus, although the two individuals primarily responsible for prosecuting the case were not only employees or officers of the government of Texas, they were also fully-commissioned officers of the FDA. That seemed strange to me. It was almost as if the FDA had “servants” employed in the Texas government who could be relied on to go after certain defendants at the FDA request.

        We had good reason to believe that the FDA initiated the suit against one of the biggest manufacturers of colloidal silver in the country for the primary purpose of making an example of them, getting a huge judgment, and using that judgement to intimidate other manufacturers of colloidal silver into abandoning their business without a courtroom battle.

        If it’s true that the suit was initiated for political purposes, why did they drop it? If my defense was so lame, why not continue, get the big verdict against all seven defendants and use that big verdict to scare most other manufacturers of colloidal silver into simply shutting their doors?

        I know that: 1) I, and the six other defendants (a husband, his wife and their corporation; another man, his corporation and his trust,) were each threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million per year per defendant); 2) the suit had been ongoing for five years before I was added as the 7th defendant; 3) I advanced that MOOA defense; and 4) the Texas Attorney General simply stopped proceeding against us. The AG never sent us a letter to explain why they stopped. They never made a motion to the court to cancel the lawsuit “in the interests of justice” or some such. They simply stopped proceeding against us in A.D. 2007 but didn’t officially close the case until they “non-suited” the case in December of A.D. 2013.

        These circumstances led me to “connect the dots” and assume that the MOOA defense “worked”. They were threatening use with fines of $25,000 a day, I advanced the MOOA defense and they not only stopped threatening us, they just stopped proceeding without explanation. I assumed the MOOA defense was the cause. I could be wrong. But if I am, and if the MOOA defense is so lame, why’d they stop?

        I know that “something” caused the Texas AG to drop the case. Until I receive a message from the Texas AG to explain why the case was dropped in A.D. 2007 but not non-suited until A.D. 2013, I will presume that the MOOA defense “worked”.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 10:34 PM

        The “imagination” that supports such connections and landmark decisions is not always subject to conventional opinions about the law.

        The difference between that imagination and yours is that when it succeeds, it’s actually been tested openly—not assumed to have been tested, but actually scrutinized and seen to have succeeded. I don’t think that your MOOA argument ever has. I don’t think I’ll persuade you of that, though; I’m beginning to think that your refusal to address the logical and legal holes in your reasoning is an indication that this is a matter of faith rather than a step-by-step legal argument.

        You claim that you’re read the defense I submitted in the MOOA case and that my defense was unwarranted, irrelevant etc. OK–if so, why did the Texas AG drop the case [etc.]?

        Neither one of us knows the answer to that for sure. But not only is there an answer that is more likely than the MOOA scaring them off, there are many answers more likely than that. The AG looked at the monthly report and chewed someone out for wasting time on a pointless case. The Assistant AG wanted it off the docket ASAP to clear the way for a more urgent caseload, so he poured sugar in your ears so you wouldn’t bog the court down with more pointless paper. The judge was sick of meaningless pro se motions and asked the AG’s office to get rid of the case (which would be grossly improper, but not impossible). Someone realized they actually forgot to serve you in a timely fashion or committed some other act of negligence, so decided to scrub the case rather than deal with it. That’s all supposition, but it’s all a million times more likely than the MOOA argument succeeding.

        How do I know? Because the MOOA argument is meaningless from a legal perspective. You’re complaining over the violation of a right, but neither the right nor the violation happened. You don’t have a right not to be defined as an animal, since the definition doesn’t do anything. Even if being so defined offends your religious sensibilities, neutrally-applicable laws don’t constitute a First Amendment violation. Even if there was a potential violation, it would only happen if the government was applying the definition according to your very idiosyncratic reading: that being an “animal” means you aren’t a human made in God’s image. But the government never made any such statement. Why would it, when Christians have thought of humans as animals for hundreds of years without thinking it conflicted with their status as images of God? Since no one is actually applying the definition in a way that violates your belief, and you don’t have a right not to be so defined anyway, the core of the argument is legally meaningless.

        (This is skipping right over all the other problems with the argument, such as the fact that it’s completely meaningless to the case, and therefore the court wouldn’t have had to rule on it anyway. Even if the court was afraid of MOOA, all it would have had to say was, “This argument is irrelevant because whether humans are animals is not an element of the government’s claim, and granting Adask relief by striking the definition would have no effect on the present matter. The motion is therefore denied as moot.” That’s another good reason why we can know that MOOA didn’t have an effect on the case—even if the government was worried about it, they could have denied it quietly without disposing of the action.)

        Your stubborn insistence that MOOA defense makes no sense is based in large measure on your apparent determination to ignore one fundamental point: that defense worked.

        You have no evidence of this. You’re taking the position as a matter of faith, and on the basis of a very shaky understanding of how courts work and rule on motions. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the assumption you’re making maximizes your self-image as a warrior against courts and lawyers. But it’s false—as I’ve explained, the argument was irrelevant and badly flawed. It would never succeed in court. Disagree? Why not ask another lawyer or ten to take a look and give you their opinions? If they all disagree, I’m sure you’d say it’s just bias. But if no trained attorney takes it seriously, why would a court?

        The Chief Administrative Court Judge figuratively busted his hump to negotiate an out-of-court settlement–presumably in order to keep the case from being heard by a jury.

        Well, we can agree that this is a presumption you’re making. It’s possible, I can see maybe not wanting to go before a jury with a case against a small business—but I bet they’d thought about that before bringing the action. There are a lot of other reasons to settle a case, including staff and budgetary limitations. And once again, it doesn’t matter anyway—your MOOA argument was a legal, not factual argument. Juries hear questions of fact, not law. The MOOA stuff would never go before a jury under any circumstances.

        On the other hand, I have one Chief Administrative Judge (who I know to be brilliant), one Assistant Attorney General (who wasn’t all that bright, but he’d been working as an AAG for 22 years and drove a Mercedes Benz provided by the AG’s office and must had some reasonable level of expertise in these matters), the Attorney General of Texas and the FDA who are implicitly telling me by their conduct that, actually, that defense was pretty cool.

        Not one of them told you that. They apparently told you the government wanted out of the case—but as I’ve explained, there are a lot of other reasons why that might be the case. And maybe it was you! It’s certainly possible you were a real thorn in their side, and they were tired of dealing with you. But that’s a very different thing than assuming you’d made a meritorious argument with MOOA. It has no merit, for the reasons I’ve explained and which you haven’t addressed. If I can come up with four or five reasons in ten minutes why MOOA is a non-starter, and you can’t address any of them, why on earth would a court be afraid of it?

        When I listen to you, I feel like a bumble bee listening to a highly-educated and articulate aeronautical engineer who, after studying my aerodynamics, insists that it’s impossible for me to fly–even though I just flew in through the window.

        Perhaps you’re more like a man who falls asleep and dreams that he’s a bumblebee, then wakes up across town. He insists to his friends he must have flown, because he imagined it so clearly. They say no, you must have sleepwalked or maybe someone moved you as a prank, but people can’t fly like bumblebees. Nevertheless, he says, I woke up across town. So no one can tell me I can’t fly.

        So, who do you suppose is more arrogant? The man who stubbornly believes what he’s actually seen or the man who stubbornly believes what he’s been taught?

        I’ll never claim to be humble, unless it’s to get a laugh. But have you considered whether there’s some significance in the fact that you cling to your assumption that MOOA works, an assumption that validates years of your teaching and labor, rather than finding any reason why my explanations of its legal shortcomings are in error? Are you considering the question carefully and seriously, or just defending the assumption?

        As for the rest of my “successes” (the IRS twice, the Dallas Bar, running for the Texas Supreme Court)…

        I have no idea what your arguments were in those cases. I don’t think you know enough about legal process to justify your assumptions, but I can only speculate in response, so it’s not a profitable conversation. This is different from MOOA, because I can read your argument there, and see the enormous logical and legal flaws in it—those are sufficient to make it extraordinarily clear that it would never succeed in court, and no attorney would ever fear it as a legal argument.

        Your fundamental argument seems to be that it’s not possible for a non-attorney to advance original arguments, strategies or defenses and therefore, whatever I say must be “wrong as wrong can be”. Maybe so.

        No! I’ve seen several pro ses advance winning arguments. One in particular was a prisoner who argued for his own free speech rights. I think he was right hands-down. He lost the case for reasons I think are baloney to this day, but in my opinion he was right and he argued much more persuasively than the government. Like him, you’re smart and articulate. Unlike him, you don’t have the law on your side. That’s why you’re wrong, not because of your training.

        But what if I’m right? What if my theories were right just once?

        If that just once was the MOOA argument, then hundreds of years of First Amendment jurisprudence, as well as the doctrines of standing and justiciability, are completely wrong. I would have a hard time admitting that, I’m sure! But I don’t think that hundreds of years of precedent and basic legal doctrines are wrong.

        If I understand correctly, you are preparing to write a book about how to communicate with unreasonable people. We’re having a debate of sorts where you seem to argue, “It can’t be, it can’t be, it can’t be!” And I’m arguing “It was, it was, it was!” You have theory to support your argument and I have facts to support mine. Which of us do you suppose is the most unreasonable? You or me? The one who relies on observable facts or the one who relies purely on theories? Who is in greatest need of reading your proposed book–you or me?

        I take your points! I’ll only add that I’m not just chanting, “It must be wrong,” I’ve explained in detail why it’s wrong as a matter of law and why the court wouldn’t need to rule on it anyway, even if it weren’t.

        But one of my ideas in the book is that while conversations about irrational ideas are a good thing, arguing in circles is not. I’ve explained my position, and I think you understand it pretty well. I think I understand yours, too. Why don’t we table it for now?

         
      • Roger

        March 3, 2015 at 11:46 PM

        “But if I am, and if the MOOA defense is so lame, why’d they stop?”

        I didn’t say the MOOA defense is “lame”. But if you want to frame the question like that, it’s possible for a “lame” defense (i.e. a defense with little intrinsic merit) to simply be too much trouble to prosecute, if this defense is complex and novel enough to defy the boilerplate methods that prosecutors (and police departments) are used to. On the other hand, if the MOOA defense became common, then someone in government would look for a way to deal with it.

        So maybe the unorthodox nature of the MOOA defense caused them to move on to easier targets with better ROI (return on investment) for the prosecutor’s time and research resources. But this is just a guess. Since they didn’t say why they suddenly quit, and we have only a single, inconclusive test of MOOA to look at, I’d say we simply don’t have enough information to draw a reliable conclusion.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 4:06 AM

        @ Why did Chief Administrative Judge Dietz tell us at one point that he was “going to do something [he’d] virtually never done before–invite us back to [his] chambers to see if an out-of-court settlement could be reached”?

        There is a term for this, but I cannot think of it at the present, however it’s as tho it is moving into a “Common Law Court of Record” & out of a Statutory Court of Record. This is the best way I can explain it at present. However, many times the Judge will say to your/my adversary to come back to his/her chambers & it’s not the same thing as when the Judge tells “you” to come back to his chambers. Also, stand firm on your position. Sometimes there is an attempt to persuade you to say something to void your position. I was “invited” on my LAST court ordeal to come back into the Judges Chambers & I was in jail. It was just him & me. He DID try to get me to void my stand.It was a last ditch effort to nail me as I saw it. IF I had answered his questions the way I know he wanted me to, I would have hung myself.Anyway, I was “discharged” from my incarceration & “free to go.” AND, I have never been bothered since whereas before, it was at least a once a month ordeal.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 3:12 PM

      Colin,
      You say to Alfred, > I respect how open you are with discussions of your ideas. Because I’ve said before, and will probably repeat, that those ideas are completely preposterous.

      Colin, You are very open also. There have been Honorable Judges who think & see things just like we who you call irrational see.Did you read Dyett v. Turner where ALL justices were in agreement? Check out, The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional – Judge L.H. Perez. It is difficult to emphasize strongly enough, the importance of this memorandum written by him, at least from my irrational preposterous viewpoint. The point is, Tell me why these Judges were/are irrational. Be open about it too. My skin is thick enuff to take it. Happy Trails.

       
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 4:13 PM

        Hello Nat,

        Dyett is interesting. I hadn’t heard of it and just had a chance to skim it. Are you familiar with the difference between dicta and a holding? The case’s comments on the 14th Amendment are dicta. If someone said, “I don’t think the 14th Amendment should be considered to have been ratified,” that might be something you could say that court agreed with. “The 14th Amendment isn’t law and you can get out of paying your taxes by revoking your citizenship” is not. It’s the difference between saying what you think the law should be and what the law actually is. Even the Dyett court would agree (and does agree) that the law of the land is that the 14th amendment is considered by Congress and the courts (as well as the people) to have been ratified, and is the law.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 8, 2015 at 11:42 PM

      Colin you say, “Dyett is interesting. I hadn’t heard of it and just had a chance to skim it.”
      Maybe this is our problem. We are not sharp enough to SKIM over anything and KNOW what it means. What is a skimmer schemer?

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 3:37 AM

      Colin,
      @ The AG looked at the monthly report and chewed someone out for wasting time on a pointless case.
      Absolute proof of competency on their part. Absolutely. Yes-sir-ee Bob. The AG FINALLY seeing this as wasting time on a pointless case. How many years later was it? 5? Hmmmmm. Pointless case? Seems to me The AG should have caught that earlier then again he was probably another skimmer reader of Alfred’s Paperwork. Then again maybe the AG did not see Alfred’s paperwork until years later.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 14, 2015 at 4:40 AM

      Dear Colin, in response to Alfred Adask you ask, then say,
      @ Did they put your file at the bottom of the pile because you seemed like you’d generate a lot of annoying paperwork? Also more likely

      Colin, are you saying that the more annoying our paperwork is the more likely the case/cause, etc. against us will, or has a good chance of falling through the cracks? If so, do you know of ANY source that shows thoroughly how to prepare annoying paperwork & gives clear examples of what annoying paperwork is? Thanks.

       
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 8:49 PM

        @ Pesky Nat
        March 14, 2015 at 4:40 AM
        Pest! :-) I/We have read ALL of your messages but, I/We doubt Henry, Roger, &, Toland, have read ANY. Otherwise, you would have been said to be, The latest, Les you know who, & a TROLL.
        WE love yer werk.

         
  15. FL GIRL

    March 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM

    Colin Derek:

    Bravo!! I couldn’t have expressed my ideas better. Its all about “color of law” today, its not based on the founding principles anymore, the protection of ones, life, liberty and property; on the contrary, its about the ultimate destruction of one’s life, liberty, and property by these actors/officers claiming they have some right that we ourselves do not have….we don’t even have access to court anymore without one of their actors “representing” us and being forced to use their statues, codes, rules and regulations.

    Why do we have to be “re-presented,” why can’t we be who we are in their system? Maybe because our nature and character has been changed by them, therefore, we are now “estates” and “trusts” being sold and bought for profit without our consent, just common chattel. Could this be because the United States went bankrupted, and we were all sold into slavery without our consent, or knowledge, and since there is no money, everything is under Article 3 and 9, of the U.C.C., as instruments and securities?

    This may be the only reason MOOA debate rages on, because the other Colin insist Al’s argument is not “legal” and what’s another word for legal, “fictional” as man is flesh and blood and so is an animal. Or maybe they realized they didn’t have jurisdiction over what we put into our physical bodies….maybe that’s why we have Chem trails polluting our skies, GMO’s destroying our food supply, and all kinds of harmful chemicals being placed in our water…why isn’t the government protecting the living people???? Maybe because they can’t, we aren’t fictional and they don’t have jurisdiction????? Crazy stuff, but its all about commerce, not the people and their safety.

    A perfect example is going to be the vaccination debate coming to a town near you soon. What is the government relying upon to enforce their will (or should I say big pharma, Bill Gates and friends) on the living people to be vaccinated with undisclosed and harmful ingredients against our will???? Is population control a jurisdiction they have over? I would hope not, I don’t see it, so what is it? Could it be to increase the profits of theses corporations??? Yep, I think that’s it (private/public partnerships). But we must take a stand as people and make them prove their jurisdiction.

    We must remember this country was founded on Common Law, the unwritten law. But if we look deeper, we have Divine and Royal Law, as the Bible is the word of God, and our foundation to live by is already established within, “The 10 Commandments.”

    In the book of Samuel, man rejected their true King and wanted a king to rule over them, so God gave them what they asked for, and now we are all paying for it. I don’t believe we are to empower “ourselves” and rise above God will, but rely on the word of God, and his will, as we would be no less than those people in the book of Samuel who chose a king over them, by rejecting God. The question is, how do we bring the people back to God and this realization?

    I had a lot more I was going to say this morning, but I think you covered it for me, thanks! In summary, their reality of deception, isn’t our reality, and change must start from within.

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 8, 2015 at 11:54 PM

      FL GIRL,
      Re: your mrssage, ain’t it odd how some of us illogical, irrational, preposterous people, excuse me, ANIMALS see things exactly alike? Seems to me it’s good v. evil. It’s my understanding that our Great Great & on back Grandfathers wanted a King too, & asked George Washington to be the “new King George”, & he replied by saying, “we already have a King & our King is, Jesus Christ”.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 14, 2015 at 4:58 AM

      FL GIRL , you say to Colin Derek:
      Bravo!! I couldn’t have expressed my ideas better

      Well tell ya what. Use his Title 42 § 1983 civil Rights remedy & you will be in for an unpleasant surprise. Then again, you may be one of the lucky ones & prevail because they must let someone prevail once in a blue moon. This why the licensed attorneys say,good luck. Maybe you will get lucky

       
  16. NicksTaxFree

    March 7, 2015 at 6:26 AM

    I loved these discussions, even if we all don’t see thing in the same way.
    We all got to know each other better by hearing of some of our legal battles and of course how we view the current state of how this Country is run.
    I think Colin could benefit greatly by reading this 126 page PDF file written by retired Judge Dale.
    It is a sort of confession on his part. I don’t agree on his opinion about King James Bible history but will check into it. His insider look at the legal system is eye opening. The last part on “The Sovereign Citizen” fits in with the conversation.

    https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-great-american-adventure-sm-book-format_pdf.pdf

    INDEX
    Part 1
    A Lesson in Fraud 1
    Prologue: At the Dawn of Human History 11
    Quotes 22
    Part 2
    American History – Uncensored 26
    The Bankruptcy of America – 1933 47
    Part 3
    US Presidents 55
    Operation Mockingbird (media control) 69
    Part 4
    Religion and Law 79
    The Holy Roman Church 85
    The Ancient Roman Trusts 88
    Credit and Debt 96
    Part 5
    The Legal Process 105
    The Courts 105
    Criminal Law 107
    Citations 111
    Summons and Lawsuits 112
    Divorce 113
    Foreclosure 114
    Additional article: The Sovereign Citizen 117

     
    • NicksTaxFree

      March 8, 2015 at 6:39 AM

      https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-great-american-adventure-sm-book-format_pdf.pdf

      I haven’t read this link in awhile, and never all of it. So I thought I should if I posted it.
      The Judge brings up the Oath that is taken by BAR members on page 8, we should read what Judge Dale has to say about this subject. It should clear up any questions one might have on the truthfulness of the legal analysis we have received in this great debate. Make up your own mind.

      pg 9 book, pg 13 on pdf
      “To become a member of the American B.A.R Association,
      applicants must have obtained a Doctorate in Law or the
      equivalent thereof and passed an examination designed to test
      the depth of their indoctrination. If they pass, they are required
      to SURRENDER their American citizenship and swear allegiance to
      the QUEEN of ENGLAND and not the Constitution! This means that
      all card carrying American lawyers are foreign agents, liars, traitors and communists! ”

      pg 10 book, pg 14 on pdf
      “Some of your best friends may be lawyers,
      judges and politicians and unfortunately they are all apart of the lie
      and they all have sworn an oath to propagate the lie
      and DENY the TRUTH,
      so you may need to do some soul searching and investigation of your own”

      pg8 book, pg 12 on pdf
      “The American B.A.R. Association is actually a branch of the
      National Lawyers Guild Communist Party, which can only be
      located in the HARD COPY printing of 28 USC 3002, section 15a.
      The ON-LINE version of Title 28 USC has been ALTERED by the
      Attorney General to read something entirely different,…” Caps my own

      28 USC 3002 sec. 15(a) claim should be verified if someone has a Hard Copy available, that would add credibility to the other claims this Judge has made. My research already shows much of what he says is in fact true.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 8, 2015 at 3:20 PM

        Research finds no Federal Judge retired by the first or last name of Dale? You make a quote from him which is absoultely untrue and that is you do not have to have a Doctorate to take the bar or get a bar license? Where did that nonsense come from…and where does it say swear allegiance to the Queen of England? More nonsense.
        Go to any law library and get the hard copy of 28 U.S.C. 3002 and you will find the whole history of that Statute and nowhere has it been changed ever.
        Do you even know what 28 U.S.C. covers? The definitions found there only apply to that Statute

         
      • NicksTaxFree

        March 8, 2015 at 10:35 PM

        This link is a quick analysis of the net result of all these subversive activity in the legal profession over the years. The Elite have a saying and so do the Mossod, The” Inevitibality of Gradualism” and “By way of deception, make war”. That sums up what has been happening for long before we were all born.

        http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77555583

        We are now considered “Enemy of the State”, even Sen. Lindsey Graham said that America is now the battlefield. This time the traitor would be right.
        Judge Dale is not his real name, he said he would be afraid for his life if he was to even include a source for his information.
        I understand that lawyers that have taken this oath can’t tell the truth of it. Their lives also would be in danger. I have taken Masonic oaths, and books that reveal the oaths are telling the truth. I no longer am a Mason, but still don’t go around telling everyone about it. They can look it up.

        Just face it, the secret is getting out on the law profession now also. Just like Freemasonary.

        There are rules that are followed, even in the “de facto” government system. Us people must dig and look for the “Remedy” that is left hidden in the law to get back to were we belong “legal status” wise.

        On the last part, you say the definition only applies to that one statute. So does that mean that the “U.S. corporation” only exists in this statute? I would think, once created, it would exist.

        Alfred Adask also has analyzed this section.
        Adask, can a corporation only exist in a statute and be bound and kept inside that limit?
        Is it not free to function just as any other corporation?
        This definition is only making reference to what is already preexisting, I would think.

        https://adask.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/28-usc-3002-federal-debt-collection-definitions.pdf

         
  17. FL GIRL

    March 9, 2015 at 8:55 AM

    Below is a related blog I read on another site, in supports Al’s version of the “various” type of states and jurisdictions as defined thru the/The United States Post Office and the Federal Postal Service. The author is undisclosed, but the proof is in the pudding…maybe this is why the 3 cent stamp still works to mail, mail nationally w/o a zip, as someone else already pointed out this fact on this blog, here it is, enjoy:

    Here’s how Congress deceived the American people to submit to its FEDERAL jurisdiction. It’s mostly by the use of ZIP codes. ZIP codes designate FEDERAL AREAS in States of the Union. Areas within States of the Union DON’T have ZIP codes! They are WITHOUT the United States, and are in United States of America. What they did was to divide USA into ZONES (Zone Improvement Plan = ZIP) for the purpose of designating federal areas.

    For example, post offices are federal territories. They created ZIP codes for small areas such as a city, so that all post offices in that city would be in that ZIP code. And that ZIP code would also apply to other federal areas in that city or territory, such as military bases or federal buildings. So for example, all federal areas in city of Fresno would have one ZIP code, but that WOULD NOT include other areas in Fresno which are not federal. But if you were dumb and thought that federal regulations such as ZIP codes apply to people in your State, then you might start using ZIP codes, and so VOLUNTARILY submit yourself to federal jurisdiction that you were not subject to previously.

    Furthermore, if you were a recipient of federal benefits such as Social Security, then you’d be receiving mail from the gov’t with the ZIP code in your address, as the corporate gov’t only has jurisdiction in federal areas, which are identified by ZIP codes, AND federal STATE designations such as CA, FL, NY, TX, etc.

    And that means that if your address has a ZIP code, then it’s in a federal area, where Congress has an EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, just as if you were living in District of Columbia. And THAT makes you a SUBJECT to federal law, such as federal drug and gun laws.

    So until about 1963 when ZIP codes were created, most Americans were living in States of the Union, which were OUTSIDE of Congress’s jurisdiction (WITHOUT the United States), except if you voluntarily admitted to be a federal US citizen, by, for example getting an SSN. So until 1963, most Americans were fairly free, as only those with SSNs were federal subjects.

    And after 1963 most Americans voluntarily started using ZIP codes and thus voluntarily submitted themselves to federal jurisdiction.

    But that’s not all. The NEXT STEP in corralling the American people under gov’t control, was that the federal gov’t created FEDERAL STATES for certain areas. So if there was a State of the Union called California, Congress would create a FEDERAL state called CALIFORNIA for the same area. So California is a State of the Union, while CALIFORNIA is a State of the United States, which consists ONLY of federal areas within California. One is in the Republic, the other one is in the federal Democracy.

    And these ZIP codes also were the reason that around 1972, the US Post Office was replaced by US Postal Service. The US Post Office was a NATIONAL organizationcreated on the authority of the US Constitution, but since by 1972 most Americans were using ZIP codes and so living in federal zones, it became possible to replace the NATIONAL Post Office with a federal/private/DOMESTIC US Postal Service.

    Now, the USPS still can deliver to people OUTSIDE of the ZIP areas, in States of the Union, but by default they consider all places within territorial USA as Domestic areas with ZIP codes, so they will add the ZIP to the address, if you don’t. So if you were sending a letter to someone in a State of the Union (without a ZIP code), you’d have to mark it either NON-DOMESTIC, or INTERNATIONAL MAIL, because States of the Union are FOREIGN to federal United States.

    And the reason why they can do this, i.e. replace Constitutional organizations with PRIVATE organizations such as USPS of District of Columbia, is due to the number of their citizens. Now there are TWO KINDS of citizens in USA; State Citizens of the Republic, and federal citizens of District of Columbia AKA the United States.

    So when more than 50% of citizens in USA are federal citizens, then they can replace Constitutional organizations such as the US Post Office, with federal ones, such as the US Postal Service. So if a large number of US citizens would return back to the Republic and reached over 50% of State Citizens, they’d have to restore the Constitutional Post Office.

    Furthermore, having an address with a ZIP code is considered a prima facie evidence of your RESIDENT status in a State. What does that tell you? As we know that ZIP codes designate federal areas, then being a State resident means being a resident of a FEDERAL State, i.e. State of United States, which obviously is NOT a State of the Union. Consequently, if you have address WITHOUT a ZIP code, you’re neither in a federal area, nor in a federal STATE, such as CALIFORNIA, and so might claim being a State Citizen or Inhabitant.

    And all this is why they spell your name in ALL CAPS, as well as the STATE, and the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF…. I.e., when you see these all-caps NAMES, it means that these are all persons and entities of the FEDERAL CORPORATE Democracy, and not people and organizations of the dejure Republic.

    *******************

    BTW, if Congress was honest and not intent on subjugating the American people, they’d ONLY assign ZIP codes to Post Offices. So that ZIP code would not apply to your address but to the Post Office that delivers mail to your house. But that’s NOT the case. Most Post Offices are designated by a -9998 ZIP code extension, as you can see here:

    http://pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/dmm300/254.pdf

    I.e. a Post Office is not the place assigned the ZIP, it’s just one of many places within the ZIP area that is considered a federal region.

    Further proof of this is the fact that the IRS has adopted the ZIP code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. And as the IRS is a federal agency with no authority in States of the Union, it’s obvious that the ZIP codes designate FEDERAL areas where federal agencies have jurisdiction, without having to register with the State as a foreign corporation.

    And the official definition of ZIP codes is that “US ZIP codes are a type of postal code used within the United States to help the United States Postal Service (USPS) route mail more efficiently. ”

    And (federal) United States is NOT the same as United States of America, as you can see in 28USC1746, which says “If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.” So USA is WITHOUT the United States.

    Here’s some general info about ZIP codes:

    http://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/

    ********************

     
  18. Les Moore

    September 10, 2015 at 8:33 PM

    @ Really – you win – you are SO SMART…
    March 2, 2015 at 5:12 PM
    Can’t do what you say sir. You are right, but if we followed your advice, then there would not be any need for this blog, & we who are so smart could not be able to show people how smart we are. It’s WHO will win the P-P-ING race/contest. All of us are all out to be #1. Being # ONE is what matters. Everything else is trivial.

     
  19. thecompanyofcreators

    October 8, 2015 at 5:56 PM

    Man oh man.. even if all that were true you guys keep missing the most important over all truth. IT IS ALL OURS!!! WE own and are entitled to all that the US has, is and ever will have because it is a creation of the people “That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among man…” “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of the Ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”
    So if we can “alter or abolish it” then clearly we are the masters not the other way around. You guys are creating massive conspiracy SHIT (look up the definition) to actually cover up and distract from what is simply unlawful activities of agents of the Government which is in the form of a corporation and subject to the charter… as are all corporations and “all corporations are creations of the State (which is a creation of the people) and it is presumed (as in lawfully subject to being relied upon) to be for the benefit of the people.” (Hale v Henkel)
    If what you are saying was all true then there would not be cases won and I as many others who chose to put these ridiculous and childish distractions, away and knuckle down, study the law and properly apply it (yes they are corrupt and without knowledge and we must “BOX THEM IN” with the law) we win more often then not and when we “lose” we have made a proper record to have it over turned or to bring a deprivation of Rights suit.
    Even if all of these “theories” were true ..what good do they do? To what end do they serve? Do they help people win cases? NO… I have used some of it and it invariably got me in worse trouble.. but when I read the Statutes and the procedures manuals and the codes and applied it I have immense strength and ability to stand upon it because it is the law they are subject to!!!
    Knowing the law puts you in a tremendous powerful position because when they pull their BS you are ready for it and know how to make a proper record of their criminal acts and are undisturbed ready to make your next move. “So on the record is it your intent to deprive me of …. the right to be heard, the right to due process, the right to make my record..etc. “is it your intent to threaten and intimidate me to compel me to wave my rights secured to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States?” etc. etc… and of course “I OBJECT” “I DO NOT CONSENT” “I OBJECT” FOR THE RECORD I OBJECT” and then filing followup docs to make your record and then get certified copies of those records so that you can use them in your appeal or Federal case.
    Yes it is a den of thieves etc but making excuses and bending over backwards to find legal theories as to how or why they are doing it is counter productive!!!
    You have a Right to “have and to bear arms” So, “arm” yourself with the law all of it, and learn how to use it properly. All too many times I have and watched and even helped others argue shit that need not be argued yet and thus put one into a more perilous position. Step one, state you “have no knowledge of whatever it is that they are asserting”, do so under oath and now the record has an affidavit which must be rebutted with another affidavit and sufficient evidence to show other wise.
    if you want to argue then move the court to require evidence of capacity and standing before you even get to the merits of that allegations!!!
    And recently I was reading a case that I will be using (BARCROFT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FANNIN, State of Texas, et al., Appellees. No. 6-03-00021-CV.– October 27, 2003) ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1110015.html )
    Read it many times and see if you see what I see the court i saying….. so are you the right party in the first place? So many times I have seen this concept attempted by so many unsuccessfully but here it is One need not make any claims but rather require them to show you are the “proper party” or the “liable party” or an “agent of the entity being sued”
    Without my knowledge I see now that this is exactly what i did in the last two cases for myself and two more for others which got them dismissed with only a one page to two page document. Just because I simply followed the precepts of law and “due process”. I Have a whole new understanding of “Due Process” it is not just the long drawn out process and procedures, appeals, etc etc…. but “Due” process… which means duly doing each and every step along the way…. They invariably skip steps and because the people do not know the proper steps (like in baking you need to check and see if you have all the ingredients like flour, rise/baking powder, eggs, milk etc in order to bake that cake) the same is true in law. You and they must have all the “elements” to convince the court that they have a case/cake. BUT WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES AND THE ELEMENTS NEEDED THEN they will simply assume they exist and move along. Remember this game is like any game with a referee except that this referee will only respond when you challenge or make notice the court of the facts of various breaches, missing elements and presumptions not evidenced. You must do it from the get go to preserve it for the future. And if you do not know… well it is just “business as usual” stealing from the idiots, isn’t it???
    Nuff said? I would be interested in some others take on what I see so glaringly available in that case…. and a hint… it confirms one of the long trodden but unsuccessful “conspiracy theories” IMHO. What do you see?

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s