Administrative Acts of Congress require implementing regulations in order to have "general effect" or to allow them to "affect substantive rights;" see the Adminstrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act.
The Federal Register Act requires that regulations must be published in their entirety in the Federal Register so that the people can be given notice of the manner in which the laws are to be administered to them. This Act also requires that the complete text of a regulation be published so that there are no "secret" regulations. The airlines will not show to you Federal Aviation Administration Security Directive 108-01-10 (issued Sept. 28, 2001), which they will say authorizes them to limit your substantive right to liberty and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. This constitutes a secret regulation, which is not allowed by the laws of the United States or by the Constitution.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then how can I be expected to comply with law that is not publicized?
There is no mandate from CONgress that government issued identification is to be required in order to fly domestically. The regulations were transferred from 14 CFR part 107/108 to 49 CFR parts 1540 &seq on 22 Feb 2002 - 67 FR 8377.
If you look thru Title 49 United States Code in Chapters 401 thru 501, the only hit on "identification" will be identification numbers of aircraft. If you look thru Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1540 &seq, you will find no mention of the word "identification" except with relationship to aircraft -- not passengers.
The requirement for identification is in the contract of carriage with the airline. You buy the ticket, you are bound by the contract. The contract states that they can refuse boarding to those who refuse to show "positive identification." That is why Gilmore's suit will ultimately fail.
I do not have any state issued identification. I cannot get any without a social security number and I do not have one. only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to make application; see 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). For all others (citizens) it is contigent upon receiving direct benefits payable in federal funds; see sub paragraph (II). I am in neither catagory.
I use my Sam's club card. Have never been refused boarding.
The "secret" security directive says that the AIRLINES, not the Air Gestapo, are to check ID. If the person does not have ID (is unable, rather than unwilling to show ID), then they are to do "positive bag matching," which means my bags do not get on the plane until I do. This suits me fine, as my bags are invariably the first ones off the plane and on the carousel.
If you do not know what the law says, then you cannot enforce it. If they do not tell you what the law says, then you are not obliged to obey it.
It seemed to me that your position is that 2/3rd of the senate could amend the constitution by ratifying a treaty. Obviously, I was mistaken as to your intent. Just because there is a treaty does not mean (a) it is active within the states of the Union, or (b) that it can be made so without any implementing statutes by CONgress and/or the states.
For example, consider that CONgress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. What if the Senate were to ratify a treaty making Islam the national religion? Could such a treaty be enforced in view of the 1st Amendment? Obviously not.
However, CONgress can and does give the POTUS the authority to enter into international agreements (e.g. 42 USC 433), that have no application within the states of the Union, and so are limited in jurisdiction to federal territory.
While I will agree that there are some situations where a treaty can be ratified and be "self-executing," the majority of them would require consent not only of the Senate, but of the state legislatures as well.
Someone who wears a tinfoil hat or sees a need for same lives in a paradigm alien to the existance of most of the readers of this forum.
In order to demonstrate that most of the readers of this site similarly live in a false paradigm, I offered the fact that most of those living and working within the states of the Union are not required to apply for or use a social security number.
I am accustumed to be modded down for posts such as this by the socialists that run this site. I live in a manner that violates their paradigm.
Perhaps you believe that a treaty can amend the constitution? Sorry.
"It is the people who alone can amend the Constitution to grant Congress the power to enact such legislation as they deem necessary. All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional." United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914)
"The North American Water and Power Alliance--NAWAPA--is the most comprehensive of a series of plans developed during the 1950s and 1960s to capture and redistribute fresh water in Alaska and Canada. NAWAPA would deliver large quantities of water to water-poor areas of Canada, the lower forty-eight states of the United States of America, and Mexico."
While treaties bind the federal government (not the states) to cooperate internationally, this power cannot extend into the states of the Union. The force and effect of treaties remain at the border.
However, CONgress can enact legislation that affects only the District of Criminals and the territories and possessions exclusive of the several states of the Union.
For example, CONgress (not 2/3rds of the Senate) can "authorize" the POTUS to enter into international agreements implementing socialist insecurity:
42 USC 433 --cite-- (a) Purpose of agreement The President is authorized (subject to the succeeding provisions of this section) to enter into agreements establishing totalization arrangements between the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of any foreign country, for the purposes of establishing entitlement to and the amount of old-age, survivors, disability, or derivative benefits based on a combination of an individual's periods of coverage under the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of such foreign country. --end--
Such that it is, socialist insecurity is a program that is limited in jurisdiction to federal areas. It has no application within the states of the Union.
It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].
--cite-- (B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):
(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]
(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]
(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:
(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and
(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.] --end--
So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.
"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."
Re:You're treading on thin ice as I understand it
on
Contractors on Salary?
·
· Score: 1
It is not forgiveness of a loan, it is payment on a contract between two parties using an alternative medium of exchange. A loan can be paid using any medium of exchange. If the contract specifies that the loan is to be paid in oranges, then that is how it is paid.
Must comply with the employer's instructions about work. I adhere to the shop documentation and programming standards and to the standard of conduct, but this is in the contract.
Receive training from or at the direction of the employer. No training accepted or required.
Provide services that are integrated into the business. Every service in a computer shop is integral to the business. Else why would they contract for it?
Are aided by assistants who are hired, supervised and paid by the employer. Not applicable.
Have a continuing working relationship with the employer. The contract is re-negotiated every two to six months.
Must follow set hours of work. They know that my hours are flexible.
Work full time for an employer. I have other responsibilities.
Do their work on the employer's premises. A security requirement.
Must do their work in a sequence set by the employer. Adherence to standards is not the same as using personal initiative to solve a problem.
Must submit regular reports to the employer. Time sheets are signed every week and become invoices.
Receive payments of regular amounts at set intervals. It is in the contract.
Receive payments for business or traveling expenses. I meet my own expenses.
Rely on the employer to furnish tools and materials. I would bring in my laptop and a docking station, but security requirements say no.
Lack a major investment in the facilities or equipment used to perform the services. Security requirements of the shop dictate otherwise.
Cannot make a profit or suffer a loss from their service. If I do not work, I do not eat.
Work for one employer at a time. Not applicable.
Do not offer their services to the general public. Offer is made via a contracting company.
Can be fired by the employer. With cause immediately, without cause after one week.
May quit work at any time without incurring liability. Contractually, I suffer a liability if I do not give one month's notice.
Here is how I do it: I make an agreement with the company that they will make a loan to me for the desired amount per month. I then offer to repay the loan using labor at a set rate per hour. If I do not work the requisite number of hours, then the loan either rolls over, or charges off against the next month.
The proceeds of a loan are not income, therefore, these proceeds are not taxable.
The downside to the company is that they cannot charge off the labor as taxable, either. However, the offset in paperwork and administrative costs is significant, so it works for both of us.
In the above scenario, where the guy has contracted for un unspecified number of hours, I would base the amount of the loan and the repayment upon the desired deliverable and an expected delivery date. A clause in the loan would state that if they are responsible for any delays in the deliverable over and above a "normal" set of hours per week, that they are to make me a "bridge" loan at a premium, to be repaid at an increased rate.
This may sound like science fiction, but Total Information Awareness (TIA) is a *real* threat to your civil liberties. TIA is a Defense Department project that is creating a range of technologies for a surveillance society.
If TIA continues, the government will effectively have wiretaps, dossiers, and tracking devices for every American citizen. Urge Senator Orrin Hatch (likely to be the next Chair of the Judiciary Committee), to hold public hearings!
December 9, 2002
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch United States Senate 104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Your U.S. representative
Dear Senator Hatch,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Total Information Awareness (TIA) project. Senator Dianne Feinstein has asked that you, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, permit either the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee to hold oversight hearings on TIA. I strongly urge you to do so because TIA will, if implemented as planned, destroy our privacy and civil liberties.
TIA proposes several technical thrusts, including an effort to compile and search thousands of public and private databases. Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge has publicly stated that TIA will involve "discovery of connections between transactions -- such as passports; visas; work permits; driver's license; credit card; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases -- and events -- such as arrest or suspicious activities and so forth."
Further, TIA's "Bio-Surveillance" program will collect data from grocery store sales, pharmacy databases, school absentee databases, animal surveillance networks, and veterinarian and health care records. The ability to aggregate commercial and government data on a citizen's purchases, communications, medical records, and relationships may represent a seductive arsenal of weapons for law enforcement, but it also raises the specter of a surveillance society. Moving in this direction would represent a dramatic shift in government policy and gravely threaten our civil rights.
Data mining or "dataveillance" is not the only Orwellian aspect of TIA; it also invests heavily in the development of biometric surveillance technologies like facial, iris, expression, and gait recognition.
In a troubling fit of cynical irony, reliance on biometrics is bad for civil liberties in both imperfect and perfect implementations. If the system makes mistakes, it will falsely identify innocent people. If it is "perfect," I fear that it will usher in an age of ubiquitous surveillance because of its passive nature. Neither scenario is acceptable. A society in which everyone's actions are tracked is not, in principle, free; such a society stands in opposition to the conceptions of freedom that Americans hold most dear.
TIA itself may be several years in the future, but other government data-mining programs like the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) are much further along. There have been reports that "watch lists" connected to the existing CAPPS are harming innocent air travelers. I expect that technologies developed in TIA will be tested on the data that will be accessible through CAPPS II.
These programs raise serious legal issues, statutory and constitutional. Never has the question "who watches the watchers?" been more important. This is not a partisan political issue. I urge you to support oversight hearings on TIA. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Your signature will be added from the information you provide below.
Actions to Take
Total Information Awareness: Public Hearings Now!
Total Information Awareness: Tell Congress to Cut TIA Funds!
... it legislates first under a limited delegated authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8 (exclusive of 17).
It also legislates under a special plenary authority over territory belonging to the self-interested United States (exclusive of the states of the Union); reference Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
The FBI, BATF, DEA, BLM, IRS, EPA, OSHA and all of the other alphabet soup agencies are limited in authority to federal territory. The next time the FBI knocks on your door, ask him if he is investigating a crime committed by a federal government employee (28 USC 535), if he says no, then tell him he is trespassing on your property and if he does not leave you are going to call the Sheriff.
Eliminating, then, from the opinions of this court all expressions unnecessary to the disposition of the particular case, and gleaning therefrom the exact point decided in each, the following propositions may be considered as 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. Stat. 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; 5. That the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries or to trials therein conducted, and that Congress may lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals, without the intervention of a grand or petit jury; 6. That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith.
Harlan's DISSENT: These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Thesselonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The strong delusions are the artificial persons created to eliminate personal responsibility and accountability. We call them governments and corporations.
The elimination of corporations would place personal responsibility back into the hands of the private property owner. I have no incentive to pollute my property, as eventually, I have to sell it. Also, if I am polluting mine, I am probably polluting yours. Defend yours as a private property right.
Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.
Join a volunteer force, or are you too lazy? Oh, I see: The protection of your property is someone else's responsibilty. Personal protection is such that anyone who can carry a pistol can afford protection.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.
Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
Liberalism in a nutshell: I've got mine, what's yours is mine as well. After all, I know better than you how to manage your affairs.
"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there is an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being by their world government." Henry Kissinger, June 8, 1992, Evian, France,
"With roughly 100 new stories warning of terrorism in the mainstream media just today, the possibility cannot be ignored that the American people are being pre-conditioned to accept as real a terrorist event manufactured by our own government, a terrorist event no more real than those created by powerful leaders through the ages to sell an agenda to a populace which would otherwise not accept it." Dictatorship through Deception by Michael Rivero, First posted on New Republic Forum Xmas 'Eve 1999
Why should they have rights? Why should people who want to destroy us, and take away our livihood, and remove our liberties have any right? I don't understand why anyone would want them to have rights. Let's support everything we can to stop them.
Am I to presume that you can decide precisely whose rights are to be ignored, just by looking at them? In order for you to discern who should be tapped and who should not be tapped, you must first understand that probable cause is required in order to obtain a warrant.
So does that make the choice: - tap us all or - tap us at random or - tap us because we're different, instead of - tap us upon the basis of a sworn affidavit showing probable cause?
When you can tell the difference between friend and foe on sight, let us all know. It will make this war far easier.
But that should not deter us from violating a "few" people's rights under the rule of necessity to impose peace and order under law martial rule, should it?
Until it is your rights that have been violated.
Or do you presume to sacrifice your essential liberty in exchange for some unattainable temporary safety?
In that case, you deserve neither liberty nor safety, and that is what you will get.
The accumulated total of off the books assets held by the aggregate federal, state and local governments is currently in excess of 60 TRILLION dollars. At a modest rate of return, there would be no need for any further taxation anywhere in this nation.
Essentially, the annual budget is based on income (revenue) v expenditures. When there is money left over at the end of the year, it gets transferred off the books into one of many "funds" held by the multi jurisdictional municipal corporations that masquerade as government.
In order to have something approximating complete privacy, one must be outside the realm of tracking databases. What is the key element within the United States that is used for this purpose? The SSN.
Fortunately (or not, as the case may be), only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to get an SSN; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). Otherwise, one must apply for an SSN in order to obtain or retain benefits payable in federal funds; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). If one is a citizen, and require no federal funds, then one is not required to make application.
One thereby is denied, in many states, the benefice of driver's licenses (can't get one here in Pennsylvania). Funny, the statutes say that within 30 days, one must apply for a D/L. I did, and was refused. Evidently, a "resident" is a person who has an SSN. Check Vattel's Law of Nations to see that Citizens and Residents are two very different people.
Credit cards? Not a problem, I have several. I only use a particular one for online purchases, and the other is earmarked for emergency purchases. Haven't had to use that one in quite a while. Always pay off the former each month.
I guess I am tracked to a certain extent by this, but what do they use to co-ordinate the information with other databases? The SSN? Sorry, ain't got no.
Medical databases, ditto. In order to get life insurance, I had to get a complete physical and submit that, because I am not found in their medical databases.
Bank accounts? I have several. There is only a requirement for an SSN if they are going to report interest paid. I do not have any interest bearing accounts.
I do not make deposits (except the initial one, against which I cash checks), I do not make withdrawls (ever, as I retain these accounts as I move). I guess they could track the checks that are cashed against the account, but at which account? At which bank? How are they going to co-ordinate the information? No SSN.
Credit report? Don't need one. I don't apply for credit. I take the offers they send in the mail and return them with "Citizen - NONE" in the SSN space, and they must give me a card, after all, I am pre-approved.
If they do not, it is religious discrimination.
You see, if I am not required to have an SSN by any federal law, and if they were to impose a restriction upon me because I have no SSN, then the SSN must be (at least the precursor) to the mark of the beast. Revelation says "in the right hand" as though showing ID, and "in the forehead" as though reciting from memory. The language does not connote a tatoo or something like that.
With regard to the privacy that one will not be afforded in the future, I can only say: There has to be a way.
Let's take cameras everywhere. If they are private cameras and there is notice that you are being recorded, then you organize a boycott. If they are public cameras, then you have to be able to show that they are taking your property for public use, and thereby must compensate you. The only question is how to substantiate that which they are taking and what use is being made.
... is one of personal jurisdiction and legal venue.
Statutes are written by the legislature in order to handle common problems. In the case of jaywalking, for example, the offense is created so that if one _causes and accident_ when one is jaywalking, then one can be held liable.
The same can be said of speeding, red lights, the list goes on.
It goes to the old adage: No victim, no crime.
I recognize that it may be dangerous to run red lights, but when I am coming home from a long trip and it is 2am, I am not going to wait at the longest light in town when there is no one on the horizon.
State legislatures also have jurisdiction over the activities of artificial persons - corporations, engaged in commerce within the state. The police power being exercised here is the regulation of activities of "persons" who do not possess the same rights as men. If you research the source of driver's license statutes and motor vehicle registration, you will find that the "person" being regulated is a common carrier who transports goods or passengers for hire.
CONgress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Driver's licenses and traffic laws found in Title 49 of the United States Code have been adopted by the states. Otherwise, these offenses would be tried in federal district court. So CONgress grants authority to the states to handle registration and licensing of interstate carriers - the CDL.
Another legal venue would be the current state of law martial rule stemming from the various and sundry declarations of national emergency published in the Federal Register. Because we are under martial law, and have been so since March 6 of 1933, the people can be regulated under the rule of necessity to impose peace and safety by the military occupant.
Be that as it may, even if automated enforcement notices me, I will not receive a summons in the mail, because my car's tag says: NOT FOR HIRE / PRIVATE PROPERTY / NO TRESPASSING. I do not see how they could get my mailing location from that.
ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) "Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused is represented by counsel. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts."
The rub is to find a way to get the counsel to recuse himself, as when you recuse him, it is seen as refusing counsel.
For civil cases, I have found that (most) attorneys adhere to two rules: 1. Find out how much money the client has. 2. Spread out the litigation so that you can bill out for all of it.
Most civil legal matters can be handled quite simply by just a bit of study. Every young man in 1850 knew how to prosecute and defend his own case. All it takes is a couple of books on civil procedure, your annotated state court rules, and a bit of resolve.
I have found that attorneys are not taught the law, they are taught theory. So if you have the law, you argue the law, when you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have neither, settle.
For example. My friend pays her mortgage by postal money orders. She generally sends it out priority mail by delivery confirmation. The mortgage company "misplaced" one of the payments, and charged her a late fee. Each successive month, her new payment was applied instead to the older month and she was assessed a new late fee.
After the second month, she sent an affidavit stating that the payment had been made and cited the postal money order numbers and the delivery confirmation number. The mortgage company could have verified all of the payment and delivery information by itself, but insisted upon my friend sending proof of payment. Well, the affidavit constituted proof of payment.
It is now six months later and the company threatens foreclosure. She assembled all of the payment information and wrote up a twenty six count mail fraud complaint, sent it to the US Attorney for that district and copied the company.
With the complaint copy, she sent a detail of the time that she spent on this matter on research and correspondence and she billed them at 75 bux an hour. As an independent contractor, all of the time she spends with the mortgage company, she cannot allocate to clients.
Was it surprising that the company suddenly "found" the payment, properly applied it, backed out six months worth of late payment fees, and wrote letters to the Credit Reporting Agencies fixing the credit? They are balking at the 3,000 bux in billing, but if they don't pay that, she will file suit to recover her costs, and another 10k in emotional damages for being threatened with foreclosure.
Should be a slam dunk, as the company USED her research to confirm the payments, when they could have done the work themselves.
In order to prosecute all of the offenders, they would have to bring charges in a district court of the United States. Unfortunately for them, they only have United States District Courts:
BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
MOOKINI v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.'
So long as there is no Article III court within the states of the Union party to the Constitution, what will they do?
"All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void... We are in conscience bound to disobey." Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772 AD)
Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved.
Omnis consensus tollit errorem. Every consent removes error.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it.
Non videntur qui errant consentire. He who errs is not considered as consenting.
Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur. Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting.
What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust.
Quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria. Whatever is against the rule of right, is a wrong.
Quod dubitas, ne feceris. When you doubt, do not act.
Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt. The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood.
Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum. Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.
Res est misera ubi jus est vagam et invertum. It is a miserable state of things where the law is vague and uncertain.
Legis figendi et refigendi consuetudo periculosissima est. The custom of fixing and refixing (making and annulling) laws is most dangerous.
Non decipitur qui scit se decipi. He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.
Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights, harms no one.
Impotentia excusat legem. Impossibility excuses the law.
A l'impossible nul n'est tenu. No one is bound to do what is impossible.
Lex non cogit impossibilia. The law requires nothing impossible.
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law forces not to impossibilities. Hob. 96.
Lex non intendit aliquid impossibile. The law intends not anything impossible. 12 Co. 89.
Animus ad se omne jus ducit. It is to the intention that all law applies.
Animus moninis est anima scripti. The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument.
Nemo tenetur armare adversarum contra se. No one is bound to arm his adversary.
Nihil possumus contra veritatem. We can do nothing against truth.
Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum. Nothing against reason is lawful.
Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. It is better to recede than to proceed in evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Administrative Acts of Congress require implementing regulations in order to have "general effect" or to allow them to "affect substantive rights;" see the Adminstrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act.
The Federal Register Act requires that regulations must be published in their entirety in the Federal Register so that the people can be given notice of the manner in which the laws are to be administered to them. This Act also requires that the complete text of a regulation be published so that there are no "secret" regulations. The airlines will not show to you Federal Aviation Administration Security Directive 108-01-10 (issued Sept. 28, 2001), which they will say authorizes them to limit your substantive right to liberty and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. This constitutes a secret regulation, which is not allowed by the laws of the United States or by the Constitution.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then how can I be expected to comply with law that is not publicized?
There is no mandate from CONgress that government issued identification is to be required in order to fly domestically. The regulations were transferred from 14 CFR part 107/108 to 49 CFR parts 1540 &seq on 22 Feb 2002 - 67 FR 8377.
If you look thru Title 49 United States Code in Chapters 401 thru 501, the only hit on "identification" will be identification numbers of aircraft. If you look thru Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1540 &seq, you will find no mention of the word "identification" except with relationship to aircraft -- not passengers.
The requirement for identification is in the contract of carriage with the airline. You buy the ticket, you are bound by the contract. The contract states that they can refuse boarding to those who refuse to show "positive identification." That is why Gilmore's suit will ultimately fail.
I do not have any state issued identification. I cannot get any without a social security number and I do not have one. only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to make application; see 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). For all others (citizens) it is contigent upon receiving direct benefits payable in federal funds; see sub paragraph (II). I am in neither catagory.
I use my Sam's club card. Have never been refused boarding.
The "secret" security directive says that the AIRLINES, not the Air Gestapo, are to check ID. If the person does not have ID (is unable, rather than unwilling to show ID), then they are to do "positive bag matching," which means my bags do not get on the plane until I do. This suits me fine, as my bags are invariably the first ones off the plane and on the carousel.
If you do not know what the law says, then you cannot enforce it. If they do not tell you what the law says, then you are not obliged to obey it.
Money of substance can be used as an alternative medium of exchange.
It seemed to me that your position is that 2/3rd of the senate could amend the constitution by ratifying a treaty. Obviously, I was mistaken as to your intent. Just because there is a treaty does not mean (a) it is active within the states of the Union, or (b) that it can be made so without any implementing statutes by CONgress and/or the states.
For example, consider that CONgress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. What if the Senate were to ratify a treaty making Islam the national religion? Could such a treaty be enforced in view of the 1st Amendment? Obviously not.
However, CONgress can and does give the POTUS the authority to enter into international agreements (e.g. 42 USC 433), that have no application within the states of the Union, and so are limited in jurisdiction to federal territory.
While I will agree that there are some situations where a treaty can be ratified and be "self-executing," the majority of them would require consent not only of the Senate, but of the state legislatures as well.
Someone who wears a tinfoil hat or sees a need for same lives in a paradigm alien to the existance of most of the readers of this forum.
In order to demonstrate that most of the readers of this site similarly live in a false paradigm, I offered the fact that most of those living and working within the states of the Union are not required to apply for or use a social security number.
I am accustumed to be modded down for posts such as this by the socialists that run this site. I live in a manner that violates their paradigm.
Perhaps you believe that a treaty can amend the constitution? Sorry.
"It is the people who alone can amend the Constitution to grant Congress the power to enact such legislation as they deem necessary. All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional." United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914)
You might decide that this is looney because Lyndon LaRouche is associated with it.
...
You have to understand first that LaRouche is NOT a Libertarian - he is a Democrat. That in itself, explains much.
Anyhow
Outline of NAWAPA
"The North American Water and Power Alliance--NAWAPA--is the most comprehensive of a series of plans developed during the 1950s and 1960s to capture and redistribute fresh water in Alaska and Canada. NAWAPA would deliver large quantities of water to water-poor areas of Canada, the lower forty-eight states of the United States of America, and Mexico."
and the map of the project.
While treaties bind the federal government (not the states) to cooperate internationally, this power cannot extend into the states of the Union. The force and effect of treaties remain at the border.
However, CONgress can enact legislation that affects only the District of Criminals and the territories and possessions exclusive of the several states of the Union.
For example, CONgress (not 2/3rds of the Senate) can "authorize" the POTUS to enter into international agreements implementing socialist insecurity:
42 USC 433
--cite--
(a) Purpose of agreement
The President is authorized (subject to the succeeding provisions of this section) to enter into agreements establishing totalization arrangements between the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of any foreign country, for the purposes of establishing entitlement to and the amount of old-age, survivors, disability, or derivative benefits based on a combination of an individual's periods of coverage under the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of such foreign country.
--end--
Such that it is, socialist insecurity is a program that is limited in jurisdiction to federal areas. It has no application within the states of the Union.
You may not be aware of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i):
It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].
--cite--
(B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):
(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]
(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]
(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:
(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and
(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.]
--end--
So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)
"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."
It is not forgiveness of a loan, it is payment on a contract between two parties using an alternative medium of exchange. A loan can be paid using any medium of exchange. If the contract specifies that the loan is to be paid in oranges, then that is how it is paid.
Must comply with the employer's instructions about work.
I adhere to the shop documentation and programming standards and to the standard of conduct, but this is in the contract.
Receive training from or at the direction of the employer.
No training accepted or required.
Provide services that are integrated into the business.
Every service in a computer shop is integral to the business. Else why would they contract for it?
Are aided by assistants who are hired, supervised and paid by the employer.
Not applicable.
Have a continuing working relationship with the employer.
The contract is re-negotiated every two to six months.
Must follow set hours of work.
They know that my hours are flexible.
Work full time for an employer.
I have other responsibilities.
Do their work on the employer's premises.
A security requirement.
Must do their work in a sequence set by the employer.
Adherence to standards is not the same as using personal initiative to solve a problem.
Must submit regular reports to the employer.
Time sheets are signed every week and become invoices.
Receive payments of regular amounts at set intervals.
It is in the contract.
Receive payments for business or traveling expenses.
I meet my own expenses.
Rely on the employer to furnish tools and materials.
I would bring in my laptop and a docking station, but security requirements say no.
Lack a major investment in the facilities or equipment used to perform the services.
Security requirements of the shop dictate otherwise.
Cannot make a profit or suffer a loss from their service.
If I do not work, I do not eat.
Work for one employer at a time.
Not applicable.
Do not offer their services to the general public.
Offer is made via a contracting company.
Can be fired by the employer.
With cause immediately, without cause after one week.
May quit work at any time without incurring liability.
Contractually, I suffer a liability if I do not give one month's notice.
Here is how I do it: I make an agreement with the company that they will make a loan to me for the desired amount per month. I then offer to repay the loan using labor at a set rate per hour. If I do not work the requisite number of hours, then the loan either rolls over, or charges off against the next month.
The proceeds of a loan are not income, therefore, these proceeds are not taxable.
The downside to the company is that they cannot charge off the labor as taxable, either. However, the offset in paperwork and administrative costs is significant, so it works for both of us.
In the above scenario, where the guy has contracted for un unspecified number of hours, I would base the amount of the loan and the repayment upon the desired deliverable and an expected delivery date. A clause in the loan would state that if they are responsible for any delays in the deliverable over and above a "normal" set of hours per week, that they are to make me a "bridge" loan at a premium, to be repaid at an increased rate.
TAKE ACTION! SEND A MESSAGE
Total Information Awareness: Public Hearings Now!
This may sound like science fiction, but Total Information Awareness (TIA) is a *real* threat to your civil liberties. TIA is a Defense Department project that is creating a range of technologies for a surveillance society.
If TIA continues, the government will effectively have wiretaps, dossiers, and tracking devices for every American citizen. Urge Senator Orrin Hatch (likely to be the next Chair of the Judiciary Committee), to hold public hearings!
December 9, 2002
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Your U.S. representative
Dear Senator Hatch,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Total Information Awareness (TIA) project. Senator Dianne Feinstein has asked that you, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, permit either the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee to hold oversight hearings on TIA. I strongly urge you to do so because TIA will, if implemented as planned, destroy our privacy and civil liberties.
TIA proposes several technical thrusts, including an effort to compile and search thousands of public and private databases. Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge has publicly stated that TIA will involve "discovery of connections between transactions -- such as passports; visas; work permits; driver's license; credit card; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases -- and events -- such as arrest or suspicious activities and so forth."
Further, TIA's "Bio-Surveillance" program will collect data from grocery store sales, pharmacy databases, school absentee databases, animal surveillance networks, and veterinarian and health care records. The ability to aggregate commercial and government data on a citizen's purchases, communications, medical records, and relationships may represent a seductive arsenal of weapons for law enforcement, but it also raises the specter of a surveillance society. Moving in this direction would represent a dramatic shift in government policy and gravely threaten our civil rights.
Data mining or "dataveillance" is not the only Orwellian aspect of TIA; it also invests heavily in the development of biometric surveillance technologies like facial, iris, expression, and gait recognition.
In a troubling fit of cynical irony, reliance on biometrics is bad for civil liberties in both imperfect and perfect implementations. If the system makes mistakes, it will falsely identify innocent people. If it is "perfect," I fear that it will usher in an age of ubiquitous surveillance because of its passive nature. Neither scenario is acceptable. A society in which everyone's actions are tracked is not, in principle, free; such a society stands in opposition to the conceptions of freedom that Americans hold most dear.
TIA itself may be several years in the future, but other government data-mining programs like the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) are much further along. There have been reports that "watch lists" connected to the existing CAPPS are harming innocent air travelers. I expect that technologies developed in TIA will be tested on the data that will be accessible through CAPPS II.
These programs raise serious legal issues, statutory and constitutional. Never has the question "who watches the watchers?" been more important. This is not a partisan political issue. I urge you to support oversight hearings on TIA. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Your signature will be added from the information you provide below.
Actions to Take
Total Information Awareness: Public Hearings Now!
Total Information Awareness: Tell Congress to Cut TIA Funds!
... it legislates first under a limited delegated authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8 (exclusive of 17).
It also legislates under a special plenary authority over territory belonging to the self-interested United States (exclusive of the states of the Union); reference Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
The FBI, BATF, DEA, BLM, IRS, EPA, OSHA and all of the other alphabet soup agencies are limited in authority to federal territory. The next time the FBI knocks on your door, ask him if he is investigating a crime committed by a federal government employee (28 USC 535), if he says no, then tell him he is trespassing on your property and if he does not leave you are going to call the Sheriff.
DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
Eliminating, then, from the opinions of this court all expressions unnecessary to the disposition of the particular case, and gleaning therefrom the exact point decided in each, the following propositions may be considered as 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. Stat. 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; 5. That the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries or to trials therein conducted, and that Congress may lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals, without the intervention of a grand or petit jury; 6. That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith.
Harlan's DISSENT: These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
A ratio of the number of events to the population. Per capita.
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Thesselonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The strong delusions are the artificial persons created to eliminate personal responsibility and accountability. We call them governments and corporations.
The elimination of corporations would place personal responsibility back into the hands of the private property owner. I have no incentive to pollute my property, as eventually, I have to sell it. Also, if I am polluting mine, I am probably polluting yours. Defend yours as a private property right.
Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.
Join a volunteer force, or are you too lazy? Oh, I see: The protection of your property is someone else's responsibilty. Personal protection is such that anyone who can carry a pistol can afford protection.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.
Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
Liberalism in a nutshell: I've got mine, what's yours is mine as well. After all, I know better than you how to manage your affairs.
Creative Uses for 9-11
"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there is an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being by their world government." Henry Kissinger, June 8, 1992, Evian, France,
"With roughly 100 new stories warning of terrorism in the mainstream media just today, the possibility cannot be ignored that the American people are being pre-conditioned to accept as real a terrorist event manufactured by our own government, a terrorist event no more real than those created by powerful leaders through the ages to sell an agenda to a populace which would otherwise not accept it." Dictatorship through Deception by Michael Rivero, First posted on New Republic Forum Xmas 'Eve 1999
Operation Garden Plot
Operation Garden Plot
ABC News: Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods
Operation Cable Splicer
Why should they have rights? Why should people who want to destroy us, and take away our livihood, and remove our liberties have any right? I don't understand why anyone would want them to have rights. Let's support everything we can to stop them.
Am I to presume that you can decide precisely whose rights are to be ignored, just by looking at them? In order for you to discern who should be tapped and who should not be tapped, you must first understand that probable cause is required in order to obtain a warrant.
So does that make the choice:
- tap us all or
- tap us at random or
- tap us because we're different,
instead of
- tap us upon the basis of a sworn affidavit showing probable cause?
When you can tell the difference between friend and foe on sight, let us all know. It will make this war far easier.
But that should not deter us from violating a "few" people's rights under the rule of necessity to impose peace and order under law martial rule, should it?
Until it is your rights that have been violated.
Or do you presume to sacrifice your essential liberty in exchange for some unattainable temporary safety?
In that case, you deserve neither liberty nor safety, and that is what you will get.
Feel free to mod me way, way down.
The accumulated total of off the books assets held by the aggregate federal, state and local governments is currently in excess of 60 TRILLION dollars. At a modest rate of return, there would be no need for any further taxation anywhere in this nation.
The Biggest Shell Game For Theft In This World's History
Essentially, the annual budget is based on income (revenue) v expenditures. When there is money left over at the end of the year, it gets transferred off the books into one of many "funds" held by the multi jurisdictional municipal corporations that masquerade as government.
Check these methods to determine whether state and local governments have excesses of your tax dollars
Why do you allow yourselves to be taxed when there are planty of funds already in the hands of the "state" to meet the needs?
In order to have something approximating complete privacy, one must be outside the realm of tracking databases. What is the key element within the United States that is used for this purpose? The SSN.
Fortunately (or not, as the case may be), only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to get an SSN; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). Otherwise, one must apply for an SSN in order to obtain or retain benefits payable in federal funds; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). If one is a citizen, and require no federal funds, then one is not required to make application.
One thereby is denied, in many states, the benefice of driver's licenses (can't get one here in Pennsylvania). Funny, the statutes say that within 30 days, one must apply for a D/L. I did, and was refused. Evidently, a "resident" is a person who has an SSN. Check Vattel's Law of Nations to see that Citizens and Residents are two very different people.
Credit cards? Not a problem, I have several. I only use a particular one for online purchases, and the other is earmarked for emergency purchases. Haven't had to use that one in quite a while. Always pay off the former each month.
I guess I am tracked to a certain extent by this, but what do they use to co-ordinate the information with other databases? The SSN? Sorry, ain't got no.
Medical databases, ditto. In order to get life insurance, I had to get a complete physical and submit that, because I am not found in their medical databases.
Bank accounts? I have several. There is only a requirement for an SSN if they are going to report interest paid. I do not have any interest bearing accounts.
I do not make deposits (except the initial one, against which I cash checks), I do not make withdrawls (ever, as I retain these accounts as I move). I guess they could track the checks that are cashed against the account, but at which account? At which bank? How are they going to co-ordinate the information? No SSN.
Credit report? Don't need one. I don't apply for credit. I take the offers they send in the mail and return them with "Citizen - NONE" in the SSN space, and they must give me a card, after all, I am pre-approved.
If they do not, it is religious discrimination.
You see, if I am not required to have an SSN by any federal law, and if they were to impose a restriction upon me because I have no SSN, then the SSN must be (at least the precursor) to the mark of the beast. Revelation says "in the right hand" as though showing ID, and "in the forehead" as though reciting from memory. The language does not connote a tatoo or something like that.
With regard to the privacy that one will not be afforded in the future, I can only say: There has to be a way.
Let's take cameras everywhere. If they are private cameras and there is notice that you are being recorded, then you organize a boycott. If they are public cameras, then you have to be able to show that they are taking your property for public use, and thereby must compensate you. The only question is how to substantiate that which they are taking and what use is being made.
I'll let you know when I have that figured out.
... is one of personal jurisdiction and legal venue.
Statutes are written by the legislature in order to handle common problems. In the case of jaywalking, for example, the offense is created so that if one _causes and accident_ when one is jaywalking, then one can be held liable.
The same can be said of speeding, red lights, the list goes on.
It goes to the old adage: No victim, no crime.
I recognize that it may be dangerous to run red lights, but when I am coming home from a long trip and it is 2am, I am not going to wait at the longest light in town when there is no one on the horizon.
State legislatures also have jurisdiction over the activities of artificial persons - corporations, engaged in commerce within the state. The police power being exercised here is the regulation of activities of "persons" who do not possess the same rights as men. If you research the source of driver's license statutes and motor vehicle registration, you will find that the "person" being regulated is a common carrier who transports goods or passengers for hire.
CONgress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Driver's licenses and traffic laws found in Title 49 of the United States Code have been adopted by the states. Otherwise, these offenses would be tried in federal district court. So CONgress grants authority to the states to handle registration and licensing of interstate carriers - the CDL.
Another legal venue would be the current state of law martial rule stemming from the various and sundry declarations of national emergency published in the Federal Register. Because we are under martial law, and have been so since March 6 of 1933, the people can be regulated under the rule of necessity to impose peace and safety by the military occupant.
Be that as it may, even if automated enforcement notices me, I will not receive a summons in the mail, because my car's tag says: NOT FOR HIRE / PRIVATE PROPERTY / NO TRESPASSING. I do not see how they could get my mailing location from that.
For criminal cases, listen to the Supremes:
ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
"Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused is represented by counsel. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts."
The rub is to find a way to get the counsel to recuse himself, as when you recuse him, it is seen as refusing counsel.
For civil cases, I have found that (most) attorneys adhere to two rules:
1. Find out how much money the client has.
2. Spread out the litigation so that you can bill out for all of it.
Most civil legal matters can be handled quite simply by just a bit of study. Every young man in 1850 knew how to prosecute and defend his own case. All it takes is a couple of books on civil procedure, your annotated state court rules, and a bit of resolve.
I have found that attorneys are not taught the law, they are taught theory. So if you have the law, you argue the law, when you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have neither, settle.
For example. My friend pays her mortgage by postal money orders. She generally sends it out priority mail by delivery confirmation. The mortgage company "misplaced" one of the payments, and charged her a late fee. Each successive month, her new payment was applied instead to the older month and she was assessed a new late fee.
After the second month, she sent an affidavit stating that the payment had been made and cited the postal money order numbers and the delivery confirmation number. The mortgage company could have verified all of the payment and delivery information by itself, but insisted upon my friend sending proof of payment. Well, the affidavit constituted proof of payment.
It is now six months later and the company threatens foreclosure. She assembled all of the payment information and wrote up a twenty six count mail fraud complaint, sent it to the US Attorney for that district and copied the company.
With the complaint copy, she sent a detail of the time that she spent on this matter on research and correspondence and she billed them at 75 bux an hour. As an independent contractor, all of the time she spends with the mortgage company, she cannot allocate to clients.
Was it surprising that the company suddenly "found" the payment, properly applied it, backed out six months worth of late payment fees, and wrote letters to the Credit Reporting Agencies fixing the credit? They are balking at the 3,000 bux in billing, but if they don't pay that, she will file suit to recover her costs, and another 10k in emotional damages for being threatened with foreclosure.
Should be a slam dunk, as the company USED her research to confirm the payments, when they could have done the work themselves.
In order to prosecute all of the offenders, they would have to bring charges in a district court of the United States. Unfortunately for them, they only have United States District Courts:
BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
MOOKINI v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.'
So long as there is no Article III court within the states of the Union party to the Constitution, what will they do?
the more that is required to be controlled.
That road leads to choas.
"All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void... We are in conscience bound to disobey." Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772 AD)
Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved.
Omnis consensus tollit errorem. Every consent removes error.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it.
Non videntur qui errant consentire. He who errs is not considered as consenting.
Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur. Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting.
What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust.
Quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria. Whatever is against the rule of right, is a wrong.
Quod dubitas, ne feceris. When you doubt, do not act.
Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt. The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood.
Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum. Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.
Res est misera ubi jus est vagam et invertum. It is a miserable state of things where the law is vague and uncertain.
Legis figendi et refigendi consuetudo periculosissima est. The custom of fixing and refixing (making and annulling) laws is most dangerous.
Non decipitur qui scit se decipi. He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.
Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights, harms no one.
Impotentia excusat legem. Impossibility excuses the law.
A l'impossible nul n'est tenu. No one is bound to do what is impossible.
Lex non cogit impossibilia. The law requires nothing impossible.
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law forces not to impossibilities. Hob. 96.
Lex non intendit aliquid impossibile. The law intends not anything impossible. 12 Co. 89.
Animus ad se omne jus ducit. It is to the intention that all law applies.
Animus moninis est anima scripti. The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument.
Nemo tenetur armare adversarum contra se. No one is bound to arm his adversary.
Nihil possumus contra veritatem. We can do nothing against truth.
Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum. Nothing against reason is lawful.
Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. It is better to recede than to proceed in evil.