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
In 1926, Congress enacted a law to create the 50 titles of the U.S. Code.
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.
Hey Crackpot Ralph,
In your grossly deficient brief that you prepared for MacAlpine, you raised some undefined argument regarding tax assessments and make some references to a lack of assessment, but because of your complete inability to explain anything legal, a reader cannot follow any argument you make. Reading your briefs indicates that you scream and holler alot, but it is all hot-air and useless words.
Anybody who has studied IRS regs fully understands that the published regs are deficient in listing the origins of specific regs through references; this just means that a researcher must do more work. The assessment regs for federal taxes pursuant to the '54 Code were first proposed in December, 1954, and finalized in Jan. 1955. Attached are the first pages of these regs, and I do not include the full Treasury Decisions because the files are large and may not make it through the 'Net via email. The assessment regs were slightly changed by TD 6425, 24 FR 9193 (11-11-59); and 32 F.R. 15241, 15274 (11-3-67). Studying these old issues of the Federal Register enables a researchers to follow how the regs developed. Of course, the IRS is sloppy in that its regs do not have this historical development available in them, but that just means that you have to work harder, which is beyond your skills.
I have on my harddrive all of the Federal Register issues from 1936 through 1994. Anything I need after 1994 I simply obtain from the Net. I make these files and more (300+ gigs) available to lots of researchers, but hell will freeze over before I make this work available to a misfit and liar like you.
Larry, Your Nemesis
Another party pointed me to a recent post by “Fake Judge” Anna posted on Crackpot Arnie’s website.
She made in that post the following baseless claim, among numerous others:
Look up the word “constitution” in any legal dictionary. That would be a real good place for any “constitutional scholar” to start. There are “constitutions” all over the planet—- they all revolve around indebtedness. That’s why it was called a “Constitution”— It’s a business contract—- an equity contract—-a commercial contract, nothing more or less, split into two distinct parts—- a public trust indenture and a commercial services agreement.She obviously DID NOT look up this word in any law dictionary. I attach PDFs of the definition of “constitution” as it appears in Black’s Law Dictionary (4th) and Webster’s dictionary of 1828. As usual, she fabricates contentions trying to mislead the gullible.
The “everything is admiralty” argument has been around for years, and “Fake Judge” Anna is promoting it all over again. Those who promote the admiralty argument are nothing but liars and I address that argument here.
The top of the Washington Monument in DC, according to a popular admiralty argument, is the high water mark for admiralty jurisdiction, but this contention is nothing but an utterly false assertion. Admiralty promoters are very interested in misleading people rather than educating them about the real problems.
Larry, Nemesis of the Crackpots
When Uncle Sam got lots of land from some of the original 13 colonies, as well as when he acquired more thru the Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases, and from Mexico and Russia, he eventually sold large parts of those lands. The name of the deed used to transfer title to the first purchaser was “land patent.” Once this land was transferred to the first owner and was no longer owned by the feds, it was subject to the law of the State wherein it was located. The States are constitutionally prevented from “impairing the obligation of contracts”. See Art. 1, section 10, cl. 1. Consequently, the States cannot enact some law impairing the contractual rights possessed by parties having an interest in real property, such as a mortgagee.
Back in the early ‘80s, Carol Landi started an argument about land patents. She used old, no longer effective federal laws to build an argument that a party facing foreclosure could get a copy of the original land patent for his land, “update” it by transferring the patent to himself, and by this simple process of “bringing the land patent up into your own name,” defeat all mortgages, including those given by the property owner. This is a wild, baseless legal argument.
For years, there has been a baseless contention floating around like the below: the United States was bankrupt as a result of the Revolution. This assertion completely ignores history and conflicts with historical documents, particularly the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury. And proof that the above contention is erroneous is available on the Net for ready downloading.
Years ago, I obtained PDF images of the Journals of the Continental Congress. I have provided those files to Jon Roland, a good friend of mine who built the Constitution.org website. He has posted those journals here.
These files cover the years 1774 thru 1789. If you wish to read first hand accounts of the Revolution, study these journals.
After ratification of the US Constitution and the meeting of the first Congress, the Treasury Department was created, and the act so creating it required annual reports from the Secretary. Years ago, I found that Google had scanned and posted all of these reports, and I downloaded them and provided them to Jon, who has posted them on his website.
These files cover the years 1789 thru 1980.
Here is what history and these documents conclusively show.
The United States is "liable" for the Treasury notes and bonds it issues. It is not "liable" for FRNs and is not required to pay them.
Art. 1, § 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This means that all debt instruments on which Uncle Sam is "liable" must be authorized by some law enacted by Congress. This is the constitutional provision requiring what is commonly called the debt ceiling, and if the debt ceiling is reached, no more debt instruments may be issued.
After the American Revolution, Philip Freneau, poet of the revolution, wrote a very interesting article that virtually predicted the future, and he titled that article published in the National Gazette as follows: "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one." I posted the HTML of his article here.
You are invited to read it. Is his prediction accurate?
The United States is "liable" for the Treasury notes and bonds it issues. It is not "liable" for FRNs and is not required to pay them.
Art. 1, § 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This means that all debt instruments on which Uncle Sam is "liable" must be authorized by some law enacted by Congress. This is the constitutional provision requiring what is commonly called the debt ceiling, and if the debt ceiling is reached, no more debt instruments may be issued.
Hey Bob,
More than 13 years ago, Lisa Guiliani posted an article on the Net which asserted that some unspecified federal law enacted in 1871 created “USA, Inc.” or another corp with similar name. Sometime later, advocates of this contention noted that the law in question was the act of that year related to the form of govt Congress was creating for Washington, DC. Because I knew this contention to be completely incorrect, I posted the below on my website. Simply put, that particular act was in effect for only a few years before Congress repealed it, and a reading of that act shows that it did not created any corporation named “USA, Inc.” or anything similar.
This argument has mislead too many people for more than a decade. It causes this movement to appear to be composed of crackpots, idiots and flakes, and I have some serious reservations and concerns regarding those who continue to advocate this baseless argument. I would appreciate it if you could help in stopping the spread of this fake argument.
Larry
What is the best source for learning about the common law? In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the Supreme Court noted that “Blackstone's Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.” See this.
There are parties in this movement who make assertions about the common law and its supposed merits and superiority to current law. It appears that common law proponents believe that the common law is either natural law or Biblical law, when the reality is far different and that it is neither “natural” nor entirely Biblical, but really the customs of the English people developed over hundreds of years during the late Dark Ages and Renaissance for a largely feudal, agricultural society. While Christianity is a part of it, common law is for the most part unrelated to Christianity. After all, the monarchy was part and parcel of the common law.
Personally, I think parties to litigation should be able to testify in their own cases. However, at common law this was prohibited. See Olive v. Adams, 50 Ala. 373 (1874). Further, Georgia had this rule as late as the early 1960s for criminal cases. If you want to read a case that discusses this common law rule of evidence that parties could not testify in their own criminal cases, please read Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 573-582, 81 S.Ct. 756 (1961), which is posted here.
Which is better: prohibiting parties from testifying in their own cases or allowing them to do so?
There are too many fake and false arguments that float around this movement, and several relate to our alleged association with England, and another contends that “the Vatican owns everything.” History reveals that these arguments are utterly false.
Some contend that an agreement between King John of England and the Pope in 1213 conveyed to the Pope legal control of England and complete ownership of the whole country. While there was such an agreement, it did not last very long. Blackstone recounts that the Vatican’s desire to own lots of English land and control large parts of that country resulted in the revolt of the monarchy and nobles. As a result of the actions of the Vatican, an offense named praemunire was enacted to combat the perceived evils of the Vatican, and Blackstone discusses this crime at length.
In Blackstone’s Commentaries, there is a chapter titled Offenses against God and Religion, posted here.