See other Resistance Articles
Title: SAPF Update: Judge issues Stay in Enforcement of Injunction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 19, 2006
Author: SAPF
Post Date: 2006-12-19 15:21:21 by Neil McIver
Keywords: None
Views: 1831
Comments: 101
Judge Nickerson issued a stay against his own injunction order today. SAPF can disregard the order pending appeal. I'll write up a report more fully tonight.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-8) not displayed.
.
.
.
#9. To: Starwind (#5)
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
Mighty bold talk from a one-eyed fat man. ;0) BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves. He told of how there are training sessions set up where 50 agents are brought together and told A, B and C about the tax code, etc., and the training ends there. But if they had gone a step further told the agents D, it would have invalidated everything they were told previously. These lying scum who are directing this fraud (some of your lawyer buddies perhaps?) are even deceiving their own people. They deserve a rope, and nothing more. They train all of the professional CPAs, accountants, controllers, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in this system of plunder. Is it any wonder that the judges go along with it all when the fraud is so pervasive? Besides, they know they would end up out in the cold if they oppose the bankers, so they go along with it. They have betrayed the rest of us and one day soon the other shoe will drop. Just be careful you do not end up under that boot when it does. Have you ever studied any of the positions of the Fellowship? I assure you it is based in factual reading of the law. And shows the misapplications of law by the IRS thugs and government attorneys. I have not met Kotmair in person, but have had the pleasure of speaking to him on the phone a couple of times. I find him to be one of the most principled, honest and forthright men I've ever come in contact with. It helps, of course, to know his personal background, which I do. John has been fighting corruption for a very long time, even since before he started the Fellowship. Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger. Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Ok, so why not just say they'll be updated when possible instead of asserting they've been done? I expected the stay to be approved for exactly the reasons given. To weigh the merits of clarifying/amending the injunction language. There is nothing new in Kotmair's argument. There is no new reason for a new trial, there is only need for time for the government to submit their view of Kotmair's motion to modify the injunction (and new trial) and so the stay was expected. Kotmair will not likely prevail getting Nickerson recused. Kotmair had "his day in court" and chose to obstruct discovery and left himself open to summary judgement. During trial Nickerson granted some of Kotmair's motions against the government (and rejected some of the governments more harsh motions), but the trial is over and on the court record there is (probably) little to which an appeals court would object. Nickerson does not have to start from scratch with every one of Kotmair's motions, just because Kotmair thinks so. That is not the way courts work. That is the point of Nickerson citing Kotmair's foolish expectation that "just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid", because in fact when most or all courts do follow a course of conduct, that does make it valid. That is what courts are supposed to do. Establish a valid course of conduct and follow it. Courts do not reopen and retry every argument just because the defendant/plaintiff think it's new or wrong. Evidence that it is new or wrong must be submitted (or evidence that courts have been inconsistent), but Kotmair obstructed discovery and short-circuited his trial, and so if he had such evidence he failed to introduce it. No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that. But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into. So, essentially, SAPF claims to have developed "successful legal defenses", which in fact the courts have held against SAPF, Kotmair and his son, are not valid and are not legally successful. Regardless, SAPF members enter into an "agreement" whereby they pay $99/year every year to Kotmair/SAPF for the ability to "claim" a loss after an "illegal" IRS seizure or confiscation of real or personal property (specifically excludes paper assets or bank accounts), but they can only submit that claim after confiscation or incarceration (i.e. after the legal defense didn't work). Interesting catch-22 here is if the IRS seizure is "legal" (i.e. upheld by the courts) then the claim (resulting from following SAPF legal defenses and resisting the IRS at every step) would be disallowed. Regardless, members are not legally bound to pay their share of the claimant's assessments (even though SAPF/Kotmair has in advance already received everyone's $99 annual fees under the agreement), and claimant has absolutely no assurance of his loss being covered, while he sits in jail or his home is held. Taking a hypothetical estimate of SAPF's membership at 800+ clients, if every client paid in their assessed $10 that gives the claimant $8,000 which obviously won't make a dent in the losses of a siezed house (ignoring seized or frozen bank accounts and other paper assets) and won't make a dent in the legal defense costs which mount exponentially after indictment, seizure and/or incarceration, the only point at which SAPF claims may be filed. Now the agreement prologue gives examples using 50,000 and 100,000 clients in SAPF's membership, whereby the benefit is estimated at $500K and implied to be $1M (respectively) to compensate for a loss due to confiscation/seizure of a house valued at say $300,000, for a $200K-700K profit (which you can bet the IRS will tax) depending on the size of membership. Another example actually portrays a hypothetical member claiming a $9,000 loss, receiving a $20,000 payout (from a hypothetical 2,000 members) for a "profit" of $11,000. But these examples ignore the agreement provisions which put a maximum of $150,000 per civil claim and $25,000/year per criminal claim, and further, that proof of value of seized property be submitted and verified. What do you suppose is the point of excess-of-loss payout examples that the agreement language actually precludes? But sticking with the 800+ membership, if the IRS further brings suit against just 10 more SAPF members, the assessment for claims on every member is now $100/year above and beyond the required annual "participation" renewal fee, and their SAPF membership costs will have doubled, all without any appreciable benefit in the claim awards. Each member's cost will have gone up 100% if the IRS sues 1.25% of SAPF members. What happens if the IRS sues 10% of the membership? 25% of the membership? And yet the $99 x 800 = $79,200 annual "participation fees" are collected by SAPF/Kotmair. So SAPF members pay $99/year to Kotmair/SAPF in exchange for which they receive discredited and failed legal defense material, after using which their homes and cars are seized and after they themselves are indicted and maybe incarcerated, then they get to submit a claim for actual and limited losses (without any "profit") but for which there is no binding agreement to pay any benefit, and if the IRS sues more SAPF members the assessments increase almost exponentially for all members (assuming they stay in the fellowship and keep paying). But you don't see a problem with this non-binding "insurance-like" arrangement? Would you recommend that your mother, grandmother, youngest sister, whomever, pay into SAPF and rely upon its tax research for their filings and legal defense?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Why is it you never have anything other than insults and unverifiable personal assurances as your argument? Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you? BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you? Kept you out of court have they? Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice. I assist executives of computer-tech companies perform due diligence on mergers and technology acquisitions. I also evaluate companies in which I might want to invest, or simply follow the arguments of companies suing each other (like IBM v SCO) or being sued by the SEC. All of which makes looking at public court records of company principals, patent suits, contract disputes, etc useful, and for a free PACER account at 8 pennies a page, it beats driving down to the court house and waiting in line to do the same thing with their computers. But then, as experienced as you are, you knew all that didn't you... you were just testing me weren't you.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Allow me to relate to you a personal incident of mine from about 6 years ago. When I came here to Missouri, the first place I got a job driving a truck was a small outfit with maybe 7 trucks. I told them when I applied that I would not provide a SSN and that they would not have to take any withholdings from me nor would they have to pay in their share of taxes. To this end I provided the proper documents to fulfill the requirements under the Code for them requesting a number and not receiving one. At that time, employers were only required to request a number. They did not actually have to get one, and there is a procedure to follow with affidavits of transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue (in Philadelphia) so that all of the requirements of the Code are followed. I got thos documents made up and paid for them myself, and I told the boss if ever there was a problem I would back him up on it, But, I told him to follow the instructions exactly. His daughter was doing the bookkeeping and she sent the affidavit and other paperwork to the regional office in KC. That was a mistake since it sent up a red flag with those know-nothing idiots. The jerk agent kept calling and harrassing the daughter and sending her IRS publications and other literature (which is NOT the law) and making threats over the phone. When the boss told me of this, I told him the forms I gave him should have been sent to Philly, not KC. The main office in Philly handles international (between the several states and the USG) issues. The regional offices do not. This is where the problem arose. The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it. I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared. Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers. This response is time consuming enough right now. Suffice it to say that the agent was shut down because he was hit with the truth, the facts and the law. I just do not have this stuff on the tip of my tongue like others might. But, when I have the chance to discuss thigns with someone who knows these issues, I am able to carry on an intelligent conversation well enough. If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine. And this was all done with help from SAPF staff, and the Nationsl Worker's Rights Committee. All of what they are doing is based on the facts and the law. And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me. That is conversion and theft, in case you didn't guess. So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit. Fine up to now. Everything I have done so far has worked without bringing anything to court. But, we are cooking up some things which are sure to give our insolent and disobedient servants in government ulcers and sleepless nights. I have a case here now which was filed in Virgina which is going to be the template for what we are doing regarding private property rights issues. And, yes, our labor property is private until we contact it away. And we have a right to a return of that labor for something of value. It's just that those nasty FRNs are having less and less value all of the time. Would you like to buy some Liberty Dollars? LOL Didn't think so. ;0) Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice. Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer. I found out about Pacer when I got an info packet from the federal court earlier this year. It would not be worthwhile for me to mess with it since I have nothing to keep up with, as you seem to for your gig. Eight cents per page view would only be good if it didn't amount to much. I'm taking donations if the Lord moves you. ;0) Life is a test. Test, 1, 2, test. Just like the sound check at the concerts. Watch out for Pyro Pete. He has got some awesome boomers and you need to stay clear when they do the pyro check. ROTFLOL! "It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
Not sure if it is, but I know for a fact that there are more as time goes by who are coming over to our side.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Aww c'mon Jim, quit holding back. Tell this boot-licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie exactly how MILLIONS OF US FEEL !!!!
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Where's the toadie ???
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
The former IRS agent who appeared at SAPF was John Turner, and yes, I believe he also appeared in F2F. I met Turner and a bunch of us had dinner with him at a restaurant during that convention.
yes, he did.
That's it. He did a great talk on what is happening on the inside and his own personal awakening. Everyone who has any doubts about how corrupt the system is only needs to listen to that audio of John Turner.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
lol - I'm crushed. And I had such high expectations for your reply. Why am I not surprised. At least you didn't pretend the dog ate it. The issue is not my doubting you, but rather your hypocrisy to criticise the facts posted by others while providing none yourself. But then there's not much else you can do, is there. I admit I doubted anyone actually paid for your tax advice, so I assumed it was given. Well it would seem you are a taxpayer, however unfair you might think it. Let me know when $5,000,000 in taxes is stolen from you. Then we'll talk.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Sorry, but you have no idea what I am dealing with over here. I simply do not have the time to dig out that material and find the proper references and post them here. You are lucky to get any reply at all. You should really be on the filter, but I at least give you a pass for now. :p The fact remains that ALL of the research has been done and shown numerous times and is also available in material which may be obtained from Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact. You filing a return signifies that you are returning a portion of your earnings as an employment tax on a privelege. This would be significant if only to show that the tax is being grievously misapplied. But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered. Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
THAT'S the point!!! But they won't "unvolunteer" because they WANT the privileges they get from volunteering. They WANT to gamble in the stock market, and they want to work for General Motors, and they WANT to have Medicare and that monthly check to count on in their retirement years. No, there is NOT a smidgen of hope there. By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme... Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist. Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so Either he doesn't actually believe his own tagline, or he isn't smart enough to figure out that in the SS system, the government is called the benefactor, and he is the beneficiary - or both. People like that allow FEAR to make their decisions, and are of no use to true patriots. If the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Framers of the Constitution had allowed fear to control them instead of their conscience - this once-great nation would have never achieved what it did. And unless a hell of a lot more people find that same courage our Founding Fathers had, all their efforts were in vain... I believe it was you that used the word traitor to describe him... You're right. Traitor to his country, AND traitor to GOD.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
This oft repeated canard that paying taxes and abiding by tax laws is somehow unbiblical or lacking faith needs to be addressed (FYI *Bereans* for the scripture cites). So, what does the Bible actually say in comparison with the claims of noone222 and innieway? Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=25#C25 I noticed your tagline and thought you should be more aware of the number one tax protester to ever walk the earth ! (Of course they crucified him ... and they're still at it 2000 years later. What did Jesus tell Peter at the house after they had passed through the gate at Capernum. [You'll recall he had Peter go get a coin out of a fishes mouth to pay the "tribute" collector, so as not to piss him off. But when Peter and Jesus arrived at the house, Jesus prevented Peter at the door, and asked him "Peter, from whom do the kings of nations collect tribute, the "children" or the "STRANGER" ... to which Peter replied, ahh yes Lord the stranger.] Taxes are in fact a penalty applied to those receiving a government "PRIVILEGE" , and the reason for Jesus admonition to Peter was to remind him that the birthright of the children wasn't taxable while the privilege of citizenship to the stranger subjected them to taxation. Check out Luke 22:25 where Jesus states that you shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor ... exactly what SS does to you ... it makes the govt. your benefactor ... so who you gonna believe, Jesus or Uncle Sambo ??? http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=26#C26 I'm mystified when someone has a tagline that implies faith in Christ's truth but when it comes down to the nut cuttin that person shit cans Christ and resorts to lawyers and weasel worded statutory fraud. Hypocrisy ! http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=29#C29 When Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ... Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to him, and Jesus was disputing that notion, much like today, when the government would have us believe that every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed. So, here is Luke 22:25-27, full passages in context: Luk 22:24-27 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. (25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'G2110 (26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. (27) "For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. Strong's G2110: The disciples were frequently engaged in petty arguments over which of them was greatest in heaven: This last time (Luk 22) Jesus drew a contrast between His kingdom and that of Gentiles, specifically those Ptolemaic kings who were known as "Euergetes" or 'Benefactor'. Note above that 'Benefactor' is translated from the Greek "euergetes" (Strongs G2110) in Luke 22:25.: ... king of Egypt, son of Ptolemy II ... succeeded Ptolemy II ... as the Benefactor Gods ... usually known as Euergetes ("Beneficient"). He is commonly distinguished today as Euergetes II or as Physcon. The epithet Euergetes ("Benefactor"), which he shared with and probably modelled on Ptolemy III Jesus contrasts the Gentile "Benefactors" (i.e., Ptolemaic rulers) who were greatest and held authority over others who served them, with the reverse concept in Christ's kingdom that the greatest are those who serve and are under authority, and Jesus cites himself as serving though (implicitly) having all authority: This is the same "lesson" He taught in the other disputes about whom would be greatest: Jesus was not teaching that earthly Christians (His disciples) were not obligated to "Benefactors". Rather, Jesus was teaching that those who would be greatest in His kingdom were least on earth and served under authority. Regarding paying the "tribute", here is Mat 17:27 complete and in context: Mat 17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two- drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two- drachma tax?" (25) He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" (26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. (27) "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." Note carefully there are two different taxes being discussed: Jesus' point to Peter is that because they are not strangers to the temple but are the sons of God, they hence are exempt from the temple tax as asked, but regardless they do pay it so as to not offend. But it is this ecclesiastical temple tax which Jesus voluntarily pays. Jesus does *not* teach in any manner that a civil tax is likewise voluntary or that Christians ought not to pay civil taxes. And the oft misconstrued "render to Caesar" teaching: Mat 22:17-21 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" (18) But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? (19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. (20) And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" (21) They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Jesus specifically distinguishes between that which is Caesar's and that which is God's. Jesus said to pay both Caesar's tax (in Roman coins) and tithes and offerings (in temple coins). No where does the Bible or historical record imply that "Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to [Caesar]", that is a false premise, and no where does Jesus dispute paying taxes to Rome. Further, if today "every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed", there'd be no "loop holes", no "non- profits", no deductions, exemptions, gradations, and a vastly smaller and simpler tax code. In fact, much (but not all) of the complexity and unfairness of the existing tax code is due to the myriad exemptions from taxation. And what does the Bible actually teach about Christians being subject to civil authority? Exo 22:28 "You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. Ecc 8:2-5 I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. (3) "Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases." (4) Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?" (5) He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure. Mat 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Luk 7:8-9 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." (9) Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." Note, the point here is Jesus did not rebuke the soldier for being under and having Roman military authority, rather Jesus commended him for acknowledging and having faith in (and not requiring proof of) Jesus' authority, unlike the Jews to whom Jesus was spreading His message. i.e. a Roman authoritarian had more understanding of Jesus authority than did Jesus' country men. Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Tit 3:1-2 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, (2) to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, (14) or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 1Pe 2:18-19 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (19) For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire: Ecc 10:4,20 (4) If the ruler's temper rises against you, do not abandon your position, because composure allays great offenses. (20) Furthermore, in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do not curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound and the winged creature will make the matter known. Act 5:28-29 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. Paul suffered numerous beatings. Stephen allowed himself to be stoned. When civil authority is unjust (such as under many of the Old Testament kings, Gentile kings, etc.) the Christian is to willingly bear the unjust treatment and trust in God for deliverance and leave all vengeance up to God, as did Daniel in the lion's den, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego who were cast into the fiery furnace, David who was pursued by Saul, Job, Joseph, etc. But that does not mean that Christians can not lawfully, peacefully work for better laws or rely upon the law, as did Paul when he declared his Roman citizenship (Act 22:25) to seek due process and a hearing from Caesar (Acts 25). By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme... Indeed, the Bible even instructs Christians to be wise stewards of whatever God has entrusted to us: Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. We are to know what the worldly and schemers know without being worldly and scheming in return. Mat 25:14-30 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. (15) "To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. (16) "Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. (17) "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. (18) "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. (19) "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. (20) "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.' (21) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (22) "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.' (23) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (24) "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. (25) 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.' (26) "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. (27) 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. (28) 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.' (29) "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. (30) "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The parable of the talents is not specifically about investment per se, but is about generic stewardship of whatever has been entrusted to us. Each of us have giftings and responsibilities in commensurate measure. A person given the gifting to steward two talents could not handle the responsibility of stewarding five talents, but they can learn and be faithful with the two. A person who is irresponsible and fails to steward what has been entrusted (even one talent) is faithless. Some of us are entrusted with wealth and expected to faithfully steward it and apply it to kingdom purposes. Some are entrusted with administration skills, teaching skills, etc. Whatever skills/gifts we have been given are to be stewarded to their fullest in accordance with God's kingdom purposes. That includes managing wealth and using it as tithes and offerings to fund 'kingdom projects', like building churches, giving bibles, sending missionaries, feeding the poor and homeless, funding hospitals, etc. It can also include managing the assets and budgets of Christian institutions like churches, foundations, colleges, broadcasters, etc. But to manage and distribute (steward) wealth, one must of necessity understand the tax laws at a minimum, how to safeguard assets while not being spent, and how to operate lawfully. Luk 16:8-13 "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. (9) "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. (10) "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (11) "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? (12) "And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? (13) "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Jesus is not praising unrighteous manager for being unrighteous, but is citing his shrewdness as an example of that manager's "thinking outside the box" to form useful relationships. Jesus advocates that we Christians ought to likewise learn to "think outside the box" to use the wealth of the unrighteous to bring people to the Lord so that they may be a treasure laid up in heaven and will welcome us when we meet them in eternity. The lesson is to be sharp-witted Christian managers (who are just as savvy if not more so than their unrighteous counterparts) who lawfully redirect wealth into righteous kingdom purposes, e.g., trading/investing and then tithing/offering the profit to a Christian church to be used in mission work or church plants, or to quietly demonstrate and set a Christian example for the world to observe of honest lawful investing (i.e. walk the walk). But only to the extent that "talents" (gifts and responsibilities) have been entrusted from God, i.e. a "calling". The Christian serves God and wealth is a tool that serves the Christian, no different than any other tool employed to achieve God's purposes. The Bible does not teach that paying taxes is wrong, or taxation authority is to be disobeyed, or that investing is wrong. Only by ignoring what the text of the Bible plainly and repeatedly says can one argue otherwise. Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist. What I insist on regarding taxes is being lawful, accurate, and honest. No more, no less. It behooves any Christian who wants to be "as wise as serpents", faithful in the use of whatever has been entrusted to them, obedient under every human institution and governing authority, and avoid creating opponents at law, to investigate and know the facts of these matters whether promulgated by the IRS, accountants, lawyers, tax protesters, tax shelters, banks, brokers, companies, legislatures and courts, to evaluate and integrate their varying interpretations and ultimately know the truth of the matter as best it can be ascertained. There may not be any good tax protester arguments, but one wouldn't know that until having looked at the published arguments and any court rulings. Subsequently, one can learn how the courts and government cope with differing arguments; studying how favorable rulings were argued through the court system and how frivolous arguments are dispatched. Learning what to do and what not to do. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Worse, those who repeat the same failed arguments yet always expect different results, defy rationality and demonstrate a troubling dysfunction (see Irwin Schiff's transcript). But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large. You ignore history, context, facts, and plain meanings that everyone else understands. You position yourselves for defeat because of your insistence to impute into a text what you want it to mean instead of reading out of a text what it actually says, whether that text is in the Constitution, the law, or the Bible. And when I point that out, you label me; for proposing a lawful constitutional convention as provided by the framers, a "traitor"; for knowing and citing the law in opposition to your vapid legal scholarship, a "shill" and "pettifogger"; and "boot- licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie" who ought to be hung by a rope , and taunts like "You cling to fraud like bubble gum to a shoe !" Your responses are long on handwaving, short on fact, but mainly just personal insults. Such juvenile antics would be laughable if the subject weren't so serious. And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound, and when that fails, you expect to further play Russian Roulette with the courts and treat the inevitable consequent IRS summons as an act of war to be met with armed resistance. You post rant after rant raging against the machine without once posting any proof of the legal basis that underlies your tax arguments you all claim to have researched so thoroughly (except for one SSA form), but when pressed for the factual details that underly your otherwise unsubstantiated legal theories, we're told: Good grief, no one in their right mind would participate in your self-destructive tantrums and get caught-up in your crossfire. You blame the media, the courts, the sheeple, employers, bankers, Jews, Christians, ad nauseum; you blame everyone except yourselves for stepping alone in front of the train that repeatedly runs you down. Take a long hard look at yourselves. You ought to be embarrassed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well, based on your statements here alone, he either didn't believe in the legality of your non-withholding, or he in fact withheld improperly. Either way, if your non-withholding theory is legal and correct (as you repeatedly claim) the law is on your side right? Why not have the IRS refund what should never have been withheld? After all, you were bold and confident earlier: They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right? They'll probably write you a check and then just plain disappear again. 'Course depositing it without a bank account could be tricky, but maybe you could endorse it over to a check-cashing outlet for a factor. I do have a rough idea of what you are dealing with 'there', and so you have the last word, unless you want me to debate it (I'm willing to take this as far as you want).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Luk 22:(25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors. [King James Version] Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. [Your submission of Biblical Text] (26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. [King James Version] Luk 22:26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations. I think the translation you have used is more casual and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;] I'll have to go back to your original post to continue:
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
Mat 17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two- drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two- drachma tax?" (25) He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" (26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. I think there's something lost in your translation: Here's the King James: Mat 17:24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute [money] came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. I'm sorry, but the translation you're using appears to have been written by a tax collector when using terms like 2 drachma tax, Poll Tax and "exempt". I believe that the children being free is more relevant than a tax exemption. I also think some emphasis is lost when your translation speaks of their sons rather than stating "from their own children". (But that's just my opinion). I want to address some more of your post but I'll have to continue after posting this:
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
I use the NASB. It is a more literal translation than the KJV. No, Jesus is not giving or observing an order or command. He is contrasting the Ptolemaic "benefactors" who are deemed greatest because they are being served, with greatest in Christ's kingdom being deemed those who serve (or are humblest). Jesus' point is that greatness is not measured by authority but instead is measured by humility and servitude in spite of having authority. Your own KJV translation cite notes: "But ye [shall] not [be] so" wherein [shall] and [be] are inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. The NASB translation is: "But [it is] not this way with you" wherein [it is] are again inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. I apologize for having negelected to italicize or shade inserted words in my cites. So while there are those differences in the translations of those 6-7 words, taking the entire passages in context, Jesus is teaching that *unlike* the Gentiles and their "benefactors" who measure greatness by being served, Jesus measures greatness by serving - standing human tradition and thought on its head, as He often does. None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Ok then, in the KJV: Mat 17:24-25 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute1323 money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?1323 (25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented4399 him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom5056 or tribute?2778 of their own children, or of strangers? Using your own preferred KJV translation: Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free1658. In the context of not paying a tax, the Greek is more properly translated as "exempt" as opposed to being "free" in the non-applicable context of slavery or liberty: As demonstrated above, given you'll always read into a text like a tax protester, it doesn't really matter what translation you use. All exceed your willingness to accept facts.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
I had written two very long posts that got wiped out once because I inadvertantly clicked on a link you had posted while trying to copy it, and a second time because I walked away from my computer for a minute and when I returned I was asked to "sign in" ... when I hit "preview". (Oh well.) Maybe it's God's will. I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult. You're "IN THE WORLD" and have a "WORLD" friendly attitude. You think it's ok to pay for bombs, rockets, machine guns and tanks that kill little kids, I don't and won't. You think God gives blessings dependent upon how you manage your finances. You're delirious. Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail. Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND. I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones. I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants. When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please. And search your soul with this scripture: Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And maybe this too: Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his (the man's) name. Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand, Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You might get away with your new wave nonsense if you were speaking to the ignorant CINO (Christian In Name Only) praise the Lord, pathetic, preacherized pagans. But that shit won't fly with me ! Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released. In the Old Testament the story is the same. Check out Nehemiah 5 ... where Nehemiah drags a mob over to the authorities and demands they refund every bit of tax they had previously collected. Or recall when the Hebrew midwives were ordered to kill the Israelite male babies by the Pharaoah but refused, and were blessed for refusing. Submission to evil is not the Biblical message, is it Starwind ?
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
No doubt because you read my posts about as well as you read tax law or the bible. Agreed. My focus is directed towards people who fight stupidly using stupid arguments that have a track record of getting them ultimately tossed in jail, stupidly. But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are. Misery indeed loves company. I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that. As you just demonstrated again, and I said, the problem is in your reading my posts. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. I have no doubt Jesus will deal justly with them for their sin. And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children. But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. The mote is always in the other guy's eye isn't it? I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And my taxes are not tithes (though you take every opportunity to continue your taunts), rather my tithes are in fact "first fruits" - 10% and greater of my gross, off-the-top before I pay any taxes.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
... Act 5:28-29 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I don't want to accuse you of having a reading disorder or writing disorder but ... what's this ? >>>>> are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire ....... hehehehehe !!! Sounds to me that you think God's law plays second fiddle to man's law. I dissent. Would you consider maiming and murdering children somewhat conflicting with the God's Laws or the teachings of Jesus, or not quite dire enough ? People without claiming spirituality make more sense than a wannabe/pretend CINO Christian trying prop up the most evil government on planet earth by implying that God wants it this way. Or better put, that God wishes for his children to participate. You just gotta be shittin me ! You can't serve two masters, I don't care how much you equivocate. The message regarding Babylon, which has now evolved into an international monetary beast, was to "come out of her my children" ... so that you avoid the wrath. Not join up and go kill babies, even by proxy.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
i agree.
I had posted in a different thread Hale vs Henkel which has never been overturned, and is still in effect today: If you look up entries like "14th Amendment," "U.S. citizen," and "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, and do some further research, you'll find that "person" - which includes a "corporation" - is a synonym for slave. You'll also find that one can have the status of "sovereign American," "state citizen," or "sovereign individual" - all more or less synonymous with the "individual" referred to in Hale v. Henkel. If you read the tax code, you'll find the terrocrats use the word "person" (slave). Nowhere will you find them saying that an "individual" is liable for income taxes. You'll find statutes, regulations, and court rulings saying the "taxpayer" must do this and that, but these don't apply to the "individual." And if you research common law, you'll find that there's been a centuries-old tradition of two classes of people: "freemen" and "slaves." The American Revolution broke the tradition and created a society of free and sovereign people - free individuals. However, since then the terrocrats have been spectacularly successful in gradually reestablishing the master-slave tradition. You can change your status from "slave" to "sovereign individual" - and live your life and conduct your business in accordance with Hale v. Henkel. I also showed that SS is voluntary. IT IS BEING IN THE SS SYSTEM THAT TIES YOU TO THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... "THE SIGNATURE OF A PERSON IS THE PROOF OF HIS CONSENT THAT BINDS HIM UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT". Nexus is defined as a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group. The signature of each person, given voluntarily, binds the U.S. citizenry together into a lifelong socialized contract with the government. Under the Social Security Act, the citizen is in a state of voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (13th Amendment), but voluntary servitude is constitutional (for every positive action there is a negative reaction). One has the absolute right to enter into a contract and bind himself to specific performance, submitting himself to the law of contracts and to the laws of the contract. Within the U.S., and any place subject to its jurisdiction, no one can force a citizen into a state of involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime whereas the party shall have been duly convicted (13th Amendment). No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protection (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system. The system is 100% voluntary and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax. The "law" cannot be invoked when a citizen is not numbered, receives no benefits, and does not enrich himself at the expense of another. Without the law, the court cannot offer a remedy. When a court cannot offer a remedy, the court lacks jurisdiction. The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that: The following are excerpts relating to the Social Security Act. They are from the Social Security Laws, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., Committee Print through April 1, 1944: In all the above named cases, the evidence before the court was: The terms, "people," or "human being" are not to be found in the Internal Revenue Code and it fails to properly identify who is required to file. It cannot be found because it is not there. Partaking into the Social Security Act merely identifies one as a person "who is receiving benefits and therefore must meet the burden." Under the ancient concept of Lord Mansfield's maxim "that no man shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another," in the eyes of the court, that individual ought to pay the income tax. The common law of quasi contract (as if a contract) is now in full force and effect. Like I said, you can study tax protester cases until you're blue in the face, and you won't find ANY good arguments. Well, they may be good - BUT the courts will rule against them BECAUSE the defendants fall under the STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of TAXPAYER because they have a SS#. If they DON'T have the SS#, and DON'T participate in commercial activity (bank accounts etc), and DON'T have licenses (contracts with the state) - then they fall under the legal STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of NON TAXPAYER; and they won't be in the courts to begin with... Beyond what I have cited here (some of it for a second time), the only other proof I have of this being factual and truth is personal knowledge of people that have taken this route. When you haven't filed a tax return, paid in anything to the IRS, nor paid in anything to SS for 23 years without so much as a letter from them (let alone being in court over the matter) - I'd say that's proof enough. I don't remember Noone222, BTP Holdings, nor myself EVER ONCE claiming any tie to Christianity. I can't speak for anyone but myself, BUT I DON'T CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN.... Just because I quote and try my best to follow what is said in Scripture doesn't make me a Christian. Funny how Christians seem to think that if you're not part of some "religion" then the only other option is you're atheist. Now in the First Commandment we are told NOT to follow after other gods. Do other gods exist? Well, if they didn't would there have been a need for the first commandment? And who are these "other gods"? I submit that they can be any of numerous things - money, tv, or the State of California. That's right, find somewhere in Scripture where it's illegal to marry... The LEGAL definition of a license is "Permission granted by the state to do something which would otherwise be illegal, a tort, or a trespass". Yet the State of California demands you have a marriage license to get married. AGAIN, what is "illegal, a tort, or a trespass" about marriage???? NOTHING - well, not to the Creator of the Universe anyhow (provided it's not same-sex, nor to a different race). I contend that by getting that marriage license you have forsaken the Creator and made a "god" of the state of California. You don't have to agree with me on that, and frankly I don't care who does or does not agree. YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES.... And as for advocating some "insurance-like" scheme - I'M NOT!!!!! I'm advocating getting out of the system... AGAIN, YOUR CHOICE!!! As for the constitutional convention thing, I see it as this mess is so far out of control as to require MORE than a "convention". The only thing that will effect a change at this point is a REVOLUTION... Happened once in this country to throw off living under a vile system of government.... See:>http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=41878&Disp=5#C5 No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
I want to make something clear without it being in response to one of your posts. I don't know you, I can't judge you, and I certainly don't want to just piss someone off that might really be searching for truth. I felt the same way as you about most things we've discussed on this thread at one time. I was wrong too. I repented and try to face eternity with a clear vision of right and wrong here in the finite, so I'll know how to behave myself there in the infinite. Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
This is passing the buck, it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. End of story ! Although a tough choice, it's yours to make. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value. It's none of my business but if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability. I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs. Who do you think Jesus was talking about when he said "you're all clean on the outside, but inside you're full of dead men's bones" ... he could have said you're full of dead babies bones, but that would have been too harsh wouldn't it ? He was talking to hypocrits. Self approving pretenders that rationalize their donations to continue the never ending murder of God's other children. Love thy neighbor ... buy war bonds !!! Gimme a break ! And finally, But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. Geez, I hadn't ever thought of that ... but since you brought it up maybe we should be democrapic and take a vote ! [This Starwind suggestion was brought you by the friendly people at the Department of Entrapment a subsidiary department of HOMO-LAND SECURITY and the Catholic Church].
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
P.S. I do not think you're as willfully stupid as those that deride you ... I think you are willfully complicit in killing children, as most of us have been. We were never stupid, we were blinded by a false sense of red, white and blue patriotism, misguided by fake preachers that twist scripture to fill their greedy collection plates and make people "Keep coming back for the feel good message", and lying politicians that are the same type of scum as the preachers ! It's time we all grow up and accept strict responsibility for our actions.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You have confused two separate incidents with two different places I worked which happened at least 3 years apart. When these IRS thugs get backed into a corner by presenting the facts and the law, they generally disappear. It's that simple. It does not always work that way when they get the levy ball rolling, but the way SAPF works, if you stay on point and are timely, you have the possibility of beating them at some point. Nothing is assured, of course, because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Some things never change. When Jesus was trying to explain love he used the best analogy available to himself and his followers by pointing out that love included loving your enemies, because even the publicans (scum of the earth tax collectors) love those that love them.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You may not have "said" that, but you KNOW good and well that your tax dollars are going towards that!!! NOW, be honest.... If you weren't afraid of going to jail, YOU WOULDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!! Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail.... Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. You have a choice to make, and choosing to "pay your taxes" so BigBro has the means of continuing these "heinous acts" (whether that's YOUR intentions or not) puts the blood on your hands too. And who you "vote" for is of no consequence either. In fact, the very act of voting is in itself choosing someone to "lead" you, and again a violation of the First Commandment. You already HAVE a leader. But of course you knew that.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Two that I need help with are the admonitions to subject ourselves to our "rulers," and the others are to resist evil - much has been written about both subjects, and I just cannot get what is God's will/law/wish in this matter. Taxes and otherwise. Thanks for any clarification for those of us in the peanut gallery. Cheers.
Only those with nothing to say would post a reply like that. Begone shill.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into. My similar analysis of the SAPF was posted on May 16, 2005 here: http://216.133.76.156/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5362&Disp=20#C20
I believe the IRS describes these folks as illegal tax protesters ... and I'm having difficulty figuring out why everyone wouldn't protest a little about an illegal Tax.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
The first three letters are not all that reassuring...
Comments (50 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
#10. To: Starwind, Neil McIver, Jethro Tull (#5)
Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
#11. To: Neil McIver (#9)
SAPF's webmaster is a volunteer who works for free so we can't be picky with the updates to the site, but as of this writing it has motions posted dating up to 12/19.
I frankly didn't think the stay would be issued so I'm happy for the good guys today.
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
#12. To: BTP Holdings (#10)
Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger.
Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
#13. To: Starwind, Neil McIver (#12)
(Edited)
Why is it you never have anything other than insults
Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you?
BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you?
Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.
you were just testing me weren't you.
#14. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind (#10)
(Edited)
BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves.
#15. To: christine (#14)
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
#16. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit.
#17. To: noone222, Starwind (#16)
Aww c'mon Jim, quit holding back. Tell this boot-licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie exactly how MILLIONS OF US FEEL !!!!
A picture is worth a thousand words. ;0)
#18. To: BTP Holdings (#17)
A picture is worth a thousand words. ;0)
#19. To: christine, BTP Holdings (#14)
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
#20. To: Neil McIver (#19)
John Turner
#21. To: Neil McIver, christine, Starwind (#19)
John Turner
#22. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers.
If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.
Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice.
Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.
And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me.
#23. To: Starwind, noone222, Neil McIver (#22)
(Edited)
Why am I not surprised.
Well it would seem you are a taxpayer
#24. To: BTP Holdings (#23)
But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered.
Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
#25. To: innieway, noone222, BTP Holdings, nolu_chan, *Bereans* (#24)
(Edited)
euergetes; from G2095 and the same as G2041; a doer of good, i.e. a benefactor: - benefactors (1).
#26. To: BTP Holdings (#23)
Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact.
The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it. I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared.
#27. To: Starwind (#25)
[Your submission of Biblical Text]
#28. To: Starwind (#25)
Regarding paying the "tribute", here is Mat 17:27 complete and in context:
#29. To: noone222 (#27)
I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations.
I do indeed. I think the translation you have used is more casual
and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;]
#30. To: noone222 (#28)
(Edited)
As I said, two different taxes in two different verses, and no where does Jesus teach that civil taxes were deemed voluntary. Strong's G4399 means: prophthano
rather Jesus 'anticipated' what Peter was going to say and Jesus spoke first before Peter so as to teach His point to Peter, and then they paid the temple tax
prof-than'-o
From G4253 and G5348; to get an earlier start of, that is, anticipate: - prevent. G1323
Whereas the "tribute" in verse 25 is a poll-tax, in Greek:
didrachmon
did'-rakh-mon
From G1364 and G1406; a double drachma (didrachm): - tribute. G2778
kensos
kane'-sos
Of Latin origin; properly an enrolment ("census"), that is, (by implication) a tax: - tribute. G1658
Incidently, the above differences demonstrate the more literal (accurate and precise) translation of the NASB versus the KJV.
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability): - free (man, woman), at liberty. I'm sorry, but the translation you're using appears to have been written by a tax collector when using terms like 2 drachma tax, Poll Tax and "exempt".
#31. To: Everyone here (#30)
a village is missing its idiot.
#32. To: Starwind (#29)
None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
#33. To: Starwind (#30)
submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly
#34. To: noone222 (#32)
I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants.
I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult.
Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail.
Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND.
I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones.
When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please.
#35. To: noone222 (#33)
Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released.
I know. I pointed it out first. Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
You really seem to have some kind of reading disorder.
#36. To: Starwind (#35)
Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
#37. To: lodwick, Starwind, noone222, innieway, ALL (#31)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
#38. To: Starwind (#25)
You post rant after rant raging against the machine without once posting any proof of the legal basis that underlies your tax arguments you all claim to have researched so thoroughly (except for one SSA form)
There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Example:
In 1993 a gang of terrocrats from the IRS and Post Office raided the sovereign business (free-enterprise gold bank) of Anthony Hargis in Orange County, California. They seized records, files, computers, and money. Hargis indicated to them, essentially, that he was a state citizen (sovereign individual) and that they had no jurisdiction over him and his business. They backed down completely and returned everything they had seized. There are senior terrocrats who know that even in their own courts they would face a tough and very embarrassing ordeal, if confronted with a knowledgeable sovereign individual like Anthony Hargis.
1) The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.
2) He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:a) Personal Security
b) Personal Liberty
c) Personal Property
3) He can now qualify and expect to receive protection, security, old age benefits, minimum wages, food stamps, and welfare benefits from the government financed by the society at large.
4) He is now under public policy for the good of the whole and is allowed to keep only according to his needs after all his claims and deductions.
5) He is a "taxpayer" within the scope of the I.R. Code.
6) Some of his constitutional protection (Bill of Rights) no longer apply.
7) He has denounced his sovereign status of a "free person" and is administered through a regional district.
8) He is a taxpayer and a collector of his own tax, and can be labeled a tax cheater, a tax protester, and a tax evader if he does not file.
9) He subjects himself to the United States Congress and can be charged criminally for willful failure to file.
10) He has rejected the natural laws or common law, and he has exchanged his blessings of liberty for a mess of pottage. The organic laws of contract are now in force to compel him to abide by his hidden agreements, imposed by his participation in the Social Security system.
And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound,
And to that end, I see ANYONE that's in agreement with the current situation to a point of allowing their fear to prevent them from joining a revolution as a traitor....
#39. To: Starwind (#35)
#40. To: Starwind (#34)
And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.
#41. To: Starwind (#34)
(Edited)
But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are.
#42. To: Starwind (#26)
They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right?
#43. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, innieway, all voyeurs remaining unnamed (#42)
because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
#44. To: Starwind (#34)
I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that.
#45. To: All you smart people here (#44)
The Bible has many conflicting passages, imo.
a village is missing its idiot.
#46. To: Starwind (#25)
#47. To: Starwind (#11)
No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that.
#48. To: Starwind (#25)
But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large.
#49. To: nolu_chan (#47)
SAPF
a village is missing its idiot.
.
.
.