Author #2
Forum Replies Created
AndyK,
Thank you for admitting that EVERYONE on this planet is is a LIAR, a COWARD, a SINNER, and unworthy of anything, including God's grace. Even if they aren't a criminal under man's law, they are still a criminal under God's laws. It's impossible to get off this miserable excuse of a planet without being convicted as a sinner and a criminal.
Quote:“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Eph. 2:4-10“Did not Moses give you the law, yet NONE of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?? Jesus, in John 7:19
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”? Romand 3:20
Yes, Hendrickson under man's law is unworthy and imperfect. He is just as unworthy and imperfect, according to Jesus, as you and everyone else are under God's law. This is not a defense of terrorism, but a restatement of our Lord's words above.
AndyK,
I disagree with the way you state OPINIONS. It is entirely inappropriate to label PEOPLE on this forum in one way or another. If I have ever done that, please point it out so I can fix it because I live by the same rules as everyone else here. The only thing you are allowed to attack is BEHAVIOR, not PEOPLE, and to do so ONLY with FACTS. The fact that a person may have lied doesn't make them permanently a LIAR in every cirumstance, and labeling them a LIAR is simply wrong. Courts don't do that and you shouldn't either. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(B ), in fact, information about a person's past conduct can be prejudicial and not admissible. This forum is MOCK TRIAL practice for the participants, and all the Federal Rules of Evidence apply.
If you don't want to obey the FRE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html#article_iv
. . .then your “LICENSE” to “PRACTICE” in this mock court can be pulled by the “Judge”. Here come DA judge….If you persist in this vein, your posts will get either delted or edited. The rules for this forum are crystal clear and stat:
Quote:Users who violate the rules below will have their accounts disabled or deleted and all of their posts removed:? 4.? Denigrate or criticize or use derogatory nicknames for other board membersThe only thing you can say is that IN THIS INSTANCE, HE MAY HAVE _____(LIED, been COWARDLY, etc), and to state EXACTLY what acts you are talking about and where you got the evidence to support the conclusion that the acts occurred. Did you bother calling him as I did and asking him HIS side of the story in order to avoid presumption and hearsay? I'm not defending terrorist ACTS, but there is a BIG difference between hating a PERSON and hating his ACTS. God LOVES the sinner but he HATES the sin, and that is the role model set by God for how EVERYONE should behave. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…EPub-040513.pdf
One sinful act does NOT make a person permanently any one thing. To conclude otherwise is to deny the power of choice to a man and condemn him only to live up to the negative expectations of his fellows for the rest of his life. How do you think your children would turn out if you did that? How do you think they would behave if they did lie once in their childhood and you labeled them a LIAR for the REST of their life? They would become druggies, criminals, and maybe even IRS agents who let computers STEAL from people by simple acts of repeated omission, such as ignoring correspondence about the illegal nature of their acts! Hee…hee…hee.
Now if you want me to apply the same malicious principles to you, then I could say the folloiwng, and I'm doing this ONLY to make you feel the affects of what you are doing to others. Now don't take this personal and don't assume it's true, but bear with me.
OPINION
1. AndyK admittedly works for the IRS.
2. People in the IRS violate the law all the time by not reading it and making presumptions that are prejudicial and untrue. There are 2000 pages of evidence proving that the Internal Revenue Code is being MASSIVELY violated, misapplied and misconstrued in the Great IRS Hoax book.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm
3. Therefore, AndyK is a LAWBREAKER and a PRESUMPTUOUS FOOL who violates due process all the time through repeated acts of omission and presumption and who deserves to be FIRED.
END OPINION.
😆
Rattler,
Thanks!
AndyK,
I don't believe that you, as an IRS employee, personally paid for ANYTHING. Your employer paid for it. Are you implying that your employer doesn't want the public to find out about what happened in the Schiff trial because the sheep are more compliant when they are ignorant?
Keeping the sheep ignorant is not in the public interest and undermines the sovereignty of, We The People, who you exist EXCLUSIVELY to serve and protect as a public servant.
Quote:?As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.  That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.  It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.  Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. ?[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, ?247]
Author #2
AndyK,
Why don't you enlighten us all by emailing the PDF of the Schiff Transcript so we can post it. Email to submissions(AT)famguardian.org. The Website administrator will post it for you if you add a note of explanation.
Author #2
AndyK,
The Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.10 also casts dispersion on Irwin Schiff's approach. To summarize the weaknesses of his approach for all to read:
1. He, like Pete Hendricson, files the WRONG form, the 1040 form.
2. He doesn't address the activity that is taxed, which is a “trade or business”, or the nature of Subtitle A of the I.R.C. as an indirect excise tax upon privileged “public office”. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…usinessScam.htm
3. He thinks domicile is irrelevant. That's a BIG no-no. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…ForTaxation.htm
4. He gave legal advice, which is a VERY bad idea.
5. He prepared returns for others, which is a VERY bad idea.
6. He was unaware of where the prima facie evidence of liability originates, which is false information returns linking people to a “trade or business” under 26 USC 6041 who in fact are not engaged in this activity. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/DmdVerEvOfTradeOrBusiness-IR.pdf
7. He is very bullheaded and refuses to listen to or learn from others or do the necessary legal research. He quit perfecting and learning a decade ago.
8. He helped “taxpayers” and didn't understand the distinction between them and “nontaxpayers”. VERY BAD IDEA. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…Nontaxpayer.htm
9. His materials and his speech were not protected by a disclaimer. This left him open to claims that he was stating fact for which he could be held accountable and liable. Had he used the SAME irresonpsible disclaimer as the IRS does in IRM 4.10.7.2.8, then there is no way that anything he could have said or did would be any more actionable than the error prone information and “advice” given by the IRS itself in the IRM and on their 800 number.
10. He didn't understand how Social Security works and its relationship to tax liability under Subtitle A of the I.R.C. His book entitled “The Social Security Swindle” didn't cover all the bases. See:
Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee
While his intentions were honorable, his execution left much to be desired and cast dispersion not only on himself, but all the other well intentioned people he might have lead astray as well as the rest of the tax honesty community.
To Schiff's credit, there was also SEVERE malicious abuse by the judge and the jail of due process and fair play, and they cast EQUAL dispersion on the motives and conduct of our “public servants”. For instance:
1. He wasn't allowed to call his witnesses.
2. When they threw him in club fed, he was abused by the guards. They made him sleep on a cold hard concrete floor without a mattress in an unheated cell for days, until someone outside complained to a Congressman about the abuse.
3. The judge, who had a conflict of interest and was subject to IRS extortion in violation of 28 USC 455, would not allow him to talk about the law during the trial. He received an additional year of sentence relating to contempts for bringing up the law during the trial. This abuse by the judge is described and denounced as EVIL in Great IRS Hoax, section 5.4.4.4. A judge who refuses to discuss what amounts to Private Law is interfering with the right to contract of the parties, because Private Law essentially is a contract. How can you enforce a contract that you refuse to read and discuss? The purpose of this tactic is, of course, to politicize the trial and thereby abuse the evils of democracy to trample on people's rights and it amounts to treason by the judge. See:
Thomas Jefferson said of this abuse:
Quote:“It is left… to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.”?? [Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283]And YOU, as an admitted IRS agent, so I am told by other members of the forum, ALSO cast dispersion on your employer, the IRS, for NOT telling the WHOLE truth above. In your usual fashion, you are making presumptions that you have not proven, so as to abuse this forum for terrorism of the readers. See:
Presumption: Chief Means of Unlawfully Expanding Federal Jurisdiction
You stated earlier that ALL of Schiff's customers were injured by him, but you have offered no statistical proof or evidence to back that up. The presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” that is the foundation of our system of jurisprudence forbids any other conclusion, and you are disregarding it. We aren't interested in anything you say unless you can offer evidence to prove it. This forum exists so that people can hear BOTH sides of the argument, and not just the side that will benefit your employer. This is a willful violation of the fiduciary duty that you PERSONALLY owe the public, as an employee of the IRS. See Great IRS Hoax, Section 2.1.
Author #2
AndyK,
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court identified state constitutions as “contracts”. Therefore, the federal constitution would appear to fit the same description:
Quote:“A state can no more impair the obligation of a contract by her organic law [constitution] than by legislative enactment; for her constitution is a law within the meaning of the contract clause of the national constitution. Railroad Co. v. [115 U.S. 650, 673]?? McClure, 10 Wall. 511; Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 429; Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 637 And the obligation of her contracts is as fully protected by that instrument against impairment by legislation as are contracts between individuals exclusively. State v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190; Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U.S. 358 .” [New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]Author #2
AndyK,
By “a much more authoritative forum”, do you mean a forum of those whose main goal is to perpetuate the feeding frenzy off the plunder from the illegal enforcement, and do so at the tune of $200 per hour or more? Ahem…I mean fellow sharks? I guess all fish hang out in schools, and sharks are no different, are they? These are the deacons of the state-sponsored church called federal court.
The judge is the priest and licensed attorneys are deacons. Worship service is the hearing or trial. Being “admitted” means you can participate in the witchcraft and the human sacrifices executed at the altar of Baal, which is why they call it the “BAALiff”. The judge sits around in a black robe and chants in latin out of his state-sponsored Bible, the Infernal (Satanic) Revenue Code. The jury are the twelve disciples of the priest who all tithe their first fruits to the church in the form of income taxes. Once they start thinking for themselves and demand to supervise the judge by reading the law for themselves, they are immediately recused because they won't join the angry mob of voters BRIBED with the plunder, I mean federal “benefits” that keep the ecosystem functioning and growing like a cancer on the body politic.
I guess you aren't used to trying to explain the law to ordinary people who are motivated to do research and remove it from the realm of the exclusive priesthood that those in the legal profession have attempted to make it. The Chief Priest, I mean the Judge, never lets the worship service get that far, now does he? . . . and it looks like, true to form, you aren't either because you want to perpetuate the ignorance, fear, and false presumption that puts wind in your sail, as you say.
Things never get better because those who know the truth are afraid to take food off their table by sharing it.
Nevertheless, thanks for joining us and we appreciate your insight, which hasn't added one iota to the main goal of this website, which is public education about the law to make up for the vacuum of independent thought and legal education found in the fool factory…I mean the public FOOL system..I mean the public “School” system we have now. Heaven forbid that the servant who runs the public schools, our loyal government, would ever want the students to know who is REALLY in charge, which is them.
Sonik,
Thanks for that invitation.
AndyK:
To appease you, I asked the website administrator, who isn't me, to remove the alleged virus you speak of. He has removed it. Now you have no more excuses. As Sonik points out, we stick to the forum rules he indicates, and we believe they are fair and just to everyone. We welcome you to join us.
Bing,
Thanks, but this is already posted on FG:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/PropertyPr…lorPrinters.htm
As far as I understand it, a person who qualifies for or has a USA passport is:
1. A constitutional “citizen of the United States OF AMERICA“
2. Not a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401.
3. A “state national”.
4. A “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452.
5. A “national” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
. . .if they don't have a domicile in any federal territory or possession and instead maintain a domicile in a state of the Union. If you want an attachment for the passport application to ensure your status is not confused with that of a statutory “citizen”, see:
USA Passport Application Attachment
All of the above is exhaustively described in:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
Snyderhealth,
Thanks for sharing your story. Our hats off to you. Let us know how it goes. You might want to remove your personal info because you may invite undue attention to yourself.
Bing,
Awesome! Thanks!
See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/SubjectIndex.htm
Look under “Due Process”
In the future, please use the search in the upper left corner of every TOPIC page. Or you can use Google to search the site. We aren't equipped to babysit people.
