fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
The following document on our sister site describes how to secure one's computer, and all the programs needed.
Securing Your Computer and Protecting Your Privacy, Form #09.016
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The item is a member subscription form and you will need to sign up for member subscriptions to read it:
http://sedm.org/Membership/Subscriptions.htm
We didn't write the document and therefore can't answer questions about it. It's pointless, however, to reproduce the content of that document here and would inevitably violate the copyright anyway. We pointed readers to this document in the opening post in this forum. It appears that you may have missed that post, so here it is again:
-
At their core, all pagans, atheists, and many of the world's religions unite behind the idea of human divinity in one form or another, or seek to elevate themselves to a status superior to that of their fellows, as if to become like God, as the serpent promised.
The object of the worship can be anything:
1. Government, in the case of communists or socialists. The founding fathers of such a government are usually also deified.
2. A self-proclaimed Prophet (Joseph Smith) and his Twelve Apostles.
3. The god of sex, for homosexuals, fornicators, and the promiscuous.
4. The god of money, for politicians and the federal reserve.
5. Glorificiation of self, in the case of corrupted judges intoxicated with their own power.
The worship may take slightly different forms, but their aim is always the recognition of and obedience toward whatever fiction or supernatural thing or being one has high regard for. Whateve that fiction or human or thing is, it becomes the origin of their morality and their law system. Globalism worships an oligarchy, as the following video demonstrates:
-
EDITORIAL: Another Lindsey Springer Update, sent while in jail.
_________________________
Lindsey Springer offering you an update on an issue arising in one of my cases.
After the 10th Circuit found the agents in my home on September 16, 2005, did not know stealing was unlawful, the 10th Circuit’s decision rested upon declarations that “Special Agents” were acting in my home under Title 26, Sec. 7608(:cool:. During the pendency of my criminal trial the U.S. Special Attorney tendered a letter dated June 3, 2005, claiming this letter authorized my prosecution from the Secretary of the Treasury to the U.S. Attorney and his Grand Jury.
Under Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308-314 (1978), the Secretary of the Treasury (“SOTT”) loses all enforcement power or authority upon institutional referral to a local U.S. Attorney. Please read this slow and carefully or you might miss what is wrong with the Grand Jury system in this Nation.
In U.S. v. Claiborne, 765 F. 2d 784, 795 (1st Cir. 1988), it was perfectly explained:
“The MOST important function of a grand jury is to stand BETWEEN prosecuting authorities and the suspect as an unbiased valuator of evidence. That function CANNOT be maintained or understood by Society when citizens are confronted by law enforcement agents who claim to be alter egos of the grand jury… A Grand Jury that has become identified in the eyes of lay witnesses before it with law enforcement agents is not functioning independently of the prosecution. Such identification can undermine public confidence that the Grand Jury is performing its Constitutional function to check the power of the government.” quoting U.S. v. Anderson, 577 F.Supp. 223, 232 (D.Wyo. 1983)
If, after referral, the U.S. Attorney continues to use the Special Agents or Revenue Officers the Supreme Court called this a “cooperating agent”. The problem begins when the cooperating agent or agents become agents of the Grand Jury. At the point agents cooperating become agents of the Grand Jury, and not just witnesses, the independence of the Grand Jury is forever lost or compromised. There is no more referree or buffer between the suspect and the government.
Since LaSalle, cooperating agents have been used to serve Grand Jury subpoenas, take and hold interviews, and as in my case, the “case agent” (a phrase used before referral by referencing Agent in charge of IRS investigation) actually obtained a search warrant to search my home. So he is a Grand Jury agent, IRS Special Agent, Case Agent, and ALSO AGENT FOR THE PROSECUTION AND COURT. It gets more revealing.
This means the Grand Jury has merged the agency IRS with the Court’s inherent power. The Federal Grand Jury (Title 28, Sec. 1861) “has not been textually assigned” to any of the three branches of Constitutional United States Government. See U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). The whole theory of its function is that the office of Grand Jury belongs to NO BRANCH of the INSTITUTIONAL government, serving as a kind of buffer or referree between the government and the suspect. Williams, 504 U.S. at 47; See also Stirone v. U.S. 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Also explained by the Surpeme Court again in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906).
The Grand Jury process is abused when the prosecutor used it for….a substitute for discovery.” U.S. v. Jenkins, 904 F. 2d 549, 559 (10th Cir. 1990). The Role of Grand Jury is a “principal tool of criminal accusation” only! See LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312; quoted in Anaya v. U.S., 815 F. 2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir. 1990). The Office of IRS Special Agent/Grand Jury Agent/Prosecution Assistant is a “man of many occupations.” U.S. v. Kilpatrick, 575 F. Supp. 325, 336 (D.C. Colo. 1984) The Court said this is an office “I know not.” The Court went on to say this occupation is a “psuedo-investiture.”
Once a Special Agent testifies before the Grand Jury he aligns himself with the Grand Jury whether spoken or not, as its Agent. He appears as their investigator. Since referral is required from the Office of the SOTT, the Supreme Court called this an “institutional referral.”
The SOTT cannot “try its own prosecutions.” LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 308. A “referral to the Justice Department permits criminal litigation to proceed” regarding laws related to internal revenue. After referral the authority to prosecute is “reserved to U.S. …Attorneys. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1).” LaSalle, at 312 Until referral the IRS’s criminal investigation is “not” inhibited from “conducting their investigation….” Anaya, 815 F. 2d at 1377
The “LaSalle rule applies soley to the statutory scheme of the Internal Revenue Code in which the IRS’s civil authority ceases… upon referral of a taxpayer’s case to justice.” SEC. v. Dresser, 628 F. 2d 1368, 1378 (en banc)(D.C. Cir. 1980) After recommendation for prosecution by the SOTT the “Internal Revenue Code ITSELF terminates the IRS’s investigative authority on referral.” Linda Thompson et al., v. Resolution Trust Corp., 5 F.3d 1508, 1518 (D.C.Cir. 1993); citing LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312-13.
Once referral is made the authority Congress gave the Secretary is suspended as to the particular taxpayer and particular year pending the Grand Jury referral. Recently, the tax division told the judge in my Trial and who sentenced me:
“IRS referral….did not deprive the ability of the IRS Special Agents to Assist in the Grand Jury investigation.”
These words show the destruction by the tax division and IRS in Tax Cases of the independence of the Grand Jury. If the Special Agents are assisting the Grand Jury then who is the “buffer” or “referee” standing in between the target of the Grand Jury investigation and the government. Can you see how the phrase “target of the Grand Jury” and “target of the Grand Jury Investigation” changes the Grand Jury’s role? If the Grand Jury thinks you are their target then they no longer are independent of the government. Grand Juries do not have the authority to send Special Agents to a Judge to get a search warrant to gather more evidence from your home! Not in Tax Related cases anyway.
In my case, after Grand Jury had been empaneled to hear evidence for over a year, the “Special Agents” (11 of them) who were “witnesses” sought a search warrant to search my house. The case agent never told the Court he was a Grand Jury Agent. Who would think such minor issue would be so important? The reasons are shocking.
3 months after (June 3, 2005) the institutional referral, the “Special Agent” told the District Court that he was doing an IRS criminal investigation not a grand jury investigation to which he was their agent. The Search Warrant led to statements and evidence used at the simulated trial they decided to give me. I moved to suppress and for a Frank’s hearing (Franks is about false statements made to get the Search Warrant) which was denied premised upon statements made to the Court by the government.
The issue the is what is the difference between a “Grand Jury investigation” (which means Grand Jury is empaneled) and an institutional “IRS Criminal (or civil) investigation”? It is important to understand the referral must be for a particular tax and year. The offenses at issue against me were alleged as yearly offenses.
In order to see this you must also understand a U.S. Attorney is not authorized, without institutional referral from the Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate)[see 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(11) and (12)], to “enforce” criminal provisions related to internal revenue taxes and laws. This is the 30 plus year law of the land. That power is given by Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury at Title 26, Sec. 7801 and to the Commissioner at Sec. 7803. LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 308. This is why the Supreme Court and all other Courts reference this “referral” is that of the entire “institution” named IRS (which is the agency established at 26 CFR 601.101(2011).
Special Agents would have no power to enforce if the referral is institutional. In may case, the tax division simultaneously argued referral:
“IRS SPECIAL AGENTS WERE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.” See Doc. 441, pg. 5
In the Government’s Appeal Brief the reiterated this language but made a subtle change:
“On June 3, 2005 the IRS REQUESTED PERMISSION from the tax division to expand the existing Patterson grand jury
investigation.” See their Appeal Brief at 12
First, the Grand Jury cease to be a referree standing between the government and the suspect if the government becomes the Grand Jury’s agent. Second, section 7608(:cool: reads:
“Any criminal investigator [special agent of 26 CFR 601.107] of the ….Internal Revenue who the SECRETARY CHARGES
WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING ANY CRIMINAL PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS, any other criminal
provisions of law relating to internal revenue FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH THE SECRETARY IS RESPONSIBLE….is in
the performance of his duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph 2.”
The “paragraph 2” allows Special Agents during their criminal investigation and “enforcement” to serve properly obtained search warrants who the “Secretary charges…of which the Secretary is responsible…” The Secretary is NO LONGER responsible after institutional referral is made to the local U.S. Attorney. LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312. Once an institutional referral is made the institution is what becomes restrained or suspended. The Supreme Court called this a “prophylactic restraint.” LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 313.
If any IRS Special Agent searches your home after Grand Jury referral, that search and its purported fruits have been obtained unlawfully and in violation of LaSalle and a suspect’s 5th Amendment Right to an indpendent Grand Jury free of government agents thought to be Grand Jury agents. Otherwise, a Special Agent, as a witness to the Grand Jury, becomes a Grand Jury agent, Court agent (search warrant) and prosecutor assistant. I mean not to impugne anything intentionally and personally but only in the official capacity the Government knows what I report above as my claims on Appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
Lindsey Springer 4.16.11
================================================================================
Thank you for considering our family during this trying time.
PayPal:
gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com.
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries:
Landon Springer (I can’t cash checks made out to Lindsey)
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Landon Springer
-
Keith,
Thanks for sharing your story. Some observations:
1. Those who use the W-8 and amended I-9 for withholding aren't a statutory “employee” per 26 U.S.C. 3401(c ). They can only be a statutory “employee” if they sign a contract called a W-4, which the person described did not.
2. The person described wasn't applying for statutory “employment”. Under the I.R.C., they can only be an “employer” if you are an “employee” per 26 USC 3401(d). Hence, the instructions they followed were irrelevant to your circumstances. Under the I.R.C., there is no such thing as “employment” outside the United States government.
3. Additional information on how to fill out the I-9 is contained in:
I-9 Form Amended, Form #06.028
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/i-9Amended.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
We aren't responsible for the above form, so please don't ask us questions about it.
4. How to deal with E-Verify is covered in:
Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Section 24.6
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedStateWHOptions/FedStateWHOptions.pdf
The above document has some very useful information for those who want to avoid enumeration when faced with e-verify. It says that the use of e-verify is only mandatory for federal contractors, and nowhere mentions private companies. Chances are, you were dealing with a private company that wasn't a statutory “employer” in your case. Hence, they couldn't enforce it on you.
5. The following article talks about when the use of TINs/SSNs is MANDATORY:
About SSNs/TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104, Section 9
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Procedure/AboutSSNs/AboutSSNs.htm
The above article concludes that in the case of a nonresident alien, the ONLY condition in which it is MANDATORY is if the NRA is engaged in the public office/”trade or business” franchise, which your withholding paperwork should have emphasized that you are NOT. It also should have emphasized that the applicant is NOT an “individual” but a “nonresident alien NON-individual”. Hence, they cannot compel the use of numbers and it is, in fact a crime, to do so per 42 USC 408(a)(8). THEY have the burden of showing that the use of the number is MANDATORY and it must be mandatory for the STATUS the applicant claims under penalty of perjury, and NOT the one they PRESUME the applicant has. If they can't demonstrate legal authority to compel the use of the number, they can't claim there is a legal obligation to provide one.
Once again, we aren't responsible for the above form and can't answer questions about it.
6. And finally, if they pushed the number issue and it was me, I would have presented the following via certified mail:
Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a Taxpayer Identification Number, Form #04.205
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/WhyTINIllegal.pdf
-
Greg,
Thanks for sharing that. Sounds like he was a good man.
For those of you wishing to visit greg's website, here is the link:
-
That is a standard footer on every page that should have been removed but was accidentally left. It has been removed and reposted. We don't claim a copyright to that message.
On what basis do you say it was not written in truth. And what legally admissible evidence can you offer us that it was YOUR relative, and not someone with the same name?
-
But of course, once Form DS-5513 comes into effect later this year, the criteria could be tightened anytime. For instance, it could required not just to obtain a new passport, but to renew an old one.
I could elaborate about the totalitarian implications of Form DS-5513, but I won’t. I’ll simply state that under what I call the “surveillance creep” principle, that once Form DS-5513 receives final approval, its use will be greatly expanded. Form DS-5513 is a wakeup call for any U.S. citizen applying or renewing their passport. It’s an unmistakable indication that in the future, it could be much more difficult to qualify for a U.S. passport. And without a passport, of course, you have no way to travel internationally.
If you’re a U.S. citizen, the advent of Form DS-5513 means that it’s more important than ever to get a second passport, “just in case.” If you qualify for a second passport by virtue of marriage or ancestry, don’t wait a moment longer to begin the process of acquiring it.
If you don’t qualify for a second passport on those grounds, it’s still possible to acquire one by making a contribution or investment to a handful of countries. In exchange, you’ll receive citizenship for life and a passport. The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only countries with an official, legally mandated, citizenship-through-investment program. Several other countries, including one in the European Union, will award citizenship and passport upon performance of an outstanding service (including an investment).
-
Sprint follows google on cellphone payment systems:
SOURCE: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20050462-260.html?tag=topTechContentWrap;editorPicks
_________
Report: Sprint also planning mobile payment service
by Erica Ogg Font sizePrintE-mailShare4 comments .
Sprint is reportedly setting up a mobile payment network via cell phones, Bloomberg reported today.
The carrier's Vice President of Product Platforms Kevin McGinnis told Bloomberg that Sprint phones will eventually have near-field communication (NFC) chips inside and those phones can be waved over a terminal installed in retail stores in order to pay for items.
Items paid for via NFC will show up on a user's credit card statement, and not their cell phone bill. Sprint will likely not take a percentage of each transaction, but instead take a share of revenue generated from coupons or deals for certain retailers that users would have access to via the mobile payment system, according to the report.
Related links
• Report: Amazon exploring mobile payments via NFC
• Samsung, Visa to give NFC payments a boost
• Report: Google one step closer to mobile payments
All across the mobile ecosystem, companies are angling for a piece of the burgeoning mobile payments business, including wireless providers, smartphone manufacturers, credit card companies, retailers, and mobile advertisers. T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon have already announced they've formed a joint-venture payment system called Isis, which is expected to be ready for mobile customers this fall.
Both Amazon and Google are reportedly working on their own mobile payment networks for phones with NFC-enabled chips, and both Microsoft and Apple have reportedly been working on building phones with NFC chips inside.
Later this year, Visa is also planning to roll out its own mobile payments system via phones called PayWave.
Sprint did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the mobile payments service.
-
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/911_survivor_264.html
911 SURVIVOR WON’T BACK DOWN
By Mark Anderson
Perhaps the most compelling direct testimony regarding the harrowing events of Sept. 11, 2001 comes from survivor and former Army Spec. April Gallop, who—with her two-month-old child, Elisha, in tow—arrived at the Pentagon just minutes before a powerful explosion rocked the building that Tuesday morning. Ms. Gallop spoke out on her experience at conferences where this AFP writer heard her story—which has never wavered.
Ms. Gallop wants justice. So, in coordination with the Center for 911 Justice, she filed a federal lawsuit and is staying the course, whatever the odds. The defendants are former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers (USAF, retired), former acting Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.
Transportation Secretary and eyewitness Norman Mineta testified to the now disbanded 911 Commission that Cheney, on duty during the attacks, urgently spoke of an approaching hostile attack against the Pentagon but, incredibly, ordered a military stand down. Since the World Trade Center in Manhattan had already been hit, Ms. Gallop continues to ask why neither air defenses nor alarm warnings were implemented in and around the Pentagon.
The moment she turned on her work computer on Sept. 11, 2001, a powerful blast knocked her unconscious. Injured, she soon awoke with debris on her, even while reaching around and pulling her child, also injured, who survived, from the debris pile.
When Ms. Gallop exited the building through the hole made by the explosion, she saw no sign of plane wreckage. Yet the world is still told 10 years later that American Airlines Flight 77 rammed into history’s most sophisticated command center without any attempted interception and vaporized, which various researchers say is absurd.
Ms. Gallop also maintains that federal officials repeatedly preached to her that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon and that she was strongly advised not to state otherwise.
“I could have very early given up,” Ms. Gallop told AFP March 29. “My efforts are much larger than many people think they are.” She now is fighting to obtain subpoena power, with the help of attorney William Veale and support through Centerfor911Justice.org.
Talking with AFP, she asked: “Do we want certain people in a position where they cannot ever be brought to justice?”
Federal District Judge Denny Chin dismissed Ms. Gallop’s lawsuit in a lower court, claiming that the complaint was based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” But Ms. Gallop won’t buckle. Her appeal, as AFP went to press, was slated to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on April 5 in New Haven, Conn. She is citing a “violation of civil rights, conspiracy and other wrongs,” the complaint states.
“This case . . . is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. government officials,” the complainant said.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK – HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR – By Michael Piper.
Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .
Sign up for our free e-newsletter here – get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 15, April 11, 2011)
-
You don't need guest speakers. You need to use the FREE materials in the following and give the seminars yourself.
Liberty University
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
We aren't responsible for the above so please don't ask us questions about it.
The best way to learn any subject is to take responsibility to teach it to others and help each other learn. Freedom is not a spectator sport. The speakers should come from your own community, not be guests from elsewhere. Anyone who needs guest speakers wants to be entertained, not TRULLY educated through practice and HOMEWORK.
Nevertheless, thank your for your interest in the subject matter and in these forums, provided that interest extends to educating yourself.
-
Franklin,
Very well said. Mega dittos.
I would also add that the following requirements are essential IN ADDITION to legal knowledge and STRATEGY:
1. Tools and forms. All the knowledge in the world and all the strategy in the world won't help if you have no tools to IMPLEMENT the strategy. An example of a tools are:
1.1 Forms that consistently represent the truth in the administrative record within every relevant sutation that has legal consequences. For instance, there are over 1000 forms on SEDM that consistently represent the truth in many different ways and which place the corrupt or ignorant employer or IRS agent in a default LOSE situation. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
1.2 The Family Legal Assistant Database. This database facilitates thorough legal preparation and research, to make it very formidible to go against anyone who uses them in court. See:
http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Programs/FLA/FLA.htm
1.3 Legal research tools. For instance, see the following that are FREE and available to all:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/LegalResrchSrc.htm
2. Diligence and vigilance at every turn. The corrupt de factos always try to zero in on vulnerable areas within the administrative record on things that you have said or written that can be made to APPEAR like you are violating the law. They do this by filtering the evidence presented at trial using a motion in limine.
3. Continuing education. All LICENSED lawyers have to engage in continuing education on a regular basis in order to preserve the license. The same thing goes for freedom fighters.
4. Studying, understanding, and emulating the effective tactics of your adversary.
5. Systematically recognizing, examining, and eliminating cognitive dissonance in your thoughts and your life. Some people call this spirituality:
Quote:“When my heart is at peace, the world is at peace.”Chinese Proverb
What all of the above have in common is EFFECTIVE PRACTICAL APPLICATION. Knowledge is useless unless it is practically, consistently, and correctly applied to every circumstance using effective and proven tools and processes that have been reviewed and improved by the experiences of a broad group of people who frequent the forums and review and improve the materials. Mitchell doesn't do any of the above items, much less any of them WELL or effectively.
An Italian proverb sums the above up with the following maxim which we saw painted in large letters at a military training facility:
Quote:“He who sweats more in peace, bleeds less in war.”By “war” we mean COURTROOM activity. All litigation is war.
Sun Tzu wrote much about this subject in:
The Art of War
Mr. Bing would thoroughly agree on this subject, since he is a student of Sun Tzu.
-
Neo,
We don't have an answer for you. We don't know. We simply relayed information from a third party.
-
EDITORIAL: Newsletter update from Pete Hendrickson.
___________
The Final Rites of Spring, 2011
Well, here we are at the climax of 2011's Sorting-Out Season. This is the time each year when the culmination of the “income” tax season, and the choices made in light of the now long-available truth about the tax, divide Americans into two classes of citizens.
On the one hand are real citizens. They are the courageous and the responsible cadre. They are the “This great country isn't going down into lawlessness and despotism on my watch” grown-ups.
On the other hand are those who are nominally “citizens”, but who really are subjects. Their personal civic authority has been entirely surrendered to the very parasites who eat out their substance and that of their children, and they are just a “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, name-no-evil” mob of irresponsible adolescents who blithely (or timidly) stand by and do nothing except supply the coal to the gravy-train-for-the-politically-connected that is carrying them downhill at ever-greater speed toward absolute ruin and the Hell-on-Earth horrors of the unconcealed, unrestrained tyranny that will inevitably follow.
Enormous efforts have been made by the corrupt State to push you into the latter camp. Primarily this is done by trying to persuade you that undertaking your own study of the law is inappropriate– indeed, pointless– because the law belongs to the State and means only what the State wants it to mean.
The effort to dissuade you continues by suggesting that if you DO make your own study, and conclude that the law ISN'T the tool of those acting in the name of the State– that it means what it says, even when that meaning is inconvenient to the voracious State (and that it's important that everyone understand this and act accordingly, or there is no real law, and no liberty)– and if you make your understanding matter by expressing it in a practical manner (rather than just griping, or standing silent while your wealth is lawlessly stripped away), you will then be savaged by the wrath of the sociopaths infesting Washington and its myriad little fortresses of darkness currently littering this once and future great country of ours.
So (continues the twisty little argument), just submit to the sociopaths from the get-go. Do what they want you to do and believe what they want you to believe (or at least profess what they want you to profess). Submit from the outset.
It will be better for you, because resistance is futile…
Everyone knows you can't fight City Hall; resistance is futile…
It's OK to submit– everyone else does; and anyway, resistance is futile…
America is full of nothing but couch-potatoes and you're entirely alone; resistance is futile…
What's the matter with you? Didn't you hear?! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!
Just lie back and get comfortable. It won't hurt a bit, as long as you don't struggle.
(And this will remain true until you've let yourself be bled to the point where you CAN'T struggle, at which point it will start hurting A LOT, because then resistance really WILL be futile, and those feeding on you won't have to worry about maintaining your cooperation and quiescence…)
For those who DON'T buy the baloney, and who are on their feet and standing their ground because they know that resistance to lawlessness and despotism is not only NEVER futile, but is always required of those who love and are worthy of the blessings of liberty and the rule of law, here is this week's Tax Tip:
Don't Forget What Comes First (A Cognitive Cue)
It's important to keep from letting the tail wag the dog in your understanding of the limitation of the tax.
The exploiters of ignorance encourage everyone to imagine that all economic activity happens within the “federal universe”, and that all receipts are “income” unless exempted by Congress. This, in turn, encourages the notion that it is by looking to the statutory definitions and other tax-related provisions of law that we discover whether our receipts qualify as “income”, and taxable as such, under such designations and definitions as “wages”, “self-employment income”, and so forth; or prove that they do not. But this notion has things exactly backwards.
One's non-federally-connected earnings as a commonly-defined 'employee' don't fail to qualify as “wages”, for instance, because they (or one's commonly-defined 'employee' status) are not described in the statutes concerning “wages”. It is precisely the other way around: it is because one's non-federally-connected earnings can't qualify as “wages” that they are not described in those statutes. The statutes aren't the description of everything Congress chooses to designate as “wages”– they are the description of every employment-related receipt Congress CAN Constitutionally describe as “wages” (from which it then provides some number of exceptions in service to its own agenda).
The fact is, even if the statutes, or some construction of them (whether legislative, regulatory or judicial) APPEAR to describe unprivileged earnings as being within their scope, they really do not, and one can take it as a given that the disconnect is simply not superficially obvious.
Thus, even if a statute were to be found that says, “Pete Hendrickson's earnings are “wages”, and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax”, this wouldn't mean that the Constitution had been overthrown, or that my unprivileged earnings are subject to a direct federal tax without apportionment. It would simply mean that somewhere else in the law must be buried a special definition of “earnings”, or even of “Pete Hendrickson's earnings”, that reconciles the apparent contradiction. Somewhere will be found a section that says, “For purposes of chapter ___, “Pete Hendrickson's earnings” includes Pete Hendrickson's federally-privileged earnings”, or even just “earnings includes federally-privileged receipts” etc..
In fact, even if a qualifying section DIDN'T exist, the construction that would have to be given to “Pete Hendrickson's earnings are “wages” and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax” would amount to the same qualified effect. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is still the law to which the federal government is subject, and it still says that my non-privileged earnings (and yours) cannot be taxed by the feds other than through apportionment. As is true of all law, no matter what a statute facially declares, it CAN'T have (or be held to have) a meaning in conflict with the Constitution.
Understanding this important aspect of the tax (and law in general) will help you immensely in dealing with the thicket of custom definitions, and the deployment of same by the tax agencies and legal departments that badly want you to be confused and uncertain of your ground. Knowing that whatever it may look like, the thicket must conform to the fundamental law, and must be held to do so no matter whether it is easy to see how it does or isn't easy to see how it does, will allow you to step right over the thicket.
When confronted by a skeptic (or agenda-driven opponent) who challenges you to explain why your earnings don't fall within some definition or another, whether the broad “Gross income is all income…” definition in section 61, or a more specialized definition of a subclass of “income”, like that of “wages” at 3410(a) or 3121(a), you don't have to argue over what is said in those definitions. All that need be pointed out is that the “no capitation other than by apportionment” Constitutional prohibition remains in force, and thus, whatever those definitions may appear to say to your unschooled correspondent, what they DON'T and CAN'T say is that non-federally-privileged earnings or receipts are federally-taxable without apportionment.
Keep this very clear in your mind, and teach it to others as you introduce them to the liberating truth about the completely benign “income tax”, and educate them about the completely pernicious “ignorance tax” by which they have been being victimized for their entire lives. (For a detailed discussion of the subject of this Tax Tip, see 'What “Income” Means, And Why' in 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?'. (Visit http://losthorizons.com/WGRAM.htm to learn more about this companion to CtC.)
Now, armed with this clear understanding of what rules, and what is subordinate, and everything else you've learned in ' Cracking the Code – The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America ', go forth into these last couple of weeks before April FOOL'S Day and choose your side (and help your neighbors, friends and family understand the choice that they inescapably face, as well). Are you going to stand with the grown-ups who understand that Heaven knows how to put a proper value on its blessings, and it would be a strange thing indeed if Liberty didn't command a high price, as Thomas Paine helped the Founders remember 235 years ago?
Or are you going to “lie back and get comfortable”, and bleed away in a peaceful but ultimately fatal bovine torpor?
What will you teach your children? To stand beside you? Or to lie beside you?
Will you teach them that the State belongs to the law?
Or will you teach them that the law belongs to the State, and the State can make the law mean what it wants; that those who run the State are the law; that the Constitutional republic that is your children’s rightful heritage is dead, and that they will live their lives as ruthlessly exploited serfs because, you know, “resistance is futile”?
Get CtC for free at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
Learn about the seven-year-and-counting desperate effort to keep you from the knowledge in CtC at http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf
Learn the liberating Truth about the Tax at losthorizons.com
-
Franklin,
Thanks for sharing that. Here's another example of the same phenomenon.
_________
DRUG COMPANIES DO NOT WANT YOU HEALED
A very credible pharmaceutical professional explains how drug companies are ripping you off, how the drugs they give you do not work, how psychological drugs are designed to make you dependent on the drug company’s products, how exercise and diet changes are far better for you than drugs.
If you are in to natural health . . . if you believe drug companies do not want you healed . . . if are looking for evidence that the drug companies are corrupt and want to turn you into a cash cow . . . THIS VIDEO IS FOR YOU.
If you believe most drugs are the market can help you get better then YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1065.html
Four Minutes
-
Additional episode:
Glenn Beck-03/25/11-C (15:17)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwAyR5iiQ3I&feature=player_embedded