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

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

Curtman

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
978
Likes
365
That was an awfully long read to which I learned nothing but better to keep playing by the rules. The videos I fell asleep in but through it all I want all that time back. I didn't get any of my studying done to make my trades today,,, 5:43 am Eastern. Dhoo.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Where oh where is Snoopy? It would be fun to debate...



“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” [Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)]

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", [Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773]
Goldhedge,

I offer you $10,000 to find the quotes (above) in language of the cases to which those quotes are attributed (above).

Here is the first case. FIND THE QUOTE HERE. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q="hendrick+v.+maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

Here is the second case. FIND THE QUOTE HERE. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...=wheeling+steel+corp+v+fox&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Here's what the Snooper doesn't understand, nor consider... in his arguments


View attachment 118892
US Citizen on the right.
Goldhedge,

The belief system reflected by the diagram above only exists in amateur legal theory, NOT IN THE REAL WORLD AND NOT IN THE REAL LAW. The case law (common law) to which I have already provided you with links debunks this and all related amateur legal theories.

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Unless by contractual agreement...

View attachment 119287
Goldhedge,

This is entirely true. In a republican form of government such as ours, we collectively CONSENT to our leaders BY OUR VOTES IN ELECTIONS. These people do not obtain their positions "BY NATURE". They obtain their positions BY OUR COLLECTIVE VOTE.

Another 6th grade civics lesson from...

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
Snoops

REAL


LAW
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
Lawmakers and Lawyers vs Laws of Armed Conflict

 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
From newmisty in another thread.

Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.

In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD — and that was very significant as you will read.

Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any “legal” document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this.

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).



The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not!

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.

This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.



http://www.federaljack.com/slavery-by-consent-the-united-states-corporation/
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
I think you can sub the word participation for the word vote, and it would pretty have the same logic.

Consent is pretty much the lynchpin of our interactions with the true constitutional republic laws versus the public policy democracy lies demonstrated here by the defeated wimp shoop. No one is required to consent and/or participate, in the public policy democracy except by those (most) unaware consent of that fact, or vested interest, of which there is also a huge population.
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,750
Likes
3,866
Right of ways are just that a right not a privilege; if people knew all their rights are refused to be intimidated into giving them up, they would be a lot better off. "The righteous are bold as a lion".

In the mid-90s I was driving down I-91 in Vermont near White River Junction stopped by a cop and cited for not having insurance. Clearly they handle a lot of NH drivers where vehicle insurance is not mandatory in NH, but is when they drive out. I sent a strongly worded letter with the help of a Constitutonalist and got a mild response from the state of VT dot on rights vs. privileges. Later I got insurance again as it wasn't worth the continual hassles. I knew a lot of people who were put in jail for extended periods, even solitary to "break" their will about right to drive and freedom issues.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
I knew a lot of people who were put in jail for extended periods, even solitary to "break" their will about right to drive and freedom issues.
And that's done by lawyers to push you into their public policy system lies, so that they can profit from you.

Counterclaim and sue the fuckers will solve that, but you gotta know what you're doing (and how to do it) in their system. The true enacted laws of the republic is still here and useable, as even the moron lawyers pay homage, but otherwise ignore secondary to their profit obtained via their public policy vehicle, as seen above in this thread.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,397
Likes
27,292
Location
ORYGUN
Counterclaim and sue the fuckers will solve that, but you gotta know what you're doing (and how to do it) in their system.
YES, BUT, that is sooo difficult to do in the corrupt system that we have.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains
And that's done by lawyers to push you into their public policy system lies, so that they can profit from you.
and when you do, they, the ignorant of law police (Jus doin mah job) beat the hell out of you, or tase or arrest you for it. Might even shoot your dog for no good reason. Evil, total evil.

Right of ways are just that a right not a privilege; if people knew all their rights are refused to be intimidated into giving them up, they would be a lot better off.
I knew a guy who had livestock. Got 'arrested' for standing by his 'rights'. Thrown in jail unless he pled guilty.

Livestock have to be fed, cared for. You can't leave a cow unmilked, you have to feed the rest as well.

He pled.

The corporate pirate 'legal' system is a total fraud perpetrated on humanity by coercion.

Snoop is really good at posting all the legal stuff, but never the 'lawful' stuff. Probably because it's his bread and butter.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
The court asks your permission to pass sentence—why give it?

by Greg Pappas

A close friend of mine I’ll call Roland, an outspoken activist opposed to mandatory municipal fluoride programs and against the mandatory vaccination of all people with the smallpox vaccine, was constantly assailed with police harassment several times each month at the instruction of the city council by being pulled over for the probable cause of "weaving" in traffic. He was finally ticketed in the summer of 2003 after he had been unable to pay for the renewal of his automobile insurance on time. Not being certain whether he had made the insurance payment on time and not having the money to pay for a fine to the court, he left the court after his name was called without acknowledging his presence, which appeared to the court that he missed the original appearance date in July. He left the court after observing several people receiving high fines and immediate jail sentences.

In September 2003, Roland was arrested at his home in an illegal process by a neighboring city police officer and was released on a $487 bond later that day. Everything my friend did was procedurally incorrect including not making the first appearance, bonding out of jail, offering to provide proof of insurance to the judge within one month of the September appearance, and not following or filing any type of procedure with the court to protect his rights.

In October 2003 Roland appeared before the judge in open traffic court expecting to be able to receive time to make payments to pay the $375 fine because he was unemployed and without benefactor. He saw at least 6 people who were unable to pay the complete fine sent to jail for 20 days or more because of non-payment of the judgment. Roland and I had several conversations prior to the court date discussing an "allocution" that would be effective and decisive, but he was apprehensive about attempting the allocution.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an allocution (aelekyuwshen) is the "Formality of court’s inquiry of prisoner as to whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him on verdict of conviction. State v. Pruitt, Mo., 169 S.W.2d 399, 400."

In other words, when the court asks if you have anything to say before it passes sentence, you are being given the opportunity to tell the court why it should not proceed against you.

Because of pending responsibilities, Roland could not afford the time in jail so at the last minute, because he could not provide proof that he was insured the day of the citation, when called to the bench he pulled out the notes for allocution and proceeded to ask the judge to notify him before she issued sentencing.

She said that she would issue the sentence or judgment immediately. Roland interrupted her and said that he would like to make his allocution [see definition of allocution above] onto the record first and began by stating that he was indigent with the reading of the definition from Black’s 5th Edition Law Dictionary. Roland stated that he had no benefactor and that he could not afford to pay a fine or sentence. He told the court that because of numerous physical injuries he was too crippled to do physical labor or community service.

This was unnecessary as what truly matters here is that the prosecution has not brought forth an injured party with a signed and notarized affidavit of verified complaint. The only evidence in Roland’s case was the witness by the police officer who in his public capacity was unable to swear out an affidavit of verified complaint because he was not injured personally and privately by Roland’s actions.

By Roland asserting no liability onto the record and that no one had been injured, the allocution was completed with the following: "I do not accept jail time, I do not accept prison time, and I do not accept probation or parole. I do not accept community service, and I do not accept any fines, or penalties, taxes, court costs, or anything to do with me having to pay money."

Upon completion of his allocution, Roland gathered his documents together into his notebook and turned and walked toward the exit. The judge began repeatedly calling Roland’s name while Roland ignored her and continued toward the door. The bailiff stepped in front of Roland and did not make contact while looking at Roland and then at the judge. Roland stepped toward the right and continued walking out of the courtroom, exiting the courtroom and then the court house.

Upon returning home Roland listened to a message from the judge’s clerk who asserted that the fine was increased from $375 to $450 and that Roland needed to appear in court by the following Tuesday to pay the fine or a warrant would be issued for his arrest. I spoke with Roland and allayed his fears stating that he had successfully cancelled the contract with the court by completing the allocution and that the court would have to begin the process of forming a contract with service of process.

Wanting to be certain of no outstanding warrants or pending actions, Roland contacted the court on December 18, 2003 and spoke to a clerk of the court who informed Roland that he needed to be in court on December 23 to pay the fine and to avoid further complications. Roland did not appear in court again.

On February 14, 2004, the city newspaper listed names of people with warrants for arrest and Roland’s name did not appear. That same issue of the newspaper also reported the resignation of the judge in Roland’s case who relocated to Florida and opened a law practice. Subsequently, Roland has been through sobriety check road blocks on two occasions where the sheriff deputies ran his name without incident and where they did not ask for proof of insurance.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM - Wards Of Court

Allocution

(Declaration of Absolute Rights and Refusal to Accept Sentence)

Allocution: Oral declaration of rights
and non-consent at sentencing

1. The document below is to be read orally to the court following conviction of a (whatever) and just prior to “sentencing”. The particular allocution below is the work and experience of one man during a “traffic” trial with a “charge” of “no valid registration (plates)”. There are two parts to the allocution: (a) declamation of rights and errors in the trial, etc, along with producing affidavits, information and mitigating facts, and (b) declamation of non-consent to any fines, taxes, prison, etc. Allocution has its origins in the common law. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, §1573-1576). One must be totally alert to ask for the opportunity to “say something prior to sentencing” before the judge starts his sentencing – interrupt if necessary, but do it. Request a separate sentencing hearing of at least two weeks hence. Give yourself time to write the allocution.

2. Do not give this information in writing to the court or to opposing attorney before-hand as it is only valid when orally presented to the court by the live sentient man/woman and you do not want to forewarn the enemy. The legal fiction is civilly dead and cannot speak.

3. The court needs your consent to impose any sentencing or “punishment” or fines or restrictions of any kind, etc. In almost 100% of the cases the sentient man/woman becomes the surety (or stand in) for the legal fiction “defendant” and takes on the burden of the sentencing pronouncements. It is the legal fiction which is indicted, tried, and convicted. It is the sentient man/woman who takes on the sentence. The court needs the permission (consent) of the sentient man to impose a sentence and gets it through presumption, silence, acquiescence, or outright consent to apply to the “surety”. It is the sentient man/woman who now serves the sentence. The style of the case through conviction for the “defendant” is in all capital letters. The style of the sentenced party is upper and lower case.

4. When finished with the oral allocution, one must turn around and walk out of the court and its jurisdiction immediately. DO NOT HEAR the judge or the prosecutor or anyone else, even if they are screaming at you to “STOP”, or “Come back here!” If one does, then jurisdiction is given back to the court, i.e. you have contracted back in.

5. Allocution, Part One: During the trial you were denied exculpatory evidence such as the court not answering motions, notices, affidavits, allowing witnesses, etc. Keep a list of such omissions, errors, and due process denial during the trial, especially constitutional guarantees.

6. Allocution. Part Two: Read the following statement (i.e. create your own written statement to reflect your specific situation and trial activities). There is no time limit on its reading. Do not give in to interruptions.

FOR THE RECORD YOUR HONOR: I am a Man, living upon the land and speaking as only a Man can. I am canceling the conviction and all appearances on My part and now cancel any and all contracts, entered into by Me, knowingly or unknowingly by any methods including but not limited to verbal, by assent. consent, presumption, assumption, deception, threat, duress, coercion, fraud, fiction, fantasy or illusions, or any other method, including words of art, magic, and sophistry, casuistry or out right lying, or by specious acts of fallacious, deceptive, delusive, misleading, apparent, illusive, illusory, ostensible, practice of law.
(a) This proceeding has failed to produce evidence of an injured party.
(b) This proceeding has failed to produce an affidavit of verified complaint, or the existence of a complaining party.
(c) This proceeding has failed to produce an injured party onto the witness stand for testimony.
(d) This proceeding has failed to produce and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(e) This proceeding has failed to produce an honorable ruling, therefore the court could rule only by an undisclosed presumption of an assumed intention, and this may be deemed the practice of witchcraft.
(f) This proceeding – and this court – has now lost all jurisdiction by it’s denial of due process.

I have not caused an injury to another living man. This would be a violation of the Royal law of love your neighbor as yourself, or man’s interpretation “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I have not committed a crime, and there is nothing on which to convict Me, thus the conviction is null and void. And, any Bonds affiliated or associated with this case, whether they were issued with the citation in the form of a bid bond, or as an appearance bond, or as a performance bond which have been written as a result of this procedure – and any other bonds written in any way, shape or form whatsoever – I hereby now cancel, terminate, discharge, dismiss, deactivate, eradicate, nullify, quash, rescind, repeal, revoke, abrogate, abolish, and expunge – and I forbid the commercial use of My name and likeness for profit, as all Bonds created, whether on the record or not, are void ab initio as only I, a Man can cause.

I do not accept any offer to, nor do I give consent to, nor will I go to jail, go to prison, pay or discharge any fines, fees, court costs, nor taxes of any kind.

I do not accept nor consent to have My rights blocked or impeded in any way. shape, or form. I do not accept any offer, nor consent to have My body or possessions seized or confiscated or used by anyone or their agent for their own use, or for the benefit of another. I do not accept any offer nor do I consent to probation, parole, pre- or post-trial release, or any other form of supervision imposed for this matter or in association with this matter which may be attempted to be linked with or in causation with this matter, or placed twice in jeopardy for the same pretended crime.

I, this man, [ full name ], reserve all My natural God-given unalienable birth rights, waiving none, ever – as all is conditional upon My receipt of your written statement of claims and proof of claim to the contrary under your bond of office and penalties of perjury.

My public business here is completed, perfected, discharged, accomplished, dismissed, concluded, terminated and FINISHED!

7. Immediately turn around and walk out of the court room. DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE JUDGE OR THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. If the judge asks for a copy of your allocution, do NOT respond. It is on the record and he can get it there. If the bailiff stands in your path on the way out, ask him to arrest the judge for treason (abrogated his oath of office) and move on. Do not hesitate.

8. According to Michael Stone, this procedure is authorized under FRCP Rule 60, 1946 Amendment, Note to Subdivision (b). “Since the rules have been in force, decisions have been rendered that the use of bills of review, coram nobis. or audita querela, to obtain relief from final judgments is still proper, and that various remedies of this kind still exist although they are not mentioned in the rules and the practice is not prescribed in the rules. It is obvious that the rules should be complete in this respect and define the practice with respect to any existing rights or remedies to obtain relief from final judgments.” et seq.

Thanks to Wayne Baumann again for this great information to help people avoid getting long sentences in cages that have done no injury to anyone at all.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
ALLOCUTION STATEMENT

Sir / Mam,
For the record: I accept for value these proceedings including your draft on me as well as the jury’s verdict and draft in their entirety and I am Exempt from Levy. I have done my duty under public policy in this account and case, and I am hereby re-drafting the prosecutor for adjustment of the same. This is my scriptural and public duty. Every Action that I have taken in this matter has been to consistently honor, without dishonor, the various matters/claims put forth for me by the court for acceptance and discharge. I hereby request any outstanding claims in this matter against me, the living, breathing, Man, be brought forth immediately. If no claims are forthcoming, I request the Order/Release of the Court be released to me immediately without any undue delay. I have consistently and forthrightly acted in the open with good faith and clean hands. From the beginning of this case/account I have Accepted for Value all presentments made to me on behalf of YOUR STRAWMAN NAME HERE, (in all caps). This is a PRIVATE MATTER, and for the Record Judge, I DO NOT GIVE MY CONSENT FOR YOUR SENTENCING ME FOR JAIL, PRISON, FINE, PROBATION OR ANYTHING ELSE. I DO NOT CONSENT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT PUNISHMENT OF ANY KIND. I hereby ACCEPT FOR VALUE this hearing and Return your draft/Order to you for Adjustment of this/these account(s). I put forth this statement into the record and Request the Order of the Court be released to me immediately.

Respectfully,


__________________________________________________
Travis county Texas
VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
From newmisty in another thread.

Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.

In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD — and that was very significant as you will read.

Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any “legal” document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this.

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).



The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not!

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.

This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.



http://www.federaljack.com/slavery-by-consent-the-united-states-corporation/
Arminius,

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT: There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

APPLICATION: So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Boyce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/1-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+DAKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") 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 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 governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this 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/.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
s4t I see you finally got back out of jail. I was wondering how you could stay away for so long as you seem to be addicted to this thread and the only conclusion I could come up with is you were in the pokey. Just kidding, about the kidding part.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,815
Likes
34,813
Location
Qmerica
The CONSENT necessary for the state to have jurisdiction over you COMES FROM THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS WHO DO VOTE. Your individual CONSENT (through voting or otherwise) IS 100% IRRELEVANT.

Snoop
Congratulations, you wrote the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Congratulations, you wrote the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.
I gave you a like because...well I just did. s4t has a problem with being in jail. Now whether it is an actual county jail or a self imposed jail or a...yah I'm not going there... s4t is addicted to the thread and for me that is ok-Ithink. but the fact that s4t propagates the rico-line is just telling in itself. It's like s4t is a recovering corporateholic.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,815
Likes
34,813
Location
Qmerica
Arminius,

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT: There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

APPLICATION: So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Boyce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/1-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+DAKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") 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 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 governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this 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/.
1546840161855.png
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains
The CONSENT necessary for the state to have jurisdiction over you COMES FROM THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS WHO DO VOTE. Your individual CONSENT (through voting or otherwise) IS 100% IRRELEVANT.

Snoop
I don't give my consent... what are you going to do? Throw me in jail for not playing your legal game?


I stick by my earlier post:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),​
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
which clearly states we 'the people' are the sovereigns who created the government. The laws and statutes the government creates are for government, for their "employees" to abide by. Government is a corporation. Corporations hire employees.

Yick Wo has never been overturned.

Just as the Bill of Rights sets limits on what GOVERNMENT can do (not the people), Yick Wo v. Hopkins sets the precedent for whom governments regulations apply. We The People have ALL the rights.

That this concept has been turned on it's face doesn't matter. Judges (magistrates) violate their oaths and their bonds every day - IF they even signed their bond, or IF they even filed one to begin with.

Only by contractual agreement with the government i.e., licenses et al, do these regulations apply to the sovereign human being.

Anything else is forced slavery.

We 'license' ourselves due to ignorance of the law. The Public Fool System is doing its job quite well. Better to have millions of compliant zombies running around than people who challenge the government and actually holding them accountable.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
yeah, I think you just might have a mental defect on that observation. The girl has pine cone titties and the editors of it have her turning to the left in a loop. kind of what the hound does, I like old stuff. kind of like I like the 300K Ginsburg mobile….
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
Probably used up all the money he was paid for this project, for now.

We're a pretty obstinate lot here.

We like the idea of freedom, and that asshole is peddling pure slavery to his made up (lawyer created over too many years unchecked) system.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
He might have just learned something that shook is pillars of foundation. OR, they might have grabbed him and threw him back in jail and that would be a good thing because the only other thing I can think of is death and I would not want that to happen to any one. Even though none of us are getting out of this cartoon alive.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains
HOW THE DMV HIDES THE TRUTH of travel rights.
Posted on July 26, 2013 by Paul John Hansen

“THE HISTORY OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION IN CALIFORNIA AND HOW THE GOVERNMENT/DMV HIDES THE TRUTH”

California Vehicle Code section 4000(a) is the law that requires registration of Motor Vehicles. The history of this section can be dated back to the Statutes of 1913 Chapter 326. The Department of Motor Vehicles own website refers to this statute as being the first one to require licensing and registration of Motor Vehicles.

[[Nebraska’s is in 1905]]

Upon careful analysis however this law applied in a very limited fashion based on how the term “person” was defined under section (17) of the act. According to this section the registration and licensing requirements only applied to juristic “persons” meaning other than a natural person or chauffeurs (people who are compensated for transporting person for hire or compensation). During this time it was well recognized by courts all over the country that the citizen had a right to use the highways in the ordinary course of life and to use the ordinary conveyance of the day which at this time included an automobile. This was so well established it was published in the legal encyclopedia 11 AmJur 1st Section 329:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”​

The Statute of 1913 was amended by Statute 1915 Ch. 188. This new statute retained the basic limitations on the registration requirements to only juristic persons. It was amended by statutes of 1917, ch 218 and Statute 1919, ch 147. These amendments were merely refinements and did not make substantive changes.

The major changes began in 1923 with the Statutes of 1923 ch. 266. This time it defines the word “operator” and gave it much more general application by including “natural persons” in the law. However 2 week later in the same session of the legislature the Statutes of 1923 ch. 211 was passed providing a more constitutionally correct definition of “operator” and restricted the licensing and registration requirements once more to only juristic persons. Furthermore section 12 of this statute puts it in clear focus. “All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed…”

Since the earlier act was in conflict with the later act it repeals the earlier one puts the registration and licensing provisions back in the limited nature of only applying to juristic persons once again. This continued until the very first vehicle code was enacted by the Statutes 1935 Ch. 27. This was the act that established the Vehicle Code. Section 2 of this act makes it clear that the Vehicle Code is not to be construed as a new body of law but as a consolidation and continuation of already existing law. In order to understand what statutes were consolidated into the code you have to look at Section 802 which repealed certain acts and statutes 1923 ch. 266 was one of those statutes that was repealed. Furthermore section 803(c) declared that “Except as provided in Section 802, this code does not repeal any existing statute, nor any sentence or clause thereof.”

From the very beginning of the code, it is clear that there is no express or even implied repeal of the exemption for the private, non-commercial use of an automobile. With this historical context in mind we can now evaluate and explain how this historical analysis relates to the modern vehicle code section 4000(a).

It’s helpful to look at the follow sections in the current version of the vehicle code to fully grasp the history of section of 4000(a) and how it’s suppose to be applied today. These sections are Section 2, 4, 260(a) and (b), 415(a) and 15210(p)(7).

Section 2 confirms that the code is simply a continuation of existing law and not to be construed as a new enactment.

[[Remember revised code is not law, the legislative bill is the written law that the code is suppose to reflect accurately, which they seldom do, especially when the state can make billions by making it vague.]]

Section 4 secures rights that have already been established and reiterates that rights are not effected by the provisions of the code.

Section 260(a) defines a commercial vehicle as a vehicle required to be registered under the code and section
260(b) tells us that a passenger vehicle is not a commercial vehicle and is therefore not required to be registered under the code.

Section 15210 (p)(7) is a little hidden section in the code that reads “Absent any federal definition the definitions of this code shall apply.”

Section 415(a) defines a motor vehicle as “any vehicle which is self propelled” However this section does not apply since there is a federal definition of motor vehicle in Title 18 USC section 31 where it defines a motor vehicle as “every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo”.

Conclusion is that 4000(a) is a law that requires registration of vehicles that are used for transporting persons and property for hire, because the vehicle code is nothing more than a consolidation of laws that regulated “for profit” use of the highways.

[[ Nebraska has close to the same language “vehicles offered to the public for hire”. Most literate police officers know this but ignore it to keep their job security. Woe to such for this is organized crime, extortion, theft by deception. ]]

[[ Send me 5$ and I’ll send you a certified copy of the certified copy that is in my possession from the 1905 legislative, MR. HAND bill that clearly states what the single subject is of the Nebraska Motor Vehicle written law, and that is “for hire” use.

This is “evidence of law” good in any state /United States courts. ]]

[[ Pay at any Paypal Button (Donation) and then email me what you wish done with the payment. ]]

[[ We are winning our cases with such evidence. ]]

[[ The same process is remove us from property tax obligations as well. ]]

[[A little clarification above, for hire is an “act” not a “person” as we know it, but an immigrant is a “person” that comes for gain (commercial reasons) so one must understand the distinction then the written law makes more sense.]]

The below is “Stat at Large” from the California Legislative, see the clear language that does not show in the “Revised” Statutes, your recreational travel is not regulated by written law of 1915 which has never been changed.

file:///C:/Users/paulj/Downloads/Cal%20DMV%20statutes%20for%20hire%20(2).pdf

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. Done in free inhabitant.info, need done in pauljjhansen.com.

About Paul John Hansen
Paul John Hansen -Foremost I love the Lord, His written Word, and the Elect Family of God. -My income is primarily derived from rental properties, legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations. -I am a serious student of territorial specific law, and constitutional limitations of the US and STATE Governments. -I have been in court over 250 times. -I have received numerous death threats that appear as to come from NEBRASKA STATE agents. -I have been arrested an estimated 8 times. Always bogus false warrants, misdemeanor charges. (Mostly Municipal Housing Codes, or related acts.) -I file no Federal Income Taxes (1040 Form) since the year 2001. (No filings in any form.) -I pay no State income taxes. -I do not pay STATE sales tax on major purchases. -I pay no COUNTY property taxes with out a judicial challenge. ( I believe I have discovered a filing for record process that takes my land off the tax roles. ) -I currently use no State drivers license, carry no vehicle liability insurance, do not register my automobiles. -I do not register to vote for any representatives. -I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.) -I am subject to the Church jurisdiction, and a strong advocate of full ecclesiastical independence from the United States jurisdiction. -I believe in full support of the perpetual Union as found in the Articles of Confederation. -I believe that a free inhabitant has the lawful standing to choose to live independent of the constitutional corporate US governments, and its statutory courts in the vast majority of his daily life, and to be forced to do otherwise is slavery. -I believe that most all US written law is constitutional, but most all of that same law is misapplied upon jurisdictions where it has no force and effect of law and the bar association has perfected a system of keeping the people from knowing its true application. Order my 5$ presentation 'Free Inhabitant One A', for the truth in limited jurisdiction of all US written law.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,299
Location
right here right now
While I agree with most of the above, I checked out a utube vid of JPH and got a bot voice.

Why would he have a bot voice?

Can keeping such a conflict alive, even if true, lead to more ever more discombobulation among the beginning to be awakened of such political discombobulations?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
HOW THE DMV HIDES THE TRUTH of travel rights.
Posted on July 26, 2013 by Paul John Hansen

“THE HISTORY OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION IN CALIFORNIA AND HOW THE GOVERNMENT/DMV HIDES THE TRUTH”

California Vehicle Code section 4000(a) is the law that requires registration of Motor Vehicles. The history of this section can be dated back to the Statutes of 1913 Chapter 326. The Department of Motor Vehicles own website refers to this statute as being the first one to require licensing and registration of Motor Vehicles.

[[Nebraska’s is in 1905]]

Upon careful analysis however this law applied in a very limited fashion based on how the term “person” was defined under section (17) of the act. According to this section the registration and licensing requirements only applied to juristic “persons” meaning other than a natural person or chauffeurs (people who are compensated for transporting person for hire or compensation). During this time it was well recognized by courts all over the country that the citizen had a right to use the highways in the ordinary course of life and to use the ordinary conveyance of the day which at this time included an automobile. This was so well established it was published in the legal encyclopedia 11 AmJur 1st Section 329:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”​

The Statute of 1913 was amended by Statute 1915 Ch. 188. This new statute retained the basic limitations on the registration requirements to only juristic persons. It was amended by statutes of 1917, ch 218 and Statute 1919, ch 147. These amendments were merely refinements and did not make substantive changes.

The major changes began in 1923 with the Statutes of 1923 ch. 266. This time it defines the word “operator” and gave it much more general application by including “natural persons” in the law. However 2 week later in the same session of the legislature the Statutes of 1923 ch. 211 was passed providing a more constitutionally correct definition of “operator” and restricted the licensing and registration requirements once more to only juristic persons. Furthermore section 12 of this statute puts it in clear focus. “All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed…”

Since the earlier act was in conflict with the later act it repeals the earlier one puts the registration and licensing provisions back in the limited nature of only applying to juristic persons once again. This continued until the very first vehicle code was enacted by the Statutes 1935 Ch. 27. This was the act that established the Vehicle Code. Section 2 of this act makes it clear that the Vehicle Code is not to be construed as a new body of law but as a consolidation and continuation of already existing law. In order to understand what statutes were consolidated into the code you have to look at Section 802 which repealed certain acts and statutes 1923 ch. 266 was one of those statutes that was repealed. Furthermore section 803(c) declared that “Except as provided in Section 802, this code does not repeal any existing statute, nor any sentence or clause thereof.”

From the very beginning of the code, it is clear that there is no express or even implied repeal of the exemption for the private, non-commercial use of an automobile. With this historical context in mind we can now evaluate and explain how this historical analysis relates to the modern vehicle code section 4000(a).

It’s helpful to look at the follow sections in the current version of the vehicle code to fully grasp the history of section of 4000(a) and how it’s suppose to be applied today. These sections are Section 2, 4, 260(a) and (b), 415(a) and 15210(p)(7).

Section 2 confirms that the code is simply a continuation of existing law and not to be construed as a new enactment.

[[Remember revised code is not law, the legislative bill is the written law that the code is suppose to reflect accurately, which they seldom do, especially when the state can make billions by making it vague.]]

Section 4 secures rights that have already been established and reiterates that rights are not effected by the provisions of the code.

Section 260(a) defines a commercial vehicle as a vehicle required to be registered under the code and section
260(b) tells us that a passenger vehicle is not a commercial vehicle and is therefore not required to be registered under the code.

Section 15210 (p)(7) is a little hidden section in the code that reads “Absent any federal definition the definitions of this code shall apply.”

Section 415(a) defines a motor vehicle as “any vehicle which is self propelled” However this section does not apply since there is a federal definition of motor vehicle in Title 18 USC section 31 where it defines a motor vehicle as “every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo”.

Conclusion is that 4000(a) is a law that requires registration of vehicles that are used for transporting persons and property for hire, because the vehicle code is nothing more than a consolidation of laws that regulated “for profit” use of the highways.

[[ Nebraska has close to the same language “vehicles offered to the public for hire”. Most literate police officers know this but ignore it to keep their job security. Woe to such for this is organized crime, extortion, theft by deception. ]]

[[ Send me 5$ and I’ll send you a certified copy of the certified copy that is in my possession from the 1905 legislative, MR. HAND bill that clearly states what the single subject is of the Nebraska Motor Vehicle written law, and that is “for hire” use.

This is “evidence of law” good in any state /United States courts. ]]

[[ Pay at any Paypal Button (Donation) and then email me what you wish done with the payment. ]]

[[ We are winning our cases with such evidence. ]]

[[ The same process is remove us from property tax obligations as well. ]]

[[A little clarification above, for hire is an “act” not a “person” as we know it, but an immigrant is a “person” that comes for gain (commercial reasons) so one must understand the distinction then the written law makes more sense.]]

The below is “Stat at Large” from the California Legislative, see the clear language that does not show in the “Revised” Statutes, your recreational travel is not regulated by written law of 1915 which has never been changed.

file:///C:/Users/paulj/Downloads/Cal%20DMV%20statutes%20for%20hire%20(2).pdf

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. Done in free inhabitant.info, need done in pauljjhansen.com.

About Paul John Hansen
Paul John Hansen -Foremost I love the Lord, His written Word, and the Elect Family of God. -My income is primarily derived from rental properties, legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations. -I am a serious student of territorial specific law, and constitutional limitations of the US and STATE Governments. -I have been in court over 250 times. -I have received numerous death threats that appear as to come from NEBRASKA STATE agents. -I have been arrested an estimated 8 times. Always bogus false warrants, misdemeanor charges. (Mostly Municipal Housing Codes, or related acts.) -I file no Federal Income Taxes (1040 Form) since the year 2001. (No filings in any form.) -I pay no State income taxes. -I do not pay STATE sales tax on major purchases. -I pay no COUNTY property taxes with out a judicial challenge. ( I believe I have discovered a filing for record process that takes my land off the tax roles. ) -I currently use no State drivers license, carry no vehicle liability insurance, do not register my automobiles. -I do not register to vote for any representatives. -I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.) -I am subject to the Church jurisdiction, and a strong advocate of full ecclesiastical independence from the United States jurisdiction. -I believe in full support of the perpetual Union as found in the Articles of Confederation. -I believe that a free inhabitant has the lawful standing to choose to live independent of the constitutional corporate US governments, and its statutory courts in the vast majority of his daily life, and to be forced to do otherwise is slavery. -I believe that most all US written law is constitutional, but most all of that same law is misapplied upon jurisdictions where it has no force and effect of law and the bar association has perfected a system of keeping the people from knowing its true application. Order my 5$ presentation 'Free Inhabitant One A', for the truth in limited jurisdiction of all US written law.
Sadly, this is simply more amateur legal theory hogwash. It is the blind leading the blind. And, it is simply not true.
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,750
Likes
3,866
I once tried to sign my Constitution State (CT) driver's license with UCC-1-207 and the official said "what's that?" and then said I couldn't do that.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,081
Likes
7,765
Sadly, this is simply more amateur legal theory hogwash. It is the blind leading the blind. And, it is simply not true.
I've got bigger fish to fry than getting hassled by the cops all the time.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,078
Location
Rocky Mountains
I once tried to sign my Constitution State (CT) driver's license with UCC-1-207 and the official said "what's that?" and then said I couldn't do that.
I did it. Of course it is THEIR documents just as your SSN is not 'your' SSN but the IRS's number.

Gee, Snoopie is back!!