fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
We (me and the mouse in my pocket) agree with Neo’s analysis. Good job. 🙂
However, I would also like to add that submitting an SS-5 is not the ONLY way to change one’s status. The OTHER way is to quit the SS system entirely, which is a requirement of all those who want to use materials or services from this website. Those who quit the system entirely don’t need to play by Uncle’s rules at all or even exhaust administrative remedies. The tool for doing that is:
1. Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf
2. Withdrawal of Application, SSA POMS GN 00206.000 Withdrawals
https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200206000We admire Neos bravery and commitment in this fight. We also thank him for his wonderful contributions in these forums.
However, the only reason Neo wouldn’t want to quit is because he has a vain hope that he will win the SSA lotto while the ship of state sinks under the weight of flooding brought on by the very benefit he seeks. That benefit, in fact, will be paid for by money stolen from his very own children at gun point and against their will, most likely. That violence is the heart of what feeds the socialist Beast. On this subject, the bible says:
Avoid Bad Company
“My son, if sinners [socialists, in this case] entice you,Do not consent
If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood;
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,
And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:
We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse”–
My son, do not walk in the way with them,
Keep your foot from their path;
For their feet run to evil,
And they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread
In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood.They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain;
It takes away the life of its owners.”
[Proverbs 1:10-19, Bible, NKJV]
“The king [or public servant] establishes the land by justice; but he who receives bribes [socialist handouts] overthrows it.”
[Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]
“Getting treasures [stolen loot] by a lying tongue
Is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death.
The violence of the wicked will destroy them,
Because they refuse to do justice.”
[Prov. 21:6-7, Bible, NKJV]
Furthermore, rather than vainly argue against hopelessly ignorant government workers who think those in states of the Union are NOT STATUTORY aliens (on a government form), another option is to check “Other” on the SS-5 and explain your exact status. This may be a less confrontational approach, but will result in the same CSP code sought.
It is our duty and sincere desire to see the world as God sees it, and therefore to keep the bigger BIBLICAL and LEGAL picture in mind. Neo is only looking at a small subset of it as an insider receiving or seeking to preserve eligibility to receive the plunder. Ron Paul already admitted that working inside the system has accomplished NOTHING meaningful in the grand scheme of things during his entire 36 year stint in Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk
The reason working inside the system as a de facto public officer STOOGE (useful idiot) doesn’t work is because human self-interest always wins out over God’s interest. The Bible book of judges calls this conflict “doing what was right in our own eyes” above and beyond what God’s law requires. We call it feeding the flesh instead of the spirit. The flesh usually wins out because human self interest itself is the personification of the flesh.
Our favorite quote on this subject is:
“You can’t vote the solution to a problem that was caused by your consent in the first place.”
We must also remember that those who are intent on protecting their eligibility to receive the plunder HAVE no rights or constitutional remedies, regardless of the status they attribute to themselves in government records. They only have the “privileges” (scraps) that Caesar is willing to hand them:
“These general rules are well settled:
(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a “public right”, which is a euphemism for a “franchise” to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40, 9 Sup. Ct. 12, 32 L. Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L. Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L. Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L. Ed. 700; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L. Ed. 108.
(2) That where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U. S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup. Ct. 398, 59 L. Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238, 3 Sup. Ct. 184, 27 L. Ed. 920; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555, 558, 25 L. Ed. 212; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 35, 23 L. Ed. 196. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U. S. 492, 198, 19 Sup. Ct. 503, 43 L. Ed. 779; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U. S. 124, 29 Sup. Ct. 556, 53 L. Ed. 936; McLean v. United States, 226 U. S. 374, 33 Sup. Ct. 122, 57 L. Ed. 260; United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U. S. 440, 39 Sup. Ct. 340, 63 L. Ed. 696, decided April 14, 1919.”
[U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919)]
The equation is simple. The first four commandments of the Ten Commandments say you can’t serve other Gods. Gods are things with superior rights. Being a public officer of a corporation that has supernatural powers and is NOT equal in every respect to everyone else violates all four of these commandments, and especially if that corporation has a monopoly on the use of force, as Stefan Molyneux would say.
-
Gents,
Thanks for that commentary and adding your valuable 2 cents. 🙂 I am more inclined to agree with Neo. All federal forms excepting possibly the DS-11 deal with CIVIL statuses and hence the STATUTORY context applying exclusively to those domiciled on federal territory. Even the DS-11 form is PRESENTED as a civil status but TREATED as a civil status. This is called a fallacy by equivocation. This is discussed in:
Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 13
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
I would also add that State domiciled parties NOT occupying public offices but filling out the SS-5 and checking “U.S. citizen” are:
1. Committing perjury.
2. Misrepresenting themselves as EMPLOYEES of the national government. 20 CFR is entitled “EMPLOYEES benefits”.
3. Defrauding the United States of “benefits”.
4. Violating the separation of powers doctrine by extending federal civil jurisdiction where it does not belong and in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
5. Criminally bribing the SS Administration to procure the “benefits” of a public office they do not lawfully occupy per 18 USC 210. The “bribe” is the withholdings against a non-resident NON-officer.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/210
6. Unlawfully appointing or electing themselves into public office. Thus they are impersonating the OFFICE of “U.S. citizen”. That status is a federal franchise and an office.
Anyone who does the above can and should be sued by any state domiciled party under a quo warranto action for defrauding the US.
-
The proof of whether uncle regards it as a franchise is how they prosecute those who refuse to pay for the franchise. They inevitably accuse them of receiving the “benefits” but refusing to pay for them. In other words, receipt or even eligibility to receive the “benefits” creates an IMPLIED obligation to pay for them. Hence, an implied contract or what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “indebtitatus assumpsit” under the common law. That debt or implied debt is a franchise. However, it lacks the requisite elements of a contract because they do not have a reciprocal obligation of any kind to pay you anything. Hence, THEY are thieves and commit a fraud upon the court if they use this approach in a courtroom to prosecute those alleged to be participating.
This fraud is documented in:
Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The problem with the Steward ruling is that they refused to describe the STATUS of the people before them, leaving the reading audience with the false presumption that the ruling applies to anyone and everyone, when in fact, it can and does only apply to those “similarly situated” who are statutory “employees” and government instrumentalities, just like EVERYTHING else the government does, as described in:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
-
Anything done by consent cannot form the basis for an injury. Participation in SS is voluntary and all earnings from the exercise of “natural rights” that have been VOLUNTARILY DONATED by the worker can be taxed. Workers who don’t consent to become statutory “employees” can’t. Consent is manifested by filling out the W-4 and providing an SSN. Otherwise, the W-8 modified would be used along with an ITIN, if any number at all. Voluntary use of the W-4 and SSN collectively constitute “prima facie evidence of consent to donate formerly PRIVATE property to a public use, public purpose, and public office to procure the ‘benefits’ of an excise taxable franchise”.
Based on the definitions in the SS act, the franchise can ONLY be lawfully offered or enforced within the GEOGRAPHIC United States within 42 USC 1301, which is federal territory and excludes constitutional states of the Union.
You will note that IRS publications on ITINs say those who obtain or use them do not have to participate in SS.
As always, the dividing line between what can be taxed and what cannot is drawn mainly by consent. All civil law not based on consent is UNJUST, including tax laws.
-
Definitions for the SS act are codified in 42 USC 1301. That is covered in:
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
To look at the legislative history of the definitions, look under the “Notes” section of the appropriate statute on Cornell. Repealed provisions are also indicated under the “Notes” section.
-
Here is Ron Paul’s Farewell speech that Larken Rose mentioned in the above video. GREAT SPEECH! He summarizes the essence of what we believe in this ministry:
-
SOURCE: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/may/30/david-miner-sentenced-to-18-months-for-tax-scam/?print=1
_______________
David Miner sentenced to 18 months for tax scam
Sentenced to 18 months, restitution
By Jamie Satterfield
Thursday, May 30, 2013
A federal judge on Wednesday threw the figurative book at a former Gatlinburg businessman who wrote a literal book on how to dodge income taxes.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips sentenced David Miner, 61, to an 18-month prison term for plotting a campaign to impede and harass IRS agents in a bid to help his paying clientele to avoid paying taxes and failing to file his own tax returns.
Miner was convicted in a March trial in U.S. District Court. He worked for TVA in the 1990s and later opened a craft shop in Gatlinburg before turning his efforts to the art of tax evasion, testimony showed.
For $1,200, Miner sold a program to “decode” via an IRS manual a client’s Individual Master File, or IMF, which uses computer codes to document a person’s tax history, point out errors and write letters demanding the IRS fix those problems.
Miner also advised clients to target specific IRS agents with threats of civil and criminal litigation, testimony has shown. Miner called his business IRx-Solutions.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Dale urged Phillips to sentence Miner to the upper end of his 15 to 21 month penalty range to deter others from trying his scam.
“Based upon his own testimony at trial, it appears that Miner has a significant following among individuals who oppose taxation and would seek to subvert the application of tax laws,” Dale wrote in a sentencing memorandum.
“Miner has written a book and other documentary materials, operated an Internet website, and spoken at various meetings, presumably on subjects related to defying the tax system,” Dale continued.
Miner insisted he truly believed after much study the IRS did not have the power to tax a person’s pay and did not intentionally try to defy the taxman or help others do so.
Miner insisted that he believed his IRx-Solutions Inc. firm was not selling a scam. He said he was inspired by Joe Nelson Sweet, a Florida man currently serving a 10-year prison term for a similar venture.
Defense attorney Lowell H. Becraft Jr. argued Miner deserved a sentencing break because he has an otherwise clean record and would be unlikely to commit further crimes.
Judge Phillips ordered Miner to pay the IRS more than $36,000 in restitution.
Related documents:
David Miner’s bid for a sentencing break
Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Dale’s response to David Miner’s request for sentencing break
Related documents:
David Miner’s bid for a sentencing break
Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Dale’s response to David Miner’s request for sentencing break
-
International Conference on “9/11 Revisited — Seeking the Truth” (19.11.2012)
-
The Fuse Is Lit, Pt II: Asian Ascendance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsZhyc06V-I&list=PL394887430FAADB19&index=2
-
Part 1: The Fuse is Lit: European Perils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3aUCSONTf8&list=PL394887430FAADB19&index=1
-
These forums are not for political questions, which is what you present. Until you provide the supporting caselaw and statutes you refer to, it is meaningless to request comment because these forums are a mock court that proceeds ONLY upon evidence.
Any discussion of the subject matter requires that you at least post case law or some authoritative source as a starting point. We aren’t here to do your home work for you, but to rebut conclusions based only upon admissible evidence and not opinion or conjecture. Otherwise, these forums are being abused.
-
Agreed. By extension, the same argument similarly applies to citizens of a state, who are, after all, ALSO “officers of the state” as jurors and voters.
It is also a violation of most state constitutions and statutes to simultaneously be a federal officer and a state officer at the same time. See:
The “Trade or Business” scam, Section 9.2
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm
Governments can only legislate against or impose duties against their OWN public officers. If you can’t be an officer of two governments at one time, then you can’t serve two masters or work for the state and the fed at the same time. The following case proves this out in the case of PRIVATE people:
“A private person cannot make constitutions or laws, nor can he with authority construe them, nor can he administer or execute them.”
[United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883)]
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
-
1. You started this thread mentioning the IRC and therefore, you created the impression that this matter deals with taxation.
2. The document we referenced does NOT deal with “taxation”, but to illegal tax ENFORCEMENT against nonresident NONtaxpayers.
3. You should have made more plain EXACTLY who the defendant is in your initial post. If it is a state and not a human, this could have been made more clear.
4. Suing the state will require a waiver of sovereign immunity and a specific person IN the state to sue who refuses to execute an enumerated duty. The fact that that person has DISCRETION does not mean they have to choose the way you want them to. An enumerated duty to choose in a specific way must be identified so a tort can be sought for the abuse of discretion.
5. A suit directly against the state could only fairly be heard in the US Supreme Courts original jurisdiction. One cannot sue a state in its own courts without a waiver of sovereign immunity.
6. Our inbox is empty. There is no reason private messages should not work.