- The government of Missouri City is called “City of Missouri City”. I find this odd!
June 14, 2019
- Authorities are using the phrase ‘person of interest’ instead of ‘suspect’. Any use of the word ‘person’ is suspicious. It’s part of a movement to commercial or legal words, rather than lawful words. A suspect is likely a man or woman. A ‘person of interest’ is the persona the authorities are attaching to the man or woman. The authorities act upon the persona/person, while the man or woman mistakenly responds to questions directed the persona identified with the combined FIRST LAST (names).
April 7, 2019
- “A birth certificate is an indemnity bond security. The owner of the birth certificate is the intended guarantor (its in the Financial Administration Act). But people use the certificate as personal id, and therefore take on the role of guarantor, or collateral security.” – Adam Beck, YouTube comment.
- The 10th amendment defines the federal government as “United States”, then explicitly shows there is a difference between United States and the States:
“The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states [the 13 States],
are reserved to the states [the 13 States] respectively,
or to the people.”
Calling oneself a U.S. citizen means one is either a citizen of federal territory or an office holder in the federal government.
April 6, 2019
- New blog post: A history of the oddest part of the tax code, and how Alaska and Texas were states before they were states
- Essential review of tax on income: The Federal Zone (212 pages, PDF)
- Interesting video about grammar. The sentence ‘what is your name.’ means ‘what’ is your name, since it does not end with a question mark. See the video.
April 5, 2019
- “Corporate processes of hearing and redress are subservient, for example “submissions”, “appeals”, and “petitions”. Whereas Common Law processes of hearing and redress are sovereign, for example “notices”, “orders”, and “declarations”.” – from Living in the Private
- Articles by The Informer
- The phrase “without the United States” means not within the United States. Though it may sound odd, this phrase is right at the beginning of Title 26 of the US Code,
- George Mercier offers his view on invisible contracts, on the driver’s license, and using ‘the king’s’ highway:
“Yes, an unknown and invisible Highway Contract was actually in effect when I was driving around without a License in effect; a contract was in effect that my legal Patriot mentors had specifically and adamantly told me did not exist (since I was not using the Highways for a Commercial purpose and my Driver’s License did not exist). But the Patriot advisors were point-blank wrong, and the contract did exist, as I will explain later; and the contract was invisible.” Read more in Invisible Contracts (long book, all online, and see the license part towards the end)
April 4, 2019
- Does rights mean the corner of a page? Does charter refer to a corporation’s charter and since the U.N. has a charter does that mean it is a corporation? Mark: Christopher made a video about this. Well worth watching. He has a class as well.
April 3, 2019
- Here’s a video about what to say in court, and how one may have to say it three times, as Dorothy clicked her heels three times. The recommended statement is only one long sentence.
- Reviewing Living in the Private reminds me of the first time I learned there is a difference between legal and lawful is in the book, Freedom is More than a Seven-letter Word (note I benefit from Amazon link). I highly recommend the book.
April 1, 2019
- Abe Lincoln and the federal government did not honor the rights of state citizens or their governments, as noted in his first inaugural address. Yet, IRS did describe a man as a citizen of New York.
- The word ‘includes’ is used one way in conversation and another in statutes. In conversation, the word implies that items not mentioned are also part of the group. In statutes, items not mentioned are generally not part of the group. If I buy an IKEA desk, the directions will state what is included. Nothing else will be in the box. One way to expand the use of ‘includes’ is to say, ‘including, but not limited to…”. This language can be found in statutes, and further supports the idea that the phrase ‘includes’, on its own, is restrictive and excludes items not listed. This is further complicated by the idea that other elements in the ‘same class’ are implied to be in the group. Even with this footnote, an officer of the federal government is not in the same class as a plumber working on a private home. It’s the IKEA box reference that helped me truly know the meaning of ‘includes’. See how this relates to statutes in the informer’s review of some tax statutes.
March 28, 2019
- New blog post: Unvaccinated ‘persons’ banned from ‘public’ places (not private) by ‘County of’ Rockland Mayor
- Christopher Gronski explains difference between state and federal citizen: YouTube Video. He says, “Did you know that the IRS prosecutor had Ed and Elaine Brown’s passport applications in the courtroom and was asking her why, when traveling abroad, she was a U.S. citizen, but when it came to paying her taxes, she was NOT a U.S. citizen? I was there; I will explain why the IRS was asking that question.
March 26, 2019
- Posted the entire text of Invisible Contracts by George Mercier. This was deemed a vital book to read by Richard:MacDonald, per his archived website. Having read parts, I tend to agree with him. Note, the book takes time to load in a browser. Or start with the intro.
- The top files recommended by Yusef El are now available as one large PDF.
March 25, 2019
- Good summary of how state Citizens became U.S. citizens. Who manages the site?
- Five Articles by Richard, MacDonald. They’re from his archived site.
March 24, 2019
- Quote: “When the average person is given the choice between freedom and a free lunch, most will choose the free lunch. Which is it for you?” From the end of this PDF.
- Declaration of Status
- Truth about Social Security – “Your Social Security number cannot be used for identification, by law, any more than you can use a stock certificate as identification.” LOL!
- I screen-captured this form, months ago, that shows the last name is really a business name:
- The True History – Author Unknown
- Inalienable rights: “Many patriots are making constitutional arguments, when they should be making inalienable rights arguments. There is no basis for inalienable rights of property under the constitution, but there IS under the Declaration of Independence! We are using the wrong document to claim our rights under!For example, the way to state a constitutional argument would be to state that you have the inalienable right to bear arms, stated in the Declaration of Independence, and ‘secured’ by the Bill of Rights, in the 2nd Amendment. You have the inalienable right to not be a witness against yourself, ‘secured’ by the 5th Amendment. This gives your argument a much stronger legal basis and is much harder to dismiss, if you ever did go to court. The Bill of Rights, means the Bill of Inalienable Rights, based on the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Constitution!”
- “Interestingly, Dr. Rivera’s decision to jeopardize his lucrative legal career was born out of a conflict that is almost reaching epidemic proportions in our schools today, bullying.Being a victim of bullying in junior high school, for his own solace, he wanted to know how such horrifying conditions could exist in public schools where attendance was mandatory.”
- “Almost all Americans consent to be governed, because they do not know how to make a forceful refusal to every offer government makes to be governed. They don’t know the power of the four Organic Laws.” Ed Rivera
March 23, 2019
The 14th Amendment was written to help the freed negro slaves. Anyone else cannot use it at a trial.
No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43.
Simply the fact that the amendment passed after the civil war proves that it was not needed before the civil war. See more here.