• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE "SOVEREIGN" AND "SOVEREIGNTY"

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#1
"THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX"

The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN "INDIVIDUAL" IS "SOVEREIGN" and that "WE the PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth). According to this hoax, the INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereign") is not bound by laws made by the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" (the REAL "sovereign"). But, none of this is so.

In nations ruled by a King or Queen, the word "SOVEREIGN" means the King or Queen. But, in nations ruled by THE PEOPLE, the word "SOVEREIGN" means ALL OF THE PEOPLE, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, not the single "INDIVIDUAL" AS A TINY PART OF THE WHOLE.

This means that here in the United States, "We the People", COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE legally stand in the shoes of the Kings and Queens of yesteryear and we COLLECTIVELY rule ourselves THROUGH ELECTIONS. But here in the United States, no single INDIVIDUAL among us is "SOVEREIGN" and no single INDIVIDUAL among us stands in the shoes of the Kings or Queens of yesteryear and no single INDIVIDUAL can rule us..

The mistaken belief that the "INDIVIDUAL" is "SOVEREIGN" is the result of amateur legal theorists being unable to read. They are unable to distinguish between SINGULAR and PLURAL terms. So, when they read the phrase, "We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms), they mistakenly interpret it as the phrase, "I the Person" (both of which are SINGULAR terms). But, this interpretation is erroneous. The phrase, "We the People" refers to ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not the single INDIVIDUAL speaking individually as a tiny part of the whole.

Likewise, when amateur legal theorists read the phrase, "consent of the governed", they mistakenly think that it refers to a single INDIVIDUAL person (AS IF ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE NATION IS "GOVERNED" BY THE GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE"). This is why they mistakenly think that every single INDIVIDUAL in the nation must INDIVIDUALLY "CONSENT" to the law, to the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies, to the jurisdiction of the courts and to our ELECTED government in general in order for these institutions to bind and govern that INDIVIDUAL. But, this is not so.

"We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms) "CONSENT" to our law, our law enforcement agencies and to the jurisdiction of our courts and to our government in general COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, not INDIVIDUALLY outside the election process.

THE DEFINITION OF THE "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed#:~:text=explore dictionary-,consent of the governed,democracy, and John Locke.)
A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people [a PLURAL term], AS EXPRESSED BY VOTES IN ELECTIONS. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "[It is] by THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] [that] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] exercise THEIR [also a PLURAL term] sovereignty". Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws.
at about 55% through the text in the middle last paragraph before the dissent and the concurring opinion HERE.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="the+people+exercise+their+sovereignty"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN"
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx#:~:text="... a determinate person,obedience to any human superior."
Has two meanings. The first one is a technical word for the monarch (king or queen) OF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY as in the Sovereign of England is Queen Elizabeth. The other meaning of the word is to describe the supreme legislative powers OF A STATE: that they are totally independent and free from any outside political control or authority over their decisions.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT) OUTSIDE A NATION RULED BY A KING OR QUEEN.

DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGNTY"
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereignty.aspx
A STATE'S ability to legislate without legal limitation save as set by themselves and the reach of international law.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+power
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which AN INDEPENDENT STATE is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence OF A STATE, combined with the right and power of regulating ITS [not his or her] internal affairs without foreign interference. Sovereignty is the power OF A STATE to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as MAKING, EXECUTING and APPLYING LAWS, IMPOSING and COLLECTING TAXES, MAKING WAR and PEACE and FORMING TREATIES or ENGAGING IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT). DOES AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE THE "POWER OF A STATE" to MAKE LAW, EXECUTE LAW, APPLY LAW, IMPOSE TAXES, MAKE WAR AND PEACE, FORM TREATIES OR ENGAGE IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty
Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process OF THE STATE and in the maintenance of order.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the full right and power OF A GOVERNING BODY over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.[1] In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power BY A STATE.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/
Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. THE STATE is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereignty
the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.
the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign;royal rank or position; royalty.
supreme and independent power or authority IN GOVERNMENT as possessed or claimed BY A STATE or community.
rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
A SOVEREIGN OR INDEPENDENT STATE, community or political unit.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sovereignty
the power OF A COUNTRY to control its own government:

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereignty
Sovereignty is a political concept that refers to dominant power or supreme authority. In a monarchy, supreme power resides in the "sovereign", or king. In modern democracies, sovereign power rests with the people [A PLURAL TERM] and IS EXERCISED THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE BODIES SUCH AS CONGRESS OR PARLIAMENT. The Sovereign is the one who exercises power without limitation. Sovereignty is essentially THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS, even as Blackstone defined it. The term also carries implications of autonomy; to have sovereign power is to be beyond the power of others to interfere.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/sovereignty
Sovereignty is the power THAT A COUNTRY HAS to govern itself or another country or state.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/sovereignty
1. Supreme power or authority, "the sovereignty OF PARLIAMENT"
2. The authority OF A STATE to govern itself or another state. "national sovereignty"
3. SELF GOVERNING STATE.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/what-is-sovereignty.htm
Sovereignty is a term that is used to refer to the independence and autonomy of modern NATION STATES. Unlike earlier eras where countries were ruled by Kings in historic times and by colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, sovereignty refers to the fact of absolute independence and autonomy that NATION STATES have with respect to the decisions taken by them in matters concerning their citizenry.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).


U.S. LAW ON WHETHER ALL OF THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, ARE "SOVEREIGN" OR WHETHER THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS 'SOVEREIGN"

1. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/.... This case reads, "The term`citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law [when MONARCHS ruled supreme], and the change of phrase [from "subject" to "citizen"] has entirely resulted from the change [in the form] of government [from a "MONARCHY" to a "REPUBLICAN" form of government]. THE SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN [a "MONARCH"] TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" [CLICK HERE] http://www.duhaime.org/Lega... https://dictionary.cambridg...]. TRANSLATION: SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A "MONARCH") TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A SOVEREIGN MONARCH IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE SOVEREIGN "STATE.'"

2. Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a stark contrast between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]."(in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.

3). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NEITHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW,, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

4). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIDUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ."TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

5). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE UNTIED STATES AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE "SOVEREIGN"). In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

6). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "EVERY STATE IN THE UNION in every instance where ITS SOVEREIGNTY has NOT been delegated to THE UNITED STATES, [IS]... COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN, AS THE UNITED STATES ARE [SOVEREIGN] IN RESPECT TO THE POWERS SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]. THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]: EACH STATE IN THE UNION IS SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS RESERVED. " (at the 14th paragraph at about 15% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

7). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT STATES ARE SOVEREIGN).The court wrote, "Under the Constitution, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY [means "EXCEPT"] AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY [under Article 1, Section 8] SUBTRACT FROM THEIR AUTHORITY [their SOVEREIGNTY]." (at the 16th paragraph at about 30% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

8). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/.... (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 1, Section 8]." (at the 1st paragraph in "Section B" at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

9). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" refer ONLY to "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, "The words 'PEOPLE [a PLURAL term] of the United States' and 'CITIZENS' [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of "We the People" is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY]. They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term]," and every [INDIVIDUAL] CITIZEN is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY]." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").



THE LAW ON WHETHER AN "INDIVIDUAL" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN" AND THEREBY AVOID BEING BOUND BY THE LAWS OF "WE THE PEOPLE":

1. U.S. v. Benabe ,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2011726581563609832&q="US+v.+Benabe"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, several defendants (all of whom were amateur legal theorists) falsely claimed to be "SOVEREIGN" and therefore claimed that they were not subject to the court's jurisdiction. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "We [the courts] have REPEATEDLY REJECTED their theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citations omitted). The court then cited a number of other decisions with approval which. " ... REJECT[ED] the 'shop worn' argument that a[n] [INDIVIDUAL] DEFENDANT IS A SOVEREIGN [a GOVERNMENT] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court. (citation omitted)... [and another case] describing defendant's proposed 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN defense as having 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW' (citation omitted)... [and another case] DISMISSING [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] jurisdiction arguments as FRIVOLOUS... ." In the case at bar, the court held, "Regardless of an INDIVIDUAL'S claimed status of descent, be it as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a 'secured-party creditor,' or a 'flesh-and-blood human being [rather than a corporate fiction],' THAT [INDIVIDUAL] PERSON IS NOT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily [means "without any delay"], however they are presented." (at paragraph 23 at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

2. Williams v, Georgia Dept. Of Corrections, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16993091562091245184&q="Williams+v.+Georgia"+"sovereign+citizen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "[The Plaintiff's]... claims are brought under a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' [amateur legal] theory. THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS [AMATEUR LEGAL] LEGAL THEORY THAT IS CONSISTENTLY REJECTED BY... [THE] COURTS [read this phrase again]." (citations omitted). The court went on to cite the holdings of other courts in support, "The ... [amateur legal] theories of `SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM (citations omitted)... [and another decision] finding the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN argument to be to 'WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS' (citation omitted)... [and another decision which] REJECT[ED] THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ARGUMENT as 'SHOP WORN' and FRIVOLOUS.'" In the case at bar, the court held, "The Court [referring to itself] therefore finds that [the Plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN]... LEGAL THEORY is also 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [read this phrase again]." (at paragraph 8 in this case at about 90% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

3. Paul v. State Of New York, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16820160598854753158&q="Paul+v.+State"+"13-cv-5047"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "It is clear [that the Plaintiff]... is an adherent of the 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' movement (citations omitted) which the Second Circuit has described as 'a loosely affiliated group who [mistakenly] believe that the state and federal governments [of "We the People"] lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their behavior.'" (citations omitted)... . The court cited other cases with approval and continued, "So-called SOVEREIGN CITIZENS [mistakenly] believe that they are not subject to government authority [of "We the People"] and [UNSUCCESSFULLY] employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings. (citation omitted). The `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT' is well documented. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified `SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' as domestic terror threats BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-GOVERNMENT [of "We the People"] EXTREMISTS... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "The gravamen [core of] of plaintiff's amended complaint is that as a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ... courts... . [But] contrary to plaintiff's contentions, 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS,' like ALL... [INDIVIDUALS in] the United States, ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY [FIND THEMSELVES]... ." (citations omitted). The court cited other decisions with approval which found "similar [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] claims by Moorish Nationals... [to the effect] that they are not subject to... state laws, to be 'MERITLESS'. Plaintiff's purported [means "pretended"] status as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' 'does NOT enable him to violate state and federal laws [of "We the People"] without consequence.'" (citations omitted). Since... plaintiff's factual allegations in the amended complaint are CLEARLY BASELESS, and "[t]he conspiracy and legal revisionist [amateur legal] theories of 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM,"... , plaintiff's amended complaint is both FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS. Accordingly, the amended complaint is sua sponte [means "on the court's own motion"] DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at paragraph 10 at about 75% through the text of the case.). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

4. Frye v. Barbour, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1513597676206691319&q="Frye+v.+barbour"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials who he mistakenly blamed for his many criminal convictions and incarcerations. The court wrote, "[The]... Plaintiff [claims]... that this court lacks jurisdiction over him [because]... he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, not subject to the laws of the United States of America... . However, the courts that have [already] considered such 'SOVEREIGN' CITIZEN' claims have found them to be FRIVOLOUS." The court cited other decisions is support which held, "[C]ourts ROUTINELY REJECT "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' claims as FRIVOLOUS. (citation omitted). 'Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' , a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being [rather than as a corporate fiction],' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented.' (citation omitted). 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN claims are WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS [read that phrase again].'" (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

5. Dudley v. Eggert, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14826836235989762164&q="Dudley+v.+Eggert"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a government official for "seeking to incarcerate a SOVEREIGN and NATURAL FREE-MAN of the land [referring to himself] and extort [his] money without a contract threatening [his] liberty [as if a contract were necessary]." The court held that "[courts have]... "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [such amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). SOVEREIGN CITIZEN [amateur legal] theories are typically raised by defendants in criminal prosecutions or by tax protesters, but courts in this Circuit HAVE [ALSO] SUMMARILY REJECTED THEM in other contexts as well. (citation omitted). The court cited another case in support which "REJECT[ED] the plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN challenge to state child support proceedings as "SHOP WORN" and "FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

6. Hoglund v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13511656089002122856&q=+"Hoglund+v.+indiana"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a prisoner (and amateur legal theorist) unsuccessfully sued various state agencies and officials for imaginary misconduct that he mistakenly claimed resulted in his convictions. He alleged that government officials created laws "meant to control the people a as [fictional] legal entities, but not the SOVEREIGN man [referring to himself]... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The court of appeals has "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). Even if an individual claims the status of "a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented." (citation omitted). The court also cited another case in support which "describe[d] defendant's 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' defense as having "NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'" The court ruled, "Because all three of Plaintiff's claims rest on his [amateur legal] theories of SOVEREIGN CITIZENSHIP, this complaint must be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd and 4th paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

7. U.S. v. Johnson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12617849308655616897&q=+"US+v.+Johnson"+09-CR-20049-DRH&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was charged with filing a fraudulent lien against a federal employee. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges and claimed to be "a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" and thus [claimed] the court ha[d] no jurisdiction over him." But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Seventh Circuit HAS READILY REJECTED such arguments alleging the SOVEREIGNTY OF [INDIVIDUAL] CITIZENS, finding such arguments to be FRIVOLOUS." (citation omitted). The court also cited other cases in support, one of which, "REJECT[ED] the 'SHOP WORN' argument that a defendant is a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court'... [and another case which] "DISMISS[ED] [a] lack of personal jurisdiction argument as FRIVOLOUS because [federal district] COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER [ALL] DEFENDANTS [charged with]... VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW. A [FEDERAL] DISTRICT COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT WHO 'IS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.'(citation omitted). Thus [A] DEFENDANT... WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES [IS] … SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.' (citation omitted)... . Therefore, the Court REJECTS Defendant's argument that he is somehow a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"]... WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT." TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

8. U.S. v Schneider, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6879104439699311440&q=+"US+v.+Schneider"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison for five years for mailing a threatening letter to a judge (just like Rod Class routinely does). His sole defense to the charges was that "he is a FREE, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and as such not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts." But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]hat defense has NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 40% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

9. Bey v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2895062927464381618&q=+"John+Jones+Bey"+"State+of+Indiana"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued the state to stop it from taxing his real property. This case reads, "Bey says he's a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' and therefore can't lawfully be taxed by Indiana or its subdivisions in the absence of a contract between them and him [as if a contract was necessary]." (citations omitted). But, the court wrote, "We have REPEATEDLY REJECTED such claims. (citations omitted). We do so [REJECT SUCH CLAIMS] in this case as well... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

10. Osoria v. Connecticut" https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?
case=8066947183234719437&q=+"Osorio++v.Connecticut"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
. In this case, an amateur legal theorist who was convicted for sexually molesting a child sued the state that convicted and imprisoned him. The court wrote, "... Plaintiff's complaint MUST BE DISMISSED as... FAILING TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM... and AS "FRIVOLOUS"... because it is based on an "INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS LEGAL THEORY [referring to SOVEREIGN CITIZEN THEORY]. (citation omitted). Given the language of Plaintiff's Complaint — declaring himself a "real flesh and blood man," "a natural born, free, living, breathing, flesh and blood human with SENTIENT and more existence... upon the soil, and "the living man,"... Plaintiff appears to consider himself a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN'... . Numerous Circuits have ... REJECTED [the]... underlying premise [of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS to the effect] that federal courts lack jurisdiction over all 'LIVING MEN.'" (citations omitted). In support, the court cited a number of holdings from other cases as follows, "[T]o the extent that the plaintiff argues that he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and not subject to... [state] laws, [such an argument is]`WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS.' (citations omitted). Defendants claiming to be 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' assert that the federal government [of "We the People"] is illegitimate and insist that they are not subject to its jurisdiction. [But] [t]he [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] defense has `NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'... ." The court then wrote, "[Federal and state courts]... have SIMILARLY DISMISSED "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" claims." Then, in citing those other courts, the court wrote, "... [A]rguments common to the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" movement[]... have been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED by federal courts." (citation omitted). The court then cited another case which held, "This Court adds its voice TO THE JUDICIAL CHORUS [means hundreds of other courts] REJECTING, AS LEGALLY UNSUPPORTABLE, SOVEREIGN-CITIZEN-BASED challenges to federal law." (citation omitted). The court cited another case which held, "The`SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' BELIEF SYSTEM has been described by other courts as `COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, 'PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS', and HAVING 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW. (citations omitted)... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "[t]he crux of Osorio's Complaint is that [courts]... have no 'jurisdiction over living men.' [He argues that]... because... SOVEREIGN [CITIZENS]... are not named in the codes, [they]... are not subject to the codes... . He explicitly asserts that he, the "Secured Party/Plaintiff is not a subject of, or to . . . the United States Constitution, its Ordinances, Statutes, Codes, or Regulations... . Because Plaintiff's claims are ALL PREMISED on this "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN"... theory, THEY [ALL] FAIL TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. (citation omitted).Accordingly, they [the Plaintiff's claims] are "FRIVOLOUS" and WILL BE DISMISSED... ." (at the 25th, 26th, and 27th paragraph beginning at about 75% through the text, and at the 2nd to LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE IN ANY TYPE OF COURT. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a "SOVEREIGN"(a "GOVERNMENT").

ABOUT OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO PRETEND TO KNOW THE LAW (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when attempting to represent others) .

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 80+ consecutive cases in a row) , click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#2
THE DESIGN OF THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, THE DEFINITION OF "STATE"

In the state court system in the United States, the head of every law enforcement agency (city, county, state) is ELECTED by "We the People", all of the judges are ELECTED by "We the People", all statutes enforced or otherwise used are written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People", all of the prosecutors are ELECTED by "We the People" and all of the public defenders are ELECTED by "We the People", The parties to every case (criminal or civil) even get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability of no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

The purpose of this system was to guarantee that "We the People" ELECT every person who is in a position to influence in any aspect of our own justice system, right down to the Clerk Of Court and the Property Appraiser. .

The federal court system in the United States is the same except that instead of these public servants being ELECTED by "We the People", they are APPOINTED by those that "We the People" ELECT to make those "APPOINTMENTS". Like the state court system, the parties to every case (criminal or civil) get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability or no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

IN THE UNITED STATES, THE "STATE" MEANS ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING WITHIN TERRITORIAL BORDERS

1). See the very first definition here at 1:20

2). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state

3). See the third and forth definitions
https://www.definitions.net/definition/state


4). See definition number 5
https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/state.html


5).. See definitions 3 a.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/state


6). See definitions 5 a & 5 b.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state


7). See definitions 5 a & 5 b
https://www.yourdictionary.com/state


WHEN DID "WE THE PEOPLE" BECOME DIABOLICAL AND TYRANNICAL?



7TH GRADE CIVICS REVIEW:

In a republican form of government such as ours, there are THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. This prevents tyranny from any single branch of government. This legal principle is called the "SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE" which is found in the constitution of every state and in the constitution of the United States.

Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our state statutes, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT ELECTED state LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to change or repeal the state statutes that we do not like. This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED LEGISLATORS (our SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN & WOMEN) as well as our locally ELECTED law/ordinance makers (county commissioners, city commissioners and city council members, etc.).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state law enforcement officials, their appointees or their practices, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT state ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to change the appointees and/or practices that we do not like (different Governor, different County Sheriffs, different City Police Chiefs, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED law enforcement officer (our PRESIDENT ).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state judges, their practices or their rulings , then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT different ELECTED state JUDGES (different Supreme Court Justices, different appellate judges, different circuit judges, different county judges, different city judges, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with respect to our ELECTED state prosecutors (state attorneys and district attorneys) and our ELECTED state public defenders. NOTE: In the federal courts, judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are ELECTED by "We the People". But, those ELECTED representatives of "We the People" (who do the nominating and confirming of our federal judges) can be removed from office by the ELECTION process as well. The ELECTED President also appoints the federal prosecutors. But, the President can be removed from office by the ELECTION process too. Some state jurisdictions even use a combination of BOTH systems whereby judges are first APPOINTED to the bench by ELECTED representatives of "We the People", but then must withstand a "retention" vote by "We the People" every single ELECTION cycle thereafter in order to remain on the bench.

Regardless, EVERY single person in a position of power in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAWMAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court).

In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE THAT ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MAKE

The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY.

Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted reflects a basic misunderstanding of this simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory).

ABOUT EMPOWERMENT OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CONFUSION ABOUT "CONSENT"

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state LAWMAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state HEADS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL and to order the punishment of such an INDIVIDUAL in accordance with the law without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS.

So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights of the United States Constitution).

In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the constitution and by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL).

ELECTIONS AND THE VALIDITY OF GOVERNMENT

This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, including any amendments and/or repeals to sections of the constitution..

THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.

FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016



FOR MORE ON THE SUBJECT OF SOVEREIGNTY, SCROLL DOWN TO POST #20 AND THE RESPONSE AT POST #33 BELOW.
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#3
those terms are of the holy grail type nature as persons try to substantiate their positions against rome,

rome wrote the rules, and if you do not care for them, accept them, what have you, they could care less,

you can present the most neat and clean argument, the judge will look at you and simply state something to the nature of,
you have presented a fine case, or that is wonderfully done, but I find for the plaintiff. Your position is unsubstantiated (insert reason here), and they throw in whatever they feel like, slam the gavel and walk away.

one thing people have a real hard time accepting, is where our laws actually came from, where even the most basic ideas and concepts came from. Our founding fathers didn't just dream this stuff up.

the laws aren't for the many against the few, they are for the few against the many. Any threat is disposed of summarily.
the laws are for the slaves to duke it out with one another over inconsequential matters,
and of course to be used against those same slaves by the ptb at their leisure

not even mentioning the revenue generation schemes attached to it,
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
18,415
Likes
17,454
Location
clown world
#4
idiot crap from op -- the crown ceded sovereignty to the amercan peoples, not any gov entity

b/c US gov has used deceit via adhesion to hide this fact does not change the fact
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#5
Hello Scorpio,

It is always a pleasure to hear from you.

I apologize for my delay in responding.

I have just undergone eye surgery in both eyes and have been unable to read or type.

I still have difficulty seeing.

Please forgive my typos below.

YOUR COMMENT: those terms are of the holy grail type nature as persons try to substantiate their positions against rome,

MY RESPONSE: The purpose of my comment above was to explain how sovereignty is misunderstood. In republics like ours, the people, combined, collectively, as a whole are sovereign and rule their state and nation. But, in republics like ours, no individual is sovereign and therefore cannot rule their state or nation.

Your statement about opposing Rome reflects the "us verses them" thinking which applies to dictatorships and monarchies, but which does not apply to republics like ours. In republics like ours, we (not "them") are the government. So, the "us verses them" paradigm does not apply. We (not "them") rule ourselves through the election process. We (not "them") pick our own lawmakers. So, we (not "them") determine the laws which govern us all, our state and our nation. We (not "them") pick the heads of every single law enforcement agency in the nation. In the state court system, we (not "them") pick our own judges our own prosecutors and in some states, our own public defenders. In the federal court system, we (not "them") pick those who appoint our judges, prosecutors and public defenders. So, the "opposing Rome" mentality is not really applicable in a republic like ours.

YOUR COMMENT: rome wrote the rules, and if you do not care for them, accept them, what have you, they could care less,

MY RESPONSE: Again, the "Rome" analogy (as you describe it) does not apply in republics like ours. In our republic, we (not "them") pick the people who write the rules. That is something entirely different than what you describe about Rome. In our republic, if we do not like the rules, we do not accept them. We fire the elected lawmakers who wrote the rules which we do not like and we hire different lawmakers who pledge to change the rules to our satisfaction. So, in a republic like ours, our elected lawmakers DO CARE what the public thinks about the rules they write. Writing or voting in favor of an unpopular rule will result in them being terminated in the next election.

YOUR COMMENT: you can present the most neat and clean argument, the judge will look at you and simply state something to the nature of,
you have presented a fine case, or that is wonderfully done, but I find for the plaintiff. Your position is unsubstantiated (insert reason here), and they throw in whatever they feel like, slam the gavel and walk away.

MY RESPONSE: Every single case in both the state and federal system is divided into three parts. There is the finding of fact, the application of the law and the consequences. In a criminal case (like murder), THE JURY who is picked by the parties themselves (not the judge) is the finder of fact. (guilt or innocence) Once THE JURY finds the facts (guilt or innocence), THE JUDGE applies the law WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS, not by the judge. The consequence (the sentence) IS ALSO DETERMINED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS though sentencing guidelines which often works on a "point system" (which takes the defendant's record and other circumstances into account). THE JUDGE has very little discretion in a criminal case, including sentencing. All of this means that no matter what you "argue" to the judge (as opposed to the jury), the judge has no discretion to let you off the hook, to ignore the law or to ignore the sentencing guidelines. THE JUDGE IS REQUIRED to follow the law WHICH IS DETERMINED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS, not by the judge.

In a traffic case, THE JUDGE is the finder of fact (guilt or innocence). Then, THE JUDGE applies the law WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS, not by the judge. Then, THE JUDGE imposes the sentence WHICH IS DETERMINED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS, not by the judge. All of this means that no matter what you "argue" to the judge, unless that argument renders you factually innocent of the charge, the the judge has no discretion to let you off the hook, to ignore the law or to ignore the sentencing guidelines. . THE JUDGE IS REQUIRED to follow the law WHICH IS DETERMINED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS, not by the judge.

The idea behind trial court cases is simply this. If you are factually guilty of the charge, then you will be punished, no matter what you argue at the trial level. But, if you are factually innocent of the charge, then you will not be punished, no matter what the prosecutor argues at the trial level. If you want to challenge the law itself or challenge an improper ruling of the judge in refereeing the trial (not the finding of guilt or innocence), then you must do that at the appellate level, not at the trial level.

From the perspective of most anti-government protesters, it is a sign of legal corruption for a factually guilty person to be punished for committing a crime. But, from the perspective of "We the People" in general, it is a sign of legal corruption for a factually guilty person to avoid being punished for committing a crime.

YOUR COMMENT: one thing people have a real hard time accepting, is where our laws actually came from,

MY RESPONSE" In our republic, the law comes from ONLY THREE SOURCES. First, Constitutional law comes from constitutions (which can be amended or repealed DIRECTLY by the vote of "We the People" in a referendum, by the vote of two thirds of the states or the vote of a super majority of Congress, all of whom who a elected by "We the People"). Second, statutes and ordinances come ONLY from those who "We the People" pick to write our statutes for us (in both the federal and state system). Third, case law (also called the common law) is written ONLY by appellate (higher) judges who are elected by "We the People" in the state court system and who are appointed by those we elect in the federal system).

That means in a republic like ours, the law is made ONLY by those who we elect to make it or by those appointed by those who we elect to make those appointments.

YOUR COMMENT: where even the most basic ideas and concepts came from. Our founding fathers didn't just dream this stuff up.

MY RESPONSE: The basic ideas and concepts or our legal system came from perceived injustices of the past (like monarchies), from great political thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson and from case law written by appellate judges in England over the centuries.

YOUR COMMENT: the laws aren't for the many against the few, they are for the few against the many.

MY RESPONSE: This is exactly backwards. The majority of "We the People" determine who our law makers are in our elections. Therefore, the majority of "We the People" determine what our laws are. Those who oppose the law actually oppose the will of the majority of "We the People". The minority of "We the People" determine nothing, because the minority do not control the outcome of elections.

I will be the first to admit that our election process has been corrupted by the influence of big money in our election process. This big money does not affect criminal or traffic law, but it does influence economic winners and losers in the business world.

YOUR COMMENT: Any threat is disposed of summarily.

MY RESPONSE: I do not understand what this means. If you mean that our elected government disposes those who threaten it, then yes. Our elected government either disposes or simply ignores such threats. What our elected government actually fears is elections. Other threats are largely ignored.

YOUR COMMENT: the laws are for the slaves to duke it out with one another over inconsequential matters, and of course to be used against those same slaves by the ptb at their leisure.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Why would slaves run for office to pass laws making life difficult on themselves as fellow slaves of the salves that elected them?

YOUR COMMENT: not even mentioning the revenue generation schemes attached to it,

MY RESPONSE: Federal, state and local governments are constitutionally authorized to levy taxes. But, general taxes are politically unpopular. So, it is true that some local and state governments in particular reduce general taxes by fining those who violate the law written by our elected lawmakers. Fines both punish the wrongdoer, reduce general taxes and simultaneously raise governmental revenue. To an elected lawmaker, that is a win, win, win proposition.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,566
Likes
19,453
#6
MY RESPONSE: Again, the "Rome" analogy (as you describe it) does not apply in republics like ours. In our republic, we (not "them") pick the people who write the rules. That is something entirely different than what you describe about Rome. In our republic, if we do not like the rules, we do not accept them. We fire the elected lawmakers who wrote the rules we do not like and we hire different lawmakers who pledge to change the rules to our satisfaction. So, in a republic like ours, our elected lawmakers DO CARE what the public thinks about the rules they write. Writing or voting in favor of an unpopular rule will result in them being terminated in the next election.
So what is the remedy when we the people are so divided that 1/2 of us want to do away with the constitution and the other 1/2 of us wants to adhere to it?
Whats the remedy when those elected refuse to follow the constitution?
Whats the remedy when judges refuse to follow the constitution and legislate from the bench including those at the highest court in the land?

MY RESPONSE: This is exactly backwards. The majority of "We the People" determine who our law makers are in elections. Therefore, the majority of "We the People" determine what our laws are. Those who oppose the law actually oppose the will of the majority of "We the People". The minority of "We the People" determine nothing.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
2,820
Likes
4,270
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#7
those terms are of the holy grail type nature as persons try to substantiate their positions against rome,

rome wrote the rules, and if you do not care for them, accept them, what have you, they could care less,

you can present the most neat and clean argument, the judge will look at you and simply state something to the nature of,
you have presented a fine case, or that is wonderfully done, but I find for the plaintiff. Your position is unsubstantiated (insert reason here), and they throw in whatever they feel like, slam the gavel and walk away.


one thing people have a real hard time accepting, is where our laws actually came from, where even the most basic ideas and concepts came from. Our founding fathers didn't just dream this stuff up.

the laws aren't for the many against the few, they are for the few against the many. Any threat is disposed of summarily.
the laws are for the slaves to duke it out with one another over inconsequential matters,
and of course to be used against those same slaves by the ptb at their leisure

not even mentioning the revenue generation schemes attached to it,
That's it, exactly. Word games and sophistry only work in courts of law when those who run those courts, WANT them to work. If they're not interested in playing...if there's no fix or handshake agreement backstage...you will be faced with a bored judge and prosecutor, who will then rule as they want, regardless of your words, concepts...

...or even, facts, as we're finding with lawsuits regarding this election cluster-copulation.

Mao said it best (if it was he who said it): All power comes at the point of a gun. Power without a weapon, lies in the belief of those you face, that you will produce those guns and use them. Absent that credible Or-Else, you have no power.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#8
Hello Cigarlover,

It is great to hear from you again.

YOUR COMMENT: So what is the remedy when we the people are so divided that 1/2 of us want to do away with the constitution and the other 1/2 of us wants to adhere to it?

MY RESPONSE: I do not agree with your premise that half of ""We the People" want to do away with the Constitution. Regardless, complying with the Constitution is not optional. It is mandatory. The courts are the guardians of the Constitution and if a law is passed by the legislature or Congress which violates the Constitution, the courts will strike it down, as recently occurred with the New York's ban of religious gatherings of more than 10 people.

YOUR COMMENT: Whats the remedy when those elected refuse to follow the constitution?

MY RESPONSE: A court order.

YOUR COMMENT: Whats the remedy when judges refuse to follow the constitution?

MY RESPONSE: Got an example?

YOUR COMMENT: Whats the remedy when a court legislates from the bench?

MY RESPONSE: Got an example?

YOUR COMMENT: Whats the remedy when judges refuse to follow the constitution and legislates from the bench including those at the highest court in the land?

MY RESPONSE: In the unlikely event that this happens in STATE court, the losing party files an appeal in a higher STATE court or in FEDERAL court which has the power to overturn that STATE court decisions which violates the U.S. Constitution. In the unlikely even that this happens in FEDERAL court, the losing party files an appeal to a higher FEDERAL court. If this occurs at the Supreme Court level, the other judges on the Supreme Court "Dissent" from the majority opinion and explain why the majority's decision violates the Constitution or why the majority's decision overreaches into matters normally reserved for Congress. Those "Dissents" then become rallying cries in elections of those with authority to make new appointments to the Supreme Court (the President and the Senate), as just recently occurred with the president's THREE appointments and the Senate's THREE confirmations of Justices to the Supreme Court. When the new Supreme Court re-visits the issue, they often adopt the earlier Dissent as the law of the land, sometimes word for word. But, the new Supreme Court corrects the mistake, as occurred when reversing the Dred Scott decision.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#9
hey snoop,

sorry to hear about the eyes,
did you try to get rid of the glasses, and now functioning without?
lazik works great for many

regardless, I appreciate your responses and would anticipate no less,

I will keep it simple and just simply state, I have a less rigid view of how things really are,
multiple examples in your post of the textbook answer regurgitation

we do agree TJ was a great person and mind, as well as sovereignty

yet we do disagree markedly on the so called representatives, and who or what they really are, and how they become ensconced
 

chieftain

Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,620
Likes
3,747
#10
MY RESPONSE: I do not understand what this means. If you mean that our elected government disposes those who threaten it, then yes. Our elected government either disposes or simply ignores such threats. What our elected government actually fears is elections. Other threats are largely ignored.
The system does away with threats to its existence by any means necessary, but with the appearance of legality, constitutional or otherwise.

Elections don't faze the unelected...
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,566
Likes
19,453
#11
Hi Snoop, thanks for your reply.
As examples of what i am talking about. The most recent is in PA where the PA courts decided that they would allow mail in voting past the guidelines stipulated by the PA legislature. I think I have that correct. I will have to go check and make sure. Ok here's a link
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/9141...tends-vote-by-mail-deadline-allows-drop-boxes

This will probably get over turned at the SC but the damage is already done and cant be undone without disqualifying the district or having a new election. So whats the remedy for the judges in PA who threw this election to Biden by over stepping their bounds and didn't follow what the legislature had already decided?


Many examples concerning the income tax which we don't see eye to eye on yet I still enjoy our discussions of the subject. I wont clutter this up with loads of tax stuff but one case in particular I do find interesting. One that I know you are familiar with. Pete hendrickson. Let me first state that he has it wrong about trying to get your money back from the feds.. He has some things right and others wrong.. Chalk it up to the tax code being impossibly complex. Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer have it right but thats for another post. :)

Ok so pete hendrickson is jailed for refusing to sign a 1040 under penalty of perjury. This was awhile back so I am going from memory here but the list of this was that Pete didn't file an income tax. The IRS said he had to file and Pete said he didn't have any income. The IRS said yes he did and filled out a 1040 on his behalf and told him to sign it. He refused. Its got a court order and he still refused. I think he was jailed for contempt. I think thats the official version anyway.
My guess is your response will be that he should have followed the judges order and then fought it later. To which my reply would be that if the IRS and Judge are issuing illegal orders in the first place why should he have to incur the expense of sorting them out in the courts?
Again, I think his theories on filing for refunds are incorrect, but if the government backed by the courts can just decide what is and isn't income and fill out a tax return for anyone and force them to sign under penalty of perjury or be sent to jail, then we have a problem with the system IMO.


YOUR COMMENT: Whats the remedy when those elected refuse to follow the constitution?

MY RESPONSE: A court order.
So are you saying I can just go to court and stop welfare at both the state and federal level? Clearly not constitutional.

Obamacare. Clearly unconstitutional yet the courts ruled it constitutional and labeled it a special tax. A special tax for refusing to purchase healthcare? Thats really a stretch to have found that to be constitutional. Would it also be constitutional to mandate everyone eat broccoli 3 times a week or pay a fine? How about a mandate to only purchase American made cars or pay a fine? We can actually list any number of products and say the same thing.. Clearly our founding fathers never intended the federal government to be able to force this kind of thing down our throats.
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#12
hey CL,

but in his defense, kenyan kare was supposedly a legislative accomplishment by the supposed representatives of the slaves,
then add, that it was modified to become a tax so it would pass constitutional muster.

you and I agree it is far from constitutional, so they found a work around

long list of .gov provided freebies like old peoples welfare, otherwise known as SS, that too is also not part of the constitution, but it was a prereq for kenyan kare. How to achieve x............. roadmap. Now look at the minions squeal if you even try to touch ss, boy do they cry.

chin li water torture of a multi trillion cuts
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#13
Hi Snoop, thanks for your reply.
As examples of what i am talking about. The most recent is in PA where the PA courts decided that they would allow mail in voting past the guidelines stipulated by the PA legislature. I think I have that correct. I will have to go check and make sure. Ok here's a link
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/9141...tends-vote-by-mail-deadline-allows-drop-boxes

This will probably get over turned at the SC but the damage is already done and cant be undone without disqualifying the district or having a new election. So whats the remedy for the judges in PA who threw this election to Biden by over stepping their bounds and didn't follow what the legislature had already decided?


Many examples concerning the income tax which we don't see eye to eye on yet I still enjoy our discussions of the subject. I wont clutter this up with loads of tax stuff but one case in particular I do find interesting. One that I know you are familiar with. Pete hendrickson. Let me first state that he has it wrong about trying to get your money back from the feds.. He has some things right and others wrong.. Chalk it up to the tax code being impossibly complex. Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer have it right but thats for another post. :)

Ok so pete hendrickson is jailed for refusing to sign a 1040 under penalty of perjury. This was awhile back so I am going from memory here but the list of this was that Pete didn't file an income tax. The IRS said he had to file and Pete said he didn't have any income. The IRS said yes he did and filled out a 1040 on his behalf and told him to sign it. He refused. Its got a court order and he still refused. I think he was jailed for contempt. I think thats the official version anyway.
My guess is your response will be that he should have followed the judges order and then fought it later. To which my reply would be that if the IRS and Judge are issuing illegal orders in the first place why should he have to incur the expense of sorting them out in the courts?
Again, I think his theories on filing for refunds are incorrect, but if the government backed by the courts can just decide what is and isn't income and fill out a tax return for anyone and force them to sign under penalty of perjury or be sent to jail, then we have a problem with the system IMO.




So are you saying I can just go to court and stop welfare at both the state and federal level? Clearly not constitutional.

Obamacare. Clearly unconstitutional yet the courts ruled it constitutional and labeled it a special tax. A special tax for refusing to purchase healthcare? Thats really a stretch to have found that to be constitutional. Would it also be constitutional to mandate everyone eat broccoli 3 times a week or pay a fine? How about a mandate to only purchase American made cars or pay a fine? We can actually list any number of products and say the same thing.. Clearly our founding fathers never intended the federal government to be able to force this kind of thing down our throats.
Hello Again Cigar Lover,

YOUR COMMENT: Hi Snoop, thanks for your reply.

MY RESPONSE: It is always a pleasure to talk to you.

YOUR COMMENT: As examples of what i am talking about. The most recent is in PA where the PA courts decided that they would allow mail in voting past the guidelines stipulated by the PA legislature. I think I have that correct. I will have to go check and make sure. Ok here's a link
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/9141...tends-vote-by-mail-deadline-allows-drop-boxes

MY COMMENT: The article to which you provided a link is misleading and deceptive as were many of the news reports on this subject. The case itself is very complicated and dealt with several voting issues besides this one, but here are the highlights on this particular subject. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...704890&q=Boockvar&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,230

Until recently, Pennsylvania had a long-standing statute which allowed mail-in voting ONLY for those Pennsylvania citizens who could actually prove that they were out of state on election day (mostly American soldiers on foreign soil, etc.). UNDER THIS LAW, THE MAIL-IN BALLOTS ONLY NEEDED TO BE "POSTMARKED" BY ELECTION DAY AND WERE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA UP TO A MONTH AFTER ELECTION DAY.

But, then Covid 19 pandemic came along. So, the Pennsylvania lawmakers changed the law to allow EVERY PENNSYLVANIA CITIZEN to vote by mail-in ballots, whether they were out of state on election day or not. In so doing, the Pennsylvania legislature specifically stated, in writing, at the very beginning of the statute itself, that the purpose of the all of these new changes to the statute was to "ENFRANCHISE" (TO ENSURE THE VOTE OF) AS MANY PENNSYLVANIA CITIZENS AS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. This become important later.

To further ensure that as many Pennsylvania voters as possible could vote with ease and have their vote counted, THE NEW CHANGES TO THE STATUTE PROVIDED FOR TEMPORARY, IN-PERSON, BALLOT-DROP BOXES ALL OVER THE STATE, TEMPORARY SATELLITE ELECTION OFFICES ALL OVER THE STATE WHERE VOTERS COULD DROP-OFF THEIR BALLOTS IN PERSON UNTIL THE END OF ELECTION DAY. NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE BALLOT DROP-OFF LOCATIONS WAS AN OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTION OFFICE ITSELF. This becomes important later.

AFTER ELECTION DAY, THE COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE WOULD GO TO PICK UP THE BALLOTS FROM THESE TEMPORARY BALLOT DROP-OFF BOXES AND THESE TEMPORARY SATELLITE ELECTION OFFICES AND DELIVER THEN TO THE COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE. This becomes important later.

SO, THE BALLOTS DROPPED-OFF AT THESE TEMPORARY LOCATIONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED AT THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE UNTIL DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION,. SOMETIMES UP TO A WEEK LATER.

But, one of the new changes to the same statute was a requirement that MAIL-IN BALLOTS ONLY had to actually be RECEIVED AT THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTION OFFICES BY THE END OF ELECTION DAY, DAYS SOONER THAN ANY OF THE DROP-OFF BALLOTS ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AT THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE. This becomes important later.

That means that there was a DIFFERENT "RECEIPT DEADLINE' for mail-in ballots than there was for drop-off ballots.

In deciding the case, the court took into account the actual language of the statute itself which specifically stated that the purpose of the new changes to the statute was to "ENFRANCHISE" (ENSURE THE VOTE OF) AS MANY PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS AS POSSIBLE. More importantly, the court also took into account that the legislature's CREATING A DIFFERENT "RECEIPT" DEADLINE AT THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE FOR MAIL-IN BALLOTS THAN FOR DROP-OFF BALLOTS VIOLATED THE "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, something that is illegal.

ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT HELD THAT MAIL-IN BALLOTS POSTMARKED BY ELECTION DAY COULD BE COUNTED, EVEN IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY "RECEIVED" BY THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE LATER, SO AS TO MAKE THE "RECEIPT DEADLINE" THE SAME FOR BOTH MAIL-IN BALLOTS AND FOR DROP-OFF BALLOTS PLACED IN "DROP BOXES" AND TEMPORARY SATELLITE OFFICES, NONE OF WHICH WERE ACTUALLY "RECEIVED" BY THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE BY ELECTION DAY. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...704890&q=Boockvar&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,230

YOUR COMMENT: This will probably get over turned at the SC

MY RESPONSE: Perhaps. But, the late arriving mail-in ballots had no effect whatsoever on the election outcome anyway. Biden won the election BEFORE even taking into account the late arriving mail-in ballots. So, the point is moot. http://www.chicagotribune.com/elect...0201111-jnbso56erbgsxlfv244lipxdyy-story.html

YOUR COMMENT: but the damage is already done and cant be undone without disqualifying the district or having a new election. So whats the remedy for the judges in PA who threw this election to Biden by over stepping their bounds and didn't follow what the legislature had already decided?

MY RESPONSE: No damage was done whatsoever. Even if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled the other way around, the late arriving mail-in ballots were still not enough to change the outcome of the election. Biden won the election in Pennsylvania BEFORE even taking into account the late-arriving, mail-in ballots that were the subject of the court decisions. http://www.chicagotribune.com/elect...0201111-jnbso56erbgsxlfv244lipxdyy-story.html. So, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not give the election to Biden. Biden already had the election in his pocket anyway.

And consider this. Even if Trump had won Pennsylvania (and he did not), he would have still had to win Georgia and either Arizona OR Nevada to win the election. But, he lost all four of those states. So, what happened in Pennsylvania was completely irrelevant to the election for a number of mathematical reasons.

Again, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court merely refused to "DISENFRANCHISE" Pennsylvania voters who cast their ballots by by mail before the end of election day merely because they were not "RECEIVED" at the official county elections office EARLIER than the drop-off ballots were actually received by the official county elections office. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court merely held that the actual receipt deadline at the official county elections office MUST BE THE SAME for all Pennsylvania voters, whether they vote by mail-in or by drop-off. That is exactly as it should be.

YOUR COMMENT: Many examples concerning the income tax which we don't see eye to eye on yet I still enjoy our discussions of the subject.

MY RESPONSE: The law that I have provided to you is not "my law". It is the law that applies to all of us. So, when you say things like "there is no law" which requires the payment of income tax or that "income tax is unconstitutional", I merely provide you with written proof of the law to the contrary. Nothing more. I take no position on the law one way or the other. I simply show you proof of what the law is.

YOUR COMMENT: I wont clutter this up with loads of tax stuff but one case in particular I do find interesting. One that I know you are familiar with. Pete hendrickson. Let me first state that he has it wrong about trying to get your money back from the feds.. He has some things right and others wrong.. Chalk it up to the tax code being impossibly complex. Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer have it right but thats for another post. :)

MY RESPONSE: I know nothing of these two tax protesters. I obtain 100% of my information about the law directly from the law itself, not from middlemen who pretend to know the law, like these two posers. I go directly to the source itself. I only wish more of my partners on this site would do the same. That would end all of the debate before it even begins.

YOUR COMMENT: Ok so pete hendrickson is jailed for refusing to sign a 1040 under penalty of perjury. This was awhile back so I am going from memory here but the list of this was that Pete didn't file an income tax. The IRS said he had to file and Pete said he didn't have any income. The IRS said yes he did and filled out a 1040 on his behalf and told him to sign it. He refused. Its got a court order and he still refused. I think he was jailed for contempt. I think thats the official version anyway.

My guess is your response will be that he should have followed the judges order and then fought it later.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. I would never let things get that far in the first place. I would honestly report my income on time and I would honestly pay my income taxes on time. In this way, I would never go before a judge and never be subject to a court order in the first place. Most importantly, I would never pay the IRS a single penalty, a single fine or a single day's worth of interest. I am not stupid. I would never allow my income taxes to go delinquent or unpaid. The idea is to avoid manufacturing a problem in the first place.

YOUR COMMENT: To which my reply would be that if the IRS and Judge are issuing illegal orders in the first place.

MY RESPONSE: RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE JUST MAKING THIS RUBBISH UP. AND, YOU ARE LEGALLY WRONG. SHOW ME THE CASE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM OF THIS ALLEGED ILLEGALITY. ONLY THEN WILL YOU HAVE A REAL LEGAL CONCLUSION TO PUBLISH. MAKING SOMETHING UP WILL NOT DO THE TRICK.

YOUR COMMENT: Why should he have to incur the expense of sorting them out in the courts?

MY RESPONSE: Because he is the cause of that court action. His conduct (in refusing to comply with the law) is what necessitated that court action in the first place. If he had only complied with the law, he would have prevented any court action, any court order, any penalty, any fine and any interest due. Tax evasion is a crime and such criminals go to jail. FAKE legal expert, Rod Class, sent a friend of his to federal prison for 8 years playing such childish, bullshit games with the IRS like this.

YOUR COMMENT: Again, I think his theories on filing for refunds are incorrect, but if the government backed by the courts can just decide what is and isn't income.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, Our ELECTED lawmakers CORRECTLY determine what is or is not income for income tax purposes. If not our ELECTED lawmakers, then who do you believe should rightfully be making this determination? The tax protester who seeks to evade paying taxes? Give me a break. Yes. THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS PASSED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS. Do you actually contend that the courts SHOULD IGNORE AND VIOLATE THE LAW PASSED BY OUR ELECTED LAWMAKERS? If so, that would be the very definition of corruption of the courts.

YOUR COMMENT: and fill out a tax return for anyone and force them to sign under penalty of perjury or be sent to jail, then we have a problem with the system IMO.

MY RESPONSE: The law requires a signed tax return every year, whether taxes are due or not. The tax protester here refused to comply voluntarily with this law. So here, the IRS was actually trying to help the tax protester avoid going to jail by doing all the work for him. But, the IRS cannot sign the tax return for the tax protester. So, the IRS asked the tax protester to sign the tax return for himself. He refused and in so doing, chose to go to jail, rather than simply comply with the law, as he should have done in the first place. Are we supposed to feel sorry for such a freeloader? Should you and I have to pay more in income taxes to off-set the costs of freeloaders on the system like this clown? He has no pity from me. I hate freeloaders of every stripe.

YOUR COMMENT: So are you saying I can just go to court and stop welfare at both the state and federal level?

MY RESPONSE: No. You do not have legal standing to challenge welfare (whether it is welfare for the poor or welfare for large corporations or welfare for the billionaire class).

YOUR COMMENT: Clearly not constitutional.

MY RESPONSE YOU THROW THIS PHRASE AROUND A LOT. HOW WOULD YOU EVEN KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT? DO YOU CLAIM THAT SOMETHING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MERELY BECAUSE SOME AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST SAID SO? THAT IS NOT HOW WE, AS ADULTS, ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. SHOW ME THE CASE LAW THAT SAYS WELFARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT DOES NOT EXIST. SHOW ME THE ACTUAL WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS WELFARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY DO NOT EXIST. PLEASE STOP MAKING THIS STUFF UP.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE FOR THE common Defense and GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES."

This clause in the Constitution of the United States, called the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; RATHER, IT MERELY ALLOWS CONGRESS TO SPEND FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. .

YOUR COMMENT: Obamacare. Clearly unconstitutional yet the courts ruled it constitutional and labeled

MY RESPONSE: Again, you throw this phrase around a lot for someone who never read the case law on the subject. Whatever it is that you think you know about the Constitution, you do not know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court Of The United States (one stacked with conservative Justices).

YOUR COMMENT: it a special tax. A special tax for refusing to purchase healthcare? That's really a stretch to have found that to be constitutional.

MY RESPONSE: While Congress doesn't have the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance, IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO TAX INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT. The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES., Are we supposed to feel sorry for healthcare freeloaders who get their healthcare for free? Should you and I be forced to pay for his healthcare for him? That is the very definition of socialism.

YOUR COMMENT: Would it also be constitutional to mandate everyone eat broccoli 3 times a week or pay a fine?

MY RESPONSE: While Congress doesn't have the power to require individuals to eat broccoli three times a week, IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO TAX INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT. The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES.,

YOUR COMMENT: How about a mandate to only purchase American made cars or pay a fine?

MY RESPONSE: While Congress doesn't have the power to require individuals to only purchase American cares, IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO TAX INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT. The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES.,

YOUR COMMENT: We can actually list any number of products and say the same thing.. Clearly our founding fathers never intended the federal government to be able to force this kind of thing down our throats.

MY RESPONSE: Broccoli and American cars are one thing. Providing healthcare to every American citizen in another. Healthcare relates DIRECTLY to the "GENERAL WELFARE" clause in the United States Constitution.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ...COLLECT TAXES... AND PROVIDE FOR THE...GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES."

The idea behind the "individual mandate" in Obama Care was a conservative one. The idea was to ensure that if healthcare providers were going to render free healthcare to all American citizens, the "freeloaders" would pay their fair share of the costs just like everybody else in America OR PAY A TAX. That is exactly as it should be. The alternative is socialism.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
18,415
Likes
17,454
Location
clown world
#14
The idea behind the "individual mandate" in Obama Care was a conservative one. The idea was to ensure that if healthcare providers were going to render free healthcare to all American citizens, the "freeloaders" would pay their fair share of the costs just like everybody else in America. That is exactly as it should be.

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

this is exactly how it shouldnt be. the costs are not 'fair'. using sliding price scales to favor one american over another is anything but

let gov dig into your life and lineage to decide how much to charge you? just cant
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#15
that was well done snoop,

but here is the thing for many of us,
a person can tear apart the constitution word by word, and then rule accordingly,
just as you did

and yes, in the preamble it does state welfare:

-----------------------
The Preamble




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-------------------------

but, and a big but indeed, is that you should also well know that words are designed to have intent, or what is the big picture of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the document.

To extract 1 or 2 words of something, then declare it constitutional is a common tactic. As then it also gets into individual word definitions, definitions as assumed of the times, etc.

The flow and intent of the original document then is disrupted enough to completely alter the document as the need arises to accomplish some goal.

Now sure, we cannot go back and ask the fellas what they had in mind, but it is ok to speculate on what they perceived the words on paper to mean vs what modern theory of those words.

When a person reviews your commentary regarding Pa, it is exactly this, taking individual words and assigning them greater meaning than the whole. We will have to just disagree regarding whether or not 'illegal' fraud was and is present in Pa, Ga, Wi, Mi, Az, NY, Ca, Il, Or, Wa, Mt, and so on. I maintain the depth of the fraud is far greater than any of us without the data can put a number to.

Then too, earlier referred to these 'elected' representatives having the power to push forward these actions, being bestowed with that right to do so by the people, as directed by the constitution.

Which brings me to my last point, and that is the rigidity to your statement. Again, no intent or flow, individual words.
Using your argument, a little tramp bartender from NY getting somewhere around 10,000 votes to sit in the house, has the knowledge and privilege to drive the discussion of a country of 340M people. Because as you state, she is a duly elected representative of the people. Well, no, no she is not.

That gets us into a whole discussion of districting and redistricting, which of course will be ruled constitutional no matter how they draw the lines. Again a different discussion.

Taking us back to your original argument of sovereign, you rightly made the argument that it is in the aggregate, but in this case you want to dial in and state this 2 bit intellectual midget has the authority to do so as a elected representative. Of course, being contrary to the original argument of a wide view lens.

Then too, as you did with welfare, that too is a dial in rather than a wide view lens. Meaning you are picking and choosing when to go low and when to go high in your arguments.

And in defense of Cigar, why did the SS act get rewrote multiple times, and end up as a 'tax' if it was constitutional in original form? The same with kenyan kare, the chief justice sent it back down, said make it a tax and I will get you thru. To date, because it is a 'tax', it hasn't been overturned. Which is a whole different discussion anyway.

In your parlance, tax + welfare (just words) = we can do whatever we want and declare it constitutional.

taking us all the way back to klinton, and his 'depends on the definition of 'is' is' in his impeachment.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,566
Likes
19,453
#16
Snoops I do enjoy our conversations. I hadn't thought about the PA decisions in that light before and will give it some consideration.

The general welfare clause is a tricky one and I still contend that it does not mean to provide welfare payments for anyone congress decides should get it. It's been years since I have read about the true intent of that clause but IIRC, I read about it in the federalist papers so I will review them and get back to you on this one. :).

Tommy Cryer was prosecuted by the IRS. He was a lawyer in Louisiana and took it to a jury trial where he won his case and proved without a doubt to a jury that no income tax has ever been imposed on any Americans living and working in the united states exchanging their labor for pay.

I never claimed the income tax is unconstitutional in fact I think , as written it is constitutional. It just doesn't say what you think it says.

"The Income tax applies to these classes of "persons". 1. A Nonresident Alien with Domestic sourced income. 2. A Foreign Corporation with Domestic sourced Income. And 3. U.S. Citizens living abroad with "Foreign" Income.

Thats it. You wont find the imposition of an income tax on any other class of persons.

However, this is not the right posting to discuss this and I do apologize for taking your original posing off topic. And by the way I agree with your original post. I have yet to see anyone win a sovereign case anywhere in the US.
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#17
going back to my original post where he didn't understand what I stated,

they do wtf ever they want basically,

to whit:

go read the election thread and those associated with it,
judges are ruling one after another (no standing, improper cause, improperly submitted, etc) all manner of bs to head this off,

and you will also note a common theme, dem judges consistently ruling in one direction

tramp getting thrown out of Nv on his ass by a 2 bit judge with zero real standing, over incredible evidence of fraud,
same in Pa, Mi, Wi, Ga, etc.

then you want to sit here and tell me of this constitution and representative .gov?

we lost this representation long ago

which of course renders most of your arguments as true in theory only, but not in actual practice,
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
2,820
Likes
4,270
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#18
that was well done snoop,

but here is the thing for many of us,
a person can tear apart the constitution word by word, and then rule accordingly,
just as you did

and yes, in the preamble it does state welfare:

-----------------------
The Preamble




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-------------------------

but, and a big but indeed, is that you should also well know that words are designed to have intent, or what is the big picture of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the document.

To extract 1 or 2 words of something, then declare it constitutional is a common tactic. As then it also gets into individual word definitions, definitions as assumed of the times, etc.

The flow and intent of the original document then is disrupted enough to completely alter the document as the need arises to accomplish some goal.

Now sure, we cannot go back and ask the fellas what they had in mind, but it is ok to speculate on what they perceived the words on paper to mean vs what modern theory of those words.

When a person reviews your commentary regarding Pa, it is exactly this, taking individual words and assigning them greater meaning than the whole. We will have to just disagree regarding whether or not 'illegal' fraud was and is present in Pa, Ga, Wi, Mi, Az, NY, Ca, Il, Or, Wa, Mt, and so on. I maintain the depth of the fraud is far greater than any of us without the data can put a number to.

Then too, earlier referred to these 'elected' representatives having the power to push forward these actions, being bestowed with that right to do so by the people, as directed by the constitution.

Which brings me to my last point, and that is the rigidity to your statement. Again, no intent or flow, individual words.
Using your argument, a little tramp bartender from NY getting somewhere around 10,000 votes to sit in the house, has the knowledge and privilege to drive the discussion of a country of 340M people. Because as you state, she is a duly elected representative of the people. Well, no, no she is not.

That gets us into a whole discussion of districting and redistricting, which of course will be ruled constitutional no matter how they draw the lines. Again a different discussion.

Taking us back to your original argument of sovereign, you rightly made the argument that it is in the aggregate, but in this case you want to dial in and state this 2 bit intellectual midget has the authority to do so as a elected representative. Of course, being contrary to the original argument of a wide view lens.

Then too, as you did with welfare, that too is a dial in rather than a wide view lens. Meaning you are picking and choosing when to go low and when to go high in your arguments.

And in defense of Cigar, why did the SS act get rewrote multiple times, and end up as a 'tax' if it was constitutional in original form? The same with kenyan kare, the chief justice sent it back down, said make it a tax and I will get you thru. To date, because it is a 'tax', it hasn't been overturned. Which is a whole different discussion anyway.

In your parlance, tax + welfare (just words) = we can do whatever we want and declare it constitutional.

taking us all the way back to klinton, and his 'depends on the definition of 'is' is' in his impeachment.
The Preamble is not a statement of law.

It's an explanation of intent.

"Welfare" in that era, did not mean charity or cash subsidies. It meant "well-being." GENERAL welfare, meant the status of overall benefit to the various States and their citizens.

"Welfare" as a term for what had been called "relief" during the Roosevelt years, was a euphamism cooked up. Just as "Relief" was a term to disguise what it was - a cash handout, basically alms to the poor without even the poor asking or singing or performing services.

Once the term "Welfare" took on the same stench as all the previous terms (Dole, Relief, etc) the term was again changed - in some states it was "Income Maintenance" given by the "Human Services Department." Now of course we favor alphabet-soup terms - AFDC, GA, SSI, SSA, WIC.

Nowhere in the Constitution was this authorized or even envisioned.

That said, one person's opinion has not the force of law. Not even when that opinion can be buttressed by a reading of the Constitution and comments by its authors, in the Federalist Papers and convention notes.

At some point, some legal body has to make a ruling; and the Supreme Court (Marbury v. Madison) appropriated that authority. That should have been addressed RIGHT THEN, but it was not; and so, until further work is done, the defining authority is that of the Supremes.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#19
that was well done snoop,

but here is the thing for many of us,
a person can tear apart the constitution word by word, and then rule accordingly,
just as you did

and yes, in the preamble it does state welfare:

-----------------------
The Preamble




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-------------------------

but, and a big but indeed, is that you should also well know that words are designed to have intent, or what is the big picture of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the document.

To extract 1 or 2 words of something, then declare it constitutional is a common tactic. As then it also gets into individual word definitions, definitions as assumed of the times, etc.

The flow and intent of the original document then is disrupted enough to completely alter the document as the need arises to accomplish some goal.

Now sure, we cannot go back and ask the fellas what they had in mind, but it is ok to speculate on what they perceived the words on paper to mean vs what modern theory of those words.

When a person reviews your commentary regarding Pa, it is exactly this, taking individual words and assigning them greater meaning than the whole. We will have to just disagree regarding whether or not 'illegal' fraud was and is present in Pa, Ga, Wi, Mi, Az, NY, Ca, Il, Or, Wa, Mt, and so on. I maintain the depth of the fraud is far greater than any of us without the data can put a number to.

Then too, earlier referred to these 'elected' representatives having the power to push forward these actions, being bestowed with that right to do so by the people, as directed by the constitution.

Which brings me to my last point, and that is the rigidity to your statement. Again, no intent or flow, individual words.
Using your argument, a little tramp bartender from NY getting somewhere around 10,000 votes to sit in the house, has the knowledge and privilege to drive the discussion of a country of 340M people. Because as you state, she is a duly elected representative of the people. Well, no, no she is not.

That gets us into a whole discussion of districting and redistricting, which of course will be ruled constitutional no matter how they draw the lines. Again a different discussion.

Taking us back to your original argument of sovereign, you rightly made the argument that it is in the aggregate, but in this case you want to dial in and state this 2 bit intellectual midget has the authority to do so as a elected representative. Of course, being contrary to the original argument of a wide view lens.

Then too, as you did with welfare, that too is a dial in rather than a wide view lens. Meaning you are picking and choosing when to go low and when to go high in your arguments.

And in defense of Cigar, why did the SS act get rewrote multiple times, and end up as a 'tax' if it was constitutional in original form? The same with kenyan kare, the chief justice sent it back down, said make it a tax and I will get you thru. To date, because it is a 'tax', it hasn't been overturned. Which is a whole different discussion anyway.

In your parlance, tax + welfare (just words) = we can do whatever we want and declare it constitutional.

taking us all the way back to klinton, and his 'depends on the definition of 'is' is' in his impeachment.
Hello Scorpio,

It is always a privilege to talk to a critical thinker of your caliber.

YOUR COMMENT: that was well done snoop,

MY RESPONSE: Thanks, But, I did nothing but quote the law itself which was written entirely by others, not by me.

YOUR COMMENT: but here is the thing for many of us, a person can tear apart the constitution word by word, and then rule accordingly,
just as you did.

MY RESPONSE. Again, I, myself did nothing at all, except to read the law on the subject and quote or summarize the relevant parts for you and our partners here.

YOUR COMMENT: and yes, in the preamble it does state welfare: The Preamble. the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

but, and a big but indeed, is that you should also well know that words are designed to have intent, or what is the big picture of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the document.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. The courts who apply the Constitution to statutes like the Welfare statute do that very thing. See just below.

YOUR COMMENT: To extract 1 or 2 words of something, then declare it constitutional is a common tactic. As then it also gets into individual word definitions, definitions as assumed of the times, etc. The flow and intent of the original document then is disrupted enough to completely alter the document as the need arises to accomplish some goal. Now sure, we cannot go back and ask the fellas what they had in mind, but it is ok to speculate on what they perceived the words on paper to mean vs what modern theory of those words.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The courts determine the true intent of the authors by looking at the surrounding language in the text and by analyzing the history which resulted in the text being written in the first place. This is why the Federalist Papers are so important. The Federalist Papers are the detailed correspondence between the founding fathers in which they discussed the necessity of the provisions in the Constitution and their intent in drafting those provisions. Both sides in cases before the Supreme Court in cases where the intent of the founding fathers is at issue have access to the Federalist Papers. So, the courts are not free to simply make up interpretations inconsistent with the true intentions of the founding fathers. Indeed, the ORIGINAL true intentions of the founding fathers is so important to understanding Constitutional Law that the Federalist Papers are the first several chapters taught in Constitutional Law Class in Law School. The courts still quote the Federalist Papers in their decisions all the time.

YOUR COMMENT: When a person reviews your commentary regarding Pa, it is exactly this, taking individual words and assigning them greater meaning than the whole.

MY RESPONSE: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court case was not about taking individual words of the Pennsylvania Voting Statute and assigning them greater (or lesser) meaning. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court case was decided primarily on the basis that having a different "receipt deadline" for "MAIL-IN" ballots than for "DROP-OFF" ballots VIOLATED THE "EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

YOUR COMMENT: We will have to just disagree regarding whether or not 'illegal' fraud was and is present in Pa, Ga, Wi, Mi, Az, NY, Ca, Il, Or, Wa, Mt, and so on. I maintain the depth of the fraud is far greater than any of us without the data can put a number to.

MY RESPONSE: As to the subject of voter fraud, we have nothing to disagree on. I never addressed the subject of voter fraud in my post above. Likewise, the portion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which related to different deadlines for "MAIL-IN" ballots than for "DROP-OFF" ballots was not decided on the basis of voter fraud. It was decided primarily on the basis of "EQUAL PROTECTION" of the laws as is required by the United States Constitution. The subject of voter fraud was not addressed by either side in that portion of the case.

YOUR COMMENT: Then too, earlier referred to these 'elected' representatives having the power to push forward these actions, being bestowed with that right to do so by the people, as directed by the constitution.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. The elected lawmakers of Pennsylvania have the right to pass laws, SO LONG AS THOSE LAWS DO NOT VIOLATE THE STATE OR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE "EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The elected lawmakers of Pennsylvania have no right and no power to violate any provision of the United States Constitution, including the "equal protection" clause. That portion of the case was not about voter fraud.

YOUR COMMENT: Which brings me to my last point, and that is the rigidity to your statement. Again, no intent or flow, individual words.
Using your argument, a little tramp bartender from NY getting somewhere around 10,000 votes to sit in the house, has the knowledge and privilege to drive the discussion of a country of 340M people. Because as you state, she is a duly elected representative of the people. Well, no, no she is not.

MY RESPONSE: Rigidity? AOC is a single voice in roughly 435 voices in the House Of Representatives (now, almost half of which are Republican voices) and one hundred MORE voices in the Senate (over half of which are Republican voices). AOC is so extreme that her views are even rejected by a majority of her fellow Democrats, INCLUDING THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ELECT. She is nothing more than a very load ant in a colony of 340 million ants. I do not lose any sleep over her. Neither should you.

YOUR COMMENT: That gets us into a whole discussion of districting and redistricting, which of course will be ruled constitutional no matter how they draw the lines. Again a different discussion.

MY RESPONSE: Districting a redistricting IS REAL VOTER FRAUD! But, we could write volumes on that subject. LOL!

YOUR COMMENT: Taking us back to your original argument of sovereign, you rightly made the argument that it is in the aggregate, but in this case you want to dial in and state this 2 bit intellectual midget has the authority to do so as a elected representative. Of course, being contrary to the original argument of a wide view lens.

MY RESPONSE: Sorry, I am unable to follow what you are trying to say here. I don;t get it.

YOUR COMMENT: Then too, as you did with welfare, that too is a dial in rather than a wide view lens. Meaning you are picking and choosing when to go low and when to go high in your arguments.

MY RESPONSE: The words in my post above are not mine. I am not a Supreme Court Justice. I do not write the law. I have never made a Constitutional argument for (or against) Welfare. I personally oppose all Welfare and all subsidies to the rich and to the poor, whether disguised as a tax break or disguised as something else. But, under the law, which was written entirely by others, Welfare is Constitutional. That is my only point on Welfare. Nothing more.

YOUR COMMENT: And in defense of Cigar, why did the SS act get rewritten multiple times, and end up as a 'tax' if it was constitutional in original form?

MY RESPONSE: To fund it. Welfare costs money

YOUR COMMENT: The same with kenyan kare, the chief justice sent it back down, said make it a tax and I will get you thru. To date, because it is a 'tax', it hasn't been overturned. Which is a whole different discussion anyway.

MY RESPONSE: Fist, show me proof that the Justice actually said this. Second, keep in mind that Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution ALSO GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO "SPEND".

The first clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States, reads, "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, TO PAY DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE ...GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES."

This clause in the Constitution of the United States, called the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE OR THE SPENDING POWER CLAUSE, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; RATHER, IT MERELY ALLOWS CONGRESS TO SPEND FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Given this language in the United States Constitution, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Congress needed to convert Welfare into a "tax" to make it Constitutional. IT WAS ALREADY CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE "SPENDING POWER CLAUSE" AND UNDER THE "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE". IT DID NOT NEED TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS A "TAX" TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE CONSTITUTIONAL THAN IT ALREADY WAS UNDER THE "SPENDING POWER CLAUSE" AND UNDER THE "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE".

YOUR COMMENT: In your parlance, tax + welfare (just words) = we can do whatever we want and declare it constitutional.

MY RESPONSE: I oppose all Welfare to the rich and to the poor. But, it is true that when the Constitution EXPRESSLY authorizes something by name and if such is consistent with the founding fathers' original intent as set forth in the Federalist Papers, then the courts are required to declare it Constitutional.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#21
[
Snoops I do enjoy our conversations. I hadn't thought about the PA decisions in that light before and will give it some consideration.

The general welfare clause is a tricky one and I still contend that it does not mean to provide welfare payments for anyone congress decides should get it. It's been years since I have read about the true intent of that clause but IIRC, I read about it in the federalist papers so I will review them and get back to you on this one. :).

Tommy Cryer was prosecuted by the IRS. He was a lawyer in Louisiana and took it to a jury trial where he won his case and proved without a doubt to a jury that no income tax has ever been imposed on any Americans living and working in the united states exchanging their labor for pay.

I never claimed the income tax is unconstitutional in fact I think , as written it is constitutional. It just doesn't say what you think it says.

"The Income tax applies to these classes of "persons". 1. A Nonresident Alien with Domestic sourced income. 2. A Foreign Corporation with Domestic sourced Income. And 3. U.S. Citizens living abroad with "Foreign" Income.

Thats it. You wont find the imposition of an income tax on any other class of persons.

However, this is not the right posting to discuss this and I do apologize for taking your original posing off topic. And by the way I agree with your original post. I have yet to see anyone win a sovereign case anywhere in the US.
Hello Cigarlover,

THE TOMMY CRYER'S CRIMINAL CASE

THE CASE YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. This case is not reported because it is a trial level case, not an appellate level case. Regardless, In this case, the United States charged Tommy Cryer with the WILLFUL refusal to pay his income taxes. Under the law, if a taxpayer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due, he cannot be convicted of this crime. While Cryer was mistaken, the jury found that Cryer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due. This is the classic "MISTAKEN BELIEF" defense. Regardless, Cryer was AQUITTED of the CRIME of WILLFULLY refusing to pay his income tax, BUT CRYER WAS NEVERTHELESS FOUND CIVILLY LIABLE TO PAY HIS INCOME TAXES AND HE WAS FORCED TO DO SO. The end result of the case is that Cryer was forced to pay his taxes anyway. But, CRYER avoided prison because of the MISTAKEN BELIEF defense. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer

Because Cryer peddled tax protester arguments, his followers mistakenly thought that Cryer won the case above on the merits of his tax protester arguments ("Wages are not income", "I am not among the persons statutorily required to pay income tax", etc..). But, this was not so. Cryer was acquitted in his criminal case SOLELY BECAUSE HE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE. Thus, Cryer did not win his criminal case because he was so smart. Cryer won his criminal case because he was so stupid. And then, he was forced to pay his income taxes anyway. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer.

BELOW IS AN EXPOSE' OF TOMMY CRYER'S MENTAL PROBLEMS
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/tommy-cryer

BELOW A FEDERAL INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS. See entry dated September, 19, 2012.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm#091912

Every single tax protester argument that Cryer ever raised has been struck down and declared frivolous by the courts.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#22
snoop, hang in there, we thread drift all of the time,
we all have polished rock syndrome,

where we polish a rock, hold it up, and say lookey here!
doesn't matter where the rock came from, just that it exists
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,722
Likes
7,768
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#23
I really just wanted to respond to the first words of your quote and add context, context in the form of a supreme ruler' that we have now. There are 50 of them and they are all governors of states of the union and they are all hiding under their statute emergency claus of each and every particular state. I'm just glad that the constitutions are not suspended because it is there we have hope.
And, if any one think me wrong then that bonehead need only read their particular state' emergency statute'. Here in Oregon the wording says "any laws not in conference to the emergency are suspended." Now I paraphrased that but essentially the ORS. 401 chapter made the Office of the Governor a Sovereign.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#24
hey snoop,

sorry to hear about the eyes,
did you try to get rid of the glasses, and now functioning without?
lazik works great for many

regardless, I appreciate your responses and would anticipate no less,

I will keep it simple and just simply state, I have a less rigid view of how things really are,
multiple examples in your post of the textbook answer regurgitation

we do agree TJ was a great person and mind, as well as sovereignty

yet we do disagree markedly on the so called representatives, and who or what they really are, and how they become ensconced
YOUR COMMENT: hey snoop,

MY RESPONSE: Hello, my friend.

YOUR COMMENT: sorry to hear about the eyes, did you try to get rid of the glasses, and now functioning without? lazik works great for many.

MY RESPONSE; This was cataract surgery. They removed my natural lenses and implanted artificial lenses. I previously had Lasik. And, yes it worked great until I developed cataracts.

YOUR COMMENT; regardless, I appreciate your responses and would anticipate no less,

MY RESPONSE: You are most welcome and thank you for your kind words.

YOUR COMMENT: I will keep it simple and just simply state, I have a less rigid view of how things really are,
multiple examples in your post of the textbook answer regurgitation.

MY RESPONSE: OK. And, I take no offense to having my responses characterized in such a fashion.

YOUR COMMENT we do agree TJ was a great person and mind, as well as sovereignty.

MY RESPONSE: True Story: Once John F. Kennedy was entertaining guests at a formal dinner at the White House. He made the following statement to his dinner guests, "There is more intelligence sitting around this dinner table than at any time in the history of our nation .......... except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Translation: Thomas Jefferson is more intelligent than all of us combined. And, that statement came from a man whose own IQ was 164.

Agreed. In a republic like ours, sovereignty is a term that applies to ALL OF "WE THE PEOPLE" COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE. But, in a republic like ours, sovereignty is a term that DOES NOT APPLY to any one, single, individual person. Sadly, this concept is simply too complicated for some people to comprehend. They are incapable grasping the distinction between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US".

YOUR COMMENT: yet we do disagree markedly on the so called representatives, and who or what they really are,

MY RESPONSE: Can we at least agree that they are all people who run for public office?

YOUR COMMENT: ... and how they become ensconced.

MY RESPONSE: We elect them. That is how we empower them to do what they do.

With Respect,

Snoop

 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#25
MY RESPONSE: We elect them. That is how we empower them to do what they do.
We do?

Are you really really sure about that?

I am of the opinion that it has been a long long time since we had elections as you and I would perceive them to be.

Do you understand how it works real world? Such as, the soros and others like him, choose their pawns, put them up for election and fund the hell out of them. Whether speaking of county judges or city councils.

The altruistic idea of persons just up and running for office to 'serve their country' has long been buried into the ash heap of history. People like that get crushed in a election due to lack of funding, lack of free pub, and lack of name recognition.

Surely you know Paul Ryan. Was a ok dude for awhile, then the pope came to town. Threw Boehner out on his keister and inserted ryan. From that moment on, and to this day, ryan is a wounded duck.

many many more examples of person owned by others, pelosi, schummer, mcconnell, waters, aoc, hidin' and the ho, etc.
shorter route would be to try to find someone who isn't beholden to others,
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#26
going back to my original post where he didn't understand what I stated,

they do wtf ever they want basically,

to whit:

go read the election thread and those associated with it,
judges are ruling one after another (no standing, improper cause, improperly submitted, etc) all manner of bs to head this off,

and you will also note a common theme, dem judges consistently ruling in one direction

tramp getting thrown out of Nv on his ass by a 2 bit judge with zero real standing, over incredible evidence of fraud,
same in Pa, Mi, Wi, Ga, etc.

then you want to sit here and tell me of this constitution and representative .gov?

we lost this representation long ago

which of course renders most of your arguments as true in theory only, but not in actual practice,
Hello Again, Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: going back to my original post where he didn't understand what I stated, they do wtf ever they want basically, to whit:: go read the election thread and those associated with it, judges are ruling one after another (no standing, improper cause, improperly submitted, etc) all manner of bs to head this off,

MY RESPONSE: Has it ever occurred to you that there might really be no standing to file such lawsuits, improper cause for such lawsuits or that such lawsuits were improperly submitted?

YOUR COMMENT: and you will also note a common theme, dem judges consistently ruling in one direction.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. Democratic appointed judges/justices and Republican appointed judges/justices ARE ALL CONSISTENTLY REACHING THE SAME CONCLUSION ABOUT ALL OF THESE LAWSUITS. The fact that every court presented with such a lawsuit is reaching the same result indicates that these courts are deciding these cases correctly, not the other way around.

YOUR COMMENT Trump getting thrown out of Nv on his ass by a 2 bit judge with zero real standing

MY RESPONSE: If the 2 bit judge really had no standing, THEN WHY IN HELL WOULD TRUMP HAVE SELECTED THAT COURT TO FILE HIS LAWSUIT IN? Did Trump seek a ruling from a court with no real standing to make that ruling?

YOUR COMMENT: over incredible evidence of fraud,

MY RESPONSE: Please provide me with a link to the dismissal in the case containing the credible evidence of fraud. Thanks.

YOUR COMMENT: same in Pa, Mi, Wi, Ga, etc.

MY RESPONSE: Have you read the dismissals of these cases? Got links?

YOUR COMMENT: then you want to sit here and tell me of this constitution and representative .gov?

MY RESPONSE: Yes. The Constitution and our elected, representative government are working exactly as they should be. Unless Trump's legal teams can actually prove real fraud of a type that would actually reverse the outcome of the election, the courts will not likely entertain their other legal maneuvers. The courts are not supposed to flip the election results merely because one party seeks that result. It will take more than merely claiming fraud to get the courts to reverse the election. It will required proof.

YOUR COMMENT: we lost this representation long ago.

MY RESPONSE: If this claim were REALLY true, then you would not care who won the recent presidential election. But, you do care. So, you know better than to pretend we lost our representative government long ago. Elections control EVERYTHING! So, "We the People" control EVERYTHING!

YOUR COMMENT: which of course renders most of your arguments as true in theory only, but not in actual practice,

MY RESPONSE: If my description of our elected government was REALLY theory only, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ELECTIONS. But, we do. That is not a theory. That is a fact. Those elections determine who all of our lawmakers are (local, state and federal) and therefore determine what our laws are. That is not a theory. That is a fact. Those elections determine the identity of every chief law enforcement officer of every single law enforcement agency in the country (state and federal). That is not a theory. That is a fact. In the state court system, those elections determine who our judges are, who our prosecutors are and in some states, who our public defenders are. That is not a theory. That is a fact. In the federal court system, those elections determine who appoints and confirms our judges and justices, who our prosecutors are and who our public defenders are. That is not a theory. That is a fact. Through these elections, we are the government.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#27
We do?

Are you really really sure about that?

I am of the opinion that it has been a long long time since we had elections as you and I would perceive them to be.

Do you understand how it works real world? Such as, the soros and others like him, choose their pawns, put them up for election and fund the hell out of them. Whether speaking of county judges or city councils.

The altruistic idea of persons just up and running for office to 'serve their country' has long been buried into the ash heap of history. People like that get crushed in a election due to lack of funding, lack of free pub, and lack of name recognition.

Surely you know Paul Ryan. Was a ok dude for awhile, then the pope came to town. Threw Boehner out on his keister and inserted ryan. From that moment on, and to this day, ryan is a wounded duck.

many many more examples of person owned by others, pelosi, schummer, mcconnell, waters, aoc, hidin' and the ho, etc.
shorter route would be to try to find someone who isn't beholden to others,
Hello Again, Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: We do? Are you really really sure about that? I am of the opinion that it has been a long long time since we had elections as you and I would perceive them to be. Do you understand how it works [in the] real world? Such as, the Soros and others like him, choose their pawns, put them up for election and fund the hell out of them. Whether speaking of county judges or city councils.

MY RESPONSE: I agree that big money provided by those outside the government unduly influences our elections and therefore corrupts what goes on inside government. I have always said so. But, consider this. "We the People"still determine who is elected. A billionaire has only one vote, the same number of votes that you and I have. So, those behind big money use that money to manipulate the thinking of the rest of us as voters. So, "We the People" still have the final say in elections. But, "We the People" are fed a lot of bullshit to get us to vote the ay we do. That is what hate radio and hate TV is all about.

YOUR COMMENT: The altruistic idea of persons just up and running for office to 'serve their country' has long been buried into the ash heap of history. People like that get crushed in a election due to lack of funding, lack of free pub, and lack of name recognition.

MY RESPONSE: This is largely true. Public funding of campaigns would eliminate much of this problem.

YOUR COMMENT: Surely you know Paul Ryan. Was a ok dude for awhile, then the pope came to town. Threw Boehner out on his keister and inserted ryan. From that moment on, and to this day, ryan is a wounded duck.

MY RESPONSE: How did the Pope achieve that?

YOUR COMMENT: many many more examples of person owned by others, pelosi, schummer, mcconnell, waters, aoc, hidin' and the ho, etc.
shorter route would be to try to find someone who isn't beholden to others

MY RESPONSE: I agree. What do you recommend to fix the problem?

With Respect,

Snoop
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#28
How did the Pope achieve that?
you tell me, I wasn't there and privy to the discussion,
I only know what I watched happen

you can claim coincidence for cover, but that doesn't wash,

the pope came to town for the first time in decades, and poof! Boehner is out and ryan is in.

Go check the popes stops and meets, and you tell me.

You don't want to know my answer on how to fix the problem, you really don't.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#29
This is the first I have ever heard of it.

I don't know anything about this claim.

Got a link?

I don't know that I need "cover" for anything.

I did not design our republic and I am the first to admit that people outside our government buy influence from those inside our government. I am the first to admit that state voter rolls are purged of voters with ethnic names or who live in ethnic neighborhoods in order to control the outcome of elections in a state. I am the first to admit that gerrymandering results in a party winning a Congressional election in a state where the opposing party actually casts more votes for its Congressional candidates. I am the first to admit that most voting precincts in minority communities are closed down so as to multiply exponentially the waiting time for minority voters to vote in the few precincts that remain open (so as to cause them to give up their right to vote). I am the first to admit that voter suppression laws create an advantage for one party over the other. I am the first to admit that these attacks on our right to vote need to be corrected.

What do I need to "cover" for?

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis's_2015_visit_to_North_America

Pope Francis's 2015 visit to North America


Pope Francis visited North America—Cuba and the United States—from 19 to 27 September 2015.[1][2] It was his first state visit to both Cuba and the U.S.,[3] as well as the third official papal visit to Cuba and the seventh to the United States since the U.S. established full diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1984.[4][5][6][7]

The published itinerary from the Vatican described the trip: "Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Pope Francis to Cuba and the United States of America, and Visit to the United Nations Organization Headquarters, on the occasion of his participation at the Eighth World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia."[8]

------------------

23 September (Washington, D.C.)

Pope Francis met with Little Sisters of the Poor after mass; a Vatican spokesman stated that this was a sign of his support for them in their opposition to a contraception mandate for Catholic hospitals.[23]

24 September (Washington, D.C.; New York City)
Play media


Speaker Boehner introduces Pope Francis to the 114th U.S. Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive Officers


In his speech to Congress and other dignitaries, he devoted most of the time discussing immigration, protection for persecuted religious groups including Christians, poverty, capital punishment, and climate change.[25]



Kim Davis and her husband met briefly[28] with Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington (Embassy of the Holy See) with "several dozen" other people.[29][30][31][32] The Vatican issued a statement saying the Pope's meeting with Davis "should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects."[33] According to Father Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, Davis was not invited to the nunciature, and "the meeting may have been manipulated by her and her lawyer."[28][34][35][36]

25 September (New York City, United Nations)
26 September (New York City, Philadelphia)
27 September (Philadelphia)


--------------------
Boehner previously served as the House Minority Leader from 2007 until 2011, and House Majority Leader from 2006 until 2007. In January 2011, he was elected speaker. Boehner resigned from the House of Representatives in October 2015 due to opposition from within the Republican caucus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner


Ryan would represent the district for 20 years. He chaired the House Budget Committee from 2011 to 2015 and briefly chaired the House Ways and Means Committee in 2015 prior to being elected Speaker of the House in October 2015 following John Boehner's retirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#32
you tell me, I wasn't there and privy to the discussion,
I only know what I watched happen

you can claim coincidence for cover, but that doesn't wash,

the pope came to town for the first time in decades, and poof! Boehner is out and ryan is in.

Go check the popes stops and meets, and you tell me.

You don't want to know my answer on how to fix the problem, you really don't.
Hello Scorpio,

Thanks for the the info on the Pope's visit.

I do not see a connection between the Pope's visit to the United States in 2015 and Boehner's and/or Ryan's position inside the Republican party, but we are both agreed on the general proposition that powerful parties outside of government (foreign and domestic) attempt to influence what goes on inside our government.

And, that was your central point.

Yes, I agree with you.

I also agree that the less of this activity, the better.

With Respect,

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#33
Hello BigJon,

I am going to give credit where credit is due.

In picking out something online to cut and paste on this thread, you did something that you have never done before.

You mistakenly picked an article WHICH ACTUALLY CONTAINS SOME LAW!

When I first saw your cut and paste article above, I could not believe my eyes (after all, I just had cataract surgery).

I realize that you did not know this at the time and that you did not do this on purpose, but the fact remains that THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME LAW CONTAINED in the cut and paste article above.

While the author of this article makes some glaring, amateur mistakes in interpreting this law, HE AT LEAST INCLUDED SOME LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS.

So, despite that you did not realize it at the time and despite that you did not do this on purpose, I am nevertheless giving you an A+ for posting this cut and paste article above.

NOW LET'S LOOK AT IT CLOSELY:

1. At the top of the article, the author purports to quote Black's Law Dictionary's definition of sovereignty. That definition reads,

"The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which AN INDEPENDENT STATE is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; self sufficient source of political power from which all specific political powers are derived; THE INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE, COMBINED WITH THE RIGHT AND POWER OF REGULATING ITS [NOT "HIS" OR "HER"] INTERNAL AFFAIRS WITHOUT FOREIGN DICTATION; ALSO A POLITICAL SOCIETY OR STATE which is sovereign and independent."

Now, legal dictionaries are not the law. but they are helpful in understanding some legal principles. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH SAYS THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN. There is a critical legal difference between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US". One of these two is sovereign and the other is not.

2. Then, the author writes, "The requirement of consent is the foundation for all of our (a PLURAL term) sovereignty as human beings (a PLURAL term). Ironically, as written, this claim is actually true. What the author does not understand however is how "We the People" give our consent to our elected government. The answer is that "We the People" give our consent COLLECTIVELY BY OUR VOTES IN ELECTIONS

THE DEFINITION OF THE "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed#:~:text=explore dictionary-,consent of the governed,democracy, and John Locke.)
A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people [a PLURAL term], AS EXPRESSED BY VOTES IN ELECTIONS. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "[It is] by THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] [that] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] exercise THEIR [also a PLURAL term] sovereignty". Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws.
at about 55% through the text in the middle last paragraph before the dissent and the concurring opinion HERE.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="the+people+exercise+their+sovereignty"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006


NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN ANYWHERE IN THE LAW. THE WORDS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS OR IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES WHICH REQUIRES INDIVIDUAL CONSENT RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE CONSENT THROUGH OUR ELECTIONS. So, there is a critical legal difference between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US". One of these two is sovereign and the other is not.

3. Next, the author MISTAKENLY interprets the legal definition above to require INDIVIDUAL consent rather than COLLECTIVE consent through the election process. The author ERRONEOUSLY writes,

"Being sovereign means: NO ONE can compel you in a civil court of law without YOUR CONSENT. [NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR PROVIDES NO LAW WHICH SUPPORTS THIS FALSE PROPOSITION. NOTE ALSO THAT THE AUTHOR CONFUSES COLLECTIVE CONSENT WITH INDIVIDUAL CONSENT. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

The author continues by writing,

"THE ONLY WAY for you to lose your rights are to injure the equal rights of OTHER SOVEREIGNS [NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR MISTAKENLY BELIEVES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN AND THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE NOT SOVEREIGN, EXACTLY BACKWARDS FROM THE TRUTH.]. ... and thereby commit a crime. That is the basis for criminal law."

The author continues by writing,

"You absolutely and exclusively own your body and all your property, [NOTE HERE THAT THE AUTHOR MISTAKENLY BELIEVES THAT THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" NEEDS TO "OWN" PEOPLE AND PROPERTY TO HAVE LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER THEM, SOMETHING WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT SO.] you alone are responsible for supporting yourself and for all injuries you cause others. Ownership and responsibility always go together

The author continues by writing,

"Anyone who claims ownership or control over your property has the burden of proving that you actually consented to giving it away in writing.
[NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR PROVIDES NO LAW WHICH SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION. NOTE ALSO THAT THE AUTHOR CONFUSES COLLECTIVE CONSENT WITH INDIVIDUAL CONSENT]. Absent such proof, you are presumed to be the absolute owner. [FINALLY, NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR PROVIDES NO LAW WHICH SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION.]."

You cannot alienate or even consent to alienat (sic) constitutional rights to a real de jure government. [NOTE HERE THAT THE AUTHOR IS SUGGESTING THAT THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" IS NOT A REAL DE JURE GOVERNMENT.]. Their (sic) rights are unalientable (sic), as the Declaration Of Independence, which is organic law, says. [FURTHER, NOTE THAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS NOT LAW, BUT IS INSTRUCTIVE ON HOW SOME LAW SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. FINALLY, NOTE THAT INALIENABLE RIGHTS CAN BE FORFEITED BY THE COMMISSION OF CERTAIN CRIMES, LIKE MURDER. MURDERERS FORFEIT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS].

...

4, Origins Of Sovereignty. Nest, the author posts quotes from three "cases" below

Julliard v . Greenman. This case involved a legal dispute about whether Congress had the power to issue paper money. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power "coin money" and regulate the value thereof. The dissenting justice (who wrote the text below quoted by the author of the article above) argued that Congress only had the power to coin precious metal coins. But, the Supreme Court majority (which the author of this article did not quote) held that Congress had the power to issue paper money because at the time, paper money was redeemable in precious metal and because of other legal reasons. So, that is the law. This remains the law today, except that paper money is no longer redeemable in precious metal..

IN DISSENTING, this DISSENTING justice argued for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. In support of this narrow interpretation argument, he argued that the government was not INHERENTLY (this term is the key word) sovereign. This means that he argued that the government only had the sovereignty that was expressly delegated to it BY THE PEOPLE in the United States Constitution. Regardless, the Supreme Court majority ruled that issuing paper money was within the power of Congress, because at the time, the paper money was redeemable in precious metal and because of a host of other legal reasons.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT THE LAW. THESE WORDS BELOW ARE THE WORDS OF THE "DISSENTING" (THE LOSING) JUDGE. THIS MEANS THAT THESE WORDS ARE NOT THE LAW! THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT RULED OTHERWISE.

At some point of the DISSENT, the following text appears, "Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed INHERENT (this is the key word) sovereignty in the general government. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense as an attribute of an independent political community. ... But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of INHERENT (this is the key word) sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, SUPREME WITHIN ITS PRESCRIBED SPHERE, but powerless outside of it. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [THE PEOPLE] have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it [TO THE GOVERNMENT] all else is withheld." FOR PROOF OF THIS "DISSENTING" TEXT, SCROLL DOWN TO 90%-95% IN THE TEXT HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15086393684153875709&q="julliard+v.+Greenman"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

The words above in purple are the words that the article author chose to quote in his article about sovereignty which BigJon cut and pasted to this thread. Note that the author of this article neglected to mention that these words are the words of the DISSENTING opinion and that such words DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS DISSENTING LANGUAGE ABOVE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN. IT ONLY SAYS THAT ALL OF "WE THE PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE SOVEREIGN. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. There is a critical legal difference between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US". One of these is sovereign and the other is not. THUS, WHILE THIS DISSENTING LANGUAGE ABOVE IS NOT THE LAW, IT NEVERTHELESS ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY POSITION THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT SOVEREIGN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The author continues with the case below.


Perry v. United States. In 1917, The Plaintiff bought a $10,000 gold bond from the U.S. government which was contractually obligated to pay the holder of this bond the principle amount of $10,000 , plus 4.5% in compound interest IN GOLD upon redemption. In 1933, the Plaintiff sought to redeem his gold bond and demanded almost $17,000 IN GOLD from the U.S, Government. During the period between the Plaintiff's bond purchase and his efforts to redeem it, Congress had passed several Great Depression Era laws invalidating bonds and other financial obligations payable in gold. On this basis, the U.S. government refused to pay the Plaintiff in gold and only offered him currency.

The bond owner sued. The case eventually found its way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held in favor of the bond owner and required the U.S. government to pay the bond owner in gold as it had contractually agreed to do in 1917. In so holding, the Supreme Court correctly held that Congress had no power to pass a statute after-the-fact which purported to nullify contractual obligations which the U.S. government had already entered into.

At some point in the decision, the following text appears, "The argument in favor of the Joint Resolution, as applied to government bonds, is in substance that the Government cannot by contract restrict the exercise of a sovereign power. But the right to make binding obligations IS A COMPETENCE ATTACHING TO SOVEREIGNTY. [3] In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, WHO ACT [ONLY] THROUGH ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION. ... THE CONGRESS, AS THE [SOLE] INSTRUMENTALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY IS ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN POWERS TO BE EXERTED ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will AS [THAT WILL IS] DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION. The powers conferred upon the Congress [BY THE CONSTITUTION] are harmonious [WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE]. The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the Government, — upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations [after the fact]."

Because the text quoted by the article author (above in purple) does not relate directly to the claims made or defenses raised and is not necessary to the holding of the case, this language can be fairly described as non-binding dicta. FOR THE CASE ITSELF, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3388791031923623137&q="Perry+v.+United+States"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CASE LANGUAGE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN. IT ONLY SAYS THAT ALL OF "WE THE PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE SOVEREIGN. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. There is a critical legal difference between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US". One of these is sovereign and the other is not. THUS, THIS CASE LANGUAGE ABOVE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY POSITION THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT SOVEREIGN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Next, the author continues with the following case.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins. In this case, several California cities had in force a number of ordinances allegedly intended to prevent fires at laundry mats, but which were actually intended to prevent Chinese citizens who were legally living and working in the United States from engaging in the laundry mat industry and competing with white, American citizens. These California ordinances allowed local officials (who were usually all white) the unbridled discretion to grant or deny any permit to any applicant seeking to enter the laundry mat industry. At the time, local officials almost always denied permits to Chinese applicants.

The case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court of the United States which found that these California ordinances were in violation of the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution (which applies to citizens and non-citizens alike). But, the court also found that these California ordinances were in direct violation of a treaty that the United States had signed with China (before China became a Communist nation) to the effect that all Chinese citizens legally living and working in the United States would be treated exactly like American citizens under the law in every respect.

At one point in the decision, the following text appears,"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed 370*370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power [meaning unbridled discretion]. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, WHILE SOVEREIGN POWERS ARE DELEGATED TO THE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT [IN THE CONSTITUTION}, sovereignty itself remains with the people, BY WHOM AND FOR WHOM ALL GOVERNMENT EXISTS AND ACTS. And the law is the definition and limitation of power."

Because the text quoted by the article author (above in purple) does not relate directly to the claims made or defenses raised and is not necessary to the holding of the case, this language can be fairly described as non-binding dicta. FOR THE ACTUAL CASE, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2131565438211553011&q="Yick+Wo+v.+Hopkins"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CASE LANGUAGE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN. IT ONLY SAYS THAT ALL OF "WE THE PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE SOVEREIGN. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. There is a critical legal difference between "ALL OF US" and "ONE OF US". One of these is sovereign and the other is not. THUS, THIS LANGUAGE ABOVE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY POSITION THAT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT SOVEREIGN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

CONCLUSION:
One of the "cases" above IS A "DISSENT." THAT MEANS IT IS NOT THE LAW IN ANY JURISDICTION. The two remaining "cases" REFLECT THE "MINORITY VIEW" OF THE LAW ON "SOVEREIGNTY" AT BEST, AND NON-BINDING "DICTA"(SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE) AT WORST.

REGARDLESS, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CASES (99% OR MORE) HOLD THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE IN THE FORM OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE "SOVEREIGN". FOR PROOF, SEE THE CASES IN THE FIRST TWO COMMENTS AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS THREAD ABOVE.

BUT, THIS DISTINCTION MAKES NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.

WHETHER "WE THE PEOPLE" COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE "SOVEREIGN" OR WHETHER "WE THE PEOPLE" COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE IN THE FORM OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE "SOVEREIGN", THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

ALL OF US COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE "SOVEREIGN", AND NO SINGLE ONE OF US IS "SOVEREIGN".

THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

BIGJON, YOU STILL GET AN A+ FOR MISTAKENLY, UNINTENTIONALLY AND UNKNOWINGLY POSTING A CUT AND PASTE ARTICLE WHICH ACTUALLY CONTAINED REAL LAW, SOMETHING YOU HAVE ALWAYS AVOIDED LIKE THE PLAGUE.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#34
hey snoop, I get that, as most were not paying attention at the time,

I actually watched the shindig with curious interest, then the chess moves that followed,

If you would have been around at the time, you would have seen the reports of the Pope having private meets with Boehner, etc.

More to it, but alas, 2+2 still equals 4 around here anyway,

Now certainly, you can dismiss it as ludicrous, and that would be the proper thing to do. I just report on what I saw at that time, that moment in history.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#35
Snoops I do enjoy our conversations. I hadn't thought about the PA decisions in that light before and will give it some consideration.

The general welfare clause is a tricky one and I still contend that it does not mean to provide welfare payments for anyone congress decides should get it. It's been years since I have read about the true intent of that clause but IIRC, I read about it in the federalist papers so I will review them and get back to you on this one. :).

Tommy Cryer was prosecuted by the IRS. He was a lawyer in Louisiana and took it to a jury trial where he won his case and proved without a doubt to a jury that no income tax has ever been imposed on any Americans living and working in the united states exchanging their labor for pay.

I never claimed the income tax is unconstitutional in fact I think , as written it is constitutional. It just doesn't say what you think it says.

"The Income tax applies to these classes of "persons". 1. A Nonresident Alien with Domestic sourced income. 2. A Foreign Corporation with Domestic sourced Income. And 3. U.S. Citizens living abroad with "Foreign" Income.

Thats it. You wont find the imposition of an income tax on any other class of persons.

However, this is not the right posting to discuss this and I do apologize for taking your original posing off topic. And by the way I agree with your original post. I have yet to see anyone win a sovereign case anywhere in the US.
CigarLover,

One of my lengthy responses to you about income tax and Mr. Cryer's imaginary court victories has disappeared from this thread.

It contained the law showing that juries only determine questions of FACT (such as whether Cryer's refusal to pay income taxes was "willful") and the judges determine questions of LAW (such as the class of persons liable to pay income tax under the statute, etc.).

I also contained several links relating to tax protester arguments (including all of those you raised above) and law which rebuts avery tax protester arguments.

Do you know what happened to that response?

Did you, by chance, delete the post to which I replied with that lengthy response?

Would that deletion have also deleted my lengthy reply?

Snoop
 

jbeck57143

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
72
Likes
37
#36
Hi Snoop, thanks for your reply.

...Many examples concerning the income tax which we don't see eye to eye on yet I still enjoy our discussions of the subject. I wont clutter this up with loads of tax stuff but one case in particular I do find interesting. One that I know you are familiar with. Pete hendrickson. Let me first state that he has it wrong about trying to get your money back from the feds.. He has some things right and others wrong.. Chalk it up to the tax code being impossibly complex. Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer have it right but thats for another post. :)

Ok so pete hendrickson is jailed for refusing to sign a 1040 under penalty of perjury. This was awhile back so I am going from memory here but the list of this was that Pete didn't file an income tax. The IRS said he had to file and Pete said he didn't have any income. The IRS said yes he did and filled out a 1040 on his behalf and told him to sign it. He refused. Its got a court order and he still refused. I think he was jailed for contempt. I think thats the official version anyway.
My guess is your response will be that he should have followed the judges order and then fought it later. To which my reply would be that if the IRS and Judge are issuing illegal orders in the first place why should he have to incur the expense of sorting them out in the courts?
Again, I think his theories on filing for refunds are incorrect, but if the government backed by the courts can just decide what is and isn't income and fill out a tax return for anyone and force them to sign under penalty of perjury or be sent to jail, then we have a problem with the system IMO. ...
Maybe this will require another thread, but where do you think Pete Hendrickson is wrong, and what do you think he's right about? Is he wrong about the income tax being a federal excise tax? Is his understanding of the definitions of wages, employee, etc wrong? Why do you think he's wrong about trying to get your money back? Also, what do Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer get right about the income tax?
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#37
CigarLover,

One of my lengthy responses to you about income tax and Mr. Cryer's imaginary court victories has disappeared from this thread.

It contained the law showing that juries only determine questions of FACT (such as whether Cryer's refusal to pay income taxes was "willful") and the judges determine questions of LAW (such as the class of persons liable to pay income tax under the statute, etc.).

I also contained several links relating to tax protester arguments (including all of those you raised above) and law which rebuts avery tax protester arguments.

Do you know what happened to that response?

Did you, by chance, delete the post to which I replied with that lengthy response?

Would that deletion have also deleted my lengthy reply?

Snoop
he can't delete your post,

but if a person deletes a post that was replied/quoted by others, then I am not sure,
would have to try it once to see what happens to a follow up post

actually, I am going to do that,

as mods should have the only capability to take out someone elses post,
a member in good standing can delete their own post, but not others

fyi

edit:
just went and did a test post,
it doesn't work that way

so you either didn't post it, thinking you had or a mod took it out,

but I would see a trail of a deleted post, and I don't
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,194
Likes
48,898
#38
[

Hello Cigarlover,

THE TOMMY CRYER'S CRIMINAL CASE

THE CASE YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. This case is not reported because it is a trial level case, not an appellate level case. Regardless, In this case, the United States charged Tommy Cryer with the WILLFUL refusal to pay his income taxes. Under the law, if a taxpayer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due, he cannot be convicted of this crime. While Cryer was mistaken, the jury found that Cryer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due. This is the classic "MISTAKEN BELIEF" defense. Regardless, Cryer was AQUITTED of the CRIME of WILLFULLY refusing to pay his income tax, BUT CRYER WAS NEVERTHELESS FOUND CIVILLY LIABLE TO PAY HIS INCOME TAXES AND HE WAS FORCED TO DO SO. The end result of the case is that Cryer was forced to pay his taxes anyway. But, CRYER avoided prison because of the MISTAKEN BELIEF defense. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer

Because Cryer peddled tax protester arguments, his followers mistakenly thought that Cryer won the case above on the merits of his tax protester arguments ("Wages are not income", "I am not among the persons statutorily required to pay income tax", etc..). But, this was not so. Cryer was acquitted in his criminal case SOLELY BECAUSE HE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE. Thus, Cryer did not win his criminal case because he was so smart. Cryer won his criminal case because he was so stupid. And then, he was forced to pay his income taxes anyway. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer.

BELOW IS AN EXPOSE' OF TOMMY CRYER'S MENTAL PROBLEMS
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/tommy-cryer

BELOW A FEDERAL INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS. See entry dated September, 19, 2012.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm#091912

Every single tax protester argument that Cryer ever raised has been struck down and declared frivolous by the courts.

With Respect,

Snoop
you talking about this one?

it still exists above,

I tire of guys on this thread making chit up about deletions and all the rest of that rubbish when it turns out it is their own frailties and has nothing to do with the site mgt or site software.

their computer sucks, their internet connection is from 1980, their own technical failures, their own memories, etc
rarely is it a mod or the software here
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#39
you talking about this one?

it still exists above,

I tire of guys on this thread making chit up about deletions and all the rest of that rubbish when it turns out it is their own frailties and has nothing to do with the site mgt or site software.

their computer sucks, their internet connection is from 1980, their own technical failures, their own memories, etc
rarely is it a mod or the software here
Hello Scorpio,

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I am not accusing anyone of anything.

I do not know enough about the inner workings of this website or the work of the mods to level blame at anyone.

I am simply unable to find a post that I spent a considerable amount of time on and I would like to find it.

Yes, I make mistakes.

I may well be responsible for the apparent absence of this post.

But, even if I am to blame for its apparent absence, I would still like to find this post (or the most recent saved version of it), so that I would not have to re-create it from scratch.

Thanks, but no. That post that you provided to me directly above is not the post that I am looking for.

The post that I am looking for was the FIRST response that I wrote to CigarLover on that same subject of tax protester arguments. .

The comment that you posted directly above was my SECOND (and supplemental) response to CigarLover on the subject of tax protester arguments.

In response to CigarLover's claim that Cryer went before A JURY and THE JURY found that Cryer was not among those responsible to pay taxes under the statute, I replied that such a JURY FINDING was impossible under the law (and I posted four court decisions which said that JURIES determine questions of FACT and that COURTS determine questions of LAW, like who must pay taxes according to the statute).

The post that I am looking for had an ENTIRE LIST OF SEVERAL LINKS to IRS pages listing every single tax protester argument ever raised in the courts and the corresponding court cases which struck down every single one of them (each case often reflecting the fines and penalties which the tax protester had to pay just for raising such frivolous tax protester arguments).

Following those links (in the same list of links) I posted SEVERAL MORE LINKS (not just one or two) to pages on in which a tax law professor essentially does the same thing. This work was excellent, straight to the point and contained actual proof from the statute and from case law.

The post that I am looking for also referred to Rod Class sending his friend (Harold Stanley) to prison for 8 years because he (Class) attempted to defend Stanley in a criminal tax evasion case by raising such worthless tax protester arguments.

And while we are on the subject of apparent missing material, I am also unable to locate the material that I posted here in which I agreed that Welfare was likely unconstitutional, but that the courts likely only declared it to be constitutional solely because of the times in which it was created (the Great Depression, thousands of bank failures, millions who lost their life savings, thousands of suicides, thousands marching on Washington, D.C., millions unemployed, millions starving, millions homeless, millions too old to work with no means of support, etc.). I wrote that Welfare was likely was a creature of the times or something to that effect. Regardless, that work is missing too.

If goldismoney2.com has (like most websites do) the ability to go back in time to when these comments were posted here and the mods can copy them and re-post them here, that would be great.

I would much rather focus on the solution to the problem than focus on who is to blame for the problem (whether that is me or someone else).

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
#40
Maybe this will require another thread, but where do you think Pete Hendrickson is wrong, and what do you think he's right about? Is he wrong about the income tax being a federal excise tax? Is his understanding of the definitions of wages, employee, etc wrong? Why do you think he's wrong about trying to get your money back? Also, what do Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer get right about the income tax?
Hello jbeck57143,

YOUR COMMENT: Maybe this will require another thread, but where do you think Pete Hendrickson is wrong, and what do you think he's right about?

MY RESPONSE: I have not done any research on Pete Henderson. So, I know nothing about his claims or whether they can stand up in court.

YOUR COMMENT: Is he wrong about the income tax being a federal excise tax?

MY RESPONSE: What difference would that make? The courts have repeatedly ruled that income tax, as we know it, is constitutional, regardless of what it is or it is not.

YOUR COMMENT: Is his understanding of the definitions of wages, employee, etc wrong?

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, his understanding of the definitions of wages or employees is completely irrelevant. The only definitions that count in the law are the ones which appear in the court decisions on the subject. Sadly, the answers to all of these questions were provided in one of the two posts that are now missing from this thread (referred to above). I would rather not have to re-create all that research a second time.

YOUR COMMENT: Why do you think he's wrong about trying to get your money back?

MY RESPONSE: I don't. If Pete Hendrickson over-paid his income taxes, he should demand a refund of every cent that he over-paid.

YOUR COMMENT: Also, what do Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer get right about the income tax?

MY RESPONSE: I do not know anything about the claims of Dave Champion. Of the tax protester arguments that Tommy Cryer raised on his own behalf in court and on behalf of his clients in court, he lost them all. That means that Tommy Cryer never won a single reported case on the merits of a tax protester argument.

I'll take a look at Hendrickson and Champion when I get the chance.

With respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited: