• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

"The Rule Of Law"

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#81
It was much more bold than that. It was like a rainy day when there's no longer a cloud of doubt in the sky.

It served a purpose. After all the responses, in combination with mine, are you now in agreement with us? It is ok to come here, realize the truth, realize you're wrong, clarify your true newly discovered beliefs and purchase a free copy of the original constitution and BoR. We may even have a copy laying around, if you need.
Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: After all the responses, in combination with mine, are you now in agreement with us?

MY RESPONSE: No.

YOUR COMMENT: It is ok to come here, realize the truth, realize you're wrong, clarify your true newly discovered beliefs

MY RESPONSE: Thanks. You are too kind.

YOUR COMMENT: and purchase a free copy of the original constitution and BoR. We may even have a copy laying around, if you need.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks. I already have a copy of the Constitution. And, just so that you know, the Bill Of Rights is actually in the Constitution.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#82
If those are your qualifications, WTF are you doing in this August Forum? Secondly, it was programmed people just like you that supported Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc... I dont argue with ideological people. As I previously stated, research the drivers licensing scheme or any of the other .gov infringements upon liberty that was presented as public safety. There is almost always a special interest with an economic agenda behind them.... In your case, you are the COMMERCIAL special interest trying to promote YOUR version of what constitutes the so called real law... In your profession you mislead clients & the general public to believe that "statutes" are the law, when its axiomatic that statutes are merely evidence of a law but not the law itself. All laws begin as a bill before the respective House or Senate, once enacted pursuant the Constitutional forms & solemnities including the enacting clause (Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of XXXX) and signed by the Executive (Governor) the bill becomes a pocket law.... the bill is where the law resides, the bill includes a description of what "specific" class of persons and/or property is subject to the bills subject matter. A statute is merely a shortened "reference" to the bill & the pocket law.... yet everyday, statutes are misrepresented as REAL LAW by the police power, the Judiciary, the ABA & its members.... Why would I believe any damned thing you or your economic cartel states.... ???

Previously, I stated that one must research the old cases to reveal the licensing scam... you answered by providing recent cases, which I agree with for the most part, as the verbiage in the cases indicate that the very nature is commerce & commercial.... My Blacks 2nd & 3rd editions definitions reveal & evidence these FACTS.....

From the looks of it, you have wholey bought into the party line without fully researching the possibility that you are in error.... Which answers my questions as to how could Lenin, Stalin, Mao, & Hitler, etc. convince so many intelligent people to support their ideologies & political power agenras... they simply rewrote & ignored the established tenants of the original political & jural organization.... of course Lenin, Stalin, Mao & Hitler, etc. et al ALL had the support of the Judiciary & Lawyers. What was once legal, lawful & constitutional were no longer allowable under the new managements "public policy." Sound familiar? There is an overwhelming amount of stare decisis that supports the right to travel without .gov licensing.... Just because the state & its monopolis acolytes have found the goose that lays golden eggs in the licensing, regulatory & titling scam doesnt make it legitimate or constitutional... just because its enforced & backed by the violence of the state doesnt make it legitimate & lawful either. The state has a compelling reason (cash flow & collateral) to keep the cash cow alive....

Its really laughable & naive to read the propaghandized ignorance you have stated about "We the People". You dont even have a clue as to who "We the People" really are.... hence your so called qualifications & understanding of organic constitutional law are severely narrow minded.... no doubt the possible product of a severly limited university indoctrinated education.... Dont get me started on the BAR, plenty of dumb asses running around that have passed the BAR. The BAR license is like a Driver License, just because you got the license doesnt mean your a capable or safe driver.

Your REAL LAW once incarcerated thousands of honorable Japanese Americans for nothing more than their ancestry.... Your REAL LAW caused the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, War on Drugs, etc. that has killed millions.... Your REAL LAW destroys liberty & empowers the state while enriching the certain privileged classes....

Good luck, and suffice it to say, I strongly disagree, I dont think you have a clue as to what is & has occured concerning most of the licensing & regulatory scams.. You possess a very biased & one sided view of jural history.... theres always two sides to a story.... I guess you dont think the state would lie & misrepresent its dejure authority to protect its power & cash cows???
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENTS: If those are your qualifications, WTF are you doing in this August Forum?

MY RESPONSE: Helping the victims of fraud who have been duped by haters. I do this by telling the truth and by actually posting quotes and links to the law itself so that these victims can read the real law for themselves.

YOUR COMMENT: Secondly, it was programmed people just like you that supported Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc...

MY RESPONSE: There is no correlation between me and Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot or any of the rest of them. My helping victims of fraud and teaching the real law to them is not the functional equivalent of genocide. I destroy lies, not people.

YOUR COMMENT: I don't argue with ideological people.

MY RESPONSE: How about highly-educated, experienced experts who care enough about the truth to share it with people who have never heard it?

YOUR COMMENT: As I previously stated, research the drivers licensing scheme or any of the other .gov infringements upon liberty that was presented as public safety.

MY RESPONSE: Did that study involve reading real law on that subject? Or, did that study involve studying the claims of haters?

YOUR COMMENT: There is almost always a special interest with an economic agenda behind them.... In your case, you are the COMMERCIAL special interest trying to promote YOUR version of what constitutes the so called real law...

MY RESPONSE: There is only one version of the law. It is the single version written in the Constitution, Statutes and case law made by those that "We the People" put into office, directly or indirectly, through the election process.

YOUR COMMENT: In your profession you mislead clients & the general public to believe that "statutes" are the law, when its axiomatic that statutes are merely evidence of a law but not the law itself.

MY RESPONSE: Got a case decision that says this? If not, this is not the law. It is just another amateur legal theory.

YOUR COMMENT: All laws begin as a bill before the respective House or Senate, once enacted pursuant the Constitutional forms & solemnities including the enacting clause (Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of XXXX) and signed by the Executive (Governor) the bill becomes a pocket law.... the bill is where the law resides, the bill includes a description of what "specific" class of persons and/or property is subject to the bills subject matter. A statute is merely a shortened "reference" to the bill & the pocket law....

MY RESPONSE: This is not so. The language of a final bill and the resulting statute ARE IDENTICAL. A statute is not a shortened version of a bill. A statute is simply the name of a bill that has been passed by the Congress (or state legislature) and that has been signed into law by the chief executive (President or Governor). Stated differently, the words "bill" and the word "statute" refer the same exact text at different points in time. Who told you this insane nonsense?

YOUR COMMENT: Yet everyday, statutes are misrepresented as REAL LAW by the police power, the Judiciary, the ABA & its members....

MY RESPONSE: Because statutes are REAL LAW, they are not misrepresented by law enforcement, courts and lawyers when they call them what they actually are, REAL LAW.

YOUR COMMENT: Why would I believe any damned thing you or your economic cartel states.... ???

MY RESPONSE: Rod Class made this same amateur legal theory mistake. See this explanation below in Italic typeface.

THE ABA "IS THE BAR" HOAX.
Class correctly notes that PRIVATE lawyers formed the PRIVATE American Bar Association ("ABA") in 1878. https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 1st, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs): "[A private] Connecticut Attorney... invited a group of 100 [private] attorneys from 21 states... to meet on the 21st day of August of 1878, at Saratoga Springs, New York, to organize the [private] American B.A.R. Association." (Note that Class uses the FAKE acronym, "B.A.R.", when referring to the "American B.A.R. Association".). Class also correctly notes that the PRIVATE American Bar Association ("ABA") was never created, authorized or sanctioned “BY CONGRESS” (the LEGISLATIVE branch of the FEDERAL government). https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 6th, 7th & 8th paragraphs): "The [American] B.A.R. Association HAS NO [FEDERAL] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to have been created. They're [sic] a private corporation... . THERE IS NO SUCH STATUTE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE [which are "FEDERAL" statutes]!!! The [American] B.A.R. [Association] is a private industry, a private association... . WHERE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE [which are "FEDERAL" statutes] WERE LAWYERS... EVER GIVEN THE AUTHORITY to practice law in a courtroom... . No [American] B.A.R. [Association] Attorney HAS ANY ["FEDERAL"] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to prosecute anyone in court."


https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.co...of-government/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 9th paragraphs): "[We must] take back our courts and judicial branch of government from the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION and getting BAR-LICENSED attorneys out of elected positions... . [O]NLY MEMBERS OF THIS POWERFUL UNION OF LAWYERS, CALLED THE ABA... [ARE ALLOWED TO] PRACTICE LAW... . THE STATE DOES NOT... HOLD BAR EXAMINATIONS, NOR ISSUE STATE LICENSES TO LAWYERS. THE ABA... HOLDS THEIR (sic) PRIVATE [BAR] EXAMINATIONS... AND ISSUES THEM SO-CALLED LICENSE (sic) TO PRACTICE LAW. THE ABA IS THE ONLY... [AUTHORITY] THAT CAN PUNISH OR DISBAR A LAWYER... . Only the ABA... can remove any of these lawyers from... office... . This is a tremendous amount of power for a PRIVATE union... . NO NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, OTHER THAN THE BAR, ISSUES THEIR (sic) OWN STATE LICENSES. All [other] professional and occupational licenses are issued by the state."

ANALYSIS:
Class' words (quoted above) PROVE that:
1). Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that licensing and regulation of lawyers is a legal subject that is governed by "FEDERAL" law ("CONGRESS", "STATUTES AT LARGE");
2). Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the branch of government with the Constitutional power to license and regulate lawyers is the "LEGISLATIVE" branch (“CONGRESS”, "LEGISLATION", "STATUTES AT LARGE");
3. Class MISTAKENLY CONFUSES the ABA with the STATE bars. Specifically, he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "THE ABA IS THE BAR" (which he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES is the SINGLE, NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). Class does not know that it is the 50 STATE bars which actually do all that.


On the foregoing basis, Rod Class MISTAKENLY CONCLUDED that lawyers have "NO LICENSE" and "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY" to practice law.

THE TRUTH:
1). Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not);
2). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not);
3). The “ABA” IS NOT THE "B.A.R" OR OTHERWISE THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers or the practice of law. There is no single, national authority that does this. Instead, it is the 50 STATES that license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law. But, Class does not know this.


ANALYSIS:
This means that Rod Class is WRONG IN EVERY, IMAGINABLE, POSSIBLE, CONCEIVABLE, WAY that a person can be WRONG about lawyers. Nothing is left on this subject for Class to be WRONG about.


WHY THE "STATE SUPREME COURTS" HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LICENSE AND REGULATE LAWYERS:
Like the FEDERAL government, STATE governments also have three (3) branches of government, the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (legislature), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (governor) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the courts). All three branches of the ELECTED state government ARE EQUAL IN POWER to the other two ELECTED branches. But, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government IS INDEPENDENT from the other two branches. (The purpose of the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine is to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch of government.).


Because EACH ELECTED BRANCH of government is INDEPENDENT of the other two branches, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government has the "INHERENT POWER” to manage ITS OWN INTERNAL AFFAIRS (and the HIGHEST AUTHORITY of EACH ELECTED BRANCH is generally charged with that responsibility). For example, the highest authority of the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch of state government (such as the speaker of the house and/or the senate majority leader) has the "INHERENT POWER" to pick who will "chair" and who will "sit" on ITS OWN state legislative and investigative committees (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Similarly, the highest authority of the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch of state government (the governor) has the "INHERENT POWER" to appoint the heads of ITS OWN state agencies (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Likewise, the highest authority of the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch of state government (The Supreme Court of the state) has the "INHERENT POWER" to license and regulate who will practice law in ITS OWN courts (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government).

This "INHERENT POWER" of EACH INDEPENDENT branch of state government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches) reflects the "SEPARATION OF POWERS” doctrine which is found in the constitution of every STATE and in the U.S. Constitution. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government needs "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

ABOUT THE ABA:
The ABA (which Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES "IS THE BAR" and the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law) is actually an irrelevant, insignificant, voluntary, trade association FOR LAWYERS WHO WANT TO JOIN (and receive a monthly magazine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association. LAWYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ABA and MORE than TWO THIRDS of the lawyers in the United States ARE NOT MEMBERS of the ABA. THE ABA HAS NO POWERS OVER LAWYERS, JUDGES, LAWS, COURTS OR THE PRACTICE OF LAW. But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.


COMPARISON TO THE "AAA":
Class' BELIEFS (that "the ABA is the B.A.R" and the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law, that the ABA was never created, authorized or sanctioned by "CONGRESS" and that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law) IS THE EQUIVALENT OF CLASS BELIEVING that drivers of motor vehicles have "no authority" to drive because they got their "driver's licenses" from the American Automobile Association ("AAA") which was never created, authorized or sanctioned by "CONGRESS" and which association has a "MONOPOLY" on driving of automobiles and on the entire transportation industry. But, of course, none of this is so. THE AAA, like the ABA, DOES NOT ISSUE LICENSES TO ITS MEMBERS, REGULATE DRIVERS, REGULATE DRIVING, MAKE DRIVING LAWS OR HAVE A "MONOPOLY" ON THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY. The reality is that the ABA is to lawyers what the AAA is to drivers, "A CLUB" that one is permitted, BUT NOT REQUIRED TO JOIN. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.


THE ABA IS A "MONOPOLY" HOAX.
Class falsely claims that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law. This is because he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "the ABA IS THE BAR" (the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law).
https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/ (Rod Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "This type of MONOPOLY [referring to the ABA] is against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act. They're (sic) [referring to the ABA] a SELF-APPOINTED MONOPOLY." (at the end of the 8th full paragraph). But, Rod Class' MISTAKEN BELIEF in this regard is not so.

MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF AMERICAN LAWYERS ARE NOT EVEN MEMBERS IN THE ABA. Thus, the ABA cannot possibly constitute a SINGLE “MONOPOLY” over the practice of law. Likewise, the STATE bars in which all lawyers REALLY ARE MEMBERS are not “MONOPOLIES" either. But, even if STATE bars were "MONOPOLIES", THEN THERE WOULD BE EXACTLY FIFTY (50) SUCH "MONOPOLIES", THEREBY NOT CONSTITUTING A SINGLE "MONOPOLY", BY DEFINITION. But, Rod Class does not know any of this.

Further, unknown to Rod Class, a "MONOPOLY" in a service industry is NOT determined by whether all members of a service occupation are licensed by the STATE. If this were the case, then ANY person employed in a service industry requiring a STATE license would be engaged in a "monopoly" profession (all hair dressers, all electricians, all dentists, etc.). INSTEAD, A REAL "MONOPOLY" in a service industry IS DETERMINED BY "HOW MANY EMPLOYERS" EMPLOY PERSONS WITH LICENSES ISSUED BY THE STATE. So, if all hairdressers worked for A SINGLE BEAUTY PARLOR, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all electricians worked for A SINGLE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all dentists worked for A SINGLE DENTIST’S OFFICE, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all lawyers worked for A SINGLE LAW FIRM, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". But, of course, none of that is the case.

YOUR COMMENT: Previously, I stated that one must research the old cases to reveal the licensing scam... you answered by providing recent cases, which I agree with for the most part, as the verbiage in the cases indicate that the very nature is commerce & commercial.... My Blacks 2nd & 3rd editions definitions reveal & evidence these FACTS.....

MY RESPONSE: PLEASE READ THESE CASES AGAIN! THAT IS EXACTLY BACKWARDS TO WHAT THESE CASES SAY!

YOUR COMMENT: From the looks of it, you have wholly bought into the party line without fully researching the possibility that you are in error....

MY RESPONSE: We need to get something straight. I have posted the real law itself. I did not write a single word of it. I am simply quoting what that real law says. Because amateur legal theories are not contained in the real law, THEY ARE NOT THE REAL LAW. They are FAKE.

YOUR COMMENT: Which answers my questions as to how could Lenin, Stalin, Mao, & Hitler, etc. convince so many intelligent people to support their ideologies & political power agendas... they simply rewrote & ignored the established tenants of the original political & jural organization.... of course Lenin, Stalin, Mao & Hitler, etc. et al ALL had the support of the Judiciary & Lawyers. What was once legal, lawful & constitutional were no longer allowable under the new managements "public policy." Sound familiar?

MY RESPONSE: None of these despots came to power in a constitutional republic like ours. None of these despots were placed into office by "We the People" through the election process. None of these despots came to power legally (even under their own prevailing laws). These despots did not need the law, lawyers and courts on their side to gain power or to maintain power. THEY ALL HAD DEATH SQUADS which they used to gain power and to maintain power. Lawyers and judges serving under these dictators did not serve because they were corrupt and diabolical. Lawyers and judges serving under these dictators served because THEY WERE AFRAID THAT THEY AND ALL OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS WOULD BE KILLED IF THEY DID NOT.

YOUR COMMENT: There is an overwhelming amount of stare decisis that supports the right to travel without .gov licensing....

MY RESPONSE: YOU HAVE FAILED TO READ THE LAW I HAVE PROVIDED YOU ABOVE. THAT IS WHY YOU MADE THIS AMATEUR CLAIM.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].'"(citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. "(at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

YOUR COMMENT: Just because the state & its monopolies acolytes have found the goose that lays golden eggs in the licensing, regulatory & titling scam doesn't make it legitimate or constitutional...

MY RESPONSE: The Supreme Court Of The United States HOLDS OTHERWISE!

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG!]There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

YOUR COMMENT: just because its enforced & backed by the violence of the state doesn't make it legitimate & lawful either.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. Licensing laws are legitimate, lawful and Constitutional because they are legitimate, lawful and Constitutional, not just because those laws are enforced.

YOUR COMMENT: Its really laughable & naïve to read the propagandized ignorance you have stated about "We the People". You don't even have a clue as to who "We the People" really are....

MY RESPONSE: I know exactly who "We the People" are.

YOUR COMMENT: hence your so called qualifications & understanding of organic constitutional law are severely narrow minded.... no doubt the possible product of a severely limited university indoctrinated education....

MY RESPONSE: Well certainly a person with your educational background and your professional background is in a much better position to know Constitutional law than a person like me who has earned a Doctor's Degree in Law and who has 30 years experience practicing law in the REAL WORLD. Are you kidding me?!!!

I am always fascinated when amateur legal theorists who are OUTSIDE the legal system attempt to teach those of us who are INSIDE the legal system what goes on INSIDE the legal system (as if these OUTSIDERS would actually know). And, contrary to your understanding, an education is a good thing. Educated people are much harder to dupe and defraud. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is a weakness.

YOUR COMMENT: Don't get me started on the BAR, plenty of dumb asses running around that have passed the BAR.

MY RESPONSE: Certainly a person of your educational and professional background would know all about the bar exam. Nobody "dumb" could ever possibly pass the bar exam. People with genius level I.Q's fail the bar exam all the time.

YOUR COMMENT: The BAR license is like a Driver License, just because you got the license doesn't mean your a capable or safe driver.

MY RESPONSE: Having a law license means you know a hell of a lot more than any amateur legal theorist will ever know about the law.

YOUR COMMENT: Your REAL LAW once incarcerated thousands of honorable Japanese Americans for nothing more than their ancestry....

MY RESPONSE: The REAL LAW was ignored to incarcerate thousands of Japanese Americans. The law itself was fine. It was war and the President would rather be accused of breaking the law than losing the war due to internal sabotage by Japanese loyalists. When the survival of a nation is at stake, leaders sometimes violate the law to lessen the risk of losing the war.

YOUR COMMNENT: Your REAL LAW caused the Whiskey Rebellion,

MY RESPONSE: The Whiskey Rebellion was caused by tax protestors defying the REAL LAW.

YOUR COMMENT: Prohibition, War on Drugs, etc. that has killed millions....

MY RESPONSE: How many lives did these REAL LAWS save? Note that "We the People" REPEALED Prohibition through the election process. That is proof that the election system works to do the will of 'We the People" when it comes to changing unjust laws.

YOUR COMMENT: Your REAL LAW destroys liberty & empowers the state while enriching the certain privileged classes....

MY RESPONSE: If you oppose these laws, then you oppose the will of "We the People", you oppose our elected representatives and you oppose our Republican form of government itself. This is because the REAL LAW is the direct result of "We the People", our ELECTED representatives and our ELECTED republican form of government. I do not like every single law. But, I love the system that results in every single law. The only thing I would change about it is influence of big money in the election process and monetary reform.

YOUR COMMENT: Good luck, and suffice it to say, I strongly disagree, I don't think you have a clue as to what is & has occurred concerning most of the licensing & regulatory scams..

MY RESPONSE: I know everything that the law says about these things. You do not.

YOUR COMMENT: You possess a very biased & one sided view of jural history.... there's always two sides to a story

MY RESPONSE: There is only ONE law. There is only ONE "version" of law. There is no TWO sides to the law. There are TWO sides to a case, the WINNERS and the LOSERS. Those who do not know the law are the LOSERS.

YOUR COMMENT:.... I guess you don't think the state would lie & misrepresent its de jure authority to protect its power & cash cows.

MY RESPONSE: The state is all of the people who live within state borders collectively, speaking with a ingle voice through their elected representatives. The state is not trying to make money like a business tries to make money. The state is simply trying to defray its costs of governing. Roads cost money, law enforcement costs money, courts cost money and jails cost money. The thinking behind these "cash cow" laws is that law breakers (who necessitate the law enforcement, court costs, judicial time, prosecutor time, public defender time and jail time and guard time, etc.) should pay a larger share of those costs than those who do not beak the law. To people who abide by the law, that makes perfect sense. To law abiding citizens that is perfectly fair. That is why these laws are popular with the law-abiding public in elections and that is why these laws are likely to be around for a long time.

I hope this helps.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,834
Likes
3,984
#83
Hello Juristic Person,

This is what Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") was talking about above. For actual proof of these hoaxes, click here and scroll down. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...piracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)

SUMMARY OF THE HOAXES OF DEBORAH TAVARES:

1. "The NASA War Document Hoax". The document is REAL, but has been "modified" to fit the hoax. It now has a FAKE and misleading TITLE and COVER. But, the hoax is NOT the document anyway. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that NASA is already killing us all with diabolical weapons in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. The document is actually a power point presentation that a chief NASA scientist created and used at a national convention of American DEFENSE contractors to urge them to develop countermeasures AGAINST the diabolical weapons described therein. NASA may actually be killing us all with diabolical weapons in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it was actually created and actually used in an effort TO PREVENT such an occurrence. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #2 BELOW.

2. "The Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Hoax". The document is REAL, but it is only POLITICAL FICTION. It has also been "modified" to fit the hoax. It now has a FAKE, recently-added paragraph at the beginning which fraudulently indicates that it is the work of "The Bilderbergs". But, the hoax is NOT the document anyway. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that "The Bilderbergs" adopted a plan in 1954 to kill us all with diabolical "silent weapons" in "quiet wars" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. This tiny 44 page booklet was written in 1979 and is actually POLITICAL FICTION. It is a DISGUISED COMPLAINT about the treason and horrors suffered by U.S. soldiers when the U.S. government allegedly allowed them to be killed at Pearl Harbor in order to draw us into World War II. This tiny booklet has NOTHING to do with the Bilderbergs. The Bilderbergs may actually be killing us all with diabolical "silent weapons" in "quiet wars" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it is actually POLITICAL FICTION. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #3 BELOW.

3. "The Report From Iron Mountain Hoax". The document is REAL, but it is only POLITICAL SATIRE. So, the hoax is NOT the document itself. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that ALL ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES (including climate change, drought, fires, etc.) ARE "ENGINEERED" by the U.S. government and used as "WEAPONS" to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind (something not in the book). But, her claims about this document are not so. This document is actually POLITICAL SATIRE. It is a DISGUISED COMPLAINT WHICH OPENLY MOCKS U.S. policy of engaging in perpetual wars to prop up the U.S. economy. The premise of the book is that THE U.S. IS SO DEPENDENT ON MILITARY SPENDING that "IF PEACE BROKE OUT", we will be forced to create FAKE enemies (like "FAKE ALIEN LIFE FORMS" and ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES) to "justify" our perpetual wars. The author DID NOT intend for the reader of his book to believe that the U.S. government was ACTUALLY CREATING "FAKE ALIEN LIFE FORMS" or ACTUALLY CREATING "ENGINEERED" ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES. Instead, the author merely used those ABSURD examples TO MAKE A MOCKERY of the lengths that U.S. policy makers would go to in order to create "FAKE ENEMIES" to justify "FAKE WARS" against those "FAKE ENEMIES" to prop up the U.S. economy. The U.S Government may actually be killing us all with FAKE ("engineered") environmental catastrophes in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it is actually POLITICAL SATIRE. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #4 BELOW.

4. "The Agenda 21 Hoax". The Agenda 21 Hoax is based on TWO DOCUMENTS. The Agenda 21 document itself was a REAL United Nations document. So, the hoax is not the document itself. Agenda 21 was merely a SUGGESTION WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE REJECTED. So, Agenda 21 NEVER BECAME A TREATY and NEVER BECAME THE LAW. That means Agenda 21 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE AGENDA 21 DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that the United Nations is using diabolical means (like fires and laser beams from satellites in space) to force us out or our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. According to the "Agenda 21" document itself (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim), it merely suggested that we reduce the rate at which we deplete our natural resources to the same rate at which our natural resources can recover from being depleted (called "sustainable development"). Contrary to Deborah Tavares' fraudulent claims, there is NOTHING in the Agenda 21 document itself (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) which suggests we will be forced out of our rural or suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. NOTHING! What Deborah Tavares calls the "Agenda 21 Map" is FAKE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AGENDA 21 in the first place. Instead, it purported to relate to the proposed "Biological Diversity Treaty" (something different from Agenda 21) WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALSO REJECTED. So, that proposed treaty (and its FAKE map) are also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that the "AGENDA 21 MAP" (which had NOTHING to do with Agenda 21) CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that the United Nations is using diabolical means (like fires and laser beams from space) to force us out or our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this map are not so. What Deborah Tavares fraudulently calls the "Agenda 21 Map" is FAKE and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AGENDA 21 in the first place. Instead, it was the work of a single opponent to the "Biological Diversity Treaty" (something different from Agenda 21) and was used to create opposition to that particular proposed treaty, WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALSO REJECTED. Because the United States REJECTED BOTH Agenda 21 and the "Biological Diversity Treaty" (to which the FAKE map related), BOTH ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The United Nations may actually be forcing us out of our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THE AGENDA 21 DOCUMENT and the so-called "AGENDA 21 MAP" (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provide no support for that proposition because they were both rejected. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #5 BELOW.

5. "The FORGED PG&E Email Hoax". THE EMAILS ARE FORGERIES AND THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THOSE FORGERIES ARE VERIFIABLY FALSE. PG&E is a California electrical utility company which collects and generates electricity in a variety of ways. But, PG&E's conventional solar panels can only collect energy from the Sun during daylight hours. So, in 2009, PG&E announced that in the future solar panels on satellites in space might collect energy from the Sun 24 hours a day, then beam it to earth in the form of lasers or radio frequencies and then convert it to electricity here on earth for its customers. When the recent forest fires burned northern California, Deborah Tavares wanted to blame PG&E and this technology for starting those fires. But, the scientific literature indicated that this technology did not yet exist. SO, TO REBUT THOSE FACTS, Deborah Tavares, herself, FORGED a series of FAKE emails (some purportedly between the CPUC and PG&E) indicating that this technology already existed, that it was already in use and that it could be used to start such fires, among other things. Thus, Deborah Tavares, herself, actually created the very FORGERIES which she fraudulently claims CONSTITUTE "PROOF" that PG&E used this technology to start the recent fires in California to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about these FORGED emails are not so. These FORGED EMAILS prove nothing except that Deborah Tavares is a fraud. PG&E may actually be using lasers or radio frequencies beamed from satellites in space to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THESE PARTICULAR FORGED EMAILS THEMSELVES (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provide no support for that proposition, because they are FORGERIES! SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #6 BELOW.

6. "The Genocide Agreement Hoax". The document is REAL. So, the hoax is NOT the document itself. The "Genocide Agreement" is actually the nickname of a proposed 1940's United Nations agreement BANNING GENOCIDE among signatory nations. The proposed "Genocide Agreement" BANNED"GENOCIDE" and other harmful acts against identifiable groups of people like racial and religious minorities. In 1988, the United States Senate approved the "Genocide Agreement" and President Reagan signed it into law. So, the hoax is not the document itself. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that the Genocide Agreement ONLY BANS "NATIONS" FROM COMMITTING ACTS OF GENOCIDE and that THE UNITED STATES IS "NOT A NATION", BECAUSE "IT IS A CORPORATION" (which is not governed by the agreement or the ban) which permits the United States to COMMIT GENOCIDE on a "Day-by-Day" basis, which is why "WE ARE BEING EXTERMINATED". But, the truth is that the United States is not really a "corporation" and the Genocide Agreement actually bans genocide in the United States and subjects those who commit genocide to criminal prosecution. The hoax is also Deborah Tavares' OWN (ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT and CONTRADICTORY) claims that the genocide agreement DOES APPLY IN THE UNITED STATES and that it "INVADES DOMESTIC LAWS" and "ALLOWS FOREIGNERS TO 'OVER-RIDE' U.S. laws". (Note that if the Genocide Agreement really "DID NOT APPLY" to the United States because it is a "CORPORATION", it would be impossible for the Genocide Agreement TO SIMULTANEOUSLY APPLY in the United States so as to "invade" or "over-ride" any law in the United States.). Regardless, the truth is that the Genocide Agreement applies in the United States, but only "over-rides" U.S. law as to the specific acts banned by the agreement. Nothing more. The United States may actually be killing us all in an act or acts of genocide in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind, but THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because this document applies in the United States and actually BANS GENOCIDE and subjects the violators to criminal prosecution. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #104 BELOW.

7. "The Rothschilds Are Restructuring North America Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that an October, 30th 2017 press release stated that the Rothschilds were "restructuring north America" itself (as in "taking it over" and "changing it"). But, the subject press release DOES NOT say this. Instead, it merely says that a single Rothschild company was restructuring "IN" (as in "inside") north America. A full reading of the subject press release indicates that the term, "RESTRUCTURING'' as used in the press release, refers to this Rothschild company RESTRUCTURING DEBT (as in "re-financing"), NOT RESTRUCTURING ALL OF NORTH AMERICA ITSELF! The purpose of this hoax was to manufacture a connection between the "Rothschilds" and the Agenda 21 Hoax, to make Americans think that the "Rothschilds" are "restructuring" all of north America under the Agenda 21 model of "sustainable development" which Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims will drive us out of our rural and suburban homes and into tightly-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" and "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #18 BELOW.

8. "The Rothschilds Own All Of The Utility Companies Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that she obtained a curriculum vitea (effectively a resume' for "expert witnesses") attached to the sworn testimony of a member of the Rothschild family wherein he stated that "he OWNED hundreds of utility companies". But, the subject curriculum vitea DOES NOT say this. Instead, it merely says that a "James A. Rothschild" is a financial consultant AND AN "EXPERT WITNESS" who has TESTIFIED in dozens and dozens of court cases in which utility companies were parties. Nothing more. In support of this same hoax, Deborah Tavares also fraudulently claims that she recently attended a PG&E stock holder's meeting wherein the PG&E Board Of Directors were allegedly seated in the front row of the audience and individually introduced to the stockholders. She fraudulently claims that a person named "Rothschild" was introduced to the stockholders as a PG&E "Board Member" (as if that would make him the "OWNER" of PG&E). But, this claim is not so. NO PG&E BOARD MEMBER HAS THE NAME, "ROTHSCHILD". The purpose of this hoax was to manufacture a connection between the "Rothschilds" and the Agenda 21 Hoax, to make Americans think that the Rothschilds are using "THEIR" utility company technologies as "weapons" to "target" us all and to drive us out of our rural and suburban homes and into tightly-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" and "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #18 BELOW.

9. "The London Accounting Firms Will Bankrupt All Our Cities Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares claims that she read a December 26th, 2017 article in the "Press Democrat", a local Santa Rosa newspaper, which allegedly stated that Ernst & Young (a London-based accounting firm) will bankrupt all of our cities. She also claims that the article stated that Ernst & Young had “placed a value on the air that we breathe... the fresh water that we drink [and] on every tree in our forests". She claims that this "value" is actually a "price" that we will have to pay the global elite for our air, water, trees and other natural resources. But, the subject article DOES NOT say this. Instead, the subject article merely says that the city of Santa Rosa had hired Ernst & Young to determine the amount of fire damage the city had suffered in the recent California fires and to represent the city IN OBTAINING REIMBURSEMENT of that amount from FEMA. In order to do its job, Ernst & Young would necessarily have to place a "value" on city-owned property destroyed in the fires (ex: buildings, roads, bridges and infrastructure). Nothing in the article suggests that Ernst & Young would place a value on our air, water, trees or other natural resources. The article specifically states that FEMA WILL REIMBURSE THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOR THE COSTS OF ERNST & YOUNG'S ACCOUNTING SERVICES. In fact, federal law REQUIRES that FEMA reimburse such cities for the accounting costs they incur in seeking and in obtaining reimbursement from FEMA. Thus, NO CITY IS GOING BANKRUPT as a result of hiring Ernst & Young to determine the amount of fire damage it had suffered in the recent California fires or to represent the city IN OBTAINING REIMBURSEMENT of that amount from FEMA! The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that the global elite will bankrupt all of our cities, that we will have to pay the global elite to breathe air and to drink water and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #48 BELOW.

10. "The Judge DALE Hoax". ALL OF THE "JUDGE DALE" BOOKS ARE FORGERIES. Further, EVERY SINGLE CLAIM IN THE JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS ALSO VERIFIABLY FALSE. Deborah Tavares, Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") and amateur legal theorist, Rodney "DALE" Class (who has lost 76 cases in a row) wrote every single word of these FORGERIES (including "The Great American Adventure: Secrets Of America" and "The Matrix And The US Constitution"). But, they fraudulently told the American people these books were written by a "retired federal judge" named "Judge DALE" (which uses Rodney "DALE" Class' middle name, "DALE", as an inside joke on the American people). DEBORAH TAVARES HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THIS TO US! The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that their government and their justice system is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #58 BELOW.

11. "The Court Registry Investment System Hoax". THE DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY. Deborah Tavares and her partners (including Al Whitney, Jeanette Triplett and Rod Class) assembled this FAKE government document from parts of REAL government documents and then ALTERED and CHANGED the WORDS to make it fit the hoax. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' fraudulently claims that her FORGED government document itself constitutes "proof" that all of the money collected by the courts in fines and penalties is forwarded on to the Federal Reserve to keep. But, this is not so. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that the courts are merely collection agents for the Federal Reserve, to make Americans think that their justice system is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #53 BELOW.

12. "The All Governments And Government Agencies Are Private, For-Profit Corporations Hoax". This hoax involves several false documents and false videos. In this hoax, Deborah Tavares and Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") fraudulently claim that all governments and government agencies are actually private, for-profit corporations "posing" as governments and government agencies which "profit" by taxing, burdening and abusing the American people. To support this fraudulent claim, Deborah Tavares and Al Whitney cite examples of several ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS which happen to have names that SOUND SIMILAR to the names of governments and government agencies (like "Federal Express" for example). But, contrary to their claims, NONE of the ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS that they cite in support of this hoax are really governments or government agencies. Not one! They also fraudulently CHANGED THE REAL NAME of one such ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION TO A FAKE NAME to make it fit the hoax (from "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc.", a private, for-profit corporation, to "Internal Revenue Service", a government agency). This hoax was designed to make Americans think that all governments and agencies are completely illegal, invalid, illegitimate, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POSTS #63 and #68 BELOW.

13. "The BOMBSHELL: Rod Class Has Obtained His Forth Administrative Ruling That All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' Hoax". This hoax involves several FAKE press releases (co-authored by Deborah Tavares) and several false videos. Note that this hoax was actually created in support of the hoax above to the effect that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit corporations (a Deborah Tavares hoax). The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that our state and local government agencies (including the DMV and local police departments) are completely illegal, invalid, illegitimate, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #100 BELOW.

14. "The... Property Into Other Peoples' Name Hoax". This hoax involves several FAKE press releases and false videos. In this hoax, Rod Class and his partners (including Deborah Tavares) fraudulently claim that "a North Carolina judge has warned all [in-state] police officers to put their property into other peoples' names" (to make Americans think they can successfully sue police officers "personally" because they are merely "private contractors" impersonating public servants who issue traffic tickets to generate "profits" for their "corporate employers"). Note that this hoax was actually created in support of the hoax above to the effect that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit corporations (a Deborah Tavares hoax). The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think our local government agencies are completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #101 BELOW.

15. "The FAKE Jim Traficant Speech Hoax". This hoax involves a FAKE and FORGED "transcript" of a speech that a Congressman allegedly made to Congress to the effect that our federal government went bankrupt in 1933. (The REAL transcript of this speech is in the official "Congressional Record" and does NOT say this.). Deborah Tavares, herself, actually posted this FAKE and FORGED document on her own website. Deborah Tavares has also posted several videos on YouTube wherein she quotes this document despite knowing that it is a FORGERY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9FU2J8qh4U
(13:30-18:05); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKZSTbtBgo
(at 7:15-11:01); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoX5IEgaL9Y
(at 14:00-17:15); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltdARR9nLLs
(44:10-46:20); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSxXWwUuJRE
(at 2:15-4:00); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wY5aYkujw
(at 21:55-23:45). Whether or not the United States actually went bankrupt in 1933 is irrelevant to this hoax. The hoax is that Deborah Tavares knowingly uses uses a document that she knows to be a FORGERY in support of that proposition. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that they themselves are "collateral" and debt slaves who exist solely to pay debts arising out of that alleged "bankruptcy" and to make Americans think that our government is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. See proof here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llh0ULNz918
(1:50-2:15);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D78hBBAH7hk
(at 58:10-58:50).

16. "The Sovereign Citizen Hoax". This hoax involves a FAKE and FORGED document written by Rodney "DALE" Class while pretending to be Judge "DALE" . This FAKE and FORGED document was posted on the website of Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") who, like Rod Class, is also Deborah Tavares' partner in these hoaxes. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL IS "SOVEREIGN" and that "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our own elected government) ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth), such that our laws do not apply to INDIVIDUALS (the pretend "sovereigns"). But, none of this is so. Under U.S. law, the word "sovereign" means "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE in the form of our ELECTED government, not "the individual". The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our elected government) have no right to enforce our own laws, made by our own ELECTED lawmakers, against any INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereigns") and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans.

ACTUAL PROOF OF THE FOREGOING IS POSTED IN THE COMMENTS BELOW.

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Deborah Tavares. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such intentional fraud inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Deborah Tavares' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

The message to all charlatans and hoaxers? Just tell the truth. The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies fear investigation. The truth can be supported by using the truth. Only lies must be supported by using hoaxes (other lies). There is no such thing as a "good reason" to intentionally defraud the American people, not even to make a popular (and sensational) conspiracy theory appear to be true.


For more on the hoaxes of Deborah Tavares, click here and scroll down. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...piracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)
You are an AI program or bot. This is now the umpteenth time you have posted this same exact diatribe. You clearly have programmed responses.
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,834
Likes
3,984
#84
Hello Juristic Person,

YOUR COMMENT: It didn’t take much for the snoopy program to blacklist me and stop responding.

MY RESPONSE: My post 76 is direct response to your post 61. Is there another comment of yours to which I have not responded? If so, let me know.

Best Regards,

Snoop
Snoop4truth program,

YOUR COMMENT: Is there another comment of yours to which I have not responded? If so, let me know.

MY RESPONSE: Yes.

Best Regards,

Imon2u
 

Jodster

Always wrong
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
977
Likes
652
#85
Who spends hours of time debating on a relatively obscure Internet forum ... for free?
That’s an awful lot of jaw-boning without compensation, Snoop.
Something stinks to high heaven. We can all smell it.
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,832
Likes
2,551
#86
Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: After all the responses, in combination with mine, are you now in agreement with us?

MY RESPONSE: No.

YOUR COMMENT: It is ok to come here, realize the truth, realize you're wrong, clarify your true newly discovered beliefs

MY RESPONSE: Thanks. You are too kind.

YOUR COMMENT: and purchase a free copy of the original constitution and BoR. We may even have a copy laying around, if you need.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks. I already have a copy of the Constitution. And, just so that you know, the Bill Of Rights is actually in the Constitution.

Snoop
Snoop,

I think you are still missing the point. I said the original constitution and the BoR to be clear about what parts I was talking about, because many here like to treat some things in the rest of the constitution as things which were written in unconstitutionally.

Does that make better sense?

Are you in agreement that there are things which were written into the constitution but which are themselves unconstitutional and therefore because they were illegally written in there at the behest of foreign and secret parties, many times during times of war, that those who did that are traitors and those traitors should be tried post-mort and their deeds rolled back?
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
#87
Hello snoop,

a few questions for you, the now self-anointed legal expert in the room,

What is your position regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve? 1913

What is your position regarding the creation of the ESF? exchange stabilization fund

What is your position regarding the PPT? plunge protection team

What is your position regarding the creation of SSA? social security act

What of Nixon eliminating conversion of gold to dollars in '71?

Or how about the creation of the Patriot Act?

How about the Affordable Care Act?

so many questions, so little time,


you have shown the ability to work with minor issues like driver licensing and the .gov cash register associated with it, but how about real issues?

I will provide a very current one also,

Kamala Harris has stated she would eliminate the licenses of Federal Firearms Dealers by fiat decree, or if you prefer, presidential executive order once elected. How would you answer or respond to this attempt?
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
#88
Hello snoop,

a few questions for you, the now self-anointed legal expert in the room,

What is your position regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve? 1913

What is your position regarding the creation of the ESF? exchange stabilization fund

What is your position regarding the PPT? plunge protection team

What is your position regarding the creation of SSA? social security act

What of Nixon eliminating conversion of gold to dollars in '71?

Or how about the creation of the Patriot Act?

How about the Affordable Care Act?

so many questions, so little time,


you have shown the ability to work with minor issues like driver licensing and the .gov cash register associated with it, but how about real issues?

I will provide a very current one also,

Kamala Harris has stated she would eliminate the licenses of Federal Firearms Dealers by fiat decree, or if you prefer, presidential executive order once elected. How would you answer or respond to this attempt?
Not going to answer on behalf of Snoop as he is very capable of answering for himself...

Instead - the point I want to make - which Snoop has already made...which hasnt been addressed by anyone else other than myself on this thread is that every single thing you list was legally passed into law by the very "system" we use to do these things...

All of the items you list that you want a response to were enacted by Congress and signed by a President following the process that the Constitution of the US lays out for these things...

Now - we all dislike some of the things that have been passed into law on our "behalf" by our elected "leaders"...but - that doesnt change the fact that they were indeed passed into law following the process for these things...

Our system allows for these laws to be rescinded/changed...but in order to do that - we need to elect a different batch of critters into Congress that will better represent the true wishes of the American people.

Bottom line - the laws/executive orders, etc... that we bemoan and fight against were produced by the very system that we support and defend - i.e. the Constitutional Republic that we live in.

And the dirty little secret is that this "system" is only as good as the representatives that "We the People" elect...

If we elect bought and paid for dimwits into office - then we will end up with laws that we dont like. Pretty straightforward.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,658
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#90
@ Snoop..... Your full of it. You dont even know or understand how laws are enacted. Statutes are not laws, they are evidence of a law, but not a law.... Your arguements about real law are moot. Your no expert either.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
#91
hey BB, if'n you are a plannin' to depants someone, might want to be sure to use proper grammatical procedures to do so...............

you are or you're, but not your in that case

please be advised,

just a northerner tryin' to help out a handicapped low energy southerner :0)
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,672
Likes
12,584
#92
Arminius,

You are so consumed with hatred and negativity that you actually believe that the truth is itself some kind of conspiracy. But, it is not. You are a very confused individual. Your value system is exactly backwards. To you, truth is bad and lies are good. To you, right is wrong and wrong is right. To you good is bad and bad is good. That is so messed up.

You hate our republican form of government. You hate that every single law in the history of the United States was actually written and actually made into law by our elected representatives that "We the People" authorized to make our laws (Constitutional delegates, Federal Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen, State Senators, State Representatives, County Commissioners, City Commissioners, State Supreme Court Justices, State District Judges, etc. ). You hate that every single judge in the state court system is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. You hate that every single state attorney in the state court system was is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. You hate that every single public defender in the state court system is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. Finally, you hate that the head of every law enforcement agency in the entire United States is elected by "We the People" (President, Governor, county sheriff, city police chief, etc.).

To "justify" this mindless hatred, you have to pretend that our republican form of government is something that it is not and that it is something diabolical (a private, for-profit corporation, etc.). But, you aren't fooling anybody. I have provided you with dozens of laws which hold that no government or true government of agency is a profit, for-profit corporation. But, you mindlessly reject that truth, because you cannot justify your mindless hatred by admitting to the truth. So, you have to pretend that the lie is the truth and that the truth is the lie. In so going, you engage in nothing short of intentional self delusion and willful ignorance to justify your mindless hatred.

Not only do you hate our republican form of government, you actually hate the truth itself. But, truth does not exploit you or other human beings. Truth does not profit from you or other human beings. Truth does not gain an advantage over you by appearing on the web. The truth is not something diabolical.

Truth is not some kind of tool designed to exploit you or other human beings. Truth is not some kind of tool designed to generate profits for lawyers, elected judges or imaginary corporations. Truth is not some kind of tool designed to benefit lawyers, elected judges or imaginary corporations.

So, why do you mindlessly reject the truth? The answer is because the truth will not justify your mindless hatred of our republican form of government. Only lies will do that. So, you desperately cling to lies because only lies provide justification your mindless hatred and only lies provide validation for your delusional belief system to the effect that the government and all government agencies are private, for-profit corporations.

The entire world of amateur legal theory is a lie designed to validate the mindless hatred of our republican form of government. But, it only works on those with no formal legal education.

Whether you like it or not and whether you admit it or not, your REAL enemies are those charlatans who peddle amateur legal theories, like Eddie Craig and Rod Class, whom you idolize. Whether you like it or not and whether you admit it or not, your REAL friends are people like me, who attempt to help you to see through the lies of those very charlatans, whom you idolize.

Finally, your value system is so confused that actually hate those of us who try to help you and you idolize those who
do nothing but tell you lies in an effort to get you to hate our republican form of government. But, you do not have the sense to even realize it. Wake up.

Best Regards,

Snoop
I haven't read all the posts in here but there are some good ones. On both sides.

I think we are a long way from our roots and our republican form of government. We no longer have 3 branches of government that keep each other in check. We have one government all working hard to bring us closer to the socialist utopia that they have in mind for us where they control everything and we get to keep enough of our money to stay alive.

The frustration for many of us, myself included is the lack of constitutional consideration when any of these laws are passed and then the compliance by the SC to just allow them to stand. Of course thats all dependent on how the court is stacked at the time. Right or left. Obama care and car insurance are just 2 items. I don't see health care as a constitutional right and I see nowhere in the constitution where gov has a right to tell me how and where I have to spend my money for my own good. Insurance is something you buy when you want to protect your ass or assets. thats a personal decision based on your own needs.
Since you claim to understand tax law I am sure you are aware that most Americans living and working in the US are not required to pay income tax. Getting down to the heart of the matter however is the simple thing called a w-4 when you go off to exchange your labor for money. Very few if any will hire you without signing one. There has been some success in using this affidavit.
Affidavit of Non-taxpayer Status
I, , swear or affirm:
1. I am not a "taxpayer"; The term taxpayer means any person subject to any Internal Revenue
tax contained within Title 26 of the U.S. Code 26 U.S.C. 7701(14).
2. I am not required to give a TIN# under 26 U.S.C. 6109 and am not subject to backup withholding under 26 U.S.C. 3406 and due to “Reasonable cause waiver NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to REASONABLE CAUSE and not to willful neglect.” 26 U.S.C. 6724.
3. I am not a foreign person or foreign corporation deriving U.S. source income, U.S. person abroad deriving foreign source income or U.S. person in control or custody as pass through entity of foreign income.
4. I am not a "Resident", A foreign person who is residing in the United States, resident alien. 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(a).
5. I am not an "Employee", an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. 26 U.S.C. 3401(c) and 26 U.S.C. 6331(a).
6. I am not an "Individual", The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c)(3)(i).
7. I am not a "U.S. Person", an American citizen or domestic entity that is involved in or serving as the intermediary, flow-through entity, or a financial pipeline through which U.S. source income flows to its FOREIGN destination. T.D. 8734.
8. As I am not a Payee, you are not a Payor in this instance. The term payor is defined and generally includes a withholding agent, as defined in § 1.1441-7(a). The term also includes any person that makes a payment to an intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch that is not treated as a U.S. person to the extent the intermediary, flow-through, or U.S. branch provides a Form W-9 or other appropriate information relating to a payee so that the payment can be reported under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code and, if required, subject to backup withholding under section 3406. C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c)(19)
9. Nor are you a Withholding Agent - "Withholding Agent", means any person, U.S. or foreign, that has the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of an item of income of a FOREIGN PERSON subject to withholding, 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-7
I swear or affirm that the above and foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. The use of the notary below is for identification purposes only and such does not grant any jurisdiction to anyone.
That success is very limited though. We are all well aware of the Gov contention that everything they cant honestly answer becomes a frivolous argument in their eyes. Lawyers wont touch it with a 10 ft pole because they like being lawyers and more than a few have been threatened with losing their license if they pursue this.
Dave lays it out very well here. Probably the only real source for the truth out there on the web.

As a lawyer I am sure you are aware that there is the potential for one of the largest lawsuits in American history right here. 1) By suing the feds (IRS)for the illegal application of the income tax laws or 2) for suing any corporation or company who refuses to hire based on not filing out a w-4 and I-9. Both of these could be class actions against the IRS and or some of the largest employers in the US. Both would be very lucrative for the law firm.
As a side bonus, setting things right with the tax system would force the feds back to a constitutional form of taxation by apportionment. It would also eliminate all forms of socialism at the federal level. A win win for everyone except those on the system.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#93
You are an AI program or bot. This is now the umpteenth time you have posted this same exact diatribe. You clearly have programmed responses.
Hello Juristic Person,

YOUR COMMENT: You are an AI program or bot.

MY RESPONSE: I am flattered that you think I am a machine. But, I am not.

YOUR COMMENT: This is now the umpteenth time you have posted this same exact diatribe.

MY RESPONSE: In the mistaken belief you were somehow discrediting me, you yourself posted a derogatory comment above written by Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") who complained that I had exposed the hoaxes of Deborah Tavares. So, in response to your post on this subject, I posted the work THAT WAS THE VERY SUBJECT OF YOUR OWN POST. If you don't didn't want me to reveal information about the hoaxes of Deborah Tavares, THEN DON'T RAISE THAT SUBJECT IN YOUR OWN POSTS. Would you have preferred that my response relate to some other completely random, irrelevant subject? And, if you had actually bothered to look at it more carefully, you would have realized that the list of hoaxes I posted above is different from any that I have ever posted on this website.

But, let's be real here. You aren't fooling anybody. What you actually oppose is the truth itself. To a person like you who opposes the truth itself, any amount of truth is too much truth. But, to people like me who support the truth, no amount of truth is enough truth (exactly the opposite of people like you). .

YOUR COMMENT: You clearly have programmed responses.

MY RESPONSE: Again, I am flattered. But, this is simply not so.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#94
Who spends hours of time debating on a relatively obscure Internet forum ... for free?
That’s an awful lot of jaw-boning without compensation, Snoop.
Something stinks to high heaven. We can all smell it.
Hello Jodster,

YOUR COMMENT: Who spends hours of time debating on a relatively obscure Internet forum ... for free?

MY RESPONSE: Someone who cares for others. Someone who rights wrongs. Someone who tries to help victims who have been defrauded by haters and charlatans.

YOUR COMMENT: That’s an awful lot of jaw-boning without compensation, Snoop.

MY RESPONSE: Actually, I use my fingers on a keyboard. But, you are right. I do an awful lot of typing.

YOUR COMMENT: Something stinks to high heaven. We can all smell it

MY RESPONSE: I think smell it too. Change your shorts.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#95
Snoop,

I think you are still missing the point. I said the original constitution and the BoR to be clear about what parts I was talking about, because many here like to treat some things in the rest of the constitution as things which were written in unconstitutionally.

Does that make better sense?

Are you in agreement that there are things which were written into the constitution but which are themselves unconstitutional and therefore because they were illegally written in there at the behest of foreign and secret parties, many times during times of war, that those who did that are traitors and those traitors should be tried post-mort and their deeds rolled back?
Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: Are you in agreement that there are things which were written into the constitution but which are themselves unconstitutional

MY RESPONSE: The original constitution was not perfect. After all, it did not ban slavery. But, that is what the constitutional amendment process was all about. But, in direct answer to your question, no. If something is in the constitution, it is not unconstitutional. It may be wrong, immoral or unjust, but if it is in the constitution, it is not unconstitutional.

YOUR COMMENT: because they were illegally written in there at the behest of foreign and secret parties, many times during [periods] of war, that those who did that are traitors and those traitors should be tried post-mort and their deeds rolled back

MY RESPONSE: I know nothing of these foreign parties, secret parties or traitors. No. I do not believe these people, if they ever existed, should be tried post mortem. All of the witnesses would be dead and the defendants could not confront their accusers. Likewise, I do not believe that their descendants should be stripped of their property. If there is something wrong with the constitution, it should be corrected through the constitutional amendment process. A trial will not amend the constitution.

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#96
Hello snoop,

a few questions for you, the now self-anointed legal expert in the room,

What is your position regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve? 1913

What is your position regarding the creation of the ESF? exchange stabilization fund

What is your position regarding the PPT? plunge protection team

What is your position regarding the creation of SSA? social security act

What of Nixon eliminating conversion of gold to dollars in '71?

Or how about the creation of the Patriot Act?

How about the Affordable Care Act?

so many questions, so little time,


you have shown the ability to work with minor issues like driver licensing and the .gov cash register associated with it, but how about real issues?

I will provide a very current one also,

Kamala Harris has stated she would eliminate the licenses of Federal Firearms Dealers by fiat decree, or if you prefer, presidential executive order once elected. How would you answer or respond to this attempt?
Hello Scorpio,

Finally, intelligent, meaningful dialogue!

YOUR COMMENT: What is your position regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve? 1913

MY RESPONSE: It oppose it. The Federal Reserve should be abolished and every penny of profits generated for private interests since its inception should be returned to the American people, plus compound interest.

YOUR COMMENT: What is your position regarding the creation of the ESF? exchange stabilization fund

MY RESPONSE: I oppose the Special Drawing Rights provisions.

YOUR COMMENT: What is your position regarding the PPT? plunge protection team

MY RESPONSE: Well intended. But, insiders can use inside information to manipulate the markets and to profit thereby.

YOUR COMMENT: What is your position regarding the creation of SSA? social security act

MY RESPONSE: Well intended, but ill advised. The are no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund. Congress already spent those funds. People are living longer. Future and younger generations will have to pay more and more as time goes by. If changes are not made, it will bankrupt us or it will simply be discontinued.

YOUR COMMENT: What of Nixon eliminating conversion of gold to dollars in '71?

MY RESPONSE: Dollars have not been redeemable in gold since the days of Roosevelt. Nixon simply eliminated all remaining connection between the value of the dollar and gold.

YOUR COMMENT: Or how about the creation of the Patriot Act?

MY RESPONSE: It violates the constitution in a plethora of ways. It should be repealed or Supremes should declare it unconstitutional.

YOUR COMMENT: How about the Affordable Care Act?

MY RESPONSE: A well intended mess. Penalty provisions are outrageous. The cost of health care was out of control. Something had to be done. But, Obama Care, as we know it, was not the answer.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,947
Likes
6,904
Location
right here right now
#97
The key here with this is COLOR OF LAW. This is bot attempting to make its COLOR OF LAW into reality. Note how he defines it. As if it's us being colored, LOL. As bugs would say, "Ehh, what a maroon!", almost incredulously...

What a freakshow folks.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#98
@ Snoop..... Your full of it. You dont even know or understand how laws are enacted. Statutes are not laws, they are evidence of a law, but not a law.... Your arguements about real law are moot. Your no expert either.
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: You don't even know or understand how laws are enacted.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, I do.

YOUR COMMENT: Statutes are not laws, they are evidence of a law, but not a law....

MY RESPONSE: Post proof on this thread.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
#99
I haven't read all the posts in here but there are some good ones. On both sides.

I think we are a long way from our roots and our republican form of government. We no longer have 3 branches of government that keep each other in check. We have one government all working hard to bring us closer to the socialist utopia that they have in mind for us where they control everything and we get to keep enough of our money to stay alive.

The frustration for many of us, myself included is the lack of constitutional consideration when any of these laws are passed and then the compliance by the SC to just allow them to stand. Of course thats all dependent on how the court is stacked at the time. Right or left. Obama care and car insurance are just 2 items. I don't see health care as a constitutional right and I see nowhere in the constitution where gov has a right to tell me how and where I have to spend my money for my own good. Insurance is something you buy when you want to protect your ass or assets. thats a personal decision based on your own needs.
Since you claim to understand tax law I am sure you are aware that most Americans living and working in the US are not required to pay income tax. Getting down to the heart of the matter however is the simple thing called a w-4 when you go off to exchange your labor for money. Very few if any will hire you without signing one. There has been some success in using this affidavit.
That success is very limited though. We are all well aware of the Gov contention that everything they cant honestly answer becomes a frivolous argument in their eyes. Lawyers wont touch it with a 10 ft pole because they like being lawyers and more than a few have been threatened with losing their license if they pursue this.
Dave lays it out very well here. Probably the only real source for the truth out there on the web.

As a lawyer I am sure you are aware that there is the potential for one of the largest lawsuits in American history right here. 1) By suing the feds (IRS)for the illegal application of the income tax laws or 2) for suing any corporation or company who refuses to hire based on not filing out a w-4 and I-9. Both of these could be class actions against the IRS and or some of the largest employers in the US. Both would be very lucrative for the law firm.
As a side bonus, setting things right with the tax system would force the feds back to a constitutional form of taxation by apportionment. It would also eliminate all forms of socialism at the federal level. A win win for everyone except those on the system.
Hello Cigarlover,

YOUR COMMENT: I think we are a long way from our roots and our republican form of government.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. On the positive side, slavery is now illegal and women can vote. On the negative side, we have the Federal Reserve and the Patriot Act.

YOUR COMMENT: We no longer have 3 branches of government that keep each other in check.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. If anything, these three branches do too much checking and balancing each other to get anything done as a whole.

YOUR COMMENT: We have one government all working hard to bring us closer to the socialist utopia that they have in mind for us

MY RESPONSE: There are factions within the government that do this. But, there also are factions in the government that want to bring us closer to a corporatist utopia. I am concerned about both extremes.

YOUR COMMENT: The frustration for many of us, myself included is the lack of constitutional consideration when any of these laws are passed and then the compliance by the SC to just allow them to stand. Of course that's all dependent on how the court is stacked at the time. Right or left.

MY RESPONSE: Almost every single law is within constitutional limits. Only rarely does Congress pass something like the Patriot Act which is completely unconstitutional, in my opinion.

YOUR COMMENT: Obama care and car insurance are just 2 items. I don't see health care as a constitutional right and I see nowhere in the constitution where gov has a right to tell me how and where I have to spend my money for my own good. Insurance is something you buy when you want to protect your ass or assets. that's a personal decision based on your own needs.

MY RESPONSE: You may be right about health care. But, you are wrong about car insurance. Car insurance is not just for your own good. It's also for the good of your victims. There are many people on the road with insufficient assets to pay for the damages they cause others.

YOUR COMMENT: Since you claim to understand tax law I am sure you are aware that most Americans living and working in the US are not required to pay income tax.

MY RESPONSE: I do not claim to know income tax law. I do know income tax law. There is a difference.

YOUR COMMENT: I am sure you are aware that most Americans living and working in the US are not required to pay income tax.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. This is a classic tax protester claim that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.

YOUR COMMENT: Getting down to the heart of the matter however is the simple thing called a w-4 when you go off to exchange your labor for money. Very few if any will hire you without signing one.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. This is because the law requires it.

YOUR COMMENT: We are all well aware of the Gov contention that everything they cant honestly answer becomes a frivolous argument in their eyes.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Frivolous arguments are arguments intended to avoid paying taxes that are non-meritorious, contrary to the real law and which have been unanimously ruled against by every court considering them. Today, tax protesters who raise any of the arguments that appear on the IRS's list of frivolously arguments can be fined of thousands of dollars for doing so. https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-iii. SO, READ THIS LIST BEFORE GOING TO COURT! https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

YOUR COMMENT: Lawyers wont touch it with a 10 ft pole because they like being lawyers and more than a few have been threatened with losing their license if they pursue this.

MY RESPONSE: Lawyers don't touch amateur legal theories or tax protester arguments BECAUSE THEY CANNOT WORK AND DO NOT WORK. They are FAKE. They are just PRETEND and MAKE-BELIEVE.

YOUR COMMENT: Dave lays it out very well here.

MY RESPONSE: Dave is a tax protester and amateur legal theorist who knows NOTHING about REAL tax law. He is a poser. A charlatan.

YOUR COMMENT: Probably the only real source for the truth out there on the web.
.

MY RESPONSE: You overlooked these.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm

https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

YOUR COMMENT: As a lawyer I am sure you are aware that there is the potential for one of the largest lawsuits in American history right here. 1) By suing the feds (IRS) for the illegal application of the income tax laws; or 2) for suing any corporation or company who refuses to hire based on not filing out a w-4 and I-9.

MY RESPONSE: 1). No lawyer can successfully sue the IRS for applying the income tax in a manner that complies with the law; 2). No lawyer can successfully sue a corporation or company which complies with the law by requiring new employees to fill-out W-2 forms. Lawsuits are for NON-COMPLIANCE, not for compliance.

YOUR COMMENT: Both of these could be class actions against the IRS and or some of the largest employers in the US. Both would be very lucrative for the law firm.

MY RESPONSE: Both would fail miserably.

YOUR COMMENT: As a side bonus, setting things right with the tax system would force the feds back to a constitutional form of taxation by apportionment.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. See proof below.
Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some individuals and groups assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and, thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. Numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied. In Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.

Relevant Case Law:

Young v. Commissioner, 551 F.App’x 229, 203 (8th Cir. 2014) – rejecting as “meritless” and “frivolous” Young’s arguments that the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax, the 8th Circuit sanctioned him $8,000.

Taliaferro v. Freemtran, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of excise taxes but not income taxes, and ordered sanctions against him up to and including double the government’s costs.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) – the 10th Circuit found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989) – the 9th Circuit, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax, affirmed the failure to file conviction.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518-20 (7th Cir. 1984) – the 7th Circuit rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, upheld assessment of the frivolous return penalty, and imposed sanctions for pursuing “frivolous arguments in bad faith” on top of the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the government.

United States v. Jones, 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2015-2038 (D. Minn. 2015) – the court rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s arguments that individual income tax is unconstitutional because it is “a direct tax which must be apportioned among the several states,” noting, “It is well-established that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.”

Maxwell v. Internal Revenue Service, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-1571 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) – the court found the taxpayer’s arguments have been “routinely rejected,” principally, that there is no law that imposes an income tax, nor is there a non-apportioned direct tax that could be imposed on him as a supposed non-citizen.

YOUR COMMENT: It would also eliminate all forms of socialism at the federal level. A win win for everyone except those on the system

MY RESPONSE: Nobody likes to pay taxes. But, there is no legitimate grounds filing such a suit and there is no law that would result in a win against the federal government for something it is constitutionally authorized to do.

I hope this helps.

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
The key here with this is COLOR OF LAW. This is bot attempting to make its COLOR OF LAW into reality. Note how he defines it. As if it's us being colored, LOL. As bugs would say, "Ehh, what a maroon!", almost incredulously...

What a freakshow folks.
Hello Arminius,

When you are this consumed with rage, you unwittingly turn you critical thinking skills off.

You cannot possibly learn anything in that state of mind.

You cannot possibly reason and think rationally in that state of mind.

It hurts only you.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,672
Likes
12,584
I was hoping for a different reply from you. I will reject your arguments was frivolous since you provided no proof that the arguments made were frivolous other than to quote the courts who did the same thing.
This is the rule of law? A court says it's frivolous so its frivolous. Bam now it's the law.
Why bother writing laws at all if they will all be interpreted in this manner?

I could ask to just show the law where congress imposed a tax on the incomes of ordinary Americans but I'm sure that would be considered frivolous as well. Not to mention pointing out that Stanton vrs Baltic mining also mentioned that the 16th
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." 240 U.S. 112 (1916)
.

Of course the income tax is not a direct tax it is an excise tax and the courts have consistently agreed on that point.
The conversion of a right into a privilege so the government can tax it is unconstitutional.

I've seen many of the cases that were put forth as frivolous arguments and in not 1 of those cases does the government point out where the argument is frivolous. None of the points were addressed, just a ruling from the bench, frivolous.

And this is the rule of law? More like color of law.

Thanks for citing those other websites. All of them take he government position. As do you.
I've spent a couple thousand hrs researching this and the only conclusion is the courts have been corrupted. There is no viable argument that the government has that could justify a direct tax on the pay of Americans living and working in the US.
As you pointed out, slavery has been abolished. If the Gov has a right to directly tax anyones pay then slavery has not been abolished. Based on what you have put forth the gov can tax 100% of anyones pay and there is nothing anyone can do about it. In many states it is already over 50% with federal, state and local taxation.
I will agree with you on one point though, there is no point in taking any of this through the court systems. I came to the same conclusion. When courts have been as corrupted as they are now, its best to just avoid them altogether.

On a final note I have purchases copies of this book and handed it out to atones I know. They in turn have read it and shared it with others who have basically concluded the same as I have. The book is accurate but good luck finding a judge or lawyer to take a case.
There's also a group on facebook. Tax honesty patriots.. Several have also shared this with Lawyers as has Dave himself. Always the same. Good info but good luck fighting the government.

The only conclusion to make is that there is no rule of law any longer.

MY RESPONSE: You may be right about health care. But, you are wrong about car insurance. Car insurance is not just for your own good. It's also for the good of your victims. There are many people on the road with insufficient assets to pay for the damages they cause others.
If your worried about people having insufficient coverage or assets to protect you then isn't it your responsibility to protect yourself with sufficient coverage? If I drive a 200k car and little joey runs into me with his 25k minimum coverage who makes up the difference? The answer is obvious. You have to protect yourself and putting that responsibility on anyone else is just plain stupid.
Whats next? The cost of everything is so expensive so everyone must now be required to carry a 5 million dollar umbrella policy?


So in your defense I understand where your coming from. There is case law that says south and such is constitutional so now all these other laws can be passed. That is a problem for me. I think the constitution has not been interpreted correctly nor the original intent so laws are getting passed that shouldn't be.
Every social program is probably unconstitutional. Welfare, public schooling, public transportation, public housing, public healthcare. Just to name a few. None of them should exist and none of them did exist prior to the federal reserve being created.
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
note that snoop4 only answered one of the questions posed,

and that answer was ill conceived and a bit emotional at best,
giving the subject matter, quite understandable,

at this point the best we could hope for without a civil war that took out every bit of resistance by either side would be a phasing out of the fed, with a eventual shut down and return of the purse to the people.

problem is, that is not going to happen peacefully, ever.

while it is cute to argue 'rule of law', and 'we the people', the honest answer is we have neither

ohh sure, there will be those that argue otherwise, but in those claims they will either be fraudulently promoting a agenda, or they will be ignorant of the way things really are.

they argue health care is a 'right'
that ACA is lawful
that SS is lawful
etc.

it is nauseus

most are just ignorant or refuse with all their might to see,

and we aren't speaking to just the avg slave here, as it is quite apparent throughout society at all levels.

please, gwb as president?
or the kenyan as president?

seriously?

look at the current group of loopies hoping to knock tramp off the hill, not a one of them worth a tinkers damn, nor with any qualifications even resembling what the office entails.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,658
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
MY RESPONSE: Because statutes are REAL LAW, they are not misrepresented by law enforcement, courts and lawyers when they call them what they actually are, REAL LAW.
Absolute nonsense (supra).....

Article III, sections 6, 7, 8, of Florida Constitution prescribes the forms & solemnities for creating bills & creating law.

SECTION 6. Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

SECTION 7. Passage of bills.—Any bill may originate in either house and after passage in one may be amended in the other. It shall be read in each house on three separate days, unless this rule is waived by two-thirds vote; provided the publication of its title in the journal of a house shall satisfy the requirement for the first reading in that house. On each reading, it shall be read by title only, unless one-third of the members present desire it read in full. On final passage, the vote of each member voting shall be entered on the journal. Passage of a bill shall require a majority vote in each house. Each bill and joint resolution passed in both houses shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses and by the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the house of representatives during the session or as soon as practicable after its adjournment sine die.

http://m.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution

A statute is not the law, it is evidence of a Bill and/or an Act of the Legislature, nothing more, nothing less, . At the bottom of every statute are historical reference notes & dates back to the original bill/act and any amendments or alterations that the legislature has made to the original bill/act

1.04 Statutory construction; amendatory acts passed at the same session.—Acts passed during the same legislative session and amending the same statutory provision are in pari materia, and full effect should be given to each, if that is possible. Language carried forward unchanged in one amendatory act, pursuant to s. 6, Art. III of the State Constitution, should not be read as conflicting with changed language contained in another act passed during the same session. Amendments enacted during the same session are in conflict with each other only to the extent that they cannot be given effect simultaneously.
History.—s. 1, ch. 74-153

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0000-0099/0001/Sections/0001.04.html

Only a group of flim-flam artists called Lawyers could come up with a statute to "enable" & "adopt" an entire body of statutes to subvert Article III, sections 6, 7, & 8 of Floridas Constitution.... namely:

"Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only." -- Article III, section 6

11.2421 Florida Statutes 2019 adopted.—The accompanying revision, consolidation, and compilation of the public statutes of 2018 of a general and permanent nature, excepting tables, rules, indexes, and other related matter contained therein, prepared by the Office of Legislative Services under the provisions of s.11.242, together with corrections, changes, and amendments to and repeals of provisions of Florida Statutes 2018 enacted in additional reviser’s bill or bills by the 2019 Legislature, is adopted and enacted as the official statute law of the state under the title of “Florida Statutes 2019” and shall take effect immediately upon publication. Said statutes may be cited as “Florida Statutes 2019,” “Florida Statutes,” or “F.S. 2019.”
History.—s. 1, ch. 20719, 1941; s. 1, ch. 22000, 1943; s. 1, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 1, ch. 24337, 1947; s. 1, ch. 25035, 1949; s. 1, ch. 26484, 1951; s. 1, ch. 27991, 1953; s. 1, ch. 29615, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-1; s. 1, ch. 59-1; s. 1, ch. 61-1; s. 1, ch. 63-2; s. 1, ch. 65-1; s. 1, ch. 67-1; s. 9, ch. 67-472; s. 1, ch. 69-352; ss. 29, 30, ch. 69-52; s. 1, ch. 71-251; s. 1, ch. 73-70; s. 1, ch. 75-169; s. 1, ch. 77-266; s. 1, ch. 79-281; s. 1, ch. 81-2; s. 1, ch. 83-61; s. 1, ch. 85-59; s. 1, ch. 87-83; s. 1, ch. 89-64; s. 1, ch. 91-44; s. 1, ch. 93-272; s. 1, ch. 95-347; s. 1, ch. 97-97; s. 1, ch. 99-10; s. 1, ch. 2003-25; s. 1, ch. 2004-4; s. 1, ch. 2005-1; s. 1, ch. 2006-3; s. 1, ch. 2007-7; s. 1, ch. 2008-3; s. 1, ch. 2009-19; s. 1, ch. 2010-3; s. 1, ch. 2011-2; s. 1, ch. 2012-4; s. 1, ch. 2013-13; s. 1, ch. 2014-16; s. 1, ch. 2015-1; s. 1, ch. 2016-8; s. 1, ch. 2017-2; s. 1, ch. 2018-109; s. 1, ch. 2019-2.
Note.—Former s. 16.19.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...g=&URL=0000-0099/0011/Sections/0011.2421.html

Your just to funny, and you even have the nerve to call statutes "real law".... Statutes basically hide the bill/act from the general public who are jurally illiterate... each bill/act contains & specifies exactly what class of persons or class of property and/or classes of persons & property are subject to the bill or act.... A person can be charged with a violation of a statute but isnt within the scope of the bill or law.... statutes are not all encompassing & sweeping over all persons & activities....
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,832
Likes
2,551
Hello FunnyMoney,

Snoop
Snoop, we are still talking past each other and it is almost as if we are talking in two completely different sets of rules.

If you skip to 45:20 in the video you will find out how the law actually works. So the definitions will need to get established prior to arriving at discussion start...

 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Snoop, we are still talking past each other and it is almost as if we are talking in two completely different sets of rules.

If you skip to 45:20 in the video you will find out how the law actually works. So the definitions will need to get established prior to arriving at discussion start...

FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: If you skip to 45:20 in the video you will find out how the law actually works.

MY RESPONSE: I have owned this same DVD for over ten years. I love it. I have watched it dozens of times. The subject of this video is not the law. The subject of this video is money creation. It is unbelievable to me that Congress gave these thieves (and their successors) charters. But, it did. Likewise, it is incomprehensible to me that Congress actually passed the Federal Reserve Act.

Snoop
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,832
Likes
2,551
MY RESPONSE: I have owned this same DVD for over ten years. I love it. I have watched it dozens of times. The subject of this video is not the law. The subject of this video is money creation. It is unbelievable to me that Congress gave these thieves (and their successors) charters. But, it did. Likewise, it is incomprehensible to me that Congress actually passed the Federal Reserve Act.

Snoop
If you look through the details and then if you match those details against the various timelines of war, you find evidence of treason and that laws were broken in the creation and application of law.

So it has everything to do with the law.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
note that snoop4 only answered one of the questions posed,

and that answer was ill conceived and a bit emotional at best,
giving the subject matter, quite understandable,

at this point the best we could hope for without a civil war that took out every bit of resistance by either side would be a phasing out of the fed, with a eventual shut down and return of the purse to the people.

problem is, that is not going to happen peacefully, ever.

while it is cute to argue 'rule of law', and 'we the people', the honest answer is we have neither

ohh sure, there will be those that argue otherwise, but in those claims they will either be fraudulently promoting a agenda, or they will be ignorant of the way things really are.

they argue health care is a 'right'
that ACA is lawful
that SS is lawful
etc.

it is nauseus

most are just ignorant or refuse with all their might to see,

and we aren't speaking to just the avg slave here, as it is quite apparent throughout society at all levels.

please, gwb as president?
or the kenyan as president?

seriously?

look at the current group of loopies hoping to knock tramp off the hill, not a one of them worth a tinkers damn, nor with any qualifications even resembling what the office entails.
BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: note that snoop4 only answered one of the questions posed,

MY RESPONSE: Which questions did I miss?

YOUR COMMENT: at this point the best we could hope for ... would be a phasing out of the fed, with a eventual shut down and return of the purse to the people.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. The sooner the better.

YOUR COMMENT: problem is, that is not going to happen peacefully, ever.

MY RESPONSE: I am more optimistic. I like the idea of auditing the Fed and all of its member banks all the way back to 1913. I want the name of every private person or entity that ever profited from this scheme. Once that audit is published, "We the People" will demand that the Fed be shut down.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
If you look through the details and then if you match those details against the various timelines of war, you find evidence of treason and that laws were broken in the creation and application of law.

So it has everything to do with the law.
Hello FunnyMoney,

This is not so. But, at least you are focusing on a problem that is actually real and not imaginary. For that, I applaud you.

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,947
Likes
6,904
Location
right here right now
Hello Arminius,

When you are this consumed with rage
Wrong again. It's not rage, disgust perhaps, but mainly I'm just amazed that charlatans like you come here and attempt to tell this group what is law. It's just my disgust that the general public have been conditioned to, such as youse, and what youse have stolen from the general american public over the the last number of years, with your corporate practices of fake law.

BTW, here is the legal, but not necessarilally lawful definition of COLOR OF LAW:

The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.

It is by consent or ignorance only that any true american national would accept your colorable authority or colorable law...
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
to explain further regarding this 'we the people' tripe,

nothing could be further from the truth,
there is no such thing, although there are those begging you to believe in it, to become part of it,
it is all part of the charade.

The propaganda machine, getting you to choose sides.

I am a soverign man, no more no less.

I don't give a rats azz what color you are or if you are a faggot,
I just don't want to hear about it,

Your education or your mommy and daddy is of zero consequence to me,

I am not interested in your business, or your pleasures,
again, none of my business

Having said that, I do expect the same relative courtesy extended to me,
If you force me to make a choice, it is pretty much set in stone that I will not stand by you.

I have the ability to choose whom I would prefer to socialize with, or to help in a time of need. No one has the power to force me into blind acceptance or blind faith.

more concise and more completely, just leave me the F$%^ alone.

Thankfully, there are many here that I gladly socialize with, for they are the true amerikans
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,834
Likes
3,984
YOUR COMMENT: Statutes are not laws, they are evidence of a law, but not a law....

MY RESPONSE: Post proof on this thread.

Snoop
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
1565177404302.png


The reality is that Congress can (and has) passed laws that are in contradiction to the Constitution. Those laws are enacted...and enforced - until such time as a court strikes them down...

Obamacare is a perfect example of this...

The point Snoop started with...and that I have endorsed is the simple fact that because we have a government run by "We the People" - with a citizen legislature that is elected by...US...the only ones we really have to blame for the mess we are in is...US.

If we elect better people - we will end up with better laws...

Period. End of story.

PS - no offense meant with the meme. Came across it and needed a post where I could use it...

Scorp should put it in his file and bring it out as needed...
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,672
Likes
12,584
View attachment 138159

The reality is that Congress can (and has) passed laws that are in contradiction to the Constitution. Those laws are enacted...and enforced - until such time as a court strikes them down...

Obamacare is a perfect example of this...

The point Snoop started with...and that I have endorsed is the simple fact that because we have a government run by "We the People" - with a citizen legislature that is elected by...US...the only ones we really have to blame for the mess we are in is...US.

If we elect better people - we will end up with better laws...

Period. End of story.

PS - no offense meant with the meme. Came across it and needed a post where I could use it...

Scorp should put it in his file and bring it out as needed...
How do you elect better people when only 2 pieces of shit are running? The constitution was written to be very limited in scope and anything not granted to the feds via the constitution was reserved for the states or the people themselves. Congress has taken it upon themselves to expand their powers. The 16th is a perfect example of this.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
And from my post above
Stanton vrs Baltic mining the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." 240 U.S. 112 (1916)
For the laymen, the 16th allowed congress to tax corporate profits. I can provide the case cites later if this becomes really disputed but the term "income" is a profit or gain separate from capital. So, if you have capital invested in a business or real estate than the profit or gain from that investment is income. The capital itself is not income, only the profit derived from it.

Congress still retains the power of taxation through apportionment. Congress simply tells the states that they need to collect 50 million from them. The tax is apportioned according to the census and the states then tax all property owners an equal share of the tax imposed by congress. The states collect and send it off to the feds.
Now we see why the founders made voting rights based on property ownership as well. Those with skin in the game could decide their elected reps.
This is why I have contended all along that the misapplication of the 16th is where the feds took control away from the people. To the point where now the people just vote for whoever is going to give them the most free shit.

Snoop, I have to say you seem to be for the government at every turn, so much so that its hard to imagine that you are not here on behalf of the government. I have a lawyer in the family and by default get to socialize with him and his friends who are also lawyers. I've also had businesses where I used lawyers and never have I seen a lawyer take the government position as much as you do. I do give you credit for siding with us on the patriot act though.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,658
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
:make happy:
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: You don't even know or understand how laws are enacted.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, I do.

YOUR COMMENT: Statutes are not laws, they are evidence of a law, but not a law....

MY RESPONSE: Post proof on this thread.

Snoop
Ref. post #103

:spaceship:
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
and that I have endorsed is the simple fact that because we have a government run by "We the People" - with a citizen legislature that is elected by...US...the only ones we really have to blame for the mess we are in is...US.
yeah, that is not the 'end of the story'

sure it is for those unwilling to accept what is true, and instead prefer to ingest heaping helpings of the propaganda

my request,

break free of those chains,
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,832
Likes
2,551
Hello FunnyMoney,

This is not so. But, at least you are focusing on a problem that is actually real and not imaginary. For that, I applaud you.

Snoop
Thanks, but it is so.

It is at 45:20 in the 4 hour program. It says, "the Law" right there. It is the same word you have been using. It is spelled the same and it sounds the same. All three letters are the same: L - A - W.

I walked through the 4 hour history lesson and it is entirely clear to me it has everything to do with the LAW and it is clear the LAW is not following the true LAW and today's LAW needs to be stayed because it was adjusted by unLAWful means.
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
yeah, that is not the 'end of the story'

sure it is for those unwilling to accept what is true, and instead prefer to ingest heaping helpings of the propaganda

my request,

break free of those chains,
I am not bound by any chains I assure you.

Any problem you can name - I can point back to the fact that the only reason it remains a problem is because We the People tolerate it...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
I was hoping for a different reply from you. I will reject your arguments was frivolous since you provided no proof that the arguments made were frivolous other than to quote the courts who did the same thing.
This is the rule of law? A court says it's frivolous so its frivolous. Bam now it's the law.
Why bother writing laws at all if they will all be interpreted in this manner?

I could ask to just show the law where congress imposed a tax on the incomes of ordinary Americans but I'm sure that would be considered frivolous as well. Not to mention pointing out that Stanton vrs Baltic mining also mentioned that the 16th .

Of course the income tax is not a direct tax it is an excise tax and the courts have consistently agreed on that point.
The conversion of a right into a privilege so the government can tax it is unconstitutional.

I've seen many of the cases that were put forth as frivolous arguments and in not 1 of those cases does the government point out where the argument is frivolous. None of the points were addressed, just a ruling from the bench, frivolous.

And this is the rule of law? More like color of law.

Thanks for citing those other websites. All of them take he government position. As do you.
I've spent a couple thousand hrs researching this and the only conclusion is the courts have been corrupted. There is no viable argument that the government has that could justify a direct tax on the pay of Americans living and working in the US.
As you pointed out, slavery has been abolished. If the Gov has a right to directly tax anyones pay then slavery has not been abolished. Based on what you have put forth the gov can tax 100% of anyones pay and there is nothing anyone can do about it. In many states it is already over 50% with federal, state and local taxation.
I will agree with you on one point though, there is no point in taking any of this through the court systems. I came to the same conclusion. When courts have been as corrupted as they are now, its best to just avoid them altogether.

On a final note I have purchases copies of this book and handed it out to atones I know. They in turn have read it and shared it with others who have basically concluded the same as I have. The book is accurate but good luck finding a judge or lawyer to take a case.
There's also a group on facebook. Tax honesty patriots.. Several have also shared this with Lawyers as has Dave himself. Always the same. Good info but good luck fighting the government.

The only conclusion to make is that there is no rule of law any longer.


If your worried about people having insufficient coverage or assets to protect you then isn't it your responsibility to protect yourself with sufficient coverage? If I drive a 200k car and little joey runs into me with his 25k minimum coverage who makes up the difference? The answer is obvious. You have to protect yourself and putting that responsibility on anyone else is just plain stupid.
Whats next? The cost of everything is so expensive so everyone must now be required to carry a 5 million dollar umbrella policy?


So in your defense I understand where your coming from. There is case law that says south and such is constitutional so now all these other laws can be passed. That is a problem for me. I think the constitution has not been interpreted correctly nor the original intent so laws are getting passed that shouldn't be.
Every social program is probably unconstitutional. Welfare, public schooling, public transportation, public housing, public healthcare. Just to name a few. None of them should exist and none of them did exist prior to the federal reserve being created.
Hello Cigarlover,

YOUR COMMENT: I was hoping for a different reply from you. I will reject your arguments as frivolous since you provided no proof that the arguments made are frivolous other than to quote the courts who did the same thing.

MY RESPONSE: No proof "other than to quote the courts who did the same thing"?! Are you kidding me?! In the real law, the decisions of the courts ARE THE PROOF! In the real law, the decisions of the courts ARE THE LAW. In the real law, the decisions of the court ARE THE FINAL WORD.

If you will read these entire decisions (I'll give you links if yo want them), you would see that the courts often refer back to the statutory provision and back to the constitutional provision relied on by the tax protester in making the frivolous argument. The court often explain what those sources really mean and why they do not support the tax protester's frivolous argument. Thus, the courts decisions are dependent upon, and actually incorporate, the relevant statute and the relevant constitutional provisions as well. Court decisions are not simply made up out of thin air. The courts explain their reasons for reaching their result in writing. This is how you know the court made the correct decision. The reasons are literally spelled out in the decisions themselves. But, amateur legal theorists do not know this because they do not actually read case law.

YOUR COMMENT: This is the rule of law? A court says it's frivolous so its frivolous. Bam now it's the law.

MY RESPONSE: EXACTLY! THE LIGHTS HAVE JUST COME ON! HAHAHA! That is how things work in the real legal system. Court decisions are the final word. Period. Why do you think I have been posting court decisions on this website? THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF COURT DECISIONS A-R-E---T-H-E --- L-A-W!

What did you think the law was? The claims of uneducated, amateur legal theorists in videos on YouTube? Are you kidding me?!

YOUR COMMENT: Why bother writing laws at all if they will all be interpreted in this manner?

MY RESPONSE: Your question reflects that you believe that courts interpret statutes and constitutional provisions in manner different from the way they were actually written. But, this is not so. Courts interpret statutes and constitutional provisions EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN. So, courts simply give force and effect to what the drafters actually wrote, nothing more, nothing less.

YOUR COMMENT: I could ask to just show the law where congress imposed a tax on the incomes of ordinary Americans but I'm sure that would be considered frivolous as well.

MY RESPONSE: Here it is! Congress imposed an income tax on the incomes of ALL INDIVIDUALS! living in the United States (citizens and non-citizens). See proof here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1-1.

YOUR COMMENT: Not to mention pointing out that Brushaber v. Union Pacific also mentioned that the 16th imposed no new forms of taxation that congress didn't already possess.

MY RESPONSE: I have not found that exact quote in Brushaber, but it is true that the sixteenth amendment did not give Congress the new power to tax individual income. Congress already had that power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution gave Congress the power to impose income taxes. Scroll down to section 8 here. https://constitutionus.com/. All that the sixteenth amendment did was give Congress the power to tax income without apportionment.

Here's how things worked. Under the Original Constitution, there were two types of taxes. One was direct taxes (like income taxes) and the other was indirect taxes (like property taxes, such as duties, imposts and excises). At the time, direct taxes (like income taxes) had to be "apportioned" between the states. So, if New Jersey had 3% of the population of the United States, then New Jersey residents would only pay 3% of the amount of the tax (no matter how much income New Jersey residents actually earned). So, the sixteenth amendment simply eliminated the requirement of apportionment for income taxes. Read paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673&q=brushaber+%22Union+Pacific%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003.

YOUR COMMENT: If congress didn't possess that power in 1895 with the Pollock decision how did they suddenly possess that power in 1916?

MY RESPONSE: Because in 1916, the sixteenth amendment changed the Constitution. In the 1895 Pollock case, the Congress had just imposed an income tax on certain persons, but that income tax was not apportioned (like in the New Jersey example above) as was required by the original Constitution. The Supreme Court determined that the income tax was a "direct tax" which had to be apportioned under the original Constitution (like in the New Jersey example above). But, the Pollock income tax was not so apportioned. So, The Supreme Court held that the income tax in question was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned. So 21 years later, in 1916, the sixteenth amendment was passed which eliminated the requirement of apportionment for federal income taxes.

The Brushaber case reads [quoting the sixteenth amendment], 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.' It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer [to Congress the] power to levy income taxes... — an authority already possessed [by Congress] … , but that the whole purpose of the [sixteenth] Amendment was to relieve all income taxes … [from the constitutional requirement of] apportionment... . Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the [sixteenth] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away … with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided [namely apportionment]... ."

YOUR COMMENT: Of course the income tax is not a direct tax it is an excise tax and the courts have consistently agreed on that point.

MY RESPONSE: That is simply not so. Where do you get this amateur non-sense? The Pollack case held that an income tax was a direct tax which was subject to apportionment at the time. That is precisely why Pollock won the case against the United States and why the income tax was struck down as unconstitutional. Below is what the courts today have to say about direct taxes and apportionment. NOTE THAT WHAT FOLLOWS ARE CASE LAW SUMMARIES, NOT THE FULL CASE LAW DECISION OF THE COURTS (WHICH CAN BE DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF PAGES LONG).

Young v. Commissioner, 551 F.App’x 229, 203 (8th Cir. 2014) – rejecting as "meritless" and "frivolous" Young’s arguments that the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax [which is not apportioned], the 8th Circuit sanctioned him $8,000.

Taliaferro v. Freemtran, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of excise taxes but not income taxes, and ordered sanctions against him up to and including double the government’s costs.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) – the 10th Circuit found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens "devoid of any arguable basis in law."

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989) – the 9th Circuit, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax, affirmed the failure to file conviction.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518-20 (7th Cir. 1984) – the 7th Circuit rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, upheld assessment of the frivolous return penalty, and imposed sanctions for pursuing "frivolous arguments in bad faith" on top of the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the government.

United States v. Jones, 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2015-2038 (D. Minn. 2015) – the court rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s arguments that individual income tax is unconstitutional because it is "a direct tax which must be apportioned among the several states," noting, "It is well-established that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states."

Maxwell v. Internal Revenue Service, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-1571 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) – the court found the taxpayer’s arguments have been "routinely rejected," principally, that there is no law that imposes an income tax, nor is there a non-apportioned direct tax that could be imposed on him as a supposed non-citizen.

YOUR COMMENT: The conversion of a right into a privilege so the government can tax it is unconstitutional.

MY RESPONSE: Do you have a case that says this in relation to income taxes? Driver's license?

YOUR COMMENT: I've seen many of the cases that were put forth as frivolous arguments and in not 1 of those cases does the government point out where the argument is frivolous. None of the points were addressed, just a ruling from the bench, frivolous.

MY RESPONSE: That is simply not true. And, you would know this if you actually read the whole case. The Pollock case which you yourself cited above is 124 pages long! See proof here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7292056596996651119&q=brushaber+%22Union+Pacific%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. The Brushaber decision which you yourself cited above is 18 pages (an average length). See proof here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673&q=brushaber+"Union+Pacific"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003.

YOUR COMMENT: And this is the rule of law?

MY RESPONSE: Yes, but you have to actually read the law itself to understand it. And, amateur legal theories do not do this.

YOUR COMMENT: More like [the law is] color of law.

MY RESPONSE: You are using this phrase incorrectly. The term, color of law, applies to individual behavior, conduct and activity. The term, color of law, does not apply to the law itself or to courts. That would be the same as saying that the law is color of ITSELF. Does that make sense to you?

YOUR RESPONSE: Thanks for citing those other websites.

MY RESPONSE: You are very welcome. Click on those links and actually read. You will not get the truth from amateur legal theorists.

YOUR COMMENT: All of them take the government position. As do you.

MY RESPONSE: Here's why. All of them follow the law of "We the People", as I do. The law quoted in those links is consistent with the law because it is the law. The law is never consistent with amateur legal theories, because they are FAKE and they are always directly contrary to the law. ALWAYS.

YOUR COMMENT: I've spent a couple thousand hours researching this and the only conclusion is the courts have been corrupted.

MY RESPONSE: The problem is that you spent a couple of thousand hours "researching" amateur legal theories , instead of the law itself. That is why you believe the courts are corrupted. But, they are really not. They are following the law. It is actually your beliefs that are corrupted, corrupted by uneducated amateur legal theorists, haters and charlatans.

YOUR COMMENT: There is no viable argument that the government has that could justify a direct tax on the pay of Americans living and working in the US.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, there is. One is "Article I, Section 8, clause 1" of the United States Constitution. Scroll down to section 8 here and read it. https://constitutionus.com/. Another is the sixteenth amendment. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment16.html. Still another is "Title 28 U.S.C. 1.1". See proof here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1-1. Finally, based on these two Constitutional provisions and this statute above, there are thousands of court decisions which justify a direct tax on Americans (and other residents) living and working in the United States. See how much good your amateur legal theories do for you? They are complete non-sense and they are always DEAD WRONG!.

YOUR COMMENT: As you pointed out, slavery has been abolished. If the Gov has a right to directly tax anyone's pay, then slavery has not been abolished.

MY RESPONSE: Other amateur legal theorists unsuccessfully make this claim too. But, it is not true and does not work. After all, slaves did not receive any pay to be taxed in the first place. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16896444599042368441&q=%22income+tax%22+slavery+%22thirteenth+amendment%22+%22tax+protester%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In the LaRue case, the court wrote, "Plaintiffs [tax protesters] also claim that they are victims of involuntary servitude; a claim that is likewise absurd on its face. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude" shall exist within the United States. Plaintiffs do not offer in their Complaint, and still have not offered, any legal support for their bizarre claim that the federal income tax system places them in condition of involuntary servitude. In summary, it suffices to say that this is a patently frivolous lawsuit. Attacks on the constitutionality of federal taxation have no legal basis. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir.1989) (recognizing "the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment") (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916))."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8224802068543319915&q=%22income+tax%22+slavery+%22thirteenth+amendment%22+%22tax+protester%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In the Barber case, the court wrote, "Courts have consistently found to be frivolous arguments that taxation constitutes a form of involuntary servitude. See, e.g., Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953) (rejecting the involuntary servitude argument brought under the Thirteenth Amendment because "[t]here is no servitude, there is merely a requirement that as to the tax due by domestic employees on account of the wages [that are] paid by them by their employer, the employer must withhold the amount fixed by law and account it to the United States." (internal quotation omitted)); Anderson v. C.I.R., 1 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1993) (stating "it has long been settled . . . that neither the Sixteenth Amendment nor the Internal Revenue Code imposes involuntary servitude."); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983) (rejecting as "without arguable merit" the taxpayer's claim that the Internal Revenue Code results in involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and that by refusing to sign W-4 forms, he was immune from IRS jurisdiction); Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10th Cir. 1954) ("If the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment.") (citing, e.g., Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 199 (1921); In re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 69 (1872)); see also In re Wilbert, 262 B. R. 571 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2001) (rejecting the "involuntary servitude" argument under the Thirteenth Amendment as having "no legal merit" and "patently frivolous"))."

YOUR COMMENT: Based on what you have put forth, the gov can tax 100% of anyone's pay and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

MY RESPONSE: Nobody likes to pay taxes, especially taxes at these tax rates. "We the People" can, and should, vote these bums out of office. Their taxing and spending is an outrage.

YOUR COMMENT: In many states, it is already over 50% with federal, state and local taxation.

MY RESPONSE: That is insane.

YOUR COMMENT: I will agree with you on one point though, there is no point in taking any of this through the court systems.

MY RESPONSE: If you use amateur theories in court, you will always lose. So, there is no point in going to court if you are going to use amateur legal theories as a substitute for the law.

YOUR COMMENT: When courts have been as corrupted as they are now, its best to just avoid them altogether.

MY RESPONSE: The courts are not corrupt. Because you mistakenly believe the courts are required to follow amateur legal theories, you mistakenly believe that the courts are corrupt. But, they are not. They follow the law to the letter. The courts simply ignore amateur legal theories (or fine the fools who raise them). That does not make the courts "corrupt".

YOUR COMMENT: On a final note, I have purchased copies of this book and handed it out to atones [attorneys?] I know. They in turn have read it and shared it with others who have basically concluded the same as I have. The book is accurate but good luck finding a judge or lawyer to take a case.

MY RESPONSE: What book? And, stop reading the book and read the law that I have provided to you instead. Read only the law. Reading non-law why you are so messed up already.

YOUR COMMENT: There's also a group on facebook. Tax honesty patriots.. Several have also shared this with Lawyers as has Dave himself. Always the same. Good info but good luck fighting the government.

MY RESPONSE: I have never lost a case against any government. You can fight the government and win, as did Pollock in the case above. But, you can only fight the government and win by using real law of the type I have provided to you. No matter who your case is against, you cannot possibly win unless you use real law. Amateur legal theories of the type you have raised here will never work. NEVER.

YOUR COMMENT: The only conclusion to make is that there is no rule of law any longer.

MY RESPONSE: That would be a mistaken conclusion. Real law is alive and well.

YOUR COMMENT: If you're worried about people having insufficient coverage or assets to protect you then isn't it your responsibility to protect yourself with sufficient coverage? If I drive a 200k car and little joey runs into me with his 25k minimum coverage who makes up the difference? The answer is obvious. You have to protect yourself and putting that responsibility on anyone else is just plain stupid.

MY RESPONSE: You should buy liability coverage (for property damage and for personal injury or death that you cause) and you should also buy collision coverage and uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to make up the difference in coverage that the other side has. Note that it is better that little Joey have $25,000 in coverage than none at all. A loser who can't afford decent auto insurance sure as hell will not have $25,000 sitting around in liquid assets to pay his victims.

YOUR COMMENT: What's next? The cost of everything is so expensive so everyone must now be required to carry a 5 million dollar umbrella policy?

MY RESPONSE: That depends on the policy limits of the underlying policy. I don't have umbrella coverage. But, I do have maximum policy limits of every auto coverage USAA sells.

YOUR COMMENT: So in your defense, I understand where your coming from. There is case law that says south and such is constitutional so now all these other laws can be passed.

MY RESPONSE: Case law IS THE LAW. So, if case law says it, THAT IS THE LAW. Case law IS THE FINAL WORD. PERIOD!

YOUR COMMENT: That is a problem for me. I think the constitution has not been interpreted correctly nor the original intent so laws are getting passed that shouldn't be.

MY RESPONSE: Well, how would you actually know? You refuse the read the law (written by REAL legal scholars and by REAL constitutional scholars) and instead, you get all of your information from uneducated haters and charlatans who don't have a clue about the constitution or the laws.

YOUR COMMENT: Every social program is probably unconstitutional. Welfare, public schooling, public transportation, public housing, public healthcare. Just to name a few. None of them should exist and none of them did exist prior to the federal reserve being created

MY RESPONSE: Well, how would you actually know? You will not read the law where all of those rulings have already been made. If every social program were REALLY unconstitutional, then they would not exist. These things are costly and ill advised, but they are not unconstitutional.


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
to explain further regarding this 'we the people' tripe,

nothing could be further from the truth,
there is no such thing, although there are those begging you to believe in it, to become part of it,
it is all part of the charade.

The propaganda machine, getting you to choose sides.

I am a soverign man, no more no less.

I don't give a rats azz what color you are or if you are a faggot,
I just don't want to hear about it,

Your education or your mommy and daddy is of zero consequence to me,

I am not interested in your business, or your pleasures,
again, none of my business

Having said that, I do expect the same relative courtesy extended to me,
If you force me to make a choice, it is pretty much set in stone that I will not stand by you.

I have the ability to choose whom I would prefer to socialize with, or to help in a time of need. No one has the power to force me into blind acceptance or blind faith.

more concise and more completely, just leave me the F$%^ alone.

Thankfully, there are many here that I gladly socialize with, for they are the true amerikans
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: I am a soverign man, no more no less.

MY RESPONSE: "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" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our own elected government) ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth), such that our laws do not apply to INDIVIDUALS (the pretend "sovereigns"). But, none of this is so. Under U.S. law, the word "sovereign" means "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE in the form of our ELECTED government, not "the individual". The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our elected government) have no right to enforce our own laws, made by our own ELECTED lawmakers, against any INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereigns") and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans.


THE HOAX:
DEBORAH TAVARES, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly claim that a "SOVEREIGN" is an INDIVIDUAL and that the enemy of a "SOVEREIGN" is "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of our ELECTED GOVERNMENT. But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH:
"We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS THE "SOVEREIGN". The INDIVIDUAL IS NOT "SOVEREIGN".


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER INDIVIDUALS ARE "SOVEREIGN"
1). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. 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 NIETHER [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").

2). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. 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 INDIVIUAL 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").

3). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (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").

4). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (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").

SIDE NOTE: Deborah Tavares, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the STATES are franchises or subsidiaries of the FEDERAL government. https://scannedretina.com/2014/11/27...erican-people/. But, this is exactly BACKWARDS and OPPOSITE to the truth. The FEDERAL government is a franchise and subsidiary of THE STATES. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "The powers of the general [FEDERAL] Government ARE MADE UP OF CONCESSIONS [GIFTS] FROM THE STATES." (at the 24th paragraph at about 35% through the text).

5). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (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 3, 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").

6). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. (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 3, 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").

7). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. 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").

8). Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. 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 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.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "individuals, rather than governments, are sovereign") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether individuals rather than governments are "sovereign" WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this same subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

FACT: Thus, Deborah Tavares, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own government ACTUALLY OPPOSE THE VERY "SOVEREIGN" AND OPPOSE THE VERY "SOVEREIGNTY" THAT THEY CLAIM TO SUPPORT. This means that Deborah Tavares, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own government ARE ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of the "SOVEREIGN" and ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of "SOVEREIGNTY", not their supporters. But, they do not know enough to even realize this. This is why many such amateur legal theorists (like Rod Class) find themselves on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST (because they actually oppose the "SOVEREIGN" and because they actually oppose "SOVEREIGNTY").

FACT: This fundamental mistake (the mistaken belief that the INDIVIDUAL is "SOVEREIGN" and that the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS NOT "SOVEREIGN") reflects that the terms, "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" are perhaps the single most misused and misunderstood terms in all of amateur legal theory.

ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY
BACKGROUND: Originally in politics, a "SOVEREIGN" was a SINGLE "MONARCH" (King or Queen) GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE who GOVERNED a nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the nation state. Originally, the RIGHT of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN his/her own nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE was that MONARCH's right of "SOVEREIGNTY".

Then and now, a "SOVEREIGN" meant/means a "GOVERNMENT" OF ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state. Then and now, "SOVEREIGNTY," meant/means that GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO GOVERN ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

THE STATES: But, here in the United States, we rejected the notion of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state. Here in our country, we adopted a republican form of government whereby "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) GOVERNED our own states and all of the INDIVIDUALS in our own state COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTED representatives of our own STATE.

So, here in our country, THE STATE ITSELF, which consists of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) became "SOVEREIGN" (which still means THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). This means that in our country THE STATE ITSELF legally stands in the shoes of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear. So, in our country, THE STATE ITSELF GOVERNS the STATE and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state (instead of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear). But, the right, power and authority of THE STATE ITSELF as a "SOVEREIGN" and the right, power and authority of the MONARCH of yesteryear as a "SOVEREIGN" ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. In our country, a "SOVEREIGN" IS STILL A "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE, but a "SOVEREIGN" is no longer a SINGLE MONARCH.

Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...40006&as_vis=1. 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/LegalDictiona...overeign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign]. 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.'"

DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN":
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign

THE BOTTOM LINE: Thus, In our country, the term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term THAT ONLY APPLIES TO A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY (AS A WHOLE) AND NOT TO A SINGLE "CITIZEN", INDIVIDUAL OR PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. But, Deborah Tavares, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

Here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE. So, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). As a result, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL does not GOVERN the STATE or any of the INDIVIDUALS in the state.

THE UNITED STATES: The United States ITSELF is also a SOVEREIGN nation state consisting of a union of MEMBER SOVEREIGN STATES. So, here in the United States, THE STATES and the United States are both "SOVEREIGN" GOVERNMENTAL HEADS OF STATE (WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED BY SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION).

This means that here in the United States, THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES OCCUPY THE SAME EXACT LEGAL POSITION (AND HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHT, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE STATE AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE) AS DID THE SINGLE MONARCH OF YESTERYEAR, except that the powers of the United States (as distinguished from the individual STATES) are limited to those powers expressly delegated to it BY THE STATES in the United States Constitution (a tiny list of subjects), whereas the powers of the individual STATES (as distinguished from the United States) have no such limitation.

Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. 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).

Here in the United States, "We the People" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" COLLECTIVELY (NOT INDIVIDUALLY) through our VOTES. ---Thomas Jefferson (see below). Thus, "We (a PLURAL term) the People (also a PLURAL term)" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" (COLLECTIVELY, not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTIONS.

Jenkins v. Williamson-Butler, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. The court quoted Thomas Jefferson and wrote, "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 [AND NOT BY ANY OTHER MEANS]. ---Thomas Jefferson." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF "THE GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL ACTING OUTSIDE THE GOVERMENT CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/co...f-the-governed

But, as INDIVIDUALS, none of us are “SOVEREIGN” (which still means the GOVERNMENT of a state) and as INDIVIDUALS, none of us can exercise any "SOVEREIGNTY" (which still means the right to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state). In our country, we no longer recognize a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (or “MONARCH”) as “SOVEREIGN”. In our country, no single INDIVIDUAL is the GOVERNMENT OF A STATE. This is why, in our country, no INDIVIDUAL can be "SOVEREIGN" (WHICH STILL MEANS A GOVERNMENT OF A STATE).

Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. The court held, "First, she [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [such as the Queen Of England]. 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").

APPLICATION: This is why every amateur legal theorist who claims to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) ALWAYS LOSES on that issue with ALL law enforcement officers and with ALL courts. This is why ALL law enforcement officers and ALL courts ALWAYS treat such amateur legal theorists as the mere INDIVIDUALS that they really are. Amateur legal theorists who claim to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) to law enforcement officers and in court do nothing but demonstrate their IGNORANCE of the law and their IGNORANCE of history--- AND THEY ALWAYS LOSE!

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you do not like the laws, the ELECTED legislators, the ELECTED executive officers or the ELECTED judges or the ELECTED prosecutors, then do something about it. VOTE OR RUN FOR OFFICE. Pretending to be an INDIVIDUAL, GOVERNMENT OF A STATE (a “SOVEREIGN” MONARCH) has never, and will never work for you as a “defense” to the application of any law, the jurisdiction of any law enforcement officer or court or to the consequences any arrest, charge or conviction.

CONCLUSION: IN OUR COUNTRY, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" (OR OTHERWISE "SOVEREIGN"). HERE, AND ELSEWHERE, ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN".

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ON WHETHER AN "INDIVIDUAL" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN" AND THEREFORE BE "IMMUNE" FROM PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING STATUTES WRITTEN BY LAWMAKERS ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE":

1. U.S. v. Benabe,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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 FRIVOULOUS... ." 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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

2. Williams v, Georgia Dept. Of Corrections, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

3. Paul v. State Of New York, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

4. Frye v. Barbour, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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). 'OVEREIGN 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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

5. Dudley v. Eggert, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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 protestors, 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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

6. Hoglund v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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[ed] 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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

7. U.S. v. Johnson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

8. U.S. v Schneider, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

9. Bey v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

10. Osoria v. Connecticut" https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "individuals are sovereign and exempt from the law") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether individuals are "sovereign" an exempt from the law WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this same subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

HOW THIS STUPID MISTAKE CAME ABOUT:
Deborah Tavares, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists are unable to distinguish between PLURAL terms and SINGULAR terms.
"WE" (a PLURAL term) the "PEOPLE" (also a PLURAL term) exercise our power and control over our own government COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY). But, as INDIVIDUALS, we exercise no such power or control. In a republican form of government, such as ours, the authority of a government depends on the COLLECTIVE (not INDIVIDUAL) "consent" of the "governed" (also a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY. But, as INDIVIDUALS, our "consent" to our government (contractual or otherwise), to its jurisdiction or to our laws IS NOT REQUIRED.

7TH GRADE CIVICS: 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 "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 CONGRESS MEN & 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 "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 "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 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.

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 (which is almost absolute).

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).
It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW MAKERS 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) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS 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) that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL 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” TO THE LAW 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.

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).

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

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.

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: 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 LAW MAKERS 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.

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. This desire to overthrow our ELECTED republican form of government and the will of the majority of "We the People " COLLECTIVELY, along with his long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and his MULTIPLE weapons-related FELONIES are the reasons that Rod Class, has been placed on the United States "TERRORIST WATCH LIST".

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Absolute nonsense (supra).....

Article III, sections 6, 7, 8, of Florida Constitution prescribes the forms & solemnities for creating bills & creating law.

SECTION 6. Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

SECTION 7. Passage of bills.—Any bill may originate in either house and after passage in one may be amended in the other. It shall be read in each house on three separate days, unless this rule is waived by two-thirds vote; provided the publication of its title in the journal of a house shall satisfy the requirement for the first reading in that house. On each reading, it shall be read by title only, unless one-third of the members present desire it read in full. On final passage, the vote of each member voting shall be entered on the journal. Passage of a bill shall require a majority vote in each house. Each bill and joint resolution passed in both houses shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses and by the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the house of representatives during the session or as soon as practicable after its adjournment sine die.

http://m.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution

A statute is not the law, it is evidence of a Bill and/or an Act of the Legislature, nothing more, nothing less, . At the bottom of every statute are historical reference notes & dates back to the original bill/act and any amendments or alterations that the legislature has made to the original bill/act

1.04 Statutory construction; amendatory acts passed at the same session.—Acts passed during the same legislative session and amending the same statutory provision are in pari materia, and full effect should be given to each, if that is possible. Language carried forward unchanged in one amendatory act, pursuant to s. 6, Art. III of the State Constitution, should not be read as conflicting with changed language contained in another act passed during the same session. Amendments enacted during the same session are in conflict with each other only to the extent that they cannot be given effect simultaneously.
History.—s. 1, ch. 74-153

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0000-0099/0001/Sections/0001.04.html

Only a group of flim-flam artists called Lawyers could come up with a statute to "enable" & "adopt" an entire body of statutes to subvert Article III, sections 6, 7, & 8 of Floridas Constitution.... namely:

"Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only." -- Article III, section 6

11.2421 Florida Statutes 2019 adopted.—The accompanying revision, consolidation, and compilation of the public statutes of 2018 of a general and permanent nature, excepting tables, rules, indexes, and other related matter contained therein, prepared by the Office of Legislative Services under the provisions of s.11.242, together with corrections, changes, and amendments to and repeals of provisions of Florida Statutes 2018 enacted in additional reviser’s bill or bills by the 2019 Legislature, is adopted and enacted as the official statute law of the state under the title of “Florida Statutes 2019” and shall take effect immediately upon publication. Said statutes may be cited as “Florida Statutes 2019,” “Florida Statutes,” or “F.S. 2019.”
History.—s. 1, ch. 20719, 1941; s. 1, ch. 22000, 1943; s. 1, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 1, ch. 24337, 1947; s. 1, ch. 25035, 1949; s. 1, ch. 26484, 1951; s. 1, ch. 27991, 1953; s. 1, ch. 29615, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-1; s. 1, ch. 59-1; s. 1, ch. 61-1; s. 1, ch. 63-2; s. 1, ch. 65-1; s. 1, ch. 67-1; s. 9, ch. 67-472; s. 1, ch. 69-352; ss. 29, 30, ch. 69-52; s. 1, ch. 71-251; s. 1, ch. 73-70; s. 1, ch. 75-169; s. 1, ch. 77-266; s. 1, ch. 79-281; s. 1, ch. 81-2; s. 1, ch. 83-61; s. 1, ch. 85-59; s. 1, ch. 87-83; s. 1, ch. 89-64; s. 1, ch. 91-44; s. 1, ch. 93-272; s. 1, ch. 95-347; s. 1, ch. 97-97; s. 1, ch. 99-10; s. 1, ch. 2003-25; s. 1, ch. 2004-4; s. 1, ch. 2005-1; s. 1, ch. 2006-3; s. 1, ch. 2007-7; s. 1, ch. 2008-3; s. 1, ch. 2009-19; s. 1, ch. 2010-3; s. 1, ch. 2011-2; s. 1, ch. 2012-4; s. 1, ch. 2013-13; s. 1, ch. 2014-16; s. 1, ch. 2015-1; s. 1, ch. 2016-8; s. 1, ch. 2017-2; s. 1, ch. 2018-109; s. 1, ch. 2019-2.
Note.—Former s. 16.19.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...g=&URL=0000-0099/0011/Sections/0011.2421.html

Your just to funny, and you even have the nerve to call statutes "real law".... Statutes basically hide the bill/act from the general public who are jurally illiterate... each bill/act contains & specifies exactly what class of persons or class of property and/or classes of persons & property are subject to the bill or act.... A person can be charged with a violation of a statute but isnt within the scope of the bill or law.... statutes are not all encompassing & sweeping over all persons & activities....
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Absolute nonsense [when responding to my claim "Because statutes are REAL LAW, they are not misrepresented by law enforcement, courts and lawyers when they call them what they actually are, REAL LAW."]

YOU GO ON TO QUOTE SECTIONS OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CERTAIN FLORIDA STATUTES, AS IF THOSE PROVISIONS SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM OF "ABOLUTE NONSENSE".

MY RESPONSE: Please cut and paste three sentences in the provisions that you quoted above which you contend most support your claim of "Absolute nonsense" in response to my claims that statutes are real law.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited: