rick, you got to get that the reason i acted the way i did in that last
message, is because you came on my post saying i need to look into someone
elses work, while not recognizing im handing out a swiss army knife. im
humble and have no problem learning new things, but if you have paid
attention to my posts you would see quick im not in need of help and i know
what im saying/doing, the courts know too. you can say a p.a.g is a grey
hat, because again you can use it for either statutory or common law (42
usc 1988), and they cannot deprive you of a constitutional guarantee (art 4
sec 4) [state citizenship is a vested substantial property right which
cannot be divested or impaired by the government favot v kingsbury, justice
thomas dissenting: The Constitution limited but did not abolish the
sovereign powers of the States, which retained `a residuary and inviolable
sovereignty.' The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Thus,
both the Federal Government and the States wield sovereign powers, and that
is why our system of government is said to be one of `dual sovereignty.'
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 [111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410]
(1991)." Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___, ___,
138 S.Ct. 1461, 1475, 200 L.Ed.2d 854 (2018). ...But there is a difference
between the whole and a single part, and that difference underlies
decisions as foundational to our legal system as McCulloch v. Maryland, 4
Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). There, in terms so directly relevant as to
seem presciently tailored to answer this very objection, Chief Justice
Marshall distinguished precisely between "the people of a State" and "[t]he
people of all the States," id., at 428, 435; between the "sovereignty which
the people of a single state possess". gamble v us (2019)] and do so with
the blessing of congress:
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted April 9,
1866, (and sometimes referred to as The Private Attorney General Act), 39th
Congress, Session 1, Ch 31 (1866), CHAP. XXXL, (Formally titled): An Act to
“Protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and
Furnish the Means of their Vindication,” April 9, 1866; Public Law 104-317,
Oct 19, 1996, 110 Stat 3853; 93 stat 1284; Public Law 96-170, 96th
Congress, Dec 9th 1979.4 (42 usc 1983 ANY person causing deprivation of
rights under COLOR OF LAW. if theyre talkin to you, 9 times out of 10 they
violated that statute assuming youre under their jurisdiction which is a
unconstitutional presumption, when they most likely had no business even
saying hi to you, even more so if they were in a cop car and/or have the
emergency lights on.)
Separate opinion of Justice McREYNOLDS (Supreme Court of the United
States): In Texas v. White (1869) 7 Wall. 700, 725, a cause of momentous
importance, this Court, through Chief Justice Chase, declared-- 'But the
perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss
of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by
the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and
right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the
Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still,
all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we
have already had occasion to remark at this term, that 'the people of each
State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the
functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that
'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the
United States.' (Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71). Not only, therefore,
can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States,
through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably
said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their
governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as
the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National
Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an
indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' STEWARD MACH CO.
v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548
federal rules of civil procedure rule 17(a)(2) [notice i didnt put rule
17(a)(1)(G) next to 17(a)(2) this time].
Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973): I]t is the manner of
enforcement which gives § 1983 its unique importance, *for enforcement is
placed in the hands of the people. Each citizen ‘ acts as a private
attorney general who ‘ takes on the mantel of the sovereign,’ ' guarding
for all of us the individual liberties enunciated in the Constitution*.
Section 1983 represents a balancing feature in our governmental structure
whereby individual citizens are encouraged to police those who are charged
with policing us all. Thus, it is of special import that suits brought
under this statute be resolved by a determination of the truth rather than
by a determination that the truth shall remain hidden.
GIBSON, Chief Justice (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania) opinion of the Court:
"Every highway, toll or free, is licensed, constructed, and regulated by
the immediate or delegated action of the sovereign power, and in every
commonwealth the people in the aggregate constitute the sovereign. But it
is the prerogative of a sovereign to be exempt from coercion by action, for
jurisdiction implies sovereignty, and a sovereign can have no superior.".
O'Connor v. Pittsburgh, 18 Pa. 187 (1851). (Same in 42 Pa.C.C. 579 (1914)).
Justice GINSBURG, dissenting: In the system established by the Federal
Constitution, however, "ultimate sovereignty" resides in the [so called]
"governed". Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting
Comm'n, 576 U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2675, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015);
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324-325, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Braun,
supra, at 26-30. *Insofar as a crime offends the "peace and dignity" of a
sovereign, Lanza, 260 U.S. at 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, that "sovereign" is the
people, the "original fountain of all legitimate authority," The Federalist
No. 22, at 152 (A. Hamilton)*; see Note, Double Prosecution by State and
Federal Governments: Another *1991 Exercise in Federalism, 80 Harv. L. Rev.
1538, 1542 (1967). gamble v us (2019).
Judge Frank analogized this citizen suit to a *qui tam action. *Id. at
704-705 discussing U.S. ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1942)); and
also Colorado Radio Corp. v. F.C.C., 118 F.2d 24, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
(Edgerton, J.,concurring).
The plaintiff holds the position as a private Attorney General, under the
1866 Vindication and Civil Rights of the 39th Congress. This Congressional
Act gives the Plaintiff the authority to step in, when the states fail or
the government fails to uphold and protect the rights of the citizens. It
allows the plaintiff to act as a prosecutor, and enable him to bring
charges on those who hold public office and hold them accountable for their
misdeeds and misconduct, in breach of their trustee duties as fiduciaries;
as is written in the Lieber Code, Under General Orders No. 100. This
includes insurrection and rebellion, and misuses of their/that public
office in order to abuse and to incite riot among the peaceful inhabitants,
as well as endanger the lives and health of United States Citizens.
Justice KENNEDY (Supreme Court of the United States) delivered the opinion
of the Court: Although the Constitution begins with the principle that
sovereignty rests with the people, it does not follow that the National
Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for expressing the
people's will. ALDEN v. MAINE, 527 U.S. 706
rick and don, you can go into that building but make the courtroom the
venue you want it to be, just as you can *edit a contract before you sign
it. * ideas are not only bullet proof, they dont die unless all who hold
that idea are dead too.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 12:34 AM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And your request was not?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:13 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oh i see now its black mail. I get it.. well thanks ill just skip that
part then. Some of us make a living doing this you know.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:17 PM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You can go back and listen to Cary's jurisdiction calls. The
information is there. Seems like I asked you about a change of status
document and you did not want to share unless you got $100.00. Doesn't
seem quite fair to share w/out a gift. Maybe we could exchange ideas
without any requests for $$$.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:13 AM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
and what was carys' response.. the one you sent it would be nice..
*letter? word for word :-) Thanks.. It would be a great learning too for
us :-)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:08 PM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This was my response to a Letter 3219 (SC/CG) dated 12-15-2020 from
our lovely friends at the IRS of course saying they wanted $$$:
The purpose of this letter is to give notice of non-acceptance and to
decline your offer of contract dated December 15, 2020, due to lack of
jurisdiction. Denise D Davis, you have thirty days (30) to prove
that you have jurisdiction to even contact us let alone try to assess a
tax
against us since we are not within your territory.
You, Denise D Davis, are responsible for all the property you are
unlawfully attempting to demand through fraud if you cannot prove
jurisdiction. The Constitution for the United States of America at
Article 1; Section 8; Clause 17 limits the jurisdiction of the United
States to the ten miles square of the District and other needful buildings
and places lawfully ceded by the state legislatures.
Denise D Davis, please provide the evidence the COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE relies on to show the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is not in
violation of Article 1; Section 8; Clause 17. Denise D Davis are you
are attempting to commit treason by attempting to invoke your authority
outside of your jurisdiction as per The Constitution for the United States
of America at Article 3; Section 3?
Signed
They just rolled on w/their typical next letter, ignoring this issue
entirely. I used one of Cary's responses in late July and have not heard
anything from them since then.
How would you have responded to their letter? I thank you for your
input. If I did not present the issue properly you can just correct me
Charley. I am certainly not above learning a better way to express the
1817 jurisdiction issue.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:27 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You used it with IRS? Tell me what you did too see if you follow my
directions
On Nov 18, 2021, 10:16 AM -0700, Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
You keep commenting like you are winning cases in "their" court
constantly and consistently. You have shown some success w/your1817
concept w/traffic tickets but are you getting anywhere in your court in
their court? I tried the 1817 w/the IRS and they just ignored it, like
everything else. You could disagree w/out being quite so insulting, but
I
think you are just trying to hide your lack of real success in your court
in their court.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:29 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
LMAO
That is because you think going to that court building is in their
court.
On Nov 18, 2021, 9:00 AM -0700, Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
Well if for some reason you have to use their administrative
tribunal courts as Charley does, then you are subject to their rules.
If
you don't want to use "their" courts, which only deal w/fictions, then
their rules do not apply. It is my intent to stay the hell out of their
courts if at all possible.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:15 AM veritas ghost <
guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rick, no disrespect but lol.
charley gets it
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:55 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Do the federal rules of procedure, whether criminal or civil apply
to people or just to the vessels created by the U.S. Inc.?
The question lacks understanding of what does sovereignty mean? Or
self governance?
Article 1;8;17
Article 1;1
On Nov 17, 2021, 11:58 -0700,
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
Do the federal rules of procedure, whether criminal or civil apply
to people or just to the vessels created by the U.S. Inc.?
