Posted by Two Cities on September 16, 1998 at 12:53:33:
In Reply to: Re: More Historical Evidence (legal ruse + deception) of 2 Classes of Citizens posted by MARTIN on September 16, 1998 at 11:02:34:
: Buy yourself this $40.00 book but do not use the non stactutory abatements.
Read it for their analysis, but do not copy their solution?
: The Book of the Hundreds
: http://www.jeffry.com/jural.htm#The Book of the Hundreds
: Today's courts are there to enforce codelaw (rules + regulation) not to argue matters of law.
: By E.O. FDR altered one word one word in the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.A. App., Sec. 1 et, seq.),which made people living in the states enemies of the United States, and subjected them for revenue purposes to licensure in all commercial activities. Instead of this Act (originally passed during WW1) applying to persons doing bussiness with the enemy 'without the United States' it was changed to read to 'within the United States'.(E.O. No. 2040, March 9, 1933 was ratified by Congress)
: An address is federal + you are a postal customer in a commercial venue accepting the free benefit of mail delivery + pickup to your address.
All adresses are federal? Or just an Address?
Why are the local AGENCIES such sticklers for spelling?
Why does a local Government Agency state their legal
Address to be "Wn." instead of the more common WA?
: RE:: I can understand how the "We the People" federation as you put it,
: : could be dissolved. The underlying nations (states) with the State
: : as their political representative, do not automatically dissolve because the
: : union is compromised. That would have to take place with so many separate
: : operations.
: The northern States dissolved themselves voluntarily + re-coneved under the military authority of the federal GOV.. Read the Lieber code carefully especially concerning the collection of taxes and the take over of law enforcement by the occupying forces + or the installed Gov.
: The old State gov.s could no longer collect taxes or enforce law so the were denied their existance.
: STATE OF GA. v. STANTON, 73 U.S. 50 (1867)<>The CHIEF JUSTICE
: The Attorney-General quite understates the effects of these Reconstruction Acts. Their actual effect is to restrain at once the holding of any election within the State for any [73
: U.S. 50, 64] officers of the present State government by any of the State authorities; to direct all future elections in the State to be held under the direction of, and by officers appointed by, the military commander; and that all persons of certain classes described shall be the electors permitted to vote at such election. It is, therefore, an immediate paralysis of all the authority and power of the State government by military force; a plain setting aside of the
: present State government, and depriving it of the necessary means of continuing its existence. It is substituting in its place a new government, created under a new constitution, and elected by a new and independent class of electors.
Dissolving the State Governments through occupation
does not dissolve the underlying people charter. It does remove
any practical chance to invoke the governance of laws that
may or may not exist, and they are relegated to oblivion. It does
not appear that a mere statute is enough to dissolve these charters.
Practical matters are of course different. In the older documents, the
dissolution/formation of government appears to be a right expressly preserved
to the people. So they stand, but have no force of law, since no force
is currently in existence on their behalf. But it is only the force that is lacking.
: : : You can go live like the old order Amish or Quaker anytime you want. Do not deal commerce, operate a motor vehicle upon a PUBLIC roadway or become employed. (Lots of choices right?)
: : Sounds impractical. Are they the only available role-models?
: Pretty much so, no matter what anybody that wants your money tells you. Control yourself or law a enforcement agency will control you by force.
: : : Most lawyer and legislative tricks deal in grammer, misnomer and peoples assumption.
: : Got that far. The statute law committees tutorial on grammar
: : is quite extensive.
: : : Like Bo Bo Gritz told the Freemen; "the law has changed."
: : :
: : : Yes, Bo Bo knows the truth but he preached that the "Constitution" is Law the last I heard of him.
: : : Pychological Operation most likely!
: : Aren't they all?
: Yes but which has your best interests in mind?
Hard to say. Aren't they all vying for a constituency
of sufficient size in order to 'enforce' their desires?
: There are no lawful State Citizens recognized by any authority.
Could be. But the distinction appears to be broader than that.
Where is a "man" recognized in the current system? Can the "man"
So if we are all CATTLE, to be PENNED and HARVESTED,
why this pre-occupation with ENTIFICATION through the
application of voluntary contracts? Why is it so important
to have the signature, if the rule is by force?
I think sometime it is in order to separate the status of "man",
and provide an easier item to grapple with.
commerce, Commerce, COMMERCE?
What is commerce? Is it confined to the traficking in
FRN's by contractually bound entities? Is a French company
that recives $US denominated FRN's "in commerce". I doubt it.
So there is a boundary.
Does a FRN enter commerce in a hand to hand exchange,
or does this occur when it is deposited to an ENTITY account?
Deposit a check (if YOU have an account). The entire DEPOSIT
is credited to the ENTITY, and if you receive an in hand delivery
of cash as a portion, it is sometimes referred to as CASH BACK,
and I guess from the ENTITY YOU, to the man.you. The man does not
appear to have an accounting obligation, but the ENTITY surely DOES.
Can entities (fictions) comprehend reality (legally, lawfully)?
Does the line comprehend the square, does the square comprehend the cube?
Does the law recognize the real (the substance), be it gold, silver,
paper, land etc.?
Where is the boundary of the contract that binds?
There is no doubt that the ENTITY is bound.
We currently can be amused or saddened by the national
spectacle of trying to separate the office of the President,
from the private affairs of the man.
Post a Followup