RE: The People v The United States Of America?

RE: The People v The United States Of America? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/26/2010 8:53:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "they were running along up to the 13th amendment where they made an amendment to insure no nobility could hold an office " Dodge and Dunn IIRC were the names of the foremost researchers I have found on the subject. They assert, after careful study that the Titles Of Nobility act had indeed been properly ratified but they missed one point. Ohio. Ohio ratified, but the problem here is that Ohio was not yet a state and technically still is not. now that is an interesting point of law. Not sure if that has standing or not. You are saying they had to have ohio to ratify?

DomKen -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 1:20:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Legislators make law, and in 1953 Ohio seemingly became a state retroactively to 1803, 150 years prior. This is law because of it's nature, having to do with the legal status of the territory agreed ? The Constitution specifically prohibits retroactive law so therefore there is no "state" of Ohio. Therefore Ohio did not have the lawful authority to ratify anything, unless you have evidence to the contrary. The fact that Ohio was asked if they are in favor of ratification means that this authority was implied or assumed. Implied or assumed authority, read jurisdiction is at the core of some of our arguments, and in this case it might work against us. We simply can't have it both ways. Bullshit. Ohio fulfilled the conditions for becoming a state in 1803. Their congresspeople were seated at that time. The claim that Ohio is not a state is part of the woo used to claim the 16th amendment was not ratified. It is based, really I couldn't make this up, on the fact that in 1953 when the 150th anniversary of Ohio statehood approached some congressman discovered that the Congress back in 1803 had not issued a formal proclamation welcoming Ohio, teh Congress was under no such legal obligation. So the Congress issued the welcome to the union proclamation in 1953 as a sort of joke.

DomKen -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 1:26:56 AM)
A little cursory research indicates that the Titles of Nobility amendment was always at least one state shy of being ratified. the confusion appears to have been over whether SC and VA had ratified the amendment. In both cases it appears one house approved and the other house rejected the amendment and certainly no formal notification of aproval was ever received by teh federal government from either state.

Termyn8or -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 4:44:24 AM)
"Bullshit. Ohio fulfilled the conditions for becoming a state in 1803." Incorrect. To become a state it requires a certain legal action which was not done, despite the fact it may have been ignored at the time. You of all people should know that if it is not set down on paper as law it is not law, and it doesn't matter what actually happened, the legal status did not exist. I am not saying that this matters in real life now, but as an arguing point, the legal status by law does not exist to this day. I mean if you get a speeding ticket from a "state" trooper, it doesn't matter if Ohio is a state, country, corporation of a fucking lagoon for that matter. You pay or fight it or else. When people get into such details if I have something to say I will say it, but I am not going to argue it for a month. When it comes to shit like this, AAAAARGH, sometimes I don't know who to disagree with more. In today's world even factual evidence seems to mean little, even if it is totally true. I try to make my point that this process is futile for most and get arguments back about some ethereal advantage that gains one nothing. You may claim that Ohio is a state, and really if it walks like a state and quacks like a state, what is it ? But it does lack the technical legal definition. And I have already admitted that I simply don't know if that amendment is actually law. That would be a more material point than whether or not Ohio is a state, and even that doesn't matter today. And it doesn't matter what the law is, it matters what the court says it is. I don't like it, I don't think you like it and I'm sure Real doesn't like it. But you have trouble accepting a different approach, and Real has a problem accepting facts that don't impel him on some sort of journey to "freedom". Palin's bridge comes to mind. The way I see it is that I got bullshit to the left of me and bullshit to the right of me, but so little in the way of truth. The truth is frequently hard to find. And what matters ? What if I find definitive proof that say Socrates was a homosexual ? What the fuck do we care ? But when I find out things that can be used against the gov HERE AND NOW, that might matter if I ever get jammed up with them people. I don't care if I am fighting the state, country or whatever of Ohio, all I care is how to win. Some of this mumbo jumbo is useful, the rest is useless. For example when I hear of IRS cases, I don't care how people lost, I care how people won. You don't necessarily have to become a foreigner in your own land to beat them. I know of people who have beat the shit out of them for over a million daolars, and that was not tax, it was an actual judgement in tax court against the IRS. The guy didn't have to go out in the woods and become a Jeremiah Jonson or whatever to win. All he needed was knowledge. The right knoledge. The status of the territory or state he was in didn't mean shit. Tha Titles of Nobility act didn't mean shit. He didn't have to challenge jurisdiction, in fact it would be stupid because he won $1.2 million in a judgement. If he owed taxes, well now he had the money to pay it off and not bat an eyelash. That's what I am talking about. The case I am talking about can be found. The guy won because the IRS, while they can do alot of things, can't reveal that someone is being investigated under alot of conditions. You can sue them and collect $100,000 for each occurance. In that case they did it 12 times, and the judge took about 10 nseconds to decide the case. The agents handled it improperly. Apparently what they did wrong is to ask for specific information, rather than just inspect all the information, whicgh they have the power to do when it comes to a taxable entity. They can walk in the door and demand you open the books to them. Then they can focus obn the object of their investigation themselves, and get what they need, even copies I would think. But no, they asked for all information regarding a specific individual from 12 different entities after identifying themselves. This is what most likely cost them $1.2 million. That is by their own rules. To challenge jurisdiction would be so fucking stupid it would even make my head spin. How things are going for me when it comes to this, well so far so good. What others do is their own problem. T

Real0ne -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 5:24:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A little cursory research indicates that the Titles of Nobility amendment was always at least one state shy of being ratified. the confusion appears to have been over whether SC and VA had ratified the amendment. In both cases it appears one house approved and the other house rejected the amendment and certainly no formal notification of aproval was ever received by teh federal government from either state. the whole purpose was to keep the crown out of the government. I am sure the records will show it was 1 state short for no other reason than to insure they can control this country. (and ironically the greater majority of presidents were from lines of nobility) The 13th was the response to the beginning of incorporation of the government for the purpose of circumventing the constitution as jefferson warned would happen. That is why the brits that we supposed kicked their asses came back in 1812 to kick our asses for being naughty children and cutting them out of their share of the loot. it would be a vastly different world tofay if the crown were kept out and to the benefit of the people, something neither you or I will live to see

Real0ne -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 5:30:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Incorrect. To become a state it requires a certain legal action which was not done, despite the fact it may have been ignored at the time. You of all people should know that if it is not set down on paper as law it is not law, and it doesn't matter what actually happened, the legal status did not exist. that would be acceptance of an enabling act provided to the feds and definitions of the boundaries etc. on a side note, becoming a state is an act of incorporation. The creation of a fictional body for the voice of the democracy. (not the "republic") Becoming a citizen is becoming a member of said corporation. That is no different than joining microsoft corporation. Becoming a citizen member of a corporation enables the corporation jurisdiction as a result of your membership therein. Hence the corporation gathers 12 people to judge based on corporation by laws if their member followed the "agreed" rules of the corporate "policy". People hate it when I simply things to this degree LOL

Termyn8or -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 5:28:48 PM)
Y'know Real, you are pretty sharp, but sometimes you pay attention to the wrong things. Ohio is not a state by lawful definition. It was voluntary and in 1803 they had not volunteered. They did it in 1953 and by the way they did it, the action is null and void. I consider that one of the finer points. But it is treated like a state. Ohio is CONSIDERED a state which might not be the same but that doesn't matter. I stopped the tax scam a long time ago. Nothing is in my name except the house and I am working on that. My car is not in my name, I have no contracts with the state anymore. Last Friday the last of my paper trail ended, as I will no longer be writing any checks, and I cleaned out the account. I don't even have utilities in my name, and they are all paid in cash. But does this invisibility mean that I am not a person ? Hardly. Even with all this, true freedom is unnattainable. Society still has rules. And the handcuffs still fit and gunshots still hurt. What's more I haven't developed the ability to pass through the jailbars, in case they ever get me there. I guess I just have a different thought process than others. T

pyroaquatic -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/27/2010 6:09:51 PM)
Agreed. Thank you for putting the words together. These elites... who defines that? Money?

DomKen -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/28/2010 11:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Bullshit. Ohio fulfilled the conditions for becoming a state in 1803." Incorrect. To become a state it requires a certain legal action which was not done, despite the fact it may have been ignored at the time. You of all people should know that if it is not set down on paper as law it is not law, and it doesn't matter what actually happened, the legal status did not exist. It wasn't ignored at the time. All the niceties were followed. congress approved Ohio's borders and state constitution. Jefferson signed the act on Feb. 19 1803. You can even read the Enabling Act of 1802 to see that no formal acknowledgement of admission was required. http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=000574.html&StartPage=74&EndPage=80&volume=5¬es=&newtitle=Volume%205%20Page%2074

Termyn8or -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 12:15:19 AM)
ohiohistory org, that says it. Ohio did not make the rules, the feds just allowed this to go on. Still a moot point actually. But then what does matter is the fact of the trading with the enemy act which was amended to include US Citizen as enemies and therefor enable all this siezing of property via holder in good standing status. Or at least it was part of it. What people don't realize is that in this country, the debt is secured literally by every blade of grass. Each grain of sand. Don't let it surprise you because many other countries are the same, they just let people know it. In this country they hand out the illusion that we can own something, but in fact in their eyes the own us. We are like a herd of livestock, or a crop of wheat. But with that illusion people have been induced to produce and consume at an alarming rate, which has yielded great profit. Not for us though. If I ever get to my vault I wll find the references, and I won't even bother to scan them. I will get the cies, the numbers, whatever. Taken as a whole, it consitiutes fraud on a very large scale. But you might not even want to concern yourself with that because there is not much we can do about it. It is how it is. It is more relevant possibly than whether or not IOhio holds the lawful definition of a state, this hits a bit closer to home. Which you do not own. You never have, I have never and neither will Real. It is a fact of life. It is also a key component of the authority of the "state". The relevance of this is not clear cut either. In a hypothetical instance you have some property, it has been in your family since forever. You actually have what could be termed an allodial title, and even mineral rights. Well, just because, and I don't know if it will ever do me ant good I want the original title conveyed to me and I will remit at least $21 in gold to get it. This is totally irrelevant to the other aspects. For actual transfer of course I would need the cash, a loan or to engage in a land contract. So in fact not only am I a due holder in course, I actually have an allodial title. I'd like to have one just to sat that I actually owned something in my life and it is no skin off tyour nose and you take your gold and spend it as you please. But does that absolve me of paying property taxes ? I better not think so. Because when they come for me for nonpayment, nothing means anything to them. They enforce what they see as law, law that works for them and that is what they will do. So in time with my allodial title what can I do. The title deed, which names the holder in due course will be supported by the entity that created the status. That's the deal. That could've been sold several times and even though I might be the true owner of the property, As long as the force is with the title deeders, and all that, nothing else means a thing. And even if they just go away, the properties will not revert, people did pay for it, in a way. There is no solution, at least not a complete solution. With zoning, it might be of use against them, maybe get granfathered into something, shit like that. But all this doesn't really mean shit. T Note, I did not proof this, it's late.

cuckyman -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 7:45:26 AM)
The whole middle of the country is 'anit-government'.... We want our freedom from an out of control Obama led socialist future...and we will do what is necessary to gain our freedom from this socialist asshole.... up to and including taking up arms to fight for it if necessary.... you finally are getting the memo....you and your ilk will NOT prevail.... Never, never, never...got it?....deal with it..... Arizona is just the beginning....much much much more to come....

Termyn8or -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 8:24:53 AM)
Who is never going to prevail ? That is a bit unclear. T

rulemylife -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 8:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman The whole middle of the country is 'anit-government'.... We want our freedom from an out of control Obama led socialist future...and we will do what is necessary to gain our freedom from this socialist asshole.... up to and including taking up arms to fight for it if necessary.... you finally are getting the memo....you and your ilk will NOT prevail.... Never, never, never...got it?....deal with it..... Arizona is just the beginning....much much much more to come.... Who is we? You live in a coastal state. In other words, for your apparently geography-challenged brain, you do not live in the middle of the country.

mnottertail -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 8:32:51 AM)
but he is anit..... I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

LadyEllen -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 9:35:02 AM)
TONIGHT - PAY PER VIEW - CHANNEL 234 Cuckyman Patriots v Libtard Socialist Elites LIVE FROM THE GUTTER 730PM EST BOOK NOW E now offering pregame betting stakes; Cuckyman Patriots 100-1 Libtard Socialist Elites 2-1 favourite Call for in-game bets!

DomYngBlk -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 9:40:47 AM)
Just going to call his Mistress. She will put an end to his shenanigans!

DomKen -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (4/29/2010 11:01:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or ohiohistory org, that says it. Ohio did not make the rules, the feds just allowed this to go on. If you had simply bothered to look you would have found that the Enabling Act of 1802 was a federal law outlining precisely what had to be done for Ohio to become a state.

jlf1961 -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (5/8/2010 8:04:49 PM)
Lady E, you may have come across the fundamentals of the "sovereign citizen" movement, however you did not look into the modern foundations of the philosophy. The original "Sovereign" movement was called the Posse Comitatus movement founded by Henry Lamont Beach in 1969. Beach was a retired dry cleaner and one time member of the "Silver Shirts" a Nazi inspired organization that was established in America after Hitler rose to power in Germany. Posse members believe that there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff. The legal theories of Posse Comitatus have been further developed by the Sovereign Citizen Movement, which claims that a U.S. citizen can become a "sovereign citizen" (as opposed to a "Fourteenth Amendment Citizen") and thereby be subject only to common law and/or "constitutional law", not to statutory law. Another point that should be made is that the movement has a number of "heros." A short list includes Gordon Kahl (killed two Federal marshals,) Linda Lyon Block and George Sibley (murdered an Opelika, Alabama, police officer,) George Wolf (shot two volunteer firefighters in Ashtabula County, Ohio, because their vehicle blocked him,) Richard McLaren's faction of the so-called "Republic of Texas" (kidnapped a west Texas couple) and let us not forget Terry Nichols. More recently, there was Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who was arrested trying to make a citizens arrest of a grand jury chairman in Madisonville TN for various crimes including treason. A supporter of his, Darren Huff was arrested by the FBI for traveling from Georgia to Tennessee to "Take over the courthouse" where they were holding a hearing for Fitzpatrick. The so-called "sovereign" citizen movement are known for committing bank fraud, check fraud, filing false liens against members of county government, local law enforcement agents, and judges. These are the people that Real and his kind support, make heros and emulate.

Dominatist -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (5/8/2010 9:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The central bank is enabled by the Constitution - if youre saying the Constitution is valid and you dont like the bank thats hard luck. Overturn the Constitution and return to a Confederacy under the Articles - which is what the southern states did, provoking the Civil War (they didnt create a Confederacy but reverted to it) - and the bank and everything else lapses. E Yes, the fed was not disallowed by the constitution but was not created by it either. The formation of a central bank was and continues as a political/economic theory of a monetary system whereby currency is lent to its member banks. This inherent corruption was never supported by any founding fathers (ex: Hamilton) or documented in the Federalists papers as necessary. In fact it was the Bank of England and the crown calling the shots on colonial monetary policy that was the single most serious offense of the crown that inspired colonial elites to revolution. The US went through some rough political times dissolving 2 central banks that were you guessed it...corrupt as hell. With the power of ordering the actually printing of US currency, the fed is usurping the powers of the exec. (treas.) in violation Article I.

Real0ne -> RE: The People v The United States Of America? (5/8/2010 9:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Real, considering that this philosophy which you seem to preach has been ignored by the courts, Yeh well you know how it is people dont always get the jurisdiction right they arent all geniuses you know. members have been implicated in mass murder, Commandante Janet trench scab reno did a great job taking out waco. who have engaged in bank fraud, check fraud, Sachs, Enron, Wall street, Morgan, Congress, Can I stop now? fraudulent liens, Everyones favorite the IRS have been arrested for trying to push the findings of "people's courts," citizens arrests, kidnapping, even a plan to take over a county courthouse recently. Yeh cant do it like that, there are proper channels and they arent always on the ball. The scabs have a right to have their courts too you know. The entire idea that the federal government is unconstitutional and illegal is blindly stupid. Nah we gave them 10 square miles. You know how it is gove them a mile and take 20,000. You fail to admit that people involved in your philosophy have been convicted of murder, attempted murder, assault, mass murder, accessory to murder, not to mention the number arrested for fraud. well people that are involved do not have infinite funding from a bunch of retards who spend all day whining about how uncomfortable that red whit and blue dick up there asses are getting. LOL Why not admit that? You wont even admit that murder of a law enforcement officer or the shooting of two volunteer firemen was unjustified. Why not admit that weaver was killed by your guv thugs. There is an old saying and if goes something like, before you pick the sliver out of your neighbors eye pull the log out of your own.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625