If You're a Civillian, What Are They?

Recently a chief of police made a comment about the difficulties posed by allowing 'civilians' to open carry weapons. While the general concern can be related to, what is up with this habit of 'stealing fire' from the citizenry? Just something to think about, what is often admitted openly and standing in plain sight. Professional police and soldiers often call non-police, non-firefighters or non-soldiers 'civilians' or 'civvies'. What is the correlating opposite word of civilian? Military or militia. So by calling you a civilian, are they admitting to be military or militia.

The Original & Proper Meaning of Militia
The original and proper meaning of the word 'militia' extends to all emergency response: law enforcement, military-class defense, firefighting, search-and-rescue, emergency medical along with general disaster response. Military-class emergency response is simply one aspect of the militia.

But...
The constitutions of many states clearly indicate that the militia is composed of all able-bodied male citizens. So are you really a 'civilian' or is there some kind of widespread error or mental virus going around?

Quote:

---

Attachment 4272

---

According to 10 U.S.C. 311, 'the militia of the United States' consists of:

(1) all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States--subject to exceptions provided at section 313 of Title 32 of the U.S. Code, and

(2) female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

There are two classes of the militia:

(1) the organized militia;
(2) the unorganized militia.

So if you are male citizen of the United States between the ages of 17 to 45 and part of the unorganized militia of the United States, how could you possibly e a civilian!?? It is possible, however, if you are not a citizen of the United States that you could be able-bodied and not be part of the militia of the United States.

Militias of the Several States
Picking a random one of the several states, according to the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 41 41.050:

Quote:

---

The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, 41.070 (3) The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia. {Note: This is a statutory definition.}

---

So if you are an able-bodied resident of the State of Missouri or are an able-bodied citizen the State of Missouri: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE A CIVILIAN!?!?!?

How about another random pick: the State of California. According to Wikipedia, the California Military & Veterans Code § 560 (unless amended) defines the unorganized militia of California as consisting of: "all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia." All persons liable for service is defined as all able-bodied male citizens and declared citizens between 18 and 45 years old. If you are an able-bodied male citizen of of the State of California aged 18 or 45, according to California statute, it seems that you're not actually a civilian.

What About Texas?
However there are states which prohibit the idea of militias that aren't directly and immediately state sponsored. The State of Texas is said to be one of them. The State of Texas doesn't necessarily define the unorganized militia in statute. So in the State of Texas, under modern statute at least, if a citizen or resident of the State of Texas isn't part of the organized militia they might rightly be regarded under statute to be a 'civilian'. However, there could be some Federal overlap that provides for the applicability of 10 U.S.C. 311 for citizens of the United States.

Great/outstanding topics allodial.

Voters card what is it really?

If you're registering right before the voter registration deadline, chances are you won't receive the card in time for the election. You do not need this card to vote but you do need to know if you're registered and where your voting location is. Call your state election authority with any questions.

Do I need to be a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote?
Yes. You must be a naturally born or fully naturalized U.S. citizen in order to register to vote.
https://www.rockthevote.com/get-info...ked-questions/

26 U.S.C. § 3401 : US Code - Section 3401: Definitions.
(a) Wages For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/C/24/3401

A public official is anyone in a position of official authority that is conferred by a state, i.e. someone who holds a legislative, administrative, or judicial position of any kind, whether appointed or elected. Sep 10, 2013 Source https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/councilse...blicofficials/

I get more and more reports of people getting harassed by the IRS (including multiple $5000 frivolous argument penalties) for using Pete Hendrickson's Cracking-the-Code method of submitting amended returns showing zero income, and therefore zero tax.

Unless and until somebody manages to fight the IRS and win in a US Circuit Court of Appeals using the method Hendrickson explains in his Cracking the Code book, you should think carefully before resorting to that method.

Pete might pull a rabbit out of the hat, but I expect him to suffer a conviction. No knowledge of the law can escape the liberty-killing intent of a US Attorney with a suborned judge and jury in his pocket.

Pete should call in America's one-man Tribal Lawyer Hit Squad: Luis Ewing,

Through a clever strategy in Ewing's one and only criminal income tax case the client got convicted on multiple counts and walked FREE with no jail time because Luis knows how to dig for the law the law and develop a strategy and pleadings that will help his clients WIN, even though they lose.

Yes, he charges money, a lot of money, but 20% less than a typical attorney would charge. And yes, he gets paid, up front. But No, he does not go to court with his clients. And yes, he has a long string, though not a perfect record, of wins in all kinds of cases.

Pete could contact Luis at rcwcod...@comcast.net.

Pete would fare better with a consultation from that ineffable baritone and master legal strategist Richard Cornforth . Richard claims a hefty string of strategy wins in income tax cases.

Or Pete should retain an honest-to-God income tax criminal attorney like Cryer , Becraft , Dickstein , or Minns .

I hope Pete has read Minns' and Cornforth's books, even though he has some litigation experience and knows the tax laws. He just might need some help to stay out of prison on this one.

Bob Hurt

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2...endrickson.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice
Terrence Berg United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan
Suite 2001 211 West Fort Street Detroit, Michigan 48226-3277
For Immediate Release: Contact: Gina Balaya (313) 226-9758
Nov 12, 2008

EVENT: Indictment Defendant: Peter Hendrickson
Man Indicted for Submitting False Documents With the Internal Revenue Service

Peter Hendrickson, 53, was arraigned today in federal court in Detroit on an indictment charging him with submitting several false documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Acting United States Attorney Terrence Berg announced today.

The 10-count indictment charges that for the calendar years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Hendrickson filed IRS Forms 1040 (income tax returns) and/or IRS Forms 4852 (Substitute for Form W-2) stating under penalties of perjury that he had received no wages in those years. The indictment indicates that he had in fact received wages in those years in varying amounts.

In May 2007, a federal court in Detroit permanently enjoined Peter Hendrickson from filing tax returns and forms on which he falsely reported his income as zero. The injunction order, signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, also required Hendrickson and his wife to repay more than $20,000 in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes that they had obtained by filing false tax returns with the IRS.

According to information in the May 2007 court order, Hendrickson based his improper conduct on a book he wrote called "Cracking the Code." The book states that federal tax withholding and income taxes on wages are applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees. The court found that position to be "false and frivolous," and cited an earlier court decision holding the position to be "preposterous."

Peter Hendrickson was convicted in 1992 on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year.

Acting United States Attorney Berg said, "The right to protest cannot cross the line into unlawful conduct. Although our system depends on the voluntary compliance of citizens, no one is exempt from paying taxes or following federal tax laws."

"This is yet another example of the Justice Department's commitment, under the National Tax Defier Initiative, to use off all of its tools - both civil and criminal - to stop tax defier conduct throughout the nation," said Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Tax Division.

"Hendrickson, if convicted, faces years in prison, steep fines, and paying back all taxes with penalties and interest."

"The Internal Revenue Code has no hidden secrets and applies to all taxpayers," said Eileen Mayer, Chief, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division. "Today's indictment signals the IRS' determination to ensure that all taxpayers abide by the tax laws and pay their fair share of taxes."

Except if the civilian is claiming a deduction of “lawful money of the united states” deduction.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Aka a deduction of “lawful money of the united states” deduction.

The case was investigated by special agents of the IRS. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Leibson and Department of Justice Tax Division attorney Mark Daly.

More information about the Justice Department's efforts to stop tax fraud promoters and preparers through civil and criminal actions is available on the Tax Division's website.
--
Bob Hurt
http://bobhurt.com
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511, FAX +1 (206) 600-5958
Donate here: http://bobhurt.com/lawdonation.htm
Study Jurisdictionary: http://www.jurisdictionary.com/index...fercode=HB0002
Join Lawmen: lawmen-s...@googlegroups.com
Free Downloads: http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/files
Save fuel: http://www.fuelsaver-mpg.com/affilia...lid_8_MailFoot
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...en/g_o8HIXlimo

One of my unanswered questions is this: where is the authority under the constitution that gives the government to declare that my working for someone else and getting paid, makes me an "employee" (as defined in chapter 24, under the common law usage)?

My grandpa called the helper on the farm a "hired hand" and never took taxes out of his pay. That is as common as it got back then.. And that was in 1950 all the way to 1970!

The court ruled in a case, that congress cannot simply declare something to be an excise taxable event,
just so that it can tax it.

It also ruled that the income tax is an excise tax, the excise tax is the result of an activity that congress can tax, that produces income, and the IRS will not identify that activity, nor can anyone else.

Under chapter 24, the activity is clear: working for the government, or one of its subdivisions, etc.. It is a privilege to work at taxpayer expense.

When the average American starts to read the IRC and learns just a few basic rules of law, they naturally come to the conclusion that they are not the employee under chapter 24, and that it doesn't apply.

Therefore how do they have an income tax liability? There is no liability section in chapters 1 or 2, but there is one for chapter 3 - tax on non resident aliens and foreign corporations.

And why is wages NOT listed in the definition of gross income at 61A?

Again, if we read the written Code (code is not law), we find that we are not liable. If we are, why after over 50 years of concentrated tax resistance by people who have devoted their entire lives to this, hasn't the IRS or the government come up with proof of liability?

Continued ------------They get convictions by convincing people that anything that comes in is taxable, and anyone who has read the court cases, knows that it’s not true. And that there is no liability for most americans for the income tax - this especially after the Tom Cryer win!

Yet the IRS still plods on like some brain dead donkey on a tread wheel, trying to convict people for not paying for a tax that does not exist!

"Claim lawful money and be done with it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

If You're a Civilian, What Are They?

---

THEY are bat-sh1t crazy for labeling anything they can, so it fits nice & neat inside a box.

It's been said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".....where I like to say -- the Hive mind is a waste

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ag maniac

THEY are bat-sh1t crazy for labeling anything they can, so it fits nice & neat inside a box.

It's been said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".....where I like to say -- the Hive mind is a waste

---

Evidence of a kind of autism?

That's being generous allodial.....gives them too much wiggle room.

I like Ann Barnhardt's description of Diabolical Narcissism for "THEY".....you either have love in your heart (charitable) or choose not to (selfishness).

170 minute video on DN or a shorter written piece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ag maniac

That's being generous allodial.....gives them too much wiggle room.

I like Ann Barnhardt's description of Diabolical Narcissism for "THEY".....you either have love in your heart (charitable) or choose not to (selfishness).

170 minute video on DN or a shorter written piece

---

How about 'bureaucratic turrets syndrome'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

...... 'bureaucratic turrets (tourette's) syndrome'

---

....heh-heh..... --> characterized by a variable expression of unwanted movements and noises (tics).


A good description of the TV newsrooms I've been exposed to in a past life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ag maniac

....heh-heh..... --> characterized by a variable expression of unwanted movements and noises (tics).


A good description of the TV newsrooms I've been exposed to in a past life

---

LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBUHwyjETzc

Consider that people with tourettes spend a lot of time doing non-productive things over and over and over. Maybe throw in some OCD too.

The "Tourette's Guy" video above is somewhat jaded.....in the fact that tourette's can be exhibited by expletive filled melt downs.....only that is a prevalent stereotype.

I knew two people for many years each, one in boarding school in my teens & another in TV news ( a reporter back in the 90's who is now a "network correspondent".....fancy term for highly paid CBS reporter).

The high school kid appeared to be a couple notches above retarded, had many tics & quirky behavior, but you could have a stuttering yet simplistic conversation with him, and for the most part was mostly non-disruptive.....UNTIL somebody started to push his buttons and he'd flip out either on the perpetrator of his torment, or anyone who happened to be too close. Somewhat frail-ish looking @ about 5'9", you didn't want to be on the receiving end of the wingtips he wore.....and then he'd run off to safe harbor somewhere on campus. No cussing here....but definitely a severe case of Tourette's.

The reporter was an Ivy league grad, fun guy to work with because he wasn't full of himself, always attacked the assignment with fervor but had irreverent fun with his peers about the subjects.....UNTIL some demand/deadline was not met or missed......and boy could this guy have an expletive filled meltdown.....even once saw him hurl a 70 lb tape machine (on a table, not rack mounted) about 30 feet. Thing was, he didn't realize he had a mild case of Tourette's......I'd watch him off camera and he had this repetitive tic that apparently nobody else picked up on. Eventually, I told him & he sought treatment. He still worked & played hard, but the melt downs were less frequent.

About this same time in the early 90's, PBS had a POV Series on air....one of those hour long documentaries dealt with Tourette's -- named "TWITCH & SHOUT"......covered 4 or 5 people in various grips of the syndrome and one I remembered being a well known NBA point guard. I wish it could be seen today for less than the $225 they want for the DVD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk