1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Discussion in 'Beginner's Forum' started by Goldhedge, Jun 15, 2010.



  1. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    10,244
    Likes Received:
    15,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    WOWWWW, that was a lot to read & comprehend. If it can all be comprehended.
    I have, since my mid 20's, felt that something was wrong & wondered who was in control.

    BUT, then I hear the following:

    "I'm from the government, I'm here to help" WTF !!! :thumpdown:
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  2. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It can be comprehended.

    This is a great thread, but I find a lot of distracting chaff in with the wheat. I don't give a lot of credence to the "birth certificate" argument. How can you be held to a contract that you are not a party to?

    You ARE party to the citizenship of your state, first because it is well established in law and history, and secondly because 'denizenship' is not accepted under any practical system of law. (We are of course discussing citizenship in the compact American states not elsewhere, if such citizenship even exists.)

    This is the system that existed in 1798, and it exists today for those who know how to claim it. It is inalienable.

    You can however contract your citizenship away and become instead a citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that is what most have done, legally, voluntarily, and publicly. This is how the 14th Amendment social contract kicks in.

    TRYNEIN gets it spot-on in his post #36 to this thread. With that information, you can read this thread again, separate the wheat from the chaff, and clearly understand what is happening.
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  3. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    10,244
    Likes Received:
    15,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    By an "in-justice system" that is corrupt & hell bent on shoving their desires up one end & down the other - at the same time !!!
    I will go read #36.
    Thank you
     
  4. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    10,244
    Likes Received:
    15,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    I did a c & p into word to make comments, it didn't come out as I wanted it to.
    I will put my comments in bold.



    These court decisions seem to give validity that your "Strawman" is real...

    We are born as Sovereign and the government is the servant.
    How many times have you heard that government officials are "Public Servants"?? Constantly !So how is it that the government is our master??? By their decree !

    "One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master". One would certainly think that !

    The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. Yes, as in citizens of an independent Nation State i.e., Oregon, Arizona ..... The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. I am not a creature of the government, I was created by my parents. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.
    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)


    “The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
    [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]


    In the United States (the country), there are, in fact TWO “social contracts” or “social compacts”, and each protects a different subset of the overall population.

    “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
    [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

    You can only be a party to ONE of these two social contracts/compacts at a time, because you can only have a domicile in ONE jurisdiction at a time.
    These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:

    1.The states of the Union under the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. In this capacity, it is called the “federal/general government”.
    This is where I want to be, but am I “allowed” ?

    2.The U.S. government, the District of Columbia, U.S. possessions and territories, and enclaves within the states. In this capacity, it is called the “national government”. The authority for this jurisdiction derives from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. All laws passed essentially amount to municipal laws for federal property, and in that capacity, Congress is not restrained by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We call the collection of all federal territories, possessions, and enclaves within the states “the federal zone” throughout this document.

    The “separation of powers doctrine” is what created these two separate and distinct social compacts and jurisdictions. Each has its own courts, unique types of “citizens”, and laws. But, the Fed’s have usurped their false authority in our lives. A big part of the problem is the "legalese". Even having The American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828 and Black's Law, mine is the 4th Ed., it's a royal pain in the @ss, to constantly look up the "legal" meaning of a word.

    Am I seeing this correctly ?
    And, in all reality, what can we really do about it ?
     
  5. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your opponents are very, very good at manipulating the justice system to their own advantage, but as long as we have some sort of system, it HAS to appear to be fair and follow the law. It is your task to set up the court so that it follows the law. You can't expect it to do so on its own.
     
  6. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,724
    Likes Received:
    3,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Quoted for truth. Their interests are to fleece us for their profit, all the while maintaining they are there to supply justice for us.

    Truly bizarre, isn't it...
     
  7. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,917
    Likes Received:
    31,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Most all of us were 'educated' in the public fool system.


    Not one wit of this information was ever brought up. Even less of it today!


    I think even if you became a lawyer, you would not have a clue about it.


    The system is designed that way, to obfuscate the real truth.


    I think the birth certificate is the key.

    You ask 'how can I be party to a contract I never signed'?


    Your Silence is your consent!


    An honorable man would correct the error once it was discovered.


    How many have 'corrected' the error?
    (Not that you are without honor! But the road is rough and rocky!)

    We need the road map, the path to follow to correct the error.


    Remember, even your parents had no clue! That is by design! Everyone believes the lie is true.

    Try explaining this thread to a friend and they'll think you've gone bonkers!


    The reason is civilization. Take the tour: http://www.pacalliance.us/tour/


    and by all means, take the red pill: http://www.deprogram.us/enter/
     
  8. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right


    See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

    Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

    Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
    See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936).
    The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  9. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,917
    Likes Received:
    31,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Published on Feb 22, 2014

    The certificate of birth is a class of person, entirely statutory in nature, it is a rank.

    Governed entirely by the jurisdiction of its creation, being statues.

    You now have the ability to join the great game and all the fun associated with it, "society".

    The legal person, persona, or legal identity which you have the right or the option of you being recognized under when playing their game of commerce. But it is not the only game in town but it is a game they created and seems to be the dominate one at the moment.

    It is no different as a certificate in a particular trade in which you are deemed competent in.
    If you are certified, you are deemed competent.

    If you are working, and you screw up, i.e. you have a certificate in welding that deems you competent for passing all these requirements and you're absolutely qualified for what you're doing. Fantastic, you get a job. Therefore, if you're working and you screw up, you do a weld or you wire something, or you put in a track, breather or stack in that is contrary to the code to the people that are being governed by that particular Certificate. Which means you didn't live up to your job. You did something against what you're deemed competent in. The code you have to follow are no different to building codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, welding codes, they are all codes. CRIMINAL CODES ACT, they are all codes applicable to particular persons who are deemed competent in that field.

    Just because you may get a win in statutory court, doesn't really mean you really win, they just handed it to you because you made their scam so blatantly obvious purely to keep you in their system and maintain the illusion, and if there is a loophole, they just change their rules instantly to correct that.

    Please visit http://deanclifford.info and join the forums to access the full 2 day seminar and much more.


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2015
  10. snoop4truth

    snoop4truth New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, by snoop4truth

    If you would actually like the know THE LAW ITSELF about amateur legal theories (rather than what some amateur legal theorist TELLS YOU that the law is), then THE LAW BELOW IS FOR YOU.

    EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT HAS EVER RULED ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAS RULED AGAINST THEM. AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAVE A 100% FAILURE RATE IN THE COURTS. THEY ARE FAKE.

    THE LAW BELOW reflects just a few of the rulings on the following amateur legal theories: “split personality” theory, “strawman” theory, “flesh and blood person” theory, “capital letters” theory, “governments are corporations” theory, “jurisdiction” theory, “no contract” theory, “birth certificate” theory, “social security number” theory, “commercial law” theory”, “ UCC filing statements” theory, “UCC financing statement” theory, use of US citizens as “collateral for national debt” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory,”redemption” theory, “imaginary trust accounts” at the Federal Reserve or at the US Treasury theory and related theories. The list below is a work in progress.

    Note: We are well aware that the form of citation that we use below is not the form of citation that lawyers use. But, we are not trying to help lawyers find the law online. Instead, we are trying to help ordinary people find the law online. Ordinary people have access to Google Scholar, a FREE case law database. We chose to cite the case law below in such a way that would help ordinary people find the cases on Google Scholar. So, ulless otherwise indicated, the cites below are to Google Scholar, not to reporters (books) published by West Publishing Company. So, go to Google Scholar, click on “case law” in both the “state” and “federal” systems. Then, key in the case number (in quotes), and/or the dates (in quotes, but without the parentheses below) and/or key in the party names. Google Scholar is FREE and easy to use.

    “STRAWMAN, SPLIT PERSONALITY, CAPITAL LETTERS, REDEMPTION” THEORIES

    1. Ferguson El v. State, Civil Action No. 3:10CV577, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division (August 18, 2011)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist theory”, “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, “gold standard” theory and explaining that redemptionists believe that the government “pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country’s national debt” and explaining that “redemptionists claim that the government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person”, discussing “flesh and blood persons” theory, “birth certificates” theory, “capital letters” theory and summarizing as follows: “In short, ...[the defendant] seeks to avoid the consequences of his criminal conviction by suggesting HE EXISTS AS TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “legally frivolous” and have “absolutely no legal basis”).

    2. McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F.Supp.2d 201, No. 3:09CV1762(MRK), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (June 11, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist theory”, the “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, the “strawman” theory,”flesh and blood person” theory, ”birth certificate” theory, “social security numbers” theory, “capital letters” theory, use of the“strawman”of every citizen as “collateral for the country’s national debt” theory, ”UCC filing statements” theory, “UCC financing statements” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “imaginary account number to some sort of direct treasury account” theory and summarizing as follows: “redemptionists believe the flesh and blood person can draw against the funds earned by the strawman” and dismissing the case).

    3. Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-760 (MAD/DEP), United States District Court, ND New York, (July 23, 2014)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: the “SPLIT PERSONALITY” theory, “strawman” theory, “redemption” theory, “capital letters” theory and holding that those amateur legal theories “have not only been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources” and holding that these amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law”, are “legally frivolous”, are “utterly frivolous” and “patently ludicrous”).

    4. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr00008, United States District Court, WD Virginia Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “commercial law” theory, “sovereignty” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and “natural living person” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no support in law”, “have been soundly rejected”, are “erroneous as a matter of law”, “have been struck down consistently by the courts”, are “completely without merit”, are “patently frivolous”, “will be rejected”, are “simply wrong”, are “contrary to established law” and holding that “the use of capital letters in the caption of the indictment is irrelevant to the issue of ... jurisdiction” and “rejecting the argument that use of capital letters in [the] indictment refers to a corporation [and] not [to a] a living person” ).

    5. United States v. Hoodenpyle, Criminal Action No. 09-cr-00013-MSK, United States District Court, D. Colorado (June 30, 2009)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters”, “jurisdiction” and holding that these amateur legal theories have “been repeatedly rejected by EVERY court to consider” them and describing these amateur legal theories as “wholly frivolous”) (emphasis ours).

    6. Defluiter v. Land, No. 1:10-cv-421, United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (June 15, 2010)(ruling against the “capital letters” amateur legal theory and describing it as “quasi-legalese” and holding that it is “meritless and frivolous”, that it “lacks merit”, is “wholly baseless”, and that it “lacks an arguable basis in law and in fact”).

    7. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, Nos. 09-1190, 09-1224, 09-1225, 091226, 09-1227, 09-1251, United States Court Of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (Argued March 28, 2011, Decided August 18, 2011)(ruling against the defendant’s characterization of himself as a “secured party creditor...third-party intervenor” and as a “born sovereign flesh and blood human being and a secured party creditor” and discussing “individual sovereignty” theory, “immunity from prosecution” theory and “capital letters” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have been “repeatedly rejected” and rejecting “the ‘shop worn’ argument that a defendant is sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction” of the courts and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law” and that they “should be dismissed”).

    8. United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, No. CRIM AMD 04-0029, United States District Court, D. Maryland (December 19, 2005)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “flesh and blood man with a soul” theory and “no jurisdiction” theory and holding the defendant’s amateur legal theories are “patently without merit” and stating that these amateur legal theories “would be humorous-were the stakes not so high” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “irrelevant” and “have been summarily rejected” by other courts).

    9. United States v. Rodney Class, Crim. Action No. 13-253 (GK), United States District Court, District Of Columbia (April 16, 2014)(ruling against Class’ amateur legal theories about: “capital letters” theory, “fictional entity” theory, “registered trade name” theory, “Uniform Commercial Code” theory, his false claims that he is “private attorney general” [which actually means a “public-interest plaintiff” nd which temporary status ends at the end of the case], his false his claims that statutes “apply only to business entities, government instrumentalities and other corporate’ persons’, but not to natural persons such as himself” [citing, as “support”, the “United States Tax Code”, the “Texas Administrative Code” and the “Delaware Administrative Code”], his false claims that the following laws are “defenses” to the criminal charges against him: the “Smith Act”, the “Administrative Procedure Act”, the “Hobbs Act”, the “Taft-Hartley Act”, the “Federal Reserve Act”, the “oath of office of public employees”, sections of the “Code of Federal Regulations”, the “National Industrial Recovery Act”, the “Emergency Relief Appropriations Act”, the “Clearfield Trust Doctrine” [which Class also cites in the “Judge DALE” forgeries while pretending to be “Judge DALE”], the irrelevant definition of “handgun” contained in the irrelevant “National Firearms Act” [which Class was NOT charged with violating here], “Executive Order 6174 on Public Works Administration”, the “Classification Act of 1923", and describing Class’ filings as “utterly incomprehensible” and holding that they “purport to cite legal principles that either do not exist or are provisions of civil law [that are] wholly inapplicable to this criminal case”, and holding that Class’ purported defenses “are irrelevant”, “inapplicable”, “totally unrelated”, “entirely inapplicable”, have “no apparent relevance”, “unsupported and irrelevant”).

    10. Gibbs v. Hickey, Civil Action No. CV209-082, United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division (may 13, 2010)(ruling against “capital letters” theory and a “Coram Nobis” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “nonsense” and “completely without merit”).

    11. United States v. Beavers, No. 3-12-CR-49, United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville (December 13, 2012)(ruling against the defendants’ claims that they are a “flesh and blood sentient man and woman and not a corporation or corporate entity” and ruling against their theories on “capital letters” and holding that other courts have “rejected this argument as frivolous” describing such amateur legal theories as “completely frivolous” and “without any legal support”).

    12. United States v. Singleton, No. 03 CR 175, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (May 6, 2004)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: ”flesh and blood man” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory ,“capital letters” theory,“corporate entity” theory and ruling against “accounts for U.S. citizens” at the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury and holding that such amateur legal theories are simply “bizarre”, “make...no sense”, and should be “rejected”).

    13. United States v. Majhor, Civil No. 10-544-MO, United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division (September 1, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “fictitious entity”, “capital letters” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “routinely rejected”, “patently frivolous” and are hereby “stricken”).

    “RIGHT TO TRAVEL” INTERSTATE & “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”

    14. Thompson v. Scutt, Case No. 1:11-cv-573, United States Distrisct Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (July 13, 2011)(ruling against the Petitioner’s amateur legal theories to the effect that he is a “sovereign”, a “citizen/member of the Michigan Republic”, that under the UCC he has “‘superior title and claim over the judgment against him”, that “the court’s use of his name in capital letters...refers to a separate or fictitious entity, and is enforceable only against that entity”, that “the Michigan statutes under which ... [he] was convicted do not apply to...[him] because he is ‘sovereign’ and not a ‘person’ within the meaning of those statutes” and that the “Michigan laws supporting...[his] conviction [for DUI and DWLS] violate his constitutional right to travel” and that “the state lacked jurisdiction because...[he] has a right to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the federal removal statute” and that he “ is being wrongfully imprisoned on behalf of another entity called ‘CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON’”, that his “conviction [for DUI and DWLS] was the result of fraud and misconduct on the part of the state court, the prosecution and defense counsel”, that “Michigan and the United States are corporations”, that “Michigan and the United States cannot concern [themselves] with anything other than corporate, artificial entities and intangible abstractions”, “that [under the UCC] he is the holder of the judgment against himself”, and his claims that “Michigan violated his constitutional right to travel by enforcing laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated or driving on a suspended license” to which theories, the court responded and held as follows: the “right to travel is essentially the right of citizens to migrate freely between states”, holding that “the right to travel interstate does not go so far as to encompass a right to a driver license or a right to drive a motor vehicle”, holding that “federal courts uniformly reject suits by plaintiffs who seek vindication on their nonexistent ‘right’ to operate motor vehicles without complying with state licensing laws”, holding that “removal” laws only apply in civil actions, not to criminal actions like this one, holding that the “[p]etitioner is not a foreign state” entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, holding that the Petitioner’s claims that “Michigan and the federal government are corporations” is a claim that is “devoid of legal support and contrary to common sense”, holding that the UCC only applies to commercial transactions and is “not a source of rights in a criminal action” such as this one and holding that the Petitioner’s other amateur legal theories on sovereignty, capital letters, and split personalities are “patently frivolous” and “without merit”).

    “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”

    15. Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354, No. 04-5082, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, (Argued March 14, 2005. Decided May 27, 2005)(ruling against the Appellant’s amateur legal theories that “Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government”, that the federal government is a “corporation”, that “the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia and other federally owned lands” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “without merit”, “patently frivolous” and “likewise frivolous”).

    “YELLOW [OR GOLD] FRINGE ON FLAG” THEORY

    16. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647, No. 96-5038-CV-SW-1, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division (January 15, 1997)(ruling agianst the plaintiff’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the American flag in the court room converted the American flag from an “American flag of peace” into to a “maritime flag of war” and his amateur legal theory that the use of the “maritime flag of war” in the courtroom deprived the state court of jurisdiction over him, to which claims the court responded by holding that such claims were “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and “unintelligible” and holding that “yellow fringe does not necessarily turn every such flag into a flag of war....[because] fringe is not considered to be part of the flag, and ... [fringe] is without heraldic [symbolic] significance...[and that] the same is true of a...[statue] of an eagle gracing the [top of the] flagpole. Nor are the fringe and the eagle of any legal significance. Even were... [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction....Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring] and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displayed a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction...because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed] argument that a fringed flag in a state courtroom conferred admiralty jurisdiction [which, under the U.S. Constitution, can only be litigated in federal court, not state courts]” and noting that other courts have “dismiss[ed] as frivolous a motion alleging that ‘[a]dmiralty jurisdiction prevail[ed]’ in the state court, and rejecting [the] notion that federal district courts have jurisdiction over natural law when they fly a flag of the United States”).


    17. Sadlier v. Wallentive, 974 F.Supp. 1411, No. 2:97-CV-0527J, United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division (August 26, 1997)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories that his “civil rights were violated because he was sentenced in a courtroom that displayed an American Flag adorned with yellow fringe...that divested the court of its power and converted the court into a ‘foreign state/power’ court” to which the court responded by holding that the plaintiff’s “yellow fringe” theory is “wholly without merit”, holding that “fringe is not considered to be part of the flag, and is without heraldic [symbolic] significance”, holding that “[e]ven were [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction”, holding that “[j]urisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute, and [written] constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring]” and noting that other courts have held that “yellow fringe” theory is an “absurdity...and ... that future claims based on flag theories will be deemed ‘frivolous and sanctionable’ [punishible]”, and noting that other courts have held that “the invocation of ‘flag’ jurisdiction is ‘absurd’”, and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displays a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction ...because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a fringed flag is a state courtroom conferred on the court admiralty jurisdiction”).

    18. State v. Hall, 8 SW3d 593 (Tenn. 1999)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom indicated “martial law jurisdiction” to which the court responded by writing, “the use of fringe on the flag has no inherent or established symbolism. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court or with martial law. It is a purely decorative addition to enhance the appearance of the flag” and citing a case that held “fringe on the [flag] was not of any legal significance affecting the jurisdiction of the court and ...[which held] that all future claims based on this argument [would be deemed] ‘frivolous and sanctionable’[punishible]” and citing a case that held “yellow fringe on [the] flag does not convert [a] state courtroom into a ‘foreign state or power’” and citing a case which held that a “fringed flag did not limit the federal district court’s jurisdiction” and citing a case which held that a “yellow fringed flag did not divest [the] federal court of jurisdiction...” and citing a case that held that “[t]o think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits the court’s jurisdiction is frivolous” and citing a case which held that “the fringe on the flag in the courtroom is not of any legal significance affecting the jurisdiction of the court and all future claims based on this argument ...[will be deemed] frivolous and sanctionable [punishable]” and citing case which held that “yellow fringe on flag does not convert [the] state courtroom into a ‘foreign state or power’” and citing a case which that held that “a declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags is not the same thing as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag or that the presence of the fringe alters the law applied by the court in which a fringed flag appears”).


    19. DuBose v. Kasich, , Case No. 2:11-CV-00071, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division (January 15, 2013)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories about: “the alleged corporate status of Ohio and the United States”, “the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and admiralty jurisdiction”, the “effect of capital letters on his name” and his claims that he “does not have a contract with the state of Ohio or [with] the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws” and holding “federal courts have routinely recognized that such theories are meritless and worthy of little discussion” and citing a case that held “other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been consistently rejected” and citing another case that “reject[ed] as frivolous ...the argument that he was a ‘private natural man and real person’ and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States” and citing a case that “reject[ed] sovereign citizen argument as frivolous and undeserving of ‘extended argument’” and citing a case that held that a plaintiff’s ‘yellow fringe flag’ arguments were ‘indisputably meritless’‘).

    20. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr0008, United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the American flag converts the court into an admiralty court, and holding that “[t]his argument has been uniformly rejected by courts’ and is “frivolous” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the ] argument that the American flag in the courtroom had been replaced with an admiralty flag, noting similar arguments had been raised and dismissed in previous cases” and noting that other courts have held that “[t]he yellow fringe on the American flag has no effect on a court’s jurisdiction or a defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights” and noting that other courts have held that “[f]ederal jurisdiction is determined by [written] statute, not by whether the flag flow is plain or fringed”).

    21. United States v. Mackovich, 209 F.3d 1227, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (April 25, 2009)(discussing the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom “makes the [court’s] jurisdiction foreign” and noting that other courts have rejected this argument and providing a list of cases to this effect).

    22. Delaware v. Saunders, Cr. ID No. 1008019055, Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County (Submitted July 15, 2011. Decided August 12, 2011) (ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “the yellow fringe on the flag in the courtroom was improper and that as a result the court lacked authority to adjudicate [his] charges...[and] that the yellow fringe on the flag made it a military flag rendering his court proceeding invalid” and holding that the defendant’s claims were “without merit” and writing that the “Defendant is not the first to complain about the flag in the courtroom. Around the country, courts have dealt with disgruntled litigants who have argued that their respective proceedings were illegal or unconstitutional because the court displayed a flag with yellow or gold fringe in the courtroom. [The d]efendant is not the first litigant to argue that the fringe on the flag indicates a military court” and holding that “ALL the courts addressing arguments that yellow or gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects a court’s jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments. These cases have gone as far as to label such arguments as “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and indisputably meritless” and holding that “yellow fringe on the flag does not turn EVERY such flag into a flag of war. Far from it. ..[f]ringe is not considered to be part of the flag, and it is without legal significance. Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman. The flag displayed in the courtroom did not affect the validity or legality of [the] defendant’s plea and/or sentence”).

    23. Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A2d 1253, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Sumitted January 3, 2005. Filed February 15, 2005)(ruling against the Appellant’s amateur legal theory that “the courtroom’s flag gold-fringed United States flag (which appellate asserts represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law)” confused him as to which law applied to his case, to which claim the court responded by holding “[The a]ppellant’s claims are meritless. NO STATUTE of Pennsylvania, [NO] PROVISION of the United States Code, OR RELEVANT CASE LAW support [the] appellant’s BIZARRE contention that a gold-fringed United States flag represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law” and citing a case that held “the War Department ...knows of NO LAW which either requires or prohibits the placing of a fringe on the flag of the United States. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER has been found bearing on the question....The federal court also noted that while “the President may...determine whether the Army or Navy display or remove fringes from their flags or standards...THE LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, HIMSELF A MILITARY MAN, DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE”).

    24. Ebert v. State of Texas, Nos. 03-06-00752-CR, Court of Appeals Texas, Third District Austin, (Filed July 27, 2007)(ruling against the Ebert’s amateur legal theory that the fringe on the flag in the courtroom “indicated to him that the court was a military court, an admiralty court, a foreign jurisdiction, and an unlawfully erected state within a state” to which the court responded by holding “[w]e find no legal or factual basis for these allegations. Ebert cites an executive order from President Eisenhower and asserts that the order states that a military flag of the United States has fringe on it....[But t]he executive order DOES NOT MENTION FRINGE ON FLAGS....When asked for an opinion regarding the propriety of the use of fringe on flags used by the military, the United States Attorney General in 1925 opined that...The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag and noting that “[a] declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags is NOT the same thing as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag or that the presence of fringe alters the law applied by a court in which the flag appears” and noting that the court in which the flag was displayed DID NOT USE MILITARY OR MARITIME LAWS OR RULES OF PROCEDURE in deciding the case anyway).

    25. In Re: Becker, Bankruptcy No. 09-01541, Adversary No. 10-9021, United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa (December 10, 2010)(ruling against the debtor’s amateur legal theory that the proceeding against him was invalid because “the American and Iowa flags were improperly adorned with gold fringe and that a courtroom that displays such flags lacks authority to adjudicate [his] case”, to which the court responded by noting that “[c]ourts addressing arguments that gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects the jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments [providing a list of such cases] and noting that “[t]hese case have gone as far as to label such arguments “frivolous”. “preposterous” and “really unintelligible” and holding that “the flags displayed [in the courtroom] did not affect the validity or legality of this proceeding”).

    26. United States v. Blackburn, Case No. 09-20133, United States District Court, D. Kansas, (December 15, 2010)(same as above).

    27. Salman v. State of Nevada Comm’ On Judicial Discipline, 104 F. Supp.2d 1262, No.; CV-N-99-0659-JLQRAM, United States District Court, D. Nevada, (July 5, 2000)(same as above).

    28 Kitchens v. Becraft, Civil Action No. 6:11cv198, United States District Court, Tyler Division, July 18, 2011(same as above).

    29. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 652 A.2d 341, Pennsylvania Superior Court (argued September 13, 1994. Filed December 22, 1994)(same as above).

    30. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, No. 2:95-CV-119-J, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division (January 18, 1996)(same as above).

    I have dozens and dozens of more case cites for rulings against amateur legal theories, but you get the general idea. The foregoing cases ARE THE LAW ITSELF, not amateur legal theories about what the law is (or should be). Every single person who has every relied on amateur legal theory in court HAS LOST. In court, your opponents use REAL law against you. In order to win in court, you must use REAL law against your opponents. FAKE law (like the amateur legal theories above) do not have any effect on REAL law. This is why Rodney DALE Class has LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (39 CONSECUTIVE, COMPLETE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). Suggestion: Only take legal advice from a person who has actually won at least ONE CASE.
     
  11. GOLD DUCK

    GOLD DUCK Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    6,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    QWAK,I would just simplify all the (legal wording) ---- They make the laws and can change or reinterpit them as needed so that THEY never lose and any chalage is put down.

    A lot like shea law --- what ever the mulla says is --- that's the way it IS.:36_1_25::thumb.aspx::bawling:

    Only GOD makes LAWS --- men make rules say they are laws and change them when they decide they are losing!:thumb.aspx::s13:

    the DUCK :s11:
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2015
  12. chris_is_here

    chris_is_here Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,159
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Communist Amerika
    Looking at this empirically, what point would all of this make if no court or jurisdiction publically validated any of this?

    If the government or some of their operatives wanted to lay claim to me as an asset, they would have to first recognize the underlying principle. If they deny the claims of sovereign individuals, then they also refute the entire principle involved - you can't have it both ways.

    I've seen people on youtube looking up their birth certificate # on the mutual fund screen on etrade and showing the nominal value associated with same. What they didn't mention (or realize) is that you could type in any fictional number and origin date and it will come back with a hit.

    Lastly, what would the point of any of this? Assigning some notional value to a person's birthright would be child's play. What meaning or use would any of this have? Some shadowy banker somewhere is going to grab hold of my birthright and do what? Put in a claim with the IRS for $1 million? Good luck with that. Would the gibsmuhdats be assigned negative values, since they are all on the dole?
     
    REO 54 and Goldhedge like this.
  13. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    If there is actual proof that government entities are corporate/legal persons/artificial persons for private gain/profit - would you truly want that evidence? If there was bonafied proof thereof would it mean that all those rulings are providing folks like you with what you prefer to hear? It seems like 99% of the population does not want to see what is real, like a child to inmature to accept that santa is not real. No shame in being fooled at first as we all are but what will you do when undeniable proof is in your face?
     
  14. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're better off listening to George Gordon's "redemption and the strawman" series for free on his audio archives.
    Truth comes down to a sincere belief in either God or government.
    Both have penalties for disobeying.
     
  15. REO 54

    REO 54 Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    4,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Welcome to the fun IMTseeker .....

    Red pill or blue?
     
    michael59 likes this.
  16. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks for the welcome, I gladly took a hole bottle of the red pill 10 years ago.
     
    Goldhedge, REO 54 and michael59 like this.
  17. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Fast forward to 4:30




    Let me know if what you hear is not enough.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2015
  18. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CrimsonGuardJay likes this.
  19. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, plus if you go to Dun & Bradstreet or manta one can get all the corp bizness credit info, credit # plus more on all corporate gov pretenders. There are 2 corporate United States I found one is privately owned the other is publicly owned (could be more variations) and it tells you the executive is Obama with the public one. There is also a list of federal tax ID #'s for most agencies to be had. Seek and ye shall find.
     
  20. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep been there, I remember the WH said see also BHO.
    Yet people worship corporations, even give their kids to them.
    Fight and die for a corporate state.
    Insanity.
     
  21. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,917
    Likes Received:
    31,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Got any links for those who are "investagatorically" challenged??
     
  22. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is how Obama became president in the first place. Theres no law against a foreigner being the CEO of a corporation based in the united states of america.

    Understand there is a difference between-

    united States of america

    The United States

    and THE UNITED STATES*PERIOD* (no america)

    the president of the united States of america (last person to hold the title I believe was Lincoln)

    and The President of the United States

    Of course, theres also a massive difference between

    constitution of the united States of america

    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (actually a corporate constitution)

    ----If you actually do some simple reading on how horribly everyone who lives on the land (and sea, and air) have been deceived, and so easily just by capitalizing titles and such, youd be sick to your stomachs.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  23. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,917
    Likes Received:
    31,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    The constitution FOR the united States of america (not 'of')

    http://www.usavsus.info
     
  24. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, and by the way, when you see someones name written in all capital letters: ala:

    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS --- you are dealing with one of two things: a dead man's estate, or a CORPORATION.

    Hopefully at least half of us know that.


    If anyone here checks their "Birth Certificate" (yes, a vast difference from "certificate of live birth") They'll see their name printed in a manner I showed above.
     
  25. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Google Dunn and Bradstreet or mantra.org.
    Then look up most any. Gov entity and woola.
    If ya feel like paying they include credit ratings I believe although it has been a few years.
    No link as it's a pita on this phone.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  26. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I agree with the all caps name part but the Birth Certificate is not ours nor is it us, it's theirs. All we have is evidence of the original that the state holds. I contacted the corporate county which of course is the dobble ganger for the county land mass we actually live on & asked them what is the meaning of the birth certificate via email. I was sent a publication which basically states that the BC is based on an EVENT but it was darkly shaded as if they didn't really want us to see or pay attention to the true facts lol. So, what we have is once a new player comes into the commercial game (physical baby) the mother becomes a witness to the event & reports to the state. The state then creates a dopple gangers/avatars/legal entity/legal person/fiction/franchises or however you like in order to interface the commercial realm/world/game. One might consider looking at this from a higher perspective once you receive more info from which to work from. I found the following goody by chance I guess.


    you can find this online if you want to go through the whole thing but I copied the goody below
    FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
    467 U.S. 512 (104 S.Ct. 2549, 81 L.Ed.2d 446)
    FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
    No. 83-372.
    Argued: April 17, 1984.
    Decided: June 11, 1984.
    II
    The Board does not dispute the proposition that, unless waived, sovereign immunity prevents the creditor of a federal employee from collecting a debt through a judicial order requiring the United States to garnishee the employee's salary. See Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20, 11 L.Ed. 857 (1845). Rather, it places its primary reliance on 39 U.S.C. 401(1), which indicates that the Postal Service may "sue and be sued." Thus the question in this case is whether this statutory waiver of sovereign immunity extends to the Board's orders to withhold.
    This Court construed a statute providing that an agency created by Congress—the Federal Housing Authority—was empowered "to sue and be sued," in FHA v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 60 S.Ct. 488, 84 L.Ed. 724 (1940). In Burr the question presented was whether the agency had to honor a garnishment order issued by a state court. The Court began by observing: "Since consent to 'sue and be sued' has been given by Congress, the problem here merely involves a determination of whether or not garnishment comes within the scope of that authorization." Id., at 244, 60 S.Ct., at 490. It continued:
    "We start from the premise that such waivers by Congress of governmental immunity in case of such federal instrumentalities should be liberally construed. This policy is in line with the current disfavor of the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit, as evidenced by the increasing tendency of Congress to waive the immunity where federal governmental corporations are concerned. . . . Hence, when Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to 'sue and be sued,' it cannot be lightly assumed that restrictions on that authority are to be implied. Rather if the general authority to 'sue and be sued' is to be delimited by implied exceptions, it must be clearly shown that certain types of suits are not consistent with the statutory or constitutional scheme, that an implied restriction of the general authority is necessary to avoid grave interference with the performance of a governmental function, or that for other reasons it was plainly the purpose of Congress to use the 'sue and be sued' clause in a narrow sense. In the absence of such showing, it must be presumed that when Congress launched a governmental agency into the commercial world and endowed it with authority to 'sue or be sued,' that agency is not less amenable to judicial process than a private enterprise under like circumstances would be." Id., at 245, 60 S.Ct., at 490 (footnote omitted). 10
     
    michael59 and Goldhedge like this.
  27. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    2,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I have tried that route and sadly could not get the info I was looking for. Seems I am not one of the chosen.... spose if I ha a reason to be in their data bank I should prevail but such is not the case.....
     
  28. Krag

    Krag Planet earth Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,916
    Likes Received:
    2,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As for all these theories about the birth certificate, the SS#, the DL, etc., frankly even if it were true they don't care. Banks accept checks whether endorsed with your name, with UCC 1-207, with profanity or left blank. Laws don't get enforced unless someone behind the law cares which is to say not much....
     
    GOLD DUCK likes this.
  29. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    There was a sister company of DnB called selectory.com who was offering a 7 day free trial (the site no longer exist). I took full advantage of that trial and downloaded as many entities files as I could think of at the time. I you go to manta or Dnb you have to use the proper name in order to get what you are looking for. You will at the very least see that they label your search as a business for DnB & manta will tell you that it's privately or publicly owned in my experience.
     
  30. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I agree with you, as the problem is all about united we stand divided we fall. Need more likeminded witnesses behind us when dealing with these folks. They have no fear of just one.
     
  31. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Referencing the above, I checked into that and it is sadly true: almost all cases have been lost, and almost all cases where the person attempted to use sovereignty has also lost.

    There must be another way.
     
  32. GOLDBRIX

    GOLDBRIX God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh Site Supporter Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    4,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I remember when the Matriarch or Patriarch of the family kept the Family Bible. Those bibles had pages in the front where your lineage was documented / could be documented. That was your proof of who you are.
     
  33. Krag

    Krag Planet earth Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,916
    Likes Received:
    2,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Po'boy likes this.
  34. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    LOL! Just because these cases lost doesn't mean that they didn't at least have some merit. If they the PTB allowed this to even appear true the illusion will fade & society will begin to collapse sooner than they want. The government as a corp is neutral (it's just a fiction animated & believed real by people), the problem is the out of control power hungry & the ignorant minions that they control are using it for dark purposes (advance level of enslavement). The fault lies with the sheople https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  35. GOLDBRIX

    GOLDBRIX God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh Site Supporter Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    4,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Same issue with the IRS and Income Taxes.
    .gov knows it was wrong from Jump Street, Judges refuse to allow the evidence into Court, IRS never has to identify where their authority comes from. AND YOU are reminded it is VOLUNTARY.
     
  36. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, its an IMPLIED law that we pay income taxes. It is voluntary by definition, but it IS implied.

    If I didnt file and pay taxes, i'm very certain all my accounts would have leins on them by the following week and my 401k would be seized. And I dont like that notion one bit.
     
  37. GOLDBRIX

    GOLDBRIX God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh Site Supporter Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    4,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It actually COMPLY thru Intimidation.
     
  38. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Agreed. I have a friend experimenting since may with some info that shows if you are to filing taxes we have been filing income on the wrong line of the 1040 (something to do with gift or estate). It has something to do with I believe correcting a mistake that was done with the employer and the w2, he has done this with his son & so far they have received a partial refund from deductions taken out of his check. Will post the details when I get them. So basically intimidation & deceptiion.
     
    GOLDBRIX likes this.
  39. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aaron Russo did a documentary back in 2005 I think... Interviewed dozens of people...

    Including many many IRS employees and officers and not a single one would answer the question directly regarding voluntary or involuntary paying taxes.

    Ron Paul was the only honest answer when he said "well, it's an *IMPLIED* law, is what it comes down to...."
     
  40. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    yea saw the russo video
     

Share This Page