**DONOTDELETE**
08-10-2001, 07:54 PM
Strange question, ever wondered?
Based on the fundamental philosophical premise that all answers to all questions are preexistent, then would that not obligate one to ask the right question, such as would disclose the preexistent right answer ?
Then, if one asks the wrong question, one will get the right answer,but that right answer will be the right answer to the wrong question. To ask the right question one needs valid and verifiable information.
I humbly present the following.
The United State - a singular corporation:
Notabily, I am again, and properly, referring to the "United States" as the "United State" because it is a singular corporate entity, as defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15), to wit:
28 USC Sec. 3002. Definitions
(15) "United States" means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency,department,
commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
[Emphasis added]
Some questions:
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can be a born in
a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can be a "citizen" of a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can owe allegiance to a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to who are the stockholders of the corporate United States ?
Dictionary definitions:
As to "citizen", the dictionaries provide as follows:
Bouvier Law Dictionary, and Concise Encyclopedia Third Revision,
(1914), page 490.
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
---------------------ooOoo-------------------
[Emphasis and ellipsis added]
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, copyright
1957, page 257, provides:
CITIZEN n. [ME. & Anglo-Fr. citizein, altered after denizen, etc.,(OFr. citeain (Fr. Citoyen)
<cite; see CITY; sense 3 influenced by use of Fr. citoyen during the French Revolution] --
1. formerly a native or inhabitant,especially a freeman or burgess, of a town or city; hence
2. loosely, a native, inhabitant, or denizen of any place.
3. a member of a state or nation, especially one with a republican form of government, who owes allegiance to it by birth or naturalization and is entitled to full civil rights; as, this British subject is now an American citizen:
abbreviated cit.
4. a civilian, as distinguished from a person in military service, a policeman, etc.
[Emphasis and ellipsis added]
On the basis that one is declared to be a "citizen" of the United State, and on the basis that a "citizen" owes allegiance to government by birth, then is a United State's "citizen" a partially or wholly
owned property belonging to the United State?
A digital question:
Does the United State own me ? Yes ? No ?
If yes: Is the United State in violation of the Thirteenth Article Amendment to its Constitution ?
AMENDMENT XIII (ratified December 6, 1865)
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If no: Do I own me ?
Notably: Under English Common-law someone claims to own each thing.
If I own me, do I also own my life, do I also own my mind, do I also own my time, and do I also own my body, and all that it includes?
On the basis of no actual United State claim, is not the sum of my life,mind,time, and body exclusively my own private property?
As my private property, if I were to exchange any portion my life, inclusive of my time, labor, intellectual property, productivity, or any other aspect of my life, with another, does the United State have any
demonstrably lawful interest in any such exchange ?
Is my resulting portion of such an exchange also my private property ?
Can I be deprived of my private property without due process of law ?
Can my private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ?
If the United State trespasses upon any aspect of my private property by making any claim upon my private property, in which it has no demonstrably lawful interest, is the United State in violation of the
Fifth Article Amendment to its Constitution ?
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[Emphasis added]
Notably: As set forth in Article I., Section 2. (Clause 3), as set forth in the bi-conditional Fourteenth Article of Amendment,and as reiterated in the Bouvier Law Dictionary (supra), the texts state:
" *** excluding Indians not taxed *** ".
Notably: The so-called "Indians" are not "citizens", they are not owned properties of the corporate United State, they do not
partake in any privileged electoral franchise, they are nonrepresented, and they cannot be taxed because taxation without representation would be imposed without their consent
On the basis that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency, department, or other entity of the corporate United State, presumedly acting under directions from its congressional board of directors, presumedly acting under its constitutional corporate charter, then any act of trespass made upon the non-citizen's private property, perpetrated by the Internal Revenue Service, is a direct assault by the United State.
Finally, on their consideration of this information perhaps the well-
intended people who wrote the "Remonstrance" document may choose to
become non-citizens, and thereby break the chains that bind them.
I believe the primary question to be presented to these congressional
bimbos in Washington D.C. is:
Does the United State own me ?
Ú-¿ Ú-¿
À-Ù Yes ? À-Ù No ?
Then thanking you for your evaluation of these concepts, I remain,
very truly yours,
Bill Medina.
Page 5/5
@10806AA.LTR -- A letter regarding the "Remonstrance" document
<EOF>_
images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif
Based on the fundamental philosophical premise that all answers to all questions are preexistent, then would that not obligate one to ask the right question, such as would disclose the preexistent right answer ?
Then, if one asks the wrong question, one will get the right answer,but that right answer will be the right answer to the wrong question. To ask the right question one needs valid and verifiable information.
I humbly present the following.
The United State - a singular corporation:
Notabily, I am again, and properly, referring to the "United States" as the "United State" because it is a singular corporate entity, as defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15), to wit:
28 USC Sec. 3002. Definitions
(15) "United States" means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency,department,
commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
[Emphasis added]
Some questions:
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can be a born in
a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can be a "citizen" of a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to how one can owe allegiance to a corporation ?
Does this definition raise the question as to who are the stockholders of the corporate United States ?
Dictionary definitions:
As to "citizen", the dictionaries provide as follows:
Bouvier Law Dictionary, and Concise Encyclopedia Third Revision,
(1914), page 490.
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
---------------------ooOoo-------------------
[Emphasis and ellipsis added]
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, copyright
1957, page 257, provides:
CITIZEN n. [ME. & Anglo-Fr. citizein, altered after denizen, etc.,(OFr. citeain (Fr. Citoyen)
<cite; see CITY; sense 3 influenced by use of Fr. citoyen during the French Revolution] --
1. formerly a native or inhabitant,especially a freeman or burgess, of a town or city; hence
2. loosely, a native, inhabitant, or denizen of any place.
3. a member of a state or nation, especially one with a republican form of government, who owes allegiance to it by birth or naturalization and is entitled to full civil rights; as, this British subject is now an American citizen:
abbreviated cit.
4. a civilian, as distinguished from a person in military service, a policeman, etc.
[Emphasis and ellipsis added]
On the basis that one is declared to be a "citizen" of the United State, and on the basis that a "citizen" owes allegiance to government by birth, then is a United State's "citizen" a partially or wholly
owned property belonging to the United State?
A digital question:
Does the United State own me ? Yes ? No ?
If yes: Is the United State in violation of the Thirteenth Article Amendment to its Constitution ?
AMENDMENT XIII (ratified December 6, 1865)
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If no: Do I own me ?
Notably: Under English Common-law someone claims to own each thing.
If I own me, do I also own my life, do I also own my mind, do I also own my time, and do I also own my body, and all that it includes?
On the basis of no actual United State claim, is not the sum of my life,mind,time, and body exclusively my own private property?
As my private property, if I were to exchange any portion my life, inclusive of my time, labor, intellectual property, productivity, or any other aspect of my life, with another, does the United State have any
demonstrably lawful interest in any such exchange ?
Is my resulting portion of such an exchange also my private property ?
Can I be deprived of my private property without due process of law ?
Can my private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ?
If the United State trespasses upon any aspect of my private property by making any claim upon my private property, in which it has no demonstrably lawful interest, is the United State in violation of the
Fifth Article Amendment to its Constitution ?
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[Emphasis added]
Notably: As set forth in Article I., Section 2. (Clause 3), as set forth in the bi-conditional Fourteenth Article of Amendment,and as reiterated in the Bouvier Law Dictionary (supra), the texts state:
" *** excluding Indians not taxed *** ".
Notably: The so-called "Indians" are not "citizens", they are not owned properties of the corporate United State, they do not
partake in any privileged electoral franchise, they are nonrepresented, and they cannot be taxed because taxation without representation would be imposed without their consent
On the basis that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency, department, or other entity of the corporate United State, presumedly acting under directions from its congressional board of directors, presumedly acting under its constitutional corporate charter, then any act of trespass made upon the non-citizen's private property, perpetrated by the Internal Revenue Service, is a direct assault by the United State.
Finally, on their consideration of this information perhaps the well-
intended people who wrote the "Remonstrance" document may choose to
become non-citizens, and thereby break the chains that bind them.
I believe the primary question to be presented to these congressional
bimbos in Washington D.C. is:
Does the United State own me ?
Ú-¿ Ú-¿
À-Ù Yes ? À-Ù No ?
Then thanking you for your evaluation of these concepts, I remain,
very truly yours,
Bill Medina.
Page 5/5
@10806AA.LTR -- A letter regarding the "Remonstrance" document
<EOF>_
images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif