Help Please - Page 2

James · #11 02-14-2004, 10:29 PM

Wirlwind,

>> "The term 'gross income' as used herein:<<
Notice they don’t define the word “income,” only the term “gross income” and “gross income” includes (is limited to ) gains, profits and income derived from…

>>I re-read the alabama code and the only type workers that were mentioned in that code were state, county, and municipal officers and employees.<<
Re-read the code (code means secret) and look at “…, or from professions, vocations, trades,…” Example: If you worked for a corporation for ten-dollars an hour and they charged customers twenty-dollars for your profession, vocation, trade; then there is a ten-dollar profit or gain, for the corporation, from your profession, vocation, trade.

In law, labor is property. In fact, the Supreme Court has identified labor as man's most precious property. Therefore, the exchange of one's labor for wages or salary (which are also property) is considered by law to be an exchange of properties of equal value in which there is no gain or profit. Such a property exchange of equal value cannot be taxed because there is no profit or gain. Also, one who works in an ordinary occupation is not a recipient of any privilege granted by government, because he is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to work and earn a living. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no tax may be placed upon the exercise of rights. Their reasoning was sensible. If the exercise of rights could be taxed, government could destroy them by excessive rates of taxation.

>> My husband and I are getting ready to start the redemption process.<<
O.K. friend I guess this is the fork in the road, so to speak, where we part ways. I don’t use the redemption process; so will be unable to help you in that area. How can two walk together unless they agree?

>> What is a CPN? << My guess it would stand for certified promissory note.

Ice · #12 02-14-2004, 10:43 PM

James,

You state: "I don’t use the redemption process; so will be unable to help you in that area. How can two walk together unless they agree?"

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your position?& Personally, I don't buy into some of the redemption stuff being hawked by the so-called "experts"... actually, most of it.& I believe the Law will assist us in protecting our Freedoms and Liberties if we use it.

&

Jerseee · #13 02-15-2004, 01:28 AM

James,

(me applauding) (clap. clap, clap, clap, whistle and hooting). Bravo!

Well said. This is the same principle I explained to Rory. No one can tax a man's labor. I don't know if some folks have read John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government". But all of what you have said is in there. And some.

This government was founded on most of those priniciples in John Locke's writings. As well as, Adam Smith's, "Wealth of Nations" and a host of other Colonial authors.

(clap, clap, clap....magnificent). lol

Rory · #14 02-15-2004, 11:36 AM

>>>This is the same principle I explained to Rory<<<

&I may have missed something here, Jerseee are you talking about...

>>>>If the exercise of rights could be taxed, government could destroy them by excessive rates of taxation.<<<<<

If exercise of rights could be licensed....??

Rory

James · #15 02-15-2004, 02:40 PM

Ice, I agree with you absolutely.
Like you, I believe the Law will assist us in protecting our Freedoms and Liberties if we use it.
Here in America, as you well know, “The blind lead the blind.” May we have the wisdom to understand “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

There is a school of psychology which proposes a theory they call “cognitive dissonance” that explains once an individual accepts certain knowledge or beliefs, then if new information comes along which appears to contradict or otherwise call into question the knowledge or beliefs already accepted, there is a predisposition to discount, disregard, or dismiss the new information as not true, or not valid, or acceptable as fact. Simply stated, the idea that the mind involuntarily rejects information not previously known.
As one wag quipped, “If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!”

Too often, it is what we already know and accept as “the facts” which are our enemy.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Few are willing to rethink their political beliefs and rediscover the nation that is rightfully theirs.<o

></o

>
<o

></o

>
I’m endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among those Rights are, Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. I’m an American Citizen (native born in the Texas-State), one of a collective sovereignty, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, holders of inherent political power; hence am entitled by birthright to all the unalienable common law rights, among which is the right to discourse with fellow Citizens in all matters.

The method I used to take myself out of the corporate government was a “Declaration of Expatriation/Repatriation, pursuant to the “right to foreswear allegiance and expatriate oneself” [Committee for Industrial Organization v. Hague, 25 F.Supp. 127, 141 (DCNJ)]; United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 15, chap. 249, page 223 of the Fortieth-Cong.: “An Act concerning the Right of American Citizens in foreign States…” sent to the “Executive Office of the President,” “Chief Justice, Supreme Tribunal/court of the United States,” “Governor of the State of Texas,” “Chief Justice, Supreme Tribunal/court of the State of Texas,” and “Commissioner of the Internal Revenue.”(For more info send me a private e-mail)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 6.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In a nut shell, as any reasonable person would understand, I support the Ten-Commandments, the first-ten-amendments in “The Bill of Rights” and any statute, code, or regulation that is in harmony with the Law.

James · #16 02-15-2004, 02:57 PM

Jerseee,
Glad you liked it so much.

The eighteenth Century-English-political philosophers, John Locke posited (Chiefly Logic. To assume as a fact or truth) the political theory that only the people of a nation (a large body of people possessing its own territory ruled under a unified government) hold the political, hence lawful, authority to declare themselves a nation-state and to create a government for their nation-state. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
As you, Jerseee, stated His principles were adopted by the founding-fathers of our government.<o

></o

>

Jerseee · #17 02-15-2004, 03:24 PM

Rory,

If you read James' post before I responded to it, you can apply his statement referring to taxes and labor--to your situation.

James,

ANother good showing and way to get your point acorss without controversy! However, as far as expatriation and repatriation--I cannot say that I totally agree with that logic. Now whatever works for you that is great; it is basically the ability to defend your position no matter what. But to do something like expatirate/repatriate, to me is a trap. You see, to expatriate means that you were once a patriot to whatever nation. Let's say that one expatriates from the corrupt US citizen system. Well first of all, that particular type of citizenship is assumed. And the proof of citizenship lies with the accusor/presumpting party. Ice and myself had an epiphany when we discussing this issue and came to conclusion that doing such things is not necessary.

And to do such a thing would give them grounds to say that you were once a US citizen by your own admission by doing an expatriation in the first place.

Now a viable solution that I have proposed that really is not necessary but, effective, is to publish who you are and your politcal status just as you did your CN. this removes any future controversy about one's political status. As well as doing a passport.

Just something to think about, no big whoop.

James · #18 02-16-2004, 09:25 AM

Jerseee wrote: >> However, as far as expatriation and repatriation--I cannot say that I totally agree with that logic.<<<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Fair and honest answer. Then maybe I can address what you don’t agree with.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>> Now whatever works for you that is great; it is basically the ability to defend your position no matter what.<<<o

></o

>
In my humble opinion it works. It is based on Law and Rights.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>> But to do something like expatriate/repatriate, to me is a trap.<<<o

></o

>
No traps in Law only in statutes, codes, regulations, color of law, legalese, fictions, metaphysical flimflam etc.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>> Let's say that one expatriates from the corrupt US citizen system. Well first of all, that particular type of citizenship is assumed. And the proof of citizenship lies with the accusor/presumpting party.<<<o

></o

>
Not an assumption.& <o

></o

>
In a case in 1990 the “United States Department of Justice” declared in a “U.S. District Tribunal/Court of the 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. Additionally, a U.S.-District-Judge promulgated (declared) the people born in one of the Fifty-States are American Citizens. Thus, we are born into the status of American Citizen and contract into the sub-status of “U.S. citizen.” The U.S.-Judge also averred (declared) there are other mediums contracting American Citizens into U.S. citizenship but he refused to expound upon his averment. <o

></o

>
It was declared, by the “Department of Justice, and concurred with by a “U.S. District [merchant] judge, that: “He pays Social Security, he uses the Postal Service, therefore, Mr. Cooper is a United States citizen.” (United States of America v. Austin Gary Cooper, 89-109-Cr-Hoeveler, DCSFl, 1990 and concurred with by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States of America v. Austin Gary Cooper, 90-5597).<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>> Now a viable solution that I have proposed that really is not necessary but, effective, is to publish who you are and your politcal status just as you did your CN.<<<o

></o

>
Publishing who you are and your political status will not vitiate a contract. Fraud vitiates (to make void) a contract (Black’s Law Dictionary fifth-Edition page 1410)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
I might make mention that I did not use what’s supplied at family-guardian web-site on expatriation.<o

></o

>

Jerseee · #19 02-16-2004, 01:26 PM

James,

AAhhh, another good thread!!! Thanks for the stimulation!

The strongest point made is the citing of the case to prove your claim. However, prior to that case--does the US give full disclosure on the use of such things as Social Security and Postal Services as binding contracts into US citizenship? They don't. If they did that case would not have occurred.

I believe this would address the fraud and a thing that is void from the beginning does not become valid due to lapse of time. OT always pulled my coat tail on that issue. Address the fraud before anything else.

Therefore, I do not consent freely to those systems since they are based on duress and non-disclosure. Which is were the contract is vitiated--the public notice does not do this, basic contract law does.. The use of the public notice gives them an opportunity to challenge my declaration. And an unrebuted affidavit stands as truth (but you know that). So the notice does not vitiate the contract. It establishes the truth. Hence they have no jurisdiction.

Which brings me back to the expatriation position. How can you expatriate from something you were never part of? And to do so would be admitting that you were once a US citizen. Furthermore, if a so-called "illegal alien" was to start using postal services--wouldn't that make them a US citizen by contract? Why would they have to apply for US citizenship if this was the case?

Even your own case admits that you are an American Citizen from the beginning. And as far as benefits are concerned...if you are forced to participate in something that should be an option for you not to--then how is that a benefit? For example, social security, letter class mail, zip codes, traffic signs, IRS taxes, etc...

It is not a benefit if you can't freely refuse it without reprisal. This is similiar to the Mafia, making you an offer you can't refuse.

Not saying that expatriation does not work or it does work. It is not the mechanics of that process I am concerned with. Its the offer that is out there from a defacto government which bases most everything they do on some sort of fraud, trickery, duress, extortion, etc... just to get you into some sort of discussion about your personal freedom. The process may work but, it still appears that you are still pledging to them to acknowledge your status. And until you break the assumption, they are assuming that you are a US citizen. If there was no assumption then one would not need to expatriate.

Also, I'm not questioning the law, since they do not adhere to the law but, to statutes and codes only. I'm addressing the fraud; and once that is exposed they cannot lean on statutes and codes since their hands were not clean from the beginning. So it is back to my affidavit and certificate of publication.

Great stimulating conversation James--you got me thinking...thanks!

wirlwind · #20 02-17-2004, 09:17 AM

After reading through this thread and doing some research on expatriation/repatriation process it seems to me that the exp/rep process is simpler?&

Some of the processes used can be so detailed that for someone with limited knowledge it is very overwhelming, and you end up not knowing where to begin.& That is the way I see filing the UCC1.& It seems like there is so much that has to be done after that is done, and I haven't been able to find&websites &that simplify it enough to be able to know what to do.& i

I have talked to a lot of people that know even less about this than I do, and I find that they are very interested in it, but when they try to do research on it they become so overwhelmed that they decide that they don't want to "stir" things up.& The fact that so many people are afraid that it will get them in trouble to claim their rights ought to tell them that something is terribly wrong in our country.

Wirlwind