| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Raymond Karczewski" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2003 12:51:11 AM |
| Object: |
What is a Patriot? |
What is a Patriot?
Quicksilverdime wrote:
Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:24 am Post subject: Very Good,
Raymond
qs: > Great! Why don't you join us in the Constitutional Rights
Enforcement & Support Team (C.R.E.S.T.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrest and repost your message
there and contribute your views there also. Could sure use your
input. We need to unite together to fight tyranny.
rk: QS, thanks for the invite, but no thanks. I would ask that
you and other patriots read of my experiences with the Josephine
County Oregon Courts. See:
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htm
and observe the radically different outcome of my case from the
many others who have used the same approach. They're in Jail. I
am not. What is the difference?
rk: I stood under God's Law. I demanded man's law (our present,
unlawful, unconstitutional private corporate court system) prove
its jurisdiction and/or claim over a Sovereign Son of God.
rk: Though threatened with years of incarceration for trumped up
charges of Felony Eluding an officer and Paper Terrorism, i.e.,
Simulation of Legal Process, I stood firm in court throughout the
14 months trusting in TRUTH as my sole protection. I underwent
two trials, was found guilty by two "braindead" slaveminded
juries anxious to get home for supper.
rk: I was offered probation. As a Sovereign Son of God, I
REFUSED to accept the contract offered.
rk: Yes, you heard me right. I REFUSED to aid and abet in my own
PROSECUTION. Most who wind up facing the black-robed Pharisees
who operate our court system do not understand that as private
bankers for the private government corporations who criminalize
and warehouse human resources in our publicly funded
jails/prisons the private courts are a LEGAL FICTION and HAVE NO
JURISDICTION over GOD'S LAW and/or any "living, breathing, flesh
and blood, sentient natural man unless the latter waives his
protections under his Unalienable Rights and agrees/contracts
with the private courts who masquerade as legitimate courts of
the land.
rk: At my sentencing hearing I refused to accept any offers by
the state. Although I was in custody and had been so for 102
days, I was set free that day. See:
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch84.html#SENTENCING
Hear it at http://www.arkenterprises.com/sentence.html
rk: I refused to abide by any of the terms unlawfully imposed
upon me that day and in their eyes violated the terms of the
probation. I accused the judge and District Attorney in open
court of being the criminals in the two cases. Yet I was
released from custody.
rk: A month passed. The probation officer stopped at my home,
was alone and spoke to me and my wife at the gate of my
property. The probation officer did not enter the property. She
asked that I submit to arrest and straighten the matter out with
the judge. I refused. I advised the probation officer it would
be necessary to take me forcibly with Sheriff's Deputies, that I
would not "AGREE" to such contract. The Probation Officer left
the property empty handed and has not since returned. See:
Testing Jurisdiction of Josephine County Oregon Courts &
Probation Dept. http://www.arkenterprises.com/probarst.html
rk: No my friend, there is good reason why I am OUT and others
are in jail for seemingly the same reasons. You have to be
clear-sighted enough to recognize INSANITY which appears to be
normal for the slave-minded.
rk: Understand who you Truly Are, a Sovereign Son of God.
Follow God's Law of TRUTH and you too SHALL BE protected from the
Satanic Bar Association' psychological grip on the American
Judicial System.
rk: Awaken from the hypnotic stupor which muddles the vision and
relegates one to endless confusion. Recover your lost Status as
one of the Sovereign of this land, return to the understanding
that you as one of the Sovereign People are the true government.
rk: AND HOLD TO THAT!!
rk: Demand the courts prove "jurisdiction in personam" and the
prosecution produce a claim of injury by a living breathing,
flesh and blood claimant, (none were produced in either of my two
prosecutions.) Without such claim of damage there IS NO CRIME
under GOD'S LAW, Common law, Constitutional Law. Until then,
without such proof at hand, the private, for-profit, corporate
courts which proliferate in our Corporate-ruled land today HAS
NO JURISDICTION over a living breathing, flesh and blood,
sentient, natural man, unless that man consents to doing business
with the corporate court.
rk: SHOCKING!! It oughta be! For millions upon millions have
been schnookered into prison through such Satanic Deceptions.
rk: As to what to do about its. SIMPLE, Don't Fight It, BOYCOTT
IT.
rk: Begin acting like the Sovereign and the public servants will
fall into their proper place. Without your support, financial
and/or otherwise, the Satanic Illusion of Corporate Goverment is
readily seen for what is is. The Emperor is Naked. Shorn of
Power. But this can only be seen by the simple, the direct, the
Truthful Son/Daughter of God.
rk: All organizations are easily controllable through their
leadership. Look how easily they folded up Rick Stanley's
organization. Without Rick, they'all surrendered without a
whimper. That's the illusion of power as exercised through
Organizations. The real strength lies in the individual standing
in TRUTH. When that is understood, millions of sovereigns may
take back their country by standing alone and exposing the
illusion of our Satanic Court System.
rk: The present New World Order nonsense underway in our
American society would end in the blink of an eye, should the
masses of mind-controlled "munchkins" awaken from their
Satanically imposed "politically-correct" slave-mindedness.
rk: One cannot follow God's Law, and man's law too. Who'se law
governs your life?
Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ
Yours in Liberty,
Quicksilverdime
*************************************************************
Let man not Fall for a New World Order.
Let mankind Rise to a New World Consciousness!
Raymond Karczewski http://www.arkenterprises.com
**************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "bookman" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
17 Dec 2003 05:06:16 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3fdffca6.64921795@news.west.earthlink.net...
What is a Kook?
Welcome back, bRay! Did anyone manage to sneak a hotdog in
to Anita from the Stealth Hotdog Cart? I hope her health improves.
Meanwhile, did you tell all these self-styled "patriots" about the
FRAUDULENT LIEN you sent to Dr. Postman in an effort to
BULLY him into not MOCKING you?
Are your Playtriot friends gonna go around trying to steal millions
of dollars through the magick of FAKE COPYRIGHTS?
Did you formally "gift" your guns to your wife? CONVICTED FELONS
like you are not allowed to own guns, bRay. If someone were to inform
the nice folks at BATF, life could get interesting for you unless you unload
the rifle, et al.
Please tell everyone what you plan to call the holiday. Will it be
"Ray-mas", "Raymond-mas", or will you simply call it "Me-mas"?
(And have you arranged for the grandkids to come bearing gifts
for the "Living Christ-Child"?)
Finally, are you still plotting to bring down the very Government which
faithfully sends you that monthly CHECK? Or have you finally decided
to BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!! BOYCOTT!!! that SATANIC FINACIAL
INSTRUMENT/CONTRACT?
Hey, with a little luck they'll let you walk around until 2004. Enjoy it
while
you can.
--
Bookman
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
We're not laughing _with_ bRay!
Turi fears my predictions, so he censored me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
23 Dec 2003 02:01:16 AM |
|
|
"bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:IMWDb.161054$Eq1.12293@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3fdffca6.64921795@news.west.earthlink.net...
What is a Kook?
That's easy. Eddy, Jamie, Carl, Jack, Clave, Ironic, The Nine, bookman,
Commie-traitor,
and the rest on Gilligan's Island.
Welcome back, bRay!
Meanwhile, did you tell all these self-styled "patriots"
Do you support the Constitution, Bookie? If yes, then why mock those that
enforce its principles? You, my friend, are a 'self-styled' patriot, for
it's obvious, you haven't the first clue as to how our Constitution
functions.
about the
FRAUDULENT LIEN you sent to Dr. Postman in an effort to
BULLY him into not MOCKING you?
Perhaps you too assume it's proper to use property of another without
compensation, due process or consent. No?! Then again, why criticize those
that enforce liens for the theft and use of property without consent, due
process or compensation?
Are your Playtriot friends
Why do you make fun of patriotism? Blind ignorant passion means absolutely
NOTHING, bookie. Please take the time to cite a constitutional authority
justifying the theft of property without warrant or probable cause and PRIOR
to due process, compensation and/or consent?
gonna go around trying to steal millions
of dollars through the magick of FAKE COPYRIGHTS?
FAKE???? What makes them fake, Bookie? Because they didn't comply with
statutory requirement? Hey Bookie, do you understand the limitations placed
on gov't by the10th amendment? Did you know that [property] and any
[interest] therein is protected by the forth and fifth amendments? Are you
another who believes it proper to steal, theft and take property from others
w/out compensation, consent, or due process? The point is, Mr. Bookie, in
copyrighted (See West Publishing) statutory law you can't copyright your
name, so, how does one obtain sole ownership of his property? Post your
name, fathers name, mothers maiden name, and any other names that might help
someone with bad intentions. Why not? Is it you have a vested [interest]
in that property and want to protect it? Is that why you use a pseudonym,
Mr. Bookie? Or, do you live with the assumption that a name is not property
protected by the Bill of Rights? And, gov't has inherent and unlimited
authority to do as it pleases?
Do you support the Constitution, Mr. Bookie? If so, then why advocate a
support for theft of another's private property PRIOR to due process,
consent and/or compensation? You sound like a thief, bookie!
CONVICTED FELONS like you
Bookie, Bookie, Bookie, you just don't get it, do you? He was not convicted
by a jury of his peers, he was convicted by a plea agreement. Let's see,
put your 65 year old ***** behind bars, (after victimizing NO ONE*), threaten
you with months of incarceration, exorbitant fines and fees, deprive you of
assisting your ill loved ones, and see how long you hold out, boy.
* Is this where you rant about his victimizing those that stole his property
without compensation, consent, or due process? In this case, Mr. Bookie, he
was seeking a remedy and recourse from those thieves employed by Josephine
County.
are not allowed to own guns, bRay.
Mr. Bookie, can man take from you what God has given? Do you support the
Constitution along with the Bill of Rights? When are you going to get it?
Man can not accede Gods authority regardless of his status. This gov't is
required to protect, preserve, and defend those rights, not usurp them,
dummy. A man who has completed his sentence (his time served), fees and
fines paid, and/or conditions of his probation are met, he is now FREE as an
EQUAL member of society, and has all the rights given to him by OUR God. In
other words, this gov't does not have the authority to defy the Bill of
Rights!
Finally, are you still plotting to bring down
Enforcing constitutional limitations is construed as a plot to destroy?
Demanding compensation for the theft and use of private property is again,
construed to destroy? Listen, silly wabbit, there is no plot to destroy
this government, we're just hunting wabbits, that's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
23 Dec 2003 02:19:53 PM |
|
|
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:<qDSFb.12883$7D3.4423@fed1read02>...
"bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
<snip>
Do you support the Constitution, Bookie? If yes, then why mock those that
enforce its principles? You, my friend, are a 'self-styled' patriot, for
it's obvious, you haven't the first clue as to how our Constitution
functions.
I love the Constitution, its checks and balances, and the way it
exists in comity with state laws. I'm amused at your interpretation
of it, which appears to be one in which you alone decide what's
"constititional" and what isn't, with the aid of some legal form books
you found in a civil war bookshop.
by the way, you don't "enforce" anything. you wank on usenet. usenet
is not the real world and complaining about how "unfair" (or, in your
words, "unconstititional") life is probably the most useless thing you
can do.
I'd be embarrassed to call myself a "patriot" in your style. all you
ever do is whine, whine, whine, file liens and once in a while write
stupid legal brief. did you ever wonder who really gives a ***** about
your legal opinion?
a real patriot would start shooting, but that might entail leaving
your mom's basement and risking exposure to daylight. on the other
hand, if you were an adult, you might challenge the constititionality
of any federal or state law, or federal regulation, by an action for
declaratory relief. it happens all the time in the real world you are
so unfamilar with. sometimes the government even loses. imagine
that.
about the
FRAUDULENT LIEN you sent to Dr. Postman in an effort to
BULLY him into not MOCKING you?
Perhaps you too assume it's proper to use property of another without
compensation, due process or consent. No?! Then again, why criticize those
that enforce liens for the theft and use of property without consent, due
process or compensation?
I like watching you junior perry masons get bitchslapped on usenet and
in the real courts. when are you going to copyright your name?
I also love your posting name. its so patriotic. John Hancock, an
actual patriot, wrote his name in huge letters so K.George could read
it. you, on the other hand, are ""anonymous"
<anonymous@anonymous.com".
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
24 Dec 2003 04:15:47 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <heavyfrigate@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8e41214.0312231219.3d64b862@posting.google.com...
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<qDSFb.12883$7D3.4423@fed1read02>...
"bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
<snip>
Do you support the Constitution, Bookie? If yes, then why mock those
that
enforce its principles? You, my friend, are a 'self-styled' patriot,
for
it's obvious, you haven't the first clue as to how our Constitution
functions.
I love the Constitution, its checks and balances,
But you have no idea how it funtions, Jack. And, my argument here was w/
bookie, not you. (But that's ok. You're just as ignorant!)
and the way it
exists in comity with state laws.
Sort of like administering federal policy is a federal territory which
overlaps states jurisdiction?
I'm amused at your interpretation
I'm amused at your profound ignorance, Jack. You haven't cited ONE
authority but rather rely on silly discounted illusions to support your
absurd conclusions. Can you find a law that makes one liable for income tax?
If so, cite it here -----> In case you don't know where to start, look in
Title 26. If that don't work, ASK YOUR LAWYER!!
by the way, you don't "enforce" anything.
Shows how much you know, Jackie! I literally enforce engress and egress
liens quit often! Call the county constables office and state marshalls
office here in Clark County, Nevada and ask out how many liens are actually
being ENFORCED, dummy. Problem is, most don't stipulate engress and egress
within the contract. When one comes, I act on their behalf.
I'd be embarrassed to call myself a "patriot" in your style.
Many of us call a blind obediance unpatriotic, Johnny. And, I'd be
embarrassed to call myself a "patriot" in your style. Blind ignorant passion
means NOTHING, Jack.
a real patriot would start shooting,
NO!!!! It's not violence that's necessary, Jack, it's knowledge! (Which
you obviously lack.)
but that might entail leaving
your mom's basement and risking exposure to daylight.
Better than hiding in your outhouse, Jack!
on the other
hand, if you were an adult,
Silly child, what law makes you liable for income tax?
you might challenge the constititionality
of any federal or state law, or federal regulation, by an action for
declaratory relief.
HAVE AND WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've inniated quo warranto proceeding
against IRS Appeals officer Wiley Davis from Colorado, Sheriff Bill Young -
Clark County Nevada, Metro Police - Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Attorney
General for thre STATE of NEVADA. What have you done, Jack!
it happens all the time in the real world you are
so unfamilar with.
No, Johnny. The real world files legal breifs. Again, no need for
violence! It would appear you're an advocate of anarchy. Why, Jack?
sometimes the government even loses. imagine
that.
Again, shows how little you really know, Johnny.
about the
FRAUDULENT LIEN you sent to Dr. Postman in an effort to
BULLY him into not MOCKING you?
Perhaps you too assume it's proper to use property of another without
compensation, due process or consent. No?! Then again, why criticize
those
that enforce liens for the theft and use of property without consent,
due
process or compensation?
I like watching you junior perry masons get bitchslapped on usenet and
in the real courts.
I like watching you play dodge. I'm still waiting for you to identify the
code that makes you liable for income tax, Jack. It shouldn't matter what
any court has decided but rather what the law specifically requires. Find
me the law, Jack!
when are you going to copyright your name?
Did so, nunc pro tunc, in the summer of 1996.
I also love your posting name. its so patriotic.
Thank you! But I don't do it to amuse you, Jack.
John Hancock, an
actual patriot, wrote his name in huge letters so K.George could read
it. you, on the other hand, are ""anonymous"
<anonymous@anonymous.com".
YEP. Why hide behind a pseudonym? My name is my property, not yours, not
gov't, and not usenets. As stated earlier, you so called PATRIOTS tend to
attack the messenger rather than the message. I will not reveal my private
property on usenet for there are many, such as yourself, with bad
intentions. btw- I thought you had me as John E. or whatever, and now you
identify me by the use of a common pseudonym. Why? Make up your mind,
Jack!
Your inability to understand law for yourself, Jack, has left you with an
immaturity placing a dependency on another's explanation of what the law
says, stupid little boy! If not, find me the law that makes one liable for
income tax.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Nine" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
25 Dec 2003 04:44:56 PM |
|
|
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:vjGGb.13682$7D3.4666@fed1read02...
"Jack" <heavyfrigate@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8e41214.0312231219.3d64b862@posting.google.com...
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<qDSFb.12883$7D3.4423@fed1read02>...
"bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
<snip>
Do you support the Constitution, Bookie? If yes, then why mock those
that
enforce its principles? You, my friend, are a 'self-styled' patriot,
for
it's obvious, you haven't the first clue as to how our Constitution
functions.
I love the Constitution, its checks and balances, and the way it
exists in comity with state laws. I'm amused at your interpretation
of it, which appears to be one in which you alone decide what's
"constititional" and what isn't,
Wrong! Cite one posting of mine showing where I've stated anything as
"unconstitutional". In fact, it's just the opposite. It's not the fault
of
Congress you don't know who you are or where you make you home, Jack.
I've
asked you, are you a U.S. citizen or an American?
I have a better question for you, moron. Are you a mysogynist, or a racist?
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
26 Dec 2003 06:21:56 AM |
|
|
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ELJGb.45742$hf1.22904@lakeread06...
Wrong! Cite one posting of mine showing where I've stated anything as
"unconstitutional". In fact, it's just the opposite. It's not the
fault
of
Congress you don't know who you are or where you make you home, Jack.
I've
asked you, are you a U.S. citizen or an American?
I have a better question for you, moron. Are you a mysogynist, or a
racist?
Do you mean misogynist, Nine? And the answer is neither. I hold these
truths to be self evident that ALL men are created, by their creator with
certain inalienable rights. And, jokingly, I'm not a racist, but I love a
good 'rub'. On that same note, it's not her story, but history that gets
repeated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Nine" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
26 Dec 2003 06:34:16 PM |
|
|
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ELJGb.45742$hf1.22904@lakeread06...
Wrong! Cite one posting of mine showing where I've stated anything as
"unconstitutional". In fact, it's just the opposite. It's not the
fault
of
Congress you don't know who you are or where you make you home, Jack.
I've
asked you, are you a U.S. citizen or an American?
I have a better question for you, moron. Are you a mysogynist, or a
racist?
Do you mean misogynist, Nine? And the answer is neither.
I hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created, by their
creator with
certain inalienable rights.
The fact that you even posed the question implies otherwise. You common law
kooks are all the same.
Why was the 14th Amendment created, idiot.?
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
26 Jan 2004 03:38:44 AM |
|
|
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s4Hb.46786$hf1.21351@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created, <snip>.?
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
Simply put: By the same power to free the
black men from slavery, so too is the power of enslavement!!!!!!!! Are you
a [Freed] slave receiving rights, immunities, and privileges through
legislative acts of subordinates, or are you responsible for
releasing/freeing the slaves? When you are responsible for creating the
power YOU'RE NOT A SUBJECT. Only those born and or naturalized are subjects
as defined in the 14th, NOT "WE THE PEOPLE"!!!!!!
Very vaguely put, know now that the southern states enjoyed the same
sovereignty as the northern states pre civil war, but the North used the
"public" issue of slavery igniting the civil war. The
North won the war, right? By doing so the North put into the
certain states military directors/dictators to ensure safety to the newly
freed
slaves, and as well, to protect the ex-slave holders from reprisal.
Seriously, do you believe the farmers answered a call to defend slavery? Or
that the representatives seated for the southern states were not a part of
the rebellion? Of course, they conspired with the
rebellion and thus were placed at gunpoint while still sitting in Congress.
Listen, those southern congressmen did NOT vote an approval to accentuate
and/or capitulate to a northern philosophy simply because of a general's
surrender. They were told, "You vote our way, or else!" AND THUS, the
11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, etc., and the rest, all in a conspiracy to take from
you/us what God has given!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the
quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes
that Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law, were those to
set the time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn
and set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but instead,
Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene.
Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened, Congress became
sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally "without day") and thus when
Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative
body, and the only lawful, constitutional power that could declare war was
no longer lawful, or in session.
Immediately post civil war the Department of Education was established to
ensure a stupidity among the people. Lie to the masses often enough and
eventually the lie becomes a truth. And, now most will argue "rights don't
come from God," and "driving is a privilege," go figure!
After reading the post civil war Acts of Congress we MUST turn to the
Supreme court to see how they decided on the cases now before them.
ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The distinction between citizenship by
birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions
of the constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or
a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this
constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;' and 'the
congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.'
Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution
slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the
fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a
difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the
citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it
beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves
or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to
any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in
which they reside.
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S.
303 , 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only:
birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be
citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last
words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction
of the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words
relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of
naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except
by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which
foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of
the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the
Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a
geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning
of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of
subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that
government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or
other public ministers of foreign nations. This view is confirmed by the
second section of the fourteenth amendment, which provides that
'representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to
their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each
state, excluding Indians not taxed.' Slavery having been abolished, and the
persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clauses fixing the
apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding
clause of the original constitution as counted only three-fifths of such
persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the
reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis
of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly
inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision
of the second section for a propor- [112 U.S. 94, 103] tionate reduction
of the basis of the representation of any state in which the right to vote
for presidential electors, representatives in congress, or executive or
judicial officers or members of the legislature of a state, is denied,
except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to 'any of the male
inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the
United States,' cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to
Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to
representation.
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) When we consider the nature and the
theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are
sup- [118 U.S. 356, 370] posed to rest, and review the history of their
development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave
room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. THERE ARE
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MANY!!!!!!!!!
In summary:
Congress sits in THREE capacities.
1) Acts on behalf of the states AND District of Columbia IN International
Representation.
2) Acts on behalf of the freely associated compact states. see Article 1 §
8 clause 1-16,
General Laws - Positive Laws - Titles 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18,
23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49.
3) Acts on behalf of the District of Columbia. Local Laws - Not positive
laws - Titles 2, 6, 7, 12,
15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
45, 47, 48, and 50. Currently kept in one book, however they used to be
kept in TWO separate books.
The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the Union, also
ceased to exist sine die, and some state legislatures in the Northern bloc
also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties to
creating the Constitution ceased to exist. President Lincoln executed the
first executive order written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive
Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the President under executive
order ever since. When Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened
under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of
Order for Parliamentary bodies or by Constitutional Law; placing the
American people under martial rule ever since that national emergency
declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for the United States of
America temporarily ceased to be the law of the land, and the President,
Congress, and the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake
the nation in their own image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional
provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which
were taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control.
President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to issue any executive
order, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a
special field code to govern his actions under martial law and which
justified the seizure of power, which extended the laws of the District of
Columbia, and which fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I,
Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of
Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also
called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended The Laws of War
and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government
became the presumed conqueror of the people and the land.
Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the nation has been ruled
under Military Law by the Commander of Chief of that military; the
President, under his assumed executive powers and according to his executive
orders. Constitutional law under the original Constitution is enforced only
as a matter of keeping the public peace under the provisions of General
Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under Martial Law, title is a mere
fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property
which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt from taxation
and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside.
President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete plans for
reestablishing constitutional government in the Southern States and end the
martial rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in Amendment to the
Constitution created a new citizenship status for the new expanded
jurisdiction. New laws for the District of Columbia were established and
passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those established Feb. 27, 1801 and
May 3, 1802. The District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and all
states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation
so that a new Union of the United States could be created. The key to when
the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such
states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of
the common law that was adopted first by New York and then by California in
1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber Code was used to bring the United
States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of
1899 and 1907.
In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress,
Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined,
regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that
act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking
System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9,
1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation
2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove
that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive
privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of
national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were
named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the
provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for
in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court
decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed.
1188.
On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of
the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE
SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL
or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF
TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be
cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the
new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial
Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it
signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to
United Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United Nations may be
compared to that of the old Soviet Union.
Documentation -
Executive Order 1 - http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm;
General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) "Lieber Code" -
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/historical/LIEBER-CODE
..txt;
Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) -
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/war_ep1.html;
The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I,
Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917);
National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I,
Chapter 1, March 9, 1933);
Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933); Executive Proclamation 2039
(March 9, 1933);
Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260;
Title 12 USC, Section 95a - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html;
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188;
and the United Nations Treaty.
All documentation is available through your local government document
repository library branch or at the Library of Congress.
Observations - Arguments which suggest that the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was
not a lawful or legal treaty of peace between warring nations and that the
American Colonies never really attained or obtained lawful or legal
sovereignty, must also presume, by their own argument, that the Constitution
for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights were never organic
documents of true lawful or legal standing.
Conclusion - The Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill
of Rights are no longer in effect in their original form or where they
conflict with the United Nations Treaty and other international agreements.
Citizens of the several States of the Union who were formerly sovereigns
protected by the common law are now United States citizens and are thus
subjects to International Admiralty jurisdiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Now that you know what you are up against, I hope the above data and the
linked Senate Report 93-549 causes you to see red, pisses you off enough to
start thinking and doing something about it. I am fighting for my freedom
and my country, to defend and restore the Constitution, our Nation's
Sovereignty, Your Sovereignty, and Mine.
Are You??
In closing: Mandating compulsory compliance to a waiver of God given rights
(1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, & 10th at the DMV/MVD) in order to
exercise a God Given right is an oxeye moron!!!! Who delegates such rights
greater than the ones we equal possess, and by what authority? And again,
it's not the fault of Congress you don't know who you are and/or where you
make your home, and those in gov't know EXACTLY how this "game" is played.
If you don't, it's to the slave holders advantage! In other words, whatever
form this gov't functions anyone entering into an arrangement with the gov't
takes upon himself the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who
purports to act for the gov't stays within the bounds of his authority even
though the agent may be unaware of the limitations placed upon him. (It's
your ***** on the line!)
Revolution doesn't start with the gun, it's starts with the mind!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
28 Jan 2004 07:06:35 PM |
|
|
"Johnny Bravo" <tullum@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bJYRb.120453$873.2261768@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Is John Kerry acting like Herman Munster?
No, but Bush is Eddie Munster.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
29 Jan 2004 03:36:25 AM |
|
|
"Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1a95e2068f9a17c77dafc67d7354fd4@news.teranews.com...
"Johnny Bravo" <tullum@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bJYRb.120453$873.2261768@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Is John Kerry acting like Herman Munster?
No, but Bush is Eddie Munster.
I second that!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Nine" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
26 Jan 2004 08:14:41 PM |
|
|
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:yf5Rb.1416$Zz1.679@fed1read02...
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s4Hb.46786$hf1.21351@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created, <snip>.?
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
<snipped>
So, after reading all three of your cut and paste fests, let me just boil it
down to the sailent points:
1) The only soverign citizens are white men.
2) If you're not a white man, you're not as equal as a soverign citizen.
3) The reason a non white man, or a woman is not as equal as a white man
soverign citizen is because the white man soverign citizen says so.
4) The white man soverign citizen believes that they are the law, and don't
agree with any other law that any other source says is the law. It's not
fair.
*They're* not the law, WE are. We, the Living, Breathing, Flesh and Blood,
Sentient Natural White Separatists! Pay no attention to the Aryan behind
the curtain,
the one in the Identity Wifebeater T-Shirt. He's harmless, really. He's
just here for the buffet after the bar mitsvah.
5) Kofi Annan is personally flying a black helicopter and broadcasting
super secret NWO one world government brainwashing rays directly into the
masses to make them meek, stupid, and constipated.
6) You are unable to find your own ***** with two hands, a bucket, 3 tubes of
superglue, a handle, a yellow fringed flag, detailed instructions, and a
halogen lamp.
Have I got that about right, dipdunk?
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
01 Feb 2004 11:57:24 AM |
|
|
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1RjRb.799$fZ6.191@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created, <snip>.?
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
<snipped>
So, after reading all three of your cut and paste fests, let me just boil
it
down to the sailent points:
Please do.
1) The only soverign citizens are white men.
Are you a racist? Ask yourself, are not the men of all races created by the
same creator? And, don't we hold true that ALL men are created equal? As
asked previously, is it our fault black men weren't considered equal when
the Constitution was drafted? Nor are we to blame for the North starting
the civil war, or that the South lost for that matter. From 1776 to 1861
black men weren't considered as equal with the white man. From 1867 to 1933
all were considered equal but only as citizens under the subjugation of a
Union dictatorship. By the same illegal authority of usurpation utilized by
the Union North, the same wrongful authority is enslaving all citizens
thereof. From 1933 to 1973 we were under FDR's "banking emergency" or a
"war
on poverty". In P.L. 93-549 (1973) Congress terminated ALL of those
"national emergencies". Opening Page: A majority of the people of the
United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40
years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution
have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states
of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts
to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a
philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the
Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government
in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important
ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency.
Now, vaguely put, until one understands the Constitution, jurisdiction, war
powers - martial law - emergency rule, trust/compact law, income tax, civil
war, etc., you're a slave (U.S. citizen)
receiving rights, immunities, and privileges from the state which is "we the
equal people". In other words, ALL are equal as subjects. Which also
means, all are equal once a revocation of the "original election"
has been filed, however and again, this is only possible
because Congress terminated the "National Emergency". NOTE HERE: EVERYTHING
discussed herein is only my interpretation for the purposes of these
discussions and are not to be relied upon as advise. Any advise received in
a NG is worth less than you paid for it.
2) If you're not a white man, you're not as equal as a sovereign citizen.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only:
birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be
citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last
words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction
of the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words
relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of
naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except
by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which
foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of
the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the
Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a
geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning
of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of
subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that
government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or
other public ministers of foreign nations. (each state is a foreign nation
with respect to each other and D.C.)
Hey Nine, these questions are what most ask after reading the above.
1)Are Indians not born within the territorial limits of the U.S. subject to
the jurisdiction of the U.S.?
2)Are white, black, red and blue men not born within the territorial limits
of the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?
3)What are the boundaries to the territory identified as "territorial limits
of the U.S."?
4)What was the "National Emergency" terminated in P.L 93-549 November 19,
1973?
5)Was the "true" reasoning behind the Civil War, slavery or insubordination
by a created union re; taxation?
6)Who were the masterminds behind the Civil War?
How'd you come to the conclusion that, "If you're not a white man, you're
not as equal as a sovereign citizen."?
Please explain yourself.
3) The reason a non white man, or a woman is not as equal as a white man
soverign citizen is because the white man soverign citizen says so.
Obviously, you don't understand what you read, Nine. Again, are you a
racist? If you were to replace
your racial obloquies with a more correct terminology of, "citizen" or
"subject/foreigner", your sentence would more properly read, "The reason a
subject/foreigner is
not a citizen is because the citizen says so." And in essence, wouldn't
that be
correct? Especially, if the subject/foreigner has not fulfilled all of the
necessary requirements to
become
fully patriated? In other words, the citizen has rightly delegated an
authority to create the necessary prerequisites for citizenship, and
logically
until those prerequisites are complete the person remains a
subject/foreigner.
4) The white man soverign citizen believes that they are the law, and
don't
agree with any other law that any other source says is the law.
Do you not think before you speak, Nine? The creator of all is the creator
of
law, not you, me or us. Man has been created to follow that law, but some
men don't (YOU), and therefore a need arises for men to group together,
create a
union, in order to protect those God given rights, immunities, and
privileges. Man has no need to accede Gods authority unless his intentions
are to do just that. Are you mature enough to confine your actions to the
limitations placed upon you by God almighty? If so, then don't assume
others possess any less of a maturity than you. And should one not, this
gov't has been instituted among men, not to create law, but to enforce it,
dummy.
Your role in society is not to play that of God, Nine, but to follow his
commandments. There's no room in our society for you to play God, dictate
law, impose fines, probation, and even prison for noncompliance. When
another violates the laws of God he victimizes another, and until then he
has committed no crime.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:......that, to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed;
[snip - drivel]
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
Nine, there are no stupid questions, so instead of a recondite rigmarole
revealing such racist stupidity, next time just ask.
By now, this question should be easy. How does a man obtain an authority to
create law regarding citizenship when all men are created equal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Nine" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
01 Feb 2004 01:25:51 PM |
|
|
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:96bTb.10532$fD.5117@fed1read02...
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1RjRb.799$fZ6.191@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created, <snip>.?
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
<snipped>
So, after reading all three of your cut and paste fests, let me just
boil
it
down to the sailent points:
Please do.
1) The only soverign citizens are white men.
Are you a racist?
It's fucking laughable that after reading your claptrap, and the obvious
racism inherent in them, that you would think I was racist for bringing it
down to the five cent words. You, sir, posted that excrement. If you
believe that excrement, then you are a racist. The whole Patriot movement
as you present it, is a load of racist, hypocritical duck squeeze.
The law is the law, dipdunk. Ever think about trying to change the laws you
don't like? Oh, wait.
It occurs to me that if you had more people in your little movement that
weren't completely nutters, you might be able to do something about it. But
since most of you idiots like to hide in the frozen friggin tundra eating
three beans and a leaf, and typing out your moronic little manifestos in a
tarpaulin shack somewhere, I guess it's hard to actually organize. Besides,
there's Common Law Court to attend, and the Christian Identity Meeting
tomorrow, right?
By now, this question should be easy. How does a man obtain an authority
to
create law regarding citizenship when all men are created equal?
But you don't think all men are created equal. You're a soverign, and as a
soverign, you think there is no higher authority than you. Take credit for
the words you post, dipdunk. Do you read what you cut and paste? We
already know you're not capable of any meaningful thought.
God, you're a tool.
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DrPostman" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
01 Feb 2004 12:32:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:57:24 -0800, "anonymous"
<anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote:
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1RjRb.799$fZ6.191@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created, <snip>.?
"anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:JJVGb.14430$7D3.6672@fed1read02...
<snipped>
So, after reading all three of your cut and paste fests, let me just boil
it
down to the sailent points:
Please do.
1) The only soverign citizens are white men.
Are you a racist? Ask yourself, are not the men of all races created by the
same creator? And, don't we hold true that ALL men are created equal? As
asked previously, is it our fault black men weren't considered equal when
the Constitution was drafted? Nor are we to blame for the North starting
the civil war, or that the South lost for that matter.
How did they make Beauregard fire on Fort Sumter? Silly me, I thought
that the Confederacy fired the first shot, when all along the Union
made them do it.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com
"You are the kook, not me - and I won't even bother to see
what that acronym means."
- Joseph Bartlo responds to IKYABWAI
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Patriot? |
26 Jan 2004 03:39:16 AM |
|
|
"The Nine" <iotaFUSWEN9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s4Hb.46786$hf1.21351@lakeread06...
Why was the 14th Amendment created?
The Nine
http://locnetwork.com
"In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of
the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the
rights and prerogatives of the sovereign States and its Citizens, it is
appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that Amendment was
foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress.
"It is common knowledge that any assumption of power will always attract a
certain following, and if no resistance is offered to this show of strength,
then the asserted powers are accepted without question. It is therefore my
purpose to try to give a ray of hope to all those who believe that the
States are capable of deciding for themselves whether prayer shall be
permitted in schools, whether their bicameral legislatures may be composed
of members elected pursuant to their own State constitutional standards.
"The method of amending the U.S. Constitution is provided for in Article V
of the original document. No other method will accomplish this purpose. That
article provides as follows:
"`The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in
three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be
proposed by the Congress;'
"The Civil war had to be fought to determine whether the Union indissoluble
and whether any State could secede or withdraw there from. The issue was
settled first on the field of battle by force of arms, and second by the
pronouncement of the highest court of the land. In the case of State of
Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L.Ed. 227, it was claimed that Texas having
seceded from the Union and severed her relationship with a majority of the
States of the Union, and having by her Ordinance of Secession attempted to
throw off her allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, had thus
disabled herself from prosecuting a suit in the Federal Courts. In speaking
on this point the Court at page 726, 19 L.Ed. 227 held:
`When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the
guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the
State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something
more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the
political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other
States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or
revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
`Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance
of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the
citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give
effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union,
and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States,
remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not
cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this
were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens
foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of
rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation.
`Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a
State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have
referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any
act or declaration of any department of the National government, but
entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations
since the first out break of the rebellion.'
"It is necessary to review the historical background to understand how the
Fourteenth Amendment came to be a part of our U.S. Constitution.
"General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and General Johnston
surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period of less than six weeks
thereafter, not one Confederate soldier was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865,
the Confederate States were all restored by Presidential Proclamation to
their proper positions as States in an indissoluble Union, (13 Stat. 760,
763, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 771 [1865]) and practically all Citizens
thereof. (13 Stat. 758 [1865])
"A few Citizens were excepted from the amnesty proclamation, such, for
example, as Civil or Diplomatic Officers of the late Confederate government
and all of the seceding States; United States Judges, members of Congress
and commissioned Officers of the United States Army and Navy who left their
posts to aid the rebellion: Officers in the Confederate military forces
above the rank of Colonel in the Army and Lieutenant in the Navy; all who
resigned commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States to assist the
rebellion; and all Officers of the military forces of the Confederacy who
had been educated at the military or naval academy of the United States,
etc., etc., had been granted amnesty. Immediately thereafter each of the
seceding States functioned as regular States in the Union with both State
and Federal Courts in full operation.
"President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure,
but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it
was necessary to propose and to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to
insure the freedom of the slaves.
"The 11 southern States, having taken their rightful and necessary place in
the indestructible Union, proceeded to determine whether to ratify or reject
the proposed Thirteenth Amendment.
"In order for the Thirteenth Amendment to become a part of the Constitution,
it was necessary that the proposed Amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36
States. Among those 27 States ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment were 10
from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina,
Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.
"When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the Senators and
Representatives from the 25 northern States voted to deny seats in both
Houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern States. The full
complement of Senators from the 36 States of the Union was 72, and the full
membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (see
Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in
Congress, only the 50 Senators and 182 Congressmen from the North were
seated. All of the 22 Senators and 58 Representatives from the southern
States were denied seats.
"Joint Resolution No. 48, proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, was a matter
of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order
to have this proposed Amendment submitted to the 36 States for ratification,
it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses
showed that only 33 Senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far
cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50
seated Senators.
"While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a Senator,
it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (see
Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States)
"One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the Senators
from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No.
48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate, not
having control of two thirds of the seated Senators, voted to refuse to seat
Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a
majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New
Jersey, and several other States, that a plurality vote was sufficient for
election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his
seat was -refused- and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two
thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.
"In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds
of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed Amendment, but
because there were 30 abstentions it was declared to have been passed by a
two thirds vote of the House.
"Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both Houses to
propose an Amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated
or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only
be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not
so important for the reason that the amendment is only -proposed- by
Congress. It must be -ratified- by three fourths of the States in the Union
before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The method of securing the
passage through Congress is set out above, as it throws some light on the
means used to obtain ratification by the States thereafter.
"Nebraska had been admitted to the Union and so the Secretary of State, in
transmitting the proposed Amendment, announced that ratification by 28
States would be needed before the Amendment would become part of the
Constitution since there were at the time 37 States in the Union. A
rejection by 10 States would thus defeat the proposal.
"By March 17, 1867; the proposed Amendment had been ratified by 17 States
and rejected by 10 with California voting to take no action thereon which
was equivalent to rejection, thus the proposal was defeated.
"One of the ratifying States, Oregon; had ratified by a membership wherein
two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the
contest, the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the
proposed Amendment. However, this rejection came after the Amendment was
declared passed.
"Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully
for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the
military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded Tennessee
from military occupation and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had
ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866.
"The `Act' further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided
that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated in
Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would be
approved by Congress. The `Act' further provided that each of the 10 States
was required to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before
the military occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats
in Congress.
"By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law; three
more States had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and two States,
Louisiana and Delaware, had rejected it. Maryland then withdrew its prior
ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed
suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey and
California, (which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal), now
voted to reject the Amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 States had rejected the
proposed Amendment.
"By spurious, non-representative governments; seven of the southern States,
(which had theretofore rejected the proposed Amendment under the duress of
military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress), did
attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State,
(of July 20, 1868), issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was
his duty under the law to cause Amendments to be published and certified as
a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had
been adopted pursuant to the Constitution. Thereafter his certificate
contained the following language:
`And whereas neither the Act just quoted from, nor any other law,
expressly or by conclusive implication., authorizes the Secretary of State
to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the
organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State
legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any
amendment proposed to the Constitution;
`And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department
that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as
aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming
23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];
`And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department
that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as
aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established
bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures,
respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana,
South Carolina, and Alabama;
`And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this
Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above
enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions
respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid
amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty
whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore
ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either
of them, to the aforesaid amendment;
`And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is
thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];
`And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose
legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States
next there after named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by
newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute
three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;
`Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State
of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the
act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and
eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of
the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment
are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the
subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to
withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the
aforesaid amendment had been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned,
and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the United States." *** (15 Stat. 707 (1868))'
"Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next
day passed a Concurrent Resolution wherein it was resolved:
`That said Fourteenth Article is hereby declared to be a part of the
Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such
by the Secretary of State.'
Resolution set forth in proclamation of Secretary of State, (15 Stat. 709
[1868]).
See also U.S.C.A., Amends. 1 to 5, Constitution, p. 11.
"Thereupon; William H. Seward, the Secretary of State (after setting forth
the Concurrent Resolution of both Houses of Congress) then certified that
the Amendment:
`Has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the
Constitution of the United States. (15 Stat. 708 [1868])'
"The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who should decide
whether a proposed Amendment has or has not been passed according to formal
provisions of Article V of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United
States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has
never hesitated in a proper case to declare an `Act' of Congress
"unconstitutional" - except when the `Act' purported to amend the
Constitution.
"In the case of Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505,
the question was before the Supreme Court as to whether or not the
Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified pursuant to the Constitution. In the
last paragraph of the decision the Supreme Court said:
`As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt
the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly
authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and, being
certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.'
"The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and
determine when three fourths of the States had ratified the proposed
Amendment. He could not determine that a State, once having rejected a
proposed Amendment, could thereafter approve it; nor could he determine that
a State, once having ratified that proposal, could thereafter reject it. The
Supreme Court, and not Congress, should determine whether the Amendment
process be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for
ratification or rejection.
"In order to have 27 States ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was
necessary to count those States which had first rejected and then under the
duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those
States which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is
dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having
control of both Houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and
then passing a Joint Resolution to the effect that the Constitution is
amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services
Administration/7 to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the
United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine
whether constitutional standards had been met?
"How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of
powerful States can by force of arms deny another State a right to have
representation in Congress until it has ratified an Amendment which its
people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad
as that suggested above./8
footnote 7
"65 Stat. 710 ss 106b [1951], designates the Administrator of General
Services Administration as the one whose duty it is to certify that an
amendment has been ratified." Since the publishing of the case of Dyett v.
Turner, Congress has amended the Statute to designate that the Archivist of
the United States as having the authority to certify an amendment as being
ratified [98 Stat. 2291 ss 107(d), 1 USC 106b].
footnote 8
"For a more detailed account of how the Fourteenth Amendment was forced upon
the Nation, see Articles in 11 S.C.L.Q. 484 and 28 Tul.L.Rev. 22."
ARTICLE #2 - Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship
If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found in the
1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very
interesting. The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to the
fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868. After that, it's no longer
capitalized. This isn't an isolated occurrence either. In the definition of
"Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the fourteenth
amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the dictionary,
where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't capitalized. As you
shall see, this is just one small indicator of many that the fourteenth
amendment created a new class of citizen.
This is certainly no secret to the legal community. In fact, under the
definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States... creates... a citizenship of the
United States as distinct from that of the states..." This class of "citizen
of the United States" was new; it was unknown to the constitution prior to
1868. This wasn't the status of our forefathers. In the first sentence of
the definition of "United States" found in Black's, it says, "This term has
several meanings." Pursuing this further, we find that one of the
definitions is the "collective name of the states which are united by and
under the Constitution." This is what the framers of the constitution meant
by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the Citizen of one state is to
be considered and treated as a Citizen of every other state in the union.
Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the federal
government. This is what is meant by "citizen of the United States in the
fourteenth amendment":
Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those
rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect
those rights which relate to state citizenship.
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment created
citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by
the government:
Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege limited
by Congress.
Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6, Page 670
(1925)
It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the
privileges it creates. By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a
person's relationship with the government. In the legal sense, everything
else is built upon it. Therefore, since fourteenth amendment citizenship is
a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's life could potentially be
regulated. Worst of all, this new class of citizen does not have the right
to invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, as explained in the
following supreme court case:
We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all
the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal
Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided
subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment...
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
This isn't an idea peculiar to the turn of the century either. Going back to
the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the courts of today
saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any ofthe Bill of
Rights not protects all rights of individual citizens." Although fourteenth
amendment citizens have no guaranteed access to the Bill of Rights, the
amendment itself does state that they have certain "privileges and
immunities." Here's what the supreme court has decided they are:
Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other
hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of
the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all
citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.
Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448, 34 L.ed.
519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382, 38
L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570. Thus, among the rights and privileges of
national citizenship recognized by this court are the right to pass freely
from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right
to petition Congress for a redress of grievances (United States v.
Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote for national officers (Ex parte
Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed. 274, 4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler,
179 U.S. 58, 45 L.ed. 84, 21 Sup.Ct. Rep. 17); the right to be protected
against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshall
(Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.ed. 429, 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 617);
and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its
laws (Re Quark, 158 U.S. 532, 39 L.ed. 1080, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 959).
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908)
As discussed in the last article, Sovereign Citizens created government to
guarantee them their rights. In contrast, it would seem from the above that
the federal government created fourteenth amendment citizenship to guarantee
its power.
As a side note, this amendment has always been controversial. Many people
over the years have questioned the amount of power it vests in the federal
government. Some have even questioned its validity. On one occasion Judge
Ellett of the Utah supreme court remarked:
I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could
honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.
State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942
(1975)
However, the most important fact about this amendment is that, although it
created a new class of citizen, it did not have any effect on Sovereign
Citizens. Both classes still exist:
When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the
citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the
government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States
at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born
within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and
of the United States. (Mr. Calhoun in his published work upon the
Constitution denied that there was any citizenship of the United States in
any other sense than as being connected with the government through the
States.)
The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in the
passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992, 8 United
States Code Annotated section 1). The act provided that:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power
are declared to be citizens of the United States."
And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment, United States Code Annotated Amendment 14, declaring:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside."
Perkins v. Elg, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 99, Page 410 (1938),
affirmed by supreme court at 307 US 325 (1939)
Both classes of citizen still exist. It's your right to be a Sovereign
Citizen, while it's a privilege to be a fourteenth amendment citizen, and
most importantly, it's up to you to determine which one you are, and which
one you want to be.
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/Contract.html
In America (under the Law of the Constitution); we have all the protections
we need to shield us from abusive powers of an administrative government in
that the administrators could not press us without "Probable Cause" (4th
Amendment). A person had to be charged pursuant to a written Complaint which
demanded a victim (injured party) and that Complaint must be supported by
sworn affidavit.
The way our God given Law in America was designed, a man could not be
"compelled" to do anything he did not want to do. He was free to do anything
he pleased provided he did not injure another person or his property (free
enterprise). If he did; the complaining person could go to the law (sheriff)
and sign a formal Complaint against him (a sworn affidavit) which would
"wake up the law." The Sheriff would then take the complaining persons
affidavit to a judge and gain Court authority to "serve" that Complaint upon
the person who committed the trespass. And the Law (under the authority of
the Court) could "Compel Performance" for an answer. The party served with
the Complaint could defend or confess to the allegations. If he himself knew
he was guilty; he could remain silent or demure and suffer the "civil"
penalties or he could confess and subject himself to "criminal" penalties.
At a trial under law; he had to be proven guilty by the evidence alone. He
could not be "Compelled" to confess (5th Amendment.).
So we were never bothered with a "non-victim crime." There was no such thing
as a "non-victim crime" and Blacks Law Dictionary - 4th Ed., states: "There
is no such thing as a common law crime against the State." You had to have
harmed someone before you could be charged with a crime. Not so today!!!
However; the Constitution nor the Law has been changed. You still have not
committed a crime short of injuring someone (unless of course you agree with
them and accept their charge against you) and if you do not know the law;
they will convince you that you have committed a violation of some kind
which will have the appearance of a crime (such as seat belts?).
The Sheriff/Policeman/Law could do nothing without a signed complaint by the
"injured person himself." It has been said that the Sheriff/Policeman (and
there is a difference) was like a nick-el-o-deon in that a signed complaint
was the "Nickel," and without it, the Law (sheriff/Policeman) could do
nothing.
Now how were "they" able to accomplish this "Protective Shield?" Today we
have a lot of what is "Called" Law that is not Law at all (Color of Law).
You can now be protected from or charged with what you "might" do which is
"Compelled Performance" or Administrative Public Policy Law which is Police
Power and not Law at all.
In the Law Libraries there is a set of books entitled "Statutes At Large."
Volume 37 of the "Statutes" has two books recording the Acts of Congress.
"Part One" is "Public Acts and Resolutions," and "Part Two" is "Private Acts
and Resolutions."
"Part Two" is "Private Laws Of The United States Of America" passed by the
62nd Congress in the years of 1911 - 1913. How many people know that our
Congress passes "Private Law?" In this book is listed all the Private
Resolutions and Proclamations passed by Congress in those years which
includes the 16th Amendment "Income Tax Law."
What is Private Law? Private Law is in contradistinction to Public Law in
that such part of the law which administers or regulates between Citizens
enforcement of Rights where both the person in whom Right inheres and the
person upon whom the Obligation is incident (the latter being fiction with
bestowed rights [city?]) which is to say; Rights obtained by Contract
between citizens and their government. For Contract purposes; the
"Government" is a "person" of "bestowed Rights" (14th Amendment.).
Contracts are enforceable by Equity Courts to the letter of the Contract.
The Constitution provides for cases "In Equity" and actions "At Law." Equity
is the enforcement of "Contract obligation." Equity then is a lawful
jurisdiction in which a "Court Of Equity" has the authority to "Compel your
Performance" to force you (by law) to "live up to" an agreement you entered
into by "Contract." There are no Constitutional Rights within the parameters
of a legitimate Contract.
The U.S. Supreme Court says that your Right to Contract is unlimited so long
as it is a full upright and lawful enterprise or undertaking. The
Constitution protects your Right to Contract and the Courts of Equity are
there to force the "big guy" to be responsible for his agreements in case
the "little guy" is not able to get him to perform according to his
Agreement or Contract (City Hall). At the same time; you can not (by law) be
forced into an Agreement or Contract you do not want. Within a "Contract;"
you are outside the law and outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
You are in Equity.
To help explain a number of things is the issue of the Income Tax Law. The
16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an obligation subject to
enforcement in an Equity Jurisdiction under Contract. Title 26 of the U.S.
Code is the "Contract." BUT there are three parts that must be present for a
Contract to be valid. They are:
1.. There must be a Contract (provable evidence of an agreement); and
2.. There must be an Obligation (some task that has to be performed or and
act to be done); and
3.. There must be a Consideration (an exchange of substance [HJR 192 (July
5, 1933)], to wit: dollars for labor or time of your life in exchange for
goods. Or here in the United States; Silver or Gold in exchange for Labor.
Substance for substance; not substance for nothing or substance for credit).
Without the above three parts; there can be no valid lawful Contract.
The active "Real Patriots" have been learning more all the time but to
little knowledge to late has seriously hurt some of us. For instance; how is
it that these "traitors" have been able to "send out swarms of the Kings Men
to eat out Our Substance" .... and get away with it?
Another one of the reasons has finally come forth. The U.S. Constitution was
created by free white "Preamble People." This is to say; there is a
Declaration that holds the "Black People" as "second class" or less
citizens. We will use this "Declaration" as a demonstration so that we may
understand another aspect of our Constitution.
The "Preamble People" were free white men. These men were the "We The
People" who set up this United States Government. Then along came the 13th
and 14th Amendments. The 13th Amendment freed the Slaves and the 14th
Amendment identified Them and created for Them; "New Privileges". These were
not new Privileges extending the "free People;" but to the newly freed
Slaves; these were new Privileges.
The "free men" which set up this government were the indisputable
"Sovereigns." That<is; They were not the Subjects of the Constitution but
were above the Constitution. Those were the "Free Men" who created (by our
Constitution) the government we now have and at the same time; they retained
to themselves and their posterity (which is who we are) all their God given
and Common Law Rights of Life, Liberty, and Justice for all which was and is
granted to all men by their Creator; God.
These men (which included you and I) did not then nor do they (or we) now
(under our Constitutional Government) have a grant of "Privileges;" but the
Privileges created by the Constitution were for their "14th Amendment"
| | | | | | | |
