Compiled and edited by Frederick Mann
Copyright © 1998 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Introduction
If you decide to seize your freedom and live free -- to whatever extent is appropriate for
you -- there may come a time when you have to defend your freedom.
You can choose the extent to which you want to live free. Some people go to the extreme of having no social security number, no driver's license, and no car registration. If you go to this extreme, than you should know how to defend yourself.
Some freedom lovers use driver's licenses (or permits) and also register their cars. In general, the biggest risk for the freedom lover is being "apprehended" while traveling by car. My personal preference is to minimize this risk, by having the car I'm traveling in "properly registered." I also carry papers, such that in the event of being "pulled over" by police, they will be satisfied with my papers. To them, I want to look like a "standard, law-abiding citizen."
I distinguish five "lines of defense":
1. Organize your life and affairs so you're an unlikely target -- this may include "compartmentalizing" your life and affairs, so you have at least one "compartment" that will not attract undue attention, to present to the "outside world";
2. The ability to defend yourself when you're "pulled over";
3. The ability to handle threatening letters;
3a. Defending against the IRS;
4. The ability to defend yourself in court;
5. The ability to defend yourself in jail.
1. The First Line of Defense: Organize your life and affairs so you're an unlikely target -- this may include "compartmentalizing" your life and affairs, so you have at least one "compartment" that will not attract undue attention, to present to the "outside world."
The first principle here is to provide terrocrats with little or no information. Your "public compartment" could earn so little that it's below the threshold for filing tax returns and paying taxes. For example, you could have some "wealthy friends" who generously pay your rent and expenses every month. This "public compartment" could safely have a driver's license, social security number, etc. Meanwhile other "compartments" -- in forms such as trusts, foundations, offshore corporations, etc. -- could be earning substantial incomes in tax-free jurisdictions.
A very important principle is to organize the "compartments" so there are no paper trails linking them.
For many freedom lovers, the most practical approach is to have a "public compartment" that earns some money, files tax returns, and pays taxes. Every individual's situation is unique. We also have different personalities, different levels of knowledge, different freedom skills, different ways to assess risks vs. potential rewards, and different levels of risk-tolerance.
For many freedom lovers with a "public compartment" that's "in the system," it may be appropriate to develop one or more additional "compartments." This strategy may be particularly useful, should it at any time become necessary for the "public compartment" to "disappear." (What do you do when the Nazis come for you?)
The most powerful strategy for the "public compartment" is to "hide in plain sight." To the "outside world" this person looks like any "normal law-abiding citizen," who does nothing to attract undue attention.
For important privacy information, see '#TL05C: How To Seize Your Freedom'. See also the Privacy section of the Freedom/Liberty Portal.
2. The Second Line of Defense: The ability to defend yourself when you're "pulled over."
During the past decade, I've been pulled over four times by police. Once because "my car looked suspicious," twice because I was allegedly speeding (in one case, I paid a $100 fine; in the other, the cop was called away for an emergency before he could write a citation), and once because a cop misread the car's tags and thought they'd expired when they hadn't. None of these incidents posed a significant threat to my freedom. My "being a normal, law-abiding citizen" strategy has worked superbly well!
I don't have any statistics on this, but I'm pretty sure that most police arrests occur after the victims have been "pulled over" in their cars. So to me, it's most important that I reduce this risk to the minimum. My personal "second line of defense" is to play the role of a dumb, meek, brainwashed, respectful, obedient slave-citizen. I don't want the cop to see me as a threat to his "authority." I want to get the encounter over as soon as possible with minimal hassle, so I can get on with the business most important to me.
Fortunately, there are some brave freedom activists willing to confront the cops and their court-friends head-on. See the Right to Travel section of the Freedom/Liberty Portal.
Imagine what would happen if there were a million freedom lovers in America who refuse to have driver's licenses or register their cars? This could become a powerful freedom strategy with considerable impact. For it to succeed, those who practice it need to be able to defend themselves.
A useful tool for the "second line of defense" for those confronted by terrocrats is 'The Public Servant Questionnaire'. You can find another version of the PSQ in 'The Frog Farm FAQ', which also contains a wealth of other practical freedom information.
An improved and more comprehensive version of the PSQ is available from:
RareBird Consulting Services
320 West Third St. #C-191
Santa Rosa, Ca. 95401
Send $3.00 and a S.A.S.E. (business size #10) and ask for their PSQ.
The Rarebird PSQ is specifically for California. You can use it as a guide to make your own for your own location and circumstances. This information was provided by "Richard A. Flores" <cybernot@flash.net>, who wrote:
"It [Rarebird PSQ] has some excellent "state" questions, that are specifically designed for California, but quite easily adapted to Oklahoma (and probably any other state) with a little research. The main thing you will need is a copy of your state's constitution (which you can get by writing to the governor of your state and asking for a copy) and motor vehicle codes, which may be available on the web from a law college or large university or even an official state site. If not, you can visit the nearest law college (probably at a university) or possibly even the county court house to look at the codes."
A less confrontational instrument than the PSQ is the American Civil Liberties Union's "bust card".
To fly without identification, see Appendix #1, below.
3. The Third Line of Defense: The ability to handle threatening letters.
For most freedom lovers, the most frequent threat to their freedom comes in the form of a threatening letter. During the past decade I've received about ten threatening letters from terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrats or coercive political agents). One was from a Phoenix terrocrat, demanding that I get a business license. The business was being moved to another location at the time, so I just ignored the letter, and never heard from that terrocrat again.
I've received a few threatening form letters from postal terrocrats. In each case, the letters contained factual errors. I replied by pointing out the errors. In each case, that ended the matter.
The only "serious" threatening letter I've received was from the "Federal Securities and Exchange Commission" -- see '#TL16I: Refusal for Cause without Dishonor - U.C.C. 3-501'. My response, also in the above report, ended the matter.
"Refusal for Cause without Dishonor" is a powerful weapon worth studying.
About half the threatening letters I've received were such that they could be safely ignored. One was from the "Office of the Arizona Attorney General." It was similar to the SEC letter mentioned above. The main difference was that it said, "We would appreciate it if you would provide..." [all the information we're too lazy or incompetent to gather ourselves -- or we just don't have the resources...] I was tempted to write back, "Thank you for sharing what you appreciate. Now let me tell you what I appreciate..." Naturally, I resisted the temptation! So I just ignored the letter and never heard from the "AZ AG" again.
Both the SEC and AZ AG letters illustrate the importance of not providing terrocrats with information. If they don't have enough information to persecute you, and they can't easily get it, they often drop your case in order to concentrate on "easier pickings." (See 'Key Issues and Destroyed Arguments', 'Key Issue #4 - The Fifth Amendment.')
By responding competently and effectively to threatening terrocrat letters, they get the impression that you're going to be a "tough nut to crack." Explicitly or implicitly, they do cost/benefit analyses. Their resources are limited and they can persecute only a fraction of potential targets. Like most of us, they want maximum payoff from minimum effort.
In my experience, competent handling of the third line of defense greatly reduces the risk of having to defend yourself in court -- particularly if you ensure that the terrocrats don't have any important information they can use against you.
3a. Defending Against the IRS
Because, for many of us who seize our freedom, the biggest potential risk is from the taxman, this topic warrants a section of its own.
The first step is to study at least some of the materials suggested in the Fiscal Freedom articles.
I suspect that for most people, it's prudent to include the Reliance Defense Method as part of their strategy.
For a comprehensive example of handling the "third line of defense" (dealing with threatening letters), see 'Unvolunteering From the IRS (An Actual Case History)'.
For a related example, see 'Tax Freedom - A Personal Odyssey' and 'The Empire Strikes Back!'.
Have a look at "Document 6209". It contains ALL the codes used on the letters you get from the IRS.
Also have a look at Tax Tactics. Dawn Miller's expertise on decoding IRS letters and the IMF (Individual Master File). Probably the most comprehensive information available on how to respond to IRS letters and demands.
A "Demand for a Bill of Particulars" can also be used in dealing with terrocrat letters -- see Brad Barnhill's "Response to non-responsive IRS Response Dated 30 Apr 98'. More on the BOP below.
I believe that if you organize your affairs prudently -- particularly in avoiding potentially harmful paper trails -- and you handle correspondence with the IRS appropriately and competently -- you can virtually eliminate the risk of having to defend yourself in court against the IRS.
An important principle is "traverse vs. demur." In general, you don't make claims such as "the income tax is voluntary" (traverse). Instead, you have IRS Agents make claims, and then you challenge the validity and legality of their claims, as well as their jurisdiction and authority to make such claims (demur). Regarding the rare claims you would make -- "I've studied the law and consulted a number of qualified professionals and as a result have made a determination that I'm not a taxpayer" -- if an IRS Agent were to ask you to justify your determination, your response would be: "Mr. IRS Agent, if you don't accept my determination, then it's up to you to make a different determination" (demurral).
4. The Fourth Line of Defense: Defending yourself in court.
One of the subscribers to the Build Freedom e-mail list posted the following, with the subject heading, "Turnley is 67 and feisty as can be!":
Turnley Rucker, a non-Internet friend, asked me to post this with hopes it will give others the courage to buck the system from time to time.
[Editor: I'm not suggesting that anyone follow Mr. Rucker's particular "legal stance." To evaluate its merit, see 'Key Issues and Destroyed Arguments' and Larry Becraft's 'Money Issue Brief'. Above all, what I want to illustrate is the attitude -- the fighting spirit necessary to stand up to terrocrats.]
SUBJECT: Case# 98 001298-TT DATE: September 30, 1998
State of Florida v. Turnley Rucker
Dear Relatives and Friends,
On the above date I appeared in traffic court at the Court House, Hernando County for the second time on a charge of driving with an expired tag and since the first hearing as of September 2nd, a revoked driver's license.
The courtroom was packed and they brought in 10 people in handcuffs and leg irons all wearing brown jail suites and had them sit in the jury box. A majority of them were arrested for having expired tags or revoked driver's licenses. The judge stated that the legislature was serious about this "offense" and had imposed a $600.00 fine and a five year prison sentence with the loss of all civil rights (a felony situation).
I have been driving without a tag on my truck for over a year now, have been stopped six times by the police, received three tickets, and have appeared in traffic court twice. I have not been arrested nor fined.
What is the difference?
The difference is that I am a Sovereign Citizen and I know it and accept the responsibilities and benefits of a Sovereign under our Constitutional Republic form of government. With a minimal amount of research and study any other citizen can do the same. It is simple, clear cut, and easy to do. All it requires is a little faith, courage, and study.
As we think into this a little deeper, anytime since May 17th the judge could have issued a bench warrant for my arrest. But he didn't. Everyone else who was at the Sept. hearing because of expired tags or having no driver's license was cautioned about the severe consequences of driving without a valid tag or driver's license. I walked out of that courtroom with no such mandate hanging over me.
What was the difference?
The difference is that those other citizens voluntarily surrendered their Sovereignty, their very precious rights, all of them by making a plea of guilty or nolo contendre. I did not.
Most people have no idea what their freedom is really worth until they carelessly and thoughtlessly give it away and end up in handcuffs and leg irons with no choice about anything at all. Because of their ignorance they were conned out of their freedom.
Here is the protection we have and the only thing that our uninformed public servants understand: Article I Section 10: ..."no State shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt"... Article VI: "This Constitution, ...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding... all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
I asked the last officer who stopped me for the expired tag: 1. Are you aware that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? He said yes. 2. Are you aware we cannot be compelled to obey two conflicting laws? He said yes. 3. Are you aware that you took an oath to support, uphold and defend the Constitution when you became an officer of the law? 4 Are you aware of Article I Sec. 10 of the Constitution? ... no State shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt...? 5. Are you aware that gold and silver coin are no longer the money of account in the United States? 6. Are you aware that the currency now circulated as the money of account in the United States is not nor does it represent gold or silver coin?
At the hearing Sept. 30th, when it came my turn to step up to the podium before the judge he remarked, "Oh, you are the man about the gold and silver coins (I guess he couldn't remember the phrase from Article I Sec. 10). How do you plead?" Not guilty. The judge, "Okay, do you have a lawyer or will you represent yourself?"
I'll represent myself. After a few more questions he looked at the prosecuting attorney and said, "You had better bone up on the Constitution, especially as it relates to gold and silver coin." The date for the next hearing is November 16th.
An interesting aside here is that during the interim between the first hearing and the last one they thought I could be frightened into backing down with the threat from the Department of Motor Vehicles in Tallahassee, to revoke my driver's license if I did not purchase a tag. When I did not respond and the officer stopped me and proclaimed, "Don't you know this is an arrestible offense?" I replied, absolutely. And if you were to tell me that I would have to stand before a firing squad it still wouldn't make any difference. He looked me square in the eyes and said; "You really are committed aren't you? I said, absolutely.
I then explained to him, officer Lireto, at the last hearing the judge gave me three months to get a tag and then if I did not there would be a $48.00 fine (at that time my license had been expired four months). The judge went on to say that I could purchase a tag with either gold or silver coin or Federal Reserve notes, it made no difference to him.
When I explained to officer Lireto that gold or silver coin are now commodities and are no longer the money of account and that irredeemable Federal Reserve notes, by definition, are not money and that when I wrote to the court at the end of the three months for another hearing, it was declined.
He disappeared into his cruiser, and 30 minutes later emerged with his ticket book, and announced proudly, "Well I got you a court date. It's September 30th. I am going to have to write you two tickets. One for the tag and one for the revoked driver's license."
I said great. He was a little surprised when I was willing to sign them. Apparently some people aren't willing to sign a ticket thinking it admits guilt. Really it is just a charge that has to be proven in court.
The point here is a dramatic demonstration of the power and protection the U.S. Constitution gives us once we learn how to effectively use it. Although law enforcement people don't apparently understand as much about it as they should, they do have a healthy respect for it. Each time I was stopped up until the fourth month, when I mentioned that I was objecting to the purchase of a tag on a Constitutional basis they did not give a ticket. One officer said that after four months, if I did not have a tag I would lose my driver's license. And I am sure that I would have if I had not taken it to court. That action delayed the event for another three months.
The major purpose of this entire endeavor is to get a ruling, which of course, the courts, for some reason, do not want to give. Therefore as Sovereigns we must insist that this be done. This will come out of the next hearing on November 16th. Either the hard way or the easy way, whichever they choose. We, Charles Talley and myself, have absolute certainty of this. This ruling will start a marvelous chain of events that will bring much good to everyone.
In summation:
The bottom line on all this is that the Constitution of The United States of America is the supreme law of this land and no act of the legislature can override it. Although two judges have failed to rule on Article I Sec. 10, they have protected my rights under it by not forcing me to pay and not penalizing me in any way for not paying. At this time we have a legal impasse in my economic favor, the resolution of which will be left to future court sessions.
THE END... For now.
[Continued in Appendix #2, below.]
The "Bill of Particulars"
As far as I can tell, one of the most powerful weapons for defending yourself in court
(the "fourth line of defense"), is the "Bill of Particulars." Expert
guidance on using the BOP is available from "The Brothers of Mercy".
Details on how the BOP works, including an online form for submitting your particular details, so they can prepare the paperwork you need, can be found at the Brothers of Mercy Bill of Particulars page.
Robert W. Wangrud, publisher of Behold! Newsletter, is an expert on using the BOP. For an article on a successful use of the BOP, including extracts from the case transcript, see 'Case Dismissed upon Demand for Bill of Particulars' by Robert Wangrud.
For some important BOP court decisions, see 'Favorable and Noteworthy Criminal Decisions in the Federal Courts, 1996 Edition - Bill of Particulars'.
5. The Fifth Line of Defense: The ability to defend yourself in jail.
It may be prudent to prepare for the worst. Educate yourself ahead of "time" (pun intended!) At least, know where you can find some useful information. Check out the Prisoners' Rights section of the Freedom Technology Resource Directory.
APPENDIX #1 - FLYING WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION
[Reprinted from "The American's Bulletin" -- May 1997] by: Betsy Ross
In the last two years, everyone flying on a commercial airline has stepped up to an airline's ticket counter and heard the agent recite a familiar litany. The monologue goes, "has your bag been unattended; have you accepted gifts from a stranger; can I see your identification please?" The traveler docilely murmurs answers, and produces a driver's license or some equivalent.
As a die-hard Constitutionalist, I believe that we still have an absolute, unfettered, God-given right to travel from point A to point B without permission from the state -- in the air, as well as on land. This Nazi procedure of "your papers, please" has never been appropriate for our country.
I have had occasion to travel a good deal in the last several months, and on those trips I decided to research and test this issue about the necessity for producing identification. I have talked with agents, and their supervisors, of several major airlines in cities across America, and have gradually pieced together a rather complete picture of the real legal situation regarding our right to travel.
Next, I tested this finding with several airlines. When asked for identification, I produced only my Sam's Club card, or my travel agent's ID card, or a Costco card. These are all picture ID's, but they are privately issued, and do not even have a signature on them.
The airline agents just freaked out, and demanded to see some state-issued ID. They routinely told me that "it was federal law!" The government absolutely required me to cough up an "official" ID card, without which the agent couldn't even THINK of letting me on the plane.
I told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every time.
A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane.
Alaska Air was much more reasonable -- the agent just issued my seat pass, and commented that some people seem tenaciously to hold the thought that they have the right to travel without producing government ID -- to which I responded, "yes, amazing, isn't it -- and I'm one of them."
In Seattle, an agent said AS HE HANDED ME MY TICKET, "you know, if you don't show me any government-issued ID, I can't let you board the plane." I replied, Yes, I understand. But I didn't, and you are. With a smile, he just said, "have a nice trip." So I have flown several times using only my meager privately issued picture ID cards.
Every time I used this strategy, I noticed that the agent put an orange sticker on my checked bags, and also on my seat pass on the ticket. Several agents divulged that this is the policy they are supposed to follow when a person does not show government ID. The bags simply wait in the baggage room until the person presents the matching seat pass as he/she actually boards the plane; then the bags go on board.
On my next trip, I decided to push the envelope even further. When the Alaska Air agent made the usual perfunctory request for identification, I put on my best face, smiled sweetly, and said, "Gee, I'm so sorry, but I just don't have any ID I could show you."
To my speechless astonishment, the agent just said, "no problem -- just fill out this simple form, and present it to the counter at the airplane gate. I watched as the familiar orange sticker again went on my bag. I repeated the same scenario with Horizon Air on another trip. I have now flown twice without producing any identification whatsoever.
Northwest was actually instrumental in advancing my education about this issue. I was so aggravated by the insolent and hostile treatment that their employee gave me, (hopefully former employee, after the blistering letter I sent to the company president), that I demanded to see a supervisor on the spot.
I then demanded that he produce the relevant federal regulations RIGHT NOW, or face personal liability for authorizing an unreasonable search and seizure, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, civil rights deprivation and any other legal buzz words I could think of at that moment which would justify a lawsuit against him personally, as well as his employer.
Like everyone else, he couldn't show me any statute or regulations. He even admitted that there are none. However, he did produce a copy of Security Directive 96-05, which the Federal Aviation Agency issued to all airlines in August of 1996.
Its wording is very instructive; it reads as follows:
1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -
A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.
C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A "SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW.
[no letter] CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED;
A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
1. EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER, [remember the actions taken by northwest] OR;
2. BAG-MATCH -- ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES NOT BOARD. [remember all those orange stickers]
B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS.
This document apparently goes on for ten more pages; the Northwest supervisor gave me only the first page, which contains the information printed above. The next time I refused to produce ID and the agent freaked, I told her, "just tap up Sec-Dec 96-5 on your computer, and go to Paragraph 1, Section C. Designate me as a 'selectee,' and proceed accordingly.
She apparently thought I was an FAA undercover employee, because she said that she was "tired of you federal guys coming around" and literally spying on airline agents, "coercing us into lying to people, and essentially being the 'bag man' for an activity which has no legal requirement." I told her that I could not agree more.
Another airline employee later confirmed that FAA agents often engage in such entrapment activities, to make sure that airline agents parrot the government party line about state-issued ID.
I also hit pay dirt in a discussion with another, much nicer Northwest agent on the East coast. In a candid conversation, he told me that FAA personnel had held training sessions with all airline agents in the fall of 1996. Agents were informed directly by the FAA that they absolutely could not bar an American citizen from boarding a plane, even if a passenger refused to produce any identification at all!
I understand Delta Airline is facing two large lawsuits because employees twice denied this reality, and actually twice kept off a plane a passenger who had only private ID to show. Anyone want to own an airline, courtesy of a judge? I have personally flown Delta with only a private travel card, so I guess they already had their hand slapped
Yet another agent in the Midwest admitted that airline personnel were deliberately and knowingly coercing people into showing government ID by saying "it's the law." According to him the reality is that the companies are simply tired of people selling their frequent-flyer tickets.
The airlines wanted to stem this practice by checking everyone's ID, but knew there would be BIG problems if they instituted this procedure as a private corporate policy. It was so much more convenient to say it was federal law and make the government the scapegoat.
So this policy meets the airlines' private financial goals, and the government's goal of ever-increasing social control. If no one complains or asserts their rights regarding travel, then another freedom is "poof" gone. Our children watch this happen, and grow up thinking that the state has both the right to define our identity by issuing documents saying who we are, and also the right to require us to produce them on demand. Reprinted from "The American's Bulletin," 3536 N Pacific Hwy, Medford, OR 97501, May 1997, (541)-779-7709.
APPENDIX #2 - The Turnley Rucker Case [Continued from The Fourth Line of Defense.]
Charles Talley <ctalley@macisp.net> later posted an explanation:
I am new at this so please bare with me. I am working with Turnley on this matter. We are trying to get a judge to rule on this matter so that he will set a precedent that we can all use. You see article 1 Section 8 requires Congress to coin the money (gold and silver coin) and set the value thereof and of foreign coin. Roosevelt stole the gold for the federal reserve bankers and Johnson Stole the Silver. This is the same as the pharoas did in Egypt with the Scarab by stealing the gold and silver leaving the people with the image of a tumble bug of no value. The same as your Federal Reserve Notes. You may trade these for anything that anybody will trade with you for them. You see they are created out of thin air by the bankers and the value is controlled by the whims of Allan Greenspan. This causes runaway inflation and just about all of our ills in this country today, and they will get more and worse if we don't stop this in any manner at our disposal. Turnley and I have chosen to use the Constitution itself to stop this horrible theft of our property. We also hope that some of you will study this and lend your support by advising us pro and con and maybe help us swim with the alligators too. By the way, I literally do this too. Guts or Crazy, depends on your knowledge and skill.
Our forefathers gave us a means to safeguard our property value. Article 1 Section 10 states that the states can only use coined money. This causes the Congress to coin money. We have unlimited right to contact and use whatever we want to for barter or money, even FRNs. We the people created limited federal and state governments and nowhere do we give them even the slightest power over us. We are the sovereign in this country and not the government or bureaucrats.
Article VI states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States Shall be the supreme Law of the Land: And the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States. Shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution: but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
We have a signed copy of these oaths.
American Jurisprudence And US code further expands this.
The purchase of license plate is not the issue here and we are not going to let it be. We are going to hold him [the judge] only to the constitutional issue. If he violates his oath of office then we are fully prepared to sue him personally for violating his oath of office. Not for pleasure but for FRNs. You see, we are prepared to go all the way regarding this matter with everything we have.
"We The People" created these Governments and it's only up to "We The People" to enforce them.
PLEASE Give us your support!
Charles Talley <ctalley@macisp.net>; 14 Nov 1998:
Well we have resurrected Old Turnley again. I am charles Talley. Turnley and I work together on these matters. We just met about 6 mo. ago because a mutual friend said that we should meet. So I called him. He had just came from court on article I sections 8 and 10 -- gold and silver coin. That is a constitutional issue. The judge knew that the law required him to rule in an authorized proceeding under Article III for the Constitution -- see Article VI, US Code, American Jurisprudence and other constitutional law -- or he would be violating his oath of office if he did not, because Turnley told him so. He got in a terrible tizzy and said, "They might hang me out to dry but here is my ruling. You have 90 days to get a license plate for your pickup truck or I'm going to fine you $48.00". Now in the same court that day he was sentencing about 10 people to one night in jail, $250.00 and 50 hr. with the Salvation Army. He did not do this to Turnley. Why?????? You see, Turnley has made this a constitutional issue. Miller v. US states: "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." DO NOT EVER LET IT BECOME A STATUTORY ISSUE, or they will EAT YOUR LUNCH.
We then went to the tax office and tried to buy a plate but could not because there was no Article I Section 8 money available. After being stopped three times with no action, finally an officer got him a court date on the plates. Judge Hyslop refused to hear the case and they handled it administratively but with all kind of threats.
So Turnley told another officer the same thing and got another hearing. This time we did get in court, Turnley representing himself sui juris. Turnley asked the Judge if it was an authorized proceeding under Article III. The judge said yes. Turnley pleaded not guilty. At the pretrial Turnley had asked if it was Article III or an army court-martial because of the fringed flag. The judge said he would have an American flag in court for Turnley's trial. Still trying not to rule on the constitutional issue, he set Turnley up for a jury trial. Turnley refused. Then the judge gave him an indefinite date, the 16th, 17th, 18th, or he wasn't sure.
A reporter called Turnley for an interview on the case. We decided not to have an interview for fear the judge might be trying to get him to perjure the case. We have asked for a definite hearing date.
[Turnley reports:] I am in court for plates, driver's license, insurance and for telling a trooper that I had a right to travel, as the state had taken my driving privilege away and threatened me with arrest by bench warrant, which they never did. I told him that we could not get a judge to rule on a constitutional issue opposing the Florida statute. He went to his radio for about 45 minutes and he said, "I have a court date for you if you will be there." I said fine I'll be there. He said, "I don't think you want to sign this ticket." I thanked him and said I'll be glad to sign and I did. I said that I appreciated his efforts as it would help us both. He then told me that it was not legal for me to drive this vehicle. I said that I did not want to argue that issue now. He grinned and said, "Let me put it this way. I am going straight ahead and If I see you driving this vehicle I will take you in and you will have to post bond." I said that I could not follow my buddy now with our two cows, so I will cut across to Williston and then on to Crystal River. If you want to tell your buddies, feel free. He grinned and said, "Have a nice day." I tipped my hat and drove away.
I have in the hearing challenged the jurisdiction and cited Miller v. US. In this case the judge has not been educated as to constitutional issues. She has already been surprised. My pretrial starts 1 Dec. Looking forward to it.
If the judges refuse to rule for the constitution then they will be in violation of their oath of office (Article VI), and if they don't, they are personally liable and face possible impeachment. This way, we will have a precedent set that "WE THE PEOPLE" can use to free up taxes because there is no coined money available as Congress is required to furnish so the states can function. AIN'T OUR FOREFATHERS NEAT???? You see, we can check our government by using the law that they have sworn to uphold.
Turnley won a case on property taxes on Article 8 and 10. The judge did rule but in a very vague way. The lawyer screwed up and let him get by with it. So we know this will work and have the court hearing to prove it. Please give us some critique so that we can take advantage of your research and we are proud to share ours. Thank you, Charles D. Talley, Sui Juris.
[Any further updates on future developments will be added.]
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com