Larry:
I am open to hearing everything relevant in my ongoing research. To presume, as you have, that I am naive and, your words, "people like me", is frankly, arrogant and stupid. How is it you can make assumptions about "people like me", and you don't even know me?
So, let me enlighten you about who I am. I am a 51 year old, wife and mother of two teenage children. Just a regular gal, livin' the dream. Or so I thought. Very much by accident, I stumbled upon the "lie". And the more I dig in to find answers, the more questions they present. I agree with you, there is more disinformation out there than substantive. And the dream as it turns out, slowly is turning to a nightmare. I do not pretend or proclaim to know everything. This is a constant learning process. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we set out to deceive." That is an understatement of what is going on here in this country. And for that matter, the world. Christine Fitzpatrick, is me. Why is it so hard to claim that? Why can't the powers that be, just let me go? The answers are in the tangled web. I will continue to take everything under advisement and sort through this. All information and theories will be considered and put into practical application thereafter. Have I, and do I continue to have missteps? Yes, I do. But isn't what the definition of experience is? A series of mistakes to assist in growth and knowledge? (as long as you don't keep repeating)
I value your insight and experience and do not choose to be adversarial. I too have value, and so does every human being, regardless of status or title. You have presented excellent material for study. And study I will.
My goal is to be free. What that means to me, may be different than for you or anyone else. I must have my own freedom before I can be preaching about it to my brothers and sisters. In the end, it is my sincere hope, we can come together as a community, to establish a functioning, independent, free society, without overreaching, tyrannical, government intrusion. Correct me if I am wrong, I think you desire the same?
In closing, I will not engage in a pissing contest (sorry, just the regular gal coming out). We can work together or not. But time is not a luxury, for you or I, so let's not waste it.
Peace,
Christine Fitzpatrick
520-568-0124
---- On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:34:28 -0700 Larry wrote ----
Christine,
It appears to me that you and many others believe that lie that courts cannot cite cases prior to 1938, a fabrication of the gurus circulating for at least the last 18 years. There is a lot of incorrect, false information that floats around and the naive end up believing the lies.
I attach the decision in the 2nd amendment Heller case. It cites lots of authority including cases decided long prior to 1938. Please look at it as I have highlighted parts in yellow.
Incidentally, there was no bankruptcy of the US in the 1930s. HJR 192 is no longer in effect and has not been since 1977. I explain this and more in a money issue brief posted on my website:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html
Larry
The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, has no significance today because it has been effectively repealed; see 91 Stat. 1229. For cases explaining the end of HJR 192's application in 1977, and the validity of gold clause contracts today, see Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 946 (W.D.Wash. 1986), affirmed at Fay Corp. v. Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990), Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, 32 Cal.App.4th 424, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 (1995); Trostel v. American Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 133 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 1998); Nebel, Inc. v. Mid-City National Bank, 329 Ill. App.3d 957, 769 N.E.2d 45 (2002); and 216 Jamaica Ave. v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008).
On 4/23/2014 6:31 PM, Christine wrote:
069234638.-4941568488561400338@gmail.com" type="cite">
Ok, I read Justice Moore's opinion and see your highlighted case cites. I counted 4. And maybe we should try to get the CLGJ in his court. So eloquent in referencing everything we can agree on. The Constitution, unalienable rights, government duty to protect rights to life...etc. In fact I think I will post this case on the NLA site.
Could it be judges are getting the memo and are choosing to act accordingly?
One last question for you Larry, did you not take an oath/pledge to BAR Assoc. when becoming a member of it?
Thank you for the information and as with all arguments, I will take it under advisement.
Christine
---- On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:06:16 -0700 Larry wrote ----
Clare,
In the mid-90s, an argument regarding the UCC was promoted in this
movement. A part of that argument contended that no court opinions
decided today could cite to cases prior to 1938. I addressed that
argument here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm
A few days ago, the Ala Supremes rendered a decision in Ex parte Hicks,
which is attached. I suggest that everybody read Justice Roy Moore's
concurring opinion for its merits (starts on 30th page), but I also wish
to point out (highlighted in yellow) that he relied on cases and other
authorities dated long before 1938.
That argument that cases decided prior to 1938 cannot be cited is
utterly false, and it has deceived many.
Larry
I have no idea where anyone thought I believe that you can't cite a case previous to 1938 -
because Tommy Cryer won his own IRS case, with Larry's help, using Brushaber and
Stanton v. Baltic Mining, both from 1916, and many more decisions pre-1938.
In fact, of the 42 cases in The Notorious Notebook, (and printed on the back of my Truth Attack T-Shirt),
32 of them were before 1938.
Maybe Larry had me confused with someone else when he made that response.
~ C.