Posted on 11/14/2004 2:12:06 AM PST by Remember_Salamis
Most of these arguments are the same ones used by the "income tax is illegal" and "remove yourself from the IRS and SocSec rolls" crowd.
I did extensive research into the "adhesion contract" and ZipCode zones arguments.
The simple fact is that, from a purely theoretical standpoint, this article is true and valid.
From a realistic standpoint, however, following the precepts of this article will land you in jail. Unless several million people all take a stand together on these issues, the Federal Government WILL squash you like a bug.
That was my conclusion also. But it's interesting to look at. I'm more concerned my self with the despotic 14th amendment. The illegal 14th is, as Rush Limbaugh has called it, "the swiss army knife amendment". What that means is that it can be adapted to overturn almost any law in existence.
Still, it is a fascinating thing to ponder.... and someday I will start a Texas Independence Party!! Oh where did that come from??
Uh huh.
I bumped that thread for reading later. I agree. The 14th was not properly ratified, and is the foundation for much that has gone wrong with our original system.
I was seriously interested in doing this a few years ago - I did the same research that the paper's author did. He IS correct and it CAN be done. Having said that, it is VERY difficult to do and if you slip up on just ONE small detail, the Feds will swoop down and toss a net over your little pink assets. One can find themselves in a federal pen, locked in a small cell with a large aggressive fag named Bruno.
To me it is really moot anyway. The current system is being torn apart from within. CW2 will happen within the next 10 years, and those that are left alive in this country will deal with these issues at that point.
Yeppers.... Like I said in the preceeding post, the impending CW2 will render all of this moot anyway.
Do you really see CW2 coming that soon?
GWB is going to clean out the cobwebs of our Judicial system somewhat over the next four years, replacing a lot of liberal judges that were appointed en masse in the 1970s.
I think the system will be perserved some what for a while. Also, I see the possibility of "an amendment to an amendment" being raised. The proposed Marriage Amendment is merely addressing one problem arising from the 14th. I could see an amendment beaing at least proposed to amend Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment (equal protection). While we're at it, we might as well go in there and actually clarify what the heck "citizen" means.
And if CW2 were to break out, how do oyu envision it happening (i.e. what type of war, etc.)?
This "State Citizen" stuff has bee around, and debunked for years. Just part of the Anti-Income Tax stuff we see every year here at FR. They usually wait until about March, however.
Has all been poo pooed in court.
Would that be the very courts whose jurisdiction and control the author says are unconstitutionally takin away our rights and personal sovereignty?
Whew! Even at 3am I got through that article. On one level I understand where he is coming from. His research is thorough and to the point. On the other hand, what he is suggesting is dangerous, especially if you have children at home.
I already am well aware that no one "owns" anything outright. Don't pay your property taxes and see what happens. The line between Feds and States has been unconstitutionally blurred. Highway funds are witheld unless a state complies with a federal mandate of one sort or another.
The government owns your children. The author has stated this, but I don't think he knows how far it goes. For instance, the Feds will pay the county money for every child seized and placed in foster care. They then get more money when the child is placed for adoption. Here's the scam: after the child has been in foster care for, I think, 15 months they can be adopted out over the objections of the child's family. If you can't afford a lawyer, tough beans. It's very dangerous out there.
Thanks for posting this. It is truly food for thought.
Other authors say the world is flat.
That's the problem with word processors, spelling and syntax checkers. They make even the worst ramblings seem to have some string of logic.
I know one man in Oregon who is a State citizen. He's told me some interesting tales.
Also, I used to be in frequent touch with a Sheriff's Deputy in Placer County, Calif and he said that State citizenship is popular there.
Interesting (although long) article, but I agree that implementing the ideas it are dangerous, full stop. And the arguments about driver's licenses, car registrations, etc, are the same ones illegal aliens would use. Further, the federal government is NOT involved in child neglect or abuse cases, they are all at the state level, and the parents, not the feds, are the ones hit up for foster care. And lastly, I would hate to give up my right to vote for the President of the United States, since I would not be a federal resident.
I remember one of my battier uncles waxing forth on this topic years ago. These people go hand in hand with the "no income taxes" crowd, and have made themselves a fringe element, or viewed as the "crackpot" crowd.
Great observations!
A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual who is willing to accept 100% responsibility for their actions and results.
Today, not too many individuals are capable of this feat. Not being able to receive the benefits from Social Security checks, welfare checks, food stamps, federally insured bank accounts, Medicaid, Medicare, or sending the kids to publicly funded schools requires a different lifestlye.
Get it?
Also, check out the "jurisdiction" of the United States as defined in the Constitution (legislative) and U.S. Code Title 18 (criminal).
From the Constitution, section 8: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
U.S Code, Title 18, part 1, chapter 1.7: "(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building."
I don't claim to hold the answer, but it seems to me, based on the history of how this nation came into existance, there was only citizenship of the individual States before there was a union.
After the union, states held many powers, else they would never have consented to join such a union.
That's a good way of putting it. I'm fed up with all the paperwork that came about from my mom's death. Once the government gets its nose under the tent, count on reams of paperwork and ridiculous lawyer fees. Is there anything I can do about it? Just pray that it will be over soon. It's been over a year.
The birth certificate issue is a new one to me. I've discussed the legality of drivers licenses and car registration, in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.