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.

 

The 2010 Census, How I Have Responded to 5 Enumerators

page: 6
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


What you fail to understand is it is all under commerce as in THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT. Commerce is admiralty law mostly codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. Everything in commerce is an offer to contract EVERYTHING!

It's called tacit agreement or an adhesion contract. participation is tacit agreement whether you understand it or not. An example is that telemarketers law where if you did not want solicitors calling you you had to opt out otherwise it is "presumed" you want them when you never agreed to it. That is how the corporate government works if you do not rebut thier presumption that you are thier chattel and they presume it because you participate and sign all thier documents and take all thier benefits then they consider you theirs.

By signing the census form you are agreeing that you are subject to thier corporate jurisdiction by your voluntary participation. You are correct in one thing it is a fraudulent contract in common law because all the terms were not fully disclosed. However they are the De facto power and most people accept them not realizing what they are.

If they send me a birthday card I respond and rebut it!




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


If you have ever read any state statues, etc. you will know that they begin stating the legal definitions of specific words contained in the rest of the document. Legal language is very concise in its meanings and syntax. Here is the meaning of ‘Resident”:


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.


That is the third quote taken from a legal dictionary. If that fails to convince you, then simply do a google search on “Legal Definition resident at”…

There is another one that has to do with international law in regards to ambassador’s and Princes, but that does not obviously apply here.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   

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.


Wrong:

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



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   

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.



Proto, you and the other contributors have reminded me of an old popular country song originally recorded by Merle Travis in the 40's and the most popular version by Tennessee Ernie Ford in 1955. Frankie Laine also had a popular 50's version released only in the UK. Once again I am dating myself knowing this song.

I don't think the popularity, and this song was extremely popular, was just coincidental. I think this was the promoted mindset. Tennessee Ernie Ford not only had a number one Billboard hit with this but he also kept it alive for years with television and live appearances. He hosted two television series. "The Ford Show" on NBC from 1956 to 1961. Ironically named for the sponsor not Ernie, Ford automobiles. Later, "The Tennessee Ernie Ford Show" on ABC daytime from 1962 to 1965. "Sixteen Tons" became his signature and theme song. He made cameos in the "I Love Lucy" series and recurring appearances with Jack Parr, Johnny Carson and every variety show running.

And so you see "Sixteen Tons" subtly echoed through the American media for more than a decade. A seemingly innocent counterpoint to the raucous and controversial rock and roll that was being loosed on the country. I think TPTB were extremely happy to have slaves singing along to their hidden agenda. Some things are safest when hidden in plain sight. This makes us all unconsciously familiar and comfortable with these concepts. And so we "owe our souls to the company store" or the International Banking Cartel if you prefer. What's so bad about that? Later you'll see the man in the video singing this with a smile on his face. Must be a pleasant state of existence this "indebtedness". Where do I get me some?

Here's the lyrics. It's about coal mining in case you're not familiar.



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



No one is certain whether these lyrics were written by Merle Travis or George S. Davis. Both have laid claim.

Here's a video clip of Ford singing the song from 1956. There's a cut away about a half minute into it that shows him much later in life watching this clip. The clip was being rebroadcast on a Dinah Shore television tribute to Ford in 1991.



Load that coal gang. "Tote that barge, lift that bale. Git a little drunk an' you land in jail!" Man, am I ever dating myself.

Thanks to Wikipedia for some of the data on both Ford and the song!

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Hemisphere]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Uhm last I heard the Supreme Court had no legislative powers. Statutes are not law they are corporate policy.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Ah yes, the sounds of the good old AM Transistor Radio...

16 tons what do you get...

another day older and deeper in debt...

I sold my soul to the company store.

The truth is we are all slaves to the planetary mining operation, and those who don't dig, drill or harvest, work in some interelated support function.

Our rich masters horde, and we get to be poor.

No wonder they think we are so ungrateful not being happy with such a deal.

I am thinking more along the lines of 50 ways to leave your lover.

Just slip out the back jack,

No need to be coy roy...JUST GET YOURSELF FREE

Definately a Defcon 5 situation for the Powers that Be.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You have to forgive some people my friend, they are under the illusion and delusion that only Esquires those noble gentlemen one step below Knights on the Nobility Chart other wise known as lawyers are the only people who can properly read and decipher the meaning of words.

It frightens them horribly when the peasants, slaves and plebes, have the temerity to think that they can understand things as complex as words, let alone write them or speak them.

No doubt we will get sued for cause them distress and agravation and grevious injury to their fine sensibilities.

The truth is that the law, is a simple thing to research and understand, they just like to pretend it's complex, and no one but attorneys and judges and politicians can properly understand it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

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.




If I were selecting a group of slaves, I would want a loosely integrated mixture so as to obtain and retain all of the genetic possibilities and a higher probability of future hybrid vigor. But that's just me and I'm not up on the "Dr. Evil" shtick. Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!! Oh, did I "evil" laugh out loud? My bad (and I mean that).



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
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.

The only reason the Census people listened and hung on your every word so politely is that they are instructed to do so and report each and every person that does not comply through a series of gradings.

NOW you my friend gave such a distinct and detailed analysis of your suspicions (probably correct) that you were graded Priority 1.

Meaning - troublesome, resistant, anti-government and a possible threat to the US through your non-patriotic outlook.

You see every business from Banking call centers to local authority grades each "customer" based on their profitability, politeness, responsiveness to their "marketing, etc.

So you should beware and keep your very informative and well researched opinions to yourself and when the Census or any government "gastapo" comes calling ever just say "NO thank you I do not deal with doorstep salesmen" end of. Then close the door!!!

Never let it be known to your captors your real intentions. Always play along without actually giving any info away.

Or contact a man by the name of J.J Luna. If you can find him that is.

Im from the UK and although our government (new PM) is not nearly perfect I can still remain anonymous in todays society.

Technology may advance and Big bro is monitoring but hide and seek is still the same game it was when your grand dad was a child. It never changes.

Good luck Americans for you will soon need every ounce of it and I do hope the majority of you come out safe of whatever they have planned for you over there.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I sometimes wonder, as vigorously as people argue for giving up their liberties and wealth and accepting ludicrous notions of debt, if they want to be free.

If only we learned to say what if, in stead of this is the way it is, the rules are the rules, the laws are the laws.

Oh the wonders that truly escape us.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
"United States
Census 2010

Is registered trademark of:
(REGISTRANT) U.S. Bureau of the Census n/a AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington D.C. 20230"


Registration number: 3559250
Serial Number: 77322711

The image on USPTO resembles the image on the envelope, with the exception of the "R", which was done after the fact.

It is registered to Census Bureau an "AGENCY of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT"

"UNITED STATES"
Additional Trademark:
Registration number: 3482676
Serial number: 77322622

Link to USPTO:
tess2.uspto.gov...

There is at least one additional mark registered, I'll leave it to you to find it.

The phrase "United States Census 2010" is a registered trademark, and so is the image(graphic/mark) as it's positioned on the envelope i.e. the arrangement of letters. The fact that the Registered Mark is next to United States is incidental in how they arranged it.

The mark makes no representation, assumption, or declaration as to the status of "United States" as a registered mark of a corporation.



[edit on 5/21/2010 by nwosigns]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by C11H17N2NaO2S
 


If I didn't live in lovely Miami this might be true, but we run a real banana republic of our own in our little city state that confounds the federal government.

The great news is I earned a priority one distinction when I had barely reached my teens.

So I am used to priority treatment, rather accustomed to it you might say.

The truth is, that the Census workers love me!

No worries here!

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nwosigns
 


Since the United States has been incorporated as a matter of public record since at least 1933, you would be amazingly hard pressed to prove that the United States is not a corporation.

This is in fact a well established fact, and the fact that they use trade marks does in fact display that.

What are you afraid of? The truth?

Or is it that the truth will set you free.

Freedom is after all a very big responsibility!

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

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.

Roman Common Law is not the main law in the US, though US law has some foundation in Roman Common Law, it is actually more Dutch Common Law. The Legal Definition according to existent law for Resident, again, is:

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.

That I believe, because I have had a few companies on the ropes as well.


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.

Its no sweat off mine, I simply dropped it in the mail. It took me all of about 2 minutes to complete the entire procedure from mailbox to mailbox. However, it is law that is upheld by the Constitution, and upheld by various court cases and Supreme Court cases.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So clearly you have some kind of vested and compelling interest.

Only in telling folks the truth, and hopefully keeping people from getting in trouble by doing the stuff that many of you profess, but I know is not true.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Further, there is no doubt that the United States is a corporation.

It is a Federal Corporation, I have never said that it isn’t. What I did say was that the Registered Trademark symbol on the Census form is in regard to the Logo, not the United States. However, I believe that its more complex then what you guys make it out to be. The US is a Federal Corporation when dealing with financial matters, but it is also a government.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Therefore it is not a sovereign nation.

I believe it is both.

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.

So you have both the US government, and the US Federal Corporation.
I think that you guys make too much out of the USC and the UCC.


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.

I am not going to dispute any of that with you, I agree with most of it. However that does not change that much of what you are telling folks can get them into real hot water, real fast.

As a matter of fact, I bet you and I could get into some real interesting debates on the issue of Rome. Just because I do not believe that you are giving good advice on this topic does not mean that I disagree with everything you believe in.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


There were more cases listed there then simply a supreme court case.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

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".



Wow, 1040 bonds and 1040 income tax forms now there is a heck of a coincidence.

Wake up people, and stop making excuses and start studying our own history.


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


The United States really is in bankruptcy, and it's a business bankruptcy. The United States is in fact so incorporated it's not funny.


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.


This is all true!


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!



Ever wonder why the democratic controlled congress that despised George Bush Jr. always passed everything he wanted into law, after they got done putting on a dog and pony show slamming it?

See above.

Lots of other great things here to read too...

USA the Republic Com



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by C11H17N2NaO2S
 


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.


Yeah but we got guns. How about you? Hehehehe

Be patient, Big Brother is coming to a theater near you.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





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.


If you were correct about why the U.S. Census Bureau has a registered trademark then the U.S. Census Bureau would not feel compelled to post a page pointing to the various scams that are out there. Obviously a registered trademark does nothing at all to prevent fraudulent scams, and as easily as you have dismissed the entirety of Proto's argument based upon your own flawed reasoning, it could be argued that the entirety of your argument should be dismissed as invalid as well. But where would that leave us then? It is better to simply address your arguments, as others are doing, and now I will too.




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.


Since the census Proto showed us was sent from the Department of Commerce, it should be noted that this Department does not have any legal means by which to enforce their regulations. Consider this paragraph from a Wikipedia Article:


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]


The link Wikipedia provides to support the fact that The Department of Commerce states that it is "not an enforcement agency" leads to here. Further, where you are correct that the Constitution mandates Congress with census taking, as it has been pointed out, the reason is for the purposes of apportionment, and the mandate was placed upon Congress and no burden was placed by Constitution upon the people. The Constitution did authorize Congress to direct this census by law, and you have offered Title 13, U.S.C. Section 221 as that law. However, it would be foolish of people to simply accept what you claim as law merely because you cited a title and section of the United States Code without bothering to cite the actual legislation itself. Allow me to correct this error:


§ 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.


The rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance, a fact you seem to be all to willing to dismiss. According to 13 U.S.C. Section 221, it should be clear that Proto acted in accordance to that law, and answered the questions of not one, but five different census takers, truthfully and to the best of his/her knowledge. Proto did not answer falsely, but to the best of the knowledge Proto had at the time, and for this reason has not broken any law.




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


Here you quite effectively reveal your own position, or agenda, and seek to dismiss Proto's O.P. as being nonsense, further libeling Proto as a "tax dodger", (a claim you most likely have no legal authority to make), and dismissing Sovereign person as being nonsense. You then offer up disingenuous arguments by first claiming to be one who once believed in sovereignty of any person, then by linking the ADL. You have all ready been taken to task for linking the ADL, and rightfully so, but what I find interesting is that while you smugly dismiss Proto's arguments as being invalid because of the sources used, you blindly go into agreement with the ADL, then dismiss any valid questions of the ADL as being irrelevant. Your whimsy would be amusing if it weren't so hostile towards freedom.

You further reveal your own willful ignorance, not just by citing a link provided by the dubious ADL, and certainly not by showing any knowledge of the case law cited by the ADL, but instead by claiming you talked to a former Attorney General and he told you what to think. Wow!

Let us then take a look at what the ADL claims. First it should be noted that the ADL has taken to proudly declaring themselves "The Militia Watchdog", which seems to contradict their own mission statement, and further, militias are Constitutionally protected. Beyond that, it would be prudent to consider some of what was written in the forward by Mark Pitcavage:




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.


The first thing that should be noted is the use of the term "paper terrorism", which Pitcavage fails to inform us who he is quoting when using this term, only that he is using quotation marks around the term. He does define "paper terrorism" as being a "weapon" as opposed to a legal tactic, and this willingness to expand the definition of terrorism is not just suspect, but frankly it is evil. Terrorism is a military tactic used by small groups who avoid attacking their opponents military and instead attack through violent means the civilian population as a means of facilitating terror within that population as a tactic to use the civilian population to turn on their own government. This attempt to broaden the term into declaring any nuisance to a government as a "terrorist" is not done in the name of freedom, but rather in the name of tyranny.

In the introduction, written by Bernard J. Sussman, the first text written is a quotation of Coleman v CIR, (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69, case law you have clearly not bothered to read. What Sussman quotes from that case law is this:


"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."


Here is the full paragraph of that opinion:


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 should be clear that the context of this ruling is in regards to taxation, and has nothing to do with census taking. I am running out of space and will have to continue...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Continuing...

It should be further noted that virtually all case law is very narrow in its rulings, and even when it seeks to take a broader view, as in the Case of Citizens' United, for example, it still remains fairly narrow in that ruling. Coleman v CIR is narrow in its ruling and is spoken directly to taxation. Let us continue with the text of that ruling:


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.


It should be noted that when Judge Easterbrook claims that "those who believe taxes wicked or unauthorized must nonetheless pay.", he is taking for granted that it is understood that taxes owed must be paid, and further taking for granted at this point of the ruling that is understood that the plaintiff has brought to the court numerous erroneous assumptions and bogus legal arguments. All of which have nothing at all to do with what Proto has claimed in the O.P.

Judge Easterbrook did, in the first paragraph cite two of those erroneous assumptions, one being that only gold is money, and the other being that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Both are most certainly erroneous assumptions and it should be understood why the plaintiff's arguments were rejected. Thus, relying on Coleman v CIR as the central basis of which to dismiss any and all arguments that the ADL, the admitted "Militia Watchdog" considers as invalid is merely misdirection, and your own refusal to read the case law cited by this dubious organization that calls itself the ADL, would fairly reflect the argument made by Judge Easterbrook.

I attempted myself to access the court cases apparently provided by the ADL, but each time was brought to a HTTP/1.1 500 Server Error such as this here, and this here, and this here, and after that third strike I began randomly clicking the links provided to test it and see if everything linked led me to nowhere. It of course did, and for whatever reasons I can not get the supposed case laws they provide, whether it be a problem with my ISP, or simply just more smoke and mirrors used by the dubious organization known as the ADL, does not matter to me, I only know that the one case law I was able to reference showed that it certainly does not apply to every legal argument made by those challenging the validity of governments claims.

If the problem in attempting to access the case law the ADL purports to supply is coming from my end, then surely you will be able to access this case law and list it here, so we may all together read this case law and discover exactly what was addressed and what was ruled. Without this knowledge your hopelessly lame argument that people told you that all you disagree with is bogus is simply unacceptable and would never work in a court of law.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I have seen all that stuff before, but unfortunately I cannot find most of it in any legitimate sources. Most of the places I find that kind of information is on highly suspect conspiracy web sites.

You know, they kind that have every fourth line in 20point font, red lettering, and bold…




[edit on 5/21/2010 by defcon5]



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join