Free State Project Forum
271427 Posts in 22261 Topics by 124334 Members / Latest Member: Sguflyu
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 03:06:12 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.

+  Free State Project Forum
|-+  New Hampshire -- The "Live Free or Die" State
| |-+  NH Information and Discussion
| | |-+  Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2  Go Down Print
Author Topic: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?  (Read 5225 times)
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« on: December 09, 2009, 02:26:40 pm »

http://sovereignty.net/p/land/mapmabwh.htm

It looks like most of New Hampshire is being set aside for a buffer zone, which may mean eminent domain issues and land use issues may inhibit liberties as the US is giving in more and more to world powers.

I'm only just learning about it now, this was just brought to my attention by a friend who owns land in Alabama which is falling into the yellow zone and may encroach on his ability to run his tree farm.

Should probably be kept on the radar...

Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
Bazil
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 994

not the spice and not the country




Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2009, 07:09:43 pm »

looks like all of coos county is already in the yellow zone.
Logged

"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2009, 07:36:49 pm »

It does just say it's an example, so there may be totally different assignments by the time it all comes to pass.

This is the fundamental failure that our current government has when it comes to a stable economy - nobody can plan for the long term because they keep changing the rules. What do we invest in for the future that they won't figure out some way to raise taxes on or steal or make illegal?

I don't have much money, but I want to be careful what I plan to do with what I have. To buy land that might be useless because our government signed some treaty with the U.N. that I have no say in altering is unsettling.  I'd invest in gold but in the past the government has confiscated it...

It's like a 6 year old trying to play Risk with his 10 year old brother, there's just no way you can win. (I've seen this happen in my house and I want to turn over the board and just stop playing too...)
Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
B.D. Ross
Director of Development
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4805



WWW
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 08:11:59 pm »

I'd invest in gold but in the past the government has confiscated it...

Myth.
Logged
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 09:31:12 pm »

Thanks for the explanation of why what I've read about FDR isn't true. Very helpful.  Tongue
Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
B.D. Ross
Director of Development
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4805



WWW
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2009, 10:37:10 pm »

Thanks for the explanation of why what I've read about FDR isn't true. Very helpful.  Tongue

Apologies. No one's gold was ever confiscated. Most people voluntarily complied with the FDR's executive order. I think one person was indicted, but nothing happened of it.

It's like saying FDR issued an EO saying everyone should poke out their left eye; a lot of people did; therefore, FDR poked out everyone's eyes. Just because the President says something is a good idea, doesn't mean it is.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 10:46:50 pm by B.D. Ross » Logged
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2009, 08:37:44 am »

Ah, okay. You're pointing out that it wasn't 'confiscated' but not denying there was a law that did go out to turn gold over.  Just wanted to be clear. Smiley
Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
Moebius Tripp
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


Kinda loopy & one-sided.




Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2009, 09:30:47 am »


Apologies. No one's gold was ever confiscated. Most people voluntarily complied with the FDR's executive order. I think one person was indicted, but nothing happened of it.


"Voluntarily complied"Huh  Maybe the threat of $10k fines (approx. $550k in current dollar valuation) and/or 10 years in the pokey assisted in the "voluntary compliance" of the EO?

If I were to "voluntarily comply" with an order by an armed thug on the street to hand over my property, does that excuse robbery?  What if the armed robber simply sent me a letter demanding only 40% of my property, or suffer consequences?  Is that less of a robbery?

Logged

Statism is the opiate of the masses
John Edward Mercier
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6534

Native




Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2009, 10:27:15 am »

The problem was that in 1900 the US went on the Gold Standard.

To meet the requirements of Article One Section Eight, they needed to exchange all the gold that they could for paper... so that Congress could 'officially' revalue the dollar as empowered without confiscating value from a single citizen setting up a civil law suit under the BoR.

They never attempted it again... and that set up the public questions as to the amount of gold being held by the Treasury, and then the amount of dollars minted/printed by the Treasury in relation to those holdings. No common citizen could be sure of the volume of gold that the US Treasury really had or that it had only produced $35 USD per ounce.
The US Congress neither likes to pay its bills, nor pay real interest rates on monies borrowed... since the voters wouldn't like it.

Logged
John Edward Mercier
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6534

Native




Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2009, 10:34:48 am »

looks like all of coos county is already in the yellow zone.
Most of Coos is State or Federal land.
Logged
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2009, 11:17:34 am »


"Voluntarily complied"Huh  Maybe the threat of $10k fines (approx. $550k in current dollar valuation) and/or 10 years in the pokey assisted in the "voluntary compliance" of the EO?

If I were to "voluntarily comply" with an order by an armed thug on the street to hand over my property, does that excuse robbery?  What if the armed robber simply sent me a letter demanding only 40% of my property, or suffer consequences?  Is that less of a robbery?

That's kind of how I was thinking of it.

It's like when someone digs up the law that income taxes are voluntarily. If they opt not to pay them, judges don't allow them to use that law they dug up to defend themselves and they are sent to jail.

As for the land in New Hampshire, I'm guessing from the lack of response to this thread that either I haven't caught the right person's attention, or nobody is really concerned about this U.N. treaty...
Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
B.D. Ross
Director of Development
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4805



WWW
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2009, 12:07:28 pm »


Apologies. No one's gold was ever confiscated. Most people voluntarily complied with the FDR's executive order. I think one person was indicted, but nothing happened of it.


"Voluntarily complied"Huh  Maybe the threat of $10k fines (approx. $550k in current dollar valuation) and/or 10 years in the pokey assisted in the "voluntary compliance" of the EO?

If I were to "voluntarily comply" with an order by an armed thug on the street to hand over my property, does that excuse robbery?  What if the armed robber simply sent me a letter demanding only 40% of my property, or suffer consequences?  Is that less of a robbery?

The valuation is closer to $150,000 in current terms. Still big. But not $550,000.

The government is not comparable to an armed robber in this scenario. An armed robber immediately threatens you with harm or death. With the government, first they must find you, decide whether to do anything, and then there's that pesky constitution that outlines your rights (assuming the courts are following them), and you--at a minimum--get a full hearing to defend yourself. Not quite comparable to someone who surprises you on the street and shoves a knife in your side.

Now, if you comply with a clearly unconstitutional government executive order--not even a law--out of selfish fear... well. You're only enabling bad government.

As I said before, many people gave up their money without question. Some hid theirs. Out of all the gold that wasn't turned in, only ONE person was prosecuted by the feds--for hiding 2.5 tons of gold. And that single case was ultimately dismissed.

Really, why would anybody turn in their gold in the face of an empty threat? --and then claim to be the victim? Are you kidding? (In reality, many people did it because they trusted in FDR.)

Ahem. Point being, the federal government never actually confiscated any gold. To say the government actually confiscated the gold is just rhetoric that exonerates those fearful citizens of their responsibilities1 to resist oppressive government in the face of an empty, unenforceable threat. No thank you, sir.



1I see how some people might not view this as a responsibility. But if you don't want to be subject to an oppressive government, regardless of your best intentions, it certainly is.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 12:21:37 pm by B.D. Ross » Logged
B.D. Ross
Director of Development
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4805



WWW
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2009, 12:13:28 pm »

It's like when someone digs up the law that income taxes are voluntarily. If they opt not to pay them, judges don't allow them to use that law they dug up to defend themselves and they are sent to jail.

There is no law--now or ever-existing--that says federal income taxes are voluntary.
Logged
Delphina
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68





Ignore
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2009, 01:25:16 pm »

Based on your simple declaration I don't know if this is something you have researched and come to a conclusion on or if you merely don't want my controversial declaration hanging without some sort of rebuttal by an admin... so I'll just give you one link that outlines the argument that it is voluntary in case you've never even heard of the argument:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/suprynowicz.htm

Practically speaking, it doesn't matter what the law says anymore anyway, so it's not even worth debating. All that matters is what happens to you if you don't pay.

Sherry Jackson, someone who did not want to do as you say, "resist an oppressive government" is sitting in jail because she wanted to test the argument that it's voluntary, but she was never even allowed to present her case.

http://www.sherrypeeljackson.com/
Logged

It's $3.00 for a Coke at the movies that costs $0.01 to make and yet some people are only upset that the chain they go to doesn't sell Pepsi.
B.D. Ross
Director of Development
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4805



WWW
Re: Did anyone look into the UN Biosphere Protection Treaty?
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2009, 02:05:06 pm »

Based on your simple declaration I don't know if this is something you have researched and come to a conclusion on or if you merely don't want my controversial declaration hanging without some sort of rebuttal by an admin...

I've heard it all. (And it's unrelated to any "rebuttal by an admin". Actually I'm just a moderator, not an admin. But don't even go there, trying to cast this as some sort of FSP response. I can't speak for the FSP.)

so I'll just give you one link that outlines the argument that it is voluntary in case you've never even heard of the argument:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/suprynowicz.htm

Including that one.

Sherry Jackson, someone who did not want to do as you say, "resist an oppressive government" is sitting in jail because she wanted to test the argument that it's voluntary, but she was never even allowed to present her case.

While all taxes are arguably oppressive, federal taxation is expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution (however stupid it was of the founders to do so). As opposed to where the President decided that he should declare the ability to seize everyone's money. The latter is, of course, obviously unconstitutional, and no one is bound to follow an unconstitutional law.

For Ms. Jackson specifically. She was charged with failure to file a tax return. I could not find any easily accessible evidence supporting your contention that Ms. Jackson was "not even allowed to present her case". Please point to the specific page. If that allegation were true and she is currently incarcerated, even the most inept attorney could secure her release on a habeas petition with blinding speed.

The site you link to explains that Ms. Jackon experienced some epiphany while trying to answer some questions while working as a CPA for the IRS:

Quote
(1) Show how to file a federal income tax return without waving one's 5th amendment rights;

The 5th Amendment provides that no person shall be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Sadly, the government asking you to report your income is not a criminal case or accusation. Even if you derive all your income from pimping or drug-running, you  can still assert your 5th Amendment rights right on your Form 1040. Does that defeat the spirit of the 5th Amendment? Probably. But not the letter. That is for the people to fix. Good luck.

Quote
(2) identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

26 U.S.C. ยง 6151
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!