It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
If you'd been paying attention, there is no constitutional law against denying any corporation your personal information... even if it is just how many residents there are at a specific location.
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).
The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech.) "…[I]t is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant. A census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were filed with these rulings.
These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Chevalerous
The nations, and all of us are in fact debt slaves to the International Banking Cartel.
The currency they give us, which is attached to nothing of value is just script to get goods and services from the corporation.
We the human beings are the actual currency, and that is why the count us.
Sixteen Tons
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you
Then the left one will
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It makes me wonder if the questions regarding race and ethnicity is about trying to ascertain how integrated various nations are, as if they reach a certain level of mixture, they might be ripe for a one world government, because there are so many different nationalities and races already living inside of one nation.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Wow quoting U.S. Codes! I will stick with common law meanings, if you don't mind, and bear in mind as I always do, that the oldest case law sets precedent.
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
By the way you would be amazed some of the things I have gotten out of my cell phone company, and my bank, and other entities who think that they have a valid contract that isn't fully disclosed.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The truth is, it should be no sweat off of your back or anyone else's if they choose not to fill out the census.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So clearly you have some kind of vested and compelling interest.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Further, there is no doubt that the United States is a corporation.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Therefore it is not a sovereign nation.
government corporation
is a legal entity created by a government to exercise some of the powers of the government. Some government corporations may resemble a not-for-profit corporation as they have no need or goal of satisfying the shareholders with return on their investment through price increase or dividends, while other government corporations are established as for-profit businesses, for example Australia Post.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
In fact most of the people of not just this nation, but the world are screaming out for real justice, they are tired of all the lies and deceptions of their goverments and the corporations, and the banks, and the military industrial complex, and the corrupt officers who run them.
The Gulf of Mexico is bleeding oil, destroying an entire eco system. the nation is terminally bankrupt, as is most of the world, and our liberties are dissapearing at an alarming rate, while the cost of living spirals upward and unemployment goes up right along with it.
THE CIVIL WAR 1861-1865. In 1861, due to this war, seven Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27. This left Congress without a quorum to conduct the nation's business, so the only lawful power left was the President. President Lincoln declared a state of war and exercised his powers as Commander in Chief, to institute martial law under a state of emergency. Congress was NEVER legally reconvened under the Constitution. Lincoln ordered Congress to reconvene under his military authority as Commander in Chief (not as President), therefore Congress still sits today under military authority, by order of the President. This was accomplished through the Lieber Laws of 1863.
Lincoln also funded the war entirely by issuing war bonds, T-Bills, etc, which essentially put the United States government into bankruptcy in 1863. One of the funding schemes used was the so called 1040 Bonds. These bonds were to run not less than 10 years nor more than 40 years at 7.13% interest. To collect the interest on these 1040 Bonds, a form 1040 was used by the government. By 1864, the value of these bonds had dropped to 39 cents on the dollar.
In 1861, to collect the interest on those 1040 bonds, Congress created the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Do you think that maybe the interest was never paid and we are still using the form today to collect?
To handle this bankruptcy, the Comptroller of the Treasury was created in 1863. What does a Comptroller do? He is charged with certain duties in relation to the fiscal affairs of the government, primarily to examine and audit the accounts of collectors of the public money, to keep records and report the financial situation from time to time. But the term we are concerned with is "Comptroller in Bankruptcy".
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY 1914.
Comptroller in Bankruptcy. An officer . . . whose duty it is to receive from the trustee in each bankruptcy his accounts and periodical statements showing the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and also to call the trustee to account for any misfeasance, neglect, or omission in the discharge of his duties.
So if the government is bankrupt, who is the trustee? This is answered for us by Congressional Record March 17, 1993. P.H1303. The following is from that record:
Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.
Mr. TRAFFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.
The United States government is in bankruptcy and Congress are the trustees. It is a legal maxim that a bankrupt is 'civilly dead'. That means that Congress cannot legally make positive law in bankruptcy, because they have no legal standing. The federal government has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 1863 to today, and sits at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, waiting to do his bidding
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA created 1871. Congress was reconvened under military order in 1861. This status did not change, and in 1871, ten years later, a new federal government was created by incorporation of the District of Columbia. This new corporation was called "United States". The old Congress ceased to exist in 1861 and the new Congress was reconvened under military rule, which created Washington D.C. in 1871. Even today Congress does not sit by Constitutional positive law, but by mere resolution, which is merely advisory, not compulsory. Resolutions only apply to those who make them, like New Year's Resolutions. That is why the House and Senate are continually making resolutions. They merely indicate what public policy may be, but they carry no force of law with them, except on themselves and their property. This is the key to military government. Unless government is permanently established by those who have law, there is no state of peace. Therefore we are still under military law.
EMERGENCY BANKING ACT March 9, 1933. President Roosevelt called for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. At that session he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national 'emergency' in banking and for other purposes.
In this Act of March 9, 1933, it states in Title 1 Section 1:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
This says that any actions, orders or proclamations, made by the President hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed. Congress just wrote a blank check to the President. ANYTHING he wants to do is approved, IN ADVANCE! Do you think we are living under a dictatorship! Is that how the President is acting today, as if everything he does is already approved? It seems so.
If you went to a law library today and looked up 12 USC (United States Code) Section 95(b), you will find this Act still on the books today!
Originally posted by C11H17N2NaO2S
You people in the states are sooo screwed its unbelievable.
YOU were the ones sold the "American Dream" and what for? So the government can pick you off and own you outright. You all belong to the US government and there is nothing you can do about it.
While the threat of Marshall law hang precariously over your heads you are all in the process of being cataloged, numbered and soon my friends BRANDED.
It has nothing to do the United States being any type of corporation. If they did not register the logo, then other groups could fraudulently use it (or misleadingly similar ones) and pass themselves off as being organizations working under the auspices of the Census Bureau.
I suspect what is going to happen as these guys go back to the office and it gets passed up the chain of command, is that you will end up being forced to fill out your census, or face the fines for refusing to do so. The census is a Constitutional law, its not an option.
The Department of Commerce has stated that those who receive a survey form are required to provide answers to a list of questions about themselves and their households, including their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, and the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities. Those who decline to answer these questions may receive follow-up phone calls and/or visits to their homes from Census Bureau personnel. The Census Bureau prefers to gain cooperation by convincing respondents of the importance of participation, therefore, if you don't respond we follow-up with phone calls and/or visits. However, Section 221 of Title 13 U.S.C., makes it a misdemeanor to refuse or willfully neglect to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers and imposes a fine of not more than $100. This fine is changed by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 from $100 to not more than $5,000. To date, no person has ever been charged with a crime for refusing to answer the ACS survey, which several U.S. Representatives have challenged as unauthorized by the census act and violative of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. The Department of Commerce states that it is "not an enforcement agency."[2]
§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
I take it you’re a tax dodger, and a believer in the Sovereign Person nonsense as well… Let me let you in a little secret. There was a time when those guys had me going too, then I stumbled on this web site: Idiot Legal Arguments
What follows this introduction is a truly extraordinary collection of cases and decisions dealing with the "paper terrorism" tactics of the so-called "patriot" movement. While some members of this movement prefer the use of guns or bombs, the weapons of choice for many others are harassing lawsuits, harassing filings, bogus documents ranging from counterfeit money to counterfeit identification cards, tax protest arguments, and many related activities. Often these tactics are accompanied by bizarre legal or, more accurately, pseudolegal language. Many people who encounter such tactics for the first time are surprised and sometimes confused by the strange and unexpected arguments that show up in the courtroom.
"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.
It is an important function of the legal system to induce compliance with rules that a minority firmly believes are misguided. Legal penalties change the balance of self-interest; those who believe taxes wicked or unauthorized must nonetheless pay. When the legal system depends on honest compliance as much as the income tax system does--and when disobedience is potentially rewarding to those affected by the rule--it is often necessary to impose steep penalties on those who refuse to comply. We have consolidated the cases of two such people.