Welcome to the tenth installment of the Frog Farm. This installment contains the following topics: 1) The Missing 13th Amendment: Titles of Nobility and Honor (part 2 of 2) 2) Miscellaneous 3) More from the Vault: The Frog Farm Archives ** The Missing 13th Amendment: "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR" David Dodge, Researcher Alfred Adask, Editor Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786, Dallas, Texas 75354, annual subscription $25.00. [This is part 2 of 2.] THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74). It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence. However, because the notes authors reported no further referen- ces to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day. In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secre- tary of State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860). Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thir- teen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitu- tion which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effec- tively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors". SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power. Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two- tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit. The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawful- ly nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amend- ment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutional- ly elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system. At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change. THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY .... Heed warnings of Founding Fathers In his farewell address, George Washington warned of "... change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instru- ment of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia's. Three of his suggestions were "freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases" and "no suspensions of the habeas corpus." No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dis- missed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed our legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III? Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in our courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to "political crimes" where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.) The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800's. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "un-Constitutional", waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations. Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states ("... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query 17, p. 161, 1784: "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgot- ten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavi- er, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights? Or will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, sur- rendered to the courts, and perhaps to a "new world order"? MORE EDITIONS FOUND As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867. These finds are important because: 1) they offer independent confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) they extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge's most recent find), to Colora- do in 1867. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" 13th Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition. This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started with the questions about how our courts evolved from a temple of the Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger's warning that we were "about to lose our constitution". My seven year inves- tigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the missing 13th Amendment is only a "drop in the bucket" of the infor- mation I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and by definition, is never truly complete. If you will, please check your state's archives and libraries to review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research. Please send your comments or discoveries to: ARGUMENTS Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting "honors" (special privileges, immunities, or ad- vantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally. It's never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on the Constitution: If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, re- ceive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. {Emphasis added] As outlined in the August AntiShyster, this Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legis- lation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this nation that most people can't even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that: 1) The 13th Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and "honors" appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867; and 2) This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. Either this Amendment: 1) Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or 2) Was ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution by 1867. If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so, it's at least a good story -- an extraordinary historical anecdote. On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so, this "missing" Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the answer, it's certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867. PROS AND CONS (for Ratification) Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly ratified and only published in error. There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the propos- ed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states voted to support ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify. Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia's legislative jour- nals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly during the 1930's). Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against) ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disa- greement. After Dodge's initial report of a "missing" Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error: "The Main Legislature mistakenly printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratifi- ed." Further, "All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this error." Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date) of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a "one-time" publishing error. YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the "missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment, Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify. After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the "missing" 13th Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs."*1* Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts." By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia demonstrated: 1) that they knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; 2) that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified. Dodge concluded, "Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers." RATIONALES (for Ratification) Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, "Article XIII did not receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be ratified." (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the "time limit", the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.) Dodge replies: "Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments." In fact, ratification time limits didn't start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, "This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from the date of submission ... to the States by Congress." A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was propos- ed in 1810 or ratified in 1819. Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his "published by error" and "time limit" arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification: "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819, this ap- proval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution. In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Vir- ginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment." Dodge replies: "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three- fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process." Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "Presi- dent Monroe had his Secretary of State... [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered." From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that our perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's added only five new states in this century -- about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states -- almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national at- titudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation's growth. For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory's statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the 13th Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process. In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old" states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia's vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing' Amend- ment in 1819 (and would still be so today). INSULT TO INJURY Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that the "missing" 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification: "Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed constitu- tional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a "certificate of ratification". In other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single "certificate of ratification". This "certificate" may be missing because either 1) Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or 2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3) the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. This final excuse insults every American's political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives "received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments." In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still live.*2* But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification". Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification") from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table." Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Mary- land's earlier ratification is not listed as having been return to Congress." The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a "certificate of ratification" with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing" Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error. QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES! Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amend- ment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof. We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hart- grove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it's a duck. Maybe so. But if we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government's refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the "missing" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of "make us". Perhaps we shall. The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the "missing" 13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico, 87571. 1) It's worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher, uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment. Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the Colorado archivists. 2) If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a fantastic possibility. Since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Vir- ginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution. [end part 2 of 2] ** Miscellaneous Recently, over on another private mailing list (which some of you may subscribe to), someone said that civil litigation is a meaningless weapon against the judgment proof. I concur. Before you initiate any courtroom action, you should have all your ducks in a row. Get out of the banking system. Use trusts and common-law contracts instead of incorporating. Don't leave your property lying out in the open where thieves can get at it. And, as Gordon says, "get rid of your toys" (which may be the hardest part for some of us net.geeks ;). Even if they technically win the case, you will still come out ahead. Always cost your adversary more time and money than they can collect from you, and then some. When you have judgment proofed yourself, it's time to take it to the courts. Here's a short excerpt from a piece by al007@cleveland.freenet.edu: [begin excerpt] The Rules of the Game Okay, the point of the game is to get over the goal line. It's just like football (and if you try to tempt them, they really will sack the quarterback just because they are sadistic people). There's only one problem: they are all professional players and you're just an amateur team. That's why the game is rigged in your favor intentionally. But unless you're a professional gambler, you wouldn't even know it. Here's what they score points for: Getting you to admit anything. Getting you to incriminate yourself. Intimidating you. Getting you to skip procedural details. Here's what you score points for: Getting them to admit anything. Getting them to perjure themselves. Getting them to foul (not follow the rules). Giving them as much frustration and anxiety as possible. Making them lose in front of their friends (they all have bad sportsmanship problems). Making them lose in front of the press. I can't possibly go over all the rules. There are entire libraries full of rules. And you thought pro-football was bad! But, there are certain basics of the game. If you understand those, you're way ahead. [end excerpt] On a momentary non-legal note, I present the following analysis from someone whom I feel privileged to claim as a friend: [begin forwarded message] 93Aug15 10:46 pm from Tom o' Bedlam @ Beach _ MI Imports: Get rid of them? How? The myth that politicians feed you about America Economic Superpower is just that--a myth. We couldn't maintain our current standard of living without imports. Our industrial capacity has never been that high. Never. For all we produce, we sell a lot of it overseas, and import needed items from the rest of the world. Do you know why USX (also once known as US Steel when they had a clue about what they were making) is in so much trouble? The Japanese? Not just them, but all the mini-mills in the US that produce steel much more cheaply than USX can. Oops, how unAmerican. We were a debtor nation from 1776 to 1914--oops, I guess when the government can't use its bullying power to mortgage us to the hilt, credit and debt to private investors regulates itself. Gee, sounds like free enterprise to me--and not the specious mercantilism that our government has been spouting since the Great War. If the government can develop a way to rent Cape Canaveral to private aerospace companies, then they should get out of the space business--and let private business take over. Of course, that mainframe that LS services and runs was made possible by the space program, which required IC's in order to work. Get government out? Fine--but usher private companies in. Our trade deficit can't hurt us. Private investors defaulting on loans to foreign banks can't. Only the national debt can. Only remaining a military superpower can hurt us. Remember the Russians? We're in the strongest alliance in history--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We can bleed our military down a bit further than we have, as soon as we have the CIS warhead situation under control. We don't need 30,000 nuclear warheads. If you're so afraid of letting all these people go, another Conservation Corps would be cheaper, more useful, require $300,000 earthmovers rather than $1,000,000,000 bombers, and tie up less materiel. If our foreign oil is threatened, let it go. It's Adam Smith's way of promoting alternative fuels, remember? Our social priorities can hurt us. The War on Drugs is a war--every military commander from Sun Tzu to Clauswitz understood that war is a drain on the civil health. Institute a system like the English have for prescribing drugs to those who are addicted. Not the methadone program--that was pranged from the start by incompetence and half-heartedness. We've been fighting this war since the 30's and we haven't won yet. It's turned entire communities and police forces into disputed territories and occupation armies. It will destroy us. Ugh. Flame off. [end forwarded message] Of course, I asked him, "So who are you gonna get the money from for the methadone program, and are you gonna ask for it or take it?". And of course he, being an honest, likable fellow, replied no, of course he wouldn't do it with taxation. ** 90Nov25 9:36 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface The Mechanic @ Interface>> Unfortunately, in this demented society of ours it often comes down to "Us vs. Them", Us being the general public and them being officials of whatever nature fits the discusion.<< It comes down to "Us vs. Them", but I, and others, are not members of your "Us", the "general public". We are examples of "the private sector" known as WE, The People, the source of all government power. We do not identify ourselves with "the general public", because by now that general public has all but forgotten what freedom means. They have all traded their rights for privileges, and have become subject to whatever a judge may decide in their case. The general public goes before a judge, accused of crimes that are not crimes, and instead of belligerently claiming their rights, they plead "Guilty, with explanation, your honor". Mechanic>> In this case Them will win, because they are the ones with the badges, and when it gets down to it who will the referee (judge) listen to and tend to take sides with? Not very likely one of Us.<< What a defeatist attitude! Any case my government feels is worth prosecuting me for, I feel is worth defending! First of all, that car was towed by the management of the complex (or so the post said). They do not have any stinkin' badges! And another thing - real judges don't take "sides". Those who do can be disqualified. If you don't disqualify at least one judge in each case you have, then you're not having all the fun you could be having. And even if the judge HATES you, it really doesn't matter, unless you are depending on that judge to tell you how things are. Some people go into court to tell the judge how things are. I know I do. I'd have to say that out of the many judges who have presided over my prosecutions, only one was favorable to me. That didn't stop me from winning the cases. See, the record determines who will win, and who will lose. The prosecution makes their part, and we make our part of the record. Then the appeals court decides it without even knowing the personalities involved. You can usually tell who's going to win just by reading the paperwork. But your average "general public" doesn't even know that you need paperwork to win. They think that the judge hears both sides, and picks a winner. Real Winners walk into the courtroom knowing that they have already won, no matter what the trial judge does. The winning papers are already in the record before the trial starts. And free individuals know that a judge in a court that lacks jurisdiction is a powerless figure. But an unknowing member of the general public never challenges the jurisdiction of the court, do they? How many times have you seen it done? And so when the jurisdiction is unchallenged, it is assumed and presumed to exist. So, you are right about the odds, but that is only due to the large number of unaware trusting sheep who follow instructions all the way to the slaughter, and the small number of knowledgeable pro se individuals, those black sheep who kick and bite until their victory is at hand. Mechanic>> Yes, it is possible that Steve could get his car back, but I believe there comes a point in time when the time and energy spent on standing up for what you know is right is not worth it. I've been through similar situations, and when all was said and done I wondered why I put myself out so far for a small bit of justice.<< Maybe everyone should decide the same thing. Then there would be no one left to exercise and claim rights anymore, and the free person would become an extinct species. But I think there will always be a few who decide that freedom is worth the price. After all, many Americans have given their lives for it. Typing some paperwork, and spending a few hours in a courtroom is really a small price to pay for freedom, don't you think? Heck, every case I've ever had has more than paid for the trouble by teaching me things that could not have been learned any other way. It's kinda like getting to see behind the curtain in the court of the Wizard of Oz. Courts today are just a way for the government to collect more revenues. A competent pro se can force the court to spend $2,000 or more just to get $500. How long do you think they'd like to keep that up? If I don't cost them at least $2,000 per case, I'm slipping. Eventually, they recognise folks like me, and ignore us. Or have us killed. Like they say, "live free, or die." 90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface Barry Wong @ Garbanzo>> FF - How does one go about becoming a free person if they have already particpated in the system (i.e. voted and the like)?<< Well, first they have to come to the conclusion that they were defrauded, and cheated of their birthright. No undue amount of study is required to come to this conclusion, but the ability to entertain ideas that are new to you is a great help. The main problem is overcoming the phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" - the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything that goes against the ingrained brainwashing that we are all subjected to by society from the time we are born. I know that you have seen how difficult that can be. You've seen the resistance that has been evidenced on this base to certain ideas, yet notice, when cognitive dissonance is at work, the person arguing against those ideas never really has a solid argument to back up their opposition. Usually, vague philosophical theories may be put forward in an attempt to discredit the truth, but these vague theories are not the law. The law is what can put you behind bars and take your property, not vague theories. Whether you agree with the law or not, it helps to at least know it for what it is, and not for what it "should" be in the ideasphere. If you know what it really is, you'll know it when you are being lied to. That's a very important first step towards freedom. When you come to the conclusion that you have been wronged, the law exists to help you put things right. But no one will help you. Even me. I do draw the line at some point, because defending my own rights is a full time job. You may think that this room provides some help, and it may, in that it is a signpost to what lies up ahead...The Twilight Zone! You think I'm joking? Not really. When you get into it, you see that the meanings of words have been so twisted around, that people are now automatically trained to admit to crimes that don't exist. For instance, "driving without a license" is against the law, but did you know that to be a "driver" is an occupation in commerce?? If you didn't, then, even if you don't drive for profit or gain on the highway, you probably went and got yourelf a driver's license. And you could justify it because "everybody else did" and "it'll save you hassles". So, for whatever excuse feels most comfortable, people waive their rights, and by doing so slip deeper into the quicksand of servitude and slavery. the decision to be free is a hard one to make. Slave masters treat returned runaway slaves worse than those who never ran away, so once you opt for freedom, you had better be prepared for the consequences. I can live with freedom mainly due to my belief in the Supreme Being, who gave me the rights I exercise, and who I trust to specifically perform if I uphold my end of my contract with Him. So far, so good. 90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface BW>> Did you make a decision at some point to "exercise your rights" or were you raised doing that already?<< To some extent I was raised that way, more by my mother than by my father. My father was the perfect slave, having worked for the FBI. My mother was a rebel, and when I was 6 years old, she impressed me with stories of our country and it's beginnings. I think the earliest recollection of a feeling of solidarity with FREEDOM came when I was taken to see the Walt Disney movie, "Johnny Tremain". My mom gave me the soundtrack album for my 6th birthday. I played it hundreds of times, admittedly being "brainwashed" with ideas of freedom and loyalty to the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. I'm not against brainwashing, in fact, I contend that I have purposefully brainwashed myself with the input that I choose, rather than to be unconsciously brainwashed by my enemies. I don't look down upon someone for being brainwashed, but just for refusing to believe that they could be. Once they understand the principles involved (developed to a high science during the Korean War and used by all governments and certain others ever since), it is possible to undo the effects, but it takes work, and is not always comfortable, because of cognitive dissonance, which sets in, and must be dealt with. When I was 8 years old, I remember the time when my grandfather came over to help my father "do his taxes" (a meaningless phrase if there ever was one!). I remember my father (then ex-FBI man) stating that the income tax was really being administered contrary to the law, and they both admitted it, and yet somehow that didn't prevent them from complying. I thought just a little less of my dad for his cowardice in doing what he knew was wrong. He seemed to "go along to get along", even though what he did was wrong. The next time that I was motivated to think along those lines was well after I had been working in the "system" for years. A coworker invited me to a seminar, where a man named Marvin Cooley was going to lecture on the illegalities of the income tax system. Prior to attending the meeting, I figured out how much I had paid into the "system", and it amounted to over 30,000 bux, yet I was barely getting by at the time, struggling from month to month just to keep a roof over my head, and food on the table. I really wanted to see if this had been necessary. What I learned at that meeting convinced me that it was not necessary, but that the blame lay with me, because I had never looked into the law to see what it actually said, I had just believed what I had heard from the media, and hearsay from other people as ignorant as myself about the subject. I decided that I would study it as well as I could, and correct the situation in my own life. That course of action got me fired from the job I then held. My boss was afraid to send the IRS my W-4 form, which indicated I was exempt, since I did not owe any tax the year before, and I anticipated owing no tax that year - the two criteria to decide if one is exempt. He was so afraid of the IRS, he fired me, for which I could well have sued him and won, had I known better. At that time, I didn't know what my remedies were. Shortly thereafter, I was robbed and severely injured, almost killed, in a middle-of-the-night robbery in my home. Drug-crazed robbers of Hispanic descent entered my home on a Christmas shopping spree for gifts for their families. This is what I was later told by persons who knew them. They were heroin addicts. They murdered someone else two weeks later only 4 blocks from my home, in a similar robbery. My skull was fractured in three places by a tire iron - they thought I'd pass out like on TV when they hit me the first time. Seven increasingly severe blows later, I was still conscious, with a fractured skull, spurting blood in a 5-foot stream. I was hog-tied and left for dead. They took their time piling up goodies by the door, and loading their getaway car. After they finally left, somehow, I managed to untie myself and get a neighbor to take me to the hospital. Later, it came out that the local sheriffs used these particular robbers for doing "black bag jobs" when the law couldn't break in legally. When they "did" me, it was a freelance job, on their own. Even though I had been new in the neighborhood, and knew hardly anyone, after two months I found these scum, (I waited in the parking lot of the local grocery store, waiting for them to show up) and tracked them to where they lived, in a gov't subsidized housing complex. They were on welfare and foodstamps. I went to the sheriff's, asking them to arrest the people who attempted to murder me. Then the cover-up began. The investigator said, "Yeah, we thought it was them, but we can't do anything about it." I asked why. He said, "We showed you pictures of 800 mexicans with moustaches who are criminals currently at large in our county, and you failed to point them out." (to me, all 800 criminal mexicans with moustaches looked alike!) I replied that now that we knew who they were, bring them in, and I'll identify them. He said, "Can't do that now, because I just told you it was them who did it." So nothing ever was done about it. I realized that where it counted most, at home, the government didn't do anything for me - instead it protected those who would kill me. That was the last straw. I determined that from then on, any government agent or agency that wanted me to do ANYTHING had to prove its lawful authority, and that I would never volunteer for anything again. I wasn't going to work to support my enemies. And every time since when government has told me I had to do this or that, I required them to prove it, and I even go further - I prove that I DON'T have to do whatever it is, in court if need be. I rescinded all my contracts that I had entered into with any government agency, on the basis of fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, and I made it a point to force each issue, to the limit. By doing so, I found out that I had been lied to all my life, and tricked into doing things I didn't have to do. My freedom proved it to me - if I had been wrong, I'd be in jail. I have been a free man now for over 12 years. And I don't regret any of it. The government (which is not the law) does not exist for me, and I do not exist for it. Still, that does not permit me to violate the rights of anyone else, or I would be subject to the law, and could be punished and imprisoned. In fact, the sheriff's agent told me that if I ever harmed their pet drug-addict- robbers, I'd go to jail. Cryo Ruggie @ Wolf's Den>> Frog Farmer - I don't really understand what you posted there. Do you mean to say that, as a sovreign citizen I can simply go out and shot someone who bothers me, and the sue the government for daring to proceed against me, since the government's subservient to me?<< No. CR>> Or are you saying that true citizens don't need a government, and that we should all live in harmonious anarchy? And anyone who considers the need of a given society is a weakling?<< No. CR>> I guess that if the US were nation of strong selfish super- patriots who wish to force the "smaller people" like me out for considering that there's a quid-pro-quo(?), then I'd move out and let it fester in it's fascist delusions...<< Why would anyone force people like you out for recognizing that there's a quid-pro-quo? You had better recognize it, since it is you (if you claim some special privilege that is not a matter of right) who owes that quid pro quo to the sovereign power. TM>> I still maintain that "reality" is completely subjective.<< People who believe as you do often go to jail when their perception of reality collides with the other reality that most people can perceive in common. BW>> I agree that we all view reality from a particular point of view, which you might call "subjective." But we're all viewing SOMETHING. That "something" is an objective reality.<< But, TM, Mermaids, even though we all know what they are, and what they look like, are not part of objective reality. Same with units of measurement that attempt to measure nothing!! DJ @ DogLink>> In other words, there is no way to get around property tax in this state because one cannot own property. And the state, owning first lein on the property, can reposess the property for non- performance and breach of contract (not paying of the taxes).<< That's rough, DJ! All kidding aside, that means a lot of people are wandering around Minnesota with a false notion (that they OWN property), doesn't it? If I lived there, I'd try to pay my taxes on time, so I wouldn't be kicked off the land. What do they want in the form of rent? Clams, frogskins, or...? DJ>> This was very illuminating, and I am researching the prospect of unconstitutionality of the law because of the right to "life, liberty, and property" clause in the Constitution. This would be extremely difficult to do, however because the Constitution does not prevent any state government from owning property and distributing it as it chooses.<< You just answered your own Constitutional Question. Look for evidence that at one time, before State Incorporation, people weren't paid in either gold or silver for all that land, by the State, or else forgiven some debt that they owed the state. When people had their gold in possession, they weren't so tied down to one piece of ground; they could easily buy another piece somewhere else - until, of course, the "State" owned all the land. Right of first lien. Interesting concept. Here's another: RIGHT OF REDEMPTION. Black's 4th says: "The right to disencumber property or to free it from a claim or lien; the right (granted by statute only ) to free property from the incumbrance of a foreclosure or other judicial sale, or to recover the title passing thereby, by paying what is due, with interest, costs, etc...." What if you want to exercise all inalienable rights in Minnesota? What if you wanted to exercise the right to own property, and the right of redemption? Are first liens subject to redemption? Black's defines "First Lien" as "One which takes priority or precedence over all other charges or incumbrances upon the same piece of property, and which must be satisfied before such other charges are entitled to participate in the proceeds of its sale." Will Minnesota tell you that you are so hopelessly in debt (perpetual debt, guaranteed by the acceptance of fractional reserve banking practices by the public), that redemption, while theoretically possible, is equally impossible because the people have nothing of substance with which to redeem it? So few of the people actually want to do it, no one knows how it's done, probably. I don't know. But a start would be to ascertain just what this "first lien" secures for the state. Will they come right out and admit that property ownership is impossible, and that therefore it is a communist society? Or are we missing something? Thanks for that post. Fum @ Beach>> Ha,Ha-- OK now here's what I'm involved in fighting right now, tooth and nail to the bitter end. On Sept. 12 I was in an accident in my company's vehicle while at work.<< No Constitutional rights question involved here... Fum>> I had had a few accidents recently in that vehicle and in one ( 12-22-90) I had been issued a ticket which I fought at the suggestion of the issuing officer and had removed from my record- well worth the trip to court as it cost me nothing but time.<< I think it's always worth a fight. The fact that the issuing officer thought you should challenge his determination to cite you was noteworthy. He wasn't too sure of the correctness of his position, was he?? I read your story with interest, and while it is a civil case, involving matters of privilege (not Rights) and therefore not really something that I would go to any great lengths to comment on myself here on The Frog Farm (but I don't care if others wish to discuss it here), what was evident was the fact that you appeared to be pursuing it "belligerently" like a winner. You appear to have been doing your homework in a timely fashion, and your strategy looks good. One tip: If you do get your hearing, there will come a time when they will move to close the hearing, either by doing it themselves or asking you if it is okay. Personally, I never agree, and always object, to closing the hearing. They always will ask the reason for that, and so I say something like, "But I haven't entered into the record all the relevent testimony that I have prepared. I still have a lot of material to show that the hearing should be decided in my favor. (or something to that effect)" Hopefully, they will be so tired of the hearing already, that that may cause them to rule in your favor just to get the thing over with, and they may tell you, "Well, we'll close the heaing with a recommendation that this matter be decided in your favor." You'd say, "What!!? Only a recommendation?! I can't risk it on that - I still have irrefutable evidence that I am right and that I should win, and I move that we continue the hearing to another day, because I can see that you are tired, and I would like to continue when you are all fresh and are not wanting to end it just to get out of here and go home (or something to that effect)" This has caused them, in my case, to say, "Well, we'll note your OBJECTION [when they moved to close, I said "I OBJECT!!"] and if the decision is to rule against you, we will allow you to come back and add to the record, fair enough?" That I agreed to, since I really didn't have too much more to put into the record at that time, but I knew that with a few days to gather more, I could come up with something, anything. I kept a two-hour hearing going for 4 days in that manner, and finally won by exhausting them. You might keep that in mind. I noticed that you actually (not like most people) took the trouble to research the law in question. See how they often misrepresent what it really says? See how you have to be on your toes, and challenge every wrong statement they make? You should win that one. 90Dec05 12:24 am from Frog Farmer @ Interface Silver Ghost>> ...about the mandatory draft, FF posted the following alleged quote from Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370): "An individual OWES NOTHING to the state..." (FF's emphasis) ...Properly taken out of context, this implies that we don't have to pay income tax, register for the draft, obey traffic signals, or restrain ourselves from satisfying all our hedonistic urges to kill the neighbors' puppies.<< I can understand from that why free persons would not have to pay income tax or obey traffic signals, but I don't understand how it removes the requirement to register for the draft. And nothing (NO LAW) permits the violation of another's property rights (such as killing the neighbors puppies). Too bad Silver Ghost flew off the handle, or I might grant him some credibility... SG>> But let's see what the context is. Hale v. Henkel concerns a dude who didn't want to procure company papers, (partly) on the grounds that "they might tend to incriminate him." The case runs 22 WestLaw pages [48 in the original reports]; here's the section FF referred to, on page thirteen: [deleted, cause it already has been quoted!] It was probably that next-to-last sentence which FF lifted.<< Actually it was the one previous to that. "He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." Subsequent cases have shown that we cannot presume to receive even that protection of life and property, so I left that off. As I once said, I had quoted that from a secondary reference source, but even looking at the original, I see no difference in the meanings. SG>> Me, I think it's a null statement--the last ten words are a catch -all.<< A catch-all? I agree - an all purpose catch-all! SG>> It's just a summary before the next paragraph.<< And it pretty well summarizes things, doesn't it? SG>> In fact, it _has_ to be that sentence, because anything previous which resembles his quote is _obviously_ dealing only with people's rights to not incriminate themselves.<< That's not so obvious. Universal principles are universal... SG>> Of course, it's hard to see how "He owes nothing to the public" could be quoted as "The individual OWES NOTHING to the state (my emphasis)" with a straight face and no disclaimers.<< ! ;) SG>> Especially from a case which has flat-out absolutely _nothing_ to do with the topic which we were discussing. I can't even think of a more irrelevant subject.<< I believe that you can't see the connection(s). So, go be drafted! You obviously can't see that the 4th and 5th amendments (the subject matter of the Hale case) have anything to do with involuntary servitude, because they DON'T SAY anything about involuntary servitude. But I do see the connections. Because my life, liberty, and property are involved. Not only that, but I see a connection to the first amendment, too! Yeah, the right to speak (or not speak) the induction oath! Remember the Hale case said (as you pointed out) "His power to contract is unlimited." That's "5th amendment stuff" right there. It means I have an unlimited right to contract, OR NOT CONTRACT! How do you think you lose your rights and come under an admiralty jurisdiction (military code) unless it is by a contract (the oath)?? BW>> What about "income taxes" -- can one refuse to pay and continue to enjoy the "privileges of the democratic system?"<< Good question, "Can one REFUSE to pay?" I would say not. Once a tax is ASSESSED it must be paid. However, people could study and learn how the system works as laid down by law, regarding what it takes to have a valid assessment. Non-taxpayers can refrain from incorrectly assuming that they ARE TAXPAYERS, and can refrain from volunteering to pay taxes that are not owed. They can refrain from engaging in activities that have been declared by Congress to be taxable for revenue purposes. They can refrain from assuming that ALL activities are taxable for revenue purposes. They CAN educate themselves about the so-called "income tax" and the law which administers it. It is a very interesting area of study. 80Jan01 1:00 am from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo This is a reply to a message posted in the politics room, but I thought it appropriate for here also: Ishmael @ Beach>> tickled pinko...apparently you weren't around in the sixties and seventies when EVERYONE "knew" their rights...I can assure you that if simply refusing to take an oath was all it took ....many would have done just that...<< How can you assure anyone that anyone knew what was necessary? Simply refusing to take the oath is all it takes. But no one was assigned the task of informing anyone of that fact. With all the "draft counseling" going on then, I never heard that method mentioned. It's the kind of thing you just have to figure out for yourself. It would never get into the courts. And by the time the suckers who took the oath figured it out, it would be too late for them. The only persons who knew that it worked were the ones who tried it and held up under the coercion and verbal abuse. Why, even now, when you hear it, and have the mental capacity to reason it out, you doubt it! If "everyone" knew their rights, then why didn't they know that they had a right not to be forced to take an oath? The question of whether or not you can be forced to take an oath was only decided by the courts within the last few years, in connection with giving testimony in the courtroom. A guy named George Gordon was asked, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Gordon replied, "No!" and was jailed for contempt. He appealed the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was decided that you cannot be forced to take an oath over a religious objection (the Bible prohibits swearing oaths). Do you think "everyone" knew that in 1965- 1970? How about today? Ishmael>> You sound like the lady I met in a bar the other night that tried to convince me that should I be stopped by a police officer on the way home that my best bet to beat a drunk driving charge would be to question the officer on his understanding of the U.S. Constitution? << Questioning him on his understanding of it?? That might take forever - how about just getting him to admit that he's sworn to uphold and defend it, and then ask him the constitutional basis for his stopping you? Ishmael>>...under the privacy act I can refuse to identify myself or some such hogwash..<< The Privacy Act is hogwash used for dealing with Federal agents (funny concept: hog wash, pig rinse, swine flush, etc). How about the fact that you need not identify yourself under Brown vs. Texas? How about the fact that you are not required to answer any questions without counsel present at all stages of any investigation? And if you don't want to give them fingerprints without a court order, then it's Davis vs. Mississippi that proves that they already know you can refuse to give them fingerprints. Ishmael>> My experience has been that a few well placed "Yes Sir massa's" would serve you just as well, if not better ;)<< Most definitely if you are a slave to the system! Otherwise, agreeing with an officer at a traffic stop can be dangerous to your freedom. More politics room cross-over: b0b @ Interface>> Silver Ghost - Thank you for putting the Hale Doctine in context. I don't see your point, though. The portion of the decision that you quoted does not appear to conflict with the farmer's views at all.<< Thanks b0b, but let's give Silver Ghost this: The Hale case did not specifically mention the draft! I'm glad to have been the catalyst in making one more person read Hale, even though the motivation was to refute its doctrine, and I hope SG reads it again, and uses his imagination to think of ways that the Hale case might apply to his own life, even though SG may never be called upon to produce corporate records for examination, or appear for induction. b0b>> The environment of the induction center is very intimidating in time of war. It's very hard to stand alone for your rights in the face of all that pressure, the "it's the law", and "don't you love your country?" arguments.<< Right! Especially when you're standing there in your underwear! - with a trained sergeant close at hand yelling things in your ears and face. b0b>> Does anyone here who was drafted remember taking the oath? When you did it, did anyone refuse? What happened?<< Reports are that if anyone even looked like they were going to give any trouble, they were separated from the rest ASAP, so those who were inducted would not have been around to see what happened to the "trouble-makers". I have heard that in the case of those who didn't take the oath, they were subjected to all sorts of verbal humiliation and coercion, but if they remained steadfast in their claim of Constitutional rights which they could articulate, they were released at the close of the business day. One guy I met who personally didn't take the oath, got the advice not to do so from his dad's lawyer. He was instructed to ask "If I raise my right hand, take one step forward, and repeat after you, will I be waiving any Constitutional rights?" The answer to that question is "yes". He followed that up with the question "Can any law require me to waive my Constitutional rights?" The answer to that question is "No". By the way, the IRS has been made to answer similar questions, only then the first question is "If I turn my books and records over to you, can the government use any of the information against me?" Again, the answer is "yes". The second question is "Do I have a legal obligation to give you any information that can be used against me?" Again, the answer is "no". Using a combination of all four questions, one might indeed "live long, and prosper..." JB>> It seems that freedom isn't just something that is automatically granted an individual just because they were born here ..what they ARE granted is the right to BE free (as free as they chose to be). Which is a different thing altogether, since it implies that a person has the right to choose to NOT be free. I think it is Froggy's point that it seems that the large majority of the population are assumed to have surrendered their freedom to a large degree, simply because of an acceptance of the `status quo.' `You can't fight city hall,' is a very common buzz phrase. Yet, Froggy does it all the time...<< Right, Jimbo! I'm only trying to point out that a choice has been made, even if unconsciously. When it is made unconsciously, the choice most often is against freedom. What I do "all the time" is be free in my mind. To give you an example, I am currently hosting a student from Alaska who had the choice of going to see George in Missouri, or me here at the Frog Farm. Well, the substance I demand in return for one-on-one tutoring is substantially less, so he decided to do his studying here. So, as part of his "substance" that he is paying me for my time and materials, he is doing manual labor here on the farm. While we were working together, we played out several "scene of the crime" and "first court appearance scenarios". By the way, this student is close to 60 years old, and used to be a policeman! We took turns playing the cop, the driver, the judge, the defendant, etc. And we went over about 20 different ways that a "no driver's license" scene could happen and be dealt with. Every time is different! There is no "ONE WAY" to handle any case, although there are essential elements that should be included in each one. Well, how would Barry count that time? Did it count as time spent doing normal productive work on the farm, or did it count as "fighting for one's freedom"? Answer: BOTH. So, to shy away from this subject matter, or from defending oneself for the reason that you "don't have the time" is really just a bad excuse, and is "cutting off your nose, to spite your face" in my estimation. JB>>...according to him, it's great fun and results in a stretching of his mind as the new concepts he comes into contact with are learned.<< It's not so much fun that I TRY to get new charges against me-- at least not anymore. BUT, should I be prosecuted again for something that is NOT a common law crime, you can bet that I'm going to try to make it fun. Now there is the added prize of seeing the responsible agent pay damages after I win the Title 42 suit that will follow my win on the original charges. I still haven't had a chance to try a lot of new material I've been saving up... JB>> I think the whole thing can be summed up by saying that what FF does should also be done by a whole lot more of us IN ADDITION TO OUR `PRODUCTIVE' OCCUPATIONS, as it appears that this is the minimum required to be as free as is possible. If more people did it, the need for it to be done with such intensity would diminish...<< It probably only takes about thirty individuals in each county to straighten things out. That's a really small percentage overall... JB>>...(then fewer and fewer would do these things and we'd be back at square one again as we are today!).<< Nah! No one who experienced freedom would go back to being a sheep. It can only grow, as it has been doing over the years. For instance, back in '84, one sure way to set up your case for a win was to attempt to have your friend be your counsel in court. This had been shown to have been lawful by many Supreme court decisions ( just like many other things) but local courts would disallow it, saying that you must have an attorney who is a member of the bar. That was known as a winning appealable issue. Now, it is not uncommon to see the court accept the fact that your counsel is not a bar attorney, or attorney of any kind. They have learned that to deny you that right is a waste of their valuable court time, since any conviction they obtained after a long and expensive trial could be overturned on appeal. So now, some pro se defendants are almost disappointed that they are allowed to have non-attorney counsel - it's one appealable issue they can no longer rely upon! Don't worry, there are still many others! Popeye @ Garbanzo>> FF, what do you know about this $90.00 traffic amnesty thing. Any info would be appreciated.<< I saw a flyer advertising it on the wall down at the County Center. I had to laugh. See, I know for a fact that due to the lack of formal verified complaints in this County, all prosecutions are undertaken with the consent (knowing or unknowing) of the defendant. So here we have an invitation to possible defendants to come forward and part with 90 bux, thus saving the prosecution (whoever it is?) the need to do any work (like proving their case in court, which is impossible to begin with if the defendant were really a fighter!). Yeah, I had to laugh. Probably a lot of suckers will fall for it though. But then again, if they are going to be even bigger losers due to their ignorance, it would make sense for them to cut their losses, I guess. If I went in and gave them 90 bux for the few outstanding tickets on my record, that they have failed to prosecute me for, I'd be admitting I committed a crime that I'm not guilty of, and I'd be admitting that I know what the money of account is, and how much of it is a dollar quantity. They've been threatening to arrest me for over two years, and here I am, still waiting! Rather than fork over any FRNs, I'd rather they arrest me, so I can get to try out my LATEST updated, streamlined defenses! I've got a lot to throw at them if they ever decide to have me arrested. After all, the information that won all my past cases is still good, even if my new stuff fails ( which I seriously doubt it would). I think they know that some people out here KNOW, and they would rather try to shear the sheep who don't kick and bite. Now, even young teenagers are taking them on here in our local courts, and giving them arguments they can't deal with. It's only a matter of time before being a sucker is going to lose favor with the majority of the populace. Taking an amnesty is an admission that you broke a law. I could never accept amnesty, since I don't violate any laws. But police will tell you that there are people who DO confess to crimes that they never committed. Are you thinking of accepting amnesty? If so, you could have some fun with the money issue. You could come forward, confess, and then ask them what the current money of account is, and how much of it is a dollar quantity, so that you could pay your fine. They'd reply by telling you what they will "accept", but then again, what they will "accept" is not the question. The question is, what can they require? Mirage @ Garbanzo>> I love those lawyers who 'plead-bargin.' I've never been certain that to offer a plea is ever a bargin.<< It's a bargain for the court and the prosecution! When a court has no jurisdiction over the case, if they can get the accused to enter a plea (guilty, or not guilty, or no contest) or ask the judge for anything then jurisdiction is automatically conferred upon the court, and they can proceed with the trial. Usually, the prosecution will charge the defendant with more than one offense, using the extra one(s) as bargaining chips in the attempt to get a plea. I never plea bargain. Once, a prosecutor said to me, "If you plead guilty to driving on a suspended license, I'll drop the other two charges". This was in the hall, outside the courtroom, in front of witnesses. I never had a suspended license, so I said, "Let's see if I understand you correctly - if I go in there and lie to the judge, you'll go easier on me?" The prosecutor then stormed down the hall, franticly smoking his cigarette. He looked like a puffing locomotive. Back in the courtroom, the public defender (supposedly on my side, right?) tried to get me to ask the judge for a continuance. She said, "If you'll just ask for a continuance, the judge will continue the case for several months, and then if you don't get stopped again, he will dismiss the charges." I said, "Look sweetheart, the judge has no jurisdiction over this case at this moment, but if I ask for a continuance, he will thereby obtain it, so you go tell him the trick didn't work, okay?" The Public Defender then got all upset and stormed out of the room, into the judges chambers, from where they were watching through a peephole in the door. Ten minutes later the judge came out and dismissed the charges "in the interest of justice". Lichen>> I can agree that rights are God (or pick your own creator) - given, but they must be protected and allowed by the government.<< Ideally, that would be nice, but how long do you propose that people wait to exercise their rights if it goes against government policy? Many people collect every year because government agents violated their rights. It's not uncommon, just unreported. It's not the kind of thing that makes the news, unless it's a Rodney King type of dramatic case, suitable for the media. When Rosa Parks decided to exercise her right to ride in the front of the bus, it was not "protected and allowed by the government". No, she had to duke it out on the courtroom floor with a prosecutor who was willing to tell a jury that she "broke the law". Surely assistant district attorneys know what they are talking about, DON'T THEY??! Seems the Supreme Court thought differently, and they had the same Constitution in front of them that the district attorney had in front of him. See, government administators know that only a very small percentage of people will fight for their rights, so they play the odds, and feel pretty safe violating rights. It usually takes their insurance company telling them that they won't renew their policies for them to tone it down some. If you want to get government's attention, the best way is to make yourself felt in their balance sheet. Check out Title 18, sections 241 & 242, and Title 42, sections 1983 & 1985. Barry Wong @ Interface>> FF, under what circumstances would a court have rightful jurisdiction over you?<< A court would have righful jurisdiction over me if it either has proof of a breach of some contract I've willingly entered into (which would place me under an Admiralty/Equity Jurisdiction), or if a natural complainant came forward under penalties of perjury to show that I had injured their rights in some way (which would place me under a Common Law jurisdiction). It would also obtain jurisdiction over me if I went to it with an action. In that case, I'd be conferring it upon the court myself. Promising to Appear and Depositing Bail also grant the court jurisdiction. Any voluntary general appearance in court grants it jurisdiction. BW>> It seems that in most of the cases you've discussed so far, your first line of asserting your rights is to refuse the court jurisdiction over you and/or your case. Am I understanding you correctly?<< You most certainly are understanding me, Barry! Since jurisdiction is crucial, in that a court or agency that lacks jurisdiction cannot act lawfully, isn't this where YOU would start, too? For me, it begins right at "the scene of the crime". Citizen>> I for one would not be sorry to see an end to US imperialism, bloody wars over national boundaries like we have chronically involving Israel, and like we just had in Kuwait/Iraq.<< Speak for yourself, pal! MY government isn't imperialist, has not been involved in wars over national boundaries, etc. etc. - That's YOUR government, the Democracy of the Corporate United States of America, ruling its subjects under the Uniform Commercial Code of Merchants and accomplishing its tyranny over its subjects by the action of irredeemable commercial debt paper; it is not the Republic of the United States, created under the Constitution signed in Philadelphia. There are TWO United States. One is a republic; the other a democracy. The two are incompatible, but can coexist together in space and time, depending upon the agreement of the parties. You described the Democracy. I reserve my right to live in the Republic. Citizen>> Wouldnt a WorldGov end a lot of this stupid "defense" or individual countries? We here in the US sure spend enough on bombs weapons guns planes missiles satellites etc etc etc- wouldnt it be nice if we didnt have to do that?<< Defense is stupid? You want to trust your rights to people who have no idea what they are? You want to relegate yourself to an even lower status than you now possess? All those bombs and planes you mentioned are obtained on the credit of unborn generations of your progeny by a particapatory democracy of the same ilk that would run your new world order. Is that what you really want? Perpetual indebtedness under a neo-feudalist system? My defense consists of my own wits and my personal weapons, and that's it. No one else is defending ME. Desert Storm was not to protect MY rights. It was a payoff by the world's largest debtor nation to its creditors, and the American troops functioned as mercenaries. Citizen>> I dont know, call me a starry-eyed idealist. But Im not at all sure about this One World idea. It has some good points. I think John Lennon wrote a song about all this. "Imagine".<< Well, you can "imagine" all you want, but don't try to force your dreams on me without my consent or over my objection. I have the law and a gun on my side. I won't harm your rights - don't go making plans for mine. If your new world order threatens my rights, I have the right of self-defense. The Citizen>> Froggie, on a personal note- I think one thing that causes you trouble interpersonally, especially on the boards (which I admit is all the knowledge I have of your interpersonal relating) is that you tend to answer questions so vituperatively that you seem to be attacking the asker.<< Pretty good technique, huh? When people are asking me questions, it's usually to entice me to make admissions and confessions. You have to master that technique if you want to win notwithstanding the jury's verdict! Almost all of a policeman's, judge's or prosecutor's questions are designed to trick you, so I practice answering questions all the time. It's one reason I will spend the time at this message base, just to get to field the questions as I would if standing on the courtroom floor, defending my rights. Sometimes I imagine that you are all the Grand Jury, judge or prosecutor. If you don't know what I'm talking about, how can I credit you with the intelligence to exercise any power over my life, liberty, or property? Yes, I pick on EVERY word, if possible, because it's only words that can allow the government to deny you your rights by turning you into a "criminal". I just read about how Disney World in Florida was influential enough to have persons who clashed with THEIR POLICY declared to be criminals! Most of the people arrested and tried on the charges, because they were told they had violated a law, plead guilty and were sentenced. But finally, one guy, even though he knew that he had done the forbidden act, plead "not guilty" and challenged the law. The jury nullified the law in his case, and he went free, but it was decided to let the law stand, because most people were content to be told it was a valid law, and most people prosecuted were willing to pay a fine. That was a perfect illustration of how our system works - if anyone out there reading this wants to go around obeying unconstitutional laws, and having their rights curtailed because it is part of some utopian scheme, GO RIGHT AHEAD! But don't expect everyone to bend over and take it like you do! I challenge your jurisdiction over me right at the scene of your first question to me! I challenge all your assumptions and presumptions of law! I disqualify and dishonor any presentments made "under color of law"! And I look for ANY opportunity to be hostile to ANYONE who would justify the violation of ANY of my rights! Lichen @ Garbanzo>> I'm curious, Frog Farmer -- what is the legal definition of the "injured party"? Must one be physically injured ( run over, basically) or can the injury be one to their property, also? Assuming that to be true, what about (and here I ask with tongue quite partially in cheek) -- what about mental injuries or difficulties; having to completely rethink their path because someone used the wrong lane to make a left turn?<< If having to think causes severe enough mental anguish to get one to sign a complaint and prosecute a case, one may end up in an institution, sooner or later. An actionable injury is a wrong done to one's person, property, rights, or reputation. Mental anguish has usually been associated with physical injury. The recently ratified Genocide Convention, which is blatantly unconstitutional, recognizes "mental damage" as the discomfort one experiences when called a derogatory name by another. For this offense, now Americans can be shipped overseas to stand trial in another country, if they allow it to happen to them. In my opinion, anyone who would claim mental damage because someone else called them a name they did not like probably has very little mental material to damage. Luckily, people with that limited amount of mental capacity are usually too stupid to know how to pursue a legal action, but with all the lawyers our society is generating it could become a whole new area of law practice in the future. I can see the TV commercial now: "Hey! Yeah, you! Do people call you a Nigger, Kike, Spik, Slope, Beaner, Wop, Blubber Breath, Honky, or Paleface? Call Lawyers Action Hotline now, where our trained lawyers will act fast to have your attacker extradited to a country where the jury will be sure to convict! All you will have to do is pay our initial consultation fee and be able to make an "X" for your signature, and our lawyers will spring into action!" I can also see a whole new travel industry springing up, since victims will have to go to testify against the accused. Airlines will be offering special rates and group discounts for mentally damaged special interest groups who feel insulted. Here's one possible advertisement: "Has somebody called you a nigger recently? Why not hold the trial in beautiful Botswanna? Await the verdict in the beautiful Genocide Suite of the Botswanna Hotel. Dine on antelope steak, or get to suck blood from living cattle. Make it a memorable experience. Call Genocide Junkets Travel Agency, 555-RACE, for information on other possible taxpayer funded vacations." b0b>> Wait a minute, Frog Farmer. You have no idea how Lichen, or any other person, will react in a hypothetical situation... you're really out in left field if you think you can accurately predict how Lichen will react in ANY situation. You don't even KNOW the guy.<< That's why I used the word "probably", b0b. I was trying to rouse him into defending himself, but you beat him to it. If I was wrong, he could correct me, just like he'd have to do in the courtroom when either the prosecutor or judge said something that wasn't completely accurate. But if he didn't correct me, then whatever was said stands as true, even if it's false!! I was merely going by what he himself said, and letting that define the probabilities. It's clear that he is not familiar with the procedures, so he'd PROBABLY look to the judge as a trustworthy, honest person who would tell him the truth. MOST people do. I'd hope that everyone reading this base would count themselves as being different than MOST PEOPLE, especially in how they might behave in a courtroom. In court, if you appear in a red shirt, and the prosecutor says "Your honor, this man appears here in a blue shirt", and you do not object timely, the record will show that you appeared in a blue shirt, even though the court reporter and everyone else could see with their own eyes that your shirt was red. ** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7 zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t aS51cz4= =WIMt -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----