NOTICE: If anything in
this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon
notification.
Information for We the People Living on the Land in North America
"Until and unless you
discover that money is the root of all good,
you ask for your own destruction.
When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another
- then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars.
Take your choice --there is no other-- and your time is running out."
--Ayn Rand
"Let Us Dare To Read, Think, Speak And Write" --John Adams, 1765
"It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially
decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition
arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United
States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state."
United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829 (1873)
...the federal government possessing no power to naturalize,
see Ex Parte — Frank
Knowles (in .rtf)
it appears that the framers of the Constitution never intended for there to be a federal citizenship.
The World Factbook provides information on the history, people and society, government, economy, energy, geography, communications, transportation, military, and transnational issues for 267 world entities. The World Factbook
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither
incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21
L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the
federal government; it does not protect those
rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v.
Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito", Latin,
translated means
"do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it." -- Publius
Vergilius Maro (Virgil)
"One
of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other
people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." --Thomas Sowell
A derivative of a name is
not the legal name.
"Initials are no legal part of a name,
the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential."
see, Monroe Cattle Co. v.
Becker, 147 U. S. 47 (1893)
---
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 408. Penalties
(a) In general
Whoever -...
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number
of any person in violation of the laws of the United States;
shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Preventing compelled or illegal use or disclosure of public property
such as Social Security Cards and Social Security Numbers. Click here for details.
The Informer: When is a Social Security Number not a
Social Security Number {As of January, 2023,
atgpress.com appears not to be online.}
Me? "I have no Social Security Number by law and you look to
26 CFR §301.7701 (11). Now if you persist then I have the
right to report you to the government for harassment and a violation of the law by demanding something I do not
have."
Me? I
do not have a Social Security Number and any identifying numbers you have associated with my name are
untrustworthy, a product of duress and/or ignorance on the part of the submitter of any information in your
possession. If I did "own" one I would be able to control and restrict its use. Ownership implies
exclusive control and the ability to control the uses of others. 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says
the Social Security Number belongs to the government, not me.
Me? I
do not authorize, consent or accept the use of a [the] Social Security Number (SSN) as may be assigned to an
account with the Social Security Administration (SSA) for any purpose other than My dealings directly with the
Social Security Administration as to My estate as may be in its possession, which is foreign to the U.S.
Government. (26 U.S.C §7701)
1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God (the state) or a sacred entity (IRS).
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God (think, the state.)
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or
sacrosanct.
(What, your reading this isn´t blasphemy? ...or do think perhaps its the state that might be
blasphemous?)
Disclosure of Social Security Number (SSN)
Act Dec. 31, 1974, P. L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provides:
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual´s refusal to disclose his social security account
number.
(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to --
(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records
in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation
adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security
account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or
other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.
When you look around the web, you´ll find a public
servant questionnaire, but not like this one. Its been converted to a single page so you can get a
multi-part NCR form made up at Kinkos, Staples, Office Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in
your glove compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want to ask you questions. Before
answering theirs, make them answer yours. You´ll find supporting law in 5 U.S.C. 552a
Duress
"An agreement obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not
exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute
the agreement as the state of mind induced. Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a
contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid. Like other voidable contracts, it is
valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. However, duress in the form of physical
compulsion, in which the party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is
generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void."
--American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress, Section 21
Me? I
am a "nonresident alien" not engaged in a "trade or business" under 26 U.S.C
§7701(a)(26) and with no income from within the "United States" under 26 U.S.C §871(a).
Title 5 U.S.C §552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence;
(Emphasis added.)
A "title" is a mark or designation, i.e., name by which anything is
known.
In English law "nobility" is a division of the people.
In America, Titles of Nobility generally refer to government
created designators such as citizen, driver, taxpayer and the like. While they may not appear to be
"noble" they are created, never the less, to divide the populace.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332a
§ 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who,
without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass
destruction—
(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States ... [Emphasis
added.]
The term United States" is a metaphor!
"The term ´United States´ may be used in any one of several senses. [Definition 1, abbreviated
"United States", sometimes showing as "U.S." or U.S.A."] It may be merely the name of
a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [Definition
2, abbreviated "United States" or "federal United States" or "federal zone", and
sometimes "US"] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States
extends, or [Definition 3, abbreviated "United States" and sometimes "U.S."] it may be the
collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324
U.S. 652, (1945)
WARNING: One should NOT assume or presume that when the term "United States" used in
a law that it simultaneously has ALL the above three definitions associated with it. The definition depends on
the context it is used, if it is used in conjunction with the Constitution, then it implies Definitions 1 and 3
above, while if it is use with a federal statute or an "Act of Congress" it instead implies only
Definition 2 above in most cases.
"Me, I´m unable to make a legal determination -
please define your terms."
"Oh [the / that] "United States" -
I hereby make demand that you place its charter into evidence."
An Investigation Into The Meaning Of The Term ´ UNITED STATES´
Uniform Commercial Code - Article 9 § 9-307.
LOCATION OF DEBTOR.(h) Location of United States.
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident alien
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a
resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
"Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in
question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it
will operate as an Estoppel."
--Carmine v. Bowen,
64 A. 932 (1906)
[estoppel: n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a
right or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person´s actions, conduct,
statements, admissions, failure to act or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel
includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal
action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches), and a court ruling against the
party on the same matter in a different case (collateral estoppel).
See also: collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estop, laches. ]
Silence is also a fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550
F.2d 297, 299 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.
When we make a mistake it is nature´s way of showing us that we´re not as _{fill in this space - smart,
intelligent, knowledgeable, etc.}__ as we think that we are.
"The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps
from its mouth: ´I, the state, am the people.´... Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen
teeth." from "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche,
(1844-1900)
James Joseph Duane, a law professor at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia (and is a
nationally recognized expert in Rules of Evidence.)
Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Rightpart I /
part II
Just in case a judge doesn´t tell you these thing:
Arguments and statements by Attorneys are not
evidence. The Attorneys are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments and
at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you
remember them from the evidence differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them
controls.
Questions and objections by Attorneys are not
evidence. Lawyers have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the
rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the judge´s ruling on it.
Anything that the judge has excluded from evidence
or ordered stricken and instructed you to disregard is not evidence. You must not consider such items.
Anything you may have seen or heard when the court
was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at trial.
The indictment is not evidence. Most criminal cases
begin with an indictment. You should have that indictment before you in the course of your deliberations in
the jury room. That indictment was returned by a grand jury, which heard only the government´s side of the
case. Be cautioned that the fact that the accused has had an indictment filed against him or her is no
evidence whatsoever of [his/her] guilt. The indictment is simply an accusation. It is the means by which the
allegations and charges of the government are brought before this court. The indictment proves nothing. In
America its ´innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty´! Remember also that while the government has virtually
unlimited means by which to prosecute someone - an accused man or woman generally has limited means by which
to defend. Think, ´BIG´ vesus ´little´.
(How would you feel if you found yourself similiarly situated?)
In any jury trial - any instructions from the judge to a jury is jury tampering.
The jury system is a safety valve for tyrannical behavior and/or law(s).
The jury has the last word over any judge…period!
“[W]e note that judges should be scrupulous in avoiding any possibility of inference that allegations
in the indictment be treated as facts.” United States v. Martinez-Vives, 475 F.3d 48, 48 n.3 (1st Cir.
2007)
A “statement [in a jury instruction] that a ‘larger jury´ had found probable cause, if
considered in isolation, could mislead a petit jury into according significance to the grand jury´s
action.” United States v. McFarlane, 491 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2007)
1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and
unreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."
United States v.
Dougherty, 473 F. 2d 1113
F.Y.I.: International Society of Indigenous Sovereigns
ISIS
maxim:
"An act does not render one guilty unless the mind is guilty."
(Actus non factim reum, nisi mens sit rea.)
On the other side there is, Good faith, or in Latin bona fides, is the mental and moral state of
honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or
depravity of a line of conduct, even if the conviction is objectively unfounded. This concept is important in law,
especially equitable matters.
"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe?
Expediency asks the question: is it political?
Vanity asks the question: is it popular?
But conscience asks the question: is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular -
but one must take it simply because it is right." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
People first, formost, and paramount!
The only legitimate role of government is of, by and for the people.
Only people have inalienable rights.
All law, constitutions of the states and no less than that of the nation, are designed, and must be interpreted and
administered so as to fit human rights.
In the hierarchy of things people are direct and subordinate only to their creator, their god, and either equal to
or above all else.
"Those who benefit from any societal mechanism rarely wish to understand that mechanism, especially if it
appears to grant them authority over their fellow man and understanding that mechanism would limit, diminish, or
remove that apparent power of control or authority. They simply do not want to know, because it is far easier to
ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself." -- Robert Arthur Menard
VIDEO: Learn how easy it is to win every political
argument. Stop wasting time and effort arguing political issues, end them with one simple statement.
NOTICE: The data / information on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of
various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, lawyers, CPA´s, etc. and does
not constitute legal advice. These materials have been prepared for educational and informational
purposes and are intended for "nontaxpayers" who live outside
the federal zone and who
are not "residents" (aliens) or
"citizens" of the "United States". If
you are a "taxpayer", a "resident" (alien) of the
"United
States", a federal "employee" or contractor, or if you live inside the federal zone, then instead please
consult http://www.irs.gov for educational materials.
Known and unknown authors and presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
Benjamin Tucker, ){kind=link}