Show Me The Law?

[mrg]

No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...

Article I Section 10 Clause 1

Notwithstanding this:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There is only one purpose to having a government, Constitution and Constitutional Republic to begin with:

To protect property rights.

That is so fundamental, and was so fundamentally understood that they did not even write it into the federal constitution except that No state shall abrogate the obligations of contract.

It is inherent in the federal constitution that the federal government will never have that power, never had.

seems to be this:

...provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment...obstruct the power of the Congress...and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress...

...every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment...is declared to be against public policy;

and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.

Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged...

Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed


excerpted and abstracted from:
GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. HENWOOD, 307 U.S. 247 (1939)

Is there "...this Constitution for the United States of America," on the one hand, in which is inherent that the "Obligation of Contract" "shall" NOT be impaired, EVER, on the one hand, and PUBLIC POLICY, on the other hand, which apparently proceeds to do just that?

If so, where is reconciliation between inherent, immutable "Law" and an apparently contradistinct "Public Policy," if any?

And what are the mechanics of both, individually, in and of themselves, and in correlation, if any?

Need to know.

[clipper]

KarenM I had never heard of Larkin Rose before you mentioned the name but it does appear they wanted to make an example of him. IMO flaunting yourself is always a bad idea.

TPTB won't respond to show me the law, they defined their own rules of what (foreign) specific sources are so if they mis-interpreted the 16th, they can't possibly have a beef if we comply to their contract rules (but obviously they will never admit wrong,)

arguing lack of Constitutionallity to tax income doesn't work even though the Supreme Court has ruled "The 16th gave Congress no new powers to tax,"

most courts simply refer to the ALL CAPS STRAWMAN separate person approach as the "Idiot law arguement,

a good case (in common English) can be made for all of these but all have been summarily dismissed under Admiralty rules.

Sounds like preferred-stock poor millionare's like Ed and Elaine Brown are about to thrown in the wood-chipper, forget about common-stock like Larkin Rose.

What's left?

We are obviously held to contract law with them, they have purposely made the contract provisions so self obfuscating no one of the parties can possibly understand it, does this not render the legal contract null and void of substance or penalty by that fact alone? I'm sure they won't allow that either.

They have removed all lawful money from us. The only legal way to settle a debt is to "discharge it" (via the de facto New Deal law of course.) What if one were to "accept it as value" annually allowing them to create more of their own monopoly money? TPTB probably won't go for that either.

The best analogy I can think of here is the old (admittly chauvanistic, no offence intended KarenM) joke that:

Woman make all the rules,
Men are not allowed to know the rules,
If a man wants to know the rules, he must ask a woman,
If a woman suspects that a man knows the rules, she must immediately change some or all of the rules.

Accordingly, it seems that if we figure out their rules, they must immediatly change the rules, or if they can't, they adopt a new lanquage (ie: re definition of common words). To quote the NWO hairball "Three-dollar Bill" Clinton "Define the word SEX."

If that all fails, and I'm sure nothing is alloted for success , what about the last resort purported by Rbt. Menard.

"You Honor, I respectfully decline to accept the judgement of this court."

Yeah, I'll bet that would fly in the black robed Admiralty "voluntary compliance" tribunals of the Revived Roman Empire.

~~~~~~~~~

Mrg, Nice GITMO pics. LOL

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by KarenM

For the IRS' official view, see their revenue ruling

I'm merely posting an informational, factual response to your inquiry, not supporting the IRS. So it would be nice if others refrained from casting aspersions me for doing that.

The IRS rulings have no force outside of the kangaroo tax courts. They are not law and the majority of them are self-serving. In other words....

what would you expect them to say?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by clipper

We are obviously held to contract law with them, they have purposely made the contract provisions so self obfuscating no one of the parties can possibly understand it, does this not render the legal contract null and void of substance or penalty by that fact alone?

It's the 14th amendment citizenship contract

Unfortunately, the ones who do take this position in court are dismissed as frivolous because they don't have an a priori notice & challenge to the proper agencies established PRIOR to an action. This is because they think that "claiming who you are" in a brief is good enough without referencing any exhibits, well grounded in law; showing a PREVIOUS administrative paper trail between them and such agencies.

They are further dismissed as "frivolous" because they are talking about how "sovereign" they are, but still have passports, DL's, Birth Certificates, use SSN's, Bank accts & credit cards w/SSN's, etc . .

The issue the Supreme Court has been dodging BEFORE the 16th Amendment is how the Reconstruction acts unlawfully imposed the 14th amendment status contract which is PRESUMED upon everyone at birth and which is used to rope you into the US Code (including, but certainly not limited to Title 26)

The admiralty approach in "Ae you lost at sea" is another way to skin the cat as well, but is limited in that it only addresses the income tax, while the status approach is more far reaching

[mrg]

...............

[clipper]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

It's the 14th amendment citizenship contract

Unfortunately, the ones who do take this position in court are dismissed as frivolous because they don't have an a priori notice & challenge to the proper agencies established PRIOR to an action. This is because they think that "claiming who you are" in a brief is good enough without referencing any exhibits, well grounded in law; showing a PREVIOUS administrative paper trail between them and such agencies.

I'm confident this info is already discussed elsewhere here so rather than ask you to reiterate it all here might you provide links to the threads I should study?

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

It's the 14th amendment citizenship contractThey are further dismissed as "frivolous" because they are talking about how "sovereign" they are, but still have passports, DL's, Birth Certificates, use SSN's, Bank accts & credit cards w/SSN's, etc.

The DL appears lawful for commerce purposes only and therefore would be necessary in certain circumstances where you would be stuck with the de facto statutory laws while in that commerce. The other "beast" numbers? I'm not fully sure of what to do with yet. I've read so much lately and my little pin-head is swimming in scads of info/dis-info, it's difficult to determine which is which.

Can you also provide links of solid, provable info on the 14th Amendment Dual-Citizenship corporate strawman-person that doesn't just wax poetic? I've been looking at the PAC site info and it all seems very solid so far but falls flat at the end when it gets to the "remedy" part which only gets alluded to. Perhaps I've missed it, maybe you got that. Can you pass it this way?

I've also been to the DetaxCanada site. Info or dis-info?

All the arguments I laid out have been used, all appear to have merit, all get summarilly dismissed as frivolous to protect the game all to our detriment.

When D. Rockefeller was once interviewed and asked "How much money did you make last year?" He replied "Six billion dollars." Then asked, "Wow. How much did you have to pay in taxes last year on all that?" D.R. replied "Zero." If that is good enough for him that should be good enough for us.

Yet,we are deemed chattel property to the Kings of the earth like him. Were we ever really free, even before Reconstruction?


Thanks

Oh yeah mrg, thanks, I did watch the video three of four times but I never caught the name Larkin Rose just some organizational name. My bad I suppose.

[clipper]

Originally Posted by mrg

I took away your name from a post not meant to be directed at you, in any way whatsoever, and apologize greatly for the "Comrade," as well as using your name in the post, it was definitely not intended the way you took it.

The pictures are not from the District of Columbia's holdings in Cuba, they are from right here in the USA.

There are quite a few more as well.

Weisshaupt may very well be correct, about the status issue.

I know of his research abilities.

Very powerful.

You might enjoy LB Bork's The Red Amendment and the literature at Pacinlaw.

Man I don't doubt you one bit that photos like that are on our own soil!

RFID hell! Just investigating this whole issue has me convinced that we took the "number of the beast" in the 1930's with the acronym "SIN number" that no man may buy or sell without it. If that is true, just look how far along and just how deep we already are in the Book of Revelation.

The Rulers behind the "Great Work" ares truely seeing their fascist capstone set in place.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First, I am unaware of how someone can be a state citizen without also being a US citizen, but, Second, even if that were so: whether or not a US citizen, anyone residing in the US is obliged to comply with the US income tax laws.

In other words, anyone living in the United States is obligated to be a good little Communist.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by psholtz

In other words, anyone living in the United States is obligated to be a good little Communist.

I think Uncle Bernie is more the "National So******t," putting it politely, so to speak.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That whole Show Me the Law issue is nonsense.

There is only one purpose to having a government, Constitution and Constitutional Republic to begin with:

To protect property rights.

That is so fundamental, and was so fundamentally understood that they did not even write it into the federal constitution except that No state shall abrogate the obligations of contract. It is inherent in the federal constitution that the federal government will never have that power, never had.

If you endorse private credit from the Fed, then you bought into the irrecusable obligation to file a Return of Income. That is the contract you signed.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588



Regards,

David Merrill.

While I agree completely w/ you that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of property, you may be interested in this book by Gustavus Myers, The History of the Supreme Court of the United States:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mt8...1&cad=legac y
http://www.archive.org/details/histo...reme00myeriala
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/789740...ers_index.html

In it, he outlines how the "contract clause" in Article I, Section 10 was added by people like Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris who were shareholders in the Bank of North America (first central bank in the U.S.) and whose charter was suspended by the Pennslyvania legislature (in 1785) when the people of Pennsylvania became aware of how criminal the institution was.

So while the contract clause "makes sense" superficially, bear in mind that it was introduced by the central bankers for less than honest purposes.

My sense is that the contract clause is overly broad; States *should* have the right impair adhesion contracts and other contracts that were entered into under fraudulent terms and conditions. While contracts between two (human) individuals may be sacrosanct (even in the eyes of God), contracts between humans and legal fictions like corporations and governments is a different matter, more esp. when these legal fictions (corporations) act like complete psychopaths w/ no sense of conscience whatsoever.