[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Amish Exempted from (Obama) Soetoro Care
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221
Published: Apr 7, 2010
Author: Zahn
Post Date: 2010-04-07 06:07:03 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 503
Comments: 47

Does your faith free you from forced Obamacare? Why Amish won't have to purchase insurance, but Muslims will cry foul Posted: April 06, 2010 8:34 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama signing health-care reform bill at the White House (White House photo)

The recent health-care reform legislation carries a controversial mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but careful study of the passed law reveals there are some groups – the Amish, for example – that can obtain an exemption.

For devout Muslims, however, whose religious beliefs forbid purchasing insurance, the mandate is still binding, religion or not. And most other religious, political or conscientious objectors will similarly find themselves out of luck if they hope to be excused from the requirement.

There is a clause in the fine print, however, that could provide an out for those willing to take it.

Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adds a new chapter to the Internal Revenue Code mandating all "applicable" individuals either obtain health insurance that meets the bill's "minimum essential coverage" standards or pay a penalty on tax day.

Like to remind congressional leaders of the rules they're supposed to follow? Send Congress copies of the Constitution today!

Section 1501 also spells out exceptions, those who are not considered "applicable" individuals, both for the mandate and for the penalty. Illegal aliens, foreign nationals and incarcerated prisoners, for example, are exempt from the mandate. The extreme poor and members of Indian tribes, while not exempt from the requirement, are nonetheless excused from paying the penalty.

But section 1501 also carries a pair of "religious exemptions" that will allow the Amish to escape the mandate but require Muslims and other religious objectors to get creative.

(Story continues below)

The law creates a religious exemption for those who are members and faithful adherents of a "recognized religious sect or division" with "established tenets or teachings" barring the "acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance."

For individuals who do not belong to a denomination with specific bans on insurance, therefore, personal religious objections will not exempt them from the mandate.

But even for Muslims, who may belong to a sect with clearly established teachings banning insurance, the bill still presents a problem.

For many Muslims, conventional health insurance is considered forbidden, because it is based on a system of uncertain outcomes akin to gambling on the future and the charging of interest.

The health-care reform bill's language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

According to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies website, traditional Amish groups may dodge the mandate because they have been exempted from participating in Social Security for decades.

"The Amish viewed it as a form of commercial insurance, which they opposed," explains the website produced by Elizabethtown College in the Plain People country of Lancaster County, Pa. "They believe that members of the church should care for each others' physical and material needs. Thus, most of them do not pay into Social Security or receive payments from it. In some states, the Amish have also been exempted from workers compensation (insurance for on-the-job injuries) for the same reason."

For Muslims, however, Social Security is considered a form of caring for the poor, rather than an insurance gamble. While refusing typical insurance is common in Muslim circles, participation in the Social Security system is more widely accepted.

Most of the Amish, therefore, will qualify for the religious exemption, while most other Christians, Muslims and people of other religions will not.

Conscientious objectors to the mandate, also excluded from any exemption, have already voiced their intent to challenge the law because they don't think the requirement is legal.

"If [the Amish] can do it for religious objection, well, I have a different type of objection," Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute told Fox News. "I think I'm being coerced into doing something against my will, and so the challenge would be from a different perspective."

Outside of court battles, however, this is one more way certain religious individuals may be able to slip out of the mandate.

How the non-Amish might still obtain an exemption

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides a second form of religious exemption, one for those who are members of "of a health-care sharing ministry," which is defined as a non-profit, health-insurance alternative program, where members typically pay in regular dues and then contribute toward one another's medical costs.

To qualify for the exemption, the Act requires a sharing ministry to meet the following conditions:

* It must be a qualifying 501(c)(3) organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a)

* It's members must "share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the state in which a member resides or is employed"

* Its members must retain their memberships, even after developing medical conditions

* The sharing ministry or its predecessor must have been in existence at all times since Dec. 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members must have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least Dec. 31, 1999

* It must conduct annual audits made available to the public on request and performed by an independent certified public accounting firm.

The Amish – thus double qualifying for exemption from the mandate – have participated in such co-ops for years. But there are also several such ministries established in the U.S. for people of other faiths and denominations.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example, is a 501(c)(3) cost-sharing ministry that claims its more than 100,000 members have shared more than $500 million in medical bills over the last 20 years.

"Christian Healthcare Ministries is not a health-insurance company," the group's website explains. "Rather, we are a group of thousands of Christians across the United States and around the world who share each other's burdens in the area of health-care costs. We also pray for and encourage one another."

Among similar groups are Medi-Share and Samaritan Ministries.

Muslims have also developed similar programs in line with the Islamic principal of takaful, or mutual sharing of one another's needs. Dozens of these programs have sprung up throughout Arab nations since the 1960s but have been a newer phenomenon in the U.S. and are difficult to find. WND contacted several Islamic relations and education organizations as well as financial institutions and was unable to find a takaful-insurance program covering medical expenses for American Muslims.


Poster Comment:

All of you that receive or expect (hahaha) to receive SS benefits are "subjects" of Obama and obligated to the healthcare scam. Amerika, Love it or Love it. (Subjects have limited options and leaving it ain't one of em).

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: noone222 (#0)

Amish Exempted from (Obama) Soetoro Care

Me too! :)

How can I be subject to a law that is fully violating the constitution, that was not passed according to rules set down in the constitution? Why by golly, I'm not. Whatchaknow?

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-04-07   8:06:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)

How can I be subject to a law that is fully violating the constitution

If you participate in Socialist Security (or expect to) the CONstistupid has no bearing on your "privileges" and you have no rights ... by submitting to the Socialist Security Scheme you waive your rights and opt into the Socialist DEMOBOCRACY.

The Socialist democracy operates in commerce under the law merchant or contract law. In commerce there is NO CONSTITUTION.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   8:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: noone222 (#2)

Ah, but a person withdrawing from the other provisions of this criminal system seems to have moral footing, n'est-ce pas? Nonetheless, SS was passed before most of us, except maybe Cynicom, were alive. Thurst upon us at birth if you will. This is not so much that. We didn't sign the papers putting us under ssn "control". Here, we have that option.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-04-07   8:31:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: noone222 (#0)

Illegal aliens and those who are incarcerated for lengthy sentences are also excluded. As are those on public assistance (can I still say welfare?) or are "under employed (the last time I was under employed I took on a 3rd job). That said, good for the Amish. Anyone who can get out from under this blanket of socialism is a help to the cause. We need to reach that tipping point where those who are struggling to get by reach the tipping point. We're so, so close.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-04-07   8:51:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jethro Tull (#4)

can I still say welfare?

No. Call it what is is - the dole for bums.

MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-04-07   8:54:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: SonOfLiberty (#3)

Ah, but a person withdrawing from the other provisions of this criminal system seems to have moral footing, n'est-ce pas? Nonetheless, SS was passed before most of us, except maybe Cynicom, were alive. Thurst upon us at birth if you will. This is not so much that. We didn't sign the papers putting us under ssn "control". Here, we have that option.

Today in America there are few if any alternatives to the fiat currency (FRNs). [I suggest that we force congress to re-issue TREASURY NOTES until the system can be reformed to Constitutional standards but in the mean time removed from the PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKS.]

Since 1964 when the silver certificates were withdrawn from the economy by that bastion of civil grace and national loyalty, LBJ, there has been no oppurtunity for people to pay for anything that they purchase. Goods and services are exchanged without any ability to extinguish the debt. There's a huge difference between extinguishing debt and discharging debt. We've become debt slaves to the filthy banksters and operate as bankrupts without rights.

The Socialist Security System is also a fraud but that doesn't excuse anyone participating in it from the Socialist Demobocracy because everythjing in the Socialist democracy is "fiction". [Fiction is just another word for FRAUD].

One must formally exit that system by declaring it. A CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE along with submission of form SS-521 should do it. (I did it). The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury should also be notified that you reject usage of their masonic currency and demand an alternative. If nothing is done to satisfy your demand you'll probably be forced to use the FRN out of necessity.

All one can do is demonstrate at every opportunity that you have rejected their system by NOT PARTICIPATING in any legal fiction whatsoever, NONE.

If you are attached to any legal fiction you must formally notice the entity of your withdrawal, recission, rejection, and termination of that attachment. You should be certain to notify EVERY LEGAL FICTION you have been attached to.

Then you should formally expatriate from attachment to the FEDERAL U.S. Government. All legal fictions must be avoided. No bank accounts, no credit cards, no SSN, no stimulus checks, no personal dealings with any corporation at all.

Otherwise bend down and kiss the hands that feed you ... (Uncle Sambo).

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   9:04:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: SonOfLiberty (#5)

I remember when one was on the dole. Then it changed to welfare and now to the more palatable "public assistance." As the name for government money became more kind, the number of people accepting it grew in direct proportion. It's now a badge of honor to be a work free "single mother" of many.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-04-07   9:08:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Jethro Tull (#4)

(can I still say welfare?)

Sure !!!

We need to reach that tipping point where those who are struggling to get by reach the tipping point. We're so, so close.

You're so right. I try to keep a finger or two on the pulse of America by talking to the local legal (fictions) authorities. I stopped and talked to the local muni judge that also owns a local restaurant and he told me he hadn't seen so many pissed off people since he opened the cafe.

I think we have more popular support to oust this usurper in chief or to ignore his proclamations and those of the congressional majority.

It's a revolution, bro ! (better late than never).

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   9:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Jethro Tull (#7)

I remember when one was on the dole. Then it changed to welfare and now to the more palatable "public assistance." As the name for government money became more kind, the number of people accepting it grew in direct proportion. It's now a badge of honor to be a work free "single mother" of many.

I won't have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car. Won't have to worry 'bout de mortgage. If I he'p him he gwine ter he'p me!


As Chris Rock would say, "Keepin' it real. Real dumb!"

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07   9:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: noone222 (#8)

You're so right. I try to keep a finger or two on the pulse of America by talking to the local legal (fictions) authorities. I stopped and talked to the local muni judge that also owns a local restaurant and he told me he hadn't seen so many pissed off people since he opened the cafe.

Along those lines, I was at the post office yesterday sending a piece of registered mail. I put the liberty bell stamps on the envelope upside down, as I do the American flag stamps when I use them. The gal behind the counter noticed and said, "we are in trouble" and said she's seeing lots of this very small reminder being done by other customers. Yeah, we are close.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-04-07   9:30:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: noone222 (#0)

The health-care reform bill's language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

sounds like establishment of religion, imo.

very interesting article. I don't think it would be all that difficult to drive a mack truck through it.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example, is a 501(c)(3) cost-sharing ministry that claims its more than 100,000 members have shared more than $500 million in medical bills over the last 20 years.

"Christian Healthcare Ministries is not a health-insurance company," the group's website explains. "Rather, we are a group of thousands of Christians across the United States and around the world who share each other's burdens in the area of health-care costs. We also pray for and encourage one another."

Very interesting. I thought that would be a good idea....didn't know someone was actually doing it. If they are Christian, they could have dispensed with the 501 (c) (3) b.s. The next Christian healthcare ministry will, I'm betting.

================

Social Security was a FRAUD perpetrated on the American people, at the point of a gun. To continue the fraud, they'll need to disarm us. Oh right, they're trying to. Doesn't matter. The funny money they stole is still there as credit. There is no statute of limitations on FRAUD. They'll make it good or they'll "die". There is no place for them to hide. The whole world is under social security, and the whole world has awakened to what they've done.

Obamanation care should fall on Hale v. Henkel.

#TL04: How to Find Out Who You Are
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. ... As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. ...

"...An Important Supreme Court Case

The sovereign individual paradigm is reflected by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights." It does not say, "Sit on his rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the sovereign individual. The sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us rights. We have fundamental rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our rights. And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your rights? No! Your rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the rights of a sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." The sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask the attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful response. A friend of mine has researched Hale v. Henkel. He reported:

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of at least 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

How does that compare with the other Supreme Court cases? Although a complete study has not been made, initial observations indicate that no other case surpasses Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited." ...."

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl04.shtml

If someone took zero's little extortion plot into court, and the judge said the [U.S. SUPREME COURT decision] Hale v Henkel didn't apply in his court [since it was before 1933('38?), when "public policy" quashed the original Constitution], they'd have to admit the courts and the government are under some alien jurisdiction. In my little pea brain, it seems like it would have the potential to bring the whole government down.

Tim Turner's new site: www.freedomyell.com/

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   9:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: James Deffenbach (#9)

Meet your god-man

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-04-07   9:34:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: noone222 (#6)

One must formally exit that system by declaring it. A CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE along with submission of form SS-521 should do it. (I did it). The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury should also be notified that you reject usage of their masonic currency and demand an alternative. If nothing is done to satisfy your demand you'll probably be forced to use the FRN out of necessity.

Now that's interesting. If I had more free space on my computer I'd look it up. Writing it down so I can look it up later.

How do you propose we maintain the roads in the meantime?

Today in America there are few if any alternatives to the fiat currency (FRNs). [I suggest that we force congress to re-issue TREASURY NOTES until the system can be reformed to Constitutional standards but in the mean time removed from the PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKS.]

I wonder if Turner's group is working on that:

"...If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. Is it absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency? Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.” - Thomas Edison...." [under "Freedom Chronicles", then "Political Editorial".]

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   9:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)

I wrote a couple of books about the government's tax swindles (among other things) back in the 80's. Hale v. Henkel was one of the cases I cited. Probably one of the best rulings to ever come from the Supreme Court. That and the case of Georgia v. Brailsford where John Jay told the jurors that they had the right to judge both the facts and the law.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07   9:46:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: SonOfLiberty, all (#1)

Amish Exempted from (Obama) Soetoro Care

Me too! :)

Me three!

I'm a heretic, and I'm exempt because I say so!

.


Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
CHIMPOUT!
COONTACT!

Live free or die kill ~~ Me

PSUSA  posted on  2010-04-07   9:50:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Jethro Tull (#12)

Jesse Jackson crying tears as big as horse turds thinking, "Dat should be me up dere. Damn de luck anyway!"

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07   9:51:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)

The "real" question after Hale v. Hinkel is whether or not you have become a legal fiction in the eyes of the law.

The court shows the difference in obligation to the state of a CORPORATION as opposed to the non-obligation of the individual. That being said, if one chooses to contract with the state (like having the birth certified by the government and a certificate issued in the ALL CAPS IDENTIFIER) then the courts presume your character to be exactly the same as any other legal fiction.

The courts in the fictional jurisdiction are only able to communicate or do "business" with other fictions.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   9:55:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: James Deffenbach (#16)

Ha!!

Reverend Hymietown is the ultimate and complete fraud comparable only to Chicken Fat Sharpton.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-04-07   9:56:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)

sounds like establishment of religion, imo.

I agree.

Great post. :)

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-04-07   9:57:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#13) (Edited)

How do you propose we maintain the roads in the meantime?

The excise taxes (both state and federal) collected on fuel are supposed to maintain the roads.

The "income tax" is collected almost in its entirety to satisfy the "INTEREST" on the federal debt. No roads are built with income tax revenue.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   9:58:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: James Deffenbach (#14)

I wrote a couple of books about the government's tax swindles (among other things) back in the 80's.

I'm impressed! I believe I was still in la-la land back then.

Hale v. Henkel was one of the cases I cited. Probably one of the best rulings to ever come from the Supreme Court. That and the case of Georgia v. Brailsford where John Jay told the jurors that they had the right to judge both the facts and the law.

Taking note of that one to look up too. Thanks!

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:10:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: noone222 (#20) (Edited)

The excise taxes (both state and federal) collected on fuel are supposed to maintain the roads.

Around these parts, the Gambling Mafia insisted long ago that the Lottery would serve to maintain our roads and our schools too. LOL

Truckers pay a lot of extra fees that are also supposed to go towards maintaining the roads but, like the Lottery and fuel taxes, don't seem to be used much for that purpose.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-04-07   10:16:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: noone222 (#17)

I get your point, but can you imagine a sui juris man or woman, with a personal court recorder [man or woman, not machine] in hand, stand up in one of their kangaroo courts and attempt to stand on a Supreme Court decision and have the judge throw it out for lack of jurisdiction or something like that? Then the judge would probably stamp "This case not to be cited," on the record, but you and your court reporter could post the whole proceedings on the world-wide web to expose their fraud for the whole world to see.

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:22:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: noone222 (#20)

How do you propose we maintain the roads in the meantime?

The excise taxes (both state and federal) collected on fuel are supposed to maintain the roads.

The "income tax" is collected almost in its entirety to satisfy the "INTEREST" on the federal debt. No roads are built with income tax revenue.

Right. I should have known that. ["Why an Income Tax Is Not Necessary to Fund the Federal Government - Devvy Kidd"]

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:25:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: James Deffenbach (#14)

The most frustrating thing I've witnessed over the last 30 years is "patriots" trying to operate within the law going to prison one by one. Each time a variation of common defenses relating to "show me the law" or some 16th Amendment challenge gets them locked up.

No rational mind would ever have jumped to a conclusion like "the constitution is irrelevant" but that's the case. The evil genius behind the commercial/contract system that has usurped the constitutional foundation of America goes unnoticed until you finally agree to accept what you're seeing over and over.

Judges exclaiming "don't mention the constitution in my courtroom" or even today with actions rising upon Barry Soetoro's lack of natural birth are instantly determined frivolous or the plaintiffs dismissed for "lack of standing" should give cause to ask ... WTF else could it possibly be ?

It's the money ! Federal Reserve Bank governments have federal courts. These should be distinguished from constitutional courts.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   10:25:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#24)

Right. I should have known that. ["Why an Income Tax Is Not Necessary to Fund the Federal Government - Devvy Kidd"]

I'm sure you did ... I was simply refreshing your memory.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   10:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: GreyLmist (#22)

Makes you wonder where all that money really goes, doesn't it?

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:31:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#23) (Edited)

I get your point, but can you imagine a sui juris man or woman, with a personal court recorder [man or woman, not machine] in hand, stand up in one of their kangaroo courts and attempt to stand on a Supreme Court decision and have the judge throw it out for lack of jurisdiction or something like that? Then the judge would probably stamp "This case not to be cited," on the record, but you and your court reporter could post the whole proceedings on the world-wide web to expose their fraud for the whole world to see.

Their system is not user friendly. The judges have been coached to evade answering questions that might expose their fraud. Often times they'll even give some one a win or dismiss a matter rather than address it honestly.

Since you mentioned case cites I thought I'd add this little ditty.

All of the books that cite case law "are COPYRIGHTED, ie., Westlaw etc.

How can public law be copyrighted ? Maybe it's PRIVATE LAW. And if it's possible to only publish those cases that benefit the STATE INC. where is "equal protection under the law" ?

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   10:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: noone222 (#28)

All of the books that cite case law "are COPYRIGHTED, ie., Westlaw etc.

How can public law be copyrighted ? Maybe it's PRIVATE LAW.

Well, darn, there's THREE things I have to look up now. I guess I better stop before I make any more homework for myself.

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:34:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: GreyLmist (#22)

Truckers pay a lot of extra fees that are also supposed to go towards maintaining the roads but, like the Lottery and fuel taxes, don't seem to be used much for that purpose.

Commercial Vehicles are trespassers upon the public roads and highways ... therefore they are liable for license, weight fees and tax to compensate for the wear and tear they cause in the pursuit of commerce.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   10:35:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: noone222 (#0)

Hi Boys & Girls,

It's funny to think of the squabble this Health Care Act has caused and is much the same as the SS Act of 1935, no American (or very few) is required to participate.

At H. R. 3590—142 we see an exit:

SEC. 1555. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS. No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

Some definitions are also helpful to better understand the jurisdictional claim of referenced Health Care Act:

H. R. 3590—547 ‘‘(E) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (NO MENTION OF ANY UNION state!!!)

Let's compare how this term "State" is employed in other laws that are employed to deceive the American people:

federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 USC Sec. 921): the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) and is identical to The State of Illinois definition of “State” found at 5 ILCS 70 Statute on Statutes. To wit:

GENERAL PROVISIONS (5 ILCS 70/) Statute on Statutes. (5 ILCS 70/0.01) (from Ch. 1, par. 1000) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Statute on Statutes. (Source: P.A. 86 4; 86 451.) (5 ILCS 70/1.14) (from Ch. 1, par. 1015) Sec. 1.14. "State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories. (Source: Laws 1945, p. 1717.)

How are Union states defined in law vs a federal State?

Federal “territories” and “States” are synonymous as per 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Keep in mind also that Indian reservations, while considered “sovereign nations” are also federal “States”:

4 U.S.C. §110(d)

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions (d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36)

(a) Definitions

(36) State [Aliens and Nationality]

The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(10)

(a) Definitions

(10)State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

28 U.S.C. 1332(d)

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1332. [Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]

Sec. 1332. - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(d) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101:

Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101

“The term State (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.”

[Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101]

42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1): Current Social Security Act

“(1) The term ‘State’, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in titles IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in titles III, IX, and XII also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in title V and in part B of this title also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in titles XIX and XXI also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, titles I, X, and XIV, and title XVI (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972[3]) shall continue to apply, and the term ‘State’ when used in such titles (but not in title XVI as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in title XX also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in title IV also includes American Samoa.”

[42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1)]

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Section 9 -102 (76)

(76) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

PDF Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

(d) the word "States", as used in this section [Title 28 §1332 as amended in 1958] includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of the capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States."

[Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)]

Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831):

"The Cherokee Nation is not a foreign state, in the sense in which the term 'foreign state' is used in the Constitution of the United States."

"The Cherokees are a State."

"The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the courts are bound by those acts."

[Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831)]

49 U.S.C. §13102: Definitions

(18) State. - The term ''State'' means the 50 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(5)

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter B > § 6103

§ 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

(b) Definitions For purposes of this section—

(5) State The term “State” means—

(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and (B) for purposes of subsections (a)(2), (b)(4), (d)(1), (h)(4), and (p) any municipality—

(i) with a population in excess of 250,000 (as determined under the most recent decennial United States census data available),

(ii) which imposes a tax on income or wages, and

(iii) with which the Secretary (in his sole discretion) has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure.

U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875):

The word 'State' 'describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. It is not difficult to see, that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the State. . . . In the Constitution, the term 'State' most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and States which compose it one people and one country.' Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 720, 721.

That the word 'State' is not confined in its meaning to the legislative power of a community is evident, not only from the authority just cited, but from a reference to the various places in which it is used in the Constitution of the United States. A few only of these will be referred to.

[U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)]

Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 20:

United States

"The classical designation to clearly indicate the states as individual governmental entities making up the United Nation, dating form the Constitution and coming down through various acts of Congress and pronouncements of the courts, is the word "states". Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, 156 P.2d 319, 324, 325, 66 Idaho 128.

"Generally the word "state" when used by court or Legislature [in federal statutes, for instance, of which the Internal Revenue Code is a part] denotes one of the members of the federal Union. Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, 156 P.2d 319, 324, 235, 66 Idaho 128."

"The word "state" is generally used in connection with constitutional law in United States as meaning individual states making up the Union in contradistinction to United States as a nation, but United States is a "state" as such word is frequently used in international law, or to carry out legislative intent expressed in statute. McLaughlin v. Poucher, 17 A.2d 767, 770, 127 Conn. 441."

[Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 20]

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

It is sufficient to observe in relation to these three fundamental instruments [Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and the Treaty of Peace with Spain], that it can nowhere be inferred that the *251 territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states; and even the provision relied upon here, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform ‘throughout the United States,’ is explained by subsequent provisions of the Constitution, that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,’ and ‘no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.’ In short, the Constitution deals with states, their people, and their representatives.

[. . .]

"The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332, in which this court held that, under that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia could not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. It was argued that the word 'state.' in that connection, was used simply to denote a distinct political society. 'But,' said the Chief Justice, 'as the act of Congress obviously used the word 'state' in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution , . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.' This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.' In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress."

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Judiciary Act of 1789: "State"

The sentence found in the Historical and Revision Notes under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 5 say the following:

“Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,”

This tells the reader that there is something to be learned in sections 81-131. What is to be learned is the same thing that was presented in the Judiciary Act of 1789 in section two:

SEC . 2. And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: one to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Maine District; one to consist of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called New Hampshire District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Massachusetts, and to be called Massachusetts district; one to consist of the State of Connecticut, and to be called Connecticut District; one to consist of the State of New York, and to be called New York District; one to consist of the State of New Jersey, and to be called New Jersey District; one to consist of the State of Pennsylvania, and to be called Pennsylvania District; one to consist of the State of Delaware, and to be called Delaware District; one to consist of the State of Maryland, and to be called Maryland District; one to consist of the State of Virginia, except that part called the District of Kentucky, and to be called Virginia District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Virginia, and to be called Kentucky District; one to consist of the State of South Carolina, and to be called South Carolina District; and one to consist of the State of Georgia, and to be called Georgia District.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was enacted on September 24, 1789 when only 11 States had ratified this Constitution. Notice, however, that the Act creates 13 districts. The Maine District is created from part of the State of Massachusetts and the Kentucky District was created from the “remaining part of the State of Virginia.” Kentucky became a State on June 1, 1792 and Maine was admitted into the Union on March 15, 1820. These facts prove that the State of Massachusetts and the State of Virginia are something other than States even though the Judiciary Act of 1789 says they are part of the United States.

Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into positive law in 1948. In order for the “judicial” law enacted by the Congress of the United States to be positive law, it had to conform to Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and other “judicial” legislation. The sentence: “Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,” was added by the Law Revision Counsel so that it would conform to all prior statute law that concerned the federal judiciary and judicial procedure.

Albert J. Nock, America Mercury Magazine, march 1939:

"[T]he State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation -- that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class -- that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient."

[Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), Source: The Criminality of the State, America Mercury Magazine, March, 1939]

BACKGROUND ON "STATE" FROM THE PREFACE OF THE GREAT IRS HOAX:

State — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a federal State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Marina Islands, and includes areas within the external boundaries of a state owned by or ceded to the United States of America. Federal “States” are defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10). In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as indicated below. The reason the constitution is different is because of who wrote it. The states wrote it so they are capitalized. Federal statutes are not written by the sovereign states so they use the lower case “state” to describe the sovereign 50 union states, which are foreign to the federal government and outside its territorial jurisdiction.

“It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of a capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States” Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

state — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a sovereign state of the Union of America under the Constitution for the United States of America 1789-1791. In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as defined here. Below is a further clarification of the meaning of “states” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933), where they define what is not a “state”:

After an exhaustive review of the prior decisions of this court relating to the matter, the following propositions, among others, were stated as being established:

'1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states;

'2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. St. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;

'3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;

'4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.'

(http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State.htm)

P.H. believes that most "Talking Heads" and the majority of Americans have been duped into agreeing with Federal Jurisdiction when there is no Lawful requirement to do so.

For those who have not read the referenced exclusively Federal Health Care Act, please see below: (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf)

Warm Regards,

P.H.

In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2010-04-07   10:58:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: PatrickHenry (#31)

BACKGROUND ON "STATE" FROM THE PREFACE OF THE GREAT IRS HOAX:

State — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a federal State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Marina Islands, and includes areas within the external boundaries of a state owned by or ceded to the United States of America. Federal “States” are defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10). In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as indicated below. The reason the constitution is different is because of who wrote it. The states wrote it so they are capitalized. Federal statutes are not written by the sovereign states so they use the lower case “state” to describe the sovereign 50 union states, which are foreign to the federal government and outside its territorial jurisdiction.

“It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of a capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States” Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

state — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a sovereign state of the Union of America under the Constitution for the United States of America 1789-1791. In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as defined here. Below is a further clarification of the meaning of “states” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933), where they define what is not a “state”:

After an exhaustive review of the prior decisions of this court relating to the matter, the following propositions, among others, were stated as being established:

'1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states;

'2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. St. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;

'3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;

'4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.'

(http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State.htm)

Got it [I think...although I have read this pharisee word-twisting several times before, I think I get it now.]; thank you bump.

question:

4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.'

What is the small "s" supreme court? The grand jury? What?

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   11:30:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#32)

;)

In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2010-04-07   11:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#21)

Here is the relevant part of the case having to do with the rights of the jurors:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

The STATE of GEORGIA, versus BRAILSFORD, et al.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07   11:42:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: PatrickHenry (#31)

Bookmarked, exceptional post !

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   11:49:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: James Deffenbach (#34)

the case of Georgia v. Brailsford where John Jay told the jurors that they had the right to judge both the facts and the law:

Here is the relevant part of the case having to do with the rights of the jurors:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

The STATE of GEORGIA, versus BRAILSFORD, et al.

Thank you!!!

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   11:51:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: James Deffenbach (#34)

But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

Another winner ... great post !

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   11:52:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: PatrickHenry (#33)

grand juries...commercial liens...i'm a slow learner, but i think i'm starting to get it.

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   11:54:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: PatrickHenry (#31)

P.H. believes that most "Talking Heads" and the majority of Americans have been duped into agreeing with Federal Jurisdiction when there is no Lawful requirement to do so.

i agree. isn't this what the 30+ states are using to opt out of Obamacare?

christine  posted on  2010-04-07   11:54:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: James Deffenbach (#34)

Of course, this case is prior to the Federal Reserve Act and the removal of gold and silver from our monetary (legal) system.

"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."

Thomas Jefferson had NO REASON to make this statement -- So I did !!! Doug Scheidt /APRIL 1, 2010 / Year of the 2nd REVOLUTION.

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   12:02:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 47) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]