Deconstruction of the 14th Amendment

[motla68]

- Continuing this thought about some kind of package. That is not what Coresource Solution has ever been about, not wrapped up package with a toll road and breadcrumbs.
Being a free man on the land is about learning how to do things from scratch without the guidance of someone or some thing telling you how to do it. A pioneer of sorts.

" It's not about the destination, the journey is everything! "
- Movie: Peaceful Warrior

If you all do not go through some of the same suffrage our first core group went through to find things and put the puzzle pieces together just how is it that you will learn it as well as we do?
We started from scratch with nothing, we did not even have names of most of the documents as you all do. We did not go to a school, take some kind of class or use some kind of package, it was just raw self teaching. Getting pulled over by police, going through courts, going to jail, being committed to a mental health facility and more for experimentation and research to see what feedback we get so them pieces of the puzzle can be put together. Most of it is found in the audio files on the Talkshoe group, some of it what i have shared here on this forum.
Just with anything you do when you go against the "status Quo" you better be prepared there is possibility you could go to jail and/or worse for what you believe in. The bible even states this folks, look what jesus went through? Not even a step by step package with someone's promise will save you from any of that.
All Coresource Solution does is give some very basic guidance, most of what you are going to learn is by actually doing it, it has been our experience since the beginning that most of those who have everything handed to them step by step never really comprehend fully what to do, sure they get lucky, but most who do have success have never asked for a step by step instruction book. They get that " ah-ha" moment and then just go do it. I tell people who are interested, learn it, live it, do it.
So now you know I am going way out of my element here because there is an exchange of information of which both Coresource Solution and the Suitors forum can benefit from each other.
I do not see any step by step book here either as a note, but I am not complaining about it, it is how we like it. Thanks much for the creator of this forum!

[David Merrill]

Which is a style that compliments ours - speaking for suitors. We are rather a brain trust; with me in the middle as intelligence nexus and a great memory. I am in the middle of suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction who are sensory nodes sharing with me their experiences mostly with setting up the evidence repository through a LoR template. The objective is to utilize remedy, already written into the law, simply and effectively - forming explanations of doing so on a seventh grade level in the fewest words possible. One great thing about being within the brain trust is that one seldom repeats any mistake twice and the mistakes are few and far between especially in the last five years that we have been incorporating redemption of lawful money.


It is great to have you here Motla68!

[Anthony Joseph]

Which is a style that compliments ours - speaking for suitors. We are rather a brain trust; with me in the middle as intelligence nexus and a great memory. I am in the middle of suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction who are sensory nodes sharing with me their experiences mostly with setting up the evidence repository through a LoR template. The objective is to utilize remedy, already written into the law, simply and effectively - forming explanations of doing so on a seventh grade level in the fewest words possible. One great thing about being within the brain trust is that one seldom repeats any mistake twice and the mistakes are few and far between especially in the last five years that we have been incorporating redemption of lawful money.


It is great to have you here Motla68!

I would like to add my agreement to the sentiment of sharing experiences and information in order to gain an understanding of truth and success while having to deal with the "ways of the world" around us. Although it may seem we have gotten off to a bad start, I view this entire discourse as edifying and fruitful since what we all seek here is truth above all else. One will find that the more open and willing one is to fully disclose what one finds as success, the more accepting and welcoming this group will be. There are many diligent and studied men and women who are ready to receive truth when they hear it. At the same time however, these same men and women will question, challenge and expect those who offer methods and ways of "success" to provide the verifiable documentation and evidence in order for us to gleen whether or not the model offered is reproducible or just a fortunate anecdote.

Let me again extend my own appreciation for all of those who are here who wish to find and share the truth they seek among those who hunger for it. We are on the same side if it is truth that is sought above all else.

[motla68]

Which is a style that compliments ours - speaking for suitors. We are rather a brain trust; with me in the middle as intelligence nexus and a great memory. I am in the middle of suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction who are sensory nodes sharing with me their experiences mostly with setting up the evidence repository through a LoR template. The objective is to utilize remedy, already written into the law, simply and effectively - forming explanations of doing so on a seventh grade level in the fewest words possible. One great thing about being within the brain trust is that one seldom repeats any mistake twice and the mistakes are few and far between especially in the last five years that we have been incorporating redemption of lawful money.
It is great to have you here Motla68!

Thanks for the welcome.

I would like to point out in your methods you say seventh grade level, but I have seen a couple episodes of a TV show called " are you smarter then a 5th grader? "
At least half if not more never make it through to the end. So if this is your target audience you might need to step it down a couple more notches to help people grow.
You may not agree with this, but just to let you know where I am coming from. Templates and cookie cutter manuevers limit the audiences ability to freely think, thus
when a curve ball comes out from no where and they experience something that they were never told how to handle the brain locks up and bad things happen.
The ability to let people make mistakes allows them a great learning experience that will stay with them throughout their lives.
On the lawful money thing though I am with you there, for it provides a conveyance for local sustainability within our own country, common cause for like minded people.

Great scene, I like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ

[David Merrill]

That seventh-grade figure came from my evidence repository in Denver. My objective is to be able to convince a jury that the billing/lien/settlement process is based in a valid security agreement that currently exists between people and government.

One will find that the more open and willing one is to fully disclose what one finds as success, the more accepting and welcoming this group will be.

No. That is what is happening on the Internet all over - elsewhere. As far as my posts go, it is not going to happen. My responses to your STRAWMAN Redemption by any other name will continue to reflect that too. What one finds as success is inadaquate without some scientific testing for reproducible mental models that are actually applicable in the courts and in real life. - Competence.

In other words you keep falling back on the idea that there are more funds, based in the certificate of live birth as a bill of lading on the baby, than would be held in the SSN accounting as a TIN (Withholdings). This is the HJR-192 setting too, utilizing House and Senate Reports but extending the birth certificate as some kind of stock certificate being hypothecated upon like Rob MENARD's theories about Security of the Person. Rob is not the only casualty though. We also find that L.B. BORK's set theories have gone asunder. He wrote a book (The Red Amendment), that like Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code set him defending incomplete or incorrect hypothesis. That is not what is going on here. Not as far as I am concerned. So you may wish I would be more open minded about your trust theories but where we stand, you and I, is that you have to load your scanner or camera properly so that you might show us some better process-to-results images for me to comment on, rather than to shoot down because you are implying results instead of demonstrating results.

Which brings us to the topic btw.

LB BORK's book and website is about the 14th Amendment (primarily). At the beginning of this thread I threw some historical facts out about the 1865 Amendment too. When I began speaking of this on LB's website he banished me! Then he wanted me back but only if I wrote him an essay about how I would behave...?? Then silence prompted him to accept me back and he would humiliate me and delete my posts to avoid my embarrassing myself there, in front of maybe three active members and ten readers! Then he banished me again. Now he wants me back again. Point being how if you are going to set your theories in stone by writing a book, you better base them in standing law like we do here.

I read your comment, embedded in your paragraph to mean you wish I would let up about you not supporting your variation of the birth certificate hypothecations. I interpret your posts as an attempt to pursuade my thinking and belief sets. Of course! That's exactly what you are doing - as I am to you too. So get on loading that scanner now.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

There are some facts concerning the 14th Amendment that has yet to be raised:

The Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of "separate by equal," 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case. The expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment that comes down to Constitutional Law classes today is the result of corporations using the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against regulation. Ultimately, the Plessy decision left Jim Crow laws, state laws discriminating against blacks, in place because of doctrines developed in those corporate shield cases.

The case used as basis giving 14th Amendment protection to corporations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[Chex]

Wow!!! Matthew 5:33-37: ?Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ?Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.? But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God?s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ?Yes? or ?No?; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Nice article molta real nice.

To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.

Then you have this:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

AKA

Gives a new meaning to I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God......

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%).

ARCHBISHOP?S STATE OF THE CHURCH ADDRESS
4th Annual Provincial Council
Ridgecrest, North Carolina
6th June, A.D. 2012

[LearnTheLaw]

Part 1

I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere but it is a good explanation of the 14th amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited

Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. and

Or, to paraphrase the relevant part,
Or, to cut to the chase,

The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, , is specifically limited to and is only applicable to those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were kidnapped).

[LearnTheLaw]

Part 2

As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.

I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for naturalization).

Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the jurisdiction of the United States

There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:

and Chisholm vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225---Eric-Williams-Show---Excerpt

[LearnTheLaw]

This was passed the day before they passed the 14th amendment.

Is this the "Remedy" for the 14th amendment??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Approved, July 27, 1868.

http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/Patr/US/ExpatriationAct.html

[David Merrill]

They (Patriots/Freemen) call that the Expatriation Act.

It really only makes sense in the format of a natural or geographical survey. In my opinion there is nothing to say to expatriate until you have a recognized survey to claim - unless of course you have a nice yacht...

In other words you must be careful how you identify yourself.

[LearnTheLaw]

In other words you must be careful how you identify yourself.

That is Exactly the point.

How you identify yourself is how you get caught up in their jurisdiction.

It is the Presumption of law.


================================================== ================================================== =========

<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>


Notice how the presumption has shifted. Contrary to the regulations at 26 CFR 1.871-4 (quoted above), employers are told by the IRS to make the opposite "presumption" about the residence of their employees, even if they are not true "employees" as that term is defined in the IRC. If individuals have W-4 and W-2 forms, the presumption is that they were either required to sign these forms, or they have made elections to be treated as residents. Recall that the instructions for Form 1040NR describe the "election to be taxed as a resident alien". This is accomplished by filing an income tax return on Form 1040 or 1040A, and attaching a statement confirming the "election".

An extremely subtle indicator of one's status is the perjury oath which is found on IRS forms. Under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1746, there are two different perjury oaths to which penalties attach: one within the United States**, and one without the United States** (see Appendix R for the precise wording of 28 U.S.C. 1746). If an oath is executed without the United States**, it reads as follows:

I declare ... under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
[emphasis added]

If an oath is executed within the United States**, it reads as follows:

I declare ... that the foregoing is true and correct.

Thus, your signature under the latter oath can be presumed to mean that you are already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**. This latter oath is the one found on IRS Form 1040.

Federal courts now appear to be proceeding on the basis of the presumption that we are all "citizens of the United States**" because the courts have shifted onto defendants the burden of proving that they are not "citizens of the United States**". Despite the obvious logical problem that arises from trying to prove a negative, the United States District Court in Delaware ruled as follows when it granted an IRS petition to enforce a summons:

Defendant's protestations to effect that he derived no benefit from United States government had no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes; unless he could establish that he was not a citizen of the United States, IRS possessed authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1; Amend. 16; 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1. [!!]

[United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (1982)]
[emphasis added]

It should be clear by now that the IRS may well be making presumptions about your status which are, in fact, not correct. If an original presumption of nonresidence has been rebutted, for example, because a nonresident alien filed one or more 1040 forms in the past, the filed forms do not cast the situation into concrete. The IRS is entitled to formulate a presumption from these filed forms, but this presumption is also rebuttable. If you filed under the mistaken belief that you were required to file, that mistaken belief, in and of itself, does not suddenly turn you into a person who is required to file. Tax liability is not a matter of belief; it is a matter that arises from status and jurisdiction.

<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>

continued below or read the entire document here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm

[LearnTheLaw]

As I read your forums about "Lawful Money", I believe applying your princibles to the bankingcard can be very effective.

================================================== ================================================


<<<<<<snip from above>>>>>>


Now, let's have a little fun with this law of presumption, as it is called. The law works both ways. This means that you can use it to your advantage as well as anyone else can. One of the most surprising and fascinating discoveries made by the freedom movement in America concerns the bank signature card. If you have a checking or savings account at a bank, you may remember being asked by the bank officer to sign your name on several documents when you opened that account. One of these documents was the bank signature card. You may have been told that the bank needed your signature in order to compare it with the signatures that would be found on the checks you write, to detect forgeries. That explanation sounded reasonable, so you signed your name on the card.

What the bank officer probably did not tell you was that you signed your name on a contract whereby you agreed to abide by all rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury. You see, bank signature cards typically contain such a clause in the fine print. These rules and regulations include, but are not limited to the IRC (all 2,000 pages of it) and the Code of Federal Regulations for the IRC (all 10,000 pages of it). These rules may also include every last word of the Federal Reserve Act, another gigantic statute. Now, did the bank have all 12,000 pages of the IRC and its regulations on exhibit for you to examine upon request, before you signed the card? Your bank should be willing, at the very least, to identify clearly what rules and regulations adhere to your signature.

You are presumed to be a person who knows how to read, and who knows how to read a contract before signing your name to it. Once your signature is on the contract, the federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Their presumption is that you entered into this contract knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Why? Because your signature is on the contract. That's why. Is this presumption rebuttable? You bet it is. Here's why:

Instead of telling you that the bank needed your signature to catch forgeries, imagine that the bank officer described the signature card as follows:

Your signature on this card will create a contract relationship between you and the Secretary of the Treasury. This Secretary is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, because the U.S. Treasury Department was bankrupted in the year 1933. The Treasury Department referred to on this card is a private entity which has been set up to enforce private rules and regulations. These rules and regulations have been established to discharge the bankruptcy of the federal government. Your signature on this card will be understood to mean that you are volunteering to subject yourself to a foreign jurisdiction, a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia and its private offspring, the Federal Reserve system. You accept the benefits of limited liability offered to you by this corporation for using their commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes, to discharge your own debts without the need for gold or silver.

By accepting these benefits, you are admitting to the waiver of all rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution for the United States of America, because that Constitution cannot impair any obligations in the contract you will enter by signing this card. Your waiver of these rights will be presumed to be voluntary and as a result of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Brady v. U.S. With your signature on this card, the Internal Revenue Service, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve system, will be authorized to attach levies against any and all of your account balances in order to satisfy any unpaid liabilities which the IRS determines to exist. You will waive all rights against self-incrimination. You will not be entitled to due process in federal administrative tribunals, where the U.S. Constitution cannot be invoked to protect you. Your home, papers and effects will not be secured against search and seizure. Now, please sign this card.

How does the law of presumption help you in this situation? First of all, you presumed that your signature was required, to compare it with the signatures on checks you planned to write. This was a reasonable presumption, because that's what the bank officer told you, but it is also a rebuttable presumption, because of what the fine print says. That fine print can be used to rebut, or disprove, your presumption when push comes to shove in a court of law. The federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Well, did you? Did the bank officer explain all the terms and conditions attached thereto, as explained above? Did you read all 12,000 pages of law and regulations before deciding to sign this contract? Did you even know they existed? Was your signature on this contract a voluntary, intentional and knowingly intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of all its relevant consequences and likely circumstances? The Supreme Court has stated clearly that:

"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences".
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)


Fortunately, the federal government's presumption about you is also rebuttable. Why? Because the feds are guilty of fraud, among other reasons, by not disclosing the nature of the bankruptcy which they are using to envelope the American people, like an octopus with a suction tentacle in everybody's wallet, adults and children alike. The banks became unwitting parties to this fraud because the Congress has obtained a controlling interest in the banks through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and their traffic in Federal Reserve Notes and other commercial paper issued by the Federal Reserve banks, with the help of their agent, the private Treasury Department. For further details, read "Return to Constitutional Money" by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm

[Chex]

Interesting.

Because this fraud can attach to bank accounts without your knowledge or consent, it is generally a good idea to notify your bank(s), in writing, that the IRS cannot inspect any of your bank records unless you have specifically authorized such inspections by executing IRS Form 6014. The IRS Printed Products Catalog describes this form as follows: 6014 42996R (Each)

Authorization Access to Third Party Records for Internal Revenue Service Employees

Authorization from Taxpayer to third party for IRS employees to examine records. Re-numbered as a 4-digit form from Letter 995(DO) (7/77). Changes suggested per IRM Section 4082.1 to help secure the correct information from the third party. EX:E: Tax Related Public Use http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epche12c03.pdf

You bet I will: The hiring of a tax attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, please ask us about our qualifications and experience.

http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/irs/irm_04-010-004-d0e2313.html