The 2010 Census, How I Have Responded to 5 Enumerators

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I made no reference to the fact that the U.S. is or is not a Corporation. I merely pointed out that the mark as shown on the envelope is for the entire text "United States Census 2010".

The use of trademarks is not limited to corporations.

"What are you afraid of? The truth?"

I'm not afraid of anything. And truth? well, lets just say that neither you, nor I nor anyone on any of these boards have any inkling of what is true or not about most of what happens with government. We only know what others tell us (written, video, 3rd party, etc). In fact, that applies to most everything we know, or don't know.

As far as freedom, hee hee, the fact that you so proudly proclaim it as if you've been free your whole life says more about how well the American Dream has been "Sold" that most people don't know what it really means. We live in the illusion of freedom, as long as that freedom doesn't encroach on another's "freedom". You and I live in a world of rules, regulations, laws and restrictions that we are lucky to be able to walk down the street without being arrested.

Don't believe me? try walking down a main street at 2-4 in the morning without being stopped by police.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by hawkiye

 

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

Well then let me rephrase then: Last I heard the Supreme Court nor any court for that matter had no power to legislate.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

They do…
Fraudulent Activity and Scams

Additionally they have been listed under various law enforcement agencies. I got a notice attached to my door by law enforcement warning of scammers using the census as a means to steal personal information or gain access into my residence. The census web site also has security information about how to ensure that you are meeting with a real agent:
Security Topics

Here is their page of Logos:
Logos

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
as easily as you have dismissed the entirety of Proto's argument based upon your own flawed reasoning

There is no flaw in my reasoning.
He stated that the trademark symbol was there because it denoted that the United States was a corporation, but its there because it’s a trademark for the Logo.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

And here you make an assumption. When in fact my comments are based on remarks made in this, and another thread that lead to the creation of this thread, in which he makes statements such as:

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Oringally Free Citizen meant someone who would not be and could not be directly taxed or restricted by the State, King or Consul or Emperor.

I am simply choosing to retain my freedom, and the root definition of what Free Citizen actually means.

Tax collectors, I love tax collectors. Nothing like spending a fun filled day down at the IRS office explaining the Stamp Act to them and how they function under the Color (ships flag) of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency, that’s great fun too. In the words of the IRS Supervising Agent here, I am either the luckiest man on earth, or he and I will one day go to jail for a very long time.

As far as I know, he’s still free, and so am I.

Now I don’t know about you, but to me that reads exactly as to the statement I made above.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

Is there some type of difficulty in understanding that the ADL did not write that case law, LAWYERS and JUDGES wrote that case law?

All the ADL is COMPILE existing case law on the topics into one convenient area where it could be accessed by other judges and lawyers who have to play games with these amateur internet lawyers that want to play at semantics with the court system.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
but instead by claiming you talked to a former Attorney General and he told you what to think.

Spin peoples statements much?
I said that I had already read the Case Law as it was conveniently compiled on that website, and got into conversation with an employee here who is a retired State Prosecutor with the State Attorneys office.

Where did I say bat guano about the Attorney General?
Since you cannot READ and find the scams area on the Census Web Site...
Nor can you find where Proto implies in this and the other thread where he believes in the “Free man” stuff (which is only used by tax evaders)...
Obviously did not read what has already been explained about the ADL website...
And now are making remarks about the Attorney General...

I'll i can say is...

When you learn to read, I’ll get back to you on any legitimate questions you have… I am not going to waste my time re-explaining stuff that is already contained in the thread that you either did not read, or read incorrectly.
I have more important things to take care of, like getting my work done so i can go home on time.



[edit on 5/21/2010 by defcon5]

Originally posted by hawkiye
Well then let me rephrase then: Last I heard the Supreme Court nor any court for that matter had no power to legislate.

No courts set precedent that is used in interpretation of existing laws.
Which is what they did in the above quotes.

reply to post by defcon5

They do… Fraudulent Activity and Scams

You have quite obviously misread my statement, which is this:

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.

And then oddly linked a different link that only reiterates the link I provided. Since you have a problem reading, allow me to rephrase what I originally stated. If you are correct and the Census Bureau has to register their census' as a trademark in order to stop fraud and scams in relation to the census, then why are they themselves warning of all the scams out there? Read carefully what I just wrote, and the original statement, for simply providing a link that is virtually the same as the one I provided does nothing to answer that question.

Your attempt to provide other links to logos and such does nothing at all to address the reasoning that you offered which was they had to register a trademark in order to defeat scams, it is clear no such thing has happened.

There is no flaw in my reasoning. He stated that the trademark symbol was there because it denoted that the United States was a corporation, but its there because it’s a trademark for the Logo.

The flaw in your reasoning has all ready been addressed, and that flaw is that the 2010 Census has a registered trademark to stop fraud. Fraud has not been stopped, and this registered trademark means nothing in that regard.

And here you make an assumption. When in fact my comments are based on remarks made in this, and another thread that lead to the creation of this thread, in which he makes statements such as:

I certainly made no assumption about your libelous remark, which is this:

I take it you’re a tax dodger

And the quotation of Proto's claims lend nothing to support your own assertions of Proto being a "tax dodger" and for this reason are indeed libelous. The term "tax dodger" is a euphemism for "tax evasion". This term has been well defined, as in this definition here:

Illegally avoiding paying taxes, failing to report, or reporting inaccurately. The government imposes strict and serious penalties for tax evasion. Tax evasion is different from tax avoidance, which is making use of legal methods to minimize a tax burden.

and of course, by § 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax here:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

The first definition offers that tax evasion is an act "illegally avoiding paying taxes", and the Code itself offers that such an act is caused by any person who has had a tax imposed upon them. There is nothing at all about Proto's comments that you quoted to suggest that Proto has illegally sought to evade taxes, nor anything about those comments that suggest there has been a tax imposed upon Proto that would justify your reckless accusations, which unless you can prove Proto has illegally evaded taxation, are most certainly libelous words, and you have thus far failed to prove your remark is truthful, and it is indeed a damaging remark, worthy of an apology failing any substantial proof to support such a reckless claim.

Is there some type of difficulty in understanding that the ADL did not write that case law, LAWYERS and JUDGES wrote that case law?

Is this some sort of misdirection on your part, or were you responding to my own assertions without first reading the entirety of my post? I spoke directly to the one case law I was able to reference, so this remark quoted above is a pointless remark that does nothing to support your arguments.

All the ADL is COMPILE existing case law on the topics into one convenient area where it could be accessed by other judges and lawyers who have to play games with these amateur internet lawyers that want to play at semantics with the court system.

As I stated, the only convenience I found was the edited version of a quote by Judge Easterbrook from Coleman v Commissioner. I was able to reference that ruling, of which you have failed to speak to, because I did not have to rely upon the links provided. You claim you've read this case law, but you have not spoken to Coleman v Commissioner, and I asked you to supply the case law I couldn't access--you know that case law you claim to have read--so that we could discuss it intelligently. Instead what you do, is make spurious claims about my ability to read The U.S. Census Bureaus website, and correctly catch that I, relying on my memory, claimed you spoke to a retired Attorney General, as opposed to the retired U.S. States Attorney you spoke to, either way, you had that person tell you what to think.

If you have read the case law cited by the dubious ADL then surely you can provide the citations necessary to reference. Any failure to do so at this point only leaves you looking dubious yourself. What case law are YOU talking about?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by defcon5

Is there some type of difficulty in understanding that the ADL did not write that case law, LAWYERS and JUDGES wrote that case law?

For clarification sakes and in interest of truth, LAWYERS do not write case law. case law consists of the decisions, and interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them, and lawyers do not write these decisions, although a judge may rely upon a law clerk to write up what was decided. It is all too common that those ignorant of the law ascribe more to a lawyer than is legally prudent.

All the ADL is COMPILE existing case law on the topics into one convenient area where it could be accessed by other judges and lawyers who have to play games with these amateur internet lawyers that want to play at semantics with the court system.

A game you are quite clearly playing. All games come with winners and losers, and if you think you are winning at this point, perhaps it would be prudent you call a time out and reassess your position.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I always enjoy your threads, they provide so much information to us and for this I must applaud you. The time,care and attention you put in to your threads is second to none. This is what I love about this site there is always something new to learn. Keep up the good work.

FSF

Yesterday, a census guy showed up at my door. We had never received the actual form in the mail after the "warning" that one was coming. After one of our dogs (the big one) nearly made him run away, I opened the door and he introduced himself. I stepped outside since Buster (our dog) had him quite nervous.

I let him start asking his questions and I answered my name, our address and the total number of people in the house. Then he started asking for individual names. I asked if I was required by law to answer those questions to which he responded..."I can put down that you refused". I agreed and told him that "I'll answer what I am required to by law, which I believe is only a count of individuals at the residence, but any optional information, not required by law, I don't want to" (or something like that).

Of his tri-fold, three page, 8 1/2 x 11 document (double sided) he was only able to fill out about 5% with the information I provided. Funny part was, in the background during all this, someone in the area was shooting off a gun repeatedly. I considered commenting/joking that I guess one of his co-workers was visiting one of my neighbors (ha-ha), but I decided he probably wouldn't get the joke.

So...once he was done (about two minutes) he began asking about the property next to ours. It is a vacation home that is now for sale. He wanted to know if it was "in use" on April 1st. I told him I hadn't noticed.

As he was leaving (my daughters had let our dogs out on the other deck), Buster again went nuts and we had to let him in. Boy...was that guy walking back to his car quickly.

End of story...I guess all that is legally required IS a count. Assuming you have the gumption to "take the lead".

I think it is pretty clear that the registered trademark is meant to protect the whole United States Census 2010 logo, not just the united stated part. I gave you a star for the effort, but I consider original post just a nitpicking. If the US is a corporate dictatorship, I doubt we will find the proof on a census envelope...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Maslo]

Great job on your post. If you have time, I would love to read your analysis of the form inside the envelope.

You guys do know that the census is a big part of a democracy? since we have proportionate representation, its important to know what areas are growing or shrinking in population.
hmmm

V. That as soon after the expiration of seven years (subsequent to the termination of the present war) as may be a census of the electors and inhabitants in this State be taken, under the direction of the legislature. And if, on such census, it shall appear that the number of representatives in assembly from the said counties is not justly proportioned to the number of electors in the said counties respectively, that the legislature do adjust and apportion the same by that rule. And further, that once in ever seven years, after the taking of the said first census, a just account of the electors resident in each county shall be taken, and if it shall thereupon appear that the member of electors in any county shall have increased or diminished one or more seventieth parts of the whole number of electors, which, on the said first census, shall be found in this State, the number of representatives for such county shall be increased or diminished accordingly, that is to say, fine representative for every seventieth part as aforesaid.

Just fill out your damn census and quit wasting peoples time and resources. If they wanted YOU dead, you'd probly be dead already.

..It's required by the Constitution. I could see people being upset if this was the first ever census for no apparent reason..... but its the decennial Census.

There's paranoia and then there's complete effing crazy..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
..It's required by the Constitution. I could see people being upset if this was the first ever census for no apparent reason..... but its the decennial Census.

There's paranoia and then there's complete effing crazy..

What is required by Constitution is that for the purposes of apportionment a census be taken. All this means is that the number of people described by the Constitution, and subsequently amended by the 13th and 14th Amendments, be counted so that districts may properly apportioned for the purposes of electing members to the House of Representatives. Any questions beyond that count are beyond the scope of jurisdiction granted to Congress, and have no validity. Further, the Constitution requires that Congress ensure a census is taken, but that Constitution has not directly placed any burden upon the people. That Constitution has authorized Congress to proscribe by law how the census is handled, however Congress can not just invent authority not granted to it expressly by Constitution. Clearly the 2010 Census has gone beyond the scope of its jurisdiction, and a discussion about that is certainly merited.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


...and you don't have to answer ALL of the questions.. you can fill out the extreme basics like "how many people live in your residence" ..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

...and you don't have to answer ALL of the questions.. you can fill out the extreme basics like "how many people live in your residence" ..

Which more people better understand because of the existence of this thread.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


..I'm pretty sure most people by now have turned their forms in, before this thread.. or threads like this..

And if I told the Government I was a white male ..... what difference would it make? .. I already get snubbed every grant, loan and financial assistance for college anyways, so I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has it figured out...

I usually agree with most people on this thread (well obviously not the OP) .. just think this census thing gets taken way out of proportion.

reply to post by Rockpuck


What you are pretty sure of is not certainty, and what you are pretty sure of is not how people should comport themselves when it comes to the law.

No one, and certainly not the O.P. who made clear that he was not in anyway giving advice on how to handle the Census, is telling you what you should do. If you want to answer the question about ethnicity, this is your choice to make. You ask for my opinion on what difference it would make, and I answer to you truly that all people have inalienable rights and it matters not what color of skin they wear in order to exercise those rights, and it has no bearing on how governments govern, but can certainly work towards keeping the wedge of race as a dividing factoid irrelevant to governance. Indeed, you have intimated that you have been snubbed for loans and grants due to your race, and if this is true, it only underscores what I am saying.

Your opinions are yours and should always be welcome, but they are just opinions, and there is no harm in discussing the Census and how one might handle such a thing today, and in the future.





[edit on 21-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Hi Proto,
We have these forms in the UK, and they make great fire lighters. Many an evening's fire have been started with envelopes that have the words "THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT". I totally agree with you. There is a wonderful organisation which champion anti law. The car parking ticket for instance. By paying it you are indeed accepting the terms of the contract and therefore are guilty of parking wrongly. If you send it back with the words NO CONTRACT on it, it becomes useless.


"Skeptic Extraordinaire"

LMFAO - I got to page 4 or something like that and just found myself needing to address this - when someone labels themselves as a sceptical it means:

sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity

So there seems little point in you looking in to anything because you habitually doubt. Or listening to anyone because you would not believe them anyway. And talking to anyone because you don't listen to anyone, or believe anyone nor indeed anything and can therefore know very little about anything at all.

Sceptics should just call themselves arrogant ignorants. Only someone arrogant would believe themselves so important as to decide that they are important enough to correct or disprove an opinion. Only someone arrogant to the point of embarrassment would champion themselves as someone who's role in life is to rubbish what anyone else has to say lol. Gawd it makes me cringe to think that there are people out there who puff themselves up with pride and say "yes I am a sceptic" lol. Toe curling.

Originally posted by defcon5

So what is the consideration on either part of this contact?

Hm….


[edit on 5/21/2010 by defcon5]

Census people got a piece of paper with writing and ink on it, also information. That all has value.
The 'censee' aka person filling it in gets to keep the packaging aforementioned letter comes in. This also has value. By having value, this is a consideration. Therefore this comprises a contract, using a legal fiction. It also shows acknowledgement of legal fiction by assuming the identity of aforemention legal fiction by a human being, without doing so, you cannot prosecute a birth certificate piece of paper with statutes, acts and other force of law type scams...

What is a Statute?

* A statute is a legislative act of a society
* Formal written agreement which governs a country or state
* Something that has the ‘force of law’ or colour of law
* Almost always comes with a monetary ‘Charge’
* These laws are on man and restrict freedoms
* That which is legal
* Commercial law
* Maritime admiralty law
* Law of trade
* Law of the sea

Person:

* A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.
* Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

Society:

* A Society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent.
* Societies are either incorporated and known to the law or un-incorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
* A civil society is usually understood as a state, a nation or a political body.
* In civil law society means a partnership.

Statute:

* A law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
* An act of a corporation or its founder intended as a permanent rule
* An international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority

Act:

* Act in the law:
An Act that is intended to create, transfer, or extinguish a right and that is effective in law for that purpose; the exercise of a legal power.
* Act of the law:
The creation, extinction, or transfer of a right by the operation of the law itself, without any consent on the part of the persons involved.

Freeman:

* A freeman possesses and enjoys all civil and political rights under a free government
* Not a slave.

www.exploringinfinity.com...

Summed up for the laymen - authority without out consent is facism and unlawful (note not illegal, unlawful, different meanings). Simple as that. It's what your forefathers thought they were fighting against in WW1 and 2.
This all checks out in my blacks law dictionary 2nd edition.

Oh and considering you are naysaying the ability to use common law against a court (many people screw this up), please explain this video here, which shows magistrates going for a walk not once but twice and abandoning court, as a freeman on the land calls them out and destroys their [courts] illusion of lawful authority which they attempt to align themselves with.




www.tpuc (the peoples united community, large freeman community, template letters, videos, proof of common law defense etc) .org
www.fmotl (free man on the land).com

edit: great thread proto, I'm not 100% up to speed with US law finer points but was very informative and an excellent read to bump up my ever growning freeman snowball, which will soon culminate in notice of understanding/claim of rite. For people wondering why you need to do this, without claiming and using your rights under common law they do not simply come out to bat for you. It's such a weight off your back to know that you are truely free once you properly comprehend (or understand hehe) the law and the murky muddy waters surrounding it.

The best prison is the one where the inmates think they are free.

[edit on 21/5/10 by GhostR1der]

Hilarious. Just Hilarious. As my old mate used to say - They dont like it up em.