Conference back40::soapbox

Mike,

I don't know how it works in your state, but in Texas, the jury pool is selected
from everyone who has either a driver's license or state id.  Also, when I vote,
I sign the book, select ANY ballot I choose from a whole bunch, punch holes in
the ballot to vote, and then put the ballot in what looks like a plastic 5
gallon paint can with a slot cut in the top.  This can is kept AWAY from the
poll workers, in clear view of everyone in the polling place.

Bob

    Bob,
    
    I'll buy that.  Here in Gawga they're numbered.  At least in Dawson
    county and Gwinnett County if I recall correctly.
    
    I also remember when I registered to vote:  I had to swear an oath
    under penaly of perjury that I was a "US CITIZEN".
    
    Perjury is defined in 28 USC Sec. 1746 and 1621.  It can only be
    accepted during a judical proceding (i.e. in court/swearing out a 
    complaint).  Keep that in mind when you sign the 1040 form.
    
    Also, I found that Subornation of Perjury, or "the procurement of
    another to make a false oath" is a pretty powerful tool to keep
    others off our back.  You can seriously screw someone who forces
    you under duress to purjer yourself, especially after you've declared
    your status and obtained a (or several) witnesses.  Fascinating stuff.

Mike,

Yes, the ballots are also numbered in Texas.  They are only numbered on one
side and the numbered side is face down when you select your ballot.

Bob

    Voting History, or only the rich can vote...
    
    Unknown to most Americans, the use of Insurance Script changes your
    legal and citizenship status from that of Sovereign Freeholders
    to one of servitude and peonage.  In exchange for the privilege
    of not having to pay ouir share of the public debt in real money,
    our labor, property and persons have been ceded to the State as
    collateral against foreign debt.
    
    The Founding Fathers regarded property rights and honest money as
    so important to the protection of freedom, that they origonally
    intended that only Freeholders be able to vote.  It was their view
    that only Freeholders could restrain the government from irresponsible
    and/or unlawful confiscation.  Those who had not stake to defend would
    be inclined to vote themselves a free ride.
    
    How correct they were.  I also found out how come the Federal
    government came into possession of 1/3 of all geographic area within
    our country.

    
    This is a no-brainer.  Of course I vote.  bb
    

    Well, I personally think the thing is somewhat scammed, but also that
    it is an obligation to society to vote.  It at least lets the crooks
    know that you're paying attention.

    How do you get around the "US Citizen" clause as being a requirement
    to vote?  How can you declare your proper status for some things,
    yet change it so you can vote?
    
    How do you avoid contractually obligating yourself to the government
    and still vote?
    
    How was this origonally intended to work?  Were the people supposed
    to elect state officials who in turn voted for the federal level
    folks based upon our wishes? 

    lessee, my ballot stub says...(vietnamese diacriticals omitted)
    
    OFFICIAL BALLOT						0
    County of Santa Clara					6
    November 8, 1994						9
    BBALOTA OFICIAL						0
    PHIEU BAU CHINH THUC					0
    Ballot stub to be removed before placing in ballot box.	1
    Separe el talon antes de depositar en la urna.		6
    Phai tach cuong phieu truoc khi bo vao thung phieu.		1
    
    Nothing on there about being permanently indentured for US sovereign
    debts...not that I'm much worried about it.  US debt is the reserve
    currency of over 70% of outstanding debt worldwide, which provides us
    immeasurable benefits in financing the debt, lowering exchange costs,
    etc.
    
    DougO

    Seeing chris bent out of shape in topic 14 makes me wonder further.
    
    There are 2 or more levels of things happening here.  A federal, and
    State (and local) election.
    
    Chris is mad because a judge overruled the "will of the people",
    yet the Constitution (state and/or federal) is supposed to prevent this
    Mob rule mentality.  If you wish to avoid that, you'll have to modify
    the Constitution itself.
    
    I'm beginning to think "voting" was supposed to be a local issue and
    move up type of deal.  People, us, voted for state people, who then
    voted to send representatives/senators to Washington DC to represent
    the state.  Now "the people", us, are the ones who directly elect
    the people, and have thereby become "electors".  Have we contractually
    bound ourselves, or are we tricked into falsely proclaiming our
    proper status just so we can vote.
    
    Finally, check this out.  Ask your federal rep how many people s/he
    represents.  If he answers more than 30,000... we got even more  
    problems, according to Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

    I guess what I'm trying to figure out, why is Amendment 17 necessary?
    What did "we the people" do prior to April 8, 1913?
    
    Same thing with Amendment 14, and "US Citizen".  What the hell were
    people, individuals status prior to that (excluding slaves)?
    Why did Americans, or Sovereigns all get bunched up as "US Citizens"
    subject to Congress?
    
    Sounds like some funny business behind the scenes stuff to me.

    
    Prior to 1913, State legislatures elected US Senators.
    
    The 14th is a harsh, punitive amendment intended to smash the South,
    and particularly the doctrine of State's Rights.  The defintion of
    citizen in part 1, and the exclusion of rebels in part 2, were
    accompanied by armed occupation, and government by force.
    
      bb

    Re .10:
    
    > I guess what I'm trying to figure out, why is Amendment 17 necessary?
    > What did "we the people" do prior to April 8, 1913?
    
    Prior to Amendment 17 providing for the people to elect Senators,
    Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, according to Article I,
    Section 3:
    
    	The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
    	Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
    	for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
    
    Amendment 17 weakened the checks and balances:  Being chosen by
    legislatures, Senators weren't subject to election-time garbage popular
    candidates have to go through.  (They were subject to different
    garbage.)  Also, being chosen by legislatures, Senators were more
    answerable to those legislatures.  Instead, they must now pander to the
    general populace, promising pork in exchange for election.  This
    results in more and more laws distributing federal money (and power),
    thus weakening and impoverishing the states.
    
    > Same thing with Amendment 14, and "US Citizen".  What the hell were
    > people, individuals status prior to that (excluding slaves)?
    > Why did Americans, or Sovereigns all get bunched up as "US Citizens"
    > subject to Congress?
    
    It used to be that people considered themselves to be citizens of a
    particular state more than citizens of the United States.  The word
    "state" used to mean "country", not a political subdivision of a
    country, and the United States was more like a confederation of
    countries, not a country with 50 parts.  People would identify
    themselves with their state, its flag, its militia, and so on.  In war,
    they would defend their state.
    
    It may also be that Amendment 14 clarified who is a citizen, extending
    it to all persons, regardless of race, sex, and social position.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: Note 91.12 by RUSURE::EDP
    
    That's what I thought.  I just never hear it being discussed and 
    sometimes wonder if what I THINK is actually correct.

re: Note 14.153 PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
>>                -< Why 5 questions?  4 are moot - for now.... >-
>>    Only five questions change the status quo.  The temporary restraining
>>    order is to keep things as they are until the matter is settled.
    
    The problem with this is that if you accept the premise that
    the ballot was "confusing" (verbal shorthand), then the voters
    must have been just as confused when they voted to keep the
    status quo on the other four questions.  So:
    
    
    >> If the election is declared unconstitutional, the Judge should probably
    >> declare all nine questions invalid.
    
    Correct.  Now if he does that, I would insist on having a new
    election for those questions, with the alleged "problems" corrected,
    and as quickly as possible, without any advertising allowed, and
    so on.  You can't just "cancel an election", unless you're the
    Digital Credit Union.
    
    
    >> >> If this goes through, I'm through voting
    
    >> -< Or is this another veiled threat? >-
    
    Another?  What was the other one?  And this one is hardly veiled,
    though I will qualify it by saying that I'm through voting on
    *ballot questions* if the people's vote on the current ones is
    "cancelled".  Why bother?
    
    As for voting in general, I've already pledged to my wife that I
    won't bother voting at all anymore if Clinton is re-elected in '96,
    so that's a wait-and-see.  It would be another "Why bother?".
    
    
    >> My my my.  You really do value your voting rights, don't you?
    
    Oh yes, I do.  It's the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that's
    dumping all over my voting rights and turning them into a joke,
    not me.  It's the state that does not value our voting rights, by
    using sneaky loopholes after-the-fact to "invalidate" an election
    whose results don't quite fit their grand plans.
    
    I didn't like the way some of the questions came out any more than
    you or many of us (in my case, particularly the Blue Laws, the seat
    belt law, and the MassPIRG issue).  But I accept the will of the
    people in an election, and them's the breaks.  Why can't the state?
    This is all just sour grapes with a lot of Monday-morning hand-waving
    and smoke and mirrors, and it's not flying with many if not most of us.
    
    
    re: MadMike in .9 or thereabouts
    
    If they want to do away with the referendum process, that's okay
    with me, though I'd be disappointed.  What rips me about this is
    that we've been "led on" down this whole farcical myth that we can
    really contribute and participate at this level, we get all involved
    in the various questions and campaigns, we go and vote on them, we
    see the results, celebrate the victories, and so on.  And then, one
    man... one high-and-mighty, unaccountable, untouchable man, sweeps
    away the whole thing with a wave of his robed arm.
    
    When we were kids, our parents used to tell us about other "nasty"
    countries where the elections were farces, and how the powers-that-be
    maintained their powers, and how there were officials in place that
    the people couldn't do anything about.  And that we were the United
    States of America, that we had principles, that we had a democratic
    government that worked, that we were better.  Are we?
    
    Chris

    re: Note 91.14 by DECWIN::RALTO
    
>    When we were kids, our parents used to tell us about other "nasty"
>    countries where the elections were farces, and how the powers-that-be
>    maintained their powers, and how there were officials in place that
>    the people couldn't do anything about.  And that we were the United
>    States of America, that we had principles, that we had a democratic
>    government that worked, that we were better.  Are we?

(You've just described "the United States",  NOT the United States of
America.  Read on)


    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
    Republican Form of Government..."  
				Constitution FOR the United States OF AMERICA
							Article 4, Section 4

    The states are republics.  I'll bet their legislatures, chosen
    by sovereigns are democratic and must abide by their charters
    (Constitutions) and are answerable/accountable to "the people".

    If something was wrong with the election it should have been corrected
    BEFORE the people spoke.

    Imagine, if enough people decided that they hate yellow houses (and
    you happened to have a yellow house) they could force this issue
    onto the ballot, majority rules, it'd win and pass and you'd be
    in violation of the law and could be fined and put in jail if you
    didn't change that.  This is bullshyte and must be prevented.

    This is the foundation of our Country.  We're FREE.  It's basic
    government.  Free men can have a yellow house if they want.
    Free men should have common sense and not paint their house hot pink,
    out of respect for their neighbors, but if they do... oh well.  If enough 
    people start becoming aware of what's actually happening in this country 
    they can FORCE the government to comply, peacefully.  And I'm not
    talking about voting in a bunch of Republican congressmen either.  

The power is in the People themselves, yet they are not allowed to
infringe upon others.  This is the basis for my big pissing match with
Steve Jong.  The United States of America is a Republic.  The United
States (Congress, et al) is a Democracy.  Concepts of jurisdiction, etc...
My county, Atlanta and Washington can invent whatever they want, and it
applies in their jurisdiction, yet I, as specified in the Constitution
inhabit OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction (in most cases) and live as a Sovereign 
under Common Law.  I am bound only by laws that are Constitutional, and in
my jurisdiction.  This is why I'm intensly studying this, not only because 
I've been mislead, but because in some cases it may actually keep me out
of prison.  I am upset in that government would threaten and try to
dominate/supress me because I choose to abide by LAWFUL American law
(Constitution, Constitutional laws, and jurisdiction).  The only way to
force the issue is to "break the law", get arrested, prosecuted, and win
in court.  Obviously, I can stop many "problems" before they get started
once everyone is reading from the same page.  This is all very quietly
done.  Why?  because people still pay speeding fines and all sorts of
other stuff all the time. (**FREE MONEY for the Government**)

I'll give you another example of how I feel:
I would not go fight and die "for my country" IN Vietnam.
I would fight to the death if Vietnam came HERE and attacked US.

Can you see where we're screwing up?  If you enlist in the service, you
are contractually obligated to go fight and die.  If you ask for privilege,
you become obligated to sign up to fight and die.  If I am Sovereign, I 
wait until my country is attacked before I kick arse.

I'm sorry if my reply sounds disjointed or "weird", but I felt just like you
several years ago... and then I started digging and oh-my, what I learned.
Many generations of publicly schooled people, who "live in the Democracy" will
perpetuate that belief, I reckon.  Move back to the Republic, but beware
of the traps that you'll be faced with.

MadMike

	Since I have been busy doing work, I have not had the time 
to read this until recently.  

	Looking at the title made me think that someone was not 
happy with the system.  Then I read some of the notes and I'm now 
somewhat confused.  The closest thing that I have seen to a scam is
that people know who you voted for.  Frankly, I don't care if the
president himself knows who I voted for, as long as they don't 
change that.

	Having said that, I also feel it is the patriotic duty for
every elligible citizen to register to vote, and then vote.  We 
have the opportunity every couple of years to change who represents
us, the people.  Last month, many people felt that a change was 
needed in Washington, so they voted Republican.  If, in a couple of
years, the people don't like what happened, they can vote everyone
out.  This is a luxury that not every country has.  I would NOT
want to live in a country where I have no say in what goes on.

ME