Bing
Forum Replies Created
-
Andy, thanks for your reply.
Let me ask you this, do you agree with the fact that in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to define the legal meaning of liberty?
Andy, do you agree with the US Supreme Court that among the personal liberties of every American Citizen, is the Unalienable Right and Constitutional Right to pursue one's personal liberty and happiness, by earning a living by selling one's labor? And if you do agree, isn't it also correct to assert that such personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness are both protected by the USA Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
I am trying see if your Arguement that one of our basic premises is wrong, holds any water.
Bing
-
AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 01:30 PM:Since everyone at Quatloos thinks for him or her self, I can't assemble a team to debate you.[post=”2440″][/post]
Well, hold on there Sparky. Since when did everyone at Quatloos begin thinking for him or her self? I could have sworn that at least 3 IRS employees crowd around sometimes when Jimmy Smith authors some of his anti-USA posts.
Good to see you poke your head outside of Quatloos Land, Andy.
I want to suggest that you take a deep breath and inhale the Truth at http://www.famguardian.org. Doing so will invigorate you and make you feel better.
The only thing that I will concede that the quatloos.com discussion board does better than the famguardian.org discussion board, is that the Q-Regulars are funnier, they have better senses of humor as a whole, and they appear wittier than the posters at famguardian.org.
Quatloss posters spend alot of time cracking jokes and being funny, and by contrast, the posters in this Forum tend to be more serious and post more substantive stuff, on the whole.
I agree with you Andy, a debate would be meaningless because you guys have no valid, legally supportable and correct replies refuting key, prior US Supreme Court cases. I mean, how do you debate that?
I think Famguardian would win any debate because, well, #1, we have Author #2 on our side. And, # 2, we have Author #2 on our side. 😀 😮
We would win simply because we can raise more issues and facts for which no one at Q-Land could offer a valid rebuttal.
And make no mistake, my experience is that the site admins at quatloos.com are very agressive at daily thread manipulation, deletion, and management. And such a web site practice and policy can hardly be reassuring to anyone genuinely interested in debating and searching out the Truth.
Which is the exact opposite practice that one will find in the famguardian.org Forums. We still have threads posted that go back to early October 2003.
In fact, I would argue that the quatloos.com web site practices with respect to very quick thread deletions, poor archival practices and organization, all tends to prove that despite what the IRS paid Quatloss backers want the public to believe, in reality they are opposed having honest, candid, and open debates about substantive issues with others who are well informed.
My experience has been that when Q-Regulars were so often getting handily beat in several debates spanning various threads, invariably, the thread(s) would disappear sometimes after only a few days of cyber life. How does that Quatloos.com practice promote debating? ANSWER: It doesn't.
AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 01:30 PM:Finally, as an aside, it's interesting that the alleged virus (actually a Trojan Horse) which I mentioned — even though it never existed — has been removed.? Odd.[post=”2440″][/post]DOH!! 😮
Uhhh, Andy, sir, is it correct to say that if the Trojan Horse virus never existed, did its subsequent non-removal include that which is not otherwise included within the meaning of the word? Please advise, thanks.
Bing
-
Sonik,
Does “shall” mean “may”, or does it include “must”? 😮
Bing
-
Reply a ] The government has gone after Irwin so viciously because he speaks the TRUTH.
I don't care what Becraft would say in response to the non resident alien position.
I freely concede Becraft's older writings and research have merit, all I was saying is his views now seem to be unfairly slanted and he makes obvious omissions ( at least from the one web page I viewed).
Besides, if his reply were “jurisdiction” – that tells me nothing, that is exactly what the non-resident alien position is about.
You write as if Becrafts “jurisidiction” is somehow superior to the nonresident alien position, but I would suggest that they are two sides of the same coin.
Irwin's mistake, like many others, is that he left himself vulnerable by failing to rebut false presumption over a period of years; failing to argue the trade or business scam, and failing to link it directly to both the non-resident alien position and the long line of US supreme Court cases in which the court defined liberty.
Also, I thought that Irwin's arguements could have been more focused, and less personal.
I got a sense from Irwin's materials that he tried to argue “everything”, and I think that all that approach did, was simply diffuse his strongest arguements, which in turn made it easier for them to get lost in all the “noise” of the case.
I don't dispute that Irwin knows jurisdiction, not at all. However, I would say that Irwin was not as effective as he could have been in arguing jurisdiction.
Reply b ] Bill Benson did not set bad precedent, and any such suggestion is ludicrous IMHO.
I don't think you can compare or relate Schiff's case to Benson's case or to Family Guardian's case, other than to say that it appears that the government tends to attack the American Citizens whom they fear the worst.
I never equated the setting of bad precedent with getting attacked.
I do agree with you, that the technological changes from the 1970s until now, were incredible and did level the playing field, so to speak. And yes, Becraft did win some huge cases over a period of many years when he did not have the advantage of the technology that we have today.
Sonik Speed said, “I can go on and on with a dozen others in the movement…
Sonik Speed
Bing's reply: But thankfully for everyone, you didn't. lol 😆
Bing
-
Sonik, that is an outstanding rebuttal. Thank you
I will reassess my position, keep an open mind, but I will need time to digest your post.
If Becraft is so smart, why did he have all those losses? I mean, he helped set bad precedent and bad case law. Surely he could have made stronger arguements, yes?
Also, until Family Guardian came along and blew the cover off the IRS's fraud, with the expose on “The Trade or Business Scam”, Becraft never thought to do that, and you have to ask “Why”?
Becraft now espouses that there is no merit to the non-resident alien position, and he is definately wrong about that too. Over the past year, through my own research and Family Guardian's, I have become convinced that the non-resident alien position when linked to the trade or business position, is the central tenet that the THM should be publicizing.
Oddly enough, no one but Family Guardian is writing the TRUTH and educating folks about the importance of being a nonresident alien, and this shows you how far ahead of the curve famguardian.org really is.
Bing
-
rattler, we, the THM, have already lost Larry. It happened, according to my sources, about 18 or 20 months ago, and the state of Alabama, no doubt doing the bidding of the corrupt IRS, was the main culprit.
And that is fine, because Larry has every right to live his life as he see fits.
What I find bothersome, is that Larry appears to have slanted some of his research material in favor of the corrupt IRS, in an effort to purposefully mislead unsuspecting Americans. And if such is the case, his actions are shameful, to say the least.
We have the Lord and the Truth on our side, so we have nothing to fear. We must continue to march forward and do battle against the corrupt and lying IRS, by spreading the Truth and educating others.
Bing
-
I did not know Becraft was helping Larken.
But it all makes sense now.
I mean, Larken sold out and betrayed the THM and his legions of so-called “fans”, just like Larry did.
Nice job Larry.
Larken could not have bent over any further in his effort to appease the corrupt Court and equally corrupted DOJ lawyers.
I guess Larry taught Larken how to bend over and give up the cause. 😮
It is far better that we know their true colors, because now they can not infiltrate the THM and try and destroy it from within.
Bing
-
I had a conversation recently with a leader in the Tax Honesty Movement(THM) and they told me pretty much the same thing you posted, BOBT12.
And after I got done talking with this person, I was driving to a buddie's house to help move some futniture, and then I suddenly recalled that at least one year ago, this same THM leader told me privately that Becraft had caved in and sold out. However, since it had been several years since I read Becraft's writing or visited his website, it never really “hit” me, until recently.
Also, contrary to numerous US supreme Court cases, Becraft also insists (incorrectly) that the states are not sovereign, but are in fact under the domain of the federal government.
If you look at Becraft B/S website, you can see that he has removed certain research material and as was the case in the article cited above, he may have purposefully lied, skewed and distorted certain other bits of info.
Bottom Line: DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING WRITTEN BY LARRY BECRAFT!!!
Bing
-
Dan,
Instead of trying to recreate the wheel, why not review what our beloved Author #2 has done in his fight against the liars at the FTB.
See
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…rrentStatus.htm
for some superb info and ideas.
Dan, declaring yourself to be a nontaxpayer via a letter, is not the same as denying that fact via a sworn affidavit. But saying as much is not enough you also should buttress your position with some of the reasons why you are a nontaxpayer. For instance, are you a non-resident alien of the federal United States?
As far as you studying the writings of other tax gurus, be carerful though, Dan, because some of Irwin's arguements and alot of his phraseology is just plain wrong and sloppy in its thinking and explanation.
For instance, if you read Irwin's Motions and legal briefs, sometimes he refers to the IRC as “Law”. Further, there are plenty of gaping holes in some of Irwin's legal arguements, so unlike Author #2's research, one should not simply run with Irwin's legal arguements and expect to win.
So far as Benson is concerned, what I found most startling, is that despite all of his legal research back in the 1980s that he did by visiting 48 state capitols to get certified documents from state archives, he and his lawyer, never once cite in their pleadings, the Full Faith & Credit Clause to the USA Constitution.
Ya gots to wonder how in the world Jeff Dickstein, his attorney, could have missed such an important point??
My advice, Dan, is to forget all those other websites and writers right now, except for FG and SEDM. Later, after you prevail, you will have more time to play around and read the legal positions of other Tax Honesty folks.
Finally, stay away from the writings of Larry Becraft. He has betrayed the Tax Honesty Movement, Bob Schulz, WTP, and he has lied about stuff on his website.
Bing
-
Dan, all the info you might need is available for free from famguardian.org and sedm.org.
I am confused, if you are a nontaxpayer, as you insist that you are, why are you permitting yourself to be snookered into making an appearence at a FTB Hearing where the rules and regulations for that forum were written solely for taxpayers? You are not bound by any of the arbitrary deadlines that they may set, because those deadlines pertain only to taxpayers.
Something doesn't seem right here.
Also, there are sufficient examples on famguardian.org of how to defeat those FTB guys and you may want to look into doing a Notice of Default mailing too.
Dan, it seems to me that you have alot of studying and prep work to do because I surmise from your posts that you are not at all confident that you can represent yourself.
Stop playing on the internet and devote the time to get educated so you can defend your Rights.
Remember this, you will want to rebut ALL of their false presumptions IN WRITING via sworn affidavits, otherwise they will hang you with their unstated presumptions.
Don't worry about the California tax code, but simply set about proving that you are a nontaxpayer by proving that you were not engaged in an excise taxable activity under the IRC(assuming such is the case). If you have no liability under the IRC, then by extension, you also have no liability under the Calif tax code.
You have plenty of time to get ready.
Bing
-
Outstanding, SnyderHealth!!
Welcome to famguardian.org and the Forums!!!
A warning is in order though.
Be careful because we have good reason to believe that the Forums have been infiltrated by IRS and/or DOJ spys who are writing Private Messages to some of the Forum Members and asking them seemingly innocent questions, and also asking for advice, and then requesting the person to respond via email. I received my first inquiry a few years ago, and have received several since. And after I reply via PM, I never hear from the folks and they never post here. So be on your guard.
As you know, when you reply by email you reveal your ISP and other private info, so if you choose to reply to any Private Messages, I strongly urge you to do so by using the Forum Private Message feature only.
You may want to reconsider plugging your website in your lead post (why not edit that out ASAP?) and I also agree with Author #2, you should reconsider disclosing your personal info here.
Take care and good luck.
Bing
-
Sonik, I will send you via PM, some of the important excerpts from those two cases, already highlighted, so you can zero in on the key parts of the Court's ruling.
Also, you can do a search of FAMGUARDIAN, and you can get a list of quotes from those two cases and where they appear on the famguardian website.
Help is on the way. 🙄
Bing
-
Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 1 2006, 09:08 AM:May it please my fellow Family Guardians…
Sir Bing – It would appear that these losers at Quatloos do not like you. I do not blame them, because if I were to loose against you, I'd be pretty pissed off too! 😛
Sonik Speed
[post=”2311″][/post]Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! 😆
Yeah, it is safe to say they hate me. I used to argue against 10 or more IRS Employees at once, and they never won a single debate. I would spend 3+ hours or more arguing over there, every day, until finally, I simply quit.
I was posting initially as “Bing”, but I refuse to register my name, then some IRS shill went and registered my name, and that prevented me from posting as “Bing”, so I would poster as Binger, then someone took that name too. Then I became Original Binger, and the Real Binger, on and on it went.
If you look at quatloos members list, on pages 7,8,9,10 etc, you will see some of the cyber names that IRS employees hijacked from me, by registering the name, so as to prevent me from posting under that name.
The other unfair thing that the quatloos Admin did, was she would delete my threads within days of me posting, after it became clear to her that I was crushing the IRS Employees who were posting under false pretenses.
I tried very hard, and probably spent about 100-150 hours over at quatloos, over a period of months, trying to make headway, but the IRS employees over there are very Anti-USA and Anti-USA Constitution, and they truly are brainwashed.
So I moved on, and I much prefer to post in this Forum, where folks are genuinely honest.
Bing
-
No my app was not rejected. But I did not follow my approach when I renewed my passport X number of years ago and the modified DS-11 form did not exist back then.
I, however, wrote an affidavit for a client, a nontaxpayer, mind you, and she reviewed and agreed that the facts were true, she attached the affidavit to her DS-11 form and it was initially rejected because they said she modified the jurat.
So, they sent the rejected DS-11 back to her and I retooled and expanded the affidavit to clearly rebut certain presumptions in the DS-11, and she resubmitted the unmodified DS-11 along with the affidavit, and the Passport was issued shortly thereafter.
As far as ID goes, she used her expired passport, and may have also presented her drivers license and birth certificate.
Hope this helps.
Bing
-
The problem with using the modified DS-11 USA application, is that the jurat is modified, and when that happens, it gives the USG an excuse to reject the application.
So, to get around that, and the other biased presumptions, I feel the correct thing to do is to use the government's standard DS-11 form, and then right above the signature line on the application, write “DS-11 Passport Application Dated _____, XX, 2006, Not Valid without attached XX Page Affidavit dated XX/XX/2006.”
And then in the attached affidavit, you can simply deny you are a “US citizen under federal statutes, and set forth a plethora of other key facts, such as the fact that you were born inside one of the several states; that you were NOT born on federal land that was lawfully ceded to the USG; that you are a natural born American Citizen; that you are a nonresident alien; that you are not engaged in a “trade or business” inside the federal United States, etc, etc, etc.
By attaching an Affidavit, one can effectively cancel out and refute all of the bad presumptions built into the standard DS-11 Form and accomplish the same thing.
Then wait about 4 or 5 months, and file for a certified copy of both your passport application and the attached affidavit filed with same.
Then you should be good to go.
Bing