Sentenced To Nearly 3 Years In Prison For Threatening Poem

[osoab]

Johnny Logan Spencer Sentenced To Nearly 3 Years In Prison For Threatening Obama In Poem (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/johnny-logan-spencer-obama-threat_n_792894.html)


LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky man who acknowledged threatening President Barack Obama in a poem has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison.

Johnny Logan Spencer apologized for writing the poem, which described a fatal sniper shooting of the president.

The 28-year-old said in federal court in Louisville on Monday that he was upset over his mother's death and had fallen in with a white supremacist group that had helped him kick a drug habit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. called Spencer's writing of the poem an extremely dangerous thing. Spencer will be on supervised release for three years after he completes the 33-month sentence.

The poem, titled "The Sniper," was posted on a website in 2007 and again in 2009 after Obama took office.

How in the hell is writing a poem an extremely dangerous thing? Paper cuts?

I guess Tom Clancy may need to get a new job. Can't even write fiction.

I don't agree with the poem, but free speech is truly dead.


"THE SNIPER"

"As the tyrant enters his cross hairs the breath he takes is deep
His focus is square on the target as he begins to release
A patriot for his people he knows this shot will cost his life
But for his race and their existence it is a small sacrifice
The bullet that he has chambered is one of the purest pride
And the inspiration on the casing reads DIE negro DIE
He breathes out as he pulls the trigger releasing all his hate
And a smile appears upon his face as he seals that monkey's fate.

The bullet screams toward its mark bringing with it death
And where there was once a face there is nothing left
Two blood covered agents stare in horror and dismay
Looking down toward the ground where their president now lay
Now the screams of one old negro broad pierces thru the air
Setting off panic from every eyewitness that was there
And among all the confusion the hero calmly slips away
Laughing for he knows there will be another negro holiday

By Johnny Spencer

edit to change title

[General of Darkness]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.

[Dogman]

One thing that has never changed to my knowledge is one does not threaten the life of the president or others, They (Gov) takes something like that seriously.

Also in these days it is always good to think twice before one speaks, on some subjects, in public. Some topics
are best said in private. Not sure how this holds now, But in the military one of the first things that is drummed
into us was, one does not threaten or slander, But it is alright to have an opinion.

Instead of saying "you are a piece of shit", you say "In my opinion you are a piece of shit", It made a difference
in the military.

Not sure about death threats, if there is a way to make one and not have a ton of law on your ass, and you are
not liable.(sp?)

Just saying

[osoab]

One thing that has never changed to my knowledge is one does not threaten the life of the president or others, They (Gov) takes something like that seriously.

Also in these days it is always good to think twice before one speaks, on some subjects, in public. Some topics
are best said in private. Not sure how this holds now, But in the military one of the first things that is drummed
into us was, one does not threaten or slander, But it is alright to have an opinion.

Instead of saying "you are a piece of sh*t", you say "In my opinion you are a piece of sh*t", It made a difference
in the military.

Not sure about death threats, if there is a way to make one and not have a ton of law on your ass, and you are
not liable.(sp?)

Just saying

1st published in 2007.

[Gaillo]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

[palani]

In merry Ole England one method of treason was envisioning the death of the monarch. Bet you thought we won that war.

[osoab]

In merry Ole England one method of treason was envisioning the death of the monarch. Bet you thought we won that war.


Is that the first written law dealing with "thought crime"?

[palani]

Is that the first written law dealing with "thought crime"?

Not hardly.


the tyrant Dionyfius is recorded to have executed a fubject, barely for dreaming that he had killed him; which was held for a fufficient proof, that he had thought thereof in his waking hours.

Surprisingly Blackstone reports that this rule is intended as much for a usurper as a de jure monarch.


1. “WHEN a man doth compafs or imagine the death of our “lord the king, of our lady his queen, or of their eldeft fon “and heir.” Under this defcription it is held that a queen regnant (fuch as queen Elizabeth and queen Anne) is within the words of the act, being invefted with royal power and entitled to the allegiance of her fubjects i: but the hufband of fuch a

.{FS}
e 1 Hal. P. C. 80.
f Britt. c. 22. 1 Hawk. P. C. 34.
g Qui de nece virorum illuftrium, qui confiliis et confiftorio noftro interfunt, fenatorum etiam (nam et ipfi pars corporis noftri funt) vel cujuflibet poftremo, qui militat nobifcum, cogitaverit: (eadem enim feveritate voluntatem fceleris, qua effectum, puniri jura voluerunt) ipfe qquidem, utpote majeftatis reus, gladiio feriatur, bonis ejus omnibus fifeo noftro addictis. (Cod. 9. 8. 5.)
h Gravin. Orig. 1. §. 34.
I 1 Hal. P. C. 101.
.{FE}
queen
.P 77
PUBLIC WRONGS.
Book IV.
Ch. 6.
queen is not comprized within thefe words, and therefore no treafon can be committed againft him k. The king here intended is the king in poffeffion, without any refpect to his title: for it is held, that a king de facto and not de jure, or in other words an ufurper that hath got poffeffion of the throne, is a king within the meaning of the ftatute; as there is a temporary allegiance due to him, for his adminiftration of the government, and temporary protection of the public: and therefore treafons committed againft Henry VI were punifhed under Edward IV, though all the line of Lancafter had been previoufly declared ufurpers by act of parliament. But the moft rightful heir of the crown, or king de jure and not de facto, who hath never had plenary poffeffion of the throne, as was the cafe of the houfe of York during the three reigns of the line of Lancafter, is not a king within this ftatute, againft whom treafons may be committed l. And a very fenfible writer on the crown-law carries the point of poffeffion fo far, that he holds m, that a king out of poffeffion is fo far from having any right to our allegiance, by any other title which he may fet up againft the king in being, that we are bound by the duty of our allegiance to refift him. A doctrine which he grounds upon the ftatute 11 Hen. VII. c. 1. which is declaratory of the common law, and pronounces all fubjects excufed from any penalty or forfeiture, which do affift and obey a king de facto. But, in truth, this feems to be confounding all notions of right and wrong; and the confequence would be, that when Cromwell had murdered the elder Charles, and ufurped the power (though not the name) of king, the people were bound in duty to hinder the fon's reftoration: and were the king of Poland or Morocco to invade this kingdom, and by any means to get poffeffion of the crown (a term, by the way, of very loofe and indiftinct fignification) the fubject would be bound the his allegiance to fight for his natural prince to-day, and by the fame duty of allegiance to fight againft him to-morrow. The true diftinction feems to be,

.{FS}
k 3 Inft. 7. 1 Hal. P. C. 106.
l 3 Inft. 7. 1 Hal. P. C. 104.
l 1 Hawk. P. C. 36.
.{FE}
that
.P 78
PUBLIC WRONGS.
Book IV.
Ch. 6.
that the ftatute of Henry the feventh does by no means command any oppofition to a king de jure; but excufes the obedience paid to a king de facto. When therefore a ufurper is in poffeffion, the fubject is excufed and juftified in obeying and giving him affiftance: otherwife, under a ufurpation, no man could be fafe; if the lawful prince had a right to hang him for obedience to the powers in being, as the ufurper would certainly do for difobedience. Nay farther, as the mafs of people are imperfect judges of title, of which in all cafes poffeffion is prima facie evidence, the law compels no man to yield obedience to that prince, whofe right is by want of poffeffion rendered uncertain and difputable, till providence fhall think fit to interpofe in his favour, and decide the ambiguous claim: and therefore, till he is entitled to fuch allegiance by poffeffion, no treafon can be committed againft him. Laftly, a king who has refigned his crown, fuch refignation being admitted and ratified in parliament, is according to fir Matthew Hale no longer the object of treafon.

[7th trump]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

No, the Bill of Rights did not die on that day. The Bill of Rights are in place and there if you decide to stop consenting to the government.
"US citizens" have always been subject to the federal government. Hence why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Gaillo. All states had to make provisions to their individual state Constitutions to make way for a second class citizen called a "US citizen" in 1868.
No, the common law is not set aside. However, the US citizen cannot access the common law as they volunteered themselves into the Civil Law. Under the common law The People are king. Under Civil law the People are not king as they consent to getting benefits from the US government as in Social Security.
You are only 99.9% correct. Its that .1% makes the 99.9% all a lie.
You dont even know or understand what a "US citizen" is Gaillo and its obvious.

[Gaillo]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

No, the Bill of Rights did not die on that day. The Bill of Rights are in place and there if you decide to stop consenting to the government.
"US citizens" have always been subject to the federal government. Hence why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Gaillo. All states had to make provisions to their individual state Constitutions to make way for a second class citizen called a "US citizen" in 1868.
No, the common law is not set aside. However, the US citizen cannot access the common law as they volunteered themselves into the Civil Law. Under the common law The People are king. Under Civil law the People are not king as they consent to getting benefits from the US government as in Social Security.
You are only 99.9% correct. Its that .1% makes the 99.9% all a lie.
You dont even know or understand what a "US citizen" is Gaillo and its obvious.


Oh, I think I actually do.
You say the common law is still in effect? SHOW ME THE REMEDY.
I've heard all the patriot BS about this for more years than I can count, yet I've NEVER seen anyone ACTUALLY prevail and win out against the corporation.
Your turn... WHAT IS THE REMEDY, and WHO do you know who has successfully used it?


P.S. WHY do you think I put quotes around U.S. Citizen in my OP?

[osoab]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

No, the Bill of Rights did not die on that day. The Bill of Rights are in place and there if you decide to stop consenting to the government.
"US citizens" have always been subject to the federal government. Hence why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Gaillo. All states had to make provisions to their individual state Constitutions to make way for a second class citizen called a "US citizen" in 1868.
No, the common law is not set aside. However, the US citizen cannot access the common law as they volunteered themselves into the Civil Law. Under the common law The People are king. Under Civil law the People are not king as they consent to getting benefits from the US government as in Social Security.
You are only 99.9% correct. Its that .1% makes the 99.9% all a lie.
You dont even know or understand what a "US citizen" is Gaillo and its obvious.


I think Gaillo can defend himself, but I do believe he knows what he is talking about.

The general public, Joe and Jane six pack, have no understanding of common law and admiralty law.
So that would make it one of the key dates to the death of free speech.
14th amendment also comes to mind.
Or Lincoln's Martial Law declaration.

[7th trump]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

No, the Bill of Rights did not die on that day. The Bill of Rights are in place and there if you decide to stop consenting to the government.
"US citizens" have always been subject to the federal government. Hence why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Gaillo. All states had to make provisions to their individual state Constitutions to make way for a second class citizen called a "US citizen" in 1868.
No, the common law is not set aside. However, the US citizen cannot access the common law as they volunteered themselves into the Civil Law. Under the common law The People are king. Under Civil law the People are not king as they consent to getting benefits from the US government as in Social Security.
You are only 99.9% correct. Its that .1% makes the 99.9% all a lie.
You dont even know or understand what a "US citizen" is Gaillo and its obvious.


Oh, I think I actually do.
You say the common law is still in effect? SHOW ME THE REMEDY.
I've heard all the patriot BS about this for more years than I can count, yet I've NEVER seen anyone ACTUALLY prevail and win out against the corporation.
Your turn... WHAT IS THE REMEDY, and WHO do you know who has successfully used it?


P.S. WHY do you think I put quotes around U.S. Citizen in my OP?

One of our very own members used it and was released from incarseration of not paying child support. He basically addressed the court that he renounced his federal citizenship for being the People.
I know you do not know what you are speaking about because you think the Bill of Rights are gone.
Anybody who's been around for years as you say knows that isnt true.
I've posted many times the Senate interpretation of the Constitution which outlines which Bill of Rights are fundamental between the People and "US citizens". This Senate document came out right along the lines of 1871.
Also that Act establishing the Dc government was repealed a few short years after it was enacted. Doesnt mean that "US citizens" are still not subjects to Congress though.

[7th trump]

Anyone know the date that freedom of speech died? I'd like to mark that down on my calendar.


General, in that case mark down Feb. 21, 1871 on your calendar. On that date, the 41st Congress passes "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia" - creating the 2nd government of the United States, a corporate entity that superscedes the previous Consititution for the United States of America. All protections of the Bill of Rights were destroyed that day - as common law was set aside and "U.S. Citizens" were subjected to the new corporate United States "government" and commercial code (Maritime Admiralty Law) jurisdiction.

No, the Bill of Rights did not die on that day. The Bill of Rights are in place and there if you decide to stop consenting to the government.
"US citizens" have always been subject to the federal government. Hence why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Gaillo. All states had to make provisions to their individual state Constitutions to make way for a second class citizen called a "US citizen" in 1868.
No, the common law is not set aside. However, the US citizen cannot access the common law as they volunteered themselves into the Civil Law. Under the common law The People are king. Under Civil law the People are not king as they consent to getting benefits from the US government as in Social Security.
You are only 99.9% correct. Its that .1% makes the 99.9% all a lie.
You dont even know or understand what a "US citizen" is Gaillo and its obvious.


I think Gaillo can defend himself, but I do believe he knows what he is talking about.

The general public, Joe and Jane six pack, have no understanding of common law and admiralty law.
So that would make it one of the key dates to the death of free speech.
14th amendment also comes to mind.
Or Lincoln's Martial Law declaration.

You cannot defend misinformation.
Lincoln's martial law didnt turn everyone into "US citizen".
You have to consent to being a US citizen by signiture of penalty of perjury.
You do that via the SS5 form to get government benefits.
Hoe many times have you've heard it here on this site that you waive freedoms by wanting something from the government.
When are any of you going to actually think about it and apply it and stop play acting.

[Gaillo]

Your turn... WHAT IS THE REMEDY, and WHO do you know who has successfully used it?

P.S. WHY do you think I put quotes around U.S. Citizen in my OP?


One of our very own members used it and was released from incarseration of not paying child support. He basically addressed the court that he renounced his federal citizenship for being the People.
I know you do not know what you are speaking about because you think the Bill of Rights are gone.
Anybody who's been around for years as you say knows that isnt true.
I've posted many times the Senate interpretation of the Constitution which outlines which Bill of Rights are fundamental between the People and "US citizens". This Senate document came out right along the lines of 1871.
Also that Act establishing the Dc government was repealed a few short years after it was enacted. Doesnt mean that "US citizens" are still not subjects to Congress though.


I think we're arguing semantics here.
I'm not saying the bill of rights is 100% gone, I'm saying that it's been superseded by corporate code under the UCC (Maritime Admiralty Law) FOR U.S. Citizens.. Now, until someone can show me ACTUAL CASE LAW where a Natural Person was successful in disgarding his/her U.S. Citizen status and strawman, placing him/herself under Common Law jurisdiction, I will continue to assert that for all PRACTICAL purposes, the bill of rights is gone.

Again, I ask you... WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

P.S. I remember the child support case you are talking about, I was NOT convinced it is an example of what I'm talking about.

[7th trump]

Your turn... WHAT IS THE REMEDY, and WHO do you know who has successfully used it?

P.S. WHY do you think I put quotes around U.S. Citizen in my OP?


One of our very own members used it and was released from incarseration of not paying child support. He basically addressed the court that he renounced his federal citizenship for being the People.
I know you do not know what you are speaking about because you think the Bill of Rights are gone.
Anybody who's been around for years as you say knows that isnt true.
I've posted many times the Senate interpretation of the Constitution which outlines which Bill of Rights are fundamental between the People and "US citizens". This Senate document came out right along the lines of 1871.
Also that Act establishing the Dc government was repealed a few short years after it was enacted. Doesnt mean that "US citizens" are still not subjects to Congress though.


I think we're arguing semantics here.
I'm not saying the bill of rights is 100% gone, I'm saying that it's been superseded by corporate code under the UCC (Maritime Admiralty Law) FOR U.S. Citizens.. Now, until someone can show me ACTUAL CASE LAW where a Natural Person was successful in disgarding his/her U.S. Citizen status and strawman, placing him/herself under Common Law jurisdiction, I will continue to assert that for all PRACTICAL purposes, the bill of rights is gone.

Again, I ask you... WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

P.S. I remember the child support case you are talking about, I was NOT convinced it is an example of what I'm talking about.

You are calling yourself a liar Gaillo. First you say there not 100% gone then at the end you say they are gone. As much as you want to think you understand, you dont, and you cannot have this both ways.
See, you cannot defend misinformation as its impossible for a lie to stand as truth.
And the remedy is you, AND ONLY YOU, can go after your remedy. That remedy is YOU asserting your Rights.
Think about it Gaillo. If you go to court you are under their jurisdiction not your jurisdiction....................therefore you wont find any case law.
Like I said earlier, you understand very little. You will never see a case where the People had to go to court to assert what the Constitution protects against the government from doing.
Why do you think they released our GSUS member from jail? For the same reasons. The court had no standing in law to keep him in jail nor have standing in affairs they have no jurisdiction to render an outcome.

[osoab]

Your turn... WHAT IS THE REMEDY, and WHO do you know who has successfully used it?

P.S. WHY do you think I put quotes around U.S. Citizen in my OP?


One of our very own members used it and was released from incarseration of not paying child support. He basically addressed the court that he renounced his federal citizenship for being the People.
I know you do not know what you are speaking about because you think the Bill of Rights are gone.
Anybody who's been around for years as you say knows that isnt true.
I've posted many times the Senate interpretation of the Constitution which outlines which Bill of Rights are fundamental between the People and "US citizens". This Senate document came out right along the lines of 1871.
Also that Act establishing the Dc government was repealed a few short years after it was enacted. Doesnt mean that "US citizens" are still not subjects to Congress though.


I think we're arguing semantics here.
I'm not saying the bill of rights is 100% gone, I'm saying that it's been superseded by corporate code under the UCC (Maritime Admiralty Law) FOR U.S. Citizens.. Now, until someone can show me ACTUAL CASE LAW where a Natural Person was successful in disgarding his/her U.S. Citizen status and strawman, placing him/herself under Common Law jurisdiction, I will continue to assert that for all PRACTICAL purposes, the bill of rights is gone.

Again, I ask you... WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

P.S. I remember the child support case you are talking about, I was NOT convinced it is an example of what I'm talking about.

You are calling yourself a liar Gaillo. First you say there not 100% gone then at the end you say they are gone. As much as you want to think you understand, you dont, and you cannot have this both ways.
See, you cannot defend misinformation as its impossible for a lie to stand as truth.
And the remedy is you, AND ONLY YOU, can go after your remedy. That remedy is YOU asserting your Rights.
Think about it Gaillo. If you go to court you are under their jurisdiction not your jurisdiction....................therefore you wont find any case law.
Like I said earlier, you understand very little. You will never see a case where the People had to go to court to assert what the Constitution protects against the government from doing.
Why do you think they released our GSUS member from jail? For the same reasons. The court had no standing in law to keep him in jail nor have standing in affairs they have no jurisdiction to render an outcome.


What was this child support case? Thread? TIA

[Mouse]

This could have been the writings of a fictional character in a book. Would the same poem, placed in a book, attributed to a character still be illegal?

This guy shouldn't be in jail.

[Gaillo]

You are calling yourself a liar Gaillo. First you say there not 100% gone then at the end you say they are gone. As much as you want to think you understand, you dont, and you cannot have this both ways.
See, you cannot defend misinformation as its impossible for a lie to stand as truth.
And the remedy is you, AND ONLY YOU, can go after your remedy. That remedy is YOU asserting your Rights.
Think about it Gaillo. If you go to court you are under their jurisdiction not your jurisdiction....................therefore you wont find any case law.
Like I said earlier, you understand very little. You will never see a case where the People had to go to court to assert what the Constitution protects against the government from doing.
Why do you think they released our GSUS member from jail? For the same reasons. The court had no standing in law to keep him in jail nor have standing in affairs they have no jurisdiction to render an outcome.


Wow. I'm underwhelmed. You, just like every other legalese spewing "patriot" I've ever conversed with about this subject HAVE NO ANSWERS. You call me a "liar" (actually, you accuse me of calling MYSELF a liar LOL! :)) yet you STILL won't answer my question. In fact, I'm wondering if you even UNDERSTAND my question (What is the remedy?). I'm asking you POINT BLANK how you remove yourself from commercial jurisdiction once you've been DRAGGED INTO COURT in chains by the corporation, and you reply with platitudes about "YOU are the remedy". Yep... I see THAT going over REALLY WELL in a modern court... "Your honor, I am the remedy to the Maritime Admiralty court you are an officer of, so you better let me go!! Boooga Booga!". I ask you for any SHRED of case law, where they are BOUND BY THEIR OWN RULES to dismiss the case for SOME STATED REASON when they find that they actually have NO JURISDICTION, but instead you continue to bring up a case of some supposed member of this forum who was released on child support charges (in actuality, as I recall, he was ruled against!) as if this hearsay "example" is somehow relevant! If the maritime courts don't have jurisdiction, the case law will be FULL of examples of case dismissal, along with the reason and what remedy the defendant used. Since you can't seem to produce any real examples, I'm starting to think what YOU say might be the ACTUAL lie in this thread!

7th, we've had our differences in the past... You don't like me, and I don't like you... but that's beside the point. I'm asking you a DIRECT QUESTION, OVER AND OVER AGAIN about the LEGAL REMEDY (since YOU claim you are "in the know" about this stuff...) to remove a person from the corporation's jurisdiction, and you keep serving up an empty word salad, then tell me that I AM THE ONE who doesn't know what I'M talking about! Hah...

Put up or shut up: WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

[osoab]

This could have been the writings of a fictional character in a book. Would the same poem, placed in a book, attributed to a character still be illegal?

This guy shouldn't be in jail.


I once went to a GWAR show where they decapitated G.W. Bush (puppet).

I don't understand how this poem could be worse than that.

I keep coming back to the white supremacists being the rational for the sentence.

[7th trump]

You are calling yourself a liar Gaillo. First you say there not 100% gone then at the end you say they are gone. As much as you want to think you understand, you dont, and you cannot have this both ways.
See, you cannot defend misinformation as its impossible for a lie to stand as truth.
And the remedy is you, AND ONLY YOU, can go after your remedy. That remedy is YOU asserting your Rights.
Think about it Gaillo. If you go to court you are under their jurisdiction not your jurisdiction....................therefore you wont find any case law.
Like I said earlier, you understand very little. You will never see a case where the People had to go to court to assert what the Constitution protects against the government from doing.
Why do you think they released our GSUS member from jail? For the same reasons. The court had no standing in law to keep him in jail nor have standing in affairs they have no jurisdiction to render an outcome.


Wow. I'm underwhelmed. You, just like every other legalese spewing "patriot" I've ever conversed with about this subject HAVE NO ANSWERS. You call me a "liar" (actually, you accuse me of calling MYSELF a liar LOL! :)) yet you STILL won't answer my question. In fact, I'm wondering if you even UNDERSTAND my question (What is the remedy?). I'm asking you POINT BLANK how you remove yourself from commercial jurisdiction once you've been DRAGGED INTO COURT in chains by the corporation, and you reply with platitudes about "YOU are the remedy". Yep... I see THAT going over REALLY WELL in a modern court... "Your honor, I am the remedy to the Maritime Admiralty court you are an officer of, so you better let me go!! Boooga Booga!". I ask you for any SHRED of case law, where they are BOUND BY THEIR OWN RULES to dismiss the case for SOME STATED REASON when they find that they actually have NO JURISDICTION, but instead you continue to bring up a case of some supposed member of this forum who was released on child support charges (in actuality, as I recall, he was ruled against!) as if this hearsay "example" is somehow relevant! If the maritime courts don't have jurisdiction, the case law will be FULL of examples of case dismissal, along with the reason and what remedy the defendant used. Since you can't seem to produce any real examples, I'm starting to think what YOU say might be the ACTUAL lie in this thread!

7th, we've had our differences in the past... You don't like me, and I don't like you... but that's beside the point. I'm asking you a DIRECT QUESTION, OVER AND OVER AGAIN about the LEGAL REMEDY (since YOU claim you are "in the know" about this stuff...) to remove a person from the corporation's jurisdiction, and you keep serving up an empty word salad, then tell me that I AM THE ONE who doesn't know what I'M talking about! Hah...

Put up or shut up: WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

You just dont get it do ya?
You wont be in court if you stand on your Rights and shed the "US citizen" political status in the first place.
Its much like the tax laws.
Take for instance, you stand on your Rights, and tell the SSA to take a freaken hike (via Administrive statutes that says Social Security is voluntary to participate) nothing (3121(a) and 3401(a) "wages") will be reported to the SSA (W3) for the IRS to get any information about you to take your ass to court to extract what is owed in the first place. The patriotard community you've been listening to doesnt understand how the system works and beleives the battle is with the IRS when its not. So much for the creditabilty of the patriotard community and those who listen to them saying theres a conspiracy.
The IRS is nothing more than a collection agency for the Treasurey. The IRS has nothing to do with your decision of participating in Social Security for them to collect from you. And you wuill never see the IRS ever do such a thing.................hence why there are no cases. The DOJ will decide if a case has merit to prosecute for defrauding the government.
Problem with the armchair lawyer patriot community is they dont understand what causes their problems and every freaken one of them wants to keep their "entitlement SS benefit" because they beleive its their money.................hooks them every time. They have no idea what they are doing.

The IRS uses the info sent to the SSA (that W3 transmittal form) and compares it to the W4 you sent in with your 1040 to see if you are (1) honest and (2) either get a refund, your balance is paid full, or not paid in full and issues a notice of deficiency if you decide to ignore.
If you have nothing being reported via the W3 and W4 then nothing is owed, balanced out, or refunded.
Do you see how this works?
Do you see how the remedy is with you. There is no remedy in Civil Law. In Civil Law you are a subject not a King. The civil law statutes have no remedy. The problem is you are caught in a nasty vicious circle and cant see the forest through the tree's. You have to act..............the courts cannot do that for you and wont because the Constitution forbids anybody, but you, to decide if you would like to be treated as the People and want the Bill of Rights or treated as a "US citizen" having the full privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and what Bill of Rights are considered "fundamental" between a "US citizen" and the People. Thats why Acts like the Social Security Act of 1935 have no provision forcing any American to participate. The SS5 form is written in such a way that you must sign under penalty of perjury to have most of the Bil of Rights striped from you in order to get benefits. You see the benefits of SS are not free. You pay a Constitutional price on top of paying for them out of your check to get government benefits. The bottom line, for this IRS scenario, is if you dont participate in SS you dont have any statutory income that the IRS can base any action.

Also, I dont know why you say I dont like you................I never said that. I said I was very suspicious of your lack of actions a few months ago when dealing with a recent resident nazi lover.

[Serpo]

This is obviously a new terror tactic (poetry writing) to destabilise America.

[Gaillo]

You just dont get it do ya?
You wont be in court if you stand on your Rights and shed the "US citizen" political status in the first place.
Its much like the tax laws.
Take for instance, you stand on your Rights, and tell the SSA to take a freaken hike (via Administrive statutes that says Social Security is voluntary to participate) nothing (3121(a) and 3401(a) "wages") will be reported to the SSA (W3) for the IRS to get any information about you to take your ass to court to extract what is owed in the first place. The patriotard community you've been listening to doesnt understand how the system works and beleives the battle is with the IRS when its not. So much for the creditabilty of the patriotard community and those who listen to them saying theres a conspiracy.
The IRS is nothing more than a collection agency for the Treasurey. The IRS has nothing to do with your decision of participating in Social Security for them to collect from you. And you wuill never see the IRS ever do such a thing.................hence why there are no cases. The DOJ will decide if a case has merit to prosecute for defrauding the government.
Problem with the armchair lawyer patriot community is they dont understand what causes their problems and every freaken one of them wants to keep their "entitlement SS benefit" because they beleive its their money.................hooks them every time. They have no idea what they are doing.

The IRS uses the info sent to the SSA (that W3 transmittal form) and compares it to the W4 you sent in with your 1040 to see if you are (1) honest and (2) either get a refund, your balance is paid full, or not paid in full and issues a notice of deficiency if you decide to ignore.
If you have nothing being reported via the W3 and W4 then nothing is owed, balanced out, or refunded.
Do you see how this works?
Do you see how the remedy is with you. There is no remedy in Civil Law. In Civil Law you are a subject not a King. The civil law statutes have no remedy. The problem is you are caught in a nasty vicious circle and cant see the forest through the tree's. You have to act..............the courts cannot do that for you and wont because the Constitution forbids anybody, but you, to decide if you would like to be treated as the People and want the Bill of Rights or treated as a "US citizen" having the full privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and what Bill of Rights are considered "fundamental" between a "US citizen" and the People. Thats why Acts like the Social Security Act of 1935 have no provision forcing any American to participate. The SS5 form is written in such a way that you must sign under penalty of perjury to have most of the Bil of Rights striped from you in order to get benefits. You see the benefits of SS are not free. You pay a Constitutional price on top of paying for them out of your check to get government benefits. The bottom line, for this IRS scenario, is if you dont participate in SS you dont have any statutory income that the IRS can base any action.

So non-participation is the remedy? Sounds good to me... "avoid Satan's courts" sounds like a good policy! ;D You are correct, most "patriotards" seem to want their cake and eat it too... attempting all kinds of legal maneuvers to attain some kind of "benefit" from the corporation, with no payment. No wonder so many are rotting in prison! I personally believe there IS NO LEGAL REMEDY to maritime jurisdiction, the UCC loopholes seem to have been closed very well as time has progressed.


Also, I dont know why you say I dont like you................I never said that. I said I was very suspicious of your lack of actions a few months ago when dealing with a recent resident nazi lover.

I took no action because I saw him ratcheting up, on his way to inevitable self-destruction. I'd seen the same pattern over and over again from him, I knew it was only a matter of time... and not much time at that! BTW, the individual you are referring to is NOT WELCOME here any more, I've openly posted that I will actively block his re-entry to this forum by whatever means are at my disposal. I don't care if someone is a NAZI lover, a communist, a religious zealot, banker scum, or whatever... this forum is for ANYONE who agrees to abide by the very reasonable rules... but attacking other members with repeated acidic attacks that JUST BARELY skirt the rules over and over and over again is completely unacceptable. I agree with your objection and say good riddance. As for the "not liking" stuff... let's just agree to circle and glare warily - and see how it all turns out! ;D

[sirgonzo420]

Gaillo,

I believe the "saving to suitors" clause provides remedy, if one is competent to do one's own diligence.

The "saving to suitors" clause is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is codified at 28 USC 1333.


Judiciary Act of 1789
...saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it...



28 USC 1333
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

[palani]

Gaillo,

I believe the "saving to suitors" clause provides remedy, if one is competent to do one's own diligence.

The "saving to suitors" clause is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is codified at 28 USC 1333.


Judiciary Act of 1789
...saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it...

The common law has no competence to award a verdict in gold or silver when there is none. Equity and Law were merged in 1953 (in Florida). The federal common law draws its inspiration from the underlying state common law which has morphed into military democracy with maritime.

Can't tell the players without a program.

[Spectrism]

Seems to me that if this guy really exists and went to prison over a poem like this or any other, then he:

1) Was stupid enough to admit guilt over thoughts,
2) Was stupid enough not to remain silent,
3) Had a shyster-head lawyer who sold him out,
4) Had a jury of "dark" citizens and white guilt-ridden peers.