See ya Tuesday…

It appears something nefarious is afoot….or was.

If in fact your analysis is accurate in regard to the legal interpretation of the Patriot Act as it applies here, there are several folks undergoing extensive interrogation about now. I personally lean to the "other" philosophy however, and expect the TRAP acronym is likely more definitive than most imagined when they yielded their personal information to the solicitations. Time will tell…

If you don't mind, would you respond to my earlier question about legal challenges won by NCAR freemen within the state over the past 12 years? Granted, I don't exactly follow case law at the state or local levels (or any other for that matter), but am interested in what legal battles have been won, lost, or summarily dismissed, as well as how the defense was prosecuted.

and found errors in every single claim – some very serious. I won't go into them all here, but I will mention a few, starting with 28 U.S.C. § 3002, which John Ainsworth mentioned. That section, claimed to prove that the United States is a "Federal corporation", is merely a section of definitions which apply to ONE AND ONLY ONE CHAPTER of Title 28, U.S. Code – Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedure. That chapter deals ONLY with judicial procedures the federal Gov't. can use when collecting a debt owed to it.

But this is a common practice with "UCC", Strawman", "Redemption", etc. groups – they'll take one small section of text completely out of context & use it as a blanket to cover everything. Another glaring example of that is the "quote" from the U.S. supreme court case Caha v. US, 152 U.S. 211 (1894), which does not say what they claim it does & isn't even about the subject-matter they say it is.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/152/211/

Here's what that case was about:

"This case comes on error from the district court of the United States for the district of Kansas. On March 31, 1893, plaintiff in error, having been found guilty of the crime of perjury by the verdict of a jury, was sentenced to confinement in the Kansas state penitentiary for a term of two years, and to pay a fine of $10.
The questions are these: The indictment was returned September 22, 1892. It in two counts charged the defendant with the crime of perjury, committed on January 3, 1890, in the land office at Kingfisher, Okl., in falsely testifying that he was on a sand bar in the South Canadian river at 12 o'clock noon on the 22d of April, 1889; that this false testimony was given in a contest then pending in the land office, in which one Thomas Burch contested defendant's homestead entry on the ground that he had violated the act of congress of March 2, 1889, and the president's proclamation, by entering upon and occupying the lands opened to settlement under such proclamation prior to 12 o'clock noon of the day named therein, to wit, April 22, 1889."

And citing Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?...

they use a quote which does not even exist in that case. Here's what that case was about:

"The Eight Hour Law, 40 U.S.C. § 324, as amended by 40 U.S.C. § 325a, which provides, in effect, that every contract to which the United States is a party shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one day upon such work unless he is compensated at the rate of one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all work in excess of eight hours per day, is not applicable to work done under a contract between the United States and a private contractor on construction projects for the United States in Iraq and Iran."

Now do those cases support the contention that the U.S. is a "federal corporation" whose acts do not extend to the States? Clearly, the "Restore America" people are "Polly Parrots" – parroting what they've heard from some "Paytriot" and/or what they read in some e-mail or on some website, NEVER taking the time to actually READ the statute, regulation or court case presented as "proof" of the claims made.

I've seen this for 20 years & it infuriates me – people who start out with an opinion or "belief system" & then "cherry pick" snippets from statutory & case law to back up their opinion / belief. And when you call them on it, showing them the actual text of what they're "quoting", they'll call you every foul name under the sun & seek to discredit you any way they can. The worst part about it is that they lead so many well-meaning people astray, including people who end up in jail or the penitentiary because they believed the hype & never bothered to look anything up themselves.

I've said it 1000 times & I'll say it again – when you hear/see claims such as the "Restore America" people make, GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF !!! If you don't, you may be wearing an orange jumpsuit before you realize you've been lied to.

~ ~ ~