[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Soros-Funded Dark Money Group Secretly Paying Democrat Influencers To Shape Gen Z Politics Minnesota Shooter's Family Has CIA and DOD ties 42 GANGSTERS DRAGGED From Homes In Midnight FBI & ICE Raids | MS-13 & Trinitarios BUSTED Bill Gates EXPOSED: Secret Operatives Inside the CDC, HHS, and NIH REMOVED by RFK, Jr. Gabriel Ruiz, a man who dresses up as a woman was just arrested for battery (dating violence) "I'm Tired Of Being Trans" - Minneapolis Shooter Confesses "I Wish I Never Brain-Washed Myself" The Chart Baltimore Democrats Hope You Never See Woman with walker, 69, fatally shot in face on New York City street: Paul Joseph Watson: Bournemouth 1980 Vs 2025 FDA Revokes Emergency Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccines NATO’s Worst Nightmare Is Happening Right Now in Ukraine - Odessa is Next To Fall? Why do men lose it when their chicky-poo dies? Christopher Caldwell: How Immigration Is Erasing Whites, Christians, and the Middle Class SSRI Connection? Another Trans Shooter, Another Massacre – And They Erased His Video Something 1/2 THE SIZE of the SUN has Entered our Solar System, and We Have NO CLUE What it is... Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188 New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!! Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout) How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold) This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’ LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Who is liable for the Income Tax, and, why?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://famguardian.org/Publications ... aradigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf
Published: Sep 18, 2007
Author: Adele Weiss
Post Date: 2007-09-18 12:45:35 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1557
Comments: 118

Societal Presumptions made by lenient minded Aemrican Nationals

Interesting statement, is it not? This; http://famguardian.org/Publications/GalileoParadigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf

is a PDF file that I would recommend that you download, print, and study until you 'get it.' And, you should turn first to Chapter 2, Application for SSN and what it means.

If, IF, you will simply read this info, you will never be confused again about what is going on the so-called Tax Protest movement. I guarentee it. And, you will never be swindled into paying for de-taxing material either! Why? Because, probably for the first time in your life, you will understand the basis of the Income Tax, the Social Security program, and, not least of all, socialism. But, that is your choice, to understand or not, so, please, make a wise one.

Click for Full Text! Subscribe to *CAFR*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2007-09-18   13:50:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's real simple. Who? Your ass. Why? Because they'll toss your ass in jail if you don't pay.

End of analysis.

Bingo.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-18   16:30:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not arguing that the income tax, as presently conducted, is illegal

You had better not argue that, because it is not illegal. It is a contractual relationship, and where you work, in the contract enforcement tribunals, is where the contracts behind the Income Tax are brought into play. This is why, in none of those tribunals, is there ever any law requiring the Income Tax ever brought up.

It is fraudulent, in that the nature of what is going on is never revealed, but, illegal? Not hardly.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-18   18:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who is liable for the Income Tax, and, why?

Here you go!

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   10:23:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

you will understand the basis of the Income Tax, the Social Security program

They are as intertwined as a man and his wife in the "throes of passion".

The SS program is voluntary. The IT is mandatory for those that "volunteer" for the SS program. Simple as that. Those that DON'T have a SS# are defined in the IR Code (though not quite so bluntly) as NON TAXPAYERS. NOT "tax protesters", "tax evaders", or any of a plethora of other things - but as a LEGAL Non-Taxpayer. No hassles, just a totally different "class" or "status".

Gee, freedom is wonderful. We're perfectly free to allow our ignorance to bind us in a contract which will forever more cause us misery and a reason to complain...

99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright

innieway  posted on  2007-09-24   10:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The problem is this fellas.

The banksters and the DOJ/federal judiciary refuses to acknowledge the right to contract our services to any corporation without walking through the looking glass of IRS enclave jurisdiction.

As far as they're concerned there is no legal way to sell my services to a corporation unless I'm an "employee" or a contractor with an ID # that is used to 1099 me at the end of the year.

So, if the govt has in effect outlawed the common law right to work without their jurisdiction, and all of the monies disbursed by a corporation are govt revenues and subject to the tax, then, the coercive nature of this fraud renders any innocent claim that the tax is "a voluntary contract" disingenuous.

According to the IRS a "corporation" can't stop and buy a glass of lemonade or a newspaper with corporate money if the lemonade or news vendor is a bootlegger and has no license to sell to a corporation.

I tried to paint a tax lawyer into a corner by asking her if my kids' lemonade stand was subject to the income tax. She said it was.

In other words any transaction between any two parties of any age or alleged status within the continental US is a taxable event and the IRS has the power to come in, toss the place, line people up and handcuff them while they use a subpoena to determine the amount of the deficiency.

And, nowhere in any IRS, DOJ or federal district, appeals or supreme court literature or decisions will you find your assertion that SS is voluntary and one may go about their life with no involvement in it.

The fact that one may extrapolate that position after hundreds of hours of study does not constitute black letter law that then relieves the govt of any responsibility for the fraud they've perpetrated against the people.

And, the fact that most judges would not allow either of you to assert that position to your own juries in criminal trials is proof enough that your self assuredness on the subject is reckless, and is ample proof that neither of you have ever tried to beat the rap which you seem to think is just a walk in the park.

The whole IRS Code was written to obfuscate the voluntary nature of the income tax (which includes social security in subtitle C) and no judge will allow a defendant to lead a jury through the necessary steps to illuminate that fact.

And when lawyers like Larry Becraft and that feller in Louisiana do win, they do so because they or their clients asked good faith questions which the IRS never answered, not because they were allowed to detail the fraudulent scheme in open court.

Time and time again when jurors ask to see the law they receive replies from judges that read "I have given you the law".

When have you ever heard of a jury deliberating a social security or income tax case while referring to Title 26 in the jury room?

They are not allowed to see the code and they would not be allowed to deliberate about your "theory of operation" regarding the "voluntary" nature of social security. Nor would either of you be permitted to hand the jurors an outline that details the progression of steps used to reach that conclusion.

So, what good is a theory of law if you are never going to be allowed to offer it in evidence?

Usually when I ask these questions I'm told how stoopid I am. This is because armchair experts don't like to be told that their justice only exists in a parallel universe that no jury will ever see....

Now, you may preach it all you like, but the courtroom is where the rubber meets the road and it will not do you a bit of good there.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-09-24   17:40:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And, nowhere in any IRS, DOJ or federal district, appeals or supreme court literature or decisions will you find your assertion that SS is voluntary and one may go about their life with no involvement in it.

I always love someone who comments without reading the material. Tickles me pink, one might say.

As a matter of fact, if you know where to look, there are cases that state exactly what you say is never stated, and no, since you have no interest in reading the material, I am not going to go and look it up for you. If you are interested, log into Family Forums and enjoy. They have a wealth of on-point info that covers about all contingencies.

As to the other part, no, you can not deal with corporations and be free. Just a fact of life. On the other hand, I know, personally, dozens of people who exist quite well, thank you, including myself, without any Social Security number. And have for many years. The problem is that people will not make a decision to be free, so they can not be.

Since the juries that you mention are actually, in any tribunal 'within the U.S.', an advisery panel and ARE NOT A JURY, why would they be allowed to debate the law when all they are doing is advising the judge on the matters before the tribunal, which is, in all cases, contracts? Which, by the way, is all that the tribunal has the authority to address.

This comes down, in the final analysis, to understanding the difference between 'rights' and 'civil' rights, which are as different as day and night. And if you do not understand that difference, then we probably should not be having this conversation.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   18:33:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know, personally, dozens of people who exist quite well, thank you, including myself, without any Social Security number

Well duh.....you claim to live in Mexico......

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   19:57:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well duh.....you claim to live in Mexico......

I don't.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-24   19:59:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And when they system wants to cage you they will. No crime need be violated; no defense accepted.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   20:02:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And when they system wants to cage you they will. No crime need be violated; no defense accepted.

Fuck the system, fuck Bush, and fuck anyone that thinks I have to support murderers and thieves or retired govt. toadies.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-24   20:06:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No offense but, I've read everything the govt has printed since I began in the movement in 1983, and I know bullshit when I see it.

But, since you're the guy who is NEVER MISTAKEN, one can assume that you cannot produce this material because it doesn't exist.

If it did you should (and probably would) make it part of your presentation, or at least a link to it.

But, like the wild eyed theory that a jury is "an advisery (sic) panel" this only has relevance in the place you visit when you click your heels together three times and say....

Have you ever beaten the IRS? Well, I have. And I didn't do it by listening to shit for brains "warriors" who offer free, anonymous legal advice and berate me if I don't take it.

How much do you charge for your advice?

Well, that's how much it's worth.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-09-24   20:09:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fuck the system, fuck Bush, and fuck anyone that thinks I have to support murderers and thieves or retired govt. toadies.

That's my attitude, too.

I don't care what they say or do, or how compelling their arguments in or out of court.

I ain't filing their damned old returns and I ain't paying their damned old tax.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-09-24   20:10:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, fuck them all, and hope they don't snatch you while you're unarmed.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   20:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't care what they say or do, or how compelling their arguments in or out of court.

The masses of ill-informed, voters/taxpayers, democracy lovers, government tit suckers and various other socialist dufases have had their run of influencing my life. Lies, lies, and more lies since birth. Some people simply accept the lies, join in the socialist fun and then try to scam the system by lying themselves into a tax court.

Richard's tagline is perfectly applicable here:

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-24   20:33:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well duh.....you claim to live in Mexico......

Well duh, Social Security is in 173 nations world wide, oh-so-bright-boy. And here, a very large percentage of the people are smarter than to sign up, which is why most Mèxicans do not pay any income tax. Duh.

But I have only been here 10 years, so you probably know a lot more about it than I do. Oh, and I have paid no SS tax since about 1978. But other than that....... Go ahead and fill me in.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   22:11:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fuck the system, fuck Bush, and fuck anyone that thinks I have to support murderers and thieves or retired govt. toadies.

Yippee!!!! Must be a brother of mine speaking!!! I vote that we appoint noone official spokesman for 4um!!!

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   22:13:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'd say we see things quite similarly.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-24   22:18:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No offense but, I've read everything the govt has printed since I began in the movement in 1983, and I know bullshit when I see it.

I have no interest in what the government prints or says or produces, as the government produces nothing.

But, since you're the guy who is NEVER MISTAKEN,

Hey, I make mistakes. And I request correction and thank those who find my errors. I also post in a lot tougher places than this, with a lot sharper people who have a lot more experience than anything I see here, and seldom am found in error; VERY SELDOM. As to 4um, Deacon has caught me a couple of times... or three. But, you have not.

If it did you should (and probably would) make it part of your presentation, or at least a link to it.

I just did, smartass. Read the post again, and take a look at Chapter 2 of the recommended material.

Have you ever beaten the IRS?

The IRS is irrelavant to my life and has been for many, many years. I could care less what your experience is. I also put up a post a few days ago about non-published cases, and how they could be used (they can't be used). That post is by attorneys for attorneys, and as they say; Using Unpublished Cases in State and Federal Tribunals. Now, do something really, really strange, and look up tribunals in a near-by Black-s Law Dictionary. Pay close attention to the part about Roman Law.

But other than that, how is your day going DROWNEDDOG?

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   22:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Social Security is in 173 nations world wide

BS you goofy bastard. Cite the source of your stastics. Besides, Mexicans (you) are to social security benefits like cockroaches are to a stale taco.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   22:33:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

since I began in the movement in 1983

You know, I was going to leave this alone.... nope. The only movement that I see you involved in is in the toilet... I hope, for your sake, it is a daily movement.

Other than that, spare me. Anyone, after enough time, and since 1983 is enough time, is going to catch on that something else is going on, unless, of course, they are getting something out of their 'movement.' After that much time ANYONE should be able to at least GUESS that what the average American believes is a lie, OR THINGS WOULD BEGIN TO CHANGE!!!!!

There are enough court cases, many, many of which I have posted, to show the nature of the Constitution and the people who control the United States government. I have posted more than enough info to show the nature of the so- called Social Security tax and the Income Tax, which are inseparable.

Do 'they' obey their own laws? Of course not, because they are lawless, which is, by the way, the very definition of Democracy; a lawless society ruled by those who control the vocal minority. Enough of a minority to sway any vote to 50.01%.

I do not go into their tribunals, and I engage in no activities which may lead me to go into their tribunals. Such as tax protesting. If you owe the tax, pay it. If you contracted for the benefit, ANY benefit, pay the tax. Quit protesting. If you are a US citizen, or have a bank account, where you signed the contract in the bank, and which is denominated in US dollars, pay the tax and quit protesting. Why? Because you have a contract which obligates you to pay the tax. Now, on occasion, people go into their tribunals and confuse some advisory panel and the judge, not wanting to let any cats out of the bag, lets the miscreants go free. BUT, that case is never published. Guess why.

I live separate from the government; I do not go to them, and they have no reason to seek me out. I do not advocate opposition to the government; THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM STRONGER! I advocate, and I live as I say, being separate. That, however, is very difficult for most, as they have no clue as to what freedom is all about. If you have quesitons about this, ask innieway. He is as free as anyone that I know in 4um. And, I might add, richer as well. But I doubt you will understand what I mean by that!

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   22:49:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My patriotism, love of the flag, the symbols, the pride when watching John Wayne kill redskins or whatever, it all died the day they murdered JFK.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-09-24   22:55:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BS you goofy bastard. Cite the source of your stastics.

You never learn, do you Jethro. How many times do I have to make you look like a fool before you stop calling me on things?

http://www.ssa.gov/internatio nal/links.html

Social Security in Other Countries

An ever-increasing number of social security agencies and organizations around the world are publicizing their programs on the World Wide Web. We have listed some of these Web sites below and will be adding to the list as we learn of new sites. Please pass along any additions or corrections using our Feedback form or e-mail to webmaster@ssa.gov.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above link shows about 115 nations THAT ARE ONLINE WITH THEIR SS INFO. This is certainly not all of the nations world wide that are in Social Security, but it is a pretty good start. Now, you go ahead and look all you want, Jethro. Oh, and yes, Mèxico is included in this list.

And think about it, Jethro; this is an official US government site. Should show a reasonably intelligent man that everything is tied together, but hey, that leaves you out, right?

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   22:58:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The country died with Kennedy. The Bush vampires have been on a never ending and pretty successful quest to destroy the corpse.

Paying taxes to these ghouls is like buying a shit sandwich.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-24   22:58:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'd say we see things quite similarly.

Yep, I would say so. You, me, innieway, and a couple of others. Makes me think that there is hope for America, not a lot, but some, and screw the United States.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   23:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Goofy-boy. Is reading comprehension still a problem? Your material says "social security agencies and organizations" not social security as we know here in the states. That said, it’s time for you to scramble back into your tin roofed hovel and snuggle up next to your mule. The hour, it grows late.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   23:07:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

and a couple of others.

If a normal person paid a bit of attention to your wacky remedies they’d find themselves locked away in a padded cell. Go peddle your patriot dribble elsewhere. Most folks here know better.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-24   23:12:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your material says "social security agencies and organizations" not social security as we know here in the states.

This is what is shown on that site; Other Countries' Social Security Agencies

I know this is going to come as a shock, Jethro, esp. to someone who obviously does not read much, but the Social Security Agency within the United States is an AGENCY.

And if you ever bother to study the subject, you would find that everyone of those agencies collect a tax, and that in conjunction with that social security tax, there is also an income tax in everyone of those nations. Each of them promise to pay a retirement benefit, so, where is the difference?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, each of those agencies are NOT in one of the Axis of Evil nations, and, each of them pays a percentage of what they collect to the Crown of England.

Try again, Jethro. Oh, and when you look at the info again, please not that neither Iran nor Iraq have a social security agency in it.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   23:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Most folks here know better.

Probably not, Jethro. Most of the people here are not former government tit suckers. So they are more open to info than you are.

I have posted links to a number of other sites where there is a wealth of info on how to live free, and where there are thousands of people studying and learning about freedom, and what needs to change in America to correct the problems. That, Jethro, I well understand, leaves bitch-artists such as yourself out.

It probably comes as a shock to you, but the be-all and end-all of life has nothing to do with a retirement check from the so-called government. And, if you would ever bother to read the material originally posted in this thread, specifically chapter 2 of the info, you would learn, much to your regret, that the government has no legal obligation to pay social security. This is according to the Supreme Court. I assure you, as things get worse inside of the US, you will find that the same holds true for all retirement payments.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-24   23:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

QUESTION: Both Larry Becraft and Tommy Cryer are lawyers with BAR cards and SS#s. Why were they able to win? Why do some win and most don't?

ANSWER: It's at the total discretion of the blackrobed tyrant on the bench, that's why.

christine  posted on  2007-09-24   23:55:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

now, THAT is the truth.

christine  posted on  2007-09-25   0:00:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

QUESTION: Both Larry Becraft and Tommy Cryer are lawyers with BAR cards and SS#s. Why were they able to win? Why do some win and most don't?

ANSWER: It's at the total discretion of the blackrobed tyrant on the bench, that's why.

Christine, if you would read the material that began this thread, you would begin to understand.

That blackrobed tyrant on the bench is sitting in a contract resolution tribunal, which you mistakenly think of as a court. It is not a court. That is why, if you go back to the posts that were done when Cryer 'won,' you will find a post where the so-called judge ranted about 'them' bringing the law and the Constitution into his court. The judge was correct; those two subjects have no bearing on what goes on in that tribunal.

The issue of the Income Tax is one of contracts, and nothing else. Why did Cryer win (and by the way, legally, he owes the tax)? Because he confused the issue by bringing in the law and the Constitution, and the jury bought it, because the judge is not permitted, in open court, to admit the real basis of the Income Tax as pertaining to Social Security.

I have posted this before, christine, numerous times, and either you do not want to accept the info, or, you refuse to read it. Whichever it is, you are doing no one any favors by continuing to promote the myths of the lawyers, about there being no laws about the income tax.

Social Security Enabling Act of 1935

The Social Security Act of 1935

(See Section 8; Income Tax)

Christine, this is an official government site; http://www.nationalc enter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html

TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages …

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Christine, some few do win, and that serves the lawyers just fine, cause that encourages others to buy into the same myths, and they then find themselves in trouble and pay more money to the lawyers. While losing their cases. Pretty vicious circle. And by and large, the lawyers love it.

The bottom line, christine, is that until Americans start to look at things as they really are and stop with all of the non-sense, nothing will or can change. And, basically, that means stop listening to lawyers.

Try reading Chapter 2 of the on-line book I referenced in this post, please.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-25   1:05:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

No, christine, this is the truth;

FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR NOTHING LEFT EVERYTHING TO LOSE.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-25   1:07:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

QUESTION: Both Larry Becraft and Tommy Cryer are lawyers with BAR cards and SS#s. Why were they able to win? Why do some win and most don't?

ANSWER: It's at the total discretion of the blackrobed tyrant on the bench, that's why.

I would only add that they were able to convince a jury to acquit them ... whether or not this occurred as a result of the Judge allowing in evidence that was disallowed in other cases, the jury selection was better, or the lawyers were more capable only points out that the system affords many opportunities for differing results regarding the exact same matter.

None of these prima facie victories have any bearing or value as precedent for future liigations, and only muddy the waters.

What most of us perceive as a controversy of law is actually a "war".

Personally, I don't know whether Becraft and Crier are frauds or useful idiots. Their "there ain't no law" defense can at best only be applied in individual cases, resulting in some winners and mostly losers, while never settling the matter conclusively. The billions of dollars collected by the courts and lawyers in fees and fines simply amounts to another tax.

The rulings of prior tax cases and their very careful construction are indicative of the intended confusion that the system creates.

These "no law" arguments would normally be valid under constitutional provisions related to direct and indirect taxation if the "contract clause" didn't exist. Whether the law exists or not is a moot point if the individual concerned has contracted for benefits (even if only the expectation of benefits) with the system. Once a contract or implied trust exists the law of reciprocity controls.

I wish it were a simple matter and that the taxing authorities played fair.

The following comment relates to an earlier post wherein you referenced having assets and licensed occupations to protect that make it virtually impossible to withdraw from the system. I am in complete agreement with this caveat, maybe we were misled (understatement of the millenium) in our youth causing us to pursue occupations that are useful to furthering the globalist agenda or simply bringing us under their control. Irrespective of the reasons we do what we do regarding our choices, sometimes we might need to reconsider them.

Then we might consider our assets and occupations the result of ill informed choices. That these acquired assets may never have existed had we made decisions with maturity and knowledge. A poor example of this being a wealthy drug dealer and a Pharmacist. Both acquire material assets by distributing drugs, one with and one without a license ... neither contemplating the damage they do in order to protect their assets or license.

I have friends that struggle to exist from week to week and MUST remain in poverty and in the system in order to access factor (blood clotting element) for their children that have hemophilia which is expensive (24K per month).

In order for them to obtain the life preserving factor for their kids they must meet governmental guidelines that only allow them limited income. They are trapped, and have no other obvious choice. CPS is a constant threat and their ordeal is fraught with governmental intrusions and obstacles. [There, but for the grace of God, go I.]

All I'm trying to say is that sometimes we place too much importance on material things. The Bible says:

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-25   6:35:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The site you reference is a government source, specifically the social security administration. They have a vested interest is making people believe that 173 nations have similar social security agencies as ours. I don’t believe their statistics for a second, after all they also claim those presently paying into the system will receive benefits when they become eligible. Can you can tell us what a citizen of Haiti or Zimbabwe receive from their social security administration? If not it's likely your reference is gold- plated BS. It’s curious a non-American such as yourself would use an American government document as a source, but then again nothing you say should come as a shock. Your purpose here is to offer crack-pot, patriot remedies, all of which have a strong potential to separate decent people from their property and savings. Unfortunately for some, your swill has an audience, albeit small. You personally might have nothing to lose, but others do and it’s they who need to be wary of your zany theories. Richard my friend, you’ve not only crossed over the border, you’ve crossed over the threshold of sanity and it’s there you have relevance, not here.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-25   8:14:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your purpose here is to offer crack-pot, patriot remedies, all of which have a strong potential to separate decent people from their property and savings.

Please, explain your reasoning for excluding the governments own statements from their website while at the same time you admit that you comply and admonish others to comply with legalities promoted in exactly the same forum. In other words when Richard supplies the evidence supporting his contention, you deny the legitimacy of the information off-handedly, but bow down and worship the same documentation when you comply with the requirements proclaimed by the same informants, ie., the government.

Are you bi-polar ?

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-25   8:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you bi-polar ?

Another patriot, Bible-driven savior crawls out of the wood work....

When Richard (or you) can prove to me the govt. contention that 173 nations participate in a social security scheme, I'll take him (you) seriously. Until then, I pray you both enjoy life in realm of Kookdom.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-25   8:39:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Please, explain your reasoning for excluding the governments own statements from their website while at the same time you admit that you comply and admonish others to comply with legalities promoted in exactly the same forum.

Ad hominem attacks are perceived as such by the intelligent members of this forum.

Why don't you answer the question ?

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-09-25   8:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As far as they're concerned there is no legal way to sell my services to a corporation unless I'm an "employee" or a contractor with an ID # that is used to 1099 me at the end of the year.

That's right - there's not. A corporation is a creation of the state, an individual is NOT. Big difference.

And, nowhere in any IRS, DOJ or federal district, appeals or supreme court literature or decisions will you find your assertion that SS is voluntary and one may go about their life with no involvement in it.

Of course not. That's because it IS voluntary. Isn't that somewhat tantamount to saying "nowhere will you find any assertion that going to the doctor once a year for a check up is voluntary"? If no law exists making it mandatory, then there is no need for a court decision declaring it voluntary.

Consider a U.S. Supreme Court ruling still in effect:

"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).

People who conduct their economic affairs in accordance with Hale v. Henkel operate in the free sector - the real free-enterprise sector. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a creature called a "U.S. citizen" - euphemism for victim or slave. U.S. citizens are subject to federal and other statutory jurisdiction. The key to understanding Hale v. Henkel lies in the statement "the INDIVIDUAL receives nothing from the state". There's where SS comes into play.

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 they use the word "person". 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 they have been spectacularly successful in gradually reestablishing the master-slave tradition.

The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that:

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.

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.

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.

Cases which challenged the constitutionality of Social Security simply have not raised the issue concerning the point of whether one must submit an application to join Social Security. It appears that no cases have as yet dealt with it. The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement.

The modern day act is codified at 42 U.S.C., sections 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following: "Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder." Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement that one seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked is whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(c) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on Form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office... that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence... After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 is forwarded... to SSA's central office... If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office... Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so.

As mentioned, IF you want to conduct business with a corporation then in all likelihood you WILL need a SS number. However if you can manage to conduct your business with individuals ONLY you can manage just fine without one. Granted, living in a big city makes this considerably more difficult, but we all have choices to make in life. Less than 100 years ago nearly half of the people of this country lived on a small family farm...

To me though the "proof is in the pudding". I know 4 people that don't have a SS#, and collectively these 4 people have managed to get by fine for a cumulative total of some 70+ years - without filing a tax return, or paying so much as a penny in income tax, AND without so much as even a letter from them. To me that speaks for itself. It's almost as if without a SS# you don't even exist to them. Think of your SS# is your own unique "barcode identifier" which distinguishes you from the rest of the "goods" on Walmart's shelves - without that "barcode", Walmart's cash registers don't even acknowledge you came off their shelf, and they can't sell you or do anything with you. You're useless to them.

There is a BIG difference in cases like Ed Brown, Irwin Schiff and countless others that had a VALID argument in "tax court" yet were convicted and the individual I'm talking about described in Hale v. Henkel - Brown, Schiff and the others ALL went to court having a SS#; and "individuals" don't get pulled into court at all (or at least haven't to date).

99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright

innieway  posted on  2007-09-25   8:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (42 - 118) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]