franklin
Forum Replies Created
A legitimate ministry that is a corporation sole can defend itself vigorously. And refusing to be intimidated by Dirty Harry types from the federal government is the right approach. However, I think its an abuse when people use a corporation sole to protect personal assets. The corporation sole was invented some 500 years ago, when priests could marry, to protect legitimately owned church property from claims by the priest's relatives on his demise.
A corporation sole must have a legitimate religious, scientific or charitable purpose for its existence.
There have been a lot of hucksters in recent memory who have promoted corporations sole (for fat $5000 fees) as a way for even an unbelieving family to declare itself a church to EVADE taxes they believed they owed.
Besides being a way to protect church or ministry property, the other powerful feature of the corporation sole is that it has no relationship to the IRS because, it is not addressed as an entity in the IRS Code and there are no forms for it that would create a nexus to the IRS…like Form 990 for 501(c)(3) entities whose receipts exceed $25,000 per year. And it is through its forms that the IRS claims to be your illegitimate love child whom you are obligated to support 😮 .
The advantage is that, unlike the 501(c )(3), the corporation sole cannot be required to give up its First Amendment right to engage in political speech. There is simply no tax-exempt privilege to lose. The incumbent of a defined office incorporated in a corporation sole can make moral pronouncements about politicians and issues of the day. (In recent years you might have read about some catholic dioceses [usually corporations sole] saying certain politicians should not be given the sacraments of the church because of their stand on abortion.)
The religious corporation sole can be a powerful voice for religious values because it has no IRS privileges that can be withdrawn. It's high purposes should never be exploited to evade taxes people believe they owe.
If a ministry has property that cannot be legitimately claimed by the incumbent's family, then a corporation sole is a useful way to protect that property.
If the only motivation is to protect personal property to which heirs could stake a legitimate claim, then a corporation sole would be an abuse. A trust, joint ownership, or some other means of legitimate asset protection would be the way to go.
Shoemaker may have realized the legitimacy of the corporation sole when he backed off and decided not to give it any publicity.
It is usually volunteers that come around to tell you “You have been chosen to fill out the long census form.” When I refuse they say “It's the law.” My response since 1980 has been “Bring me the amendment to the Constitution that says you can ask more than “How many people live here?” They never come back and my descendants will not find me in a census since 1980 :ph34r: . And no one but my family knows that I'm a “wise Latina” just like my sister on the supreme court. :wub:
Welcome Frozin,
Quote:First off I'd like to thank the creators of this site. I've been doing a lot of reading and have enjoyed every minute of it.I however have one question that I tried searching for and couldn't find. Can the supreme court opinions that are used be taken out of context?
Good question, important even.
Anytime you take a snippet of something, like a scripture quote, a supreme court quote, a movie review… you've taken it out of context. The idea in quoting is to identify the principle guiding the discussion of the topic.
Any quote, for example, that identifies the People as the source of sovereignty reflects a principle of the Declaration of Independence (The “We” in We the People, is the royal We That George III and other monarchs have traditionally used to refer to themselves, as in Queen Victoria's often-quoted quip when she was annoyed… “We are not amused.”)
So if the quote reflects a constitutional principle that bolsters an argument in another context, then it is not a misquote because it is a principle, or an axiom, that would apply to any context about taxation, unalienable rights, government authority, the (bogus) finality of supreme court opinions (the sovereign People have the last word on the law, not the SC. As you know, it only takes one jury member to override any law for any reason that appeals to the dissenting jury member).
So, if your implied concern is that the SC quotes on this site are like the devil quoting scripture, you will see, if you read slowly, that most of those quotes are principles that relate to sovereignty, rights, etc. regardless of what the lawyers on the SC were giving their opinion about.
Doubting and questioning are the first motivators to new knowledge. Hope you're reading the Path to Freedom and following it.
😀 Now that's the only kind of invasion and occupation that humans should be making.
It reminds me of that great scene in the Shawshank Redemption where the banker prisoner creates a near sacred moment when he plays over the loud speaker a soul-melting opera duet sung by two sopranos that touched each and every prisoner in the place (because it was America, he spent two months in solitary for spreading joy instead of fear of terrorism 🙁 ).
😆 Engineers make the best toys!
Hey Brian
Without passion nothing succeeds. So you've got the necessary motivation to spread the knowledge.
I believe others who are members here also post comments and challenges in other forums such as Quatloos and suijuris.net to name but two.
Having an email list of family and friends which you can use to educate those you know and care about by sending relevant news and articles is also a good way to start creating cognitive dissonance [a slightly uncomfortable mental state where one experiences cracks in the foundation of their entrenched beliefs].
And be sure to funnel your passion through reason and knowledge. Otherwise it will be considered as ranting.
Don't stay away so long.
It's not a valid argument.
For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises.
The Catholic Church does not own the word metropolitan.
And applying it to mean a carved out section of a country does not mean that section is “under” the Catholic Church.
Independent cities (e.g. Baltimore, San Francisco, Manhattan, Richmond…etc.) are all separate enclaves within the surrounding counties. That does not mean they are owned and controlled by the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the important warning about the book Author #2. I hadn't read it but plan to do so with FG and SEDM research on the topic in mind (which is how I read most things nowadays). I agree with the idea that if something isn't backed up with solid facts, then it's belief and religion.
Here's a link that provides some evidence from people like Benazir Bhutto before she was murdered who say as a simple matter of fact that Bin Laden was dead. No one in the world press seems to have rebutted these statements.
http://littlecountrylost.blogspot.com/2008/01/benazir-bhutto-omar-shiekh-murdered.html
Dickstein makes an important point but apparently without understanding its importance…
Quote:So what is next now that we know for a certainty that the federal courts are closed to protecting the Constitution, and the people, from fraud of the Executive branch of government in the collection of the federal income tax, and are closed to protecting the First and Fifth amendment rights of those who would expose that fraud?Many Americans today are bemoaning the fact that the government (all branches) are “taking away our rights”. That isn't so.
FG and SEDM publications remind their readers that Rights are inalienable.
What the governments are doing, as Dickstein points out, is TAKING AWAY REMEDIES, not Rights.
The courts have the arrogant idea that the First Amendment only says that the People may petition the government and that the government doesn't have to answer. Well now, there's a discussion for these forums.
The First Amendment doesn't merely say there is a right to petition. Such petition (which means to seek, not to grovel) has a specified purpose, namely, to have grievances redressed, not ignored.
Redress (Black's 6th) is to gain satisfaction, recovery or equitable relief.
Silence on the part of the judiciary fails to acknowledge the redress part of the First Amendment clause.
If one files a 'pleading' by whatever name it's called, it must be disposed of in some material way. Silence doesn't accomplish that. And what about silence being acquiescence? How does that fit in with respect to the courts.
The People are not allowing their Rights to be taken away, which is not possible.
But they are agreeing (not necessarily consenting) to the government closing off remedies (one is that 'judicial' joke of “no standing” to petition a federal court for redress of grievances). Guantanamo and the alleged 'terrorists' is another example of the government denying remedy through the courts to the detainees. Denying access to the courts for health problems subsequent to taking untested vaccines is another example.
These examples do not deny rights, they deny remedies.
If people stopped wasting blog time about the government taking away rights when they are doing no such thing, but taking away remedies, then discussion could begin about how to reopen access to remedies.
Dickstein's solution to lobby congresscritters to remove remedy-denying government drones is no solution at all. Does he really think pelosi would allow impeachment of government rogues like herself or that the sleepy senate would actually convict and remove those people. C'mon Mr. Dickstein it ain't gonna happen.
So what are the people to do, not to regain rights they have never lost, but remedies for enforcing those rights, remedies which are being denied them on very dubious constitutional grounds?
You have to define the problem correctly before you can design the solution.
For starters, we might begin by looking at the work of how people like Schulz and Hansen have addressed the courts successfully as remedies to government lawlessness and see how they did it…and by comparison what is lacking in the attempts of others who have failed. That's a more productive use of time than hoping for the hopeless, that the government would actually bind itself by the chains of the Constitution. Jefferson said that was the People's job…not theirs.
Any opinions welcome.
Thanks admin for the links.
However, I would say they may be premature by a few days because they make it seem like there is an authoritative “last word” on the topic. That may make others who read the forums shy away from giving examples of their own understanding.
Posts like those of Lancelotte are important to get forum members communicating with each other and learning from each other. Hopefully, others will post their understanding and experience because, in my experience, the average American doesn't know four things:
1. She doesn't know her consent is always required by the government per the Declaration of Independence.
2. She doesn't know that the government almost always gets her agreement but not her consent (per my original post above) as required.
3. She doesn't see the relationship between signing government forms and consent or agreement. She doesn't understand that the government acting through its forms elicits her agreement to whatever the government is proposing. And that this relates to applying to register to vote, casting a ballot, applying for social security, assessing herself for donations of “income” on the 1040 form, etc.
4. She doesn't know that she can actually withhold her consent from government proposals and demands, either with a simple no, like Lancelotte did, or by “agreeing” [not consenting] and signing government forms or cooperating with the government, the way one might cooperate with a mugger, “under duress.”
I think consciousness raising, as a first step, is more effective when people are discussing the idea that needs publicity rather than reading a book or document in private.
So, hopefully others who are interested in the idea that the federal and state governments require their consent for virtually all of their demands (proposals, really), will begin to discuss the requirement for consent openly with each other either before or after reading about it.
Consent, a concurrence of wills, a meeting of minds, a desire on the part of both parties for something to happen, is necessary and lawfully required whether one is applying for a driver's license, responding to a traffic violation, or refusing to convict at the prosecutor's behest in a criminal trial. In criminal trials, withholding consent from the legislature, the prosecutor and the court, is the foundation of jury nullification.
So whether one is responding to a parking ticket, or reprimanding the legislature, prosecutor and court in the jury room, consent of the governed is first and foremost at the heart of responding to all government related activity.
That's just my not so humble opinion. what's yours?
big_brother_myth_buster
Welcome to the forums. Bing has given excellent advice to start reading the Path to Freedom. (BTW if you read Bing's posts you will see that there is nothing 'befuddled' about him.)
While the author of the article you posted is in spirit a true America loving patriot, judging by the things he says and the tone of indignation at what the federal government is doing.
However, his indignation and his opinions are not backed up by any useful facts.
For example, your author says that the Health Care Reform Act is unconstitutional…
Quote:The very basis of the health care reform bill is, at its core, unconstitutional.And he is DEAD WRONG. Hideous as it is, the federal health care reform bill does not violate the Constitution
And this is where FACTS become important because that statement is not a mere opinion opposing your author's opinion.
All Acts of Congress apply in the “United States”, which is a CORPORATION, not a place or a land mass. And the definition of “United States” as used in federal statutes is defined as “The District of Columbia”… which is a municipal corporation.
You will find these facts in federal law itself and you will find the specific citations to those laws and definitions in the Path to Freedom syllabus.
The Constitution gives Congress EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over the District (of Columbia) which cannot exceed 10 square miles.
So, there can be no meaningful constitutional debate on Congress's authority to legislate however it wishes for the District of Columbia and those that are domiciled there (and you will find in the Path to Freedom that to be domiciled somewhere doesn't mean you necessarily live there).
Quote:This is a serious question that Constitutional scholars will no doubt be debating in the months ahead.So, it is not a constitutional problem and such debates will only use up valuable research and self-education time that could be better spent on reading the legal facts taken from supreme court citations and federal law itself.
Quote:The U.S. government has long since abandoned the U.S. Constitution and no has any intention of abiding by it. Want proof? Read just one amendment: the 10th amendment.The People have abandoned the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which notices the world that the government requires the People's CONSENT to act (and it almost always gets that consent, find out how).
The federal government has NOT abandoned the Constitution (because Congressional Acts, with very few exceptions under the commerce clause, have effect only on its own land or in its own corporation).
The 10th Amendment is NOT evidence that Congress has abandoned the Constitution, which only constrains the federal legislature in states (not STATES) of the union, not on its own land over which it has, according to the Constitution, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.
That the 17th Amendment took away state representation in Congress and control of the Senate and effectively made it a second house of representatives means that THE STATES ABANDONED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CONTROL THE SENATE.
Then your author goes on to say that he is a subject of the federal government (and therefore he must comply with Congressional legislation)…
Quote:I find it highly offensive that my own government would threaten me with a financial penalty if I refuse to pay money to such a racket.His indignation has no legal effect…if he is, as he states, under federal jurisdiction, he will pay…or else.
The Path to Freedom helps people understand, from the actual federal statutes and supreme court case law, that most are not federal citizens subject to congressional ACTS (which only apply in the District of Columbia and on federally owned lands and territories).
Most American citizens have become apparent federal citizens, unlawfully, by accepting “benefits” from government franchise operations such as Social Security.
Their SSN number turns them into de facto public officers of the federal government. Read all about it in the Path to Freedom so you and your author can become the de jure American that most Americans FEEL like they are, but who represent themselves (usually under penalty of perjury when filling out federal forms) as subjects of Congress. (You will note that you had to provide your federal identifying number as an officer of the UNITED STATES, INC. when you registered to vote for the president of the UNITED STATES, INC.)
Quote:Why would members of Congress pass a health care “reform” bill that offered no reform and no health? Why would the Obama administration be engaged in under-the-table, behind-closed-doors deals with the drug companies just to make sure they continue to be able to charge monopoly prices for their dangerous medications? Why would the IRS now be invoked to enforce this medical racket? The answer can only be that somewhere at the top of government, someone is diligently working to destroy America. There's no faster way to accomplish that goal than to keep people diseased and indebted, and this new health care reform racket accomplishes both of those goals quite nicely.Because the UNITED STATES, INC. is a profit making corporation, listed in Dun&Bradstreet as such. Also, Office of the President,Inc. is listed as a profit making corporation domiciled at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC. The Internal Revenue Service, Inc. is a profit making corporation listed in D&B at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC. If you type “Supreme Court” into the D&B search engine you get “SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF THE. Also traded as SUPREME COURT” with its Headquarters listed as 1 1st St. N.E., Washington D.C.
These are all corporations doing business together to their mutual advantage. It's just not the People's business.
As a side note, you will remember the flap about Obama not being qualified UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to be president. He's not qualified under the Constitution because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. But it is not a constitutional issue. He, and you, are legally quite capable of being the president of a corporation, whether it's called MomAndPop,Inc. or whether it's called UNITED STATES,INC. or OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, INC. And you will note that they never talk about LAW. They talk about codes, statutes and public policy. Governments make laws. Boards of Directors of companies make policy.
Indignation and taking the high moral ground are only the first step to understanding whether the federal government is YOUR GOVERNMENT, whether you are even dealing with a government or merely a corporation with no territorial authority in the states of the Union, etc.
The Health Care Reform Bill is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the least. And its provisions cannot be enforced against a non-federal citizen AND IT SAYS THAT IN THE VERSIONS OF THE BILL CITED ABOVE where it gives precedence to the COMMON LAW (if you do not know the importance of that or its meaning, then you and the author you cite should start reading The Path to Freedom).
The Declaration of Independence says that the federal government can only exercise its lawful powers with YOUR CONSENT. See:
Requirement For Consent, Form #05.003
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Consent.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The Health Care Reform Bill is lawful. And you CONSENT to its provisions by representing yourself as an officer of the federal government by making public statements that the federal government is “MY GOVERNMENT” and by putting your federal ID number on nearly every form you sign.
If you identify yourself as an officer of a corporation and then you say publicly with indignation that you will not follow your company policies and directives, you must and will be punished, because you agreed to the penalties when you joined the UNITED STATES, INC. just as you agree to the penalties when you sign a credit card application form.
This site does not oppose the federal government in any way. It is an educational site that helps people decide if they qualify or ever did qualify by law to join the UNITED STATES, INC. and, if they did not qualify, how to show that mistake using federal law itself and supreme court fact finding. This site as well as the SEDM site provides legal facts that, if you choose to use them, put you and federal and state governments in the proper, law-based, relationship to each other.
Gurus who make claims about legal successes and do not cite the court and the style of the case are prima facie liars, pure and simple.
Bill Thornton is another one who, as he says in his sovereignty tapes, refuses to cite court and case “to protect the guilty”. Now what real patriot would give rogue judges and attorneys the anonymity they crave?
You have to hand it to Springer and respect him. Even though he makes costly mistakes (like going to the tax court for relief which it cannot grant), he's honest and puts the documents out there to read and study.
There are ways to confound black robed lawyer/priests and their attorney/deacons. The CH court documents on this website show how to do it effectively without arrogant contempt for the court and its rules. To the contrary, to be effective, the court has to be hamstrung by its own rules.
If the courts, which Jefferson saw as the most potentially dangerous branch of government, cannot be tied down with “the chains of the Constitution” they can at least be smacked between the eyes with their rules.
Check out the CH papers.
- 'Bruce wrote on '21:
this won't make You happy
It appears that the complainant lost this case because of a presumption that is widely touted on the internet that bringing the land patent up to date creates a non-taxable situation. And the fact finder noticed this defect several times.
Another presumption is that de-registering registered land also creates a non-taxable situation.
However, in some of the jurisdictions I've investigated, it says that all property taxes due must be paid in full before a property can be registered.
Registration, non-registration or de-registration would appear, then, to have no relationship to or effect on real property taxes. And anyone suing the Tax Commissioner in a country for tax relief under the law would have the same burden of proof as did the complainant in the above land patent case.
One might start their objection to ad valorem tax on property beginning with the federal and state constitutions.
A direct tax on property must be apportioned according to the census.
To tax person A's property higher than the next door neighbor B's property because A's property has a paved driveway, and is made of brick, and is air-conditioned while B's house is made of wood, is half as large as A's, and has a gravel driveway and no air conditioning would seem to fly in the face of constitutional taxing authority. State constitutions cannot contradict the federal constitution.
Ad valorem taxation also would seem to fly in the face of federal and state constitutional requirements for equal protection of the laws, and the administration of due process of law before taking someone's property (for delinquent taxes).
These, or course, are just thoughts not legal advice. However, the presumption of the complainant in the land patent case cited above suggests the shaky legal foundation of the complainant for claiming tax immunity and the need to find a solid legal foundation to challenge the highly subjective process of ad valorem property taxation (notwithstanding fancy statistical analyses applied in some jurisdictions).
It's amazing how humor can analyze in a few words and get to the heart of the matter, what newspaper columnists, bloggers, and forums cannot frame adequately in millions of words and, for all that, never frame the issue succinctly.
Great post.
