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. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    2,892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    Several years ago in a coffee shop while talking with a friend about "tax matters," a man in the adjacent booth overheard our conversation and asked to join us. The conversation continued, and centered mainly on IRS abuses.

    This gentleman seemed particularly knowledgeable about the subject and we asked him what he did for a living. He told us his name and that he was an attorney with the Tax Division of the Department of Justice in Washington. Naturally, this put us on guard, but he quickly put us at ease by agreeing in large part with the conclusion we had drawn.

    Reluctantly, I asked him this question, "Why are defendants in federal district court always asked if they are 'citizens of the United States'?" He replied without hesitation, "So we can determine jurisdiction. In many cases the federal court does not have jurisdiction over a citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of the United States -- meaning a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment."

    My friend innocently asked, "What's a federal citizen?" The attorney replied, "That's a person who receives benefits or privileges or is an alien that has been admitted [naturalized] as a citizen of the United States."

    I quickly interjected, "What if the individual denied being a citizen of the United States and claimed to be a sovereign citizen of Oklahoma?" The attorney bowled me over with, "We don't get jurisdiction."

    He had to catch a plane.

    [Freeman Letter, March 1989, page 6, emphasis added]
    [as quoted in 'Brief of Law for Zip Code Implications']
    [by Walter C. Updegrave, revised March 28, 1992]

    http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/3.htm


    ============================================================


    The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state. [/I]
    [Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738]

    There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia.
    [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155]


    "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
    U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

    The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.
    [Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738]


    There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia.
    [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155]


    [Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."
    United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).


    "We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ...."
    [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
     
  2. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Both Paul J. Hansen and Kent Hovind refused to admit they were US Citizens. It didn't matter the court under Margret Casey Rodgers took jurisdiction and locked them up. Hansen submitted paperwork to challenge jurisdiction, but MCR denied his challenge and proceeded to run over him. The judges in these cases act more like a prosecuting attorney than a judge.


    They don't obey their own laws, it's a rigged game, because they are Lieyers.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  3. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yea, in federal court I refused to claim being the name, the judge said to me "you probably don't realize this but you are like a ghost in here until you say your the name". He would not answer any question until I say I was the name. They talked about setting up a "identity hearing" for which I was unaware of existed. I asked the judge, so what are you gonna force me to be the name now? Now earlier I had asked the judge to speak in chambers, he replies no! every thing will be on record we have nothing to hide or something to that effect. So after I asked him if they where going to force me to be the name, he immediately told the clerk to strike all of that from the record. Crooked folks for sure. I am learning that if I want to end the madness one most likely will have to stand ground and spend time in jail til they kick you out. I know folks who have been through this fire and have won but I was at the time hoping to avoid it lol.
     
    Bigjon, CrimsonGuardJay and Goldhedge like this.
  4. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    2,892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right



    YOU walked into their court, YOU STOOD-UNDER their jurisdiction. YOU created a contract

    As for SUB-MITTING paperwork into their courts, when you file a motion and it must be seconded..... by the Judge.

    By filing a motion, you are basically asking for permission to enter evidence. Do you really think they are going to accommodate you.




    http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?71624-Motions-vs-Affidavits

    http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?69353-An-Unrebutted-Affidavit-Stands-as-Truth

    http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?65934-VIOLATING-THE-OATH-OF-OFFICE-IS-A-FEDERAL-CRIME

    http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?62811-INVISIBLE-CONTRACTS-Admiralty-Jurisdiction
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  5. iamtruthseeker

    iamtruthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    That's the thing, it was a notice & affidavit to prosecution not a motion. He said it was not proper procedure & jibberish. He then said he would make the clerk not accept anymore of my submissions. To begin with I did not step into their court willingly, they kidnapped me. Sure I could have not come back but I was not well equipped with dealing with this type of issue as I really never expected to be brought into a court as a criminal. Indicted for intent to defraud the US for filing OID's in 2009 but thought I corrected the mistake by 2010 via 1040x figured it was over. The case they have is really frivilous & malicious in my opinion & I beleive it's a good gamble for them hoping that I would have no way of over coming, especially if they have the deck stacked in their favor. The indictment has a signature for the prosector that is not his (I have evidence found on several indictments online that show's his proper signature) & there is a stamp in place of the foreperson signature for example (how do I know if there was a grand jury proceeding or if the grand jury gave them a unfavourable decision & there was no due process, as I was not invited). The below is considered jibberish per the judge. I am leaning now that the judge makes offers & I did not handle them properly. I made alot of mistakes in dealing with this matter but there is time and room for improvement. They are forcing me to learn much more than I thought I would ever need as far as criminal matters are concerned.

    “To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.” Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998).

    “To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.

    Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The test has three elements:
    First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”

    The Lee/Cleveland Cliffs majority also held that a litigant must meet the Lujan
    standing requirements regardless of whether the Legislature expressly created a cause of action or conferred standing on the litigant because, although the Legislature has the power to create causes of actions, it does not have the power to expand the judicial authority granted to the courts by the Michigan Constitution. See Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280, 302-303; 737 NW2d 447 (2007). The Court also held that a litigant must meet Lujan’s requirements in order to bring a declaratory action. Associated Builders & Contractors v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117, 124-127; 693 NW2d 374 (2005).

    Explain and show how the action is of the kind authorized by statute. Martin v Chandid, 128 F2d 73 1; Pacific Mills v Kekefick, 99 F2d 18 8.

    "In cases where the court is conferred power to adjudicate by virtue of a statute, the court's jurisdiction is strictly limited by the statute." In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. [Emphasis added]
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  6. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Neither Kent Hovind or Paul Hansen walked into their court. Armed swat teams kidnapped them and forced them into court.
    In Hansen's case they dieseled him around the country and took I think a couple of months to reach the court. The court under Margret Casey Rodgers, then declared that the time to challenge jurisdiction had expired.

    The only name for these thugs in black robes is Lieyers.
     
  7. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    2,892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    If you answer ANY questions that are asked of you, you are SUB-MITTING to their jurisdiction, even if it is just casual conversation!!!!
    If they ask you to stand or sit or do anything, it is considered submitting to their jurisdiction.





    What IRS wants is for you to create a controversy. They make this ‘amount owing’ so ‘off the
    charts’ that you will either telephone or write to them about this ‘outrage’ thereby creating a contract with
    them. This is all they need to enforce their nonsense. I do not contract with thugs. They are worse than loan
    sharks. If you argue, then you have created a controversy and the entire issue can go to court in order to be
    adjudicated. If you simply tell them you don’t want to contract with them where is the controversy? What is
    there to judge? The only reason any matter ever goes to court is because the officers of the court know that
    at some point you will unwittingly grant them jurisdiction over you. Until you do this, they cannot hold you –
    no matter what you think you might have done.


    Call it luck but one day I got a (signed) letter from some hotshot at the IRS stating that my account is
    ‘paid in full’ and apologizing for any inconvenience. The only explanation I can think of is that I never
    testified, argued, or contracted further with them; I only asked questions.

    You might have read recently about the pilot who won against IRS in Federal ‘court’. She won because
    she had documented that she had continually asked IRS to provide the law compelling her to pay tax on her
    income and they had failed to respond. Her affidavits proved they had defaulted so the judge ruled in her
    favour.


    I know of a fellow in BC who did the same thing. CRA failed to respond to three of his letters
    – they dishonoured him
    – and the judge declared, “Case dismissed!”

    3. Each agent is vicious because he stands to receive personally a percentage of the funds he recovers
    from you. Don’t fall for his intimidation. Know that he is as frightened for his job as you might be about
    losing your $$$.

    4. About 15 years ago, a man received from IRS, a letter saying they intended to audit him. He was very
    frightened and intimidated. An IRS agent came to his house since this is where he claimed to have his office.
    I told him he was not required by law to let her into his house and he ought to demand by what authority she
    intended to investigate his business. He said, “If I’m co-operative and courteous, she will be reasonable.”
    His allowing her into his house was deemed his acquiescence thereby granting her jurisdiction. He thought
    it would end quickly yet it only allowed IRS to know they had another sucker who fell for their bluff. IRS
    hounded him for another dozen years until they levied his bank account and confiscated his ‘pay cheques’
    from his customers.

    The son of a fellow I know was fleeced by the IRS who confiscated from his bank account $11,000. He
    wrote them a letter which included five (5) questions. The IRS agent invited him to his office in order to
    answer his questions. At the time of the meeting the IRS agent returned to his account the $11,000. You
    might want to know what the five questions were.


    He asked for answers to the following to be made under penalty of perjury:
    the law requiring Americans to pay income tax,
    their regulatory authority and delegated authority to address him,
    the law which made the IRS part of the Constitution,
    the agent’s oath of office, and
    the contract with both signatures on it.


    Since NONE of these exists, his $11,000 was refunded. Since an oath
    of office by any ‘public official’ is their swearing to uphold and protect our rights, we accept their oath of
    office into the matter at hand and they are bound to honour their oaths and stop attacking us. We are not
    bound to respond to anyone who has no oath of office. This Oath of Office limits those who are in the biz of
    confiscating our rights and freedoms. Always ask for it and if you don’t get one be sure to issue your own
    orders to them on what you want them to do. Remember who you are.

    One of my most memorable experiences was when I asked an IRS agent, in person, to show me in the
    Internal Revenue Manual, which is over 7,000 pages and about 5 inches thick – all of it bogus – where it is
    written that I must pay a tax on my income. He pointed to the book and said, “In there.” “I believe that you
    think it is ‘in there’; show me where.” This time he pounded the book and then fluttered the pages and
    again, this time more forcefully said, “In the manual!” “I see ... where exactly?” Now he got even more
    violent with his beloved manual at which point my friend and I burst out laughing and just left him
    spluttering in his office. Don’t take these twits too seriously. Call their bluff.
     
    Bigjon, iamtruthseeker and Goldhedge like this.
  8. CrimsonGuardJay

    CrimsonGuardJay Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not in there. "In the manual". It's not in there. The majority of the people of the country simply allow a very large percentage of their blood sweat and tears simply vanish while they plot through life trying to make ends meet.

    It makes me sick.
     
    TRYNEIN likes this.
  9. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,078
    Likes Received:
    29,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    [​IMG]

    Did You Know You Also Have a Uniform Birth Number?

    (Truthstream Media) | In Carroll Quigley’s 1966 book “Tragedy & Hope,” he discusses bluntly how our freedom will continuously dwindle throughout the remainder of the 20th century and beyond under a type of neofeudalism imposed by the burgeoning scientific dictatorship:

    “Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”​

    When we first read this statement, besides the oily revulsion we felt at how true his future predictions turned out to be, we couldn’t believe how accurate he was right down to our social security numbers.

    But wait… was what Quigley meant by “numbered from birth” and followed “as a number” specifically referring to our SSN?

    If you were not otherwise aware, there is another number assigned to each baby born in the U.S. under a separate program that came about sometime in 1948 (not too long after the National Security Act was passed). It was known at the time as the “Uniform Birth Numbering System”. It’s not a number you are openly informed about as a parent filling out a birth certificate for your baby, a certificate you are told is just “for the record”.

    In fact, the most in-depth information we could find on the Uniform Birth Numbering System came from an interesting source… the March 1951 edition of Eugenical News (Vol. 36, No. 1), published by the American Eugenics Society.

    Here’s the editor’s note:

    “Some advocates of family eugenics who have had experience in tracing pedigrees of registered animals and also know the difficulties in trying to trace many relationships in human genealogy see in the uniform birth numbering system described below some ideas which may be interesting in the future to those who want to know more about their family lines… The suggestion of eugenic use of uniform birth registration is supplementary to the uses indicated in the third paragraph of the letter printed below.”​

    The third paragraph:

    “The principal innovation introduced by the uniform numbering system is the fact that each certificate will have a unique number which cannot be duplicated until one hundred years have passed [note: the year 2051]. This makes the birth certificate number a potential identity number, a positive name, which may some day make it usable not only in birth record files but in all other file and record systems which keep track of persons, their rights or their documents.”​

    “Their rights?”

    Note, the social security number had already been around at this point since 1936.

    The article goes on to say, “the possibility of its use to simplify all sorts of identification problems is very interesting to all sorts of people…”

    Very interesting, indeed.

    The Uniform Birth Number is made up of 11 digits in three groups, a lot like the social security number: 000 – 00 – 000000. Each state has its own three digit “birth number area code” which comprises the first number; the middle section is the last two digits of the year the person is born; and the last portion is “a simple serial number” we all receive when our birth certificate is issued in relation to the year and place we are born.

    The article discusses linking this number to our birth, death, marriage and/or divorce and for its invaluable use in the future in tabulating statistics for those in the fields of health, welfare, and population. The author, Herbert P. Dunning, writing from the National Office of Vital Statistics, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, laments that it will be awhile before the numbers will become really useful in these fields, since it will be awhile before a large enough portion of the population is assigned their birth number. He also notes, “It may be longer still before the individual citizen finds reason to inform himself of his birth number and use it in other records.”

    Hm. Have you ever found a reason to inform yourself of your “birth number”?

    We didn’t, until today.

    Dunning ends the article by saying he hopes it answers the questions of the person with whom he corresponded at the American Eugenics Society, and he mentions that, “So few citizens have taken the trouble to inquire about the plan that we have not yet had reason to prepare any informational leaflets on the subject.”

    How would anyone back in the late ’40s even have heard about “the plan” enough to inquire about it in the first place? It doesn’t seem like something the government was very forthcoming about. Turns out, they still aren’t.

    That was 64 years ago and there still aren’t any informational leaflets on the subject that we can find. An Internet search for “Uniform Birth Numbering System” yields very little on the topic. A 1952 issue of “The Rotarian” mentions briefly that the whole system actually went into full swing January 1, 1949.

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a page for its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that includes the birth area codes chart and explains that state registrars use this number when issuing birth certificates. The birth number is double checked when issuing social security cards. The site doesn’t expand any further on other possible government uses for the birth number.

    Again, according to the agency’s official webpage on the history of social security numbers, “The best we can say with certainty is that the first SSN was issued sometime in mid-November 1936.” (The best they can say with certainty? Sounds pretty sloppy…)

    That means the Uniform Birth Numbering System, while obviously used in conjunction with SSNs later as an afterthought, was not required for someone to receive one because SSNs were around for well over a decade before the birth number ever existed.

    So why exactly are we assigned two different identification numbers by the federal government?

    Note that most hospitals these days absolutely will not allow new parents to leave the hospital with their babies without filling out a birth certificate form first.

    SSNs, however, can be put off a bit until it’s required on one form or another sometime down the line.

    It has been suggested this birth number is actually traded on the stock exchange…. that our birth certificates are a contract that creates a fictitious legal entity otherwise known as our strawmen (and women) for the government… that we really are slaves to the central bankers. (You can find out more about your strawman at the aptly named site yourstrawman.com.)

    But others have reported that a federal DNA database is quietly being kept on all Americans born (and has been for decades now) without their express permission, a system we get added to when our blood is taken at birth during the “routine” newborn screening examination hospitals give all newborn babies.

    During this exam, the baby’s heel is pricked and the blood droplets are placed on a special card that is sent to a state government lab for testing. Parents are told this is being done to detect rare, life-threatening genetic disorders (if they are even explicitly told it is being done at all). The government authorizes millions of dollars to states for these screening programs (current legislation has authorized $20 million through 2019).

    This screening is mandatory in 48 states (meaning parental permission is not required). As U.S. News reported, “While some states allow parents to opt out of government storage and use, this is not parental consent. It’s dissent. It gives government first dibs to the baby’s DNA. Consent requires a form with a signature before the sample can be stored or used for research. Surrounded by the ‘fog’ of a birth, most parents won’t opt out because they don’t even know their child’s DNA has been stored.” [emphasis added]

    As a parent, you aren’t asked for your consent before this sample is drawn. You can dissent, meaning after it is drawn you can opt out of the storage and use of your baby’s blood that has already been drawn by government mandate. You apparently aren’t allowed to opt out from the collecting and screening process itself.

    One’s birth (serial) number would certainly help with identification for a DNA database system like that, now wouldn’t it?

    (Cue that episode of The X-Files where Mulder and Scully come across a mine shaft lined with hundreds of filing cabinets filled with a secret file on every American which apparently started early in the Cold War and which held a DNA sample taken from everyone without their knowledge during routine vaccinations…)

    So in case you weren’t sure, you absolutely are numbered directly from birth just as Quigley said we all are (and it isn’t just by your social security number).

    We have been forced onto a collectivist system under the banner of a scientific dictatorship that numbers, tracks, and traces us from the moment we are born in what we are still somehow told (sold?) is the land of the “free”.

    And quite clearly the
    eugenicists
    of the day were pretty darn excited about all of the “potentials” of the new Uniform Birth Numbering System.

    By the way, did you know that when the Eugenics Record Office was officially shut down, it wasn’t entirely closed?

    No, they just changed the name… to the Genetics Record Office.

    http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/10/05/did-you-know-you-also-have-a-uniform-birth-number/
     

Share This Page