The Way it is

by **antiaristo** » Fri May 12, 2006 7:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Court backs exiled islanders against 'repugnant' actions of ministers · Indian Ocean blockade criticised by judges · Campaigner calls on Queen to apologise Duncan Campbell Friday May 12, 2006 The Guardian A group of islanders who were removed from their homes in the Indian Ocean decades ago to make way for a US airbase yesterday celebrated victory at the high court in London. After hearing a judgment critical of ministers' actions, islanders called on the Queen to apologise for what her government had done and said they hoped to return home as soon as possible. Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell ruled that orders made under the royal prerogative to prevent the return of the Chagos islanders to their homes were unlawful. They described as "repugnant" the action to exile the population of the islands. "The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile a whole population from a British overseas territory and claim that he is doing so for the 'peace, order and good government' of the territory is, to us, repugnant," the judges said. "The defendant's approach to this case involves much clanking of the 'chains of the ghosts of the past'." About 2,000 islanders were forcibly removed between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia US airbase, which has been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are an estimated 4,000 members of the 65-island diaspora now living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK, where there is a small community in Crawley, West Sussex. "The British government has been defeated in its attempt to abolish the right of abode of the islanders after first deporting them in secret 30 years ago," said Richard Gifford, the lawyer representing the islanders. "The story of their forced removal, their sufferings in exile and their desperate struggle to return are described in detail in the judgment. The responsibility of our present government for victimising its own citizens and its subservience to the demands of a foreign power are all too obvious." Mr Gifford said it was the fourth time in the past five years that the courts had deplored the treatment of the islanders. "The Chagossian people can now continue their struggle to return to their homeland in the knowledge that a senior court of law has again declared their right to do so." The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was given 28 days to appeal. A spokesman said: "We are disappointed at the judgment." During the case, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, representing Olivier Bancoult, under whose name the action was brought, described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards". John Howell QC, for the Foreign Office, said the government had acted within its powers. Outside court, more than 20 islanders and their supporters celebrated the victory. Mr Bancoult, who was displaced as a child, said: "Although we are a small people, we always had faith in our struggle. What the UK has done to us is unlawful and our aim is to return as soon as possible. We will look for help from everyone to go back. We had been living there for many generations and we now have the right to return to our birthplace. I personally think that the Queen should apologise." At the court for the verdict was 65-year-old Lisette Taleti, two of whose children died during the evacuation. "I am very, very happy about the decision," she said through a translator. "This is a stunning legal victory not only for the Chagos community but for other dispossessed people," said Cynthia Morel, of Minority Rights Group International, which supported the legal action. She said it was essential that the media and international community ensured that the right to return was upheld.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1773042,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uk_new...42,00.html</a> There is a lot going on here, but this story is illustrative of "how it is" in Britain. The first point: this took place from 1965 to 1973. The British prime minister from 1965 to 1970 was Harold Wilson, of the Labour Party. The prime minister from 1970 to 1973 was Edward Heath, of the Conservative Party. The second point: this abomination was authorised by an "order in council". That is the privy council, the group of sycophants that surround Queen Elizabeth II. Third point: their return has been prevented by authority of the royal prerogative. This is the PERSONAL power of the Queen under the Treason Felony Act of 1848. See here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=93.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=93.topic</a> Fourth point: at no time has the democratic mechanism been involved. You can search in vain in Hansard and you will find nothing about this debated in parliament. The "law" is quite clear: parliament CANNOT constrain the Queen, whatever she chooses to do. Fifth point: the judges tell us that this is the fourth time in five years that the Queen has been told this is wrong. But nothing seems to happen. Evidently the courts cannot constrain the Queen either (but we knew that already with the Guardian challenge to the Treason Felony Act). Sixth point: the cynicism is self-evident. The whole population were removed the 'peace, order and good government' of the territory. It's the same thing as the Iraq invasion and subsequent cover-up "in the public interest". So for those who feel I go over the top in referring to that wretched woman as a dirty old slag, because they cannot internalise what she has done to me and my family. Can you understand what she has done to these people, by decree?

by **Qutb** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:17 am

I may be wrong, but doesn't "royal prerogative" simply mean the prerogative of the executive branch? However that may be, I recommend John Pilger's documentary on this affair.

by **Iroquois** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:34 am

From Wikipedia: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Royal Prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in common law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the Crown alone. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government are possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of their state are carried out. It is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but an individual prerogative can be abolished by legislative enactment.<hr></blockquote> URL: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative</a>

by jc » Fri May 12, 2006 9:00 am

anti, sorry, this might sound dense, but how does the queen work cams onto the throne? how does she bypass chas and the two ponces? wondering.

by **antiaristo** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:32 pm

jc, The idea is not to bypass anybody, but to pull a fast one. Let me explain. Look up queen consort in Wiki. Whoever is the wife of the King automatically becomes Queen. Therefore if Charles becomes King, his wife becomes the queen. But is Charles legally married? Or, in terms of realpolitic, who decides if Charles is married? The answer to that question is that it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who decides. That is logical, when you think about it. Kings and queens claim their legitimacy from God. Indeed that is why a civil marriage is unlawful, and only a traditional church wedding carries legitimacy before God. Yet we are told that Camilla is the wife of Charles Windsor by dint of the ceremony held at Windsor Registry Office. That is untrue. Yet WHO will enforce the law against the Windsor family? The answer is here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3958.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3958.topic</a> iroquois, That's an interesting excerpt from Wiki, no? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>recognised in common law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the Crown alone<hr></blockquote> So far as I know, there is but a single common-law monarchy. Yet the Wiki quote suggests this is a category. Perhaps they are trying to suggest that the royal prerogative that took Britain to war was somehow different to the royal prerogative that took Australia to war? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but an individual prerogative can be abolished by legislative enactment.<hr></blockquote> Sounds simple, eh? Until you remember that any legislative enactment must be signed by the monarch. If she simply refuses the prerogative cannot be abolished. This means that the islanders are in the same position as myself. They will have to wait until there is no queen before they achieve their justice. Remember this is the fourth such judgement in five years.....but nothing actually happens on the ground.

by jc » Fri May 12, 2006 8:54 pm

anti, thx, cleared up a few points but raised a few q's as well. hope you don't mind. i've been working my way back thru threads started by yourself, trying to get an idea of the issues involved. i'm interested. okay: (1) seem to remember from school (ages ago) that brit monarchy have to be anglican (built to enable H VIII's "divorce" from Cath of Aragon (and marriage to Anne Boleyn?)), and establishing the monarch as supreme head of the church. so it's a two way street, somehow? both derive authority from the other? not sure how that works, but can Canterbury deny something the SHead wants? (2) cams is cath. i take it the annulment of her first marriage is legal? and the death of Di freed Chas, obviously. Chas and Cam get "married" in a civil service. what's the legal status of a civil as opposed to a church marriage, are the equal in law? was Canterbury at guildhall, or only at the service? (3) i had the impression that QE2 does nae fancy cams much, did i miss something? (4) am i right in thinking that the whole point of the exercise is to secure contuity of the TFA writ because it gives the monarchy broader (ok, say it, damn near absolute) powers? (5) it seems to me there's also a mild feud going on btw QE2 and Wales, am i mistaken? (6) about the sit of England's parliament, i was thinking, an good analogy would be, when the EU set up HQ in brussels they simultaneously shut down the Belgian parl. make sense? anyway, thanks for answering. peace

by jc » Fri May 12, 2006 9:02 pm

re Canterbury and Carey(?): where are they in re to the (1) high/low, (2) Anglo-Cath/Evangelical divide? i noticed Caterbury has no love for the Masons, comforting really. Carey would be of the G, then? oh, where i'm from the monarch is head of the FM's. same in the UK?

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:29 am

jc, You're taking me into areas beyond my expertise, but I'll do my best. The reigning monarch is indeed the Supreme Governor of the Church. That is a figurehead role, at most a non-executive chairman who appoints the hands on managing director (Canterbury). She must also be careful of what she says and does in public. Neither she nor the Archbishop attended the illegal civil ceremony. A civil ceremony is just as valid as a church wedding, but the Marriage Act of 1832 which established the legal basis for such civil unions specifically excluded the royal family. On what do you base your perceptions of "feuds"? Not on anything they say for themselves, is it? I assure you it is carefully planted propaganda, of which the British are the masters. Google "Tavistock Institute". I'm not sure the Belgium situation was analagous. The Act of Union (1707) created a "holding company" in Great Britain, and parliament became the parliament of "Great Britain". They then re-created the Scottish parliament, but not the English parliament. As a result the parliament that legislates for England is run by Scottish people (Blair, Brown, Martin, Falconer, Campbell, Strathclyde, Reid). So I suppose it is no surprise that they are turning England into a prison camp. It's just like the situation in Ireland before The Famine. Absentee landlords. Carey is Evangelical; I'm not sure Williams is Anglo-Catholic. What does "of the G" mean? Your monarch is head of the Freemasons? Presumably your monarch is also a Knight of the Garter? That is the body that rules (Scottish Rite) Freemasonry worldwide. Queen Elizabeth is head of the Order of the Garter since her mother died in 2002. Yes, it's ALL about the TFA. Yes it does give THE QUEEN (not the King) absolute powers.

by jc » Sun May 14, 2006 2:48 pm

Strange. It sems much of what we're talking about seems to revolve around questions of legality, corporate entities and jurisdiction. I guess I should state that my door into "cospiracy and high-weirdness" was through the issues of usury and the banks. That led me to look into the Bank of England and the Fed Res, primarily because they were the most visible of such entities. Looking into the latter I came slowly to realize that the IRS isn't a part of the government either. I'd only managed to scratch the surface in a few articles when I was contacted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General He has written a book, "The Federal Zone [<a href="http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/preface.htm">www.supremelaw.org/fedzon...reface.htm</a>] won court cases, and effectively shown that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> the term "United States" has three different and distinct meanings: It may be the name of a sovereign occupying the same position as do other sovereigns in the family of nations; It may designate the limited territory over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction; and, It may be the collective name for the 50 States, which are united under the Constitution.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.supremelaw.org/press/larson.htm">www.supremelaw.org/press/larson.htm</a> The second part: "It may designate the limited territory over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction," applies to what he terms "the federal zone," which, ruled by congress, only has jurisdiction over "the District of Columbia, the federal territories and possessions, and the enclaves within the States which have been purchased with the consent of the State legislatures." His point of departure was the 14th and 16th amendments (never ratified) to the Constitution and the question of whether "Citizens of the United States of America" were bound by law to pay federal income taxes, seeing that they were not "citizens" of the "federal zone." They are not. Ê <blockquote>Quote:<hr>16.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayerÕs signature? Ê Answer:Ê This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes.Ê At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness oneÕs signature. Ê This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications:Ê (1) those executed outside the ÒUnited StatesÓ and (2) those executed inside the ÒUnited StatesÓ.Ê These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively. Ê What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed Òoutside the United StatesÓ.Ê In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase Òunder the laws of the United States of AmericaÓ. Ê Clearly, the terms ÒUnited StatesÓ and ÒUnited States of AmericaÓ are both used in this same statute.Ê They are not one and the same.Ê The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes.Ê The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution.Ê 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term ÒUnited States of AmericaÓ, as such. Ê It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union (read Òthe State zoneÓ) if and when they are executed inside the ÒUnited StatesÓ (read Òthe federal zoneÓ). Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are inside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed outside the ÒUnited StatesÓ. Ê The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone). Ê Ê 17.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Does the term ÒUnited StatesÓ have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they? Ê Answer:Ê Yes.Ê The term has several meanings.Ê The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.Ê [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.Ê [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.Ê See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity]. Ê This is the very same definition that is found in BlackÕs Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.Ê The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity.Ê For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service. Ê It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the definition of ÒUnited StatesÓ has now been removed from the Seventh Edition of BlackÕs Law Dictionary. <a href="http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm">www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm</a> 6.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified? Ê Answer:Ê No.Ê Neither was properly ratified. ÊIn the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment. Ê That so?called ÒamendmentÓ allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned.Ê The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored.Ê See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987). Ê The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITÕs that were properly executed and filed in that case.Ê Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the Òtruth of the case.ÓÊ The so?called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States.Ê Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense.Ê See 18 U.S.C. 1031. Ê Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.Ê In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2dÊ 266, 270 (196<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so?called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People. Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.Ê The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud. Ê The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.Ê As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.Ê See Article IV, Section 1. Ê Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so?called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.Ê The phrase Òsubject to the jurisdiction of the United StatesÓ is properly understood to mean Òsubject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.ÓÊ (See Answer to Question 19 below.) Ê For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional.Ê See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866. <hr></blockquote> Funny that, Barbera Boxer. Anyway, it seems the US of A and its citizens have also been duped by a corporate body which, according to the Constitution, has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever over them. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The federal government has used what is called legal presumption to impose taxes on millions of Americans who are actually legally exempt, says Mitchell. By means of clever and constructive fraud, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> has extended its power of taxation far beyond the scope authorized by its own law. However, when an otherwise exempt Citizen signs a 1040 and pays the tax indicated thereon, the presumption is that he knows what he is doing and thereby volunteers to become a taxpayer. A completed, signed and submitted 1040 is a voluntarily executed commercial agreement, which can be used as prima facieevidence that a non-resident alien has knowingly and intentionally subjected himself to federal taxation. This principle is explained in Morse v. United States, 494 F.2d 876, 880. The author offers a model affidavit of 5,000 words, which is to be used by Citizens in explaining to the IRS why they no longer make any return or pay any tax to the federal government. Congress has collected trillions of dollars from unsuspecting Citizens by persuading them they are inside its revenue area when, in fact, they are outside. This is deception on a grand scale, if what Mitchell says is true or can be defended in court. It is indeed stunning to realize how carefully crafted definitions such as those for "State" and "United States" are found in IRS instructions intentionally so complex that no one can understand them. This indicates that they are carefully prepared to accomplish what is perhaps the greatest fiscal fraud ever perpetrated upon any people in the history of the world. <a href="http://www.supremelaw.org/press/larson.htm">www.supremelaw.org/press/larson.htm</a> <hr></blockquote> Reminds me of an earlier thread on "The Crown" and what you've been speaking of. [<a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3500.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3500.topic</a>] The remaining question in my view is to find out who governs this corporation: "The United States"? [and i'm wondering if it can be established, in your case, whether TFA 1848, the Crown and the Monarchy actually legal have jurisdiction over the territories in which they excercise their powers?]

by jc » Sun May 14, 2006 3:09 pm

<a href="http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/FederalZone.htm">famguardian.org/TaxFreedo...alZone.htm</a> <a href="http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fedzone.htm">www.apfn.org/apfn/fedzone.htm</a>

by jc » Sun May 14, 2006 3:24 pm

The IRS is a Money-Laundering Extortion Racket by Lisa Guliani AuthorÕs Note: Special thanks are extended to Colorado Libertarian Senatorial Candidate Rick Stanley, Ken S. of American Revolution II, Amanda Moore, Deb Hamm & Fred Smart of We the People Congress, and Paul Walker for their generous assistance in researching this article. They are living proof that men and women of integrity, passion, courage, and honor still exist in this country. Thank you, one and all. ÒÉI could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness.Ó ~ Mr. Justice Field, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court, in a case brought by an attorney, Mr. Joseph H. Choate, in which he successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894. ÒÉno tax liability É if É the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year.Ó ~ (from the HorseÕs mouth) Internal Revenue Code Section 6654 (e) (2) (C) Libertarian Senatorial candidate Rick Stanley, of Colorado, has now joined with Robert Schulz of ÒWe the People CongressÓ in refusing to pay income taxes for this year and all future years. Why? Well, for starters, because both he and Schulz donÕt have to. You donÕt either, according to the law. ThatÕs right, folks. In case you didnÕt happen to know this, there is NO federal law or Act of Congress that requires any American citizen to pay the income tax. In fact, it is referred to as a ÒvoluntaryÓ tax. How can this be? Well, simple. When you fill out a W-4 form, you are essentially signing yourself into servitude and ÒvolunteeringÓ yourself to pay the tax. Did you know this? Well, itÕs true. The IRS pressures employers to obtain your signature on the W-4 form so they can reel you into paying this illegal ÒtaxÓ. Want to know what your heard-earned money isnÕt paying for? Well, it isnÕt going to pay for ANY governmental service; that is most certain. In fact, what it DOES pay ON, not for, is the INTEREST on the National Debt. Remember that? The National Debt? So, in essence, you are ÒvolunteeringÓ a goodly portion of your paycheck to pay ON an enormous debt which you did not incur. How do you like them apples? Actually, the Congress incurred this Ònational debtÓ. So, why donÕt THEY pay it off? IsnÕt it interesting, too, how certain individuals seem to NOT ÒhaveÓ to pay income taxes, like the rest of us ÒaverageÓ folk? Take, for instance, Mark Rich, who received a last-minute pardon from Ex-Buffoon Bill Clinton Ð and he ÒowedÓ a HUGE amount of unpaid income tax. Or, for a really good example of how select individuals and families donÕt have to pay and make no bones about admitting it, take the Rockefellers. Now, here is one of the richest families in America. And guess what? According to Sherman Skolnick, Nelson Rockefeller testified UNDER OATH during his Senate confirmation hearings that he and Òthe Rockefeller principal members, have NOT PAID ANY INCOME TAXES in the previous eleven years.Ó Imagine that. Well, I would think that what is good enough for the likes of Nelson and his gang is good enough for me, too. How about you? According to Rick Stanley, in 2000, there were an estimated Ò290 million people in America. The IRS received 123 million tax returns, of which an estimated 23 million were corporate filings and 100 million were from individuals.Ó ÒConservatively, an estimated 100 million people are not filing taxes and just being quiet about it,Ó asserts Stanley. Moreover, Stanley stresses that Òthere is an IRS form any person can fill out and give to their employer, which says that you are not liable for ANY taxes to be taken out of your wages. None. It is form number IRS code3402 (n), and since no American citizen is liable for income taxes on their wages, interest, etcÉ, (by constitutional law and the IRS Code book itself), EVERY AMERICAN CAN OPT OUT of the withholding of THEIR money, from THEIR check. Your employer must honor this request. The amount of your money retained in your pocket is huge.Ó And É did you know that the IRS is NOT a bureau or agency of the Department of the Treasury? Nope, it isnÕt. Holy smokes, but they often send outgoing mail with ÒDepartment of the TreasuryÓ right on the return address. Guess what? This is mail fraud. Mail fraud is a serious federal offense. Oops! Guess they are just making a booboo when they do that, huh? Another thing you should know is that the IRS is a ÒtrustÓ that is domiciled in (get this) Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico? You bet. And, their records are private and well-protected. Woohoo!! So, they are unaccountable to the poor suckers who they extort money from each and every year. The IRS is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate of strong-arms who extort our money through illicit means like bribery, kickbacks, grand jury tampering, threats, harassment, imprisonment, property seizure, and other means. Sound like a gang of hoodlums to you? It does to me and many others. There is no law that says we MUST pay the income tax. In fact, our so-called government is NOT supposed to directly tax its citizens. The income tax is considered to be akin to an excise tax. Direct taxes are supposed to be apportioned. That is according to our Constitution. Remember that document? Ya know, the one weÕre not supposed to regard as important anymore? The one no one in our government seems to be guided by these days? Yeah, that one. In fact, Rick Stanley was in court recently, in a non-tax-related matter, and this is what the judge had to say to his attorney about the Constitution: ÒYou are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand? You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in your dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?Ó ~ Spoken by Judge Patterson of Colorado in addressing Paul Grant, former attorney for Libertarian Senatorial candidate, Rick Stanley. So now we are not allowed to speak about the Constitution in a court of law? What kind of insanity is this? Where did we get this judge? From which diseased dumpster did he spring forth to preside over a court of law? What absolutely sick, incredulous remarks. Since when has the Constitution become a four-letter word? Answer: since the corporation of the UNITED STATES has realized that Americans are waking up to the TRUTH. Well, Amen to the last part anyway. It is very sad that ÔWe the PeopleÕ do not question our so-called government and judiciary more closely. It is imperative that we examine our Constitution and learn what it has to teach us about our rights and about our protections. For instance, when the IRS hassles a citizen as it has in the past, for Òillegal tax protests,Ó you should know there is no such thing as an illegal tax protest. Period. Not only do American citizens have the RIGHT to protest any damn thing we choose, but we most certainly have the right to protest an ILLEGAL tax, such as the income tax. Our fundamental right to protest is protected under the First Amendment. We may protest the illegal income tax. We also have the right to protest a government that allows us to be abused and ripped off in this way. Another thing, if you use an attorney in an admiralty court, you are deemed ÒincompetentÓ and unable to handle your own affairs. You donÕt say ... awfully presumptuous of them, isnÕt it? I think we should all stand up and support Rick Stanley, Robert Schulz, and all the good Americans who are resisting the illegal income tax extortion being perpetrated by the collection agency known as the Internal Revenue Service. We the People did not incur the National Debt Ð Congress did that when they sold us down the river. We the People are under no obligation to pay this extortion, as there is NO federal law or Act of Congress that requires us to do so. We have been threatened enough by the racketeers over the years that most people THINK they must pay. However, if you learn your Constitution, which is still the guiding document of this nation, and LEARN your rights, you will come to the realization that you have more power than you may have previously thought. You can loosen your own ropes and free yourself. Claim your sovereignty and declare your independence in an appellate court. Please support Patriots like Rick Stanley and Robert Schulz, who are fighting for the freedom of all Americans. America is ours to keep or to lose. Let freedom ringÉ

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The remaining question in my view is to find out who governs this corporation: "The United States"? [and i'm wondering if it can be established, in your case, whether TFA 1848, the Crown and the Monarchy actually legal have jurisdiction over the territories in which they excercise their powers?]<hr></blockquote> jc, You've answered your own question, haven't you? Let's go back to the text of the law: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without,<hr></blockquote> Within the United Kingdom or without It applies to THE WHOLE WORLD. Now, if the United States and the United Kingdom sign a treaty which recognises reciprocal standing, this law becomes the law in America. Because the United States is "without" the United Kingdom. Who governs the corporation? The British do. And they have three million foot soldiers (Scottish Rite Freemasons) living in the USA to back them up.

by jc » Sun May 14, 2006 4:57 pm

whoa! guess i did, at thatÉ

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 14, 2006 5:46 pm

jc, But there is more: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall<hr></blockquote> any person whatsoever You do know that a corporation is a "legal person" I take it? In other words this law applies to corporations within the United States (and elsewhere). It's all hiding in plain view.

by jc » Sun May 14, 2006 6:05 pm

in plain view. my dad always told me. also told me to read the papers, the only caveat beiing to understand who was putting out the "info" and why. have to admit, sir, yr analysis makes more amd more sense. thx

The Way it is

The Way it is

Re: The Way it is

Re: The Way it is

queens

Re: The Way it is

chas and camser

bonus question :)

Answers

the way it is

short overview of the federal zone here

if americans only knew and did something

Re: if americans only knew and did something

what it is

The cherry on top

best place to hide a secret,

Who is online