May 31, 2020

The Buffalo Slaughter in YNP is WRONG

Why won’t the majority of the hunting community back up the Buffalo Field Campaign? Because of their Western Watersheds Propaganda. Because of their anti wolf management policies and dishonesty and because they’re in bed with anti hunting groups. And because their web site the Wildlife News has  become a bully pulpit for anti hunting advocates, and disinformationists. That at least is my personal reasons.  And you have various self appointed agents arguing and condemning others opinions on various news outlets when you at the Wildlife News don’t clean up your own house of fools posting ridiculous and redundant flaming untruths. Can Ida Lupine write you up a ten thousand dollar check? No I didn’t think so..

“Wolf policies in Idaho are deplorable. It’s all about maintain a high elk and deer population for the hunters. Horrible.”—Craig Hiler

So this guy prefers wolf farming over elk farming.. Ok got that.. And wolf farming using the Trophic Cascade doctrine of scarcity is best.. Ok, yeah we’ve been hearing you and we don’t like that idea so much..

This is an incorrect belief, easily disproven using science, mathematics, and historical documentation within the hunting regulations over a twenty years, book by book analysis.  And it gets a pass by people that know it is not accurate. But since it serves their agenda they let lies like this flourish.. At least they try it.. It’s not working. This claim would be laughed out of a court room.  Since management of the hunting model began in Idaho there has never been a reduction in hunting opportunity until seven years ago of the magnitude of loss we have seen in the elk hunting zones. IDFG used to sell 12,ooo+ elk tags for the Sawtooth Zone. around 2,ooo elk were harvested.

For several years now they have cut off unlimited elk tag opportunities in that zone and now sell a limited number on a first come first served basis. 1526 hunters have been harvesting 200-300 elk.  IDFG’s official reason for doing this, deservedly so because I live here and know the unit quite well, and the wintering ranges, the migratory routes, the reason, wolf predation on cow and calf elk. And Obviously on bulls as well. The trophy class bulls that always made it past the hunters and wintered where we could go see them did not make it past all of those wolves. Especially in the deep snow.  

The wolf slaughter we observed here first hand with our own eyeballs was real. The wolf experiment in Idaho proved without a doubt wolf density has limits.  We should thank people like Craig and Ida for showing the world, that being dead wrong and dishonest at the WLNs web site is their MO. They have no credibility.  Thank you Craig and Ida for helping us expose the WLNs propaganda.  The place has become the bully pulpit for liars and complete fools pushing an anti hunting agenda.

As a hunter who appreciates a full freezer I’d love to see elk and buffalo herds expanding their range because maintaining large herds of ungulates is a good thing for bears, cougars, wolves, wolverines, and me…

Hopefully someday the backwards thinking in YNP, government in general, and the Wildlife News will become a thing of the past.. A future where people realize division destroys everything. A future where the realization that selfishness in wanting it all your way is not going to work.  The all our way or the highway for you mentality of the Wildlife News has choked them out..

Share

Actor Based Reality – Corporate Drama Rules Over Truth

Share

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! REMEMBER THAT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO LAND.

These quotes below proves no one can own property, without fear of it being seized for any reason either by the State in control of the 50 estates or the owners the first and foremost the Vatican and the managers the king/queen of England and the Londinium Banking Cartel managed by the Rothschild’s family. They have owned the U.S. corporation since day one. The Founding Fathers merely succeeded in acquiring international diplomatic immunity thus became sovereigns in the pecking order of sovereigns. And they managed the corporate business for the Family, and for the family’s Posterity. The Club and you citizens were never in that Club. You’re British Subjects, American Colonial British subjects subservient of your owners. You do not own land, public nor private. You were granted mere use. Multiple use. Privileges. The sovereigns extending you those privileges can take them back whenever the want. And you cannot do anything about it.

“The cases of purchases of land by aliens and corporations, under the statutes of mortmain, are not in point. It is settled, that an alien or a corporation may, by purchase, take land, but cannot hold; and the doctrine is put on the ground, that if one by an executed conveyance, which is his own act, passes land to an alien, or corporation, he shall not have it back; but it shall belong to the sovereign, upon office found. It is otherwise in regard to the act of law. If the heir, of one dying seized of land, be an alien, the law will not cast the descent on him, because he cannot hold beneficially, and the law will not give with one hand and take away with the other, but will cast the descent upon the next relation who is capable of holding. For the same reason, an alien husband does not take as tenant by the curtesy, nor an alien wife take dower….

It is a well-settled rule of law in England, and in this State as well as in most, if not all, of the other States of the Union, that an alien may acquire lands by purchase, and may hold them against all persons except the King, or the State; but upon office found, the King in England, or the State in this country, may seize and have them. Co. Lit. 2; 1 Black. Com. 372. Different reasons have been given for the rule. Mr. Justice BLACKSTONE, on the page above cited, says that “if an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the King of England, which would probably be inconsistent with that which he owes to his own natural liege-lord; besides, that, thereby, the nation might in time be subject to foreign influence, and feel many other inconveniences. Wherefore, by the civil law, such contracts were also made void; but the prince had no such advantage of forfeiture thereby, as with us in England. Among other reasons which might be given for our constitution, it seems to be intended by way of punishment for the alien’s presumption in attempting to acquire any landed property.” One of the editors in his note (8) on this page remarks that “a political reason may be given for this, stronger than any here adduced. If aliens were admitted to purchase and hold lands in this country, it might at any time be in the power of a foreign State to raise a powerful party amongst us; for power is ever the concomitant of property.” He illustrates his position by referring to the course pursued by the Czarina of Russia to raise up a party and acquire an influence in Poland whereby she was enabled to dismember that devoted and unhappy Kingdom.

In the case of Governeur v. Roberston, 11 Wheat. Rep. 332, Mr. Justice JOHNSTON, in delivering the opinion of the Court, speaks of the rule as having been so long and so firmly established in the common law, that an enquiry into the foundation of it was a mere matter of antiquarian curiosity, and he then seems to approve what he had seen in an elementary writer, as the reason why the sovereign could not seize the lands until an office was found, to wit, “that every person is supposed a natural born subject, that is resident in the Kingdom, and that owes allegiance to the King, till the contrary be found by office.” There can be no doubt, then, of the rule of law, whatever may be the reason for it, that an alien may acquire by purchase, land or any other species of real estate, and may hold it against all persons except the King or State; and may hold even against the sovereign, until he may choose to have an office found, and process thereupon to have it seized into his hands. Among the modes of acquisition in England and in this State, is that by devise, or disposition contained in a man’s last will. Hence, in England, and perhaps in this State, an alien might take real property by devise, which would give him a good title to it, as against all persons but the sovereign….” TRUSTEES, DAVIDSON COLLEGE v. CHAMBERS’ EXECUTORS, 56 N.C. 253 (1857)

“….At common law, corporations generally have the legal capacity to take a title in fee to real property. They were prohibited in England by the statutes of mortmain, but these statutes have never been adopted in this State, so that the common-law right to take an estate in fee, incident to a corporation (at common law), is unlimited, except by its charter and by statute. But the authorities go to the extent that even when the right to acquire real property, is limited by the charter, and the corporation transcends its power in that respect, and for that reason is incompetent to take title to real estate, a conveyance to it is not void, but only the sovereign (here the State) can object. It is valid until assailed in a direct proceeding instituted by the sovereign for that purpose….” Leazern v. Hilegas, 7 Sargt., 313; Gonndie v. Northamton Water Co., 7 Pa. St., 233; National Bank v. Whiting, 103 U.S., 99; Angel & Ames on Corporations, Secs. 152-777; Runyon v. Coster, 14 Pet., 122; The Bank v. Poiteaux, 3 Rand (Va.), 136 Case is also cited in: MALLETT v. SIMPSON, 94 N.C. 37 (1886)and CROSS v. R. R., 172 N.C. 119 (1916).

Ok. Man wanted a King on earth. This what man kings playing gods do. The GOD above the firmament does not do this to you, you did this to you. Living HIS LAW you have land, managed how he wants you managing it. This bad idea of men as gods is ending. Your ascended masters took those Rights you all think you have and has done what is correct in their minds, or rectified. Rectum is to ask for a right. So if you ever wanna know where your rights are or where they placed them.

Because they made fools of you they deem you unworthy to own land.

That constitution belongs to that corporate governments owners. They will never change it. All we can do is change our relationship to it. A constitution is the obligation of a debt, a debt you cannot dispute according to the constitution itself and according to international law. The only remedy is tort, but you cannot claim the tort as a citizen. Therefore you must join a new “government” established for you in the New Testament Law and come out of the old. It would be more accurate to say, “get rid of yourself” and leave them alone. By new government, taking responsibility for your own actions, giving unto them Caesar what is Caesars and getting out of their chaos crimes and plagues as Yeshua advised. Come out of her, while living here in the world they have made up but not of Their world any longer.

 

Share

George Washington’s Division Of States Into Districts And Myths About His Loyalty

People that believe in patriotic myths need to read what George Washington actually declared, I did not declare it, I did not write it, so I do not have anything backwards. The myth believers have been taught the opposite of what he declared and acted on.

First of all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided.

How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8.

Secondly, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy.

Around and Around it goes.

Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850’s by the insular cases. This set the stage for Lincoln to begin the executive orders, and here we are.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.

Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers. You can download the whole general order 100, Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation;

“Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.”

{Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.}

“The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence, to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into “districts of the United States.” He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank, were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its money. This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the British Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution.”—INFORMER

George Washington’s loyalty

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’” Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:
Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states.

The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority. This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States.

THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY KING GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.

Thanks go to James Montgomery and the INFORMER. And including those of us who took the time out of our personal lives to verify these facts.

Share

How Sovereigns Control Their “Free” Slaves

How Sovereigns control their citizen subject serf slaves; And its constitutional.

The American Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction And Practice: With Practical Forms And Directions

Hardcover: 666 pages
Share

Oprah Busted In Crisis Social Engineering Drama

Share

Are You A Paytridiot? Then You’d Better Listen Up

Share

Weaponized Television Crisis Social Engineering

Share

Social Insecurity Welfare Recipients Classified

When is a Social Security Number not a Social Security Number AND
Will the real Beneficiary please stand up

Two questions arise when looking at the IRS administration Code of Federal Regulations (CFR’s,) which is the title to this article. I start with the IRS code and bold the statement that generates questions..

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 17]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 26CFR301.7701-11]

[Page 604]

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE

CHAPTER I–INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY– (Continued)

Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title

Sec. 301.7701-11 Social security number.
For purposes of this chapter, the term social security number means
the taxpayer identifying number of an individual or estate which is
assigned pursuant to section 6011(b) or corresponding provisions of
prior law, or pursuant to section 6109, and in which nine digits are separated by hyphens as follows: 000-00-0000. Such term does not include a number with a letter as a suffix which is used to identify an
auxiliary beneficiary under the social security program. The terms “account number” and “social security number” refer to the same
number.

[T.D. 7306, 39 FR 9947, Mar. 15, 1974] *

Please note that the TERM “Social Security Number” does NOT include a number that has a letter after it, such as an “A”. So a number 123-45-678 is a Social Security number, but 123-45-678 A is not a Social Security number. All Retired people have this letter after their number. Therefore they, by the law above, do not and cannot not use that number and claim it is a Social Security Number. Under the Law as provided, by the regulations, one cannot be asked to supply a Social Security number when he has a letter after the number.

Now the second part is this “auxiliary beneficiary”. I was under the impression that I would be a beneficiary under this program. Every one argues that it is this “beneficiary status” that makes one a “taxpayer.” Apparently, by the very regulation above you are not a beneficiary, only an auxiliary beneficiary. So let us look at some definitions first to put this on a good foundation.

Webster’s 7th Ed. Collegiate Dictionary 1970
Beneficiary= n. one who receives something: as 1.a: the person designated to receive the income of a trust estate b: the person named (as in an insurance policy) to receive proceeds or benefits accruing.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd Ed
Beneficiary= A person who receives a benefit or advantage. Cite ommited A person receiving or entitled to receive a gift, a devise, or legacy: a cestui que trust: a person who is entitled to receive or who is receiving profit, benefit, or advantage from;

When is a Social Security Number not a Social Security Number a contract or from an estate.

We all know from US Supreme Court decisions of Fleming v Nestor, Stewart Machine Co.v Davis, and Helvering v Davis in the 1930’s and the Congressional Hearings in 1953 on SS, that SS is not insurance; no one has no vested rights in SS; there is no “account” as all the money goes into the general treasury; IRS considers SS payments a GIFT; SS is a direct “special income tax on employees” and the tax on employers is a “excise tax” and the “two taxes are totally separate,”; “SS is not an accrued property right,”; “employees have no contractual interest in SS” and that “Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow.”

So the definitions in the two books given above cannot fit the SS beneficiary but for one aspect-The GIFT. Congress appropriates annually from the general treasury and NOT from a special “account”, SS payments and as the Courts and Congressional Hearings stated, this can be stopped when ever Congress decides it has no money in the General Treasury to make these annual SS payments.

But before you jump to conclusions you forgot about the “auxiliary beneficiary” is NOT the beneficiary. So lets us look at what the term “auxiliary” means.

Webster’s
Auxiliary= n. 1 a: an auxiliary person, group or device; b: a Roman Catholic titular bishop assisting a diocesan bishop and not having a right of succession 2: an auxiliary boat or ship.

Auxiliary= a. 1a: offering or providing help b: functioning in a subsidiary capacity. 3a: SUPPLEMENTARY. (Dictionary emphasis)

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary
Auxiliary= Collateral; incidental; conducive; assisting. See ancillary Ancillary= Subordinate

So this “auxiliary beneficiary” is subordinate to the beneficiary. The CFR did say auxiliary and did not use the bare term beneficiary. Did you ever hear the term used in the fire house or the VFW when referring to the auxiliary? The ladies auxiliary? They are not the firemen nor the vets but are subordinate to them correct? So they assist the firemen and the vets.

We have one other definition for auxiliary and that is Black’s Law 5th Ed
Auxiliary= Aiding; attendant on; ancillary (qv); as, an auxiliary bill in equity, an auxiliary receiver. Synonymous with “subsidiary”.
Subsidiary=Under another’s control. Term is often short for “subsidiary corporation”; i.e. one that is run and owned by another company which is called a “parent.” Of secondary importance.

Just on this basis alone, with what we have to go by, the facts show that the recipients are only the auxiliary of the true beneficiary. Why not say just beneficiary? Now who might that be? Could it be the Congress that took all your contributions and used them as they saw fit when your contributions all went into the General Treasury so they could do what they wanted? Could you, who collect SS, be getting the bone minus the meat so to speak? Much like the auxiliary of the Vet or Firemen get a small portion of the total donations and the firemen get to use the majority for equipment? You all must know that “contributions” are really forced exactions of a “special income tax” that you paid all these years, which is over and above the regular income tax illegally collected. Strangely there is not one definition in the entire Title 42 on this term “auxiliary beneficiary” that I can find using a word search and neither in the CFR sections for 42 USC. There is one other CFR that the term Auxiliary beneficiary appears and that is in Housing and Urban Development.

24 CFR 5.214 (4) Social Security Number (SSN) means the nine-digit number that is assigned to a person by the Social Security Administration and that identifies the record of the person’s earnings reported to the Social Security Administration. The term does not include a number with a letter as a suffix that is used to identify an auxiliary beneficiary.
SSA means the Social Security Administration.

Being the SS payments are really a gift from the true beneficiary, one would not expect to get any more than what Congress decides to appropriate each year on this Ponzi scheme. After all you are “of secondary importance” to the real beneficiary who has used your money taken to further the beneficiaries goals, hence you are referred as the “auxiliary beneficiary” in 26 CFR 7701 (11). Legally we cannot be called a beneficiary if none of the contracts exist; no insurance plan is in effect; there is no trust fund whatsoever as stated in the Supreme Court cases and the Congressional Hearings of 1953 and as just recently confirmed by Treasury Secretary O’Neill in the Freedom Foundation article

When is a Social Security Number not a Social Security Number

The Social Security Fraud
by Sheldon Richman, September 2001

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people recently simply by telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It’s empty.

O’Neill is right. The Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no “there” there. It doesn’t exist.

With that in mind and the fact it is a gift from Congress you can now see why the use of the term “Auxiliary beneficiary.” So when people on SS are asked for a SS # they legally can say they have none. I wonder what all these agencies would say when they get the answer like,

“I have no Social Security Number by law and look to 26 CFR 301.7701 (11). Now if you persist then I have the right to report you to the government for harassment and a violation of the law demanding something I do not have.”
So that is what the “A” stands for after the number, “Auxiliary.” So before the “A” or letter was added you could call it the Social Slave Number that the beneficiaries (Congress) uses the funds collected and then give you a “gift” for the use of it and can disband it anytime they want and you have no say whatsoever as an “Auxiliary Beneficiary who is of “secondary importance.”

* Note The above 26 CFR 7701 (11) was amended to read as it does now by the Federal Register
Vol. 39, No. 52 March 14, 1974. Also it states at 301.6109 (g) “Nonresident alien exclusion. This section shall not apply to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, foreign partnerships, or foreign private foundations that do not have income effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States and do not have an office or place of business or fiscal or paying agent in the United States.”

This is but another proof that in my Book Which One Are You , published in 1990 I was right on point that we are nonresident aliens BY TERMS of legal art and therefore, are excluded from obtaining a SS # and becoming an income tax payer. When reading the Federal Register one can plainly see that the United States is not the 50 states in Union, therefore, all corporations created in the states are foreign to the United States and do not fall under the “domestic” corporation term of art that corporations believe to be them. And, people in these states who are NOT US citizens are therefore , BY TERMS OF ART, nonresident aliens never subject to income tax or wage tax UNLESS they are having a source of income effectively connected to the business or trade of the United States. Of course you have to realize that the United States is that area inhabited by criminals called Congress and as espoused by the US supreme court in the John Barron case 7 Peters 243, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were for the people of the United States and not for the people in the States in Union. Therefore, all United States laws pertain only to that area owned and controlled by Congress, AKA United States, and cannot pertain to the states or the people not US citizens within the several states.

Sincerely The Informer

Share

The Fake News Exposed

Share