What has already been litigated regarding obamacare is just the tax. There are other issues waiting to be raised, and one is already in the “pipeline,” which is the constitutional argument that the bill which became law, originating in the senate, is unconstitutional because it really was a revenue bill that did not originate in the house. As such, the law is unconstitutional.
For more than the last 2 centuries, Congress has enacted federal criminal laws. On March 4, 1909, Congress adopted an act to codify these federal criminal laws into one act. See 35 Stat. 1088, ch 321. Contrary to popular myths about codifications, it does make tremendous sense for a legislature to group laws regarding one topic all in one act of that legislature, rather than thru 10 or 20 different acts scattered all over the place
Black's Law Dictionary is used by large numbers of people to learn what legal words mean. In "Judge Dale's" work, The Matrix, he provided several fairly accurate definitions of various words from Black's. However, he also faked one definition, that regarding "democracy". See here.
Is it permissible to fake quotes or provide completely false definitions from Black's?
My conclusion regarding people who think we are still Brits, or believe that the Vatican owns everything, is that they either ignore important facts or "cherry-pick" facts just to reach a baseless conclusion.
The 1783 Treaty of Peace contains plains terms that the British King was surrendering any claims that he had to the new United States:
"His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof."
While I disagree that the King was an agent of the Pope or Vatican, if he really was, then this Treaty likewise surrendered the Vatican's claims to the United States. If the King was the Vatican's agent, he also surrendered the Vatican's claims as its agent.
The “Concession” required payments from the English King to the Pope, but history shows that King John did not make the required payment for the following year. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
Where the following is found:
With all the talk about "martial law" coming to America, it is important for every American to understand what it is and then realize that there is absolutely no legal authority, state or federal, for this "form of government" to be imposed or implemented. To educate people about this extremely important matter, Edwin Vieira has written By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, which explains all of this and more. Edwin offers a short explanation of this book here.
It is available on Amazon.
On the above page, Edwin writes:
A popular patriot argument is based on the case of “Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54", and it is alleged that in this case, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary – having neither actuality nor substance – is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
That case may be read here. I cannot find this quote in this case, so I will pay 2500 bux (FRNs) to anyone who can find this quote in this case. Offers expires next Monday.
Last week, I offered a 2500 bux reward for anyone who could find a particular, popular quote alleged to be contained in the case of Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795). Nobody has been able to find that quote, altho “Fake Judge” Anna von Reitz asserted that it was a “commentary to the case in dissent”, but that is false. In short, nobody has been able to find the quote, which demonstrates that those who promote that case and its alleged statements are liars.
Here are some of the replies I received:
“Larry we got hold of a brilliantly written brief that had at least 30 quotes in it by some Paytriot and I got all the cases from a law library on lexis nexis and not one I say not one quote was found on any of the cases cited, NONE!!!! You are not doing bad with only one bogus quote. I honestly believe those that put out this garbage are Gummint provocateurs or are insane psychopaths craving attention and are trying to elevate their insignificant status .”
“I think you are absolutely correct about this one ! Some years ago I read and captured as many versions of the case as I could and couldn't find the AF, CD, FL (Airy Fairy, Creamy Dreamy, Fruity Loopy) quote. I have a file on bogus attributions for that case ! It seemed too good to be true and it turned out to be just that ! I chalk it up the 'movement' members who seem to be into making up (or cobbling together) quotes to satisfy their agenda...which could be throwing out disinfo for some twisted reason OR outright disinfo agents who plant these kinds of quotes in an attempt to ensnare those who don't do their homework !”
“While I couldn't find words like ‘artificial’ ‘imaginary’ ‘inasmuch’ and many of these words in Penhallow (I actually did a search on several larger words), I did find ‘a’, ‘the’, ‘an’, ‘is’ and a couple other words. Oh, and the word ‘person’ appeared in the case a few times.”
“I just posted a similar reply to the one who sent to me a bullshit article called scanned retina, whatever that is. Is there any way we can find out who is the satanic government agent who publishes the Penhallow nonsense?
Hey Crackpot Ralph,
Have you ever wondered who educated this movement about section 1461 withholding agents? In the mid-'80s, I taught Tupper Saussy (leader of the money issue at that time) about section 1461 and he wrote an article about it in his newsletter, The Main Street Journal. A friend of mine, John Sasscer, studied that article Tupper wrote and then published his version of Tupper's article in the SAP newsletter, Reasonable Action. I have posted that article, published in the Summer of 1987, here.
I attach it to make it easy for you because I have reservations about your ability to even navigate the Net. You should at least look at it.