djpars2
Forum Replies Created
Another misconception that has been propogated upon the masses by those that seek to feminize the church. Study of the times in which the Christ walked this earth show that it was customary, when one was struck by a “superior” to drop to one's knees or to place your forehead in the dirt, whereupon the “superior” would place his foot upon the neck as an act of humiliation. If the agressor was an equal, then, as now, you had a fight on your hands. The Christ's remark clearly demonstrates an act of definance to the custom of the time. The Christ is a King, and a King would not bend the knee to any man. Think about it!
Yes.
Ok, are you going to let us know what you believe to be in error or are you just going to let us guess?
Have you considered any of the documents/letters contained in:
http://familyguardian.betterthanyours.com/…/FormsInstr.htm
There are perhaps some letters contained herein that can be modified to your case.
Bing,
I hate to break this to you, but there is no such thing as an Allodial Title. This is a misnomer based on a loosely inferred definition of Allodial. Land can be held in Allodium, which is only by inheritance. Are you one the inheritors? Further, there is a maxim that states “No one can be both owner and heir at the same time.” An heir is either by right of property, or right of representation. An heir is the same person with his ancestor. The ancestor, during his life, bears in his body (of law) all his heirs. 'Heir' is a collective name or noun, so it is not private, and has no private rights. Several co-heirs are as one body, by reason of the unity of right which they possess. (Romans 8:17, Ephesians 5:31-32) The law favors a man's inheritance. Heir is a term of law, son one of nature. An heir is another self, and a son is a part of the father. The heir succeeds to the restitution not the penalty. To “own” also means to “owe” which is the root word. Think about it. 🙂
The following is from a book I have titled “The Sabbath in Puritan New England” by Alice Morse Earle; don't know what year it was written but it is an older book. Chapter two is “The Church Militant” wherein in states:
“For many year after the settlement of New England the Puritans, even in outwardly tranquil times, went armed to meeting; and to sanctify the Sunday gun-loading they were expressly forbidden to fire off their charges at any object on that day save an Indian or a wolf, their two 'greatest inconveniencies.' Trumbull, in his 'Mac Fingal,' writes thus in jest of this custom of Sunday arm-bearing: —
Quote:So once, for fear of Indian beating,Our grandsires bore their guns to meeting,
Each man equipped on Sunday morn
With psalm-book, shot and powder-horn,
And looked in form, as all must grant,
Like the ancient true church militant.
In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a 'competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;' one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection of each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected 'by divers persones,' a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the 'trayned band' was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks.”
It continues later in the chapter:
“Not only in the time of Indian wars were armed men seen in the meeting-house, but on June 17, 1775, the Provincial Congress recommended that the men 'within twenty miles of the sea-coast carry their arms and ammunition with them to meeting on the Sabbath and other days when they meet for public worship.'
The men in those old days of the seventeenth century, when in constant dread of attacks by Indians, always rose when the services were ended and left the house before the women and children, thus making sure the safe exit of the latter. This custom prevailed from habit until a late date in many churches in New England, all the men, after the benediction and the exit of the parson, walking out in advance of the women. So also the custom of the men always sitting at the 'head' or door of the pew arose from the early necessity of their always being ready to seize their arms and rush unobstructed to fight. In some New England village churches to this day, the man who would move down from his end of the pew and let a woman sit at the door, even if it were a more desirable seat from which to see the clergyman, would be thought a poor sort of creature.”
My, my, how things have changed. We are no longer under the threat of Indian attack, but can you see any of the feminized churches today advocating the bearing of arms for the protection of person and family.
For those interested here is a relevant site:
Tax court is sure loser. If you are going to file I would go the district court route. There are also some very good responses that are on this site. Search them out, read and understand. Best wishes…
Toto,
As long as there is a paper trail [W-2, 1099s, etc] from your “employer”, so-called, [and other “financial” organizations] to the IRS showing upon its face that you are receiving “wages” and/or “income” the IRS will continue to demand that you submit whatever paperwork and/or monies to square their books. These are very simple accounting principles. Someone sends to the IRS paperwork which creates a bookkeeping entry on their books. Now the IRS is waiting for the paperwork that will zero out those entries. Until that process takes place, the IRS has an out of balance account that keeps popping up on some listing that is printed from time to time for review and resolution. So, as long as you are in a position where this scenario is going on, you are going to continue to receive notices from the IRS. You are the only one that can answer the question about peace of mind.
Now Family Guardian Fellowship memberss have spent an enormous amount of time, personal effort and expense to provide the necessary research and foundational materials in one place to give those who no longer wish to be counted among masses to extricate themselves. There is also a very specific sequence of events that must take place before you just stop paying tribute. You must cut the umbilical cord to your parens patriae before you can be on your own. Also keep in mind; Notice does not require a response, only that one making notice stand on that notice.
I have been researching these issues for nearly ten years and I have come to the opinion that quite possibly, as it is said, the best defense, in these matters, is a strong offense. My recent research has been concentrated on the courts [Fed Dist.]. I recently posted, perhaps errantly in the New Research area on this forum some process that looks to have promise but I personally don't think is quite there yet because it is my understanding that those that are attempting to use this process in it's present form are having the process rejected as being “incorrect” [the preceeding word is not mine, I used the “Friv” word, which is the word the court used], but that doesn't necessarily mean that the process is not on the right track. There are some pertinent points that are made concerning that process; namely that one should view everything that comes in the mail as a suit. When you open one of those suits you are making appearance. It is your choice whether you appear or not, you do have the opportunity/right to refuse to appear.
Well,
Maybe I was mistaken about the level of interest in this topic or perhaps those that have viewed the process didn't understand how it fits these tax situations. Perhaps this little blurp will help clarify why I posted this matter.
Here are two cases that illustrate what I am getting at:
United States v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. 0C66W145329 347, Federal Rules Decisions 564. Head note #1 states “Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) ? 7323 (a); 40 U.S.C.A. ? 304i; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 55 and ©, 60 and (b), 81(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Admiralty Rules 2, 10, 21, 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. ? 1355”
And this case;
United States of America v ONE 1966 CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK et al. Civ. A. No. 526 cited at 56 Federal Rules Decision 459 where in they state the controlling laws are, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) ?? 7325 (3); Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A, C (4,6), 28 U.S.C.A..; Federal Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b) (1,2) Fed. Rules, Civ Proc. Rules 55 (b), (1,2), 60, 28 U.S.C.A.
