The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/frogfarm.6

Text File | 1993-09-11 | 64KB | 1,130 lines

Welcome to the sixth installment of the Frog Farm. This issue contains
information regarding the following topics:

1) Sample: Using UCC 1-207
2) Rescinding Social Security, Part 2 of 4
3) Revoking a Certificate of Birth w/A.J. Teel
4) A Few From the Vault: Dusty Archives of the original Frog Farm

**

[This example of UCC 1-207 was sent to me by Frog Farmer himself a while back.
It was written by a teenaged friend of his.]


     Let it be known, I reserve all of my rights under the common
law provisions and proceed to base my claim of fraud upon all who
deny me these rights.
     I shall continue to state, I am not a resident of the District
of Columbia or a foreign corporation, officer, director, stockholder,
or employee of a foreign corporation, or a citizen of the United
States, or a citizen of the U.S., or a citizen of any corporate,
conglomerate state government, and I am not a resident of any federal
possession, enclave, or fort etc., and if I of necessity receive any
governmental benefits and privileges, it is without prejudice,
reserving all rights as per the Uniform Commercial Code 1-207. I am
therefore not subject to the color of law jurisdictions of the United
States in the corporate monopoly of the federal and state governments.
     I am a natural and corporeal person and cannot live in a
corporate fiction called the United States nor the corporate fiction
called the State of California. I thereby claim my rights under the
Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Bill of Rights
enumerates some of our rights as sovereign citizens.
     I deny all jurisdictional claims you present over me. I further
respectfully dishonor all claims against me this day, and all other
days that I have been forced to enter into this jurisdiction by
estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, etc.
     This is done upon the following provisions of Code:

     Under U.C.C. 1-207 Performance or acceptance under reservation of
rights.
     A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or
promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or
offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights
reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the
like are sufficient.

     Under U.C.C. 3-511 (1) and (c). Waived or excused presentment,
protest or notice of dishonor or delay therein.
     (1) Delay in presentment, protest, or notice of dishonor is
excused when the party is without notice that it is due or when the
delay is caused by circumstances beyond his control and he exercises
reasonable diligence after the cause of the delay ceases to operate.
Presentment or notice or protest as the case may be is entirely
excused when
     (c) by reasonable diligence the presentment or protest cannot
be made or the notice given.

     I dishonor your presentment or claim upon me.

     Under U.C.C. 3-305 (2) (b) and (c) Rights of a holder in due course.
     (2) All defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder
has not dealt except
      (b) Such other incapacity, or duress, or illegality of the
transaction, render the obligation of the party a nullity, and
      (c) such misrepresentation as has induced the party to sign the
instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain
knowledge of its character or its essential terms.
     Under U.C.C. 3-601 (3) (a). The liability of all parties is
discharged when any party who has himself no right of action or
recourse on the instrument
      (a) reacquires the instrument in his own right.
     Under U.C.C. 1-103. Supplementary general provisions of law
applicable.
     Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this act, the
principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law
relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel,
fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or
other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its
provisions.
     Under U.C.C. 2-609. Right to adequate assurance of performance.
     (4) After receipt of a justified demand failure to provide within
a reasonable time not exceeding thirty days such assurance of due
performance as is adequate under the circumstances of the particular
case is a repudiation of the contract.
     Under U.C.C. 2-608. Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part.
     (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit
whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has
accepted it.
      (b) without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was
reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance
or by the seller's assurances.
     (2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time
after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it
and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not
caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer
notifies the seller of it.
     (3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with
regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.

     I hereby revoke all signatures on every and all state and federal
documents which has my signature on it, and including those in the
future if forced to do so.

     I further disclaim any oaths or implied oaths of or contracts.

Dated _____
                          Submitted by _______________
                          Signed without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207


**

[This is part 2 of 4. Part 1 was published last issue.]

Rescinding Social Security
by Marion
(comments by Roger [Elvick?])

The  Taxpayers  Federation  immediately issued  a  press  release stating: "it
is now publicly acknowledged that all  adherence to  sound  insurance practices
have been abandoned.  This  single decision  assured ever mounting tax bills for the system  without
any  possibility of relief." It is the "ever mounting tax  bills" which
constitute the greatest threat to the S.S.System,  and  by 1980 that threat had
become terribly real."  ..

  The Federal gov. created the S.S.Program. In 1935 it was a  new government
 program for American citizens. It did not  then,  and does  not  now include
all citizens. Groups of  workers  such  as railroad, certain professionals such
as doctors and lawyers, also government  employees  (to include members of
Congress)  are  not members  of  the  plan.. Until  just  recently,certain
religious groups were not members of the program.The government program for
citizens  social security is correctly called the Federal  Insurance
Contributions Act, and is frequently abbreviated as FICA. As with some other
government program names,, the actual name is not totally  correct and is
somewhat misleading. The FICA program  is not an insurance plan in the commonly
accepted fashion, as  there is  no guarantee that the citizen will receive
certain  benefits.

(Comment,Roger.I wonder if this program applies to "citizens"  as
"subjects"?)

  A private insurance policy must have protected  and positive  benefits for
its members. The word 'insurance' in  FICA is not a correct description, as
Congress has total control  over the  amount as well as the duration of all
benefits.  Collections of  payments  can be changed at the whim of congress,
which  has been  done  from  time to time.    The third word  in  the  name,
'contribution'  is also deceptive and misleading. In the  various FICA
publications  the  word 'donation' is commonly  used  as  a substitute for the
word 'contributions'. Most dictionaries define these  words to mean that
something is voluntary,  optional,  and not mandatory. The simple fact is that
the FICA program is voluntary  and  optional---not mandatory by law!    No  law
has  been passed  requiring any citizen to enroll in and /or  subscribe  to the
FICA program. Remember, classes of workers, such as  government  and railroad
employees, are exempt from joining.  There  is strong influence and coercion
for citizens to enroll in the  FICA program, but there is no requirement that
it must be done.  Joining  the  program is voluntary, and the right not  to
enroll  is protected by the U.S.Constitution. Described another way, an FICA
number  cannot be forced upon any citizen, but must be  requested by  a
citizen. Usually a FICA number is requested  and  received when  the  citizen
is legally a minor. There is  a  question  of validity of such action as minors
are not allowed to  participate in  contracts,  especially one that has a
lifetime  application.
   Other  groups  officially exempt from the FICA  program  are  nonprofit
organizations and hospital employees, farmers,  commercial fishing  boats,
international agencies like the U.N., workers  at tax  supported  universities,
schools, and workers  at  any  tax exempt  entity generally do not have to pay.
Preachers,  Pastors, Priests,  Rabbis, Monks do not pay FICA taxes if they
choose  not to.    To withdraw from FICA as a group, notice of intent must be
presented  to IRS two years in advance of the  actual  withdrawal action by the
group. As a reflection of the fading confidence  in the  FICA,  there is a
growing increase of notices  to  withdraw, such as the state of Alaska. Besides
the obvious unreliability of the  FICA program, the recent increase in
contribution  rates  is another  reason  for citizens to consider  ending
participation.
  In  many  cases  workers have more withheld for  FICA,  than  for "income
tax". Currently, the so called average citizen works  for more  than  one third
of each year for the government,  based  on these  two deductions alone.
Originally an FICA  membership  card carried  a  warning  that the card was to
be  used  only  by  the S.S.Administration, and not to be used as
identification." Since then, the warning caution has been removed from the card
and  the number has become a common identification for items such as  bank
accounts, drivers license, etc.,.    The S.S. program has various examples of a
double standard. One such example is, amounts  will be  withheld  from an
employee even if he does not have  an  FICA number.  The  law does not require
a citizen to have  an  account number, but collects a contribution from
compensation  unless the citizen  is  in some category of employment  that
is  officially exempt.  One  method to be exempt from payments to the  FICA  by
withholding  is to work under contract which specifies  that  all compensation
be  received, and there are no deductions  for  any purpose.     The citizen's
right to contract is protected in  the U.S.Constitution Art. I, Sect. 10. Such
financial contract agreement  is beneficial to both employer and employee.  The
employer has  reduced  bookkeeping  costs,, and does  not  pay  "matching"
amounts to FICA. The employee receives his full amount of  agreed compensation.
The employer having reduced business   expense  by avoiding  FICA  costs could
invest such  amounts,  experience  an increase in profits, or share the amount
with the employee,etc. Such  working agreements are citizen's rights which were
established  over 200 years ago. A freeman cannot be subjected  to a government
program that infringe upon rights, such as  FICA  and other  similar  deceptive
devices.

(Comment Roger.Such  being  the definition  of a common law cheat or cheating
at the common  law, such  as  using  false  weights  or  measures  or
'devices'   to deceive.))

     The collection of FICA tax is accomplished by  the IRS. The code book for
the IRS is Title 26 of the U.S.Code.  This Code  (26  USC) is pertinent to
'income tax'. Income  tax  is  an indirect excise type of tax. This
specification is defined in the Congressional  Report  #80-19a dated January
17, 1980.  Unlike  a 'direct' tax any excise tax (indirect) is the result of
having or using  a special license or privilege that is granted by  govern-
ment.  If  a citizen does not have or use a  special  license  or privilege,
they are not subject to an excise tax. Some  citizens are  confused about the
income tax and believe a tax is  owed  on the  compensation  (wages,salaries
and commissions)  received  by them  for performing some service. Careful study
of this  subject reveals that opinion to be incorrect. There is a tax on
'income' but it does not include wages, salaries, tips, first time commis-
sions,  etc.,.This  is  so stated in the IRS  code  itself  which describes
FICA  tax, in section 3101 of Chap.  21,  as  follows: "Rate  of  tax (a) In
addition to other taxes,  there  is  hereby imposed on the income of every
individual a tax".

(Comment.Roger. In  other  places it says that we 'incur' the tax  (i.e.bring
it upon ourselves)

    This type of tax is an indirect excise and has been  so
ruled by the supreme court in Helvering v Nestor 363  US 603 (1960) in which it
states that the employees' portion of S.S. is an 'income tax', and is not a
/premium payment for any kind  of an  insurance  program.  Notice also that
Sect. 3101  of  26  USC separates  and  distinguishes a difference between
'income'  and 'wages'. This means the amount of withholdings/contributions  are
determined  by wages earned, however,  contributions/withholdings are not
required until a citizen/employee earns an 'income'. This statement  is  very
important and critical to the  proper  understanding and application of the
FICA 'tax'. Simply put, if  citizens do not receive income (profit or gain)
they are not  subject to  deductions for FICA. This is the same authority used
for  the tax  on income.    Liability for FICA is not the result of  being an
employee,  but is based upon the condition that  the  citizen receives  a
profit or gain (income).Section 3102 (b) of  26  USC strongly influences
employees to contribute and withhold FICA tax from their employees, attempting
to make the employer  responsible  for  the  tax if the employee decides  to
halt  withholding (volunteering).    The employee's solution to stop their
employer from  withholding  is to file an action in the  state  court.  To
accomplish this, an employee will have to move the state court to order the
employer to obey state property rights laws by ordering the  employer  to stop
seizing the  employee's  property  (wages) without  permission  of  the
employee. The judge  then  issues  a "temporary  restraining  order", or an
injunction.  Usually  this comes  under  the heading of cease and desist
conversions.  Such action  is  simple to prepare, inexpensive and harmless
to  the worker  employer  relationship because it infers  no  wrongdoing,
but best of all, it is an action immune from interference  by the federal
agencies.  They have no standing whatsoever in  a  state court,  and in any
event are barred from interfering between  two contractual  parties.The  state
government has  no  authority  to interfere, because the matter is strictly a
civil matter  between contracting  parties,  even if the employer is  a  state
agency. Many  citizens    are confused about what income tax is  and  be-
lieve it to be a tax on compensation (wages, salaries, first time commissions,
tips, etc.) received by them for performing  some service.  This is untrue.
There is a tax on income, but that  tax does not include taxes on wages,
salary, tips, compensation, etc. Taxing these categories was automatically
repealed in 1946,  when it was ruled that a tax on source (wages) can only be
levied  for a  term  of two (2) years once our government declares  war,  per
Article  1, Sect.10, cl.12, U.S.Const. This is also indicated  in the  IRS
code itself where it describes the FICA tax,  in  sect. 3101 of chap. 21, which
reads as follows:    "Rate of tax (a)  In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on the income of every  individual a tax equal to the following
percentage of  the wages..."     The  government  is admitting in  sect.  3101
that income  is income and wages is wages. The words income and  wages have
two  different  meanings,  Thus wages are  not  income  and cannot be taxed.
Notice carefully that 26 USC 3101 also specifies  that  FICA 'contributions'
are taxes. This is  an  indirect excise tax and has been so ruled by the
Supreme court in  Fleming v  Nestor,,  363 US 603, for the  employers
portion,   commonly called  the  matching  half. This tax liability directed
at  the employer is the result of business operation permitted by govern-
ment.

 (Comment  Roger.  If you do anything about  this  you  had
better  not  have any stock in the company.)(also, if you  are  a
corporation acting within the law you are not  taxed.Corporations
act outside the law and this is the privilege that they are taxed
on)

     The supreme court ruled in Fleming v Nestor, 363 US  609, that employee's
portion is an income tax and it is not a  premium payment for any kind of
insurance program.     Remember,  section 3101  of chap. 21 of title 26 clearly
shows that  until  citizens receive  income (profit/gain) they are not subject
to  deductions for the FICA tax. This is the same authority as the federal/
state tax   on   "income",for   until   a   citizen   receives   income
(gain/profit),  he is not subject to having  federal/state  taxes withheld
from  their property (wages) and no  employer  has  any right  or  authority
to withhold property  from  any  employee's paycheck unless said  employee
voluntarily signs and files a  W-4 form with employer, authorizing the employer
to withhold the  tax at  the source.     The supreme court addressed this
issue  three times  since FICA was enacted:
  1. The payroll  deductions  of workers  do  not go into any pool or trust
fund, "The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes are to  be
paid into the Treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are  not
earmarked in any  way" Helvering v Davis,  301  US  619
  2.The court points out that payroll deductions of American  workers  are not
payments on premiums for insurance of any kind,  but are  simply income taxes:
"Eligibility  for  benefits..(does) not in any true sense depend on
contributions through the payment of  taxes." Fleming v Nestor. 363 US 609
  3. Furthermore,  payments  made  by  employers for each of their  employees
are  not matching  to  be  credited to the account of  the  employee,  but
constitute an excise tax on the employer's right to do  business. Consequently,
his so called "contributions" go directly into  the general  fund of the
treasury and "are not earmarked in any  way", Helvering v Davis 301 US 619.

 (Roger Comment. Corporations are created  under two authorities.  (1) For the
public good.  (2)  In case  of emergency. An example of a corporation under No.
1  would be  a newspaper. They keep us informed.hohoho.But they are  still
acting  illegally.  You  do not have to incorporate  to  print  a newspaper.You
do have to incorporate to be controlled. A corporation under number two would
be a shipbuilding corporation in time of war. The shipbuilding corporations
charter would last only  as long  as the emergency lasted and if their charter
lasted  longer then the privilege was to be extended to everyone  alike.
Corporations  were  not included as persons in the framing of  the  14th
amendment.  Any occupation that could be legally carried  out  at the  time of
the adoption of the Constitution are  called  common law  occupations and the
government cannot or should not  license them.  Being a corporation is not a
common law occupation and  is illegal  and  it is this eligibility for which
they  must  pay  a kickback to the government. It is a protection racket paid
for by the people for the benefit of the  corporate directors and share-
holders)

     4. Workers participating in S.S. payroll  deductions do not acquire any
property rights or contractual rights  through their payments as they would if
they were paying on an  insurance policy  or contributing to an annuity plan.

 (Comment Roger.  Congress  is  only to promote the general welfare,
not  provide  it. S.S.schemes  do harm in breaking up the family unit which is
the foundation of every  government. We pay for our own  destruction)

Simply  put, there are no guarantees! The Congress has the  power to  deny
benefits to citizens even though they  have  paid  S.S. taxes.  Also, the
amount of benefits are changeable from year  to year  at the option of
Congress. Fleming v Nestor, 363  U.S.  610

  5. Benefits granted under the S.S. are, therefore, not considered earned  by
the  worker, but simply constitute a  gratuity  or  a gesture of charity. As
the court states:    "Congress included in the  original  act,  and has since
retained,  a  claim  expressly reserving  to it the right to alter, amend  or
repeal any  provision  of the act." Fleming v Nestor  supra. In effect,  S.S.
benefits are like pensions to be given or withheld at the  discretion of
Congress.
  6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays  (a special  kind of 'income tax')
do nothing more than  qualify  him for  consideration as a recipient of a
charitable gift. His  payments  do not guarantee him anything. They do not
guarantee  the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The
Congress can  alter or abolish the entire process at any time.
  7.  From the  Nestor case, Justice Hugo Black gave his dissenting  opinion
which   stated that the whole S.S. thesis, as expounded   by  the majority  of
the  court, is that the government  is  giving  the participating  citizen
"something for nothing and  Congress  can stop  doing so when it pleases."
Since the government can  not compel "voluntary contributions", then any
employer of mine would be withholding my property on his own volition or
authority. This is an act of illegal conversion/theft and no amount of
arbitrary "commands"  or  coercion by the IRS can justify this  act  by  an
employer as it is unlawful and creates a cause of action for  the employee.

      Brief on Status

    The most significant  identity an  individual can have is his status in the
world of  law,  from his  position  and standing in relation to the  state
flows  his entire  capacity to do, create, and exist at his  highest  level.
In  the United States, a citizen has rights which  are  constitutionally
guaranteed,  not to be restricted  by  government.  But there are natural
rights and there are rights created by  government (Comment Roger. Government
cannot create rights), the difference  being manifested in the status of the
person  in  question. The  natural rights, or rights at the common law, are
those  belonging to natural persons---those people who are citizens in the
United States and who possess the power of political action. These inalienable
rights  of men, as the Declaration  of  Independence calls  them, are absolute
in our governmental system, not  to  be infringed  or abridged by any office or
process of the  governing powers. Only natural  persons or mortal man has
political rights. These "institutional" powers are where we shall focus: the
created  rights  held by subjects of franchise,  or  other  privileges granted
by the state, are of another nature and not in the  same class  with  the
rights of men.

(Comment Roger. A  "state"  cannot grant  privileges.A "state" does not exist
without people. It  is only the sovereign people that can grant privileges and
then they can only grant "privileges" to "subjects". But the privileges can
never never exceed the "rights" of the people. As the head of the Department of
Banks & Banking told me several years ago---"powers not granted to the federal
government are reserved to the  states and if the power is not given to either
the federal government or the  states  then it is reserved to the people."
Therefore,  she said, "states cannot extend credit but a group of people could
if they  were incorporated by the state". What incompetency we  have in  our
public servants. How does this public servant,  sworn  to uphold and defend the
Constitution, suppose that the  legislators can  create a corporation that has
powers to extend  credit  when the state itself can not do it? All corporations
are supposed  to be  public service corporations, if they do not serve the
public then  the  legislature is not acting in the public  interest  and their
acts are unlawful.In maine, the Constitution says that  all laws shall be
enacted in the name of the people and that corporations  shall  forever  be
subject to the "general"  laws  of  the state.)

     All  law  in America is based on the  status  of  the individual.  All
legislation, judicial actions,  and  administrative  policy is based on status,
for there are different  classes of citizens and subjects. (For example, under
the 14th Amendment, "equal  protection" is applied to corporate "persons"  as
"citizens" even though, strictly speaking, they are simply  subjects.)

(Comment Roger. In the Framing of the 14th Amendment, corporations were  not
mentioned  as being persons or citizens.  One  of  the framers of the 14th was
later in a court case involving a  corporation and he told the court that they
had included  corporations as persons and it has been that way ever since.
Corporations have "equal protection" as other corporations but only as far as
their charter goes.They cannot exceed their charter and the legislature cannot
create a charter and later on amend the charter to relieve the charger of its
obligation. All banks in their original  charters were to redeem their notes
and were to keep a certain amount of gold and silver coin on hand to do so.
Your state  legislature has  relieved these banks from their obligations and
"should  the privilege  extend for any length of time then the privilege  must
be  granted to all."    Though a law be termed "general" and  not special,  it
must  be decided by the court as to  whom  it  will apply. This is why, when
court cases are cited as authority,  you  make sure that the "persons"
involved  are  not corporations. If the "person" involved was a corporation
then the case does not involve you and if they insist then you demand that the
case be reopened so that you can examine all the evidence  to be  used against
you.)

 The application of laws, or statutes,  (as they  really are only expressions
of the law) is  basically,  unknown as to the fullest extent of their range.
Only in individual cases can it truly be determined according to the facts
surrounding the respective case.


**

[This document should pretty much speak for itself. My apologies to those
who have seen it already.]

>From: [e-mail] (A. J. Teel)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,
            talk.politics.misc,alt.society.sovereign
Subject: Post: "Revocation of Birth Certificate"
Date: Sun, 30 May 93 04:19:19 GMT

..............................................................................
Dated: May 26, 1993           A. J. Teel, Sui Juris
                              [address ommitted]

Registry of Vital Records
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
Indianapolis, Indiana Republic
united States of America
Postal Zone: 46206
[phone]

Johnson County Memorial Hospital
Franklin, Indiana Republic
united States of America
Postal Zone: ?????-????
[phone]

Secretary of State of the Indiana Republic
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana Republic
united States of America
Postal Zone: ?????-????
[phone]

Social Security Administration
Dorcas R. Hardy, Commissioner
6301 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland Republic
united States of America
Postal Zone: 21235/TDC

Re: Revocation of Birth Certificate

                   NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT
                   AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION

                                 PREAMBLE

     I, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris, being natural born in Indiana, a male human
being, now domiciled in Santa Clara County, California Republic, as a
Sovereign Human Being, one of THE PEOPLE as mentioned in the Constitution
*for* the united States of America indigenous to the land mass known as the
several States, do hereby make this Special Appearance, by Declaration and
Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding  Sui Juris, At Law, in Common
Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any
foreign jurisdiction, and as one of THE PEOPLE, as mentioned in the
Preamble to the Constitution *for* the United States of America, I
willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all
governmental or quasi-governmental agencies when dealing with them.
Wherefore, the undersigned Declarant and Affiant named herein and above,
upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:

     I, the undersigned, a natural born free Sovereign Human Being, one of
THE PEOPLE as mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution *for* the
united States of America indigenous to the land mass known as the several
States, hereby affirm, declare and give notice:

     1. That I am competent to testify to the matters herein and will do so
if called as a witness; and further

     2. That I have personal knowledge of my status and of the facts and
evidence stated herein; and further

     3. That all the facts stated herein are not hearsay but true and
correct, and admissible as evidence, if not rebutted; and further

     4. That I, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris, am of lawful age and am competent; I
am a natural born free Sovereign Human Being now  domiciled in the
California Republic, and thereby in the united States of America, in fact,
by right of heritage, am one of THE PEOPLE as mentioned in the Preamble to
the Constitution *for* the united States of America indigenous to the land
mass known as the several States and specifically the California Republic,
am thereby protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Act of
1849, the original Constitution *for* the Republic of California (1849),
the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Constitution *for* the united
States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the  Bill of Rights
(1791) including its Preamble; and as such I retain all my fundamental,
unalienable rights granted by God in  positive law, embodied in the
Declaration of Independence of  1776 and binding rights upon myself and my
parentage, this day and for all time; and further

     5. That this Declaration and Affidavit has been prepared, witnessed
and filed because the State of Indiana holds the position that there are no
statutory provisions to rescind a Certificate of Birth, nor any trust or
contractual obligations derived therefrom, and because there is no other
remedy available to me At Law by which I can declare and enforce my right
to be free from State enfranchisement and the benefits therefrom; and
further

     6. That, on my birthday, July 31, 1965, at 1:27AM, I was born in the
Johnson County Memorial Hospital (Hospital number 75796-B) in Franklin,
Indiana as Anthony Joseph Vance to my parents, Joe Robert Vance and Vicki
Lynn (Inman) Vance, who were both under the misconception that they were
required to secure a Certificate of Birth on my behalf, and they did obtain
the same;  and further

     7. That my parents were not aware that, at the Common Law, births were
to be recorded in the family Bible, and that only deaths were made a matter
of public record; and further

     8. That during the year of 1971, I was adopted through the remarriage
of my mother to David Paxton Teel and a new Certificate of Birth was issued
as both my mother and adoptive father were under the misconception that
they were required to secure a new certificate of Birth on my behalf, and
they did obtain the same; and further

     9. That my parents were not aware that any certificate required by
statute to be made by officers may, as a rule, be introduced into evidence
(see Marlowe vs School District, 116 Pac 797) and, therefore, they were
acquiescing to State requirements which violate my rights to privacy and
the 4th Amendment protections under the Constitution *for* the united
States of America, because the Certificate of Birth is the record of the
State of Indiana, not of the individual, and the State may be compelled to
introduce said record without my permission; and further

     10. That such statutory practices by the State of Indiana are
deceitful misrepresentations by the State and society, on the recording of
births, and my parents were unaware that a Certificate of Birth was not
necessary, nor were they aware that they were possibly waiving some of my
rights, which rights are unalienable rights guaranteed to me by the
Constitution *for* the united States of America; and further

     11. That the doctor who delivered me acted as a licensed agent of the
State of Indiana without the consent of either my own parents or myself,
and offered me into a State trust to be regulated as other State and
corporate interests and property as a result  of that offer and acceptance,
which comprises a fiction of law under statutory law (called contracts of
adhesion, contracts implied by law, constructive contracts, quasi-
contracts, also referred to as implied consent legislation); and further

     12. That, from  my own spiritual beliefs and training, I have come,
and I have determined that the right to be born comes, from the Creator --
not the State of Indiana, California, the united States of America, nor any
other governmental or quasi-governmental agency -- and therefore original
jurisdiction upon my behavior requiring any specific performance comes from
my   personal relationship with the Creator, unless said performance
causes demonstrable damage or injury to another natural human being; and
further

     13. That, after studying the Certificate of Birth, I have come to the
conclusions that the Birth Certificate creates a legal estate in  myself,
and acts as the nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he or
she were a corporate entity, that the State of Indiana, in cooperation with
the federal government and its agents and assigns, is maintaining the
Certificate of Birth so as to assume jurisdiction over many aspects of my
life in direct contravention of my unalienable  rights and Constitutionally
enumerated and secured rights to be  a "Freeman" and to operate at the
Common Law; and further

     14. That such statutory provisions also cause a loss or diminution
(depending upon other statutory provisions) of rights enumerated and
guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th,  and 9th amendments in the
Constitution *for* the united States of America; and further

     15. That, as a result of my earnest and diligent studies, my prior
ignorance has come to an end, and I have regained my capacity to be an
American Freeman; therefore, it is now necessary that I declare any nexus
assumed as a result of the Certificate of Birth, by the State of Indiana or
by any of its agents and assigns, including the federal government, and any
jurisdictional or other rights that may be waived as a result of said
trust/contract with all forms of government, to be null and void from its
inception, due to the deceptive duress, fraud, injury, and incapacity
perpetrated upon my parents and myself by the State of Indiana, the third
party to the contract to which I am not even a party; and further

     16. That I was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States" as
defined in Title 26, United States Codes and, therefore, I am not subject
to its foreign jurisdiction. See 26 CFR 1.1-1(b)-(c); and further

     17. That, with this revocation of contract and the revocation of
power, I do hereby claim all of my rights, all of my unalienable rights and
all rights enumerated and guaranteed  by the Constitution *for* the united
States of America, At Law, and do hereby declare, to one and all, that I am
a free and independent Sovereign Human Being indigenous to the land mass
known as the several States now who is not a creation of, nor subject to
any State's civil law of admiralty, maritime, or  equity jurisdictions; and
further

     18. That I aver and affirm, under the Common Law of America,  without
the "United States" (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV,
Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution *for* the united States of
America), that the Preamble and Sections 1 thru 17 of this Declaration and
Affidavit, are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of my
knowledge; and further

     19. That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY
RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207" above my signature on this document
indicates: that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform
Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and
to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice
upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or
local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its
provisions, whether cited herein or not; that my explicit reservation of
rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy
they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not
to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that
I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally; that my
explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of
government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in
harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the
liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed
commercial agreements; and that my valid reservation of rights has
preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by
application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel;

And Further This Declarant and Affiant Saith Not.

Subscribed and affirmed to, Nunc Pro Tunc, on the date of my majority,
which date was July 31, 1986.

In accordance with the facts and evidence herein presented, I rescind and
revoke Nunc Pro Tunc the Certificates or Certificates of Birth identified
herein and demand that said rescission and revocation to confirmed in
writing by the State of Indiana.

Subscribed, sealed, affirmed, and presented on March 26, 1993.

I now affix my signature to all of the declarations and affirmations herein
WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 207.

_________________________________________________________________
A. J. Teel, Sui Juris, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona,
proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation
of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable
rights.

..............................................................................
--
With Explicit Reservation of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207),
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris ([e-mail]).
                    Finger for PGP 2.2 PUBLIC KEY BLOCK


**

[These are messages from the original Frog Farm message base which linked
California, Michigan and various spots in between. They show Froggy at
his best, equally entertaining and instructive.]


  20nov90 from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo (CA)

     CLEAN HOUSE!  SENATE TOO!  VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS!
Anti-incumbent sentiment is growing across the country.  The
government's shabby performance has revealed the true motivation
behind politicians' actions: greed for power.  Tax, tax! Spend, spend!
Elect, elect!  Even Georgie took up that slogan recently, in defence
of his budget veto, but he did leave off the last part, elect, elect,
for obvious reasons.  He's afraid that after the election there might
be a whole bunch of non-professional politicians installed who
actually might act in the country's best interest.  He has taken on
the mantle of a higher authority than that; he is the vanguard of the
"New World Order", a One - World Government run by those who run the
money printing presses.  It's no secret.
    And some of you are probably saying, "But hey, Frog Farmer! You
said you don't even vote!"  That's right!  But then I don't have the
same problems that everyone else does.  I'm not a member of the
participatory democracy, because I decided that my rights were better
protected in the Republic, under the Constitution.  I have
Constitutional rights that prevent me from suffering the same problems
that people who WAIVE those rights suffer, in order to "belong" to the
privileged democracy.  Rights and privileges are like day and night.
Rights are stronger, and you must waive them to obtain privileges.  It
doesn't make sense.  It's like the mouse figuring he should go for the
cheese on the trap.  Some mice know they don't need it...   But, for
the mouse who is going to take the bait, if he has the chance to vote
on the spring pressure, and the flavor of cheese, he might as well
vote in his long-term (however short it is) interest.

quoting:b0b; "Are you saying that you used to vote, but quit when you
 discovered that it was ruining your life (to take the alcoholic
 analogy a bit further)."

     Exactly, b0b!  When I found out the status to which voting
 subjected me, and the legal incapacities that it created, I realized
 that all those things I used to vote for (or against) could better be
 dealt with in my own personal life by my exercising of my rights, in
 court if need be.  Now it makes little difference to me WHO is
 violating my rights, or under what PRETEXT (which are the two things
 you vote for).

     Voting is clear evidence that you have waived your rights to a
 Republican (not to be confused with the Party) Form of Government, and
 that form is the one under which Constitutional Rights are GUARANTEED.
 The reason it is clear proof is that there hasn't been an election
 held by the American Republic in our lifetimes, due to the majority
 acceptance of the lie that the 17th amendment was legally ratified.  I
 reserve the right not to be held to obviously unconstitutional laws.
 If I were to waive that right, and others, then I could vote, and then
 I'd be legally bound to accept the outcome of the election, meaning
 that I'd have no right to challenge in court any of the legislation
 passed by my "representatives".  Not to say that I still couldn't
 waste the time to go through the motions of a challenge, but the
 Supreme Court would no longer be available to me as a last resort,
 because I would have violated one of the Ashwander Rules which it
 spelled out as necessary to comply with if you want to be ASSURED that
 you will win in that Court.  A lot of people are under the impression
 that going to court is a crap-shoot, and that you can't be assured of
 winning.  How wrong they are!  The Supreme Court itself issued the
 Ashwander Rules just so you'd know how to win!  I like to win (it
 becomes a habit!), therefore I follow those eight rules.  One of the
 rules tells me that I can't vote in democratic elections.

  My position is that if you are going to vote, vote out
 the incumbents.  I don't actually recommend that you DON"T VOTE,
 unless you come to the realization that it is detrimental to your
 rights.  This would presuppose that you are willing to take the other
 actions necessary (in the courtroom) to defend your rights in the face
 of government opposition to that exercise.  Since few people are
 willing to go that far, I don't advise that people just stop voting.
 If they are going to retain the privileges of the democracy in favor
 of the Rights of the Republic, then they might as well exercise the
 privilege of voting.  As I said before, a mouse that is bound and
 determined to attempt to receive the "benefit" of the mousetrap (the
 cheese) ought to vote on the flavor of the cheese and the spring
 pressure of the trap if he gets the opportunity.  I find it ironic
 that people are afraid (or at least unwilling) to defend their
 liberties in the court, which is necessary for anyone bound and
 determined to exercise all his rights at all times, yet they will
 volunteer to be cooked like lobsters (the recent boiler room accident
 in the Persian Gulf) and otherwise subjected to possible DEATH for the
 benefit of "The New World Order".   Please don't tell me that they are
 "defending our country".  That is a bunch of hogwash.  They are
 defending the right of international bankers to make a profit at any
 cost.  The present Persian Gulf situation doesn't even have anything
 to do with "making the world safe for democracy"!  I'd like to see a
 fraction of those brave young folks stand up to a tyrannical lower
 court judge with the same spirit of willingness to suffer that they
 exhibit in going to their deaths for the banks.

quoting:Mad Mooney; "Is there any way I could vote, say, Socialist,
 Libertarian, Green, Anarchist, or anything I wanted if they weren't
 involved in the democracy?"

      If the Republic were truly observed, "statesmen" would be what
 you would be looking for, not parties.  The Founding Fathers were
 really against the idea of political parties, and factions.  They saw
 them as an evil aspect of democracy, where getting votes is all-
 important, not statesmanship.

 quoting Mad Mooney; "FF sez: "...therefore I follow those eight rules.  One
of the rules tells me that I can't vote in democratic elections.)"

     That's if I want to be able to challenge the 17th Amendment (and
 thereby Democracy) as being unconstitutional. Ashwander Rule 6:

 "The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute
 at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.  Great
 Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General 124 US 581."

   90Jul19 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
JB>> the opposition maintained that taxes would be assessed on the
 amount the silver was currently worth in FRNs and not on the fact that
 the 10,000 silver dollars was currency, used as such....<<

      Yes, sometimes the government and their feeding dependents want
 it both ways.  Unfortunately, when something is built on a lie, it
 becomes harder and harder to make it conform to reality, and sooner or
 later, a phenomenon known as a "Catch-22" develops.  See, when the
 government quit circulating silver, and substituted debt in it's
 place, the free market function caused silver to go up in relation to
 evidences of debt.  But the government wanted to take advantage of
 this, and only count silver coins at their face value, so that when
 goons raided your place and seized your stash of silver coins, they
 would only credit you with the face value amounts of the coins seized,
 and could pay you back in FRNs, if they paid you back at all.  So they
 take 500 dollars of silver, today available from coin shops in return
 for approximately 2500FRNs, and they replace it with only 500 FRNs.
 This law that enables this to happen says that all coins and
 currencies of the United States, whenever minted or coined, shall be
 accepted at face value.  That's why some dumb clerks won't give you a
 sixpack of cola in return for one dollar of silver - the price of the
 cola is 1.29FRN (notice that "$" signs are no longer used on price
 tags), and they cannot see the obvious surplus value in your coined
 silver.  Well, the same law helps you when you sell something.  When
 you take silver coin, you are willing to lower your price accordingly,
 and legally that lowers the selling price and attendent taxes, doesn't
 it?  - and the buyer can now pay less in property taxes, if those
 taxes are figured using the purchase price of the property.
     Debt was never, and can never, be declared to be the money of
 account of the United States.  Money is not denominated in debt - Debt
 IS denominated in units of measurement called dollars, and those units
 measure whatever it is that is the money of account, not the ABSENCE
 OF the money of account (DEBT!)
     Thanks for raising that important point, Jim.


   90Aug02 5:54 pm from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo
Nombrist Beor @ Beach>> Also, Amendment #2: "...the right of the
 people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which should also
 mean licensing is questionable at best, much less any sort of ban on
 weapons.<<

       Right!  But what about those people who make themselves wards of
 the state by voluntary contract, and who depend upon government for
 their welfare?  The nature of that contract, wherein rights are
 exchanged for privileges, gives the government the right to limit its
 wards access to firearms, much as a parent can do with their child.
 That's why it's important to maintain the status of a Free Man, as one
 of the People, rather than as a subject citizen under the 14th
 amendment.  When you become a government subject, they have to take
 care of you the best that they can!

Silver Ghost @ Beach>> I was taught in my Econ I class that every
 dollar the Gov't spends comes from somewhere (spending money you don't
 have is a logical impossibility).<<

      How about loaning money you don't have?  Most commercial banks do
 that every day.

 SG>> However, the Fed is now issuing Gov't bonds in many cases.  Bonds
 are essentially IOU's for gold,<<

      The Treasury, not the Federal Reserve, issues government bonds.
 Where do you get the idea that the bond's are IOU's for gold?  How
 much gold do you think you will get for each dollar that the bond
 promises to pay?

 SG>>... but as long as everyone doesn't cash them in at the same time,
 they might as well be cash.<<

      And if everyone wanted to cash them at the same time, what would
 happen??

Silver Ghost @ Thunder Island>>  Say the gov't has $1 in the treasury,
 from taxes or whatever.<<

       What form does that tax dollar take?  Doesn't it take the form
 of an "evidence of debt"?  Being an evidence of debt, it cannot BE the
 money it promises to pay, CAN IT?

 SG>> Since OtherCorp took it, as if it were "real" cash, it might as
 well -be- cash.<<

     Except that no one takes debt instruments at par without a
 substantial discount, unless they are ignorant "suckers".

 SG>> Before you say "aha! it's a dangerous system that can fall apart
 at the slightest provocation"--well it's worked OK so far.<<

     Yeah, if you call all the Mid-west farm foreclosures and the S&L
 Crisis "working"!

 SG>> And I would point you to Vonnegut's book "Galapagos," in which
 everyone suddenly, all over the world, decides that trading paper and
 metal for real, useful, things is a silly idea, and no one accepts
 money anymore.  (The result is that billions of people starve in the
 first month.)<<

      Equating trading metal (and warehouse receipts for actual metal
 in storage) and trading irredeemable paper is the "silly idea", since
 the two propositions have nothing in common.

 SG>> That's also possible.  You can take it as far as you like:
 OtherCorp might say "why would I want this malleable yellow metal?
 Get this 'gold' stuff out of my face!"<<

      Yeah. When was the last time you saw that happen?!

 SG>> Let me anticipate one step further from FF & Co.:  that the gold
 standard is traditionally the one used, and proven by time.  Well, for
 several thousand years salt was the standard--perhaps we should go
 back.<<

      The fact is that according to our current laws, gold and silver
 still are the money of account of the United States.  If you think it
 should be different, why not have the laws changed to suit you??


   90Aug29 12:03 am from Frog Farmer @ Interface
Silver Ghost @ Beach>> This is a privilege which you cannot reject.<<

      You can choose not to accept ANY privilege.  If a privilege is
 FORCED upon you, you may RECEIVE it, without ACCEPTING it, "without
 prejudice", reserving all your rights.

 SG>> Similarly, the cops and the judicial system keep killers off the
 streets--you can't reject this privilege either.<<

      First, I disagree with the idea that they keep killers off the
 streets (unless they are lucky enough to catch a killer AFTER he
 kills, and secondly, having police and a judicial system is not a
 government-granted privilege.  It is a legitimate function of
 government to have both, and neither one is duty-bound to protect me
 as an individual.  If it IS a privilege, it is surely one that I do
 not receive.

 SG>> There are more examples, but you get the idea.  Now, for example,
 you can choose not to use the roads, and you shouldn't have to pay
 taxes on them if you so choose.<<

     The states all agreed that the roads shall be "forever free" (
 Northwest Ordinance).  The only persons who can be required to pay for
 using the roads are those who use it in some commercial capacity.

 SG>> That's why Indiana has tollways.  But most "gains" you receive
 from Uncle Sam can't be turned on and off that way.<<

     As I said, privileges that are forced upon you may be "received"
 but not "accepted", by reserving your rights "without prejudice".  See
 Uniform Commercial Code Section 1-207.

SG>> When we get to the point of "I don't like the things the government
 does for me," when the things you refer to are obligatory for all and
 cannot be refused--when you yourself admit "I wish the feds wouldn't
 protect me but I realize there's nothing to do about it"--you immediately
 lose your right to complain.  At that point, there's nothing left to say
 but "If You Don't Like It, Get The Hell Out."<<

     I think you lose your right to complain when you make the
 admission that "there's nothing you can do about it."  You seem to
 believe that is the truth, for you say that such things are
 "obligatory for all".  I don't believe that ANYTHING is obligatory for
 all, except to not harm another's life, liberty, or property.  All
 "benefits" can be rejected, because it is receiving a benefit that
 obligates a person, and being obligated against your will to specific
 performance without your agreement and understanding seems to me to
 violate your right to contract (or not contract) guaranteed by the
 Constitution.

     When you say, "If You Don't Like It, Get The Hell Out", I agree,
 as long as what you are talking about is NOT the continental
 boundaries of this nation, but the Particapatory Democracy that you
 found yourself in when you came to your senses and wanted the Republic
 that was your birthright.  There is no need to leave your homeland -
 just get out of the status that you detest.


   90Sep05 11:58 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface

Silver Ghost @ Arcadia>> You are not "obligated against your will" to
 accept the protection of the U.S. Army (/Navy/Air Force/Marines). You
 sign the contract by residing on U.S. soil.<<

     First of all, the Constitution forbids having a standing army, and
 I've not seen an amendment changing that, so I have to assume that
 those armed forces are benefits of being in the particapatory
 democracy, not part of our Constitutional Republic.

      Secondly, the people came first, the government came second, and
 there is no nebulous "obligation" to do anything other than obey the
 laws that apply to you in your particular status.

     Thirdly, "residing" has a particular legal definition different
 from the commonly accepted street meaning.  Which way are you meaning
 it?

 SG>> You can "reject" this all you like, and claim that you're doing
 this by rejecting the "status" instead of the "geographic boundaries."
   That doesn't fly.  You're playing dumb, pretending that Communists
 will invade the U.S. tomorrow, but only kill the people without Social
 Security cards.<<

      What are you trying to say in regard to "geographic boundaries"?
 Are you trying to attach a Federal jurisdiction to all the land lying
 within the U.S. borders?  If so, you are in error.  Federal
 Territorial jurisdiction is specifically limited within the areas of
 the states to only certain prescribed areas.

     As far as Communists invading the U.S. tomorrow, I don't recall
 ever saying that I believed such a thing.  You must be inferring that
 also.  I really don't believe invasion is immenent, but if it was to
 happen, in fact they probably WOULD kill persons who did not produce a
 SS Card.

     Invasion by Communists has little to do with anything I've been
 talking about.  The problems I address here did not always exist in
 this country, but the country still had the capacity to defend itself
 without the use of phony fiat money systems and unconstitutionally-
 applied laws.  I sympathize with what appears to be a sincerely-held
 patriotic belief on your part, but I can't understand your position.
 What are you getting at, specifically?

 SG>> By the fact of your being on this soil, you owe a debt.  You can
 argue out of that six ways to Sunday--and probably will, if my guess
 is correct--by saying that money is unreal, the government is unreal,
 the debt is unreal, and obligation is unreal.<<

     Sure, all those things are unreal, but I don't have to rely on
 that for my argument that I don't owe any debt or obligation for
 merely existing here.  I was born here.  That gives me RIGHTS.  The
 Supreme Court has said that I owe no obligation or debt to the state (
 it is called the "Hale doctrine", from the case Hale v. Henkel, quoted
 and cited earlier).  They seem to conflict with your appraisal of the
 situation, and I feel safer agreeing with the highest court in the
 land instead of your vague decree that I owe a debt.

Silver Ghost>> But ethically, you owe a debt.  If you don't want to
 sign the contract, hitchhike to the border.<<

    Right! America, love it or leave it!  Well, I love it.  That's why
 I don't want to see it screwed up by ENEMIES from within who twist the
 meaning of everything to suit them.  Your emotional argument is grand,
 but meaningless to me.  You point out some LAWFUL basis for what you
 are saying, and I'll listen, but relying strictly on emotion, or life
 "as seen on TV" is not going to convince me of anything.  Where is
 this contract you speak of?  Where are the terms made plain?  And
 where do I sign?

 SG>> I wish you no harm--but I don't feel the slightest obligation to
 you.  Let's put it this way.  If I rescued you from the path of an
 onrushing train, and then learned of your beliefs regarding social
 contracts, I would feel cheated  and  might consider putting you back.
 <<

      I think now I understand your position - not your reasoning, but
 your position.  Anyone not agreeing with you should die.  I'm not that
 extreme in my views.  All I require is that those with a different
 outlook not infringe upon my life, liberty, or property.  Which one of
 us more closely represents the views of our Founding Fathers?  By the
 way, I am no anarchist.  What did I say that caused you to assume that
 I was an anarchist?

 SG>> Oh yeah--a warning to the more impressionable of you.  Don't let
 anyone fast-talk you into giving up "restrictions" you don't need,
 like citizenship, taxes, and draft registration...<<

     Citizenship, taxes, and draft registration.  Well, the "title" of
 citizen didn't exist for anyone in this country until after the 14th
 amendment.  Everyone was considered to be part of the "national
 citizenry", but the term "U.S. Citizen" only came into being with the
 14th amendment, and it was a separate distinct status for those
 "subject to the (admiralty)jurisdiction".  Taxes - there are thousands
 of different ones, and no single tax is owed by every single living
 individual.  Different persons may owe different taxes, or none, and
 as I said, everyone should pay those that they legally owe, but only a
 fool would volunteer to pay every single one of all the thousands of
 existing taxes, if they did not apply to him.  What taxes a person
 pays is to be determined by each individual person, not by general
 consensus.  Draft registration - there's a law requiring all males
 over 18 to register, and I did so.  But being drafted is another
 proposition entirely, and that's something that not everyone knows.
 All draftees were coerced into volunteering,(by "taking one step
 forward, raising their right hand", and taking the oath of induction)
 since NO law can REQUIRE you to waive a right, and rights certainly
 are waived by those entering the military, are they not?

Silver Ghost>> you might want to consider how much you value the
 complementary "restrictions" like medical care, unemployment
 insurance, protection from nuclear weapons, the roads, the sewers...
 <<

     Complementary?  Medical care, and unemployment insurance are
 definitely trappings of the democracy, not the republic.  Protection
 from nuclear weapons - there is no such thing.  Look at the USSR and
 their underground public shelter system, and then compare it to ours
 (non-existent).  What protection is there from nuclear weapons?  SDI
 is still on the drawing boards, but even that will let some get
 through.  Talk to the people around Hanford, Washington about their
 protection from nuclear weapons!  The Hanford area is now being
 compared to Chernobyl.

     Roads and sewers?  Are we now to thank Washington D.C. for
 those?  My God!  Next you'll have me believing that life on Earth
 itself would stop if it weren't for the tireless bureaucrats in
 Washington, D.C.!  Don't tell me! - the air we breathe would have
 disappeared long ago had it not been for the Environmental
 Protection Agency!

     Don't go away sore, Silver Ghost!  I know that the sacred cows I
 gore are dear to many, but someone has to do it!  And I don't
 belittle your choice to defend your democracy - just don't try to
 pass it off as our "American System" created by the Constitution.
 It is an alien system "permitted" by the Constitution, but not
 authorized by it, and it is not mandatory upon all inhabitants of
 this country - just those who can be persuaded to volunteer to join
 into it.  That's all I'm trying to point out - that we have a choice
 to be either self-governing Freemen, or dependent subjects in a
 socialist welfare state.  And both systems can co-exist within the
 national boundaries.


**

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3

mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----