0 votes

CC2009: Day Four Recap

Today we witnessed a speech by Orly Taitz, delegate from California. I support her legal efforts to seek transparency concerning Obama's real I.d., birth certificate. Rumor has it that she carries dual citizenship. I do not support this conflict of interest for any elected delegate to the Continental Congress. Please, if you agree, contact your state delegates and tell them to place a motion before the Congress to require any delegate with dual citizenship to renounce their foreign one immediately (and show proof) or step down by (Nov. 21,2009?) and be replaced by their states first alternate delegate. Thank you... someguy

Summary by Richard Church, Wi delegate
Today was a good day at CC2009, but not as good as it should have been. Many delegates have privately expressed the same sentiments that I put in my summary last night. It has become obvious that most of the delegates did not even read or consider the consequences of the rules changes. (Sound familiar?) According to my prediction, tomorrow is the day when many of my colleagues will realize their error in these new rules and make substantial changes to eliminate the open discussion in favor of doing some real work. In fact, if committee reports are received in the morning, I doubt there will be any time for the open discussion anyway. Our best hope is that someone moves to reconsider the rules change.

Now don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of impassioned debate, even very lengthy, impassioned debate. However, that debate should be in the pursuit of some goal. For those not familiar with parliamentary procedure, usually there can be no debate until a motion is on the floor. The open discussions that we are conducting are not in pursuit of any goal except to make delegates feel good about themselves. The discussions are supposed to serve as instructions for the relevant committees, but in reality most comments are little more than delegates clamoring for attention by the Internet audience. The fact that we have now agreed to have the audio broadcast during the discussion has worsened this factor. In practice, there are about 10 to 15 delegates who come to the microphones over and over and over again to impress us with their knowledge, wit and speaking ability. And it accomplishes nothing.

The morning presentations were on the topic of the Tax Clauses of the Constitution. First to speak was Mr. Joe Bannister who joined us via video. Mr. Bannister spoke of his former career as an IRS Special Agent. After hearing Devvy Kidd speak on a radio talk show, he began to conduct a personal investigation of our nation's tax laws. He found that there are many Constitutional abuses in the tax laws. As a result of his action on this issue, he was forced to resign from the IRS. He has fought many tax battles due to his refusal to file an income tax return.

The second presentation was by Jeff Dickstein, who has represented Mr. Bannister as well as others challenging the tax laws. After some technical problems were resolved, Mr. Dickstein gave a lengthy presentation regarding the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is the justification for the income tax.

He presented mostly material from the court cases of Bill Benson, author of "The Law That Never Was." Mr. Benson conducted extensive research into the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Many of the states that supposedly "ratified" the amendment did not actually ratify the amendment as it was written. Some had substantial changes in wording that made their ratification resolutions different from the actual proposed amendment that was sent to them. Mr. Benson researched this by acquiring the actual documents from each of the states. Mr. Dickstein gave the history of the case and showed the complete refusal of the courts to allow Mr. Benson to defend the truthfulness of his claims.

After these presentations, we convened one of our official "chat sessions" as described above and in yesterday's update.

The afternoon presentation was by Dr. Orly Taitz, who is also a delegate to this assembly from California. Dr. Taitz spoke about the Eligibility Clause of the Constitution. She defended a definition of "natural born citizen" as a child born to parents (that is both parents) who are citizens and born within the United States. From my own research, while this is one definition that has been used historically, it is by no means the only historical definition. In fact, the courts have never ruled exactly what "natural born" means. Some have proposed that it simply means a citizen by birth. Others have proposed that it must include birth within the country. Some say it takes two citizen parents, some say only one. So this is a very unclear issue.

Dr. Taitz gave a history of her cases. She represents Ambassador Alan Keyes and Pastor Wiley Drake in their case, as well as some others. She claimed that at one point, her case was actually placed on the docket of the Supreme Court but disappeared on the day after Mr. Obama's inauguration for no apparent reason. I must say that I have seen and heard media interviews with Dr. Taitz in which she did not do a very good job explaining her case. This presentation, however, was very well done and I have a greater esteem for Dr. Taitz than I did previously. However, I continue to oppose the suggestion made the other day that we, as the Continental Congress, should express specific support for Dr. Taitz's case.

After the presentation, we initiated our afternoon "chat session." The topic was supposed to be the natural born citizenship, but somehow the discussion changed to matters of religion and government for a short time, but eventually returned to the topic at hand.

Toward the end of the session, the President recognized Mr. Peter Boyce of New Jersey who moved that a committee be formed to draft a declaration of independence from the New World Order. However, under the new rules, this motion was ruled out of order even though it did not pertain to a specific agenda item. I would have appealed this ruling by the chair if we were not so short on time. This was not the first time that Mr. Boyce has tried to present this resolution, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

For the record, I am against such a resolution. When we declared independence from the Crown, it was because we had previously been legally dependent to the Crown. The King was the legitimate ruler of the colonies. To declare independence from the New World Order is pointless since there is no government, organization, or authority known as the New World Order to which we are currently dependent. You cannot declare your independence from an amorphous, ideological cabal which has no authority over you. To do so would indicate that we are currently under the legitimate authority of the New World Order. We are not, nor have ever been, legally dependent to anything called the New World Order and are already independent of it. No declaration necessary.

At the end of the session, the President appointed a committee chair to deal with the issue of the Tax Clauses. No committee to address natural born citizenship was announced, which is actually a violation of our new rules. I'm assuming this committee will be announced tomorrow morning. I pointed out this fact, but the President did not take action to address the violation. In addition, there was a Fourteenth Amendment committee that was announced, but had never been authorized by the Continental Congress. (I asked the President about this and he said that it was more of an informal caucus, not an official committee. There have been many such informal caucuses, but they should not be announced as committees of this assembly without a motion to that effect.)

I look forward to tomorrow when some of the committees will begin to present their reports. I am especially looking forward to debate on the Second Amendment Committee report. Mr. William Kostrick of New Hampshire presented to that committee a resolution calling for citizens to take civic action by the open carry of firearms, which is perfectly legal in most states including Wisconsin. (You might remember Mr. Kostrick from his interview with Chris Matthews after he wore a holstered gun to an Obama protest.) I have heard rumors, however, that the committee removed the recommendation to open carry. In my opinion, it is vital that we recommend this simple action that citizens can take to provide for their own security as well as publicly demonstrate support of the Second Amendment. In fact, our own attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, issued a memo earlier this year to remind district attorneys that it is legal for Wisconsin citizens to openly carry guns "for any lawful purpose" according to our state Constitution.

Tomorrow is when we can quit the chit-chat and resume the important work.
www.givemeliberty.org

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Peter F Boyce Keep Your

Peter F Boyce
Keep Your Powder Dry & Your Ink Flowing

I was awakened at 5 A.M. this morning by the stark realization of exactly the same point that "someguy" had commented.
To declare Independence from that which is yet comming upon us is to conede their victory over us as having been already accomplished . "Some guy" is correct, The Declaration must rather be a Declaration of Condemnation of the NWO (one world; economimic system, political system and religion) as well as its physical organs such as the U.N. IMF, International Criminal Court Etc. through which it is enslaving humanity and for America's withdrawal from those organs. In addition, a reaffirmation of the sacred principles embodied in our 1776 Declaration upon which we are founded as well as setting forth many of the abuses we are currently enduring.

Peter F Boyce
Keep Your Powder Dry & Your Ink Flowing

Wow, thank you

for this wonderful report.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

A committee on the 14th Amendment

is a worthy cause and a prudent use of the CC's time and efforts. There are hundreds of decisions in State & Federal Courts that involve the 14th. At one time, Corporations and other fictions were considered 14th Amendment citizens, a precedent that still plagues the people.

The facts are as such. The 14th was unlawfully ratified by ten rump legislatures (legislatures not elected but installed by military force, i.e the Reconstruction Acts of 1868). These rump legislatures helped ratify the amendment. Moreover, the radicals in Congress refused to seat a New Jersey Senator because he was openly opposed to any amendment that would be ratified by rump legislatures. New Jersey withdrew there ratification as did Ohio. The amendment passed under these fraudulent circumstances and by the barrel of a gun. In short, the 14th Amendment was passed under duress.

Several states have memorialized the fraud by joint resolutions. These memorials have been sent to congress and submitted to the Judiciary Committees, where they lay dormant and dusty. These memorials have never been answered by Congress and the passage of time does not make them any less relevant. The question is, will you participate in the fraud of the 14th Amendment?

It is my hope the CC2009 remains intellectually honest. The 14th needs to be addressed. I know it opens up a huge can of worms dating back some 140 years. By declaring the 14th void would restore the Rule of Law.

My prayers are with all of the delegates. May Almighty God send the Holy Ghost to advise and fill your conscience.

Dyett v Turner
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14th_amendment_dyett.pdf

Afroyim v Rusk
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387...

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

tks = tu

.

seriously..the only real remedy that we the people can do ..

besides filing court challenges to the many illegal and unconstitutional laws/politicians/ etc... is to plan..and execute either a successful coup de ta.. or to have a REAL CIVIL WAR!!! (one that has clear objectives..and goals.. and does not replace one corrupt admin...with another.)

If you can draft an idea..or a resolution that states ..

WHEN-- an armed rebellion is needed.. what lines must be crossed by the Feds etc..
WHAT -- the objection or goals would be to such a rebellion.--ie when it would be considered a completed task!
WHY -- the people should support such a rebellion.. (as in whats in it for them..etc)
HOW-- the people can/should participate.. as in joining their local militias, what actions would be considered proactive, and what would not etc..
WHERE-- should "we the people" focus our efforts on this type of action.
and WHY -- it is the only or last option on the table... (this is important..if this is explained well..millions of Americans will support such a cause)

while the CC 2009 may not be so bold as to embark upon such a resolution... perhaps there are members and delegates who would be ? By proposing such "radical actions" you may be able to gauge the type of support--or non support that is out there for this type of Resolve.

thanks

Decleration of Independence againt the NWO

I'm on this committee and this will have teeth. Mark my words..

Ryan McCain
Delegate from Louisiana
-------
http://www.RebootTheRepublic.com

Ryan, you may want to suggest a Declaration of Independence

from the UN and all treaties or entangling alliances which infringe on our national sovereignty; our rights of defense and decent; our food, drug, energy, speech, education, and religious rights to choose. Avoiding vague terms like 'NWO', which in essence is the UN, will keep your declaration sound and on target.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

YES.

The New World Order thing is too amorphous and unfortunately smacks of "conspiracy theory". Just say it like it is : Out of the UN no entangling alliances and something about international corporations....

Agreed!

...and thanks for keeping "us" up-to-date, someguy...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

good

.

Thanks for the update

____________________________________________
The Federal Reserve, Stealing the American Dream since 1913
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

?

"Rumor has it that she carries dual citizenship. I do not support this conflict of interest for any elected delegate to the Continental Congress. Please, if you agree, contact your state delegates and tell them to place a motion before the Congress to require any delegate with dual citizenship to renounce their foreign one immediately"

What? Dude, you need to chill, this is not some supreme entity that is going to actually have power, or even be around past this month.

(Edit) redacted, you are not actually there, comment removed by me

I don't think she actually

I don't think she actually holds dual citizenship. She is a naturalized citizen and as far as I know that means she had to renounce previous citizenships. I had to do that when I applied for my passport because I was born in Germany, on an army base btw, and that made me also a citizen of Germany, NOT a natural born citizen even though both parents were American citizens.

Blessings )o(

Blessings )o(

You are missing several points here. First, I am not accusing

anyone of having dual citizenship. The problem is any elected official should be required to possess only single citizenship otherwise a conflict of interest becomes self evident. Since this issue wasn't previously addressed before the delegate nominations took place, I believe it should be motioned now. Make no mistake. This CC2009 is only the beginning and these delegates will be around for the next one in 2010. Significant things are developing. Start 'paying' attention and email your state delegates with your concerns.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

I think what they are doing is "great"

but these are not elected officials. they may be elected, this thing might be referred to as "official" but give me a break guy. This is a social club.

And I am paying attention, how could I not be, this is the daily cc2009 these days.

Furlough . . . These are

Furlough . . . These are elected officials according to the Constitution, which makes them the REAL government of The People by The People. They are the People's true government right now since the one in DC is a Corporation and Unconstitutional. This is the government of the founders, the government that the American People were supposed to have. As far as I'm concerned, they are far more my government than those in DC. Also, this is an extremely historic event. Our country began as a Continental Congress which became the first true American Government. Historically, this is the re-founding of America. I think its our last best chance to get change.

Blessings )o(

Blessings )o(

"This is a social club." It will be interesting to see what

you call in on November 22, 2009.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

Are you predicting

they will actually do something? I don't even think doing something is on their agenda, so I don't know how that is possible. I hope you don't count making a list of sucky things government does, or trying to tell the US to stop being naughty.

I would probably call the book club meeting "over" on that date

What do you think of the following three action items from the

delegates Vision Statement: 1. Remedial Instructions. 2. Civic Action Resolutions. 3. Articles of Association. Please, get informed before replying. Go to:www.givemeliberty.org; scroll down; click on vision; read it in its entirety. Assess their potential. p.s. Yes, you will have to roll up your sleeves and get involved. A waste of your time? You will decide only after going through these basic steps. Shooting from the hip is fast but often inaccurate and unreliable.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

seriously..the only real remedy that we the people can do ..

besides filing court challenges to the many illegal and unconstitutional laws/politicians/ etc... is to plan..and execute either a successful coup de ta.. or to have a REAL CIVIL WAR!!! (one that has clear objectives..and goals.. and does not replace one corrupt admin...with another.)

If you can draft an idea..or a resolution that states ..

WHEN-- an armed rebellion is needed.. what lines must be crossed by the Feds etc..
WHAT -- the objection or goals would be to such a rebellion.--ie when it would be considered a completed task!
WHY -- the people should support such a rebellion.. (as in whats in it for them..etc)
HOW-- the people can/should participate.. as in joining their local militias, what actions would be considered proactive, and what would not etc..
WHERE-- should "we the people" focus our efforts on this type of action.
and WHY -- it is the only or last option on the table... (this is important..if this is explained well..millions of Americans will support such a cause)

while the CC 2009 may not be so bold as to embark upon such a resolution... perhaps there are members and delegates who would be ? By proposing such "radical actions" you may be able to gauge the type of support--or non support that is out there for this type of Resolve.

thanks