Thread: Response From NYS Att. General's Office on Illegals

Congress cannot have lawfully legislated the use of plastic. It is doubtful that the Congress could even lawfully abdicate its responsibility for setting the value of money, at least not without the People having their say in the form of a constitutional amendment. So the Federal Reserve Act was and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That means that it was undertaken under the authority of the Holy Roman Empire, not under constitutional authority.

Chloe:

It was NOT a personal response...how do I know this? I posed a similiar question to Spitzer, and guess what I got in the mail today? The EXACT IDENTICAL PIECE OF TRIPE!

Pinto Bean

undertaken under the authority of the Holy Roman Empire, not under constitutional authority.

Hey Crocket
I just popped in for a short minute (missing my tutorial )

That statement implies a charter or another constitution then. So let me see if I have a handle on this. The People of this nation operate under the assumption that this country exists and is functioning from THE Constitution. The Federal Reserve was legislated under for want of a better term lets call it a "secrete" charter or constitution for the Federal United States which makes it illegal because of fraud.

When "they" (administration or politicians) acknowledge our Constition for whatever reason, either in conversation or in legislation it implies (to me anyway) that both documents are functioning concurrently.

Is the game plan then to make the people unwittingly complicit in the extinction of our Constitution? By unwitting I mean the majority of people in this country have no clue what has occured. When the people are "conned" into accepting legislation because of specific circumstances i.e. the Patriot Act or other legislation rammed through in the middle of the night or behind closed doors, our constitution is weakened. Can that in any wild stretch of the imagination be legally interpretted that the people voluntarily or knowingly surrendered our Constitution?

Did I communicate what my brain is trying to wrap around here? I just hate being short on time this weekend. I would rather have my entire focus on this til I have it all digested.

Originally Posted by xanadu

undertaken under the authority of the Holy Roman Empire, not under constitutional authority.

Hey Crocket
I just popped in for a short minute (missing my tutorial )

That statement implies a charter or another constitution then. So let me see if I have a handle on this. The People of this nation operate under the assumption that this country exists and is functioning from THE Constitution. The Federal Reserve was legislated under for want of a better term lets call it a "secrete" charter or constitution for the Federal United States which makes it illegal because of fraud.

When "they" (administration or politicians) acknowledge our Constition for whatever reason, either in conversation or in legislation it implies (to me anyway) that both documents are functioning concurrently.

Is the game plan then to make the people unwittingly complicit in the extinction of our Constitution? By unwitting I mean the majority of people in this country have no clue what has occured. When the people are "conned" into accepting legislation because of specific circumstances i.e. the Patriot Act or other legislation rammed through in the middle of the night or behind closed doors, our constitution is weakened. Can that in any wild stretch of the imagination be legally interpretted that the people voluntarily or knowingly surrendered our Constitution?

Did I communicate what my brain is trying to wrap around here? I just hate being short on time this weekend. I would rather have my entire focus on this til I have it all digested.

Well, you don't have to kill the Constitution. All you have to do is to subordinate it by making sure that everything you sy or do is administered under a separate authority. the tragedy is that most people have no idea that almost any courtroom they are likely to land in is not a Constitutional court or a Common Law court, but rather a court of the lex mercatorum.

It's not even important that legislators understand the jurisdictions they are operating under. Those power-grabbing bastards need only understand that this or that law was allowed to stand in apparent contradiction of constitutional prohibitions in order for them to keep pushing the envelope with even more intrusive and unconstitutional legislation. Whether they are allowed to make such laws because they are operating under a separate authority or because the courts have reinterpreted the Bill of Rights out of existence does not matter to them.

Quick question that is applicable with regard to the immigration issue we are facing.

I just received an email advising me that the admin and senate are using polls that are highly suspect with regard to their findings.

My quesiton is, can a FOIA be used to acquire information from a private company or is that strictly for attempting to get your hands on some document generated by the government?

Originally Posted by xanadu

Quick question that is applicable with regard to the immigration issue we are facing.

I just received an email advising me that the admin and senate are using polls that are highly suspect with regard to their findings.

My quesiton is, can a FOIA be used to acquire information from a private company or is that strictly for attempting to get your hands on some document generated by the government?

The only way that a FOIA could be used is if the poll was actually commissioned by the government or if there was a public process or debate regarding the means for selecting which polls are used.

Most pollsters provide their methodology, including statistical sample, margin for error, and actual questions asked.