Is "searcher" a "Subject"?

[searcher]

To: famspear,Thanks,
Re: "Whether a given law is unjust is not an important question."

Apparently it was important to Dr. King.
I do know what I am to ALL Government agents, employees,etc., I am a SUBJECT. I know this much, no doubt about it. This doesn't bother me whatsover.I guess the "Sovereigns" object to this,i.e. being considered "Subjects." I might object too except I also know when I am outnumbered. Apparently the "sovereigns" are blind to that fact as well as MANY other things.I do not have to wait until push comes to shove to know where I stand. Bow to the wind.

[Pottapaug1938]

To: famspear,Thanks,
Re: "Whether a given law is unjust is not an important question."

Apparently it was important to Dr. King.
I do know what I am to ALL Government agents, employees,etc., I am a SUBJECT. I know this much, no doubt about it. This doesn't bother me whatsover. I guess the "Sovereigns" object to this, i.e. being considered "Subjects." I might object too except I also know when I am outnumbered. Apparently the "sovereigns" are blind to that fact as well as MANY other things.I do not have to wait until push comes to shove to know where I stand. Bow to the wind.

Thanks for showing your true colors, searcher. Like others before you, you come on here with an apparently neutral attitude, and then you come up with foolishness like your assertion about being a "subject". I see no reason to discuss this further, because 1) that would imply that your position has merit and 2) I and others have done this with those who have walked your path before, and I see no reason to go through the whole routine again.



However, should you wish to trouble us further with your opinions, please provide veriable proof, through citations to the HOLDINGS in court decisions (quote mining won't work, nor will citation of dicta which do not constitute the holding in the case) to back up your claim that we are "subjects" of our government.

[searcher]

Re: Subject,
I have had a few traffic citations in my life, & I do consider a couple of them to be "unjust." For example, I was a courier for Puralator Courier & I was stopped for speeding on an interstate, in Florida,doing 65 in a 55 mph zone. This happend about 3 or 4 in the morning. The Speed limit signs said 75 mph as they had for years. The State trooper said the "law" went into effect at midnight & the signs had not been taken down because of the time, or something to that effect. I thought I was 10 mph under the speed limit. Anyway, the State Trooper wrote on the ticket that he observed the "Subject" was in excess of the lawful speed limit.Every ticket I have says "Subject",e.g. I advised the "subject" of his rights, per Miranda. One time I had a scanner & the dispatcher said to S.O.21, to check in a certain area & notify her back on how many subjects would he estimate to be in the area. Later S.0. 21 responded back to the dispatcher & I will never forget what he said. He said, "Subjects are everywhere, I would estimate there are between two hundred & fifty & three hundred." These are my true colors because what I have said is the truth. But now, if you want to, you can call me a liar. Giving you more examples of "subject" will not change your mind. I live in the U.S.A. I do not know where you live. I did not say YOU are a Subject, I said I am a Subject of/to the powers that be,e.g., where I live, or this is what I meant. IF I am not considered a Subject, who is the "Subject" the State Trooper was "observing?" This question applies to the rest of the examples I have written about. Who are the "Subjects?"

[Pottapaug1938]

Re: Subject,
I have had a few traffic citations in my life, & I do consider a couple of them to be "unjust." For example, I was a courier for Puralator Courier & I was stopped for speeding on an interstate, in Florida,doing 65 in a 55 mph zone. This happend about 3 or 4 in the morning. The Speed limit signs said 75 mph as they had for years. The State trooper said the "law" went into effect at midnight & the signs had not been taken down because of the time, or something to that effect. I thought I was 10 mph under the speed limit. Anyway, the State Trooper wrote on the ticket that he observed the "Subject" was in excess of the lawful speed limit.Every ticket I have says "Subject",e.g. I advised the "subject" of his rights, per Miranda. One time I had a scanner & the dispatcher said to S.O.21, to check in a certain area & notify her back on how many subjects would he estimate to be in the area. Later S.0. 21 responded back to the dispatcher & I will never forget what he said. He said, "Subjects are everywhere, I would estimate there are between two hundred & fifty & three hundred." These are my true colors because what I have said is the truth. But now, if you want to, you can call me a liar. Giving you more examples of "subject" will not change your mind. I live in the U.S.A. I do not know where you live. I did not say YOU are a Subject, I said I am a Subject of/to the powers that be,e.g., where I live, or this is what I meant. IF I am not considered a Subject, who is the "Subject" the State Trooper was "observing?" This question applies to the rest of the examples I have written about. Who are the "Subjects?"

I am saying that you fail to understand a few basic concepts. In the case of your being stopped for speeding, you are a "subject" -- not the lower-case "s" -- of the state trooper's report. In other words, you are what the whole report is all about. For that matter, every sentence which you and I write has a subject -- for example, you are the subject of this post. However, when you move on from that to assert that we are all "Subjects" of our government, you cross the line into foolishness. Nowhere in our law do you find any cases where a citizen of the United States is labeled as such, simply by fact of having United States citizenship; and extrapolating, from the instance of your traffic stop, the premise that you are thus a "Subject" of our government, is to exhibit, at best, a lack of comprehension.

[Famspear]

To: famspear,Thanks,
Re: "Whether a given law is unjust is not an important question."

Apparently it was important to Dr. King.

Yes, good point. I did a poor job of expressing myself there. What I should have said was: "Whether a given law is unjust is not important in connection with this discussion about the so-called 'sovereign citizens'."

I do know what I am to ALL Government agents, employees,etc., I am a SUBJECT....

I think I know what you mean, but I don't find that to be the case very often. I would say that a few government employees do lose sight of what their proper role is when dealing with fellow citizens. There are a few bad apples in every barrel.

I will say that the government agency with which I deal the most is the Internal Revenue Service, and I find most IRS employees to be courteous and understanding. The level of technical competence among IRS employees varies widely, and you have to know what to expect, based on the kind of problem your client is having or the kind of goal you are trying to reach for your client.

Occasionally with the IRS, I encounter a bozo, and I know how to deal with the bozos. The rule is that we all have to follow the law.

My sense is that most "sovereigns" don't have a lot of experience dealing with government bureaurats, etc. My sense is that a lot of so-called "sovereigns" bring their problems on themselves, when it comes to dealing with government personnel.

I don't have a lot of experience dealing with so-called "sovereigns," but I have been dealing with their close cousins -- the tax protesters (or tax deniers) who make the frivolous arguments about tax law -- for over seven years (only on the internet, though). Of course, "sovereigns" tend to be tax protesters as well.

My experience is that nearly all the tax protester-tax denier people with whom I have interacted have been arrogant, delusional, bloviating blowhards and, typically, either paranoid or narcissistic or both. (I still find it weird that a person can have both paranoid and narcissistic characteristics at the same time, but psychologists recognize this possibility and I have sensed it, too, in dealing with some of these people.) Many of these people are blaming everyone else and everything else for problems which they themselves have caused, and my guess is that many tax protesters are having problems with government employees treating them as "subjects" because the protesters themselves induced that kind of behavior.

[searcher]

Maybe it was the "subject Van" that was the "speeding subject." The State Trooper spelled subject with a capital s, e.g., Subject.Who or what were the 250 to 300 "subjects" S.O. 21 told the Sheriff's Office Dispatcher he estimated seeing? He also said, Subjects or subjects(they both "sound" the same whether it is a proper or common noun) are everywhere. Who & what did he mean in your very perceptive & learned knowledge? When he, the Sheriff Deputy, said: SUBJECTS are everywhere, WHO or WHAT was he referring to? I think the dispatcher knew precisely/exactly what he meant.Sometimes some of the answers I get from SOME quatloos members are just as bad as some of the sovruns comments.Would it have made any difference if I chose to use the name Seeker instead of searcher?

[Famspear]

Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

Yes, I used to be a broadcast news reporter, and I picked up that jargon as well, because I spent so much time listening to police radio communications. Police use the term "subject" simply to refer to "the person we are talking about right now." That doesn't mean "subject" in the sense in which I think you are thinking, as in "the King's subject bowed before the King."

In police jargon, the "subject" is often a "suspect" (that is, a person suspected of having committed or intending to commit a crime), but not always.

Getting back to "fair" and "unfair" laws, I want to point out a fallacy in the thought processes of many tax protesters and "sovereigns." The fallacy has to do with believing that "because I feel that this law is unfair, it must not really be the law" or "because I feel that this law is unfair, I am not bound by it" or "because I feel this law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional." You get the idea.

This kind of thinking becomes pathological when taken to the extremes of refusing to pay taxes, filing frivolous tax returns, filing frivolous pleadings and motions in court, risking jail time, filing false liens against government personnel, homicidal behavior, etc.

Martin Luther King, I suspect, recognized the existence of what he believed were unjust laws, but he did not delude himself into thinking that those unjust laws were not "the law." And if and when he violated those laws as a form of protest to try to get society to change, he did so in a peaceful way.

[Burnaby49]

I'd suggest stop responding to this guy. It's turning into an endless Merrill babblefest cycle and, as you know from that experience, there is nothing anyone can say that won't result in another round of nonsense. All that rational responses do is feed his ego and trigger more gibberish.

[Pottapaug1938]

That's what I decided after sending my last post. This guy is just as slippery as lorne or Harvester.

[searcher]

famspear, you have "character" to respond as you did which is a very rare quality trait(hope that's the right word) There are 3 terrible traits in most people, e.g. hate, greed & jealousy. It seems to me the tax evaders, etc. are "greedy." However, I can understand SOME of the tax protester stands. There IS a Federal Judge,Lynn M Hughes,who said, on the Record: "I too am a tax protestor. The only problem is, I wish there were a hundred millon more like us. I take being called a tax protestor, a compliment."
I can give/tell you the case if you want me too.

[searcher]

To: Burn & Pott,
I am being honest. If you do not understand the difference between being honest & slippery, & if being honest is gibberish, I will appreciate it if you do not respond to anything else I have to say. Also, when one of you has to advise the other one not to respond anymore, that tells me more than I need to know. Is the other one so dense he needs to be advised not to respond anymore? Apparently so. LOOK !! I am not a robot. I am not very smart, but at least I am smart enough to know it. Neither am I so dense, that I have to be advised on who,what, when,where, & why, not to respond,etc., to. I know that you two are not capable of helping me anyway by your shallow, superficial responses. You strain at knats & swallow elephants.I am nobody's YES man, Neither do I intend to be. I am now going to see what I can find out about this Harvester. Thanks for the tip,RIP.

[jg]

... There IS a Federal Judge,Lynn M Hughes,who said, on the Record: "I too am a tax protestor. The only problem is, I wish there were a hundred millon more like us. I take being called a tax protestor, a compliment."
I can give/tell you the case if you want me too.

Please do provide a reference for that case.

[Burnaby49]

To: Burn & Pott,
I am being honest. If you do not understand the difference between being honest & slippery, & if being honest is gibberish, I will appreciate it if you do not respond to anything else I have to say.

Works for me.

[searcher]

Hi JG,
The comment from Judge Hughes begins at the bottom of page 24. Judge Hughes also said there is no such thing as a political question.That statement is somewhere near the beginning of the case.
I do not know how to bring up links, etc., like the Quatloos members, but if you have a problem bringing this case up, I do believe I have the link somewhere. Now please, I know some of the Quatloos members will have a field/hayday with this case but I am only mentioning the case because of the "interesting comments" made by the Judge. So, please, don't belittle me & think I am one of "them sovruns." I have cases that cover everything from abalone fishing to zoo management.(:

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
Houston Division

Barbara Martin
vs.
United States of America

Civil No.96-CV-2563

[Famspear]

Dear searcher:

On the case docket on PACER, the federal court system web site, there are very few links for the docket entries, because this is an old case. There appears to be no way to download the applicable document. (Also, you didn't specify which specific document you're referring to. For example, you might be referring to the transcript of the hearing at docket entry 31, entered on April 11, 1997, for the hearing held on December 19, 1996.)

If you have a PDF of the document you're referring to, you could email it to me at:

lawfulman [at] gmail.com

This is a case where this lady sued the Office of President of the United States of America, the Governor of Texas, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Office of the Fort Bend County, Texas Clerk (suburban Houston, southwest side of the city), the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, and others. Pro se, of course. The case was removed to Federal district court in August of 1996, and later was thrown out.

Can't really tell what the case was about. I don't see a reported decision of any kind.

EDIT: She appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case no. 97-20051. That was thrown out, and she was warned to stop filing frivolous papers.

Her petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied; case no. 97-1065.

[Famspear]

Bingo!

I found the Barbara Martin crap.

There is a page on her garbage at none other than the family guardian web site:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom ... Martin.htm

Judge Lynn Hughes does indeed make the "tax protester" comment as shown in the transcript of the December 19, 1996 hearing. It's obvious that he's trying to humor her. She's complaining because she's being called a "tax protester" in the negative sense, and Judge Hughes says that we should have more tax protesters (but not in the sense in which she's thinking).

Here's her web site:

http://www.chosenrace.com/

[Famspear]

According to her pleadings, in the 109 pages of "FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF CITIZENSHIP," she's another one of those "free white de jure" citizens, "pursuant to the organic law, the Constitution for the united [sic] States of America....."

[Burnaby49]

Of course the judge ruled against her, He's Canadian! Who else on a Texas bench would have the background to throw Saskatchewan into an example? And he stated his family history was in Nova Scotia. So, once again, we Canadians subverted the true meaning of the American constitution and denied justice due to the American sovereigns. Makes me proud to stand tall under the Norwegian Maple

[searcher]

Wow !!! Thanks famspear, you saved me AGAIN. I was almost afraid to give that case out because I thought it would be misunderstood as to "WHY" I mentioned it. BUT, what did Judge Hughes mean when he/she (?) said, there is no such thing as a political question? I believe I have access to another case that will make all the "fair" Quatloos members scratch their heads by ONE statement made by the Court.It is a tax evader case & the guy uses a hundred different reasons as to why the law does not apply to him & the Court didn't "buy" anything he said. But, the Court said something "very interesting, at least to me." I'll try & send it tomorrow.It is short. One statement. Goodnight dear hearts !!!

[searcher]

To Famspear,
Re: Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

I don't think the State Trooper would write or say, "I observed the Sovereign Citizen was traveling in excess of the speed limit."(: Also,there is no way he would say, "traveling in excess of the "POSTED" speed limit. Once again, I was traveling at 65 m.p.h. in a POSTED 75 m.p.h. I wish I knew how to drag that icon(?), beating a dead horse to some of my posts, & in all honesty, if someone told me how to do it, I probably would not understand. Thank you for your sensible & caring replies.