United States of America vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How can something be against itself? What the heck is this guy talking about? Let me explain, First the spelling of the country is different for a reason. I could be wrong on this and anyone can correct me as they feel fit. My understanding is that the one spelled in proper English represents the sovereign states made up of the sovereign people who formed a defense pact to protect their unalienable (pronounced un-a-lien-able..meaning your rights cannot be aliened or levied ) rights. This pact formed was a republican form of government with strict rules the government must obey. This form also protected the minority from the majority, treated everyone the same (no classes), and protected everybody's unalienable rights.Read more at Ed and Elaine MySpace blog.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
9:22 PM
16 Comments:
Who do they think they are. Judges of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DELAWARE.
Jurisdiction of the Tax Court
The Tax Court provides a judicial forum in which affected persons can dispute tax deficiencies determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue prior to payment of the disputed amounts. The jurisdiction of the Tax Court includes, but is not limited to the authority to hear:
1. tax disputes concerning notices of deficiency
2. notices of transferee liability
3. certain types of declaratory judgment
4. readjustment and adjustment of partnership items
5. review of the failure to abate interest
6. administrative costs
7. worker classification
8. relief from joint and several liability on a joint return
9. review of certain collection actions
The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Dobson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 320 U.S. 489 (1943), that decisions of the Tax Court were subject to very limited review by the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to over-ride the Court's opinion in Dobson, now codified in Internal Revenue Code section 7482, providing that decisions of the Tax Court may be reviewed by the applicable geographical United States Court of Appeals[5] but not the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See Article I and Article III tribunals). Note, however, that "Small Tax Cases", conducted under I.R.C. section 7463, are NOT appealable (nor are they precedential).
At times there have been movements by Congress and the Tax Bar to create a single national Court of Appeals for tax cases (or make Tax Court decisions appealable to a single existing Court of Appeals), to maintain uniformity in the application of the nation's tax laws (the very reason underlying the creation of the Tax Court and the grant of national jurisdiction to the Tax Court), but efforts to avoid "hometown results" or inconsistent results due to a lack of expertise, have failed.
[edit] Judges
The Tax Court is composed of 19 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.[6] Reappointment, when requested by a Tax Court judge (I.R.C. 7447(b)(3)) generally is generally pro forma regardless of the political party of the appointing President and the political party of the re-appointing (sitting) President.
President George W. Bush was heavily criticized by the U.S. Congress, the Tax Bar, and others when he indicated that he likely would not, or might not, re-appoint Tax Court judges whose terms were expiring (even though the first Judge whose re-appointment President Bush called into question was appointed by President Ronald Reagan). President Bill Clinton also was criticized for not acting timely to re-appoint Tax Court judges, having allowed one sitting Chief Judge's term to expire, thus requiring the Tax Court to elect a new Chief Judge. Additionally, several Tax Court Judges had to wait more than a year (sometimes more than two years) to be reappointed during the Clinton presidency.
Trial sessions are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by its judges, by senior judges serving on recall, and by special trial judges. All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws, and are tasked to "apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed only what they owe, and no more". Although the "principal office" of the Court is located in the District of Columbia, Tax Court judges may sit "at any place within the United States".[7] The judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various designated cities. The work of the Tax Court has occasionally been interrupted by events. In 2001, a trial session in New York City was canceled due to the September 11th terrorist attacks. In 2005, stops in Miami and New Orleans were cancelled due to the effects of hurricanes which had struck shortly before their scheduled visit to each city.
Sitting Judges
* John O. Colvin, Chief Judge
* Carolyn P. Chiechi
* Mary Ann Cohen
* Maurice B. Foley
* Joseph H. Gale
* Joseph Robert Goeke
* Harry A. Haines
* James S. Halpern
* Mark V. Holmes
* Diane L. Kroupa
* David Laro
* L. Paige Marvel
* Stephen J. Swift
* Michael B. Thornton
* Juan F. Vasquez
* Thomas B. Wells
* Robert A. Wherry, Jr.
Senior Judges
* Renato Beghe
* Herbert L. Chabot
* Howard A. Dawson, Jr.
* Joel Gerber
* Julian I. Jacobs
* Arthur L. Nims, III
* Robert P. Ruwe
* Laurence J. Whalen
Special Trial Judges
* Peter J. Panuthos, Chief Special Trial Judge
* Robert N. Armen
* Lewis R. Carluzzo
* D. Irvin Couvillion
* John F. Dean
* Stanley J. Goldberg
* Carleton D. Powell
Here's a thought; but it would take a lot of guts to actually do it. [This is taking BOYCOTTING to the max.]
If you ever find yourself in court as a "defendant"...
1. Do not identify yourself by giving your name.
2. When pressed, say, "I do not understand".
3. When threatened with contempt of court, say, "I do not understand".
4. Do not sign anything.
5. When they haul you off to jail, no matter what they ask or say, respond with "I do not understand".
6. If they send you for a psych evaluation, to all questions say, "I am a free individual who has committed no crime."
7. Do not sign anything.
Eventually, according to some folks who have done this, you will be released...usually within 72 hours of the beginning of the whole thing. They don't really know how to cope with such behavior.
I've never actually done any of the above (though I may someday), but have read of several individuals who have done it successfully---at least, according to them.
I think it's worth a shot because if you are ever charged with a tax crime and wind up in court, you're pretty much screwed. [Yes, I know...Tom Cryer...but consider this: 1) his case is the exception to the rule; and, 2) I doubt that the IRS is done with him yet.
Just food for thought.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
I've heard this UNITED STATES is a Corporation story for decades, but I've never seen one shred of proof of same. I'm not saying that there is no proof, just that I've never seen any. G. Edward Griffin says the same thing. People tell this story over and over, usually citing each other as sources, but evidence is never presented.
I'm open to viewing any evidence.
Saying that the Corporate Charter has expired but the U.S. continues to operate as a Corporation is also, as far as I know, an unproven allegation.
Where's the beef?
Sincerely,
Scott
I agree with Scott. I need to see some proof. Until someone shows me four doors, I'm going to call it a coupe.
And about the "bar". It does not refer to the "British Accredited Registry" or "British Aristocratic Regency" or "British Accreditation Registration".
The "bar" is a term that does come from England, but it is not an acronym. Rather, it refers to the rail that surrounded the plaintiff and the defendant in the court room. Those who passed their education and became a lawyer was "admitted to the bar".
BAR. 1. A partition or railing running across a court-room, intending to separate the general public from the space occupied by the judges, counsel, jury, and others concerned in the trial of a cause. . . . the whole body of attorneys and counselors, or the members of the legal profession, collectively, who are figuratively called the “bar.” They are thus distinguished from the “bench,” which term denotes the whole body of judges. . . Black’s 6th. See Note.
Note: Corporations are held “in bar,” i.e. controlled by attorneys. With regard to the bar and the bench, the Authors have confirmed that various British Companies own the following United States and State of California copyrighted “law”: The Thompson Group, LLC, LTD, with offices located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada owns, inter alia: West Publishing Company; Barclays West Group; Bancroft Whitney; Clark Bordman, Callaghan; Legal Solutions; Rutter Group; Warren, Gorham & Lamont; Lawyer’s Coop; Reed Elsevier owns, inter alia: Lexis; Deerings Codes. It has also been confirmed that Black’s Law Dictionary is copyrighted British law and that the American Bar Association is a branch or subset of the Bar Council (sole bar association in England and Wales). As the copyrighted property of a British company, all state Codes are private, commercial, British-owned “law.” It is thereby reasonably concluded that all state Courts, state bar associations, and the “State of [each of the 50 states of the Union],” all of which utilize and enforce private, de facto, commercial, British-owned “law” against state residents, are operating as private, foreign-owned, commercial tribunals or administrative agencies doing business in the states under cover and color of “[each of the 50 states of the Union] law.”
UNITED STATES [U.S., US]. “United States” means— (A) a federal corporation: . . . 28 USC § 3002(15), Ch. 176. It is clear that the United States . . .is a corporation . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724. This term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Black’s 6th. The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with respect to a State. 19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 884, In re: Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed in U.S. v. Perkins 163 U.S. 625. See Note, District of Columbia, “in this state,” Clearfield Trust Doctrine. Compare United States of America.
Note: It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chap. 62 (reorganized June 11, 1873); a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549, and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, 6111, and 6246; a de facto (see de facto) government; originally the 10-square miles tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington, D.C., plus the possessions, territories, forts, docks, and arsenals (tract from Virginia was retroceded in 1846), For a corporate history of “United States, Inc.” see “Demise of the American Constitutional Republic” in Appendix.
for more information on the CORPORATE US go to this link it explains how the corporation was formed
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
RE: "UNITED STATES [U.S., US]. “United States” means— (A) a federal corporation: . . . 28 USC § 3002(15), Ch. 176. It is clear that the United States . . .is a corporation..."---
Statutes use language in a sometimes uncommon way. That section deals with federal corporations, such as COMSAT. For purposes of brevity and conciseness, that law uses the "United States", instead of listing every single U.S.-owned corporation (such as COMSAT), when it addresses law that applies to those several individual corporations.
Definitions in one Statute are not applicable in another Statute unless so cited. In other words, the meaning of "United States" in that section of 28 USC does not extend beyond that Statute.
It is easy to see how people misinterpreted that definition; however, the definition is not stating that the entire U.S. is a corporation. It is instead using the term "United States" rather than having to list all of the federally-owned corporations every time some rule applies to them IN THAT STATUTE.
Sincerely,
Scott
P.S.
The "District of Columbia" is not the same thing as "the United States". DC is only the SEAT (location) of the Federal Govt...it's a City comprising a certain area known as the District of Columbia.
It is true that Washington, DC was ONCE in the form of a corporation. That didn't last long.
Many people in the Liberty Movement (or whatever other name you wish to call this) have equated DC with the United States Government. It's not true to my knowledge. DC has its own government, that of "Washington, DC"---its own mayor, representatives, police, etc. It's not comparable to any other City because it's not in a County...it's in a special District, DC.
The Fed Govt is entirely separate.
To Albany,
Forgive me, but I can't tell from your format in your comments (including the use of quotation marks) exactly what source you're quoting at different times.
I see "Black's 6th", but can't tell if your whole comment is from that source or not. ???
I also see "Note", but it's not clear to me if that is supposed to be from "Black's" as well, or from somewhere else.
I also see "534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724"---is that a title of a document? The assertions before and after it have no quote marks. Are those assertions from the SUPPLEMENT? Who is the author (or publisher) of same?
I also see "Demise of the American Constitutional Republic", but it seems to be only recommended reading, not the source for any of your quotes above it. Is that correct?
The only thing I'm sure of is that you quoted a tiny portion of 28 USC part 3002(15), Chapter 176. I'm very familiar with that cite, and I can assure you that (in context) it is NOT saying that the entire U.S. is a Federal Corporation. I realize that it appears to, but only if you read that definition out of context.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
To Albany:
RE: "It has also been confirmed that Black’s Law Dictionary is copyrighted British law and that the American Bar Association is a branch or subset of the Bar Council (sole bar association in England and Wales)."---
"Confirmed" by whom?
Black's is not British law...it's a dictionary.
To Albany:
I went to your "serendipity" source. Actually, I've seen Lisa Guliani's article before.
I do find it intriguing, but here's the problem--
It would take at least a hundred hours of research for me to VERIFY what she claims. Just because she claims that the "Act of 1871" did such-and-such, does not mean that is necessarily the case.
If I can find the time (in spurts), I'll attempt the research.
NOTE:
It is no easy task in many cases to deconstruct Fed Statutes in order to determine what is actually being said. I know this for a fact because of:
1. having a job (in the past) for seven years in which one of my primary tasks was to interpret Fed (and State) environmental statutes and regulations; and,
2. constructing & teaching a 600-hour (hours, not
credits) "Environmental Technician Training Program" for a private vocational college [that also involved interpreting Fed & State statutes and regulations];
3. analyzing 26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 for about five years (off & on, obviously).
I can't just accept what she says as being correct.
Sincerely,
Scott
Scott, All you need to know is the the Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation that has a monopoly on our money supply and prints notes backed by nothing out of thin air. Do you agree? It does not matter if the government is a well oiled machine, once the people loose control of their money supply, its lights out. So this debate is just beating a dead horse although the points and observations you make are well taken.
Albany,
I certainly do agree that the Fed Reserve is a private corporation, and I agree that fiat money and the control of central bankers is ruining this country.
All of that is a separate (but related) issue.
Those who pursue this UNITED STATES is a corporation issue are going much further. According to them, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) rules our Govt, and that an individual can opt out of anything because everything is a voluntary COMMERCIAL contract.
I agree that free individuals have the unalienable right to opt out of being under the control of Govt rules, but the UCC has nothing to do with it. We can opt out (as long as we don't infringe on the rights or property of others) simply because it's an unalienable right to do so...it's Natural Law.
Confusing things by inserting the UCC is not helpful relative to getting people to understand the concept of individual sovereignty.
The whole issue of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the UCC, etc. only muddies the waters in terms of understanding individual rights.
We are more or less on the same page.
:)
Gentlemen, gentlemen, please it is important to find the truth, the specific truth, the "self evident truth" ("we don't need no stinkin badge"). It is all relevant!! It is either treachery or a blessing. If it is not a blessing then it becomes sour. If in fact the "United States" is in fact a corporation then the constitution reads much differently!!!!!! I have loved the constitution most of my life and I also know that "they" have and are required to swear and oath to uphold it. At the very least we can say it is an invalid contract but a contract that they swear an oath to. We DO NOT swear an oath to it we are NOT subject to it!! it is their oath they have taken and a contract that they are liable to. However it is not enforced on them. Why? How have they become immune from prosecution?
Simply because they have violated their oaths as well as infringed upon others unalienable rights and at the very least should be prosecuted as an equal never the less as a servant or that which they have obligated themselves to. Which is to protect our rights.
That when a Government misuses its powers to have control over the people it is their duty to throw it off and institute another that --- Does what? -- Protects their rights!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no ambiguity in those words!!! It is the creation of an irrevokable trust and that is the mission statement. All the rest is subject to that mission statement and don't mean crap if it does not fulfill it or and especially if it goes against it!!!!
Let me explain in layman terms. How much rape is acceptable? None!!! for any reason!!! else we could make a case that 80% of people in jail were sexually molested as children and therefor for the good of the country the good for the whole etc. all men and women by code are allowed to have sex with someone in order to prevent them from becoming a criminal. Call it a sex tax. You see how ridiculous that is? And Scott, I'm sure there are some that would find your booty appetizing.
You see until you can actually feel the pain, the degradation, the fear it doesn't hit home. It is wrong and if it violates even one persons rights it inherently violates all of our rights. In other laymen terms, the moment you fear your body guard or your kids, pets, wife, friends, your household, your belongings, property, papers or effects are in fear in the slightest way, then it is time to get rid of that body guard!!!
Even if it were legitimate it is no longer the moment the people are in fear. I'm in fear all the time and most of the people I know are too. If you don't do what they tell you to do (involuntary servitude) when they tell you to do it, how they tell you to do it and you have to be inspected and evaluated by them... You clearly are not free. This is self evident. It is also self evident that no government has or can create people (with spirit and free will) but people do create government. Therefor how can the created tell the creators what to do?
Even if you look at nature, No two snowflakes are the same and therefore the creator clearly loves diversity. Rules inhibit diversity going against the creators intentions!!! Also, the creator does not impose his,her,its, will upon us (else we would all be believing in the same God) Therefor it is self evident that we must not impose our will individually or through threat, coercions, group will, law, code, ordinance, or custom, upon any other!!! That in it's self is tyranny and uncivilized and the supposed reason for government to exist is to allow civilization to prosper by protecting us collectively from bullies, con artist, Lawyers, bankers, monopolies, kings, and all other powers we can not defend our selves from. Especially in the court system!!! The moment they are not protecting us and our rights they automatically vacate their actual or perceived positions of power.
Now I have learned that when they capitalize a word or begin it with a capital letter then it is because they have used the word in such a manner that is contrary to the American or common usage and it must be looked up. So lets say that the Constitution is a legal document for a moment and read it again with new understanding. We the people or the United States (corporation), in order to form a more perfect Union (between us and ourselves and other corporative entities), establish Justice (our form and definition of justice), insure domestic Tranquility(our interpretation or tranquility), provide for the common defense (from any subvert that might try to resist), promote the general Welfare(make everyone a welfare recipient subject to us, social security), and secure the Blessings (Money , power and control) of Liberty(to do as we damn well please to everyone else) to ourselves and our Posterity (notice it does not say to all people, sovereigns, or any others, just to themselves and who they choose), do ordain (create a religious position) and establish (who the hell are they to establish anything that gives power over any other?) this Constitution (as apposed to what other?) for (Ok who is this made for?) The United States of America.
In short, the cooperate United States assumes dominion over the Americans on the land of States United together in mutual respect. Not The United States of America strengthens its dominion over its' self.
Hay I didn't write it, I’m just reading it the way it was written!! and funny as it may seem it is exactly what has happened, imagine that!!!!! It is self evident!!!! Bottom line, a cancer will kill it's host. So if you think it is going to self correct and get better, think again!!! you must be proactive!!!! it is not rape if you don't say NO!!! So now the past generations have let it go and go and go, it is time now for us to individually and collectively educate with the truth and say NO!!! Remember it does not say that we can if we want to, it sais it is our Duty (obligation) to throw off as you throw off a coat Because the coat is owned by us, and institute a new one that does protect our unalienable rights and all rights and all privileges and all immunities, all six hundred million, three hundred thousand and six of them not six hundred million rules, codes, policies, ordinances, customs, etc. telling us what to do and not to do!!!!!! Unalienable means (can not be diminished, altered, changes nor transferred) Can Not be transferred!!!! Willingly or other wise!!! CAn't be given up!! Can't be taken away or reduced, altered, undermined or anything else that infringes them!! They are not even ours to give up because we did not give them to ourselves. if we can not give them up they can not be taken away especially by those we pay or even assume we pay and have sworn an oath to protect us and these rights!!!!
Lets forget haggling and realize the self evident truth that we must find a way to put the genie back in the bottle to overt serious blood shed. We need to be clever together and find the way to throw it off and institute one that is not so easily corrupted. Or better still don't even have a government keep it the way it was intended, self governing people and governed by the people any military force.
You say "show me" I say show me where this fiction government is not acting like a corporation with self interests and then I might begin to believe it isn't!!! The fact that it is the largest employer in the country should scare the living crap out of everyone!!!! The fact that "It" "owns" land or anything else proves it is a corporation!!!!!! The fact that "they" can enforce their own "no trespassing" signs means it is a corporation (a fiction acting as a person). The fact that even one honest Sovereign fears them means we have a problem and it is a fact that most Americans fear them on a daily bases!!!!! There is a self evident problem!!!! We MUST do something about it. So lets stop spending our energy on rebutting each other and get on with the business at hand. Putting them back in the box. if you have government experience then you should use it to help the task not hinder it, though keeping the truth accurate is important!! So perhaps the house is on fare to you or on fire to another it is still in flames and we need to put it out!!!
As I've said many times, the whole house of cards will fall (as it should) IF we will BOYCOTT.
Govt forms, directives, programs, etc. all require our consent. No one ever forced you to fill out a Govt form...you did it out of fear (or, in some cases, perhaps hope of gain).
No more fear...
BOYCOTT
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home