Jump to navigation
I was tracking the work of Bob Schultz and Gene Chapman pre 9/11. I also checked up on them recently but noticed the same thing. I think it was because they were still US Citizens and not on the Land & Soil Jurisdiction that they didn't get the respect or attention they deserved.
GJM55 -copyright 2020 - All rights reserved without prejudice
I know from experience that U.S. citizens do not get any respect from any governmental authority, becasue just by proclaiming to be a U.S. citizen, they are proclaiming to be either ignorant or a slave. In either case, they will not get anywhere that way. I have email Schultz in the past and he apparently just thought he knew everything. However, I have proven to myself the important of not self labeling a U.S. citizen.
The IRS back in May of 2010 filed in St. Lucie county Florida and "Notice of Federal Tax lien against me. This is done merely to mar one's credit report. A notice is always supposed to be accompanied by the actual tax lien signed by a judge. They almost never do this because they do not get a tax lien to cause harm to whomever they are going after.
So I sent a FOIA request to the IRS demanding they provide a copy of hte tax lien. They wrote back and said they do not kow about what I was talking about. So I sent another one and worded it with such detail tha only choice that had was to admit they did not have one. Or so I thought. what they did was write back and ask that I provide for them the name of the system in which the document was store, the location of the system in which the document was store, the quiery to input int the system to draw out hte document I wanted retrieved and the name of the document. Naturally, I would not have such information, so I was at a loss.
Then I sent an affidavit professing all of the case law and Constitutional law that forbids the federal government from leveeing a direct tax within the states without regard to apportionment. I gave them 30 days in which to respond. They ask for 45 more days. Then they asked for 45 more days. So at 120 days, or four months, I got a letter from the IRS claiming that my claim was "frivolous". It was actually quite comical, because the only thing that would have made my case frivolous would have been the authority that I had demanded they provide to levee a direct tax within the states without regard to apportionment. So in actually, their claim that my claim was frivolous was frivolous, because they do not have any authority to levee such a tax and after four months, still could not provide it. One would think it would take merely a matter of seconds to produce their authority. But they do not have it, so they cannot. It has ben 24 years since I file a tax return.
M. R. Hamilton
In support of your past comments
A. 1 USCS, section 204. Title 26, Internal revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a SPECIAL CODE by Act August 16, 1954...The sections of Title 26, USCS, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
B. “United States Code is not enacted as statute, nor can it be construed as such, it being only prima facie statement of statute law; statutes collected in it do not change their meaning nor acquire any new force by their inclusion; if construction is necessary, recourse must be had to original statutes.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. CA5 Fla, 160 F2d 787
C.“Official source for United States Law is Statutes at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws.” Royer’s Inc v. United States. (1959, CA3 Pa) 265 F2d 615, 59-1 USTC 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137.
D. Under USCS, 204, HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES
is listed, in order:
Title 23, Highways- Act Aug 27, 1958, P.L. 85-767
Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial procedure - Act June 25, 1948.
No title 26 or 27 exist as positive laws of the united states of America.
E “United States Code Titles as Positive Law”, is listed, in order:
Title 23, followed by Title 28 No title 26 or 27 exist.
F. (i) Since title 26 is not valid law, not positive law, was not voted by Congress into law binding upon the American People, anything, whatsoever, based upon or in any sections or portions of title 26 or any actions thereunder are unauthorized, unconstitutional, invalid, without force or effect, whatsoever, as are the unconstitutional actions taken by any Agent, and the condoning of those unconstitutional actions by any court.
(ii) Title 26, Section 7806 is quoted, in part, as follows: (a) “The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word ‘see’ is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect. (Emphasis added.). (b) “No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provisions or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.
(iii) All of the above confirms that the so-called title 26 has never been enacted into positive law and is not binding upon the American People, whatsoever.
G. The following is from the CRS Report for Congress, by John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, issued by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress on December 5, 1996, as quoted below:
“…Title 26, Internal Revenue, has not been enacted into positive law. The USC is divided into fifty titles. Of those fifty titles, twenty and part of another have been enacted into positive law. If a title has been so enacted, the text of that title constitutes legal evidence of the laws in that title. If the title has not been so enacted, the title is only prima facie evidence of the actual law. The courts could require proof of the statutes underlying the title, which are the positive law when the title has not been enacted into positive law. The Office of Law Revision Council, which has the responsibility for preparing titles for enactment into positive law, states that titles are chosen for enactment into positive law on two bases. Some are chosen because of congressional mandate that the laws be codified. Otherwise, the Office of Law Revision Council prefers to select titles which cover areas of minimal legislative activity. The tax laws do not meet either one of these criteria. (Emphasis added.)
“…Title 26 of the USC is an EDITORIAL CODIFICATION OF THIS ACT, prepared and published under the supervision of the House Judiciary Committee, pursuant to statute. (Emphasis added.)
Also IRS and DOJ have no congressional authorization to enter the several states
What about non tax issues like lockdowns?
How does the governor and mayor's get out of oversight by We The People?
We can't be locked down and forced to wear a mask forever like Illinois, Texas, etc are doing.
Here is where the problem lies. Not sure what state you leave in, the presumption is you consented to become a member of their political jurisdiction and accept their protection. How you ask did you do this? You registered to vote and you got a drivers license. You also said you're a residence in said state. The presumption is also that you're domicile is in said state because you probably said you're a resident. How many times have you said you were a U.S. Citizen? Have you changed your passport to reflect a non U.S. citizen status? Have you filled out an SS5 card and requested a SS number as a non-citizen. Catch me you can is their motto.
Now I ask you. What would happen if you changed your domicile. Say for instance your a Christian. Me personally, I am going to make an affidavit of domicile showing my domicile is Heaven and my citizenship iis in the U.S. Constitution. My decision is absolute. Guess what, the courts have no remedy. What happens if I then announce to the state of states that I no longer want their protection or to be a part of their political jurisdiction. Can they violate the 1st amendment and compel me to be a part of their political jurisdiction? Everything in this USA is about consent. You cannot have 2 domiciles. The new domicile deletes eliminates the other. So, now that I am no longer in their political jurisdiction am I now subject to their laws and statutes? NO!!!!!
Can the state of states stop me from disassociation and then in essence compel me to associate with them?
Food for thought