> I don't know where a power of attorney was ever granted.

When you are > subject to the power of Congress in a territory, it just feels like you > have given a power of attorney. Ken: Prior to the civil war, prior to reconstruction and prior to a conditional re-admission Congress hadn't any need to enforce by appropriate legislation any particular amendment. Yet, without such power the freed slave hadn't the assurance of safety nor had Congress the ability to ensure this 'blessing of liberty', all contrary to the 'original expressed intent'. Because Congress hadn't the authority to "free the slave", nor can it be considered the 'freed slave' was on equal footing with the 'state citizen' concluding the civil war, Congress had to alter grandpa's will by granting to itself a new power. The only assurance given to the U.S. citizen to maintain any semblance of equality is to realize Congress has the power, by appropriate legislation, to act on their behalf. That's a power of attorney, as I see it. Prior to the civil war and before Congress adjourned for the summer HJR 80, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, March 2, 1861 was passed. Article Thirteen, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state." In the notes we find, "This is the only proposed amendment ever signed by a president in advance of a two thirds concurrence of both houses. A president's approval is unnecessary as defined in Article V of the Constitution. Also, the thirty-sixth congress was scheduled to end on March 2nd. The senate continued its legislative day into the early hours of March 4th when it passed the proposal. The legislative day rather than the calendar day is used to represent the date of the resolution."

> You can't declare citizenship. You have to prove it with evidence. Law > applies to facts; facts are established by evidence, which is testimony > and documents authenticated by testimony. > You can declare independence. Then you are either friend or foe.

Ken: Agreed. Census, death, military, birth, marriage, school, etc., records serve as correlating proof of our lineage. Rhetorically, I ask, how'd you get here? I mean, we weren't by some magical incantation 'banged'

into existence so there must exist a written record somewhere. My family's tree will match the written record. I stress to you, the gov't is not regulating the non-fictional man but is instead regulating the fictional estate simply because we haven't had (lost) control. And, we've forgotten who we are because of the civil war. (Reconstruction Acts) > > I am thinking there is no downside to renouncing the citizenship of the > United States by reason of birth or residence in the District of > Columbia or any territory or possession of the United States and > claiming the citizenship of the United States of America by reason of > birth within the boundaries of an original several State of the United > States of America declared independent July 4, 1776. > Ken: "Declaration of Citizenship"?

> The importance of the concept of situs, for tax purposes, > becomes clear when we consider what the courts say about congressional > intent: > > We think the language of the statutes clearly demonstrates the > intent of Congress that the source of income is the situs of > the income-producing service. (C.I.R. v. Piedras Negras HB Co., 127 F2d > 260, 261) > Ken: Key phrase here, "situs of the income-producing service". We're told repeatedly that the word 'income' is 'capital severed from the gain', or in other words, a corporate profit. When the argument is reduced to its root level we find that we're either employees of the [family trust estate] or we're employees of the State. Is there another option I'm unaware exist? When prior to any filed severability the 'income/corp profit' is produced within the, for lack of a better term, "Buck Act State" the [[[[person]]]] generating the 'profit' is liable to pay the tax (266151). In this case the term 'person' is a trust, (267701) a qualified domestic trust (262056A) with the estate's purpose being the business of the family farm. At the time of drafting our constitution the 'main stay' of the family was the farm with it's agricultural commodities and "assembled/manufactured

goods". There's a future's interest maintained in these commodities whether or not one has exercised an option to be included in any 'market' or marketing "scheme". Maintained within our 'marketing interest' lies a future's interest in the roads and bridges for transporting goods to the markets - docks, etc,. Art.18.3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Art.19.6 No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. With just a precursory look into the reconstruction acts I believe there is clear evidence showing a federal gov't takeover of the family's [future's interest(s)] etc., ultimately encumbering commerce by appropriate legislation. Quote, "Under a law first enacted in 1866 everyone born in the US and not subject to a foreign power "are declared to be citizens of the United States"", RS sec. 1992, 8 USC sec. 1401. "Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of [[[[proper legal evidence]]]] to the contrary; Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342.)" This is where the Dept of Agriculture, followed by the Dept. of Commerce, are "foisted" upon the scene. Adding two and two together I believe, the federal gov't, acting within a fiduciary duty, maintains the interest of the family farm trust estate by sheer force and/or color of law following the civil war. Previously I discussed the 'termination of the executive war powers' in 1976. Do an engine search and I believe you'll find that Congress terminated the 'war powers' being enforced to this very day. (side note; I believe 911 was an 'executive' attempt to reverse this particular termination of power, but this is strictly a pool-boy's conjecture.) I conclude that concurrently within and around this termination of power is availed to us a remedy returning our family trust estate's interest(s) to the rightful owners. Are we to forever remain under "martial law", (i.e.., international banksters control)? > I think it would be wise to communicate in writing to payer > that your understanding is that the situs of your compensation for > employee service is, for example, California. > > Here is a good signing: > JOHN DOE > By: John Doe, Attorney in Fact > Ken: I like it, however I submit that we might be able to say it, be able to show it, be able to point their noses to the appropriate definitions

etc., in statute, regs, case law et al, but is this sufficient to mount [proper legal evidence]? Emphatically I say, no! My opinion..... until the man recognizes his proper status as executor of his family's trust estate all interest(s) therein will continue to be controlled by congress through the "appropriate legislation". Therefore, I don't think it sufficient to simply state "I am who I say I am and you must prove otherwise" yada, yada, yada. Not only must we know who we are, where we came from, and the situs/source to our income but we must also be able to show how and why this remedy is availed to those of us with knowledge. We could say, "I'm not an employee of the state but rather my family's farm e-state. The 'situs' attributed to the family's farm (business) is within the de jure state and therefore no "income" can be calculated for federal tax purposes." And, yet, concurrently our argument must also be recognized by Congress through the "appropriate legislation". I emphasize, only when the two arguments are symbiotic has one mounted the [proper legal evidence], as I see it. And this remains the singular problem within the movement, in my opinion. We're off and running half-cocked trying to do our own thing. (Yet, how else do we find out?) <shrug>

> I do not think a signing qualified by "under protest" can be refused. > If you like, you can attach a statement saying the form has been done > "under protest" and "without prejudice". I know that can't be refused > and I know the attachment preserves the protest. I know if from a tax > case involving an insurance company. > >

Ken: Granted, it might receive consideration but eventually it too will be "denied". Why? I answer, because the status of the signatory determines whether or not Congress maintains a 'power of attorney'. Art. 62 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. Again, this is using pool-boy logic. <g> Many thanks, Regards, Ken