| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lewish |
Posted - 17 Jul 2005 : 13:25:44
Dear Readers,
"They claim that I was tried and convicted in a "Court". However, in looking at their statutes and codes, I can find no evidence of having been in one. So where was I? Here is some evidence to ponder.
Title 28 U.S.C. Sec 610. Courts defined
As used in this chapter [28USCS Secs. 601 et seq] the word "courts" includes the court of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Istands, the United States Claims Court [United States Court of Federal Claims], and the Court of International Trade.
Title 28 CFR Sec 11.6 Definitions
Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise or where the term is otherwise definde elsewhere in this subpart, the following definitions shall apply to this subpart.
(a) Agency means:
(1) An executive agency as defined by 5 U.S.C. 105;
(2) A military department as defined by 5 U.S.C. 102;
(3) The United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission;
(4)An agency of the judicial branch, including a court as defined by 28 U.S.C. 610, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation;
(5) An agency of the legislative branch, including the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Rpresentatives; and
(6) Other entities that are establishments of the federal government.
Well now, seeing as how the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON is not listed in 28 U.S.C. 610, I strongly suspect that it falls into the definition of @8 CFR 11.6 in either paragraph (4) or (6). So, now the question is, where did an agency get the power to sentence a man to incarceration?
Thoughts anyone?
Lewis |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Manuel |
Posted - 07 Nov 2005 : 13:22:35
Greetings to all on these windy days,
Yesterday I read this little article (another shadow intimidation), and reminded me of Watt Tylers rebellion:
From HERE
Taxman goes after girl, 12
Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada
Kim Westad
Times Colonist
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.
She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs. Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.
"I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview Friday.
Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some $700,000 they say is owed.
Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7 student, up to a value of $13,000.
So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998 Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the spring of 2005.
"I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?" Abbey said.
Her father is more blunt.
"She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.
Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her husband's.
While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the situation and penalized.
"She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She just turned 12," Egeland said.
She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's name.
Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath cannot speak about a specific case.
But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property or money to family members, regardless of age.
The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.
"We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent a person from putting assets out of our reach."
This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.
|
| RevokeTheTrust |
Posted - 06 Nov 2005 : 02:58:45
Greetings and blessings to brothers David and Lewis!
I've some import.
quote:
The man's proper response should have been, "Which one are you looking for? I know several persons by that name." Now, unless they can specifically say who they are looking for, then any arrest attempt is a fraudulent act on their part.
Apply these, http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm. I given some of those to people at risk to being struck down for playing the harlot as "POLICE". It's not God's will they dwell in darkness, opening their doors to swallow in such strangers when they see fit.
quote:
If they simply ask who I am, then I will respond with something like "Who needs to know and why?" I have no legal requirement to divulge to them who I am. My "Father" has not yet revealed my true name, so I can't give it even if I wanted to.
There needs to be noted that there is someone out there named "Who." Who does everything. http://catfreedom.com/Oath/ADVERSARY%20PROCEEDING.pdf is accurate to the innacuracies. The people contributing to CATfreedom.com seem to be doing well, though they're just rehashing emphasis on bills of lading, keeping away from the benefits of association to the club, and striking when the seals change or cargo diverted etc. It's all complementary to the saving to suitors, and another way to cover up the holes to prevent any people in bad-faith to hurt themselves more than they would've. There's some joyous noise recorded in mp3 and mp4 format, available for download, but it's difficult to enjoy a harp with only two or three elements; one more color to the rainbow, one more patch to the quilt, one more stripe to the coat. It's a great study for beginners, brings many treaties into play, and its purpose is strictly ecclesiastical. Website is static, no open forum is available, no Bittorrent extension downloads available; bandwidth and resources are presented as limited.
quote:
I believe they are just hoping I will panic and turn myself in as a volunteer.
How did you volunteer? Did the sock-puppet on your hand get stretched onto your entire body all of a sudden? It's quite imaginative for being the (le)prosy hoisted by all the bail-worshippers. It's entertaining that God dislikes idolatry so much that evenentually the tools of destroying idolatry are idolatry, or snake-eating-snake, et al. I'ld just assume the sock puppet on the antennae pole of a car and be done with it; sell the cloak to your friend and let him speak for it, and let him sell his cloak to you as for your to speak for it; just so the first-person and third-person orations don't appear as host to multiple personalities often criticized by those undefined "good people" or non-"good people" hinted in the Alien and Sedition Act.
quote:
We shall see.
Whenever I gaze upon the fabulously deep word, see, I think of bills of lading. It's been about three months since I made a stink at one of the tentacles of the main post office hoisting upright a replica female postal worker mocked in a cardboard dummy, with a name ensigned "C. BATTLE" Anyone see it, but me? That would've been prime target for the cross-bow.
Your friend, compact, Gregory-Thomas |
| Lewish |
Posted - 05 Nov 2005 : 13:08:42
Greetings David,
The man's proper response should have been, "Which one are you looking for? I know several persons by that name." Now, unless they can specifically say who they are looking for, then any arrest attempt is a fraudulent act on their part.
If they simply ask who I am, then I will respond with something like "Who needs to know and why?" I have no legal requirement to divulge to them who I am. My "Father" has not yet revealed my true name, so I can't give it even if I wanted to.
BTW, with the actions that I have done in Wash., D.C., I don't really think the clerk will be sending the warrant over to the Marshall's Service. If they really wanted me, then the judge would have issued the warrant from the bench last week, and not played all these games in the record. I believe they are just hoping I will panic and turn myself in as a volunteer.
We shall see.
Regards,
Lewis |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 05 Nov 2005 : 07:48:42
I just read this comment in my email.
Crosstalk:
quote:
Today I bought a rather garish, as 'new' paper back book: PIED PIPERS OF
BABYLON, Verl K Speer, 1985. $1.00
After reading through the Introduction, I realized this is the lesson
plan for one of Winston Shrout's seminars.
I bought the book after reading the Table of Contents. This is the story
board for all of Winston's seminars (minus the Fiduciary, A4V and
Prisoner Bonding stuff).
Acknowledgments included Lee Pbrost.
BTW, I just read a Commerical Lein by WS and the next day read the post
on Ecclesia by LewisH on Hartford Van Dyke, which I spent the day
following up on. WS, back in 2000 was using, to great success Van
Dyke's Commerical Lien.
My 'Coffee Group' are NOT readers......old duffers that just want to
talk about it.
I do not have a problem with the seminar people, because most of the
people I know would rather listen to someone talk, then jump up and do
something.
My wish is I would have found this book two years ago.
Be careful. I have seen U.S. Marshal service execute arrest on unsigned warrants.
quote:
It cannot be legally executed as issued. Now, ain't that fun! I believe "they" are merely balancing the bookkeeping on the account. They have bonds out that are unpayable now, so they have to do something to raise the revenue for them. So, that is what I believe is happening here.
I translate that to mean that Lewis Vincent, you, must become a support brick in the zigurat on the back of the Dollar Bill (FRN) named "Lewis Vincent Hughes". That is the original bond - the open-ended bank note (suggestion) on the birth certificate as a mortgage. [Open-ended meaning the bankers may have a guideline as to how much surety to assign but your engineering degree, career and credit rating adjust subsequent bonding (mortgage(s), car payments - equity in general upon the legal entity as chattel including payoffs, offsets and adjustments on previous gambles (investments)).]
So I hope your sense of security is from being willing to meet them in open confrontation on the record. (You should be ready with people who will hire a professional court reporter for you while your hands are cuffed.) Rather than to think because of faulty signatures, they will not arrest you. You go on to say:
quote:
We shall see. It took a week just to get the judge's signature, so that don't want the defendant very badly.
Experience tells me, signed or not, when the clerk tenders the warrant to the U.S. Marshal service, they will execute as though it is valid process. Legal entity "Lewis Vincent Hughes" is chattel and not entitled to proper process. Municipal police officers recently approached a man at his office and asked him who he was. He equivalently said, "I am Lewis Vincent" and they cuffed him saying, "You are Lewis Vincent Hughes."
That fellow has an interlocutory appeal (before trial) in place but the clerk in the appellate court will not let him pay anything for a filing fee. Like they do not want the pretrial appeal to go into effect. If the appeal stands in proper contract, he is not properly a defendant (improper arraignment is part of the appeal). Therefore he will just sit through trial without defending, without counsel, because he already has appealed.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 04 Nov 2005 : 22:19:44
Hello David,
Well, to answer your question on "How does one get rid of thier Social Security Number?", it is in Title 26 U.S. Code. You "revoke" and "revest", with proper notice to the interested agencies. I will leave the rest for you to discover.
As to my case, well, it is even more interesting now. On Nov. 3, '05, the judge signed an Order for a Bench Warrant. However, the "order" does not specify who is to be arrested. Hmmm, now ain't that interesting. Then today, Nov. 4, a Deputy Clerk issued a BENCH WARRANT FOR ARREST of Lewis Vincent Hughes. Now, to the average person, that would probably strike great fear in their heart. It gave me a anxiety attack for about 30 seconds, until I realized there is NO judge's signature on this thing. It cannot be legally executed as issued. Now, ain't that fun! I believe "they" are merely balancing the bookkeeping on the account. They have bonds out that are unpayable now, so they have to do something to raise the revenue for them. So, that is what I believe is happening here.
We shall see. It took a week just to get the judge's signature, so that don't want the defendant very badly.
Peace to you,
Lewis |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 31 Oct 2005 : 13:28:28
Dear Lewis;
There are so many ways to express the truth. Some are more eloquent than others and we all have different perspectives.
quote:
Well, this is the wrong thread for the discussion of tax issues, so I will make my comments brief. If you have a Social Security number and don't file taxes, then you are in violation of your duties as fiduciary of the the foreign situs trust that bears your name in all capital letters. You are required by law to file tax returns for the trust that you are fiduciary of. This is the underlying reason people are convicted in tax cases, even though it may never come out in court. Now, those that have eyes to see, will see a solution to the problem in what I just wrote.
That is the simplest and most eloquently I have read the truth in a long while. It begs the question, "How does one get rid of thier Social Security Number?" I have no problems about IMFIRS stuff since getting rid of mine. [Excepting of course having a legal name and SSN imposed upon me.]
I hope you are correct about your case coming to final demise. "The court also directed the AUSA to prepare a nobail arrest warrant.", sounds a little bit scary to me. Especially with how difficult it is with a reshuffling of players in a corporate office like that.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 29 Oct 2005 : 23:33:10
Hello All,
Well, this is the wrong thread for the discussion of tax issues, so I will make my comments brief. If you have a Social Security number and don't file taxes, then you are in violation of your duties as fiduciary of the the foreign situs trust that bears your name in all capital letters. You are required by law to file tax returns for the trust that you are fiduciary of. This is the underlying reason people are convicted in tax cases, even though it may never come out in court. Now, those that have eyes to see, will see a solution to the problem in what I just wrote.
Regarding Second above, I quit listening to Rice McCleod almost 2 years ago. While he may have about 10% of it right, you will end up in jail doing things his way. Don't go there.
It was an interesting day in court yesterday, 10-28-05 A.D. I wasn't there! The day before, the original prosecuter, who I got kicked off the case in Sept. of last year for being in violation of 28 USC 530B, filed a notice into the current case and a couple of others, that he was withdrawing from all cases involving the defendant. Now, ain't that interesting. I think he is running for cover. Then yesterday, there was a prosecutor, whose name I have never seen before, a public defender, whose name I have never seen before, and a probation officer, whose name I have never seen before appearing at the hearing. Huh! They just changed all the players in the game? ? ? The case docket shows that the proceeding was the FINAL PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING for the defendant. Huh!?! The defendant wasn't on probation, he was on SUPERVISED RELEASE. Hmmm. Oh, and Congress did away with federal probation in 1991. There is no such thing, so how can it be revoked? Now, what do you suppose these boys are up to! The court also directed the AUSA to prepare a nobail arrest warrant. The docket doesn't say who the warrant is for. If they wanted me, why didn't the judge just issue a bench warrant? Very curious goings on here. Nobody has come knocking on my door, and I don't expect them to. I think I finally killed this case.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
| I. Scriabin |
Posted - 04 Oct 2005 : 00:33:14
Lewis,
As the research goes on I often discover "things" that bring you and your case to mind. May I provide to you, and to others who may be interested, a couple of gems for your consideration and commentary?
First
Second
Always hoping and wishing the best for you as you proceed in "The Way."
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 20 Sep 2005 : 11:55:03
Good reminder, to you Lewish, and to the "judge." It is also interesting how and what those people on those so-called courts
feel after hearing out-of-the-ordinary reasoning, and more on-point interrogations - a cutting-edge, cut to the shase, no beating around the bush reality check.
I am,
Manuel
|
| I. Scriabin |
Posted - 19 Sep 2005 : 22:52:26
Great performance Lewis!!
Yes, the truth is very powerful indeed and even the imposters are not able to defy it. Very well done.
May the Father and His Obedient Son continue to bless you with wisdom and courage.
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 19 Sep 2005 : 11:56:41
Greetings all,
Well, on Wednesday Sept. 14, 2005 A.D. I established ON THE COURT RECORD exactly where I was, if I wasn't in court. The event went something like this. May not be word for word as it happened.
Lewis: Your Honor, I need some instructive relief. Do I have the correct FEIN number for this corporation? I have it as 91-6211575. It that correct?
Magistrate Judge: Do you mean the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT?
Lewis: Yes.
Magistrate Judge: I do not have that information.
Lewis: As an Officer of the corporation, are you not required to know that?
Magistrate Judge: I am not an Officer of this corporation.
I then moved on to another question. But, do you see that she readily admitted on the record that I was simply standing in the offices of a corporation? And, of course she is not an Officer. She is merely an employee. The Clerk of Court is the Officer.
It was all quite amazing how it took place.
All I can say is "Praise the Lord"!!!
Regards,
Lewis |
| Lewish |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 12:45:21
Hello David,
As long as you are using FRNs without objection, "they" can do a lot of coloring. A friend of mine went to the county recorder week before last and recorded a document. When the clerk told him the amount due, he said "I wish to pay this with public tender and want a receipt for the same." He then paid the bill with Sacagawea dollar coins. The clerk at first wouldn't give him a receipt as requested, but finally did. Last week when he went to record another document, they refused him service.
Now, ain't that interesting.
So, my friend is going to start an administrative action against them for being in violation of Title 50 (don't remember the chapter number) of the original Statutes-at-Large. He will follow that up with a Notary Protest to effect a Foreign Judgment, which he will then record in the local U.S. District Court, and then go distress the bond for the county. That should get somebody's attention.
Lewis |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 17:09:42
This might be a clue.
A couple getting married to the state at the county clerk and recorder were filling out the papers and swearing the material true and correct under the penalty of purjury. The man's cell phone rang and he answered it. The deputy clerk told him to hang up. Something like, "Would you be talking on your phone in court? This is a court proceeding."
Your colorable behavior and endorsements of colorable FRNs had functioned as an appearance in global municipal and public policy working through police powers?
|
|
|
