Thomas Listens

[farmrbrown]

Feb 2, 2023 15:24:16 GMT DEKE said:

Nov 4, 2022 16:08:26 GMT farmrbrown said:

Hello no!
I was BORN here and I'll be damned if I'm leaving.
BTW I haven't even had a passport in 40 years.

then you're a citizen

Really?
What if I can document that I'm NOT? 
The ironic thing is, looking at Thomas' recent opinions, he gave me the irrefutable evidence to that fact.
Of course IF the IRS has the final say on law in this country and NOT the SCOTUS, then all bets are off.
He actually outlined several key rights that definitively determine if you are a citizen and in the MacDonald vs. Chicago case they actually stated as a majority that "there are no 2nd class citizens."


To be fair, I've been working on this case over 5 years and have encountered dozens of legal obstacles along that way that I had to find away around. Most people would've given up a long time ago. But then most people are not willing to fight to the death for their freedom.
13th, 14th and most importantly the 15th amendment holds the key.
In Article I and in the 14th, you'll find the correct 'label' for my NON citizen status.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

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 of 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 laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

And yes, I can also document my bloodline to the Creeks in Florida. The very reason they, the Seminoles and the Cherokee in NC are STILL there, is because they refused to be removed and walk to Oklahoma.
The U.S. gov't can kiss my red, white and black ass.

*And please, before you quote me the Indian Act of 1924, save your breath. That isn't worth the paper it's written on, ask the Oklahoma Indians and their cases before the SCOTUS. They didn't get the right to vote there until the 1970's and the most recent case involving their sovereignty was just a year or so ago when that guy killed those girls on Reservation land. THAT opened up a can of worms, lol, and now half the state of OK looks like is being trespassed on by a bunch of white settlers, according to the SCOTUS ruling.
Oh well, sound familiar?
That's what happens when you fail to learn from history.

[farmrbrown]

Now IF Thomas sticks by his published opinions, I'll gladly take back my words against him, but time will tell. Hopefully I'll get my chance to resolve this in person, maybe something like IRS vs. Buchanan.

lawliberty.org/not-a-second-class-right/



IOW, either there is ONE class of citizenship or none at all.

In his final words at the end of his opinion, Justice Thomas sets out a right equal to all other constitutional rights:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Court’s Bruen opinion is its latest, strong affirmation of the full constitutional status of a routinely disparaged or ignored constitutional right, showing that all constitutional rights are equal.

[joebill]

So, in summary, you are "special" because of your race? and have been denied rights freely given to others of more favored races in similar circumstances? HMMMMM. Got my doubts, but go ahead and make your case in plain language, please. Maybe 150 words or less with no guesswork required from the reader.....thanks.

Now, as to Justice Thomas, it was rumored that during the Anita Hill hearings, he was aproached by Ted Kennedy and asked "why didn't you just go ahead and drown the bitck?"......Joe

[DEKE]

Feb 2, 2023 20:08:55 GMT farmrbrown said:

Feb 2, 2023 15:24:16 GMT DEKE said:

then you're a citizen

Really?
What if I can document that I'm NOT? 

sov cit documentation?  LOL.  No thanks. 

Let's just leave it as you think you are not a cit but the USG does. 

[farmrbrown]

Feb 3, 2023 0:08:39 GMT DEKE said:

Feb 2, 2023 20:08:55 GMT farmrbrown said:

Really?
What if I can document that I'm NOT? 

sov cit documentation?  LOL.  No thanks. 

Let's just leave it as you think you are not a cit but the USG does. 

There you go again claiming things about me that aren't true and I've never said. That label "sov cit" implies that I'm one of them which I'm not. Since being stripped of my U.S. citizenship I have claimed my own sovereignty or rather turned it over to God, which seemed only natural to do. But I don't know how a SCOTUS ruling = a "sov cit documentation"?

I even pulled out some of Thomas' own words to show you what he and the Court have said about what qualifies as a citizen. The other documents would be birth certificates and census files going back a few generations on my mother's side.

What has one got to do with the other?  
I realize 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care about these things, but please don't mischaracterize it as something that it isn't.

[farmrbrown]

Feb 2, 2023 23:37:56 GMT joebill said:

So, in summary, you are "special" because of your race? and have been denied rights freely given to others of more favored races in similar circumstances? HMMMMM. Got my doubts, but go ahead and make your case in plain language, please. Maybe 150 words or less with no guesswork required from the reader.....thanks.

Now, as to Justice Thomas, it was rumored that during the Anita Hill hearings, he was aproached by Ted Kennedy and asked "why didn't you just go ahead and drown the bitck?"......Joe

No Joe, exactly the opposite. 
I'm not asking for "special" treatment, only equal treatment as a Native born American.
Thomas and the majority of the Court have already said what we all claim to be the rights of a U.S. citizen.
I can pull out a paragraph from another similar case (It was either Heller or MacDonald) where they actually listed the rights they considered "unalienable", basically the first 8 amendments.
In it they rejected the idea that these were "second class rights" subject to denial by the gov't.
Free Speech, Right to keep and bear arms, to be secure in your property, no warrantless searches, to remain silent, right to a trial by jury and even to serve on a jury (Thomas again, specifically wrote that), right to counsel and free from cruel and unusual punishment.
*Most people leave out the 3rd, but I don't know of a case where soldiers were quartered in a private home, lol*

ALL these things define a U.S. citizen. SCOTUS' words, not mine. Since I'm lacking several of those at this moment my question for the Court is similar to the old adage about, "IS that a duck or not?"
If not, and I'm certainly NOT an alien from another country, then I've offered the only constitutional option left to define my status in this country. 
IOW, if I'm not deserving of equal treatment, with the same rights, privileges and immunities of a U.S. citizen then so be it. Call me what I am under U.S. law and leave me the heck alone. That's all I ask.

(Sorry, that was closer to 250 words, but I tried, lol)

 

[DEKE]

Feb 3, 2023 0:41:58 GMT farmrbrown said:

Feb 3, 2023 0:08:39 GMT DEKE said:

sov cit documentation?  LOL.  No thanks. 

Let's just leave it as you think you are not a cit but the USG does. 

There you go again claiming things about me that aren't true and I've never said.

The record says otherwise. See msg 24.

Your reasoning that you are not a cit is sov cit stuff. The courts will say you are if you push the issue. And it won't end well for you.

You can argue it shouldn't be that way, but USG disagrees with your lawyerese.

[farmrbrown]

Nov 5, 2022 0:00:24 GMT farmrbrown said:

Nov 4, 2022 23:31:11 GMT DEKE said:

So Farmer Brown, are you a sovereign citizen?

I'd have to say yes, among the things.

DEKE ,You must be referring to the above, which I acknowledge the statement in its entirety and context.
What I object to is lumping me in with what you describe as "sov cit" movement, which I had to google BTW because I had no idea what that abbreviation meant. lol
When I answered in the affirmative it meant exactly what I posted above.....

Since being stripped of my U.S. citizenship I have claimed my own sovereignty or rather turned it over to God, which seemed only natural to do.

As far as whether SCOTUS agrees with me or not, I don't really care. It's their choice to stand by their own words - or not. My position won't change.
"Calling" me a U.S. citizen, burdened with all the responsibilities but only half the rights, is unacceptable and utterly ridiculous on its own merit. 
What's that old joke?
Just because you sleep in the garage doesn't make you a car.

Your reasoning that you are not a cit is sov cit stuff. The courts will say you are if you push the issue. And it won't end well for you.

For that very reason, I looked at many of those previous cases and concluded almost every one WAS a farce, legally speaking. 
Here's the key though, 99% have invoked the 14th amendment along with the 4th and 5th sometimes.
NONE of them have claimed they were a constitutionally enumerated individual referred to as "an untaxed Indian" to define their status. They all used another tact resulting in the Court ruling against them, rightfully so. I happen to be lucky enough to actually BE of Native American blood and KNOW my ancestor's history, so that's a far cry from using a tax fraud scheme or leading a crazy militia. Hell, I'm not even armed anymore! lol
What's been overlooked so far by everyone is the 13th and 15th, which are so short and simple it's hard to misinterpret them......although I'm sure they might try, lol.
No matter how you slice it, they'll either have to concede the injustice or look as stubborn and foolish as the Court did in Dredd Scott. ...... And I can live with that.

[joebill]

Feb 3, 2023 1:19:58 GMT farmrbrown said:

Feb 2, 2023 23:37:56 GMT joebill said:

So, in summary, you are "special" because of your race? and have been denied rights freely given to others of more favored races in similar circumstances? HMMMMM. Got my doubts, but go ahead and make your case in plain language, please. Maybe 150 words or less with no guesswork required from the reader.....thanks.

Now, as to Justice Thomas, it was rumored that during the Anita Hill hearings, he was aproached by Ted Kennedy and asked "why didn't you just go ahead and drown the bitck?"......Joe

No Joe, exactly the opposite. 
I'm not asking for "special" treatment, only equal treatment as a Native born American.
Thomas and the majority of the Court have already said what we all claim to be the rights of a U.S. citizen.
I can pull out a paragraph from another similar case (It was either Heller or MacDonald) where they actually listed the rights they considered "unalienable", basically the first 8 amendments.
In it they rejected the idea that these were "second class rights" subject to denial by the gov't.
Free Speech, Right to keep and bear arms, to be secure in your property, no warrantless searches, to remain silent, right to a trial by jury and even to serve on a jury (Thomas again, specifically wrote that), right to counsel and free from cruel and unusual punishment.
*Most people leave out the 3rd, but I don't know of a case where soldiers were quartered in a private home, lol*

ALL these things define a U.S. citizen. SCOTUS' words, not mine. Since I'm lacking several of those at this moment my question for the Court is similar to the old adage about, "IS that a duck or not?"
If not, and I'm certainly NOT an alien from another country, then I've offered the only constitutional option left to define my status in this country. 
IOW, if I'm not deserving of equal treatment, with the same rights, privileges and immunities of a U.S. citizen then so be it. Call me what I am under U.S. law and leave me the heck alone. That's all I ask.

(Sorry, that was closer to 250 words, but I tried, lol)

 

Fail....Joe

[DEKE]

Feb 3, 2023 2:40:03 GMT farmrbrown said:

What I object to is lumping me in with what you describe as "sov cit" movement,

I don't believe I lumped you with a movement. I asked if you were a sov cit and you responded both yes and no. By the standard you set in regard to Thomas, that makes you a liar. By my standard, you were just confused. But you do use similar tactics and make the same broad claims as sov cits in general. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have found a judge who found their legal tactics valid.

Since being stripped of my U.S. citizenship

This is your misinterpretation of a SCOTUS decision or two. That's not the way the law works no matter how often sov cits claim it to be so. No matter how you spin words from a scotus decision, there is still specific law regarding how, where, and when a cit can lose citizenship. That law takes precedence over your spin.

The USG has not stripped you of your citizenship. Unless, of course, you have documentation from a US court demonstrating that that has been done or you have paid the fee and exited the country.

As far as whether SCOTUS agrees with me or not, I don't really care. It's their choice to stand by their own words - or not. My position won't change.

SCOTUS is also in the I-don't-care-club. They don't care that you don't care. You're still a US cit and their position won't change...at least in the foreseeable future as they have not seen fit to take up any sov cit cases (that i know of).

[farmrbrown]

double post

[farmrbrown]

Feb 3, 2023 20:06:09 GMT DEKE said:

Feb 3, 2023 2:40:03 GMT farmrbrown said:

What I object to is lumping me in with what you describe as "sov cit" movement,

I don't believe I lumped you with a movement. I asked if you were a sov cit and you responded both yes and no. By the standard you set in regard to Thomas, that makes you a liar. By my standard, you were just confused. But you do use similar tactics and make the same broad claims as sov cits in general. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have found a judge who found their legal tactics valid.

Since being stripped of my U.S. citizenship

This is your misinterpretation of a SCOTUS decision or two. That's not the way the law works no matter how often sov cits claim it to be so. No matter how you spin words from a scotus decision, there is still specific law regarding how, where, and when a cit can lose citizenship. That law takes precedence over your spin.

The USG has not stripped you of your citizenship. Unless, of course, you have documentation from a US court demonstrating that that has been done or you have paid the fee and exited the country.

As far as whether SCOTUS agrees with me or not, I don't really care. It's their choice to stand by their own words - or not. My position won't change.

SCOTUS is also in the I-don't-care-club. They don't care that you don't care. You're still a US cit and their position won't change...at least in the foreseeable future as they have not seen fit to take up any sov cit cases (that i know of).

Ok Deke, I haven't had to say this in awhile, but don't start calling me a liar again unless you REALLY want an honest response. I made a promise to Ozarks Tom and I'll do my best to keep it, but don't push it, ok?
Getting smart with me and trying to play gotcha games doesn't work, and never has. I don't play that crap. YOU knew the game you were playing and so did I. Don't get mad cuz I didn't fall for it. You aren't the final authority on what every word in the dictionary means, so if I admit to having my own "sovereignty" now, that's exactly what I mean. 
Notice, I don't use cute abbreviations like sov cit. That's not how people of my generation talk. Just plain English will do.

Now let me explain something to YOU that apparently you don't 'get' yet.
It's OK if the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me that I'm still a citizen......AS LONG AS THE "RIGHTS" OF CTIZENSHIP ARE RETURNED!
There are MANY citations from the Justices' own words where they say those two things are equal. So it's not me, that will be put on the spot. They can either keep their word or not, that's on them.
Get it now?
Regardless of how they rule, if and when the IRS decides to push the issue, the SCOTUS will either have to return me to full citizenship or leave me the way the Constitution classifies someone who isn't a citizen and isn't an alien.
Granted, there IS a 3rd option, but they will know before I leave that courtroom what the results of that option is. I also made a promise to myself 20 years ago - that I will NOT return to jail. I've kept that promise so far. But I will live AND die as a free man on this earth and no one, including you, will change that.
Get it?
Good


*If you'd like to see a case involving this very same issue, I can post it too. It involved a soldier that went AWOL for a few hours and they courtmartialed him and left him stranded in another country, without the right to return to his own country, the U.S. The exchange between the SCOTUS Judge and the head of INS is a classic, lol.

[farmrbrown]

Feb 3, 2023 17:34:55 GMT joebill said:

Feb 3, 2023 1:19:58 GMT farmrbrown said:

No Joe, exactly the opposite. 
I'm not asking for "special" treatment, only equal treatment as a Native born American.
Thomas and the majority of the Court have already said what we all claim to be the rights of a U.S. citizen.
I can pull out a paragraph from another similar case (It was either Heller or MacDonald) where they actually listed the rights they considered "unalienable", basically the first 8 amendments.
In it they rejected the idea that these were "second class rights" subject to denial by the gov't.
Free Speech, Right to keep and bear arms, to be secure in your property, no warrantless searches, to remain silent, right to a trial by jury and even to serve on a jury (Thomas again, specifically wrote that), right to counsel and free from cruel and unusual punishment.
*Most people leave out the 3rd, but I don't know of a case where soldiers were quartered in a private home, lol*

ALL these things define a U.S. citizen. SCOTUS' words, not mine. Since I'm lacking several of those at this moment my question for the Court is similar to the old adage about, "IS that a duck or not?"
If not, and I'm certainly NOT an alien from another country, then I've offered the only constitutional option left to define my status in this country. 
IOW, if I'm not deserving of equal treatment, with the same rights, privileges and immunities of a U.S. citizen then so be it. Call me what I am under U.S. law and leave me the heck alone. That's all I ask.

(Sorry, that was closer to 250 words, but I tried, lol)

 

Fail....Joe

Fail? I don't understand what you mean.
If you meant I failed to prove my status on racial grounds, then of course I failed. That was never the intent.
If you mean I failed by citing the SCOTUS' own opinion on what rights a U.S. citizen must have.....then I think it's rather the Court's failure to convince you, not mine. 
(?)

As far as I can tell, all the cases taken to SCOTUS on this (felons rights after sentence completed) were argued using the 14th amendment, which is the very one used to uphold those laws.
But no one has invoked the 13th and 15th together as the reason those laws are unconstitutional. 
And because the focus was on racial discrimination instead of "involuntary servitude" of any race, I believe that's why all those cases failed.
And that's not just my opinion. When I began looking at the overlooked part of the 15th I stumbled on papers by law professors who wrote the same thing. Trouble is, no petitions on this have ever been filed. Maybe I'll get lucky and be the first, lol.

Maybe what wasn't clear about the "racial" inference (untaxed Indians) is THAT'S the part where I expect the IRS to get involved, but it's got nothing to do with felons losing the rights of citizenship. It's simply a constitutional objection the IRS hasn't deemed as "frivolous" AND gets me thru another obstacle I learned of last week.

[joebill]

It was a fail because you went off, as usual, in a thousand different directions, some even you admit are pointless and a jury member of average intellegence or a judge far beyond that would conclude you have a knack for confusing issues but no talent for clarifying them.

Under your system of justice, any man willing to engage in Felonias behavior bad enough to remove his right to vote is excused from any and all responsibilities that accompany citizenship automatically.

NOT the way the world works, even if it makes sense to you...

IF you want to begin clarification, explain, please, why it matters a whit that you had an ancestor born in a swamp to native parents, in terms of maintaining your rights in spite of the fact that an irishman who did a similar crime would not maintain his.....Joe

[farmrbrown]

Feb 4, 2023 4:09:59 GMT joebill said:

It was a fail because you went off, as usual, in a thousand different directions, some even you admit are pointless and a jury member of average intellegence or a judge far beyond that would conclude you have a knack for confusing issues but no talent for clarifying them.

Under your system of justice, any man willing to engage in Felonias behavior bad enough to remove his right to vote is excused from any and all responsibilities that accompany citizenship automatically.

NOT the way the world works, even if it makes sense to you...



IF you want to begin clarification, explain, please, why it matters a whit that you had an ancestor born in a swamp to native parents, in terms of maintaining your rights in spite of the fact that an irishman who did a similar crime would not maintain his.....Joe

ok, I'll try to keep it short and simple.

Under your system of justice, any man willing to engage in Felonias behavior bad enough to remove his right to vote is excused from any and all responsibilities that accompany citizenship automatically.

Not ALL responsibilities, although by default several have been taken off the table. However the ONLY one I've willingly shirked is the income tax. I still pay property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes and various state and local fees, etc.
But no income tax.
That's the ONLY responsibility I won't accept at this point, due to the fact I have no say so in choosing the legislators who spend it. That IS a fundamental right of U.S. citizens, and I think almost everyone would agree on that, wouldn't you?
But....assuming that justice/fairness isn't a good enough reason because retribution/vengeance is stronger, I'll address the elephant in the room for WHY many people think it's fine to leave felons on the tax rolls but NOT the voter rolls.
Too bad, life's NOT fair and even if it was a minor felony, they crossed the "line of badness" we've drawn and that's all there is to it. Tough luck, they get what they deserve. (Is that a fair description of what I'm up against, joebill , ?)

I've thought about that for a long time because sometimes all the logic in the world won't change a strong emotion. I get that.
So I wondered what happened to the worst offense, listed specifically in the 14th amendment, where the right to vote IS authorized to taken away? - participation in rebellion, or other crime. (A direct quote from section 2 of the 14th) 
That was written especially for the worst offenders of the time - Confederate soldiers who took up arms against their own country. And they DID lose their citizenship along with the right to vote, as many as 1 million men.
If having an ounce of weed costs you a huge part of your civil rights for a lifetime as punishment, surely those guys got much worse? And deserved it too, right?

civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2015/10/10/editorialthink-piece-are-confederate-veterans-united-states-veterans

After the war, most former Confederates quickly regained U.S. Citizenship. President Lincoln began the process in 1863 with the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. It allowed for a full pardon to those fighting for the South with the exception of the highest Confederate political and military leaders. At the end of the war, in May 1865, President Johnson offered a similar proclamation requiring those seeking pardon to take the oath of loyalty to the United States and obey federal laws about slavery. In his proclamation Johnson listed fourteen classes of people ineligible for pardons; the number of restrictions was then reduced in an 1867 proclamation.

Full amnesty for former Confederates came on December 25, 1868 in a final proclamation from Johnson:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

This proclamation gave full amnesty and the restoration of all citizenship rights to Confederate veterans. As Reconstruction continued, former Confederates largely resumed life as American citizens, with the exception of losing their property in slaves.

Even Gen. Lee had his rights restored at that time but the paperwork got lost for about 100 years. The only reason Jeff Davis didn't is he refused it.
I know that's another angle on the 'fairness' argument but It's the best I can do. If that doesn't work for ya, nothin will.


On THIS question, I'm still puzzled as to why you asked it.

IF you want to begin clarification, explain, please, why it matters a whit that you had an ancestor born in a swamp to native parents, in terms of maintaining your rights in spite of the fact that an irishman who did a similar crime would not maintain his....

The ONLY reason it matters at all is, that it's written into the constitution that supports my legal right not to pay taxes as long as I'm NOT accepted as a citizen, nor a "resident alien subject to tax."
That designation will NOT maintain or return my rights as a citizen and isn't intended to, just the opposite. At the time it was written it excluded Indians from citizenship 100%. 
IOW, if I'm not acknowledged as 100% citizen, then I'm asking the court to declare me 0%, per the constitution which agrees with SCOTUS opinion about "no 2nd class rights". I'm either 100% IN, or 100% OUT. And I can live with that.
Is that any clearer now? 

[/b]