Misc RM 54    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!

 

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

 



 

Copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War DepartmentWashington, D.C., November 30, 1928.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official Definition of DEMOCRACY v REPUBLIC

NOTE

Here are four (4) facsimile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both.

These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction.

These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army.


Such definitions take precedence over any "definition" that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical "modification" to please "the powers in office.

Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation. This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without.

-------------------


Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.


CITIZENSHIP

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy


CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and
(2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
(3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize
(4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.


Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government.

They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
 
 

WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government.

It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

"Did I say "Republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America.

Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

--Westbrook Pegler


New York Journal American, January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL RULES DECISIONS Volume 49

Opinions, Decisions and Rulings involving the

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

West Publishing Co.

 

R. ROE et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. No. JO Civ. 457.

United States District Court, S. D. New York. March 27, 1970.

Action by infants in state training school seeking declaratory judgments that they were entitled to adequate care and treatment and were not receiving such and for an injunction and money judgment, wherein defendants moved to dismiss. The District Court, Wyatt, J ., held that no action was commenced by filing of complaint in which names of all plaintiffs were fictitious and subsequent disclosure of true names of plaintiffs in application for an order -in case did not change the situation.

Complaint dismissed.

 

1. Federal Civil Procedure 671

If complaint does not identify any plaintiff in title or otherwise, then its filing is ineffective to commence an action.
Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A. ; 28 U.S.C.A. 1343(3), 2201, 2202; 42 U .S.C.A. 1983.

 

2. Federal Civil Procedure 671

Court must be able to identify from complaint at least one plaintiff by name, otherwise no action has been commenced.
Fed. Rules Civ .Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A. ; 28 U.S.C.A. 1343(3), 2201, 2202; 42 U .S.C.A. 1983.

 

3. Federal Civil Procedure 392 If action has been commenced by filing of complaint, then amendments can be permitted or protective orders made on proper showing to shield identity of plaintiffs while permitting necessary knowledge to court and to defendants.
Fed.Rules Civ .Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A. ; 28 U.S.C.A. 1343{3), 2201, 2202 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.

 

4. Federal Civil Procedure 382 NO action was commenced by filing of complaint in which names of all plaintiffs were fictitious and subsequent disclosure of true names of plaintiffs in application for an order in case did not change the situation.
";.Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A. ; 28 U. S.C.A. 1343(3), 2201, 2202; 42 U.S. C.A. 1983.

 

Morton P. Cohen; South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plain- tiffs Roe, Soe and Joe; Albert Angeloro, Harlem Assertion of Rights, New York City, for plaintiff Moe, Marcia Lowry, Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., New York City, of counsel.

 

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York, New York City, for defendants; Irving L. Rollins, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.

 

WYATT , District Judge. This is a motion for defendants for an order dismissing the complaint "for failure of the infant plaintiffs herein to state their true names in the title there- of".
The motion is said to be under Fed. R.Civ.P. 10 (a).

 

The complaint and the motion raise a novel question: whether an action can be commenced in a federal court by the filing of a complaint in which the names of all plaintiffs are fictitious.

 

The complaint was filed on February 4, 1970. It is stated that there are four plaintiffs, boys from fourteen to sixteen years old, who are in custody at training schools of the State of New York under commitments of the Family Court.

 

The four plaintiffs are all named in the caption and in the complaint under fictitious names: R. Roe, M. Moe, S. Soe, and J. Joe. Three of the plaintiffs sue by their mother and next friend, whose names are also fictitious; one sues by guardian ad litem, Morton P. Cohen, Esq., attorney for three of the plaintiffs.

 

The complaint avers that plaintiffs "are all natural persons who are employing fictitious names for the purposes of this action in order to protect their true identities. Plaintiffs fear that if their commitment to state training schools were to become generally known, they would be subjected to personal embarrassment, harassment, and ridicule, and upon their release, would be hampered in their attempts to assimilate into the community" name; in two of the actions the names used were fictitious. There was no discussion the point in the Supreme Court except to record in a footnote that the Connecticut court had approved the procedure. In the highest court ill Connecticut, it had been said on this point
(Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48, 156 A.2d 508, 514 (1959) ) :

"Because of the intimate and distressing details alleged in these complaints, it is understandable that the parties who are allegedly medical patients would wish to be anonymous. To obviate any possibility that the parties and the issues raised are fictitious and that the jurisdiction of the court is being invoked to decide moot questions, a plaintiff who desires to use a name other than his own should, before the case is presented in court, acquaint the court of his desires, establish the fact that the parties and issues are real although the names used are fictitious, and secure the court's consent, as was done in these cases. The privilege of using fictitious names in actions should be granted only in the rare case where the nature of the issue litigated and the interest of the parties demand it and no harm can be done to the public interest."

 

The decision as to procedure under Connecticut law is, of course, not controlling here and, moreover, in one of the actions heard together there was a plaintiff under his true name, the doctor, and the other plaintiffs were alleged to be his patients.

 

The motion of defendants to dismiss was made returnable on March 17, 1970. At the argument, counsel for plaintiffs offered to identify the plaintiffs by their true names, under protective provisions. There was also presented to the Court by counsel for plaintiffs a pro- posed order, with temporary restraining order, requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be restrained from accepting any further minors under Family Court orders and from using confinement as a punishment or punishment. Affidavits sub with this proposed order identify plaintiffs by their true names of these papers were given to for defendants with instructions the Court that the names of plaintiff to be kept confidential. The action for the order to show cause temporary restraining order was on Friday, March 20, 1970.

 

If no action had been commenced by filing of this complaint, then the subsequent disclosure of the true names plaintiffs did not change the situation. By granting the present motion, I not wish to put form before substance or to penalize litigants for minor technical lapses of procedure. It is to me, however, that there is here fact of substance. Sound public poll would appear to require that a comment identify by true name at least one in tiff if the filing is to commence an action; if the complaints fails to identify true name a t least one plaintiff then, filing is not effective to commence). An Action.

 

The motion, therefore, should be ranted but it is logically inconsistent to dismiss an action, which has never been commenced. A judgment must be entered, however, so that an appeal may be taken, if desired. The proposed order to show cause and exhibits will be returned unsigned to Counsel for plaintiffs without prejudice to its resubmission in the event this order is reversed or an action is properly commenced.

 

Nothing said herein is intended to express any opinion as to the merits of the claims made in the compliant. The motion is granted and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that no action was commenced when this complaint was filed.

So ordered





WHAT THE COURTS SAY

Just exactly what is this thing called an income tax? Few Americans know the answer to that question. The following are a small number of court cases, most of them United States Supreme Court cases that reveal the truth about this so-called income tax.   Take a few moments to concentrate on the next pages. If these pages don't quicken your heart rate and fill you with both excitement and fear, then you are probably brain dead. These pages are probably the most important pages on finances and taxes you have ever read.

 

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

(House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580)

 

"...the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."
(Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17)

 

Excise Taxes are "...taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges. (Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th Ed., page 680.)"
(Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151)

 

"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..."
(Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, at 502)

 

"We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government."
(Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 154)

 

Since we now know that the income tax is not a tax on income, and we know it is a tax on business activities and certain privileged occupations, what does that really mean? What about those of us in the mainstream of America, just putting in our 40 hours and doing our best to get by? How does this excise tax apply to us?

 

"Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non-statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the revenue acts..."
(C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d 18, at 29)

 

[Quoting Adam Smith's Wealth Of Nations favorably], "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property..."

(Butcher's Union Company v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 757)

 

[The Court finds] "...an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that [Fifth] Amendment. Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally for the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor..."
(Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 172)

 

"...Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily be interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money."

(Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1)

 

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

(Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113)

 

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.
(Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819)

 

"...Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit..."

(Lauredale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 47 Atlantic 2d 277, at 280)

 

"...The Government here contends that all gross receipts represent income which must be reported. But gross receipts may or may not represent income, depending on the circumstances... It cannot be said that conversions of capital assets invariably produce income... It appears that the Government makes too broad a claim in asserting that gross receipts invariably measure income or gross income..."

(United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400)

 

"...There is a clear distinction between 'Profit' and 'wages,' or compensation for labor. (Quoting Commercial League Association of America v. People ex re. Needles, Auditor, 90 Ill., p 66), Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit,' as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment - a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor."

(Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d, at 868)

 

"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

(United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, at 405)

 

The Court has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual American Citizen trading his/her labor for money is exercising a right, which cannot be taxed. Since we are not taxpayers, as the IRC defines the word, do we need to keep receipts, store records, file tax returns and invite the IRS to probe into our personal and private affairs whenever they want to? Can we be required to give the IRS any and all information they ask of us? Are we required by law to complete a tax return every year like the IRS claims?

"...Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint..."

(Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145)

 

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."

(Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238)

 

"(P)ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."

(Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589)

 

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the [Fifth] Amendment..."

(Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, at 263)

 

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness..."

(Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648)

 

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation... He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

(Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43)

 

"The legal right of the taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or to altogether avoid them by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

(Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465)

 

"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

(Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F2d 809)

 

What about the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Did it not give to the IRS the authority to tax individual Citizens' incomes? Isn't that what created the income tax? Can't the IRS tax anything they want because of the Sixteenth Amendment?

 

"...The confusion ... arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes... an erroneous assumption... The purpose of the Amendment was... to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes."

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S. 1, in 1915.)

 

"(T)he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. . . "

(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112)

 

"(T)he contention that the (16th) Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax . . . is . . . wholly without foundation. . . "

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 18)

 

What you have just read is only the beginning. The IRS and many in Congress know these laws, and they fraudulently misrepresent them to the American people. It is somehow justifiable to these so-called public servants to lie and misrepresent the laws as long as they collect money for the federal government. These public officials will almost always make statements which indicate that, in their view, your money and my money is in truth really their money. They will often make comments which seem to assume that every individual not actively involved in paying all he/she can into the federal coffers is really a crook holding out, really a thief stealing money belonging to the government, really an immoral and dishonest person who should be punished. But you know the old saying, "It takes one to know one..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE COURTS ARE USING ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE

 

Posted By: suI_juris
Date: Sunday, 2 December 2007, 5:29 p.m.

IN REM
In-rem jurisdiction, as opposed to in-personam, refers to lawsuits dealing with property disputes rather matters between parties. For example, conflicts regarding title deeds and ownership are considered in-rem (as are child custody disputes). Jurisdiction is determined based on the location of the property and enforcement follows property rather than person.
Retrieved from 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/In_rem

 

[YOUR LIFE IS PROPERTY]

"Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction comprises two types of cases: (1) those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, and (2) those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters. In other words, the second type of case must have a direct connection with maritime commerce.

Suits in admiralty traditionally took the form of a proceeding in rem against the vessel, and, with exceptions to be noted, such proceedings in rem are confined exclusively to federal admiralty courts, because the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789 has been interpreted as referring to the traditional admiralty action, the in rem action, which was unknown to the Common Law.

State courts are forbidden by the Constitution to have Admiralty jurisdiction. While State courts are permitted to handle and try Admiralty cases if the suitor desires, it must be an Admiralty matter to begin with and it must involve property, otherwise there would not be a Common Law remedy. In other words, the Common Law courts would not be competent to handle it. More than this, it would need to be tried in a Common Law court, following Common Law procedures (not Equity procedures) with a Trial by a Common Law jury. " http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_1.html

1 75.8. Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem Grounds for generally.
A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section. A judgment in rem or quasi in rem may affect the interests of a defendant in a status, property or thing acted upon only if process has been served upon the defendant pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem may be invoked in any of the following cases:

(1) When the subject of the action is real or personal property in this State and the defendant has or claims any lien or interest therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in excluding the defendant from any interest or lien therein. This subdivision shall apply whether any such defendant is known or unknown.

(2) When the action is to foreclose, redeem from or satisfy a deed of trust, mortgage, claim or lien upon real or personal property in this State.

(3) When the action is for a divorce or for annulment of marriage of a resident of this State.

(4) When the defendant has property within this State which has been attached or has a debtor within the State who has been garnished. Jurisdiction under this subdivision may be independent of or supplementary to jurisdiction acquired under subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of this section.

(5) In any other action in which in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction may be constitutionally exercised. (1967, c. 954, s. 2.)

 

 

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".