If Ed Brown dies then so do I.

[CNHT]

CNHT - I'm slow...I just realized what your acronym is and found the site. Still reading...

JohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

I just think the title of this thread is rather depressing. There is no need for a person to give up their life for something someone else chose to do.
I am hoping it's just a troll, or plant or whatever.

[JohninRI]

I just think the title of this thread is rather depressing. There is no need for a person to give up their life for something someone else chose to do.
I am hoping it's just a troll, or plant or whatever.

I couldn't agree with you more.  That's the reason I felt compelled to shed some light on the income tax.  If any of these people are truly serious they need to know the truth.

John

[Henry]

JohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

Henry,  that's only one way of losing the status.  The most common way is to make yourself eligible for Federal benefits by applying for a SS#.

If you have a SS# you no longer can access your State or Federal Bills of Rights.  Al you have are regulated privileges under the 14th Amendment. 

John

Yes, but the thing is these contracts are joined into unknowingly, and so are fraudulent (signing as a "U.S Citizen" on the Selective Service forms for example, when under 18 no less!). I imagine even Mr. Kanning had and used a number earlier in his life before learning the score, though unless I'm corrected I doubt he uses it now. The practice I see firsthand where I live is that the number is assigned at birth, regardless if requested, and a number of vaccinations are forced on the baby under thread of confiscating the baby. That's my sister-in-law's story, and she's not even aware that that's a bad thing. That sort of thing literally gives me nightmares. That's why when I have a kid in the next few years if my wife approves we're going to give birth in the home, and I'm going to draw up a private non-state-issued "birth certificate" notarized, witnessed, and all of that. When he or she's an adult they can decide if they want to join the machine or not.

[JohninRI]

es, but the thing is these contracts are joined into unknowingly, and so are fraudulent (signing as a "U.S Citizen" on the Selective Service forms for example, when under 18 no less!). I imagine even Mr. Kanning had and used a number earlier in his life before learning the score, though unless I'm corrected I doubt he uses it now. The practice I see firsthand where I live is that the number is assigned at birth, regardless if requested, and a number of vaccinations are forced on the baby under thread of confiscating the baby. That's my sister-in-law's story, and she's not even aware that that's a bad thing. That sort of thing literally gives me nightmares. That's why when I have a kid in the next few years if my wife approves we're going to give birth in the home, and I'm going to draw up a private non-state-issued "birth certificate" notarized, witnessed, and all of that. When he or she's an adult they can decide if they want to join the machine or not.

Henry,  you don't have to go that far.  Even iff they issue it, you and your child don't have to use it.  And when your child reaches the age of majority, he or she must declare a revocation of any adhesions which were done in their name by you their parents.

This is what we have done and this is the pre-brief which is now into the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  Incidentally, the Attorney General has asked for an additional month to answer.  This makes it impossible to decide the case until the next session.

My son is 26 years old and when he turned 18 he filed a Rescission and Revocation with the Rhode Island Secretary of State of all the contracts which we as his parents may have entered him into prior to his reaching the age of majority.  Mind you that there were none.  But since that time he has never entered into a contract with any government entity.  To make a long story short, he was stopped a second time for driving without a license and is now going to the Rhode Island Supreme Court and soon to the Federal Court of Appeals and hopefully to the United States Supreme Court.  Below is his preliminary brief filed by his Lawyer, Robert Healey Jr., one of the coolest people I know.

This is a very complicated issue and if successful will mean that the United States of America and every other government entity will have to adopt two separate rules of law, one for the 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States" which reside in every one of the 50 united States of America, and another for sovereign state Citizens in full possession of all their constitutionally guaranteed Rights.

My sons lawyer is very excited because not many people in this country have my son's pure status.  For this case to fail, the United States Supreme Court will have to declare the Constitution for the United States of America dead.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND            SUPREME COURT
PROVIDENCE, Sc.


STATE

   V.                     C.A.#: SU-07-0135

Grant Garvin

         RULE 12 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
         ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE COURT

ISSUE 1:
Does  the United States Constitution mandate a person waive his or her constitutionally guaranteed rights retained under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in order to receive a governmental privilege through its Fourteenth Amendment?

ISSUE 2:
If a State Citizen of Rhode Island fails to either actually or indirectly ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, does any Fourteenth Amendment analysis apply to that Citizen given the Citizen's Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights?


         STATEMENT OF THE CASE
   This case presents a rare if not unique issue to the Court for analysis.  It questions both the application of Constitutional rights and the application of Fourteenth Amendment judicial analysis.  While it may appear as though it is a Rube Goldberg construct, the Court need remember that Goldberg creations, while often difficult to follow, were functional and reached the objective, albeit indirectly.
   The Defendant, Grant Garvin, was charged with the operation of a motor vehicle in East Providence, Rhode Island, not having first obtained a drivers license.  The Defendant does not deny driving on the highway; however, the Defendant claims that the jurisdiction over his right to personal travel is beyond the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction of the court.
   Although the current court rules have abolished "special appearances" to challenge jurisdiction, the Defendant clearly indicated to the Court that it was his intent to present himself by way of "special appearance" to contest jurisdiction.  The trial judge, with the strong arm of a potential contempt citation and an indication that the current court rules were clearly to apply thus preserving his "special appearance" status, held a trial.
   At trial the Defendant offered no defense other than to argue that the law is inapplicable in that a Ninth and Tenth Amendment Citizen is not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment unless he or she waives into it.  The Defendant asserts that he has not.
   The Defendant reasons as follows.  He is a natural born state Citizen in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  He has never made any direct or indirect manifestation that he has waived his Ninth or Tenth Amendment rights retained by him.  Having his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights in tact, for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to him, he would either 1) personally ratify the Amendment, thereby waiving his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's protections or 2) tacitly approve of it through actions that would be consistent with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   The Defendant has done neither.  In fact, within 3 days of  his 18th birthday, he filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island a document, A Notice of Declaration and Reservation of Rights (Defendant's Exhibit D at the Superior Court trial) clarifying his relationship to the State and Federal governments.  As this court and others have  frequently held, contracts entered into by or on behalf of a minor are void-able when timely done after attaining the age of majority.  That document filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island is a complete rescinding of any actions (although none had been taken) that may have been conceived of as a contract with the United States government which would have shown a tacit ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Not having made any contract with the government of the United States, either to acquire a Social Security number, to initiate a tax compact between him and the United States government, or to seek any other federal benefit or privilege, the Defendant has not had any contractual dealings with the United States government which could be construed under law to have rendered him to have "tacitly" ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.  As the record shows, his behavior, in filing a declaration with the Rhode Island Secretary of State, indicates a clear intent to retain his Ninth and Tenth Amendment status.
   It has been clear that the Rhode Island courts and the State of Rhode Island consider driving to be a "privilege" which is executed and interpreted through the Fourteenth Amendment for most of its residents.  But how can a Fourteenth Amendment "privilege" stop a person fully endowed with his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's constitutionally guaranteed right to travel?
   If, in fact, one does not waive his innate rights under the United States Constitution, then how can the State wrest away such rights to afford a "privilege"?  Since a person's right to travel is a constitutional guarantee, it can only be regulated by the state under a privilege system via the Fourteenth Amendment or by the common law standard of least restrictive application.
   Rhode Island, as a State in the Union, has a different standing in relation to the federal government than an individual Citizen of the State of Rhode Island.  The Tenth Amendment clearly provides that powers not granted the federal government, nor retained by the states, remain in the people.  The Ninth Amendment states that constitutionally enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.    At the time of the signing of the Constitution and approval of the Bill of Rights, an individual was endowed with a right to travel the highways of the nation, unhampered lest the travel was for commercial gain.
   Whether or not Rhode Island has adopted the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion.  While a State can waive its rights and subject itself to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot do so on behalf of its Citizens where the Citizens have vested constitutionally guaranteed rights.  If that were so a State could waive the Bill of Rights whenever it is "inconvenient" for some State action.   Unlike an individual who has not ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the State is bound by Fourteenth Amendment constitutional analysis, quite obviously, having waived its the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments constitutional protections.  The Defendant here has done no such thing.
   
Most Citizens of Rhode Island would be similarly situated as the Defendant is; however, most Citizens personally contract with the federal government to obtain a social security number and thereby tacitly ratify the federal government's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Most fail to rescind and void contracts at age of majority, and so that contractual relationship, most likely formed for parents to obtain a tax bonus when the Citizen was an un-emancipated minor child, is a binding legal obligation on the newly minted adult who has failed to void such contracts.  In this case, the Defendant never had a Social Security contract with the federal government.
   If the Defendant has retained and duly exercised his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights, then the Defendant cannot be held to the legal obligations of the Fourteenth Amendment in that they cannot be applied to him.

   Since Rhode Island holds driving a "privilege", using a Fourteenth Amendment analysis, how does this impact on the Defendant who is under a constitutionally based right to travel?

   Thus, the issue before the Court is:  Can the Rhode Island "privilege" to drive be conditioned on a Citizen's waiver of his or her existing constitutional rights?
   In order for a Rhode Island Citizen to receive a license to operate, he or she must list a Social Security number.  In order to obtain a Social Security number, one must contract with the United States government, and, in doing so, tacitly waive any Ninth and Tenth Amendment's retention of rights the Defendant may have vis-à-vis the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Must one relinquish to the State a duly retained right in order to obtain a privilege when the person has a constitutional right to act as such without the privilege?
   If rights retained by the people under the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments are true and valid, then they cannot be deemed waived without consent, either direct  or tacit.
   Therefore, with his full panoply of constitutionally guaranteed rights in tact, including his un-enumerated Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights which would allow for the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, the Defendant respectfully submits that the courts have no jurisdiction over him as to matters that are based on a Fourteenth Amendment privilege to operate a vehicle and travel on the highways, that is, as long as the Citizen is not driving on the highway for commercial gain.   Any state action to otherwise limit this Defendant's right to travel requires analysis under common law and not the Fourteenth Amendment analysis typically afforded such matters.
   In so concluding, the Defendant could not obtain a Rhode Island Operator's license without a Social Security number.  To obtain a Social Security number, the Defendant would be coerced by the State to waive rights retained by him under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Thus, the Defendant cannot be held to have violated a "privilege" that he has neither sought nor acknowledged as valid.  Without the Fourteenth Amendment attaching to this Defendant, the court is without jurisdiction.

   To aid in this analysis, the Defendant adds two pages: Addendum A and Addendum B.

               Respectfully submitted,



               _______________________________
               Robert J. Healey, Jr. – RI BAR # 3065
               665 Metacom Avenue
               Warren, RI  02885-2346
               (401) 245-0306
               (401) 247-1908 (fax)
               roberthealey@msn.com






         CERITIFICATION OF MAILING

I, the undersigned, mailed a true copy of the above to THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, 150 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903 on this the 21st day of May, 2007, by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid.


                 
                  _______________________________



Addendum B

RELEVANT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the .

[CNHT]

 I don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

[JohninRI]

I don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

CNHT,

That is a very interesting statement!

John

[CNHT]

I don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

CNHT,

That is a very interesting statement!

John

Which means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that... 

[JohninRI]

Which means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that...  Sad

To make the contract legal you don't have to get any benefits;  it only matters that you are eligible to apply for them.  The SS# makes you eligible for them.  Oddly enough, without one, you can't pay taxes.  Try filing a return without a number.

[CNHT]

Which means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that...  Sad

To make the contract legal you don't have to get any benefits;  it only matters that you are eligible to apply for them.  The SS# makes you eligible for them.  Oddly enough, without one, you can't pay taxes.  Try filing a return without a number.

Return? What's that?

Seriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

[JohninRI]

Good for you!  It.s all a waste anyway.  The Federal Reserve Act guaranteed a bankrupt America the moment it was passed.

[JohninRI]

It was nice talking with you CNHT and Henry, but it's past my bedtime.  Good night.

John

[native]

HI ALL!

Newbie here from IOWA
with you all and recording it all

LOVE from IOWA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Maximus]

'They' Really don't want Maximus to get 'Pissed off' at them.........


We shall 'Bury You'..........

[alohamonkey]

JohninRI,

That's awesome!  Good luck with your son's case.  Keep us posted.  That's a very interesting and logical way to attack the Catch-22 the feds have created. 

[Kat Kanning]

Do your blood washing elsewhere, Maximus.