Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« English Common Law v. Roman Civil Law (Mixed Jurisdictions: common law vs. civil law [codified and uncodified]) - Part I and II by William Tetley, Q.C. | Main | Freedom Watch »

Minority Demand

Minority Demand

Comments from Paul Andrew Mitchell:

42 USC 1983 is for federal citizens only:  Wadleigh v. Newhall

42 USC 1985 implements the Thirteenth Amendment;
as such, it is federal national law.  Gillespie v. Civiletti
 

That document also misquotes 1983:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ....

Compare:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the united states of America, or person within the jurisdiction thereof to the depravation of any rights (valid existing rights), privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution (Organic) and laws

"deprivation" was also mis-spelled

___

KR writes: This is not just an ordinary misquote but an intentional constructive misquote... If we are going to get anywhere in these mis-courts, we need to step out of the box they want to hold us down in and create conflict; therefore Paul's comment let me know I hit the mark, creating united states of America v. United States Inc. If there is no issue, there is no conflict and so what are we doing in court? You mean to tell me there's a difference between 'united states of America and United States in the code??? Seems to me we need to have full discloser of what that is, so we can then make a valid free will decision! DON'T YOU? As for the spelling mistake, I blame spell check and plead the 5th...
 
___
 
>  there's a difference between 'united states of America and United States in the code???

First of all "united states of America" does not occur as such in American law or history.

On the merits, see:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q16


16.     Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s signature?

 

Answer:  This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes.  At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one’s signature.

 

This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications:  (1) those executed outside the “United States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”.  These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.

 

What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside the United States”.  In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the United States of America”.

 

Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of America” are both used in this same statute.  They are not one and the same.  The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes.  The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution.  28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.

 

It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”).


Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United States”.

 

The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).

http://supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
 
___
 
Activists need to recognize that "United States"
throughout Title 28 refers to the federal government,
which is the same meaning of "United States"
as found in the Guarantee Clause:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:4


Thus, when "United States of America" occurs
in correct contra-distinction to "United States",
we know those two terms must be very different:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

(1) If executed without the United States:
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.


elaborated here:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q16
 
___
 
KR writes:
 
Thank You Paul, and I concur with everything you brought out; but the courts haven't as it would mean exposing their fraud against the American people... And it's my job when I help people, to step out of the box and create conflict; otherwise if you're the defendant/respondent you're the debtor and are at a great disadvantage from the start; in fact you're in the losers box seemingly with no way out except to accept their offer... I come out of the box to hit them hard to stop them in their tracks and force them to expose the fraud they hide so dear and get back to due process and equal protection under Rule of Law. Statutes and codes aren't law but semblance of law under color of law. I have never lost at what I do even when the defendant bailed on a honey of a deal. I'll draw them out and force them to tell the truth, otherwise my unrefuted affidavit stands as fact until they do, and as you well know they need consent to roll forward or it's a rush to judgement by a combatant! Also in my work I sow in appeal points such as apparent or ostensible authority or actual authority for signatory authority... So far they won't touch these and when they do I'll be on to the next phase. Our judiciary is broken as is the other three distinct branches, with BAR monopoly by associations over our executive branch of government, for a clear breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Our checks and balances are of no force or effect due to this breach and as Americans we have the duty to correct these deficiencies so we can enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I know you work hard to do your job just as I work hard to do mine...

___

Minority Demand source ref: https://www.facebook.com/groups/birdmankfr

January 21, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink