12 votes

Why Wesley Snipes is going to jail

can anyone prove this wrong...with fact, not opinions??

Wesley Snipes has a great deal of correct information in his filings, however he made one HUGE mistake:
see page "7 of 29"
http://www.thesnipestrial.com/snipes29pp.pdf

    "My question at this point is: Does the IRS help "nontaxpayers" such as myself in not complying with the laws they are clearly not subject to and thereby provide them equal protection of the laws mandated by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981?"

Here Wesley Snipes made the CRUCIAL mistake of requesting protection as a lower case "c" 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States".

A 14th Amendment citizen is a "Federal citizen" with civil rights (given by government) and specifically NOT a "Constitutional Citizen" with "human rights" (rights from birth)

All 14th Amendment citizens owe "direct and immediate allegiance to the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, via CONGRESS, because Congress created them. 14th Amendment citizens are given privileges, such as the privilege to vote under the 15th and 19th Amendment. The Constitution applies to Citizens of the states of the Union, NOT to federal subjects. For them, Congress makes ALL NEEDFUL RULES.
Remember the Constitution is for "We the people of the United States" (meaning the states of the Union) and NOT for the Territories, D.C., Aliens, or Federal Persons. All 14th Amendment citizens are treated as "residing in the District of Columbia" where the Constitution SPECIFICALLY does NOT apply...

USC title 26
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C79.txt

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside
    in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district,
    such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the
    District of Columbia
    for purposes of any provision of this title
    relating to -
    (A) jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B) enforcement of summons.

It should be noted that "United States", with regard to "persons residing outside United States" in Title 26 above, means the District of Columbia and other Federal Territories and NOT the actual states of the Union.

for more info on why you are a Citizen and not a citizen see these:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/136332
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142862

see also:

    U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

    "A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
    82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

    "...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
    [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) ]

    "There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
    [Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]

    "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
    [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

    Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1

    "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36

AND MOSTLY!!

    "Rights under 42 USCS sect.1983 are for citizens of United States and not of state." Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905 CC Cal) 136 F 941



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

practical applications

Is anyone available to present a weekend seminar or interested in attending a seminar on state citizenship vs. national citizenship in California?

Suggested Speakers

Top locations would be in Los Angeles or San Jose.
Any suggested speakers would be welcome. Details on private inquiry.

Gold Sponsor wanted

To help sponsor a great seminar,
Gold Sponsor
Silver Sponsor
wanted. If you'd like to sponsor the seminar, that would be great!

My Tax Court Judge Walked Out

I went to tax court in 2007. The first thing I did was issue judicial notice that I was asserting all the rights guarantees and protections contained within the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. I made a motion asking for the court to order I was entitled to these rights guarantees and protections and the Judge flipped out. He started yelling. Balifs circled me. He tried to get me to move on without him ruling. I stood my ground and would not proceed until he ruled on my motion. He got up and walked out of the room.

KMoore
May our efforts in support of Congressman Ron Paul be blessed with supernatural success.

Pacer?

Can we look the case up somewhere?

Eric Hoffer

want to read the case

Pacer reference please!

hmmm

While on this and still not response.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'd venture the story wasn't given exactly as it occurred at this point. I could be wrong though.

Eric Hoffer

Huh, reminds me of the court

Huh, reminds me of the court scene in Atlas Shrugged, where Henry Rearden stands up to the court that is trying to get him to 'admit'.

I'm not sure I understand all

I'm not sure I understand all that but it's interesting. Please tell us what happened next and how your case was resolved.

What people don't realize is that Wesley won his court case....

Wesley Snipes didn't pay the illegal extortion that we call the Income Tax for several years. He went to court and the prosecutor could not prove their was a law that said US Citizens must pay the Income Tax. So to punish Wesley they got him for Failure To File and used him as an example. Now most people do not know that he won his case!!!!!! Only that he went to jail for tax reasons.

Can they FORCE taxes payment in BARTER?

Can the IRS force people to pay taxes if they ONLY BARTER? No flow of cash of any sort!?

I hope you guys realize, there is a way to live on this planet and 'buy' ANYTHING and never use cash/money as we know it! :)

Would I have to pay taxes on BARTER that may be valued at $100,000? But absolutely no exchange or access to money were made? Does the government/IRS expect to get a certain percentage of my "barter"?

Just plain 'Happy'about the direction the world is taking! Especially if we live to reach LEV [Longevity Escape Velocity]

It does not matter how you

It does not matter how you file. There isn't enough lawyer power in the world to make constitutional language acceptable in our failed courts.

Not True.

Once you get the judges oath on the public record and appoint him/her the trustee in the matter; they have a duty to protect you.

If you ask them "Are my rights going to be protected in this court?", and they say no (they won't if they know you know the con), then simply refuse to participate and do not proceed; no consent; do not wish to contract with you or the court; why would you even agree to something like that?

Breaking that oath is treason; and you can nail them to the wood for that. Either he/she is operating under their oath of office today and protecting my rights, or this matter is settled.

There is serious legal recourse for judges that bring dishonor and treason upon the court.

Has this legal technique ever

Has this legal technique ever worked before?

Apparently so, and from a member right here at DP who just

commented above: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2629777

We shall see what his answer is to the question below his comment.

No

Unless they've later used the insanity clause.

Eric Hoffer

Yes it has; and yes it does. If you follow the internet radio

shows; such as Rod Class or Dean Clifford, and several others who fight in the courts as a form of entertainment, you can hear lots of real life experiences in properly battling these people.

Look on YouTube; you'll see videos of people who know the con and appoint the judge as the trustee right off the bat and take their administrative presumption from them right off the bat.

Here's you just a few:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=related

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ&feature=related

The Reason Mr. Snipes went to Jail, was because he failed to

do one thing: That ONE thing was force the IRS to cough up an employment contract and pay records PROVING that he was a government employee/agent that was performing a function of government at the time he made the money they 'claimed' he owed taxes on.

That's it; nothing more; nothing less.

Focusing on these codes, statutes, rules, regulations and legal jargon was a complete waste of time. Focusing on whether or not you're a citizen/Citizen/Federal Citizen/State citizen or a member of the Walton's family is of no significance.

If you are not a government employee, those statutory rules do NOT apply to you, and that includes the label of (c)itizen or (C)itizen, or Federal Person(s), etc.

His one question before ever going to court should have been:

Do you have my agent # on file and can you send me a copy of the employment contract you have on file for me, that proves that I was, at the time of the complaint, performing a function of government, and when I made the money you claim I owe taxes on, can you prove that I made that money while performing a function of government?

Case Closed.

http://www.dailypaul.com/244165/whats-the-one-document-you-h...

And when someone says "The Social Security or Drivers License is the contract", show them this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/243164/social-security-is-not-a-con...

These people have spent a lifetime creating codes and rules and statutes to trick and coerce the average American into believing they are somehow under THEIR jurisdiction. And to date, their millions of pages of "code" have hoodwinked the masses, and kept them chasing their tails; digging through codes and case law; searching for that one loophole to get them off the hook, but the ONE thing the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES could not cover up in a maze of code, was the fact that:

If a man or woman or a citizen or Citizen, have not signed into an employment contract, and are not receiving pay for their work, then they (the State) has absolutely zero jurisdiction over them or their money.

No contract = No jurisdiction

K.I.S.S

You may consider this. SS and

You may consider this. SS and DL are not the contracts, but aplication for them is an act of creation of trust. We are signators (creators), but "we made them" beneficiaries and "made ourselves trustees". That means we are obliged ourselves to preform and pay the dues to beneficiaries, means them, the gov.
Why is that important? Because, when you are before a judge and you say I dont have a contract with them, they will say "Yes", but you are still obliged. And you will not understand what happend.
I did not discover this. Christian Walters did, and his right IMO. It's not about contracts. It never was. Its all about trust.
You can find in Black's Law Dict. " none of the parties have to know that trust was created". That means even a creator (trustor)(us).
The sovereign movement spent to much time learning about statutes and contracts. The power is in trust, IMHO. Peace.

So now they can FORCE me to perform and make them

money?

Um, isn't slavery a Human Rights violation? And if having to 'perform', shouldn't I be getting paid?

Can they show me a contract where I agreed to perform for free and make them money?

Signing a piece of paper does not compel someone to perform; there is no motivation to perform from a signature. But what DOES compel one to perform is CASH MONEY every Friday.

What happens if you file an application of employment at McDonald's; but never show up for work? Did that create a Trust? Because you signed an employment contract, are you now obligated to show up Monday? What if you change your mind and decide to work for Burger King over the weekend?

Can McDonald's then take you to court and say "Hey, he signed an employment contract, but never showed up; and because he signed the employment contract, even though he changed his mind and is now working for Burger King, we still feel that he is obligated to pay us union fees?"

No.

That would be one out of this world employment contract, if it is in writing that you agree to work for McDonald's for life, and if you change your mind two years later because you got a better job at Burger King, you still have to pay McDonald's a union fee ... lol

That is the thing about

That is the thing about trust. It is not a contract, but uses almost the same langusage.
I was refering to SS and DL only.
I dont want to go into to much discussion, but they cannot show the contract, but they can show the trust you created by signing application. Contract to be valid require two sides to sign. trust only one.
When you created trust making yourself trustee and them beneficiary ( in application priocess). You may owe them duty and/or dues.
If you will be asking about the contract. They dont show you one. But they can claim you crested trust making yourself the trustee and they can show the paperwork to prove it. And in the process they will use such a language, that you will never recognize they are talking about trust (they mean gov and judge), unless you know what they are doing and you understand the trust. Peace.

I was a minor when that application was created

so how can I create a trust as a minor?

Because, "none of the party

Because,
"none of the party has to know that trust was created".
Your parents could do this for you. You are a trust baby. You just simply didn't know about it, beacause:"none of the party has to know that trust was created".

Because, "none of the party

Because,
"none of the party has to know that trust was created".
Your parents could do this for you. You are a trust baby. You just simply didn't know about it, beacause:"none of the party has to know that trust was created".

Have you read my links above and the links within those links?

I'm very aware of the Trust and the Dead Estate that was created (Certificate of Live Birth), and the "Office" they sent you in the mail; and that the judge is the trustee (public servant); and that they are attempting to administrate for you.

Go read my other posts on this subject; I've wrote A LOT on this.

Yes, they created and estate (the dead you); the proof of the estate is the Registrars signature and State seal embossed on the Certificate of Live Birth. They send you the certificate, which is an Office; and try to get you to perform through that title/office.

The easiest way around that is do not contract with the court when they call you name; immediately when the judge calls the "NAME", say the name is not what's important here today, but the rather the roles we are playing.

Then ask the judge one simple question: Are you a public servant?

judge goes ape sh*t crazy; calls in sheriffs; you ask again and tell sheriffs to stand down (they are public servants/trustees); get the judges oath on the public record, and appoint the judge as the trustee in this matter and order him/her to discharge/settle the debt. You can sign and discharge, or we can go to a jury trial and I'll need to see my accuser for cross examination; and we'll need an affidavit of truth from that accuser in the court record.

Case closed.

"the Trust and the Dead

"the Trust and the Dead Estate that was created"
This is not what I am talking about.
BTY. they dont created, you have created it. That makes a difference. And if you still in the system you are doing it more often than you think.

And you dont have to be combatant about it.
I am not here to argue with you.
I thought I bring some new info to the light.
But, I see you are not open to it, so never mind.

Mike, I'm not being combatant, it just gets old trying to combat

half truths and misconceptions that will send future viewers down the wrong path; or totally frustrate them. These threads get so cluttered, people don't know what to think.

First of all, you did NOT create the Estate they are administrating. They created the Certificate of Live Birth; it even has their State seal and Registrars signature on it to prove it, and He Who Creates Owns.

They send you that Certificate (not the original your mother signed), that they split the title on in the mail; you pick it up and start using it as identity and that's where it begins.

If this is not what you're talking about, then please reply below "with a very detailed description"; not just a quote or phrase or part of paragraph that leaves everyone wondering what's next or where to go from here.

None of us know everything; it takes a collective effort, so if you have other information, please share it. Also, would you please prove to me where signing a contract or creating a trust compels (forces) anyone to actually perform and make money for someone else, when they aren't paying us anything in return to do so.

Thanks and Peace.

to South

We are on the same page...we should work together.

BUT, you cant ignore how our Constitutional system works.

A person born in the District of Columbia, and residing in the District of Columbia is a FEDERAL person, and CONGRESS can make ANY LAW for FEDERAL persons that they want!!!
They can make a rule that requires FEDERAL persons to pay 100% of their paycheck to the Federal government, Congress can levy an unapportioned Direct Tax on Federal persons, and it is PERFECTLY Constitutional.

Congress can REQUIRE that all FEDERAL persons purchase health insurance, and they can even require that every Federal person purchase a new car.

WHY?? Because the Constitution allows Congress to do so. The "GOVERNMENT" is made up of FEDERAL PERSONNEL.

    USC Title 5, 552(a)
    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

What is the difference between a marine or an officer of the Government, and a person that has a Social Security retirement membership in the above definition? NOTHING, they are all FEDERAL PERSONS.

BELOW is where the Constitution lays out Congress' authority to make rules for Federal Persons.

    Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

SO....are you in the District of Columbia???? Not in reality, but statutorily you probably are, or at least you have probably declared that you are.

When you declare to be in a "State" on any federal form, or in the "United States", you are declaring to be in the District of Columbia, and by declaring to be a "resident" or "citizen of the United States" you are declaring that you are ok with being treated as a resident of D.C.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701

    (10) State
    The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
    (A) jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B) enforcement of summons.
    (9) United States
    The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

And again from your comment above:

WHY?? Because the Constitution allows Congress to do so. The "GOVERNMENT" is made up of FEDERAL PERSONNEL.

USC Title 5, 552(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
What is the difference between a marine or an officer of the Government, and a person that has a Social Security retirement membership in the above definition? NOTHING, they are all FEDERAL PERSONS.

Now, ask yourself one question: What is the difference between all those examples of "Federal Personnel" above, and you? If you are considered an officer, or an employee, member of the uniformed services, and entitled to receive retirement benefits, then why aren't you getting paid like all the other "Federal Personnel"?

Doesn't everyone else who's considered to be "Federal Personnel" have a Social Security No. and a Drivers License?

So why is the government employee working downtown at the DMV getting paid, and you're not?

:)

From you comment above:

A person born in the District of Columbia, and residing in the District of Columbia is a FEDERAL person, and CONGRESS can make ANY LAW for FEDERAL persons that they want!!!

Now ask yourself, what is THEIR meaning of the word "person"?

Let find out: http://www.freedom-school.com/office-of-the-person.pdf

It is an office they created; it's not a man or woman. Remember all my posts on the Certificate of Live Birth?

Now we go to:

USC Title 5, 552(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and
A person born in the District of Columbia...

employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Are you an person, officer, an employee, or member of the uniformed services?

Are you an individual who's entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits? Yes, if you are an EMPLOYEE of their corporation.

Are you entitled to receive retirement benefits from McDonald's, if you do not work at McDonald's?

What is a retirement program? Isn't that something you enter into when you go to work for a company or corporation?

What happens when you go to work for said company or corporation?

You Get A Paycheck On The 1st and 15th.

We also now know that social security is not a contract:

http://www.dailypaul.com/243164/social-security-is-not-a-con...

They can make a law that requires federal persons to pay 100% of their paycheck? I guess they can IF they are federal personnel, but what's the chances of THEM taxing themselves 100%?

If it is true that the District of Columbia is Slave Central and they can FORCE anyone in that district to give them 100% of their pay, then I'd suggest anyone who lives in that district that is not an employee of the United States, pack your bags and run for the border.

They can make up all the definitions to words they want. They can try and trick you into being one of those "federal persons", but even if the are successful in tricking you into person-ship, you are still entitled to get paid for your time, sweat and labor.

Slavery is not legal, but voluntary servitude is. Did you agree to work for free?

Can they cough up a contract that plainly in clear language spells out for the average man or woman to see, that they are agreeing to working for free?

It's nothing but a magic trick my friend; a sleight of hands; a word puzzle; a deceitful fraud from the time they split the title on the original Record of Live Birth.

Were you performing a function of government at the time of the complaint, and at the time you made the money they claim you owe in taxes?

No one ever brings up this point. Everyone is so busy chasing their tails searching through a maze of unreadable code, looking for that ONE loophole, and the ONE loophole is the one we are standing in trying to find the loophole ... lol