It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Proto, I need to nitpick here.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by DISRAELI
Actually it was Edward the Confessor!
in the mid 1050's. I stand corrected. The deed and act itself of gifting England to the Pope was quite real, just a bit earlier, and a different King.
Thanks for pointing that out.
It's great when other members help!
Originally posted by PhyberDragonHe opened the letter, read what I had wrote, quietly put it away and then, despite being red in the face and pronounced ready to send me to prison for 45 years (BEFORE PAROLE) he instead, dismissed the case quickly and expunged the records of the case.
I suspected that you were subconsciously remembering this when you quoted a date in the 1200's. Certainly that was the reason why I suggested it.
Originally posted by Hx3_1963
Great job PT!
Glad to see this topic get the recognition it deserves...
and I see you have gotten PhyberDragon involved as well...
The last time he posted was on my Matrix Thread...
You two make quite the "Tag Team"!
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
If you ask someone what Driver means on a Driver's License or even what License mean, no one really has a clue.
DRIVER MANUAL dRIVER MANual dual RIVER MAN
We are bound to the UCC (Law of the Commerce along the HIGHWAY of man- Transportation Dept.)
Seriously, what people don't understand is that Identification is just that Id Entification. They attach I-- that part of you which answers when it hears it's name called from across a crowded room, they attach I to you by getting you to acknowledge that basically your Id is responsible for animating your SKULL & BONES and that it DWELLS (resides/ponders) in the CROWN of the SKULL seated at the base beneath the CAP of the SKULL between the TEMPLE of the brow. Remember, the ancients believed that the Id resided in the HEARTS of MAN. Black's Law define's Human Being as MONSTER. That is because believing you animate your own flesh and bones is heretical as GOD does that. We're not by definition HUMAN BEING which is to (be possessed by an idea or notion and therefore a POSSESSION) You are actually a human being being. The point is this is how Law thinks and works. It is a whole way of thinking unto itself and is a very guarded MYSTERY RELIGION- the oldest in the World. In essence your Id is cargo and your body is the vessel. To hold you responsible they must ground the vessel from out of the SEA.
As for Roman influence-- Capitalism itself.
ALL CAPS IN A NAME, such as on a phone bill, denote a corporate asset (a complete loss of rights under Roman law)
Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines
Capitalize adj. as "To take advantage of - To use to ones
Blacks Law Dictionary • Revised 4th Edition 1968,
provides a more comprehensive definition as follows
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status
through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A
diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or
curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal
attributes and qualifications.
Any capitalization of your Given or Family Names, changes your Given sovereign and Family names from who you are, into property that can be traded in commerce and enslaved under corporatism!
Through capitalization of your Given sovereign and Family names you surrender your sovereignty!
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss
of status. This occurred where a man's family relations
alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation
[pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui
juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or
upon the emancipation of one who had been under the
patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of
liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2,
3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
By capitalizing john doe's Given sovereign and Family names, john doe becomes property or a thing known as John Doe!
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of
status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred
where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without
losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
By capitalizing john doe's Family names, john doe is transformed into U.S. Citizen John DOE, who is no longer regarded as being legally located upon his former sovereign nation, and is now located within the Beltway of Columbia a District. He and his family members now become property of the state!
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN
DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most
comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's
condition was changed from one of freedom to one of
bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away;
loss or depravation.
Capite. - Lat. By the head.
As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's
natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship
status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory.
Here we see that the perversion of the Man or Woman and Living Spirit into the fictional property representation of the sovereign appearing as the Dead Thing JOHN DOE, is completed by the all capitalization!
[edit on 16-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I always appreciate when people have a focus on the continual upgrading of the subject matter and the discussion.
Much obliged, thank you.
What beats me is that logic suggests that there is a top dog or dogs who run the show and own the show,I accept that ,what beats me is the lengths to which this people hide,obfuscate or lie about themselves.What is the harm in knowing well its the Black Pope followed by the White Pope,then the Queen or Rockerfellers why do they have to hide under layers or legalese and obscure history.Why all the secrecy?
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.
13. What is a “Withholding agent”?
Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W‑4 workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.
If workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding ‑‑ by signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.
15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?
Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.
However, as discussed above, Form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic” corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.
For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.
Its deeper and darker than royalty, royalty are the handlers, but we never EVER get to know who are the owners. Its like race horses, you see who the rider is, the trainers, the people that house the horses, but you never truley know who all the owners that profit from it are, the "share" holders if you will, they must be protected from the spotlight no matter the cost.
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Illegal possession of firearms/possession of drugs/grand theft auto/ kidnapping/attempted bank robberyetc.--hey I was 18. He dismissed it because there was no prosecutor to object to my motion to dismiss, he actually got angry enough to let me convince him to withdraw himself from the case, remember. The judge had told him after he agreed to do so that he was free to leave the courtroom, but, he said I was doing such a fine job of digging my own grave he wanted to stick around and watch how it played out. Should have seen his face when I won. He was present but as a spectator only, not as a prosecutor.