Daniel Christian Mack comments on the fate of Tim Turner and the Republic of the USA


Charles,
I don’t normally respond to emails not addressed to me, but I wanted to express my satisfaction with your tenor concerning the news about Tim Turner.  Where you could’ve said “I told you so” you didn’t. And if you had been in the company of the man both publicly and privately as often as I was (and not anywhere near as many hours as most of his followers were) you might especially appreciate Tim’s Christian foundation (without being a Bible-thumper), his love for his country (the constitutional republic form of it), and desire to help people help themselves by filing the proper papers while understanding what it was they were filing and why.

Let me say that I never drank all of the Kool Aid that the supporters of the NR did, and I sometimes wondered if that was because I was just concerned about the implications of such an association in the long run, or if it was because I didn’t see any immediate results or benefits, or because I couldn’t afford the copying and postage costs associated with filing the famous “freedom documents”, or if it was a combination of the above.  But while I wasn’t an avid supporter, I also thought that if there was ever a man who stood for principles that I believed the founding fathers would espouse, it was Tim Turner.

It also seemed that Tim Turner was more than familiar with the stranglehold the private banking system had on our Constitutional Republican form of government and was addressing that as lawfully as anyone could–always NOTICING through administrative process (and isn’t that one of the maxims of law that most attorneys never even touch?—exhausting the administrative process FIRST so as not to waste the court‘s time??? –and that’s why attorneys like to pick cases up in the “middle”, in litigation, because that’s where the real money for them is—in the controversy/arguing??) all concerned parties in such a way that they were asked to respond/answer in a certain amount of time so as not to be answering “yes” by acquiescence.  

I never saw anyone offering a remedy that made any MORE sense according to the law.  Yet, it did often expose the fact that often the parties weren’t hearing, much less listening, much less answering.  It appeared that they’d prefer to stand in their too-big-to-fail-good-ol-boy-fraternity position than give the appearance or impression that they had any obligation to anyone other than their own agenda–and certainly not the law!

I also remember that he was one of the Directors of FEMA in Florida under Jeb Buah I believe, and how he resigned voluntarily because of what he was being asked to do against conscience, and how there was at least one, if not two attempts on his life after that because he couldn’t stay quiet about some of the evils that FEMA was up to and trying to make him party to as a Director.

I also remember how he was supposedly in close communications with the FBI, inviting them to every assembly or meeting that was held for the New Republic so that none could say that what he was doing was subversive or otherwise a threat to the country.  I remember hearing that after attending so many meetings, the FBI actually stopped showing up at every meeting because they were in fact supportive of what the NR was doing and realized it was of no threat.

Now, on the other side of the coin, Ken Cousens, one “studied in the law” and I believe the de jure governor of the republic of California for a short time also produced a lecture as to why the NR was nothing more than a private association styled after the form of a republic and was never properly put together to warrant it being recognized by any legitimate government in the world, starting with the fact that it didn’t have it’s own post office or banking system, and ending with the fact that the executive officers were never voted-in correctly by electors (supposedly one of the LAST things you do in forming a new government, not one of the FIRST!).  For such cogent reasons as Ken laid out (after he resigned from the office) he said of course the NR would NEVER gain the traction or respect among governments/nations that people were hoping they would.

On one of those notes, I’d also like to elaborate a bit as can also support the sober tenor with which you address the voting process.  I can’t say that I would disagree with some of your recommendations, but it does seem to completely side-step what Robb Ryder (he has numerous YouTubes) and his research have let him to discover; namely that as sovereigns in the de jure, we are actually “electors” who give up our authority to direct City Hall (as to what they should be doing/holding them accountable to the job descriptions of their offices) when we are coaxed/persuaded (believably through the public screwel system or pitch of the democratic process (where two wolves and one sheep vote what’s for dinner!) that by becoming a REGISTERED VOTER we are actually giving up our greater authority as an elector in the de jure, and becoming just another vote in the de facto democracy further believing that somehow NOW WE HAVE A VOICE THROUGH OUR VOTE!

Did you ever watch that Robb Ryder video I sent you?  He‘s kind of like a bull in a china closet the way he bumps around trying to pronounce words and the like.  But while I fear I get hung up on grammar and those issues (the details), I also fear that I might be missing the forest for the trees while someone like former VietNam vet Robb Ryder might be seeing the real forest a lot easier than I can!

More chicanery? Trickery? Subversive programing to aid in the powers that be bringing the sheep to the slaughter?  I grew up trusting that somehow the powers that be were even more concerned about protecting baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet more than I was!  Now, I don’t trust anyone with government credentials, even if that means someone trained only in the public screwl system and their attending universities.  

And the more I see/experience/hear about the courts where justice is supposed to be sought, the more I realize there is little if any justice to be found there, that instead it is “just us” looking for fairness, for remedy, for justice.  And why anyone with your credentials would want to go back is illogical given that people in the know usually aren’t seeking the help of an attorney, and when they do, they usually discover how impotent they are to make any significant changes or differences when it comes to getting justice.  (i.e. Michael Pines, Richard Fine, Charles Lincoln III, etc.) 

There’s a lot to be said for the schools of hard knocks, and the people who have attended them like you going through what you have to become dis-barred, and extradited and the like.  You show more by those actions the kind of character that attracts honest people–though admitedly maybe honest people who can’t afford your services!  Haven‘t we learned by now that any attorney that is really going to live on the cutting edge of making a difference is also going to put his BAR card at risk?  If not, is not the end result going to be some sort of compromise or settlement instead of a victory?  Or is a settlement supposed to be the victory?

I was reminded of this yesterday when a registered agent with the IRwho’s helping us deal with over $22k of “frivolous filing” penalties finally counseled us to take advantage of a new law with the IRS that puts a maximum ceiling on our penalties of $500 or $1000.  Sure, sounds a lot better than $22k plus!  But is it just?  Is it right? No!  Not when you have others more learned in the law pointing out their dirty laundry!  How conditioned havwe become to accept the lowest we can afford rather than go after the #$%%#  ##$#!$!^%’s for taking advantage of folks that THEY KNOW don’t have the resources to expose their crimes!!! A bottle of Tide is still more affordable than buying the whole laundrymat.ndry (As JT who you met and has the IRC all but memorized says, “they’re citing codes under Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms sections, and not codes under income tax!  Furthermore, the code section you SHOULD be under they ignore because it has no implementing regulation.  In other words, they have no authority to regulate or make judgements or impose fines in the code section under which your activity falls.  So they pull you in under another one and make it hell for you in every way to correct the record!

Enough for you to chew on for now. 

Dan
San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s