Can you explain this to me?

[ucantcme]

First of all I want to say hello to everyone. Been some good reading here. Now to the point. I recently heard about all this redemption stuff and soveriegn stuff as well. It sounds great but While I was researching the Pros I also researched the cons. The problem is I dont understand what they are saying. So im going to post some case law Against Sovereignty and ucc. Can you guys please explain it to me. I just want to know the pros and cons of this system before I decide if I want to persue this.

Sovereignty not Justiciable Controversy
Barcroft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995). Declaratory action designating Plaintiff to be "Private State Citizen of Texas," and for removal of any and all disabilities placed on him by means of contracts with State, such as birth certificate, driver's license application, school registration papers, voter's registration application card, marriage license, and social security application and number did not present justiciable controversy.

[ucantcme]

Pretending to be a citizen of a "sovereign state": Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para 50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dism (5th Cir 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 98 USTC para 50157; US v. George (9th Cir unpub 10/27/97) 127 F3d 1107(t); US v. Lorenzo (9th Cir 1993) 995 F2d 1448; US v. Ferrel (9th Cir unpub 2/21/91); US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; ("argues that the only court having jurisdiction over him is a Common Law Court because he is a South Dakota Republic man") US v. Schiefen (D SD 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff’d 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074; Gravitt v. US (ED Mich unpub 11/4/97); Jamroz v. Panuthos (7th Cir unpub 11/20/97); US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal unpub 4/30/97) 79 AFTR2d 2784 recons.den 27 F.Supp.2d 1191; Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff’d (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069; US v. Hilgeford (9th Cir 1993) 7 F3d 1340 ("The defendant in this case apparently holds a sincere belief that he is a citizen of the mythical Indiana State Republic and for that reason is an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts. This belief is, of course, incorrect."); Isaacson v. US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 74 AFTR2d 6354; Theron Tucker v. USA & IRS (EDNY unpub 7/6/98) 82 AFTR2d 5796, 98 USTC para 50576; In re Greatwood [v. US, IRS] (Bankr.App, 9th Cir 1996) 194 Bankr.Rptr 637, 77 AFTR2d 1583 affd (9th Cir 1997 120 F3d 268(t) ("I deny I was a US citizen ... I deny that the people of Nevada have granted authority to any official or branch of govt of the State of Nevada to enter into any US federally connected scheme so as to require the people of Nevada to pay a tax..." Held that his attempt to declare bankruptcy to evade his ten years of unpaid taxes was in bad faith and petition dismissed); Dunham v. CIR (2/9/98) TC Memo 1998-52 (calling himself "a domiciled inhabitant of an American State" whose "tax home was within an American Union State"); Fox v. CIR (2/1/93) TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted (2/26/96) TC Memo 1996-79; Sochia v. US (5th Cir 1994) 23 F3d 941 cert.den 513 US 1153; Harrell v. CIR (6/15/98) TC Memo 1998-207; M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98) 82 AFTR2d 6174; US v. Moore (10th Cir unpub 3/24/94) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656 (with an "oath of allegiance to the Oklahoma Republic"); Nieman v. CIR (11/17/93) TC Memo 1993-533; Secora v. US (D Neb unpub 4/18/97) 79 AFTR2d 2686; ("citizens of the sovereign California Republic") A.K. Nicholson v. US (ED CA unpub 4/15/98); (claimed that IRS and federal court do not have any authority with "the Republic of Pennsylvania") US [& Argir] v. R.P. Carr (ED Penn unpub 1/28/99); ("inhabitants of the California republic not the corporate State of California") Brandt v. CIR (9/7/93) TC Memo 1993-411; similarly (claiming to be citizens of the California Republic and not US citizens) Cochrane v. CIR (8/7/96) 107 Tax Ct 18; ditto Carter v. Rubin (ND Calif unpub 12/28/95) 77 AFTR2d 1291 ("These assertions are based on fundamental misconceptions of the established relationship of the citizen to the US govt under the Federal Constitution. It the the govt which decides for the people, not an individual who decides for himself, when a person shall be tax exempt, accusations of perjury notwithstanding. Likewise, it is the govt which decides for the people, not the individual who decides for himself, when a person is in fact a citizen of the US."); ditto Martinez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (9th Cir unpub 7/22/94) 29 F3d 633(t), 74 AFTR2d 5553; ditto (argued that because his drug operations took place in the "jurisdiction of the State Republics" that he was not subject to federal laws or court) US v. Wacker (10th Cir unpub 3/31/99); ditto US v. T.M. King (6th Cir unpub 12/2/94) 42 F3d 1389(t) ("The first 15 pages of King's pro se brief are devoted, inter alia, to his contentions that his is a 'jus sanguinis Citizen/Principle of the California Republic" ... supported by a long list of irrelevant, obscure case citations, definitions, and Latin maxims. ... The Sixth Circuit has ... unequivocally reaffirmed that such an argument has no force, is contrary to 75 years of reported decisions and may properly be characterized as silly or frivolous. This claim is unavailing to King."); ditto D.C. Roberts v. Motion Picture Pension Plan (9th Cir unpub 2/1/95) 46 F3d 1144(t) cert.den 514 US 1120; similarly ("state citizen of Illinois, not state of Illinois" and "not a US citizen") Wesselman v. CIR (2/28/96) TC Memo 1996-85; ("not citizens of the US but rather Free citizens of the Republic of Minnesota, and consequently not subject to taxation.") US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193; ("citizen of the Sovereign Republican States of the Continental States United") Verbeck v. CIR (9th Cir unpub 11/3/95) 70 F3d 122(t), 76 AFTR2d 7452, 96 USTC para 50064 cert.den 519 US 854; ("sovereign citizens of the State of Maryland") Blackstone v. IRS (D.Md unpub 9/30/98); ("Private Missouri Citizen ... a Citizen of the Missouri Republic" -- "this declaration filled with pseudo-legal mish-mash and arcane phrases making no sense" - moreover, having appealed to this particular court now contended that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal) City of Kansas City v. Hayward (Mo.App 1997) 954 SW2d 399; ("not a US citizen nor US person nor US individual [but instead ] that he is a sovereign Indiana citizen") D.R. Andrews v. CIR (9/2/98) TC Memo 1998-316; similarly K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; Snyder v. District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 9/27/96) 98 F3d 1350(t); US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para 50465 ("Updegrave contends that ... Pennsylvania, the state in which he admittedly resides, is a 'sovereign' entity. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution of the US, including the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, and the 14th Amendment thereto. Thus Pennsylvania is clearly not a sovereign entity. .... Accordingly, the laws of the United States, including the FRCP, are valid and enforceable within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."); Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct unpub 6/3/94) 634 NE2d 1375(t) ("Richey resides in Gibson County, Indiana, and has lived in Indiana since birth. His claim to exemption, though, rests in part on the stunning proposition that ... he lives in a foreign country.... Although there are times when the denizens of the nation's capitol seem separated by a wide gulf from those who sent them there, Richey's entire appeal sails straight through that gulf and on to terra incognita."); US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; ("claims that as a natural born citizen of Montana he is a nonresident alien" and not subject to taxation) US v. L.T. Hanson (9th Cir 1993) 2 F3d 942; US v. Sloan (7th 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; ("a Free judicial Power Citizen of Indiana") State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; LaRue v. US (CD IL 1997) 959 F.Supp 957 aff'd (7th Cir 1997) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096 (claiming that Illinois is not a "state" as defined in the IRC but is instead "a member of the union"); same person in LaRue v. US (CD IL 1997) 959 F.Supp 959, 81 AFTR2d 810, 37 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1184 ("Plaintiffs argue that they are exempt from federal income tax because they are non-resident aliens, yet they concede that they are residents of the state of Illinois. Plaintiffs' claim to be non-resident aliens is absurd on its face and is absolutely without legal merit."); US v. Price (5th Cir 1986) 798 F2d 111; Palmer v. CIR (10/9/97) TC Memo 1997-462; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Valldejuli v. US (SD Fla unpub 12/20/96) 78 AFTR2d 7492; Stoecklin v. CIR (



Cont. on next post

[ucantcme]

11th Cir 1989) 865 F2d 1221; US v. Knudson (D Neb 1997) 959 F.Supp 1180; US v. Moore (ND Okl unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6277, 93 USTC para 50653 aff’d (10th Cir 1994) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656; Hirsh v. CIR (4/21/97) TC Memo 1997-184; (denying that Oklahoma City is part of the US) A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; (similarly for Utah) Christensen v. Ward (10th Cir 1990) 916 F2d 1462 cert.den 498 US 999; Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; (for purpose of evading Social Security tax) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B; Harvard v. Pontesso (6th Cir unpub 8/8/97) 121 F3d 708(t); Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028; B. Jackson v. CIR (10/1/91) TC Memo 1991-498 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 4/7/93); R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Ex parte Bowers (Tex.App 1994) 886 SW2d 346; LaRue v. US (7th Cir unpub 9/8/97) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096; US v. Verlin (D Kan 1997) 979 F.Supp 1334; State v. French (1994) 77 Haw 222, 883 P2d 644; Fostvedt v. US (10th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1201 cert.den 507 US 988; ("We have held before that this belief is simply wrong.") US v. Ross (7th Cir unpub 4/13/95) 52 F3d 329(t); McQuatters v. CIR (3/2/98) TC Memo 1998-88; State v. McNeil (Mont.Supm 9/17/98); (claiming to be "a citizen of the United States of America" but not a "citizen of the United States"!) Fostvedt v. US (D. Colo 1993) 824 F.Supp 978 aff'd 16 F3d 416; ditto(!) In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254 (denying he is a citizen of the US nor of the State of Fla but claiming to be "a Free, White, Male, American national Citizen, Citizen of the USA, Florida state Republic Citizen, and a Common Law Citizen"); ("appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit.") US v. R.J. McDonald (9th Cir unpub 10/4/90) 919 F2d 146(t) cert.den 499 US 928; (disbarred lawyer claiming immunity to law as the citizen of the Sovereign Republic of Idaho, currently seeking asylum in the Republic of Colorado) US v. Jagim (8th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1032 cert.den (Ziebarth v. US) 508 US 952; Ball v. US (D. Ore unpub 8/24/93) 72 AFTR2d 5958, 93 USTC para 50665 sanctions added (D. Ore unpub 10/5/93) 72 AFTR2d 6442; (thereby denies being subject to federal law) Green v. Winkler (SD Fla unpub 12/5/96) 78 AFTR2d 7630; Albers v. IRS (D. Neb unpub 2/15/96) 77 AFTR2d 1234, 96 USTC para 50197 aff'd 105 F3d 662 cert.den 520 US 1221; Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489; (fighting extradition to Michigan "from Texas, a foreign state") Capaldi v. Pontesso (6th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1122; (thereby claiming that a fed court has jurisdiction because of a diversity of nationalities and that the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to the US govt because foreign to this sovereign state) Shrock v. US (7th Cir unpub 7/22/96) 92 F3d 1187(t), 78 AFTR2d 5792; Ni****ani v. Baker (Haw. Intermed.App 1996) 82 Haw 281, 921 P2d 1182 ("Kingdom of Hawaii"); ditto ("Nation of Hawaii") US v. Kanahele (D Haw 1995) 951 F.Supp 921; (tried to pretend that the US govt is "foreign" and therefore not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 1602 et seq) Isaacson v. US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; McLaren v. United States Incorporated (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 48 ("the Republic of Texas"); relying on mention of compact states in 26 USC 297 for claiming to be a citizen of something other than the US refuted, that section allows the 9th Circuit to lend judges to the Pacific Trust Territories and does not refer to the 50 states of the Union. Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para 50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); ditto (arguing that a "citizen of the US" means only a citizen of a "compact state" and not someone susceptible to taxation) Nieman v. CIR (11/17/93) TC Memo 1993-533; denied being a US person or individual and submitted affidavit to IRS that he does not reside "in the state". D.R. Andrews v. CIR (9/2/98) TC Memo 1998-316; ditto US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; (tried to excuse failing to file tax returns for several years on pretext it "would require him to commit perjury because he is not an 'US individual'.") Koar v. US (SDNY unpub 9/2/97) 80 AFTR2d 6797 rept adopted (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748; ("Now Richey stretches the bounds of both lucidity and judicial tolerance past their breaking point by claiming that the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 US 64, stands for the proposition that the States of the Union are mere private corporations governed by provisions of the UCC. True enough, Erie makes difficult reading for first year law students, but even a cursory reading by a lay person reveals that the UCC is entirely unrelated to the case. And even given that the concepts in the decision might seem totally alien to Richey, surely a man who has done the legal research Richey has should know that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute did not promulgate the first official text of the UCC until September 1951, thirteen years after the Erie decision. ... Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC." Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ucantcme

First of all I want to say hello to everyone. Been some good reading here. Now to the point. I recently heard about all this redemption stuff and soveriegn stuff as well. It sounds great but While I was researching the Pros I also researched the cons. The problem is I dont understand what they are saying. So im going to post some case law Against Sovereignty and ucc. Can you guys please explain it to me. I just want to know the pros and cons of this system before I decide if I want to persue this.

Sovereignty not Justiciable Controversy
Barcroft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995). Declaratory action designating Plaintiff to be "Private State Citizen of Texas," and for removal of any and all disabilities placed on him by means of contracts with State, such as birth certificate, driver's license application, school registration papers, voter's registration application card, marriage license, and social security application and number did not present justiciable controversy.

"Scooterdog?"

[palani]

Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC." Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375

Evidently a court whose entire purpose is found in the amusement it derogates thereof.

Originally Posted by Case cite from RedGreen

If your wife doesn't find you handsome at least she might find you handy.

Or as this court might interpret this passage, "If you can't be amusing why are you here?"

[ucantcme]

ScooterDog?

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by ucantcme

First of all I want to say hello to everyone. Been some good reading here. Now to the point. I recently heard about all this redemption stuff and soveriegn stuff as well. It sounds great but While I was researching the Pros I also researched the cons. The problem is I dont understand what they are saying. So im going to post some case law Against Sovereignty and ucc. Can you guys please explain it to me. I just want to know the pros and cons of this system before I decide if I want to persue this.

Sovereignty not Justiciable Controversy
Barcroft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995). Declaratory action designating Plaintiff to be "Private State Citizen of Texas," and for removal of any and all disabilities placed on him by means of contracts with State, such as birth certificate, driver's license application, school registration papers, voter's registration application card, marriage license, and social security application and number did not present justiciable controversy.

It's rather simple. The courts cannot adjudicate a private, state citizen. They can only adjudicate corporate persons, created by the STATE OF, belonging to the US CORPORATION.

Where's the question now?

[palani]

Too bad the thread originator couldn't list his source for all these case cites.

http://www.adl.org/MWD/sussman.doc.


Here is a description of the crime of petite treason circa 1600:

So that, if a Clarke do maliciously kil his prelate (or superior) to whom he oweth obedience: or a wife, her husband: or a servant the master, or mistresse (who have a civill soveraigntie over them) this will be Petite treason: Ass.12.pl.30. & 22.plac.49.Coron. Fitzh 383.19.H.6.47. & 25. E. 3.ca.2.

Now isn't that odd. Civil soveraigntie in the individual was recognized in Law in 1600 to the extent that if no soveraigntie existed the crime described would simply be called murder.

To whom do you owe obediance? The ADL?

Soveraigntie in a group of people is communism.

Does the ADL subscribe to communist principles?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ucantcme

ScooterDog?

Or maybe Cody talking to himself already?

[David Merrill]

Interestingly Shoonra's ideas that Congress would write Title 12 USC §411 that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand means you can make change - like break a $50 into 5-$10s brings his entire article into question. I mean really! Shoonra stooped so low as to try to convince us that is the intent of the remedy?

So I think one might think twice before resorting to his ADL article.



Regards,

David Merrill.