****COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST SAPF***
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
Therefore, there is no injunction order in effect against the Fellowship at the present time. The Fellowship will keep its members apprised of any new developments, and members will be more fully informed in the next Liberty Tree.
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Kotmair filed on Dec 13th: Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and for a New Trial and filed on the 14th a Motion to Stay, and on the 15th a motion with the 4th Appellate #06-2314, but the contents of that motion has not yet been published.
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
As far as it goes, the announcement is correct. What it did not disclose (from Judge Nickerson's order to stay):
Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully consider the motion for new trial as it is not yet ripe, the Court can say with some certainty that it will be denied. Defendants raise the same arguments in that motion that were raised and fully considered in the cross motions for summary judgment. The motion for modification of the injunction order is also not yet ripe, and the government has yet to respond. This motion, however, might prove to have some merit, particularly as it relates to assisting Defendants in discerning what is protected political speech and what is prohibited false commercial speech.1
1That said, the Court notes that much of Defendants' "confusion" results from their own intentional ignorance and obfuscation. As noted in the memorandum resolving the cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants continue to tout their chimerical theories despite the consistent rejection of those theories by all courts to have considered them. Nov. 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion at 12 ("just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid," quoting SAPF's Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 28 n.67).
While Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the ultimate merits of their claims, they may be entitled to some minor modifications or clarifications of this Court's injunction.
Do you not find it troubling that Kotmair is not more forthcoming with the facts on these rulings?
For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Except they haven't actually updated anything as of this post - nothing since Sept 11th.
I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but the real scam is the legal
system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched,
constitutional argument.
but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Why is it you never have anything other than insults
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you?
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.
BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you?
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)
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.
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)
you were just testing me weren't you.
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!
lol - I'm crushed. And I had such high expectations for your reply.
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.
Why am I not surprised. At least you didn't pretend the dog ate it.
If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.
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.
Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice.
I admit I doubted anyone actually paid for your tax advice, so I assumed it was given.
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.
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.
#23. To: Starwind, noone222, Neil McIver (#22)(Edited)
Why am I not surprised.
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.
Well it would seem you are a taxpayer
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)
But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered.
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.
Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
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.
#25. To: innieway, noone222, BTP Holdings, nolu_chan, *Bereans* (#24)(Edited)
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
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 ???
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 !
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: euergetes; from G2095 and the same as G2041; a doer of good, i.e. a benefactor: - benefactors (1).
The disciples were frequently engaged in petty arguments over which of them was greatest in heaven:
Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
Mar 9:34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.
Luk 9:46 An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest.
Luk 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.
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.:
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:
Mat 23:11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant."
Mat 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Mar 9:35 ... "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."
Luk 9:48 "... for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great."
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:
the "two-drachma tax" requested in Mat 17:24 is an ecclesiastical tax for the temple (see Exo 30:13-14; 2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9 for its origin),
but the "customs or poll- tax" Jesus references in Mat 17:25 is a civil tax levied by kings upon strangers (or subjects) and not their sons.
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.
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.
But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large.
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.
#53. To: noone222, innieway, zipporah, lodwick, ferret mike, i'm going to hell (#48)(Edited)
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.
A bunch of guys got together and wrote some manuscripts which said something about "Give to Ceasar what is his" and "Bend over and obey all human institutions because they are given authority by God," and "Be baptized or go to hell," "blood worshipping, etc." I have to sadly announce my public doubt at this time that I am one of them, if these are some of their "requirements." By the way, that would make the Minutemen and all infants Hellbound...LOL. Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
Jews were about TheLaw. Jesus was not. Jesus obeyed the laws of the time to prove he was Man [and yet God] and to show that we could..and should... overcome those limitations [and the results of disobeying them] after his death. The LAW died on the cross! I guess the "apostles" who wrote the above forgot that? Christianity is not about obeying "laws," especially unjust ones. It is a direct contradiction to grace. It is also a moral contradiction. IMO, Christians have been deceived either in Scripture or its interpretation and/or, perhaps, its only partial veracity? It's the only explanation for the contradictions. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.
It's obvious I'm arguing with myself here, in part. Sorry about my cynical mood today. Perhaps I will pray for guidance and assurance that I am not Hellbound for blasphemy and doubt on this Saturnalia.
Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
Maybe an overview 'big picture' would help? You may find the entire thread interesting, even if not persuasive for you personally.