endorsing and SS.......a big question!

[shikamaru]

According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

[motla68]

According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

The people had proxies called representatives and statesman.

" the IMF staff believes that the ultimate objective has to be to ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to meet the future needs of Social Security and Medicare. "

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2001/062601.htm

[shikamaru]

The people had proxies called representatives and statesman.

This is presumptive.
Voting and its registration is voluntary.

How does a representative claim to speak for all people?
Does one have representatives?
Does a representative speak for one who has not registered to vote?

True beneficiary of SS is government.

Of course, government wants you in Social Security!

a) Taxes and taxation. SSN is the tax ID number
b) An insurance program (admiralty/maritime)
c) Great program that makes money for government and costs you money
d) Voluntary registration of enemies of the banking system

[motla68]

This is presumptive.
Voting and its registration is voluntary.

Does one have representatives?

True beneficiary of SS is government.

Of course, government wants you in Social Security!

a) Taxes and taxation. SSN is the tax ID number
b) An insurance program (admiralty/maritime)
c) Great program that makes money for government and costs you money
d) Voluntary registration of enemies of the banking system

" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=32&invol=243

IMF also has a say in the control over FRB.
Are you not getting that it is all under one umbrella?

Next?

[shikamaru]

" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=32&invol=243

IMF also has a say in the control over FRB.
Are you not getting that it is all under one umbrella?

Next?

Are you presuming you are one of the people of the United States?

Next?

[jesse james]

" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=32&invol=243

Next?

And the problem with this premise is that there is a legal difference between "The People", who established government for themselves, and the "US citizens".
The pecking order goes like this:
1. The People (above their created government)
2. Federal government (to deal with international affairs, below the People )
3. US citizens (below government or jurisdictional, 14th amendment, being of 2nd class to the People)

You should really try and see why the courts say the things they say Motla68. Take these cites and let them sink in!

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

NEXT!

[motla68]

Are you presuming you are one of the people of the United States?

Next?

If you been paying any attention since i got on this forum absolutely not. From what I understand that presumption is reserved for certain people in this forum who identify themselves as suitors if not mistaken.

[shikamaru]

If you been paying any attention since i got on this forum absolutely not. From what I understand that presumption is reserved for certain people in this forum who identify themselves as suitors if not mistaken.

If you were more literate, you would know that presumption means pre-supposition.
Anyone can make a presumption albeit, it is a favored tool of courts.

I'm well aware the IMF has link to the FRB.

What you are failing to weigh is that Social Security is an INSURANCE plan.

INSURANCE falls squarely into ADMIRALTY/MARITIME.

People or rather their parents sign into it by APPLICATION followed by REGISTRATION.

Check out the public administration of boats in English history when you are bored.

[EZrhythm]

Thank you, EZrhythm, you make it so EZ.

That's because IT IS EZ! We humans tend to like to make things more complicated than they need to be, hence many of the attorneys today. ;-)

[motla68]

And the problem with this premise is that there is a legal difference between "The People", who established government for themselves, and the "US citizens".
The pecking order goes like this:
1. The People (above their created government)
2. Federal government (to deal with international affairs, below the People )
3. US citizens (below government or jurisdictional, 14th amendment, being of 2nd class to the People)

You should really try and see why the courts say the things they say Motla68. Take these cites and let them sink in!

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

NEXT!

U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

I do not consider myself any one of those you mentioned, so what is your point? Opinions are not law, there is signatures on them constitutions and none of them are mine.
I only posted a court case for the benefit of shikamaru, seem to favor opinions rather then facts. Where is the informer to speak for himself, why must some of you insist speaking for him? He is not here so stop quoting him, I can probably find more holes to poke in some of that cheese.

[shikamaru]

U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

.

I fail to see how this is germane to jesse james' post as a substantive rebuttal.

I only posted a court case for the benefit of shikamaru, seem to favor opinions rather then facts. Where is the informer to speak for himself, why must some of you insist speaking for him? He is not here so stop quoting him, I can probably find more holes to poke in some of that cheese.

And that, my boy, is a pre-supposition i.e. presumption.
A faulty presumption at that of your own creation.
Do you understand what reporting is or must I forward the definition of the word "according" to you?

You probably can do nothing as well. Don't speculate. Go big or go home.

[motla68]

If you were more literate, you would know that presumption means pre-supposition.
Anyone can make a presumption albeit, it is a favored tool of courts.

I'm well aware the IMF has link to the FRB.

What you are failing to weigh is that Social Security is an INSURANCE plan.

INSURANCE falls squarely into ADMIRALTY/MARITIME.

People or rather their parents sign into it by APPLICATION followed by REGISTRATION.

Check out the public administration of boats in English history when you are bored.

The worsed of cheese, that be stinky cheese.

Public welfare insurance, I am not the public and am not licensed by the state to do business, so who is it really for?

[shikamaru]

The worsed of cheese, that be stinky cheese.

Public welfare insurance, I am not the public and am not licensed by the state to do business, so who is it really for?

The true beneficiary is government.

You are big on trusts.
You ever take the time to check out USC 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter II?

Trust fund is a misnomer however, for the proceeds go directly into general funds.
I got the Supreme Court cases on SS.

[Life's-a-Psyop]

According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

[motla68]

I fail to see how this is germane to jesse james' post as a substantive rebuttal.



And that, my boy, is a pre-supposition i.e. presumption.
A faulty presumption at that of your own creation.
Do you understand what reporting is or must I forward the definition of the word "according" to you?

You probably can do nothing as well. Don't speculate. Go big or go home.

To show the cheese effect of case cites whether it has anything to do with me.

Am I your boy? talk about presumptions !

Well what is more so, getting your information from a third party(informer) or actually showing the statutes and acts referring to?

By what authority requires me to report?

Same to you , go big or go home. Why are you so hung up on the interpretations of the informer? Do you really think a judge
in court you are speaking to is going to care who the informer is?