14th Amendment - Page 2

#11 03-07-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>Randy<o

></o

>

More important is how do you perceive yourself.

Evenin, James....

Not to be facetious, but if I was asked to answer that, right now, under oath, under penalty of perjury, and all that other stuff, my answer would have to be:

"I don't know."

I've been at this with these "agents" for over four years. The first couple of years, I'd argue, point-for-point. For the last couple of years, my "posture" is like that of Jerseee's: I don't argue. I offer nothing.

When I deal with 'em now, I pretend I'm a rock. Don't know anything. I start with whatever they happen to include in the current correspondence, and I stick to that, and that only. And my response is always the same: Prove it.

Prove authority. Prove the debt. Verify the debt.

I've learned--really learned'--the beauty and wisdom of "you have the right to remain silent" by simply having chosen this battle and watching my opponents. Every letter they send is filled with "stuff" which is, well, amazing stupidity. (Quick example: My wife just got a letter from VA Dept of Tax. They "demanded" payment based on information from IRS which "suggest" a debt...")

So from one sentence they give me:

1) Prove authorization for exchange of information.
2) Verify that information. (certified copies, etc.)
3) Prove the debt. (I love the "suggests a debt" thing.)

So the more they "talk," the more I get to demonstrate my "good faith" at attempting to resolve it all by doing nothing more than the law allows/requires, which is insist that they prove...everything.

Great post, James. I gotta start researching all that stuff.

Randy

&

Jerseee · #12 03-07-2004, 08:32 PM

randy,

Your post has brought me to tears!! Good show!

#13 03-07-2004, 08:46 PM

Hi, Jerseee!

Thanks.

The only people in this country who truly know how the "system" works are real "criminals" (those who HAVE broken "the law" and seen it from both sides--I once was a correctional officer, back in '78, and that was the beginning of "enlightenment" for me as to how corrupt and outta control this country really is), and, well, folks like us, who are truly doing nothing more than desparately trying to OBEY the law.& And for THAT we have to put up the rudeness, arrogance, and indolence of a bunch of cretins?& I don't think so.

But like YOU said--and it took me a while to learn it--the "secret" is like our mommies told us--"Play nice."

They hate that, don't they?

Take care of yourself.

Randy

James · #14 03-07-2004, 08:50 PM

goldphoenix<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>

<o

></o

>
>>What two adhesion contracts are those?<<<o

></o

>

Payments to “Social Security” and the use of the “Postal Service.”
<o

></o

>&<o

></o

>
>>Does one become a 14th amendment by accepting government (state/federal) benefits?<<<o

></o

>
I can’t give you a positive yes or no at this time. I can tell you in law it would be better to receive without prejudice, than to accept government-benefits. <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>Is there any way to reclaim those rights once they are lost (if lost through acceptance of benefits)?<<<o

></o

>
Yes <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>So once you have paid into or accepted social security benefits, that makes one a 14th amendment citizen? Again, the above questions come to mind.<<<o

></o

>
The "United States Department of Justice" declared in a "United States District Court" (actually a Tribunal) that "United States citizenship" is based upon contracts.& The "Attorney General," by and through his agent, proclaimed the payment of Social Security and use of the Postal Service are contracts of co-surety, binding anyone so contracting under these contracts to mandatory federal taxation and federal authority.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>For some reason, I can't get that link to work for me.<< <o

></o

>
I apologize. Try this: http://tenfoundation.com/freedompath.htm then right click on the icon.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>Okay. How does one voluntarily UNsubmit themselves to statutes?<<<o

></o

>
How did one voluntarily submit themselves to statutes?<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Greetings Randy<o

></o

>
<o

></o

>

>>Not to be facetious, but if I was asked to answer that, right now, under oath, under penalty of perjury, and all that other stuff, my answer would have to be: "I don't know."<<<o

></o

>
Fair enough, let me help you out if I can

. You are a homo sapien (male or female) endowed by your Creator, Elohim (God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.<o

></o

>
We are all stewards and students on this planet. “For not one of us lives to himself, and not one dies to himself. For both, if we live, we live unto the Master, and if we die, we die unto the Master. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Master’s.” Romans 14:7,8 (The Scriptures)<o

></o

>

>>For the last couple of years, my "posture" is like that of Jerseee's: I don't argue. I offer nothing.<<<o

></o

>
Good posture to have. “…But let your Yea be Yea, and your No, No, lest you fall into judgment.” Ya’aqob (James) 5:12 (The Scriptures)<o

></o

>

goldphoenix · #15 03-25-2004, 08:26 AM

Does anyone know:

Is removing oneself from 14th amendment federal citizenship as simple as revoking signatures based on the fact that all terms were not disclosed to one?

Are there any contracts on which the signature cannot be revoked? I have read that selective service (or signing up in the military) and possibly w-4's fall into that category. Can anyone please affirm or deny this as a fact?

Thanks!

goldphoenix

Ice · #16 03-25-2004, 02:05 PM

goldphoenix,

I believe these questions are answered in the Cancellatura documents thread.

&

weishaupt1776 · #17 01-18-2005, 01:38 AM

Please heed this suggestion before you get all psyched up about something & impulsively click the start a new thread button.
This is to avoid 2,000 people posting the same subject. There might be one that already exists in which you can post. If the 2,000 plus members here constantly started new threads whenever they felt like it, we'd have alot of trouble finding stuff.

Go to search, scroll to the forum topic you think your possible new thread would be in.

Then click the option search by thread title

type in the keyword which your general title would be

Consider the fact that there are researches who type in general keyword headings, so think about titling it relevant to what you want to post in order to help other reaearchers out. Ask yourself the question,"what keyword would I punch in on google in order to find this."

So what I did was type in "Fourteenth Amendment" & nothing came up

Then I typed in "14th Amendment" & this thread came up.

"V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
*The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that
all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1; 14 Stat. 27.
*The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and, on June 16, 1866, by joint resolution, proposed it to the legislatures of the several States, and on July 28, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proclamation showing it to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of States.* 14 Stat. 358; 1 Stat. 708.
*The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution begins with the words,
*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.* It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.* Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.* The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101.* But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited."* U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 675-6* (emphasis mine applies to this whole message)
*
From page 668 of the same case:* "By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States.* In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory.
*
*And page 692-3, "In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and, in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.* It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race.* The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship.* The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.* The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.* The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.
Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.
*
After what you quote is written on page 701-2:* "By the act of July 14, 1870, c. 254, § 7, for the first time, the naturalization laws were "extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent."* 16 Stat. 256.* This extension, as embodied in the Revised Statutes, took the form of providing that those laws should "apply to aliens [being free white persons, and to aliens] of African nativity and to persons of African descent;" and it was amended by the act of February 18, 1875, c. 80, by inserting the words above printed in brackets.* Rev.Stat. (2d ed.) § 2169; 18 Stat. 318.* Those statutes were held, by the Circuit Court of the United States in California, not to embrace Chinese aliens.* In re Ah Yup (1878), 5 Sawyer 155.* And by the act of May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 14, it was expressly enacted that "hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship."* 22 Stat. 61."
*
Page 703-4:* "No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized.* If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens.by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment."

weishaupt1776 · #18 03-02-2005, 04:10 AM

16 AM JUR Second, Section 93

AM Jur 16 Second in Section 94, pg 423

*

The conclusion of the court that the 14th amendment was intended basically to secure full liberty to the colored race was responsible for the slaughter house cases 83 U.S. as well as others.

*

FN 51 Its main purpose doubtless was as has been recognized in this court to establish the citizenship of free negros. Maxwell v.* Dow 176 US 581, 44 layers ed. 597 (disapproved on other grounds Duncan v Lousianana 391 us 145 Williams v Florida , 399 us 78

*

Other sections 91- to at least sec.*96 talk about the foundation of the Constitution.
Here*are*three Sup. Ct. cases that are used in the other sections about the foundation of the Constitution.* I haven't read them yet, but wanted to share the numbers with others who want to get started.

*

Ex Parte Bain 121 US 1

*

Jarrolt v. Moberly 103 US 580

*

Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 US 539

B Rookard · #19 03-03-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldphoenix

Does anyone know:

Is removing oneself from 14th amendment federal citizenship as simple as revoking signatures based on the fact that all terms were not disclosed to one?

Are there any contracts on which the signature cannot be revoked? I have read that selective service (or signing up in the military) and possibly w-4's fall into that category. Can anyone please affirm or deny this as a fact?

Thanks!

goldphoenix

Of all the "methods" that tax protestors conjure up to evade taxes, this is the only one that comes closest to being correct.

Expatriation is the one method where one can free himself of taxation by the U.S.

However, you MUST leave the country in order for it to work (otherwise your "expatriation" is not effective). Tax protestors think they can "expatriate" while staying here ... it doesn't work like that.

Think of it like this ... you're living in someone's house and paying rent. One day, you decide you want to be free from rent. You say to your landlord "I want to be free of stinkin' rent, I'm going to free myself of my bonds to pay you rent!" Your landlord says "fine, you can leave then." However, you really like the house and want to stay there, you just don't want to pay the rent. You continue to stay in the landlords house.

Can the landlord justifiably say that you didn't *really* want to leave ... you just wanted to get something for nothing?

Can the landlord demand payment of the rent despite your claim you wanted to be free from rent?

Sure he can.

Expatriation is the same concept.

This "house" called America belongs to everyone ... and everyone can demand that you help foot the bill for all the wonderful things you receive because of everyone's collective effort.

If you don't want to share the costs, fine. If you don't want to be part of this society ... you can leave. That's how it works.

8 USC 1481 gives the ways you can lose your nationality.

8 USC 1483(a) points to the necessary restriction ... you CANNOT lose your nationality while within the U.S.

weishaupt1776 · #20 03-03-2005, 06:25 AM

Tell me B, out of the 3 definitions of United States which are well settled by the U.S. Supreme Courts, which one of the 3 are you presuming is being used when some one is presumed to be a U.S. citizen?

If you can't prove that using citations/authorities ONLY, then how can someone expatriate from something they were never a part of in the first place?

Also, regardingyour presumption that the Income Tax pays for roads and the like, show me Documents/Records/Authorities which rebut the Grace Commission report which declared that the so called "Income Tax" just goes towards paying off the National Debt

P.S Newbies, don't let this guy scare you off.
Keep studying and let his arguments make you stronger.