Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member xanadu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    958
    INFORMATIVE READING ON THIS TOPIC

    Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America $17.61 amazon.com

    The Constitution in Exile : Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
    How the Federal Government has siezed power by rewriting the supreme law of the land $16.37 amazon.com


    Not yet released - Tom Tancredo's "In Mortal Danger; The battle for America's border and security" $15.72 also Amazon.com (free shipping over $25.00)

    This looks like an add for Amazon but these books are important reads and they are half price at amazon.

    With regard to our bill of rights Colter gave a breakdown on how those have been legislated away by congress. I'll find that link and post it.
    "Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)

  2. #12
    Sapperwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    249
    [quote="xanadu"]

    This looks like an add for Amazon but these books are important reads and they are half price at amazon.

    [quote]
    Your right if you want to get a book that is the place to go.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by xanadu
    INFORMATIVE READING ON THIS TOPIC

    Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America $17.61 amazon.com

    The Constitution in Exile : Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
    How the Federal Government has siezed power by rewriting the supreme law of the land $16.37 amazon.com


    Not yet released - Tom Tancredo's "In Mortal Danger; The battle for America's border and security" $15.72 also Amazon.com (free shipping over $25.00)

    This looks like an add for Amazon but these books are important reads and they are half price at amazon.

    With regard to our bill of rights Colter gave a breakdown on how those have been legislated away by congress. I'll find that link and post it.
    This may seem arcane, but it's informatio that I always try to supply when the topic comes up. I invite everyone who is concerned about the erosion of rights to read on:

    We understand that the Constitution and the treaties made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. What we frequently overlook is that the federal courts are empowered to also make rulings in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as admiralty and maritime, under Art. III, Sec. 2. These are mercantile jurisdictions that have nothing to do with the Bill of Rghts, because they are not predicated on constitutional or common law, but on the international mercantile law or lex mercatorum. Now, it was never intended that the average citizen be subjected to the lex mercatorum in the course of his day to day life, because that jurisdiction was meant to apply only to international commerce. It is a harsh and unforgiving jurisdiction with rigid rules and an ethical framework alien to the common law and to the precepts of our Bill of Rights.

    After the federal banruptcy of 1930, the federal government was broke and unable to procure additional funding. This was not a voluntary bankruptcy, but rather an imposed bankruptcy imposed by the international banks due to the default of the federal government on its international debts. Through this bankruptcy, the federal government was subjected to the harsh lex mercatorum. Rather than admit its failure of the American people, the government under FDR set about seeking ways to obtain new loans to fund FDR's New Deal and keep itself operating without letting the American people know it was in default. Because of prior Supreme Court rulings that the federal government had the legal status, relative to the states and their citizens, of foreign corporation, and that the citizens of the several states were, with respect to the federal entity, non-resident aliens and indemnified against its debt, there was no way for the federal government to use the states and the citizens to procure more debt. So FDR hatched a couple of entrapment schemes that would make the states and the citizens subsidiaries of the federal corporation and therefore party to the common debt and sureties for further debt.

    The first of the entrapment schemes was, as I have previously mentioned, Social Security. The first attempt at passing this heinous legislation (originally called the Federal Retirement Act) was stricken down by the Supreme Court on the basis that it was "beyond the purview of the constitutionally delegated powers of Congress to mandate participation in such a scheme." As a result, the act was rewritten omitting all mandatory language and passed as the Social Security Act. Because it is voluntary, and because Americans are granted unlimited right to contract, it passed constitutional muster.

    At the same time, the federal government began pushing the states to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC is our domestic codification of the lex mercatorum. In the UCC, all parties to any UCC agreement are said to be party to the "common debt." Furthermore, under any UCC agreement, parties to the agreement are deemed to have waived any and all rights unless they make a "specific and timely" reservation thereof. Unlike a common law contract, under which contracting parties must have knowledge, will, and intent, all that is required for a UCC agreement to be binding is that the parties "exercise the benefit thereof." That means that even if you are tricked into a UCC agreement, you are bound to it as soon as you receive or exercise its benefits, however insubstantial or paltry. The UCC was eventually ratified by all the states, with Texas being the last in 1968.

    At the same time that these abominations were being codified, the states were urged to sign a document called, of all things, the Declaration of Interdependence. This document was a pledge by the states to, in effect, waive their sovereign rights and become subsidiaries of the federal entity for the common good. It was a highly socialistic manifesto which was, after some thirty years of pressure, eventually signed by each of the fifty states.

    The effect of all of this has been that a foreign legal jurisdiction, the admiralty, has been brought ashore under the guise of "statutory law," which has almost completely replaced our original substantive due process. The basic jurisdiction of each and every court, from your local municipal court to SCOTUS, is now the lex mercatorum, which is alien to the domestic US Constitution and its protections. Since the lex mercatorum originally arose under Roman Law, the rights conferred under that jurisdiction are not our inalienable and self-evident rights, conferred by our Creator, but rather the malleable "civil rights" conferred by the authority of the governing power. That means that it is not your Constitutional rights that protect you in our domestic courts, but rather the internationally recognized civil rights espoused by organizations like the United Nations. That's why, for example, a domestic court may recognize a "civil right" to homosexual marriage, but not recognize the constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It's why the courts enunciate a "civil right" of illegal immigrants to taxpayer-funded education and healthcare, but refuses to address the constitutional laws regarding naturalization or border security.

    Now, in order to maintain legitimacy, the courts are also still able to hear complaints under common law and to address constitutional law in such cases as it applies, but these are few and far between. If you have an SSN, for example, you are bound to a UCC agreement whereby you are deemed to have waived any rights you did not specifically reserve. You are deemed a subsidiary of the federal entity whose primary jurisdiction arises under international mercantile law, or "statutory law," as we call it here. If you want to be tried under our true substantive due process jury system (where a jury tries every element of the case, rather than merely acting as an advisory body for the edicts of the magistrate masquerading as a judge), you have to file such a motion rather than entering a plea in the statutory court, and you must provide evidence that you are not subject to an agreement under the UCC which would subject you to the regulations over which the statutory court has primary jurisdiction.

    The reason that the powers that be have now linked the Drivers License to the SSN is that many car owners who did not have SSNs were able to argue that they were merely exercising their right to travel in their own property as enunciated in 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123, and in the cases of Thompson v Smith, Kent v Dulles, Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, and many other cases. Without the ability to demonstrate a waiver of rights or to place the "driver" under the lex mercatorum, the courts were unable to enforce arbitrary motor vehicle laws. By tying the DL to the SSN, thereby making the defendant not a flesh and blood American pursuing his rights, but rather a corporate subsidiary engaging in regulated commercial activity under an implicit waiver of rights, the courts were again able to impose their will and subjugate Americans as dependent serfs.

    What this all means is that you have unknowingly waived you constitutional rights and have been supplied with an inferior and malleable counterfeit set of "civil rights" that the court may choose to ignore. Most people refuse to accept this fact, but the proof may be found in any case in which a defendant attempts to assert one or another of his rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights that has no equivalent under the international "civil rights."

  4. #14
    Senior Member curiouspat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA. area!
    Posts
    3,341

    law

    CrocketsGhost

    Dear God in Heaven! I had no idea. Thanks for the post.

    CrocketsGhost...are you a lawyer?
    TIME'S UP!
    **********
    Why should <u>only</u> AMERICAN CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants, have to obey the law?!

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663

    Re: law

    Quote Originally Posted by curiouspat
    CrocketsGhost

    Dear God in Heaven! I had no idea. Thanks for the post.

    CrocketsGhost...are you a lawyer?
    No, my conscience prohibits me from being either a lawyer or a politician.

  6. #16
    GodHelpUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    162
    I certainly couldn't phrase things with the eloquence of Crockett'sGhost, but I have known for years that our Constitution was being ignored and unlawfully changed.

    Social Security and Income Tax are things our Founding Fathers would have considered anti-American. We can thank FDR and Woodrow Wilson for these things.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    610
    CrocketsGhost

    Believe it or not, I know more than a few well educated parents who did NOT apply for social security cards for their children when born for just the reasons you mention in your explanation of the ill-understood transference of rights. They were under the impression that it not only reserved those rights forfeited under those machinations and further, that it prevented them from having to pay taxes. Of course it remains to be seen how those children will earn a living without a social security number and what potential services they will be ineligible for without one....but I do know they have had no problems to date with getting them in schools and other "institutionalized" programs or settings without them.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by barkway
    CrocketsGhost

    Believe it or not, I know more than a few well educated parents who did NOT apply for social security cards for their children when born for just the reasons you mention in your explanation of the ill-understood transference of rights. They were under the impression that it not only reserved those rights forfeited under those machinations and further, that it prevented them from having to pay taxes. Of course it remains to be seen how those children will earn a living without a social security number and what potential services they will be ineligible for without one....but I do know they have had no problems to date with getting them in schools and other "institutionalized" programs or settings without them.
    Well, I have a letter from the Social Security Administration stating point blank that there is no legal requirement to provide an SSN to an employer, and that it is a matter "between the employer and employee." In a worst case scenario, the employee may be subjected to "backup withholding" that he is unable to recover, but the law governing backup withholding makes clear that it applies to SSn holders who refuse an employer's request to provide the SSN. If you have no SSN and accurately state "none" when the number is requested, you have fulfilled any legal obligation for yourself and for your employer.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    610
    Interesting. I have often refused to supply my SS number to offices and people who have asked for it that do not need it, and have no right to it. The latest was my eye surgeon's office and the office of a bone doctor I had to take my son to for examination. The biggest stink I got into over not supplying it was with the Fl state insurance system for kids (Florida KidCare). I had applied for insurance for my SON ONLY, and they were insisting on having his father's and my SS numbers. I refused. They had various "higher ups" contact me with semithreatening language...and I told them to send me the statute that required that I give those numbers to them. That shut them up. I found out later that the reason they were asking was to run our numbers against a database for adults receiving some kind of state welfare. Guess they were checking to make sure I hadn't lied about income (we have to qualify for this insurance every year by providing income verification documents...mine are always sent with the SS number crossed out!)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
    Well, I have a letter from the Social Security Administration stating point blank that there is no legal requirement to privide an SSN to an employer, and that it is a matter "between the employer and employee." In a worst case scenario, the employee may be subjected to "backup withholding" that he is unable to recover, but the law governing backup withholding makes clear that it applies to SSn holders who refuse an employer's request to provide the SSN. If you have no SSN and accurately state "none" when the number is requested, you have fulfilled any legal obligation for yourself and for your employer.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Mamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    2,587
    Amendment XV - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870

    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    maybe Senator Hillary Clinton and the New York Assembly need to read the 15th amendment -- aliens, legal or illegal, have no right to vote
    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" George Santayana "Deo Vindice"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •