L.B.Bork seeks to Stop American Resistance to Marxism
Sent: Saturday, October
25, 2003 3:04 AM
Subject: L.B.Bork seeks to
Stop American Resistance to Marxism
Mr. L. B. Bork of "PAC in Law" has found a devious way
to PROFIT from the "RED SCARE" that he promotes. He teaches
American citizens to, 'ABANDON ALL HOPE', 'GIVE UP THE FIGHT,' "DON'T
VOTE" 'LET THE MARXIST-DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL of the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT' 'LET THEM INCREASE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES' 'LET THEM
TAKE OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY HELD IN CORPORATIONS'
For this Advice, L.B. Bork charges his PAC in Law "members" $800
dollars.
L.B. Bork's claim that America "IS" a "communist
country" today is WISHFUL THINKING on his
part. Bork has positioned himself to profit from all who
take his Defeatist Hysterics on face value.
My property right to arrest and manhandle trespassers on my land is
secured by the LAWS of the STATE (See Rights of Landowner to Use Force at
www.billstclair.com/ferran
) but it is under constant attack by idiots (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/dear_fellow_property.htm)
and by actual Marxists whom L.B. Bork has dedicated his life to AIDING AND
ABETTING. As a Landowner, it is obvious to me that anyone who tells
the people that NOT VOTING AGAINST Marxist-Democrats is a good idea,
is an ENEMY TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, and a FRIEND of
MARXIST-DEMOCRATS.
US Corporations hold much of the private
wealth (property) of private American citizens, and therefore represent the
"means of production" which Marxist Communists desire to place under the control
of the government. Thus, terminating "corporate
protections" secured by the US Constitution is
the avowed ambition of the "U.S.
Marxist-Leninist Organization" http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm
"President Harry Truman ... embraced the idea
[of] accusing the Democrats of being 'soft' on Communism."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
In 1950, some believed that Marxist Communist propagandists were not a
"“clear and present danger” to the United States, but the United State
government still prosecuted them successfully:
But today Marxist Propagandists are "working with
individuals and existing groups to launch democratic insurgencies that put
corporations once again subordinate to ... democratic
authority...,
and strip fundamental powers-such as
... due process-from corporations."
http://www.poclad.org/ They
purport to justify this Marxist Revolution over private management of property
in terms of ending "the authority of corporations to govern" the "means of
production", and to place the means of production under "democratic
authority" by "strip[ing away] fundamental [rights] -such as
..due process-from corporations." "The Communist Party
... was heavily involved with the Progressive movement."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
"The
Communist Party, nevertheless, does
not seek its strength primarily in numbers. Its aim is a relatively small
party whose strength is in
selected, dedicated, indoctrinated, and rigidly disciplined members. ...
It also seeks to infiltrate ... groups." Dennis v. United
States (1951)
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Dennis/Jackson.html
L. B. Bork is one of the subversives working to abet the
Marxists' "Progressive" take-over the Federal Government, and ultimately,
to take control of private property held by American citizens (e.g., held within
corporations, 401K retirement plans, etc.). L.B. Bork has admitted that he
is dedicated to subverting the Due Process "Protections" for private
Property (which is what "corporate" assets are) under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. (see his words below)
I am opposing Bork's agenda and exposing his vicious Lies and
his Treasonous subversions. Therefore, Bork recently
complained:
"The facts support that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
benefit corporations. ...
To any that receive this
correspondence; this Mark Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed
him a dangerous person to the movement to restore proper
government which includes terminating corporate protections under
the 14th amendment." L.B. Bork October 21, 2003
(See more about Bork copied below)
"
Communist systems are premised on the state forcibly depriving
owners of all productive assets. Less ambitious
socialist systems
nationalize only some tools of production, transportation, or communication.
Fascism is a system in which
title to property remains in private
hands, but
control is exercised by the state."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer54.html
Our Constitution, particularly, the Fourteenth Amendment, stands
in opposition to the establishment of such arbitrary governmental control
over private corporations and other "private property."
"[T]he prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process
of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political
history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his,
free of governmental interference." Fuentes v. Shevin,
407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972) (citing Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S.
538).
http://www.geocities.com/towcrime/fuentesvshevin.html
By the Due Process of Law Clauses of the Constitution, State and Federal
Officials are "absolutely prohibited ... to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220
(1882); Tindale v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204, 217 (1897). "The enforcement of these
limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to
protect the rights of individuals ... as against the violence of public agents
transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and
wielding the force of the government." Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516,
535-36 (1884). Part 1
www.billstclair.com/ferran
L.B. Bork admitted that he wants to put private property held in
"corporations" outside the "protections" of the Constitution,
and he clearly wants to prevent Anti-Communist
American citizens from voting in Federal Elections (so that the
"Progressive" Marxist-Democrat "insurgents" can take over the Federal
Government and then take over the control of private property).
I certainly am proud to admit and to have it duly noted that I
stand opposed to L.B. Bork's subversion of Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights and opposed to his attempts to neutralize the VOTE
of those American Citizens who should be vigorously resisting the Political
Efforts of the Marxist-Democrats to take over this
Country.
The Fight is NOT OVER!!!!
I did not see L.B. Bork, nor Don
Wert, there.
L.B. BORK cares nothing at all about this "country" we
call "America". Bork HATES this Country (America) and is only looking
to increases his own profit when he tells you to GIVE UP THE FIGHT AND TO
PAY HIM TO TEACH YOU HOW TO HAND OVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE
MARXIST-DEMOCRATS. BORK IS A TRAITOR, and a CON-MAN who uses a "RED
SCARE" to prey upon Patriotic American citizens.
Property Rights are defined by the LAW of the States,
not by a purported senate resolution from 1933.
"STATE LAW determines whether or
not a liberty/property interest exists. Federal law defines what process is due.
According to the Supreme Court, "property interests . . . are created and their
dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an
independent source such as state law." Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986
(1984)."
"
'Property' is more than just the physical thing-the land,
the bricks, the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident
to ownership of the physical thing.
[T]he right to use
the physical thing
to the exclusion of others is the most
essential and beneficial.'" Dickman v. Commissioner, 465
U.S. 330, 336 (1984).
http://billstclair.com/ferran/righttouseforce.html
A reasonable interpretation of the alleged 1933 Senate Resolution
is that:
1) PROPERTY is made valuable by the right to EXCLUSIVE
"possession" and "use" of it;
3) All private property is "subject" to the state's power of EMINENT
DOMAIN" which is a power to TAKE private property When "public
necessity" requires it. (This is how the Roman Apian Way was created.
This is how many public highways are created) This Power exists in every
government, and is noted in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which
prescribes that Private Property Shall Not Be Taken Without Just
Compensation. This topic is discussed in my article "
LAW, a
Revolutionary Idea For Peace" archived (and first published by)
Bob Schulz at
http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm
The United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall,
623, 627] "Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and
unforeseen occasions arise, however;... in cases of extreme necessity, in time
of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may
be impressed into public service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public
use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . ."
The "Due Process" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates"
this right to "Just Compensation" and thus it secures the private property
that is held within corporations from being summarily "expropriated" by the
state governments. L.B. Bork wants to change this Law so that Marxists in
state governments can seize "corporate" assets without the protection of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Unlike the Due Process of Law Clauses, which absolutely prohibit all
arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of life, liberty, and property, it is said
that the Takings/Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment "is designed
not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se,
but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference
amounting to a taking." First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale, v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987).
The Terrible and Ancient power of Eminent Domain is said to be a
power inherent in any and all sovereign governments, including the several
States:
"The states existed prior to this [US] government. Each of them
possessed all the rights and powers which appertain to sovereign and
independent nations [e.g., the Power of Eminent Domain]. For all the
purposes of self-government, no want of power, or the means of using it, was
felt by any of these communities. Life, liberty, reputation, and
property, all found an ample protection in the state
governments. If any internal improvement were necessary, within its limits, the
sovereign power of the state, having entire and uncontrolled
jurisdiction, could cause it to be undertaken and effected. For none of these
purposes or objects was there a defect of competency in the state
governments. "
The Federal "government is one of limited, delegated powers,
and can only act on subjects expressly placed under its control by the
Constitution, and upon such other matters as may be necessarily and properly
within the sphere of its action, to enable it to carry the enumerated and
specified powers into execution, and without which the powers granted would be
inoperative."
Yet, the Federal Government has been granted, by the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Power to Secure Private Property from Unauthorized
Deprivations, if only the People would DEMAND that it do so. (See Part 1 and
Part 2 at
www.billstclair.com/ferran )
The Federal Government has NO authority to interfere with the Law of
the States over the definition of private property, except to restrain the
states from violating private property rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not make it a "CRIME" to
VOTE. L.B. BORK IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Bork says
that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment means: "the right to vote at any
election is denied except for participation in rebellion, or other crime"
(ellipsis omitted from quote of Bork)
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment ordains:
"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. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or
the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such state,
being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such state."
In summary, States that have "in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime" "the right" (to vote) of "any
male inhabitants of such state" shall have their representation in the House of
Representatives reduced accordingly. Thus, the 14h Amendment tends to
SECURE "the right" of male inhabitants of such a state who are "citizens of
the United States" to Vote in STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, except those
males who participated "rebellion, or other
crime."
Therefore, L.B. Bork is nothing but a pathetic LIAR.
Most states do not allow incarcerated criminals (e.g., felons are
traditionally "disenfranchised" upon conviction) to vote, but according to this
provision of the US constitution, the State's representation in the House
of Representatives is not diminished for the reason that it disenfranchises
criminals from Voting. L.B. Bork distinctly asserted on October
21, 2003 that it states "in the [Fourteenth]
amendment that it is a crime to vote. "
L.B. Bork is a Pathological LIAR.
How does anyone take seriously a man like L.B. Bork who asserts that the
Constitution makes it "a crime to vote" in state or federal elections? I
just don't understand how he can get anyone to pay him money for his ridiculous
advice. There must be some really very stupid and hateful people in this
Country. I do tend to agree that those very stupid people have a right to
and should renounce their US citizenship. They are an embarrassment to
this country. And I think it would be good if such very stupid people
did not Vote, because they would probably vote for the
Marxist-Progressive Agenda (against private property held in
corporations) that L.B. Bork promotes.
See Title 8 sec. 1481 "A person who is a national of
the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality
by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of
relinquishing United States nationality...."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
One automatically looses his US citizenship by:
"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to
overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring
to violate any of the provisions of section
2383 of title
18, or willfully performing any act in violation of
section
2385 of title
18, or violating section
2384 of title
18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down,
or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war
against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a
court of competent jurisdiction."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Specifically:
"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the
duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the
government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory,
District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision
therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
"Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction
of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells,
distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating,
advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or
violence, or attempts to do so" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
"Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any
society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons, knowing the purposes thereof" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Thus, it is not difficult to loose or
renounce one's "American" Nationality or Citizenship, and it is not necessary to
PAY L.B. Bork $400 or $800 to teach you how to do it.
Incidentally, Communists who "conspired . . . to organize as
the Communist Party and willfully to advocate and teach the principles of
Marxism-Leninism," which the government alleged to mean "overthrowing and
destroying the government of the United States by force and violence" at some
unspecified future time, have been convicted of violating this Law, and of
loosing their American citizenship, and the United States Supreme Court upheld
the convictions by a vote of six (including four Truman appointees) to
two.. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
and http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_resources/class_web_sites/media_law/sedition.html
In Dennis v. United States6 The Supreme Court upheld "the convictions
of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges of conspiracy to violate the
advocacy and organizing sections of the statute." http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg1068.shtml
Thus, our Laws are opposed to Communism in its raw and virulent forms.
L.B. Bork wants American Citizens to STOP
resisting the Marxist Communists, by refraining from VOTING AGAINST THEM in
FEDERAL ELECTIONS. This, L.B. Bork is aiding and abetting the
Marxist-Communist-Progressive "insurgents" whose Doctrines deriding the
Constitutional Protection of Private Property held in corporations he ADOPTS,
PROMOTES, AND ENDORSES.
People own corporations, and
corporate assets are private property and are protected by
the Constitution (e.g., Fourteenth Amendment). I am a defender of private
property rights; L.B. Bork seeks to make property (at least within corporations)
less secure. Below, L.B. Bork further demonstrates that his
ultimate aim is not only to enrich himself at the expense of desperate
Tax-averse "American citizens", but also to Aide and Abet the Marxists
(Democrats) in the United States who seek to undermine and to abolish the
Institution of Private Property in these united States. L.B. Bork has admitted
that he is not only dedicated to the Leftist goal of neutralizing the Vote of
Anti-Communist "American citizens" in Federal Elections, but also dedicated to
the Leftist goal of "terminating corporate protections [for their private
property] under the 14th amendment."
The Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth
Amendment extend their "protections" to the PRIVATE PROPERTY of private
individuals, even when that private property is held within business
"corporations." See Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran
<http://www.billstclair.com/ferran>
The Due Process Clauses (of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) are the
primary obstacles to the Marxist ambitions of Democrats.com and other Leftists
to abolish the private property rights of landowners and of corporate
shareholders, and to expropriate corporately held private property. Therefore, a
Con-Man like L.B. Bork, who is dedicated to "terminating corporate protections
under the 14th amendment" is an Abettor of the Marxist (Democrat.com) Agenda in
the United States.
US Corporations hold the private wealth (property) of American citizens, and
therefore represent the "means of production" which Marxist Communists desire to
place under the control of the government. Thus, terminating "corporate
protections" secured by the US Constitution is the avowed ambition
of the "U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization" <http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm>
Bork states:
"The facts support that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
benefit corporations. ...
To any that receive this
correspondence; this Mark Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed
him a dangerous person to the movement to restore proper
government which includes terminating corporate protections under
the 14th amendment." LB Bork October 21, 2003
Indeed, Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl is an opponent of
L.B. Bork's Marxist-Progressive "movement" to "terminate ... protections [of
PRIVATE PROPERTY] under the 14th amendment."
(See more about Bork copied
below)
IF YOU HATE THIS COUNTRY AND (CORPORATE) PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS
MUCH AS L.B. BORK and his Cult Members do, then I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
RENOUNCE YOUR US CITIZENSHIP AND LEAVE
THIS COUNTRY.
And, if you think you value the Institution of Private Property
somewhat but are too much of a coward or a FOOL to VOTE against
Marxist Progressives in Federal Elections, or to otherwise FIGHT THE
FIGHT of resistance to Marxism, then JUST LEAVE!!!
MARK R. FERRAN BSEE scl JD mcl
My public "references":
"Mark Ferran is a prominent legal analyst and essayist."
----- Original Message -----
Subject: THE "P" WORD ["Progressive?" or "PAC in
Law" ]
THE "P" WORDBy
Randy Thomasson
October 22, 2003
Randy Thomasson is
founder and executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a
leading pro-family organization on the West Coast.
Liberal activists in the Democratic Party, like to call themselves
“progressive” because they think it sounds better than “liberal.” And the
liberal media is picking up on it, using the “p” word more frequently. Yet
what is progressive, and what is conservative, and which do people really
prefer? From my 10 years of pro-family leadership in the nation's largest
state, here’s what I’ve observed:
1. Your Money: Progressives
believe that government needs more tax money to create a better society.
Conservatives believe that individuals, families and businesses will have a
better chance to thrive if they keep more of their own money.
2.
Religious Freedom: Progressives believe that abortion, evolution,
homosexuality and transsexuality are superior to the rights of religious
citizens. Conservatives believe that religious freedom is a sacred right of
conscience and protected in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
3. Life: Progressives believe that unwanted life in
the womb is tissue that should be aborted, even at taxpayer expense, through all
nine months of pregnancy. Conservatives believe the scientific evidence that an
unborn baby is an innocent human being that deserves protection.
4.
Education: Progressives believe that schoolchildren should not receive
letter grades or have to pass exit exams, that good teachers should not receive
merit pay, and that parents should not have the right to choose their own
child's school. Conservatives believe that rigorous academic standards,
classroom discipline and parental choice in education are key components of
training up the next generation.
5. Parental Rights: Progressives
believe that the government has rights over children and should give kids
condoms, abortions, psychotropic drugs and homosexual education without parental
permission. Conservatives believe that children belong to their parents, not to
the state.
6. Crime: Progressives believe that people aren't
responsible for the crimes they commit, but that poverty and environmental
reasons make them do it. Conservatives believe that people make moral choices
and criminals are responsible for their own conduct.
7. Marriage:
Progressives believe that marriage can be for two homosexuals, and "gay
marriage" is what society needs. Conservatives believe that the rights and
privileges of marriage are only for a married man and a woman.
8.
Human Value: Progressives believe that plants and animals are more important
than the needs of humans. Conservatives believe that human needs for housing,
for example, are superior to plants, kangaroo rats and red-legged
frogs.
9. Transsexuality: Progressives believe that government
should approve of sex-change operations and punish businesses that don't want to
hire cross-dressers. Conservatives believe that you are born male or female, not
in-between.
10. Home Defense: Progressives believe that gun
ownership should be illegal or extremely limited and that gun manufacturers
should be punished when an innocent person is killed a criminal with a gun.
Conservatives believe that owning a gun is becoming increasingly necessary to
defend your home, that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and
that criminals who misuse guns are the ones who should be
punished.
11. Obscenity: Progressives believe that public nudity
and obscenity on TV are protected free speech. Conservatives believe that
indecent behavior is bad for society, and in many cases is or should be
prohibited for the sake of children and adults alike.
12. English
Language: Progressives believe that there should be no national language and
that the government should print documents in multiple languages. Conservatives
believe that there should be a common language, and because this is America,
that language is English.
As you can see, most conservative values are
compatible with family values. I think it's time to accurately define
"progress." To me, progress has always been about "getting to where you want to
be" and "strengthening the things that are good." Yet with liberal
progressives trashing nearly every cultural tradition and sacred institution
they can lay their hands on, it can be legitimately said that progressives are
regressive and, ultimately, destructive.
[The RIGHT to participate in YOUR governments decisions is one you will
lose if you don't use it.]
Copyright 2003 Campaign for California Families
ADD to this the Leftist's views of Private Property
managed by corporations:
13. PRIVATE PROPERTY HELD IN CORPORATIONS: The avowed
ambition of Progressives (Marxists) is terminating "
corporate
protections" secured by the US
Constitution as stated in the writings of
the "U.S.
Marxist-Leninist Organization" http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm Marxist
Propagandists are "working with individuals and existing groups to
launch democratic insurgencies that put corporations once again subordinate
to ... democratic authority...,
and strip
fundamental powers-such as ... due process-from
corporations."
http://www.poclad.org/ They
purport to justify this Marxist Revolution over private management of property
in terms of ending "the authority of corporations to govern" the "means of
production", and to place the means of production under "democratic
authority" by "strip[ing away] fundamental [rights] -such as
..due process-from corporations."
L.B. Bork and his "PAC in Law" cult members are among the
"individuals and existing groups" who are launching "insurgencies that put
corporations once again subordinate to ... democratic
authority..., and strip fundamental powers-such as
..due process-from corporations." But L.B.
Bork's insideous Role is to NEUTRALIZE THE VOTES and activism
of "American citizens" who would otherwise naturally resist the
Marxist-Progresive assault upon the Wealth and Morals of this Country.
L.B. Bork tells "US citizens" to STOP VOTING IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS AGAINST
anything that is contrary to their interests. L.B. Bork calls this process
"Emancipat[ing] your self from [your] federal government" so that the
Progressives/Democrats/Marxists can take it over and abolish the Private
Property Rights of People who own shares of Corporations.
L.B. Bork is dedicated to the destruction of the
Constitutional "protections" that prevent the Marxist expropriation or control
of the private PROPERTY which corporations hold and manage for the
benefit of their shareholders (We the People). L.B. Bork is effectively a
Marxist (Democrat), and he buys into the Marxist Propaganda that
all Capitalists (e.g., corporate shareholders) are scum, but he is simply
too ignorant to understand (or too greedy to admit) the implications
of his dedication to destroying "protections" for private property held
within corporations:
Sent: Tuesday,
October 21, 2003 4:26
PM
Did you read the law
reviews on the Fourteenth Amendment? Probably not. The facts support that the
purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to benefit
corporations. ...
The plain and simple fact is: YOU ARE DUMB AS A POST. “The Capitalists are the Communists and the
Communists are the Capitalists.”
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: Frauds that L.B. Bork perpetrates against US
citizens -Rough Draft.
To any that receive this correspondence; this Mark
Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed him a
dangerous person to the movement to restore proper government which includes
terminating corporate protections under the 14th
amendment."
LB
Bork
The very First Plank of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
is: "Abolition of property in land and
application of all rents of land to [government, not private]
purposes." "American Communists, Socialists and Liberals have worked very
hard to force central planning on farmers. They have been very successful
through regulations aimed at destroying the small
independent family owned farm. Only the large corporations have the
capability, the man-power to research and obey all of the millions of federal
regulations." Therefore, all that the American Communists,
Socialists and Liberals need to do now in order to centralize governmental
control over private property (land) and the means of agricultural
production, is to "eliminat[e] the corporate
protections under the 14th amendment." Once they destroy the
property rights of persons (e.g., property held within corporations) that
are now secured by the Law Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
there will be nothing to stand in the way of complete governmental expropriation
of Private Property and the application of
all its profits to government purposes. L.B. Bork has
admitted that he is dedicated to this final subversive step to
advance the objectives of the American Communists, Socialists and
Liberals.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October
22, 2003 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: Frauds that
L.B. Bork perpetrates against US citizens -UPDATE
Folks:
Below, L.B. Bork further demonstrates that his ultimate aim is
not only to enrich himself at the expense of desparate Tax-averse "American
citizens", but also to Aide and Abet the Marxists (Democrats) in the
United States who seek to undermine and to abolish the Institution of Private
Property in these united States. L.B. Bork has admitted that he is not
only dedicated to the Leftist goal of neutralizing the Vote of
Anti-Communist "American citizens" in Federal Elections, but also dedicated
to the Leftist goal of "terminating corporate protections [for their
private property] under the 14th amendment."
The Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth
Amendment extend their "protections" to the PRIVATE PROPERTY of
private individuals, even when that private property is held
within business "corporations." See Part 1 at
www.billstclair.com/ferran
The Due Process Clauses (of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) are the
primary obstacles to the Marxist ambitions of Democrats.com and other Leftists
to abolish the private property rights of landowners and of corporate
shareholders, and to expropriate corporately held private property.
Therefore, a Con-Man like L.B. Bork, who is dedicated to "terminating
corporate protections under the 14th amendment" is an Abettor of the
Marxist (Democrat.com) Agenda in the United States.
US Corporations hold the private wealth (property) of American citizens,
and therefore represent the "means of production" which Marxist Communists
desire to place under the control of the government. Thus, terminating
"
corporate protections" secured by the US Constitution is
the avowed ambition of
the "U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization"
http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm
The very First Plank of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is: "Abolition
of property in land and application of all rents of land
to [government, not private] purposes." "American Communists,
Socialists and Liberals have worked very hard to force central planning on
farmers. They have been very successful through regulations aimed
at destroying the small independent family owned farm. Only the large
corporations have the capability, the man-power to research and obey all of the
millions of federal regulations." Therefore, all that the American
Communists, Socialists and Liberals need to do now in order to centralize
governmental control over private property (land) and the means of
agricultural production, is to "eliminat[e] the corporate protections
under the 14th amendment." Once they destroy the property
rights of persons (e.g., property held within corporations) that are now
secured by the Law Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, there
will be nothing to stand in the way of complete governmental expropriation of
Private Property and the application of all its
profits to government purposes. L.B. Bork has admitted that
he is dedicated to this final subversive step to
advance the objectives of the American Communists, Socialists and
Liberals.
Marxists have always paid particular attention to the expropriation of
private property in LAND, particularly land in Farms. I happen to be
Half-Ukrainian by Blood. My mother, born in this county, is full-blooded
Ukrainian. My mother Nadia (which means "Hope") always told me that the Ukraine
was known as the "breadbasket" of Europe, because of the productivity of its
privately managed farms. See "
Remembering
Ukraine's Unknown Holocaust" http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981213-UkraineHolocaust.html
("In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine. Stalin
determined to force Ukraine's millions of independent farmers - called `kulaks'-
into collectivized Soviet agriculture, and to crush Ukraine's growing spirit of
nationalism.") During the era of Soviet Communist Government-controlled
Farms in the Ukraine, they were rife with inefficiency and corruption. "The
Ukrainian economy was in shambles" But after the fall of the Communist regime,
the Ukrainian people are today struggling to restore the prosperity that private
property and private management of farm once provided them.
http://www.givehope.org/changed_hearts/nadia_transform.htm
and
http://www.usukraine.org/cpp/partners/part9912sp/results.html
In December 2001 the Farm Bureau and corporate landowners launched a
lawsuit suit against one of America's
many protectionist anti-capitalist township governments, with no
subtlety in the language of the complaint: "The Township does not have the
authority...to prohibit or regulate corporate ownership or operation of farmland
or farming operations... Giving preference to 'family' farmers and banning
'corporate' farming violates the PA and U.S. Constitutions in several respects,
including without limitation, equal protection, due process, taking without just
compensation, and rights guaranteed under the commerce clauses...The regulation
is unconstitutional [by force of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States]."
The Constitutional guarantee of Due Process of Law in the Fifth
Amendment (1791) had long been viewed as a limitation upon the kind of extreme
government "interference" with and control over private "property" which
the American Marxists now seek to assert over the "means of production" held in
private corporations, by abolishing the Constitutional Protection of that
Private Property.
"The dictionary definition of socialism is a system that calls for "public
ownership of the means of production." Public ownership can only mean State
ownership; there is simply no other practical way for this to occur. No one is
going to give up his right to ownership except by force and the only way force
can be brought to bear is by government, which is, by definition, legalized
force. Therefore both Nazism and Communism, in order to carry out their
respective agendas, require a forceful authoritarian government since to give up
property voluntarily is simply against human nature. You might say that both
systems are on the left, you may say that both systems are authoritarian, take
your pick. ... Socialism is very much like the old
Czarist system and all other Monarchal systems where the government, in the
person of the King, controls everything and is supposed to act in the interest
of "the people." Don't you see? Socialism is a regression back to the days of
absolute rule except instead of having a Monarch claiming divine right, you have
a "dictatorship of the proletariat" claiming to act in the name of science. For
centuries, people have been duped into surrendering their property and their
freedoms to the state and have become serfs."
http://www.chuckmorse.com/dialogue_with_a_leftist.html
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have stood as barriers against the
usurpation of Marxist-Socialist control over the private property of
individuals privately held and managed within corporations.
"The same [generous] construction which is required for the protection
of life and liberty, in all particulars in which life and liberty are of any
value, should be applied to the protection of private property. If the
legislature of a State, under pretence of providing for the public good, or for
any other reason, can determine, against the consent of the owner, the uses to
which private property shall be devoted, or the prices which the owner shall
receive for its uses, it can deprive him of the property as completely as by a
special act for its confiscation or destruction. ... There is
nothing in the character of the business of the defendants as warehousemen which
called for the interference complained of in this case. Their buildings are not
nuisances; their occupation of receiving and storing grain infringes upon no
rights of others, disturbs no neighborhood, infects not the air, and in no
respect prevents others from using and enjoying
their property as to
them may seem best. The legislation in question is nothing less than a
bold
assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the
property and business of the citizen, and fix the compensation he shall
receive. The will of the legislature is made the condition upon which the owner
shall receive the fruits of his property and the just reward of his labor,
industry, and enterprise.
'That government,' says Story, 'can scarcely be
deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon
the will of a legislative body without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of
a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and
private property should be held sacred.' Wilkeson v. Leland, 2 Pet.
657." Justice Field, dissenting.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=94&invol=113
"Corporations .--Although a corporation is the creation of a State, which
reserves the power to amend or repeal corporate charters, the retention of such
power will not support the taking of corporate property without due process of
law. Foreign (out-of-state) corporations also enjoy the protection which the due
process clause affords, but such protection does not entitle them to the
unconditional right to enter another State or, once having been permitted to
enter, to continue to do business therein. There is language in the early cases
suggesting that the power of a State to exclude or to expel a foreign
corporation is almost plenary."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/05.html#8
"The equal protection clause, which was also brought to bear on the
economic legislation of the states, was held to invalidate restraints on
corporations from which other businesses were exempted. In several early cases
this clause was used to foster individual economic rights, with the court
striking down state laws that prevented aliens from pursuing certain
occupations. ... The states, it was also held, might meet the requirements
of equal protection even if distinctions based upon “reasonable classifications”
were made. Thus, corporations, with their great potential power and size, might
reasonably be subjected to more severe restrictions than other types of business
organizations. While the states were given greater freedom in enacting economic
legislation, their power to limit personal liberties was brought under greater
restraint."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fo/Fourteenth.html
In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases the argument again was made that
confiscatory and unequal taxes violated a railroad’s property rights.
The argument was also made - for at least the third time before the Supreme
Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood’ status finally succeeded when the
report of the opinion in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. R.R. contained
a statement purportedly made by Chief Justice Waite before oral argument that
"[t]he court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the
provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State
to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,
applies to these corporations. We are all of the
opinion that it does.”
Individuals who choose (their Liberty) to pool their private Property
resources together in order to use synergy to create more than they
could accomplish individually managing their property, are not bound to do so
only by resort to cumbersome "partnerships." Thus, the private
"shareholders" who jointly own all the assets and means of production held in a
business corporation are entitled to appoint Boards to represent them in the
management of this private property. "The right of voting for
representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To
take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery...." -- Thomas
Paine PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSONS DO NOT LOOSE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE THEY
POOL THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY TOGETHER AND APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGE IT ON
THEIR BEHALF WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF A CORPORATION !!!
Constitutional Protections for
Corporations:
"Although a corporation is not a 'citizen' under the privileges
and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a
corporation may exercise some of the constitutional protections granted to
natural persons:
"Right to Due Process and Equal Protection: Corporations enjoy the
right to equal protection and due process of law under the Fourteenth and Fifth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under similar provisions of the
California Constitution.
"Freedom of Speech: Absent some narrowly drawn restrictions
serving compelling state interests, corporations have the right to express
themselves on matters of public importance whether or not those issues
"materially affect" corporate business.
"Right to Counsel: While a corporation cannot be imprisoned, a
criminal action can result in fines and other penalties that could harm
shareholders, officers, and other persons. Thus, a corporate criminal
defendant has a Sixth Amendment to a Right to Counsel. But note, because a
corporation faces no risk of incarceration, it has no right to appointed counsel
if it cannot afford to retain private counsel
"No Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Corporations have no
privilege against self-incrimination (e.g. to prevent disclosure of
incriminating corporate records)."
http://www.mycorporation.com/Corporation.htm
"Notwithstanding the historical controversy that has been waged concerning
whether the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word ''person'' to
mean only natural persons, or whether
the word was substituted for the word
''citizen'' with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state
legislation,
56 the Supreme Court, as early as the Granger Cases,
57 decided in 1877, upheld on the merits various state laws without
raising any question as to the status of railway corporation plaintiffs to
advance due process contentions.
There is no doubt that a corporation may
not be deprived of its property without due process of law..."
http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/18.html#4
"In Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota,
134
U.S. 418, 458 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 462, 702, it was said: 'If the
company is
deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for the use of its property,
and such deprivation takes place in the absence of an investigation by judicial
machinery, it is deprived of the lawful use of its property, and thus, in
substance and effect,
of the property itself, without due process of law,
and in
violation of the constitution of the United States; and, in so
far as it is thus deprived, while other persons are permitted to receive
reasonable profits upon their invested capital, the company is deprived of the
equal protection of the laws.' "
"In Reagan v. Trust Co.,
154
U.S. 362, 399 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 1047, [the US Supreme] court, after
referring to the above cases, said: 'These cases all support the proposition
that ... it is within the scope of judicial power, and a part of judicial duty,
to restrain anything which, in the form of a regulation of rates,
operates to deny to the owners of property invested in the business of
transportation that equal protection which is the constitutional right of all
owners of other property. There is nothing new or strange in this. It has
always been a part of the judicial function to determine
whether the act of
one party (whether that party be a single individual, an organized body, or the
public as a whole) operates to devest the other party of any rights of person or
property.
In every constitution is the guaranty against the taking of
private property for public purposes without just compensation. The equal
protection of the laws, which, by the fourteenth amendment, no state can deny to
the individual, forbids legislation, in whatever form it may be enacted, by
which the property of one individual is, without compensation, wrested from him
for the benefit of another, or of the public. This, as has been often
observed, is a government of law, and not a government of men, and it must never
be forgotten that under such a government, with its constitutional limitations
and guaranties, the forms of law and the machinery of government, with all their
reach and power, must, in their actual workings, stop on the hither side of the
unnecessary and uncompensated taking or destruction of any private property
legally acquired and legally held."
Thus, the US Constitution, particularly, the Fourteenth Amendment, stands
defiantly in the way of the Marxists (Democrats.com) who now seek to overthrow
private (e.g., "corporate") control of the "means of production" (e.g., land
and other private property) in America today. A
large proportion of farmed LAND in the united States today is
held and managed as private property by Family Partnerships, "Family
Corporations" and other business "corporations."
No wonder L.B. Bork is dedicated to "terminating corporate protections
under the 14th amendment."
A "Con-Man" Offers for Sale what He Cannot Deliver (e.g., Immunity from
Federal Income Tax through pretending to renounce birthright 'US citizen' status
while remaining in the US and enjoying its common defenses).
A "Traitor" makes his money by weakening his Country's common
defenses (e.g., Due Process of Law) against its' Enemies (Marxist
Democrats/Communists) foreign and domestic.
L.B. Bork is a Con-Man and a Traitor.
For further information about L.B. Bork's Deceit, Fraud, and
Treason please contact me at
mferran@nycap.rr.com
Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
My public "references":
"Mark Ferran is a prominent legal analyst and essayist."
http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Step07.txt
"Mark Ferran has written several good articles on the issue of the defense of
land ownership."
http://www.fear.org/opinion.html
"Mark Ferran has done good work on property rights."
http://www.constitution.org/cs_peopl.htm
"Landowner Mark Ferran wants ATV-riders to stay off his property. This week
Mark Ferran laid down the law. Specifically, he taped it up at Town Hall, the
local library and the general store."
Albany Times Union, STAKES RAISED IN ATV FIGHT, 05/23/2002
"Sign me up for the Mark Ferran fan club; the man is a hero."
Fred LeBrun, Albany Times Union Political Commentator
http://www.timesunion.com/archives/summarylist.asp?DBQUERY=Mark+Ferran++&DBLIST=al01&SORT=d%3Ah&NITEMS=25&qtype=q_string
Even some NY ATV-riders agree: "He's no dummy and he does have a BIG problem
with trespassers. I think our guy may be a fan of his. Ferrans' father, Rocco
Ferran, was a very respected local politician in the 70's in that county. Mr.
Ferran is not our enemy. He wants his rights protected, same as we want
ours."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21,
2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Frauds that L.B.
Bork perpetrates against US citizens -Rough Draft.
Mr. Bork: This is an outline of the Report I will be
publishing. This follow after giving you a full and fair opportunity to
respond to my charges and to be heard and to give complete explanations
in his defense. You may still comment at this time, if you think
there are any errors in my statements and conclusions.
[Mr. Bork: A "hearing" is where the accused is given an opportunity
to be "heard." And, you have been heard. You tried to attack me
in my associations. I responded. Now you say you want
to slander me with your nonsensical accusations. What you will
discover is that people with normal intelligence will reject what you are
saying as absurd and untrue, and view you as less credible than before.
Those who are completely your intellectual property, because they are
weak-minded, or for whatever reason they join cults such as yours, will accept
what you say without even understanding it. It is pathetic, and sad, but
that is what most of humanity is.]
[Mr. Bork: Whatever may be the condition or direction of this country, (I
note it is not your country), you are not helping anyone here but
yourself. You are not taking money to help people RESIST the
Marxists (Democrats), you are taking money to nutralize the Vote of natural
enemies of Marxists. For your information,
private business Corporations are Private Property of
individuals, and so a legal "benefit" or protection for "corporations" is a
detriment to "Communists" who want to place all means of production (e..,
corporate assets) into the government's hands. The
Marxists (Democrats) hate "corporations" just as you seem to. Since
when do non-marxists think that private business (corporations) are a bad thing
for society? Obviously, you are a Marxist sypathizer, if not a
pure Marxist in wolf's clothing.]
L.B. Bork is simply playing off of people's fears, of communism
and of corporations, when the two are natural enemies. That
is clever on his part, or maybe it is evidence that there are
"thousands" of people who are just too desparate and weak-minded to
understand the absurdities of what he is saying. Obviously,
if he has found "thousands" of people who hate their "country" (America) as
much as he does, then he probably have a few Marxist communists among
them, just laughing their asses off at how stupid the rest
of his paid "members" are for materially advance the cause of the
Marxist Democrats. How many dumb asses have paid for "membership"
in his treasonous cult? Probably a small fraction of those who
subscribe to his newsletter.
He asserts nonsensically that I am a "Communist" while I am the
strongest advocate and Defender of PRIVATE PROPERTY rights that has ever wasted
his time trying to educate Bork's victims. I did not see him at the
National Property Rights Conference I attended this weekend. I don't
see him doing anything for private property other than taking people's
money to sell them his flavor of Treason. Predators like him
are the ENEMY of Private Property, because they advocate the complete
destruction (not the improvement or reform) of the great American
institutions that were ordained by the American People to "SECURE" private
property.
Contrary to what Mr. Bork says, it does not state in the 14th Amendment (
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html)
that in general "
it is a crime to vote".
One wonders if he is even more illiterate than he is a
Traitor??? Section 2 states that: "when the right to vote at any election ... of a state... is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in
rebellion, or other crime, the [State's] basis of
representation [in the US House of Representatives] shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number
of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."
"The first section [of the Fourteenth Amendment] defines who is a
citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that
abridge certain rights of its citizens or persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States. This section contains the
due process and
equal protection
clauses and has had a notable impact on federal, state and local law in the
United States; including the
selective
prosecution defense. Prior to the
adoption of this amendment, the
United States
Bill of Rights so famously cherished by U.S. citizens acted only as a
restraint on
federal, not state, governments. Until that time states'
control over its citizens was legally restrained only by that state's
constitution and laws. Many of these states modeled their constitution and laws
after the federal government of the United States, but state constitutions did
not necessarily entail provisions like the Bill of Rights. With the adoption of
this amendment and this section in particular, southern states were legally
obligated to recognize certain rights of freed slaves. In response, southern
states drew up
Jim Crow and similar laws
to perpetuate racial discrimination in the south. The expansion of "fundamental
rights" under the Due Process clause was not anticipated by its sponsors. Yet
under this clause the
United
States Supreme Court has recognized such rights as the right to
abortion, the right to
contraceptives, the right
to
medical treatment, and the
right to
marry. The second section
[of the Fourteenth Amendment] establishes rules for the apportioning of
representatives in Congress to states, essentially making the proportion of that
state's representation equal to that state's proportion of the nation's
population excluding males under the age of 21, the disenfranchised, and Indians
who do not pay taxes. The third section [of the Fourteenth Amendment]
prevents the election of any person to the Congress or Electoral College who has
engaged in
insurrection,
rebellion, or
treason. A two-thirds vote by
Congress can override this limitation, however."
Thus, the "penalty" of Section Two is laid against a State
that DENIES to any "male inhabitants of such state [who are]
twenty-one
years of age, and citizens of the United
States." Thus, the 14h Amendment tends to SECURE the right
of male inhabitants of such state who are "citizens of the United States"
to Vote in STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, unless such
males participated "rebellion, or other
crime." Therefore, L.B. Bork is nothing but
a pathetic LIAR.
"[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is the primary guaranty for
individual rights and liberties through its protection of the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, its prohibition on the deprivation
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and its guaranty of
equal protection of the laws...." http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses125/hjr04-i-125.pdf
The subsequent sections of the Amendment was designed
to protect the Constitution from Subversion by Rebels, by restraining Traitors
against the Constitution from voting or holding office. If that is what
you mean by "crime", then yes, maybe it should be a crime for a traitor or
any intruder in my country (like you) to vote in American elections.
As a Non-American, you have no business voting in elections. http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/17112000/feature.htm
I agree that "terminating US
citizenship is a right." The point that L.B. Bork seems to
ignore is that once one terminates his US citizenship, he has no
Constitutional Right to be a State-Citizen, and has have no Constitutional
Right to Remain within any of the united States. If you are not a US
citizen, you are an Alien, and you can be deported. "Any alien who is
present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of
the United States is deportable." http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1227.html
It is
the right of an American Citizen to "flee" this country in order to escape
Income Tax, or any other condition. In 1981 Ronald
Reagan lowered taxes. The following year not a single American gave up his
citizenship. In 1993 the expatriate community grew by 306
names. "One in five Americans has
considered leaving America, three million Americans would do so right this
moment if they only knew how..." But, the American
People have declared it to be their right to recoup a "Tax" from those who
benefitted as adults from their prior citizenship during the years before
they chose to leave. "You'll need an ace attorney. If the
Internal Revenue Service suspects you are renouncing your citizenship to avoid
taxes, it will try to tax your holdings for another ten years, no matter where
you live. All the IRS need establish is that it is reasonable to believe
you gave up citizenship to avoid taxes. Then, the burden of proving the move was
not for tax reasons falls on the former citizen. But whatever the
drawbacks, many nations put out the welcome mat for tax-averse Americans."
http://www.escapeartist.com/library/article7.htm
"A review of selected sections of the
Congressional Record provides some additional insight into the thinking behind
these new provisions. 'It has come to the attention of Congress that some
very wealthy individuals have been relinquishing their citizenship to avoid U.S.
income, estate and gift tax. The bill does not want to discourage citizens from
exercising their right to expatriate, but does not want to provide a tax
incentive for such an action...' " http://www.cyberhaven.com/offshorelibrary/expattax.html
"The wealthiest people
in the United States - those who have achieved the American Dream - those who
pay almost all of the taxes - those who are responsible for the vast majority of
US investment capital - are leaving the United States in large and growing
numbers. This isn't news. We have known about the growing
expatriation rate for some time and common sense tells us that it isn't the poor
who are leaving. But, new data that we have uncovered confirms that it is
indeed, the wealthiest Americans, who are being forced to leave.
Furthermore, we can now expect to see this government induced capital flight increase dramatically
in the near future .... This is a very serious problem,
because as we have shown in previous articles, if only the top earning 1% of
taxpayers leave (just over a million taxpayers), it will mean a loss of over
one-third of income tax revenue, requiring a 50% tax
increase for those who remain. It
would be a serious mistake to call those who are leaving, unpatriotic.
After all, what could be more patriotic than defending the American Dream. In fact, all that they are
doing is responding to a recent spate of oppressive laws, designed to punish the
wealthy for having achieved the American
Dream. If anyone in this equation is unpatriotic, it is our
elected lawmakers, who are attacking the American
Dream and forcing these patriotic Americans to defend what they have
achieved, by taking it elsewhere." http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/defdream.html
It
began in the early 1990's when thousands of rich Americans began to leave
America. They did so by renouncing their American citizenship and reestablishing
citizenship in low-tax or no-tax countries. They were called tax exiles
and as soon as the word got out about the trend the U.S. Congress reacted to try
to stop it before the trend spread out of control.
Congress responded
in 1996 by imposing a ten-year tax on expatriated Americans. Get this, they
claimed that even if you renounced your citizenship and were no longer a
citizen, they would still tax you for another ten years regardless of your
citizenship or your residency.
L.B. Bork, you
are clearly NOT Practicing what you Preach. You
have NOT "terminated your US citizenship" you have just pretended that you
have done so for fraudulent purposes, so that you sell nonsense to the gullible
and the desparate.
Congress expressly recognized the right of
all American citizens, and of all Foreigners, to Expatriate themselves. See
The “Expatriation Act,” (15 Stat. 223, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1482
and 1483; 22) It is not necessary for anyone to pay a con-man like LB Bork
before exercising that right.
"The expatriation law
Congress implemented in the 1860's was intended for the benefit of people
who were immigrating from other countries to America. It
wasn't intended to create a special class of American who isn't
subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States
and constitutions and laws of States of the Union.
So long as someone remains in any given geographical
location, he or she is subject to the law of the land,
whatever it is. Article III of the U.S. Constitution reserves jurisdiction
over foreign ministers, etc., but even recognized dignitaries are
accountable to the law. They may be ordered to leave rather than being
prosecuted for many offenses, but they're held accountable
nonetheless."
"Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to
shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress "is also broad enough to
cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American
citizens to expatriate themselves." Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338
U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287. The Supreme
Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940
"are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of
expatriation which stands unrepealed." Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct.
at page 296.That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a and 8
U.S.C.A.§ 1185.”
Walter Briehl v. John Foster
Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957).
Don, if you want to Terminate your US citizenship
(i.e., Expatriate yourself), you do not have to PAY a Con-Man like LB Bork to
help you to perilously pretend that you did so, and you can do it for FREE by
following the methods outlined at http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id=10664,00.html
"Moreover, as far as the US is concerned, the
renouncing of US citizenship can only take place with a formal written request
signed by you, or if a US court convicts you of treason, espionage, or serving
in a foreign government or foreign armed forces." http://www.mail-archive.com/fukuzawa@ucsd.edu/msg04200.html
And, the
standard Expatriation process could be made even easier by an addition to
the so-called USA PATRIOT ACT:
"The Bush Administration
is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the
wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new
powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law
enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public
access to information. ... Section 501,
Expatriation of Terrorists: This provision, the drafters say, would establish
that an American citizen could be expatriated if, with the intent to relinquish
his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a
group that the United Stated has designated as a terrorist organization. But
whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his
citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be 'inferred' from conduct.
Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a 'terrorist
organization' by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for
expatriation."
Thus, under the provision of that proposd Law, all that Mr. L.B Bork
really needs to do to TRUELY be able to SELL you Expatriation as a US
citizen, is to get his PAC organization identifed as "a terrorist organization" and then, simply by supporting him, you
will in fact loose your US citizenship.
"And if you try to renounce [your US citizenship], they will treat you like
a tax dodger, with
sanctions including blacklisting you in the
Federal Registry, denying you reentry into the US indefinitely,
and taxing your projected earnings for the next ten years after
renouncing."
http://www.mail-archive.com/fukuzawa@ucsd.edu/msg04200.html
L.B.Bork is a simple Con-Man offereing for sale what he CANNOT
DELIVER: Expatriation with a continuing Right to Remain within the
territory of any of the united States of America. There is however a way
for a former US citizen to enter or remain in the US without having
citizenship, and that is to obtain a "visa." E.g., a " H-1B visa that
allows him to remain in the country" for a limited time.
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/readingsintaxpolicy.nsf/0/F5FBC36F0AB5009485256B1F0066EA0D?OpenDocument
But, this will not help you avoid Income Taxes. "Foreigners who are
U.S. residents are taxed as U.S. citizens. The United States also taxes
foreigners (nonresident aliens) on their U.S.-source income and some U.S.
business income (effectively connected income). When these policies are applied
to U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship, the law asks whether they
should be deemed to have a continuing connection with the United States."
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/readingsintaxpolicy.nsf/0/F5FBC36F0AB5009485256B1F0066EA0D?OpenDocument
L.B. Bork CANNOT sell you a "visa" allowing you to remain in this
Country. All he can do is TAKE YOUR MONEY and convince ridiculously STUPID
people that they are no longer US citizens.
And, you can just forget about owning guns if you renounce your US
citizenship. " Ms. Bottygeig can't drive to the Kmart and buy guns with
other Americans because she is literally un-American. She has renounced her U.S.
citizenship and joined up with some other nation. The right to expatriate
is fundamental; the British subjects who claimed
their freedom in North
America in 1776 cited it as a law of nature in the
Declaration of
Independence. In today's America, though, expatriates are a
lot less
respectable than they were then. The gun law casts them onto a heap
with the
rest of America's least loved."
http://www.mail-archive.com/fukuzawa@ucsd.edu/msg04200.html
In New York, it is a felony for anyone who is not a citizen to possess any
gun within the state. Non-citizens do not enjoy the "Right of the People"
of the United States to keep and Bear Arms here.
So, Don, if you must, then expatriate yourself, and vote with your
feet on your way out of this country. But don't particupate in the FRAUDs
that L.B. Bork sells to desparate fools.
Whatever LB Bork says about the "Debt" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
is probably also fraudulent:
"[W]
e are forced by every logical conclusion by the
facts as we ourselves see them, that the Fourteenth Amendment's Section
4 was intended to be regarded as the equivalent of more at a "resolution" to
excuse or forgive by force of a constitutional amendment that the public debt
that had arisen as a result of the Civil War itself - THAT public debt was not
to be questioned! NOT every public debt that might exist thereafter! Remember,
no indication has been given here as to future public debts that might arise
thereafter, but rather it is "the" public debt, and furthermore you will note
that the word "debt" itself is also SINGULAR! One debt. By the simple logic that
says this, "what if we, the people of the United States, actually paid off the
'public debt' at any time, right? Would the next debt that might be incurred
thereafter be construed to be the same public debt? NO, certainly not. ...
WE SHOULD AND MUST BEGIN TO QUESTION THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH IS
OUR RIGHT AND OUR DUTY, AND THE 14th
AMENDMENT,
SECTION 4, IN NO WISE PROHIBITS US OR DENIES OUR RIGHT IN DOING
SO, THE COURTS OR THE CONGRESS' PRIOR ERRANT INTERPRETATION
THEREOF
NOT-WITH-STANDING!"
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/14th-amend-and-national-debt.html
Thus, everyhing that L.B. Bork says to induce American citizens to PAY him
$$$ is apparently fraudulent. He cannot and does not deliver what he
promises. He is merely exploiting the stupid, increasing the influence of
Marxist (Democrats) in US elections, and is sowing the seeds
of Anti-Americanism on the part of those who remain within the
territory of the united States.
Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
P.S. Mr. Bork. Do you even know what the letters "scl" and
"mcl" mean?
----- Original Message -----
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran
[mailto:mferran@nycap.rr.com] www.billstlclair.com/ferran
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:35
PM
To: L.B
Subject: Re: US
citizens
Mr.
Bork:
I presume
that what you are saying is that you have no intelligent response to my
criticisms of your published statements, your deceitful writings, and your
demands for money from people who you want to sell non-citizenship
to. You have conceded that you are aiding and abetting the
Marxist Democrats by neutralizing the VOTES of those American citizens who
would vote against increases of the Federal Income Tax and against
Marxist Policies. Thus, unless you have anything more to say in your
defense before I publish my report, this hearing is
closed.
P.S. Now
would be a good time to disclose your primary supporters, so that we can get
on to investigating their Anti-"American" views as well. What was the
name of that NH fellow you said you owned?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21,
2003
3:05 PM
You
are a RETARD, Ferran… I imagine that kids beat you up in
school.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran
[mailto:mferran@nycap.rr.com] www.billstlclair.com/ferran
Sent: Tuesday,
October 21, 2003 1:54
PM
To: L.B; 'Donald E. Wert'
Subject: Re: US
citizens
For the
Record.
I do not "support" the ADL in any way. The ADL seems to
be a leftist organization. They distort much of what they say about
"right wing" folks, including "landowners" who defend their property
whom they falsely refer to as "vigilantees." [See "Mexican
Infiltrator" at www.billstlclair.com/ferran ] But
the ADL does perform some valuable public services, such as publishing
third party studies, and exposing conmen and predators like Mr. LB Bork. If
they have not identified L B. Bork as a Paytriot con man on their webpages,
maybe it is because L.B. Bork is a Traitor against "American" citizens, and
seeks to neutralize the Votes of Anti-Communists among the American
People. Thus, perhaps LB Bork is being propped up and supported by the
ADL, or by the leftists who run the ADL. LB Bork has also
been associated with "JAH" who is a known Foreigner intent upon
overthrowing the American form of Self-Government.
So, Don, if you have even the
slightest respect for your Country (the United States of America), and you
don't want to be remembered as a Traitor against your Country and against
fellow citizens, you might want to reevaluate what you have been told by the
L.B. Bork fellow and other Anti-American subversives who will tell you
anything that will cause you to pay them money. If you have no
respect for your country and its citizens, and you don't want to "belong" to
it and to them, then exercise your right to Expatriate yourself, and notify
the IRS and the INS that you have intentionally disclaimed your birthright
status as a US citizen and that you wish to be
treated like a non-citizen. Just don't complain if they grant your
request and deport
you.
Ohio to correct 'crazy history'
State to re-ratify 14th Amendement
By Roy Wood and Barry M. Horstman
Post
staff reporters
Next week, Ohio will take a long-overdue step forward
into the 21st century -- by momentarily stepping back into the 19th century.
To set the historical record straight after 135
years, Ohio is about to complete re-ratification of the 14th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, the measure that initially gave freed slaves citizenship and
later would be used by courts to extend virtually every personal liberty and
right granted in the Bill of Rights.
The Ohio General Assembly originally ratified
the amendment in 1867, but after Ohio voters later that year defeated a
referendum to give African-Americans the right to vote, a newly elected
Democratic-controlled Legislature rescinded Ohio's ratification in 1868.
Ohio's official position on the amendment has
hung in limbo since -- which, among other unintended consequences, has allowed
hate groups to seize on the issue to promote causes such as school segregation.
"I thought there was some kind of mistake when I
heard about it," said Ohio Sen. Mark Mallory, D-Cincinnati. "I was flabbergasted
to find out we had this crazy history."
Then-Secretary of State William Seward declared
the 14th Amendment valid in July 1868, after legislatures of 28 of the 37 states
had approved it to meet the three-fourths threshold required. Ohio was counted
among those states approving it, even though it had by then rescinded its
January 1867 ratification.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on
whether a state can rescind its ratification of a constitutional amendment.
"It's been unclear what Ohio's position is,"
Mallory said. "I think it's important for the rest of the country to know where
we stand."
A group of University of Cincinnati law students
who learned in class about Ohio's rescission made Mallory aware of the unusual
situation in September 2002. The students were part of the law school's Urban
Justice Institute, set up after the 2001 riots to address justice-related
problems.
"At first the whole (14th Amendment) project
seemed ceremonial, but the more we got into it, the more important we realized
it was to actually do this," said Dan Dodd, a UC law school grad now living in
New Lexington and waiting to learn whether he passed the bar exam.
Urban Justice Institute students doing Internet
searches found that hate groups have often tried to capitalize on Ohio's lack of
support for the 14th Amendment to push their extremist causes. "A lot of fringe
and extremist groups seized on Ohio's rescission," Dodd said.
After students researched the votes that led to
the ambiguity about Ohio's position on the 14th Amendment, they worked with
Cincinnati City Council Member John Cranley, a co-director of the Urban Justice
Institute, to get Mallory involved.
With Mallory as chief sponsor, legislation was
introduced in both houses of the General Assembly to ratify the amendment, which
passed the Senate in February and the House in March, though not without
controversy.
Some House members took issue with how the
amendment has been used in federal court cases to erode states' rights in areas
such as abortion and school prayer. The House ultimately passed the measure by a
94-1 vote, with the lone 'no' vote being cast by Rep. Tom Brinkman,
R-Cincinnati.
The debate also was marred by an ugly verbal
attack on Mallory by Rep. Tim Grendell, a Cleveland-area Republican. Grendell,
who is white, said he doubted that Mallory, who is black, could understand the
Supreme Court's historic 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, in which the 14th
amendment was used to establish the doctrine of "separate but equal,'' or forced
segregation, in public schools.
"He's the only reason I might support the
OhioReads program,'' Grendell said of Mallory, referring to the state's
volunteer tutoring program for schoolchildren. Grendell later apologized.
Cordiality and smiles will be the order of the
day, however, at next Wednesday's special ceremony at the Statehouse marking
Ohio's ratification. At the Transmittal Ceremony, Secretary of State Ken
Blackwell will officially deliver Ohio's ratification papers to Gov. Bob Taft,
who in turn will forward them to representatives of the U.S. National Archives
and Records Administration.
"Until March of this year, Ohio had unfortunate
distinction as the only state that had not either ratified the 14th Amendment
before it became law or later expressed support for it," Mallory said.
Kentucky was among several states that
originally rejected the amendment, but in the 20th century joined Delaware and
Maryland in finally ratifying it -- a symbolic gesture, but nonetheless a
significant one, particularly to civil rights groups. In 1980, when New Jersey,
which like Ohio had rescinded its ratification, expressed its support, Ohio was
left as the only state not on record in favor of the 14th amendment.
The key section of the amendment says: "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.''
Beyond making former slaves citizens, the 14th
amendment -- in particular, its equal protection clause -- has been used by the
U.S. Supreme Court to outlaw racial segregation in schools (the landmark 1954
Brown vs. Board of Education case), to prevent states from prohibiting abortions
(1973's Roe v. Wade) and to forbid the use of rigid quotes in public equal
opportunity programs (the 1978 Bakke decision.)
Hailed and vilified over the years, the 14th
Amendment has, proponents argue, helped to advance justice and civil liberties
in America. Critics, however, have denounced it as a tool that has allowed the
Supreme Court to broaden judicial review of state and federal laws in ways that
improperly interfere with legislators' responsibilities.
Publication Date: 09-10-2003
----- Other articles-------
"Those who would limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of state
militias have never come to grips with the intentions of the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment to protect blacks and unionists from southern militias (and
others) by enforcing their personal right to arms. Stephen Halbrook presents a
brief on behalf of this forgotten history -- a history that no serious student
of the Constitution can ignore."
Randy
E. Barnett, Austin B. Fletcher Professor
Boston University School of Law
Author of The Structure of
Liberty:
Justice and the
Rule of Law
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/freedman.html
Thesis of book by Stephen P.
Halbrook: Freedman, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876
"After the Civil War, the
Southern States reenacted slave code provisions in the form of the black codes,
including incidents of slavery such as the prohibition on possession of a weapon
by a black person. A major purpose of the civil rights legislation during
Reconstruction and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to
protect the right of freedmen to keep and bear arms from State infringement.
This right proved of great utility to protect other liberties, and even life
itself, from racist violence." http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/freedman.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275963314/002-0359931-5190409?v=glance
Article online: The
Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms: The Intent of the
Framers, By Stephen P. Halbrook http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhal14.html
Firearms and the Fourteenth
Amendment
By Robert Greenslade
"In their zeal to defend the
individual right to keep and bear arms, most firearms owners limit their
discussions to the Second Amendment. There is, however, another amendment
that not only helps resolve the controversy surrounding the intent and wording
of the Second Amendment, but also makes the prohibition enumerated in that
Amendment enforceable against the States. In the author’s opinion, this is
one of the reasons why opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms,
at the State level, are so opposed to this interpretation of the Second
Amendment. In order to understand the effect of the
Fourteenth Amendment on the individual right to keep and bear arms, it is
necessary to review some of the legislative history surrounding the Amendment."
[Also at: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/fourteenth_amend.htm and http://www.gunowners.org/op0309.htm ]
Ironically the First Fourteenth
Amendment http://members.tripod.com/~candst/14thamend.htm
"On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his
long awaited list of proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. After
several debates scattered throughout the summer the following is a partial list
of the amendments that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to
the Senate. Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the state
some of the other Articles. This particular article was defeated in the Senate
after secret debate and a secret vote. It must be remember at this particular
point in time in American History, the House of Representative represented "the
people." It's members were elected directly by the people. The Senate, on the
other hand, represented the states. It's members were selected by the state
legislatures. It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen
and that it called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "Bill
of Rights package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by
"the people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's representatives. It
is very ironic that another Article also numbered fourteen was passed some 79 or
so years later and that it would, in time be used to selectively incorporate
other Articles of the "Bill of Rights package" against the states."
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
Protect All Rights http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm ("Two of the Bill of Rights that have not been
"incorporated" are the Second Amendment and the Fifth.")
Compare with: The Fourteenth
Amendment: First Amendment II? http://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html
"The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) has become the
key Constitutional issue of the immigration mess ... The problem is that this
has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the
U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen. This is neither the
original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in
subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were
an immutable law of nature. It is not, and most other nations do not, in fact,
recognize it. It is only a bad habit that could be broken with a simple
Executive Order. " http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2869
