franklin
Forum Replies Created
Interesting post, especially when terms like “resident alien” and “citizen” are used.
However, in fairness I think they are probably using those terms in their commonly understood sense and not in the sense given them by schizophrenic statutory doublespeak.
However, the contradictions are real…and should have been picked up by a good theological editor…or even a pious catholic.
“Free men” and “subjects” referring to the same people violates Aristotle's law of identity…which holds: “Things are what they are” (A = A). So…???
Violating the law of identity with contradictions, such as A = Not A, are always false and never true.
This use of contradictions in forming its doctrines of citizenship is deeply ironic in a church that requires its priests to study Aristotle and other philosophers for two years and then Thomistic theology for another 4 years…before they are ordained. St. Thomas Acquinas, a Doctor of the church, was a medieval proponent of Aristotle's philosophy.
However, long before Aristotle, the law of identity was handed down by God as the First Commandment…
Quote:“I am the LORD your God…[make no mistake about it] I brought you out of Egypt, that place of slavery…you shall not have other gods besides me.”(Ex 20:2-3)
This just shows how Kool-Aid is a drink universally enjoyed by both children and Popes alike. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/C…kTheKoolaid.wmv
Of course, if people of a state opt out of social security…that would pave the way for them to realize that social security cards and numbers were superfluous.
If all of those pieces of government property were returned to the SSA, stapled to the SS-521 form…then that would be a large scale break from the government franchise that attaches to virtually all federal requirements and privileges…from IRS taxes to all licenses and bank accounts. Participation in SS is the goose that lays the golden eggs…for a constitutionally restricted government to establish its jurisdiction over Americans.
The weak spot in the plan, it seems to me, is the idea of “instructing” Congress to “give permission” to opt out of social security…and giving solid evidence for the fiscal soundness for doing so (e.g. Chile's experience).
There is a big presumption that Congress is looking for guidance on reforming SS and that they are looking for guidance on how to make people's lives better through reforming SS. The only viable reform for SS is to drop it entirely because…even if its scope is greatly diminished and SS recipients pared down to a chosen few…that would only be temporary…the cancerous tumor would begin to grow all over again because it is the very nature of unrestricted governments to increase their power over the people. Would Loudspeaker Pelosi ever let a bill get to the floor that actually was based on the principle of restricted government, based on sound economic reasoning and designed to let the people prosper. I think not.
I can't imagine such “permission” being granted. Participation in franchises (including mandatory health care) is voluntary. States that are interested in opting out should do so on a sovereign basis not on a subject basis.
A combination of the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments and the SS-521 form seem to me to establish standing to leave the system and a more effective posture (i.e. a WMD) to take with respect to this issue.
Excellent!
While many people think Marx was an economist, it is clear that they don't pay attention to what's under their noses…or what's disappearing quickly from their wallets.
MARX, as history has shown in every country where his religion is practiced (even today as Marxian economics costs people their jobs), WAS A LOUSY, STUPID, UNINFORMED, INTELLECTUALLY PRETENTIOUS ECONOMIST. Even the communist Chinese have figured that out and have become the most capitalistic of communist countries…even suggesting their people acquire gold and silver money based on honest (i.e. moral) weights and measures.
So, why is Marx so popular?
Because he is a theologian. He does what all religions do. He appeals (with nothing to back it up except his brain farts) to the intangible hopes for a better life (here if not hereafter).
He made altruistic, abstract promises that create hope in people…that if you follow his 10 commandments and put yourself entirely under the protection of Obama and Pelosi-esque gods and goddesses, and make your whopping big donations, you will have a better life. If you don't follow his commandments you will be a slave (Marx was also ironic) to the man who built the factory in your town and gave you your job and pays you competitive wages.
Jansenists: If you despised your body for the evil thing it is you would be saved. If you wore lipstick and wiggled your booty you would go to hell.
Obamanationists: If you buy our health insurance you will have peace of mind. If you don't buy our health insurance you will go to debtors' prison…after we bankrupt you with fines.
Rooseveltianists: If you sacrifice the fruits of your labor so the unproductive can have a chicken in their pot at your expense you will be taken care of when you become unproductive. If you don't sacrifice the fruits of your labor so the unproductive can eat at your expense, you will go to jail.
Catholicism: If you don't eat meat on Friday, you will be free of sin. If you do eat meat on Friday, you will go to hell…unless you go to confession and seek forgiveness.
That's what's the same about religion. They all promise to make things better in some way.
But there is a major difference between a civic religion and a church related religion.
Church related religions are morally and spiritually coercive (e.g. instilling fear of hell fire).
Civic religions are morally coercive…”pay your fair share”. And physically coercive as well…”if you don't buy our health insurance you will go to jail and pay huge fines”. “if you don't voluntarily comply with our compelling government interest that you pay unspecified taxes that don't apply to you…you will lose your property and go to jail.”
The point here is that most Americans are much more faithful to their Marxist beliefs than to their baptist, presbyterian, catholic (etc.) beliefs. But they don't know they're practicing another religion than the one they profess.
They think communism is about atheism.
And it is.
And atheism is all about God! Isn't it?
You can't deny something that doesn't exist. As soon as you speak of someTHING you've acknowledged it or created it…at least as an idea that you might want to refute.
That's how God created the world when he looked into the void…with words…”In the beginning was the Word (or as a friend of mine says…”In the beginning was Word 2007….”)
Admin's above post is very helpful in formulating the legal/judicial exposition of American civic religion and suggests how Americans might leave that church and find their way back to God (who never coerces us…but invites us to contract with him in truly beneficial covenants with all of the material facts fully disclosed.)
Hear! Hear!
The cash flow to the drug companies and the physicians dries up if you are healthy.
Lord Monckton makes an eloquent plea to the American people to stop ob from signing the climate treaty in December.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
However, he does make one, understandable, error in his dire warning to us.
He says that treaties take precedence over the Constitution. However, that is not what the text in Article VI clause 2 says. Here is what it says (without the intervening dependent clauses)…
“This Constitution…AND all treaties made under the authority of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
The language is plain that treaties and the Constitution must be compatible. Otherwise the Framers would have used the word OR.
Perhaps a large scale mailing needs to be made to the Senators, who will 'ratify' the treaty, demanding by what authority delegated from the soverign People the 'president' will cede American sovereignty to a foreign taxing authority. And, exactly how does the treaty comport with Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution.
This will happen in December. So there is no time to lose.
Republic,
I read your post to Loudspeaker Pelosi and thought it eloquent and clearly to the point. Putting the Constitution in front of these people at every opportunity is a sovereign act.
However, having said that, I'm going to nitpick a bit here.
1.) I don't think you should have referred to her as an equal peer to yourself. You wrote as the sovereign demanding an explanation. She is a servant, hired to be one, and expected to act like one and do the will of her master. She is not a peer of the sovereign.
2.) I don't think it should be signed “very respectfully”…for two reasons. a.) it sounds grovelly and plays to a politician's egomaniacal belief that you must at all times be very respectful of them despite their criminal activity. b.) Without contradicting your intended message above the closing, you cannot accord her such respect after indicting her for violating the Constitution and several amendments in the Bill of Rights. There is nothing at all to respect in premeditated criminal activity. By signing it “very respectfully”, the sovereign demanding an accounting from the servant ends up being the servant…or so it seems to me when I read it. There is some research on short-term memory that shows people tend to remember the opening and the closing of a written document, like a poem, and have trouble remembering what's in the middle.
Other than that, thanks for the letter, it will be useful to send to other critters in congress assembled.
Franklin
All of these analyses view gold as a speculative investment against worthless paper currencies. They do not consider gold as money (a moral means of trading value for value).
The real difficulty with gold is that the medieval government models (like the Lisbon treaty under which everyone is a serf) may make it a criminal offense, with a death penalty, for people to use anything but their paper. All bartering systems based on value for value eventually could be outlawed. That happened here (minus the death penalty) under FDR who made it illegal for Americans to own gold that could be used as money (numismatic coins, collector's items, were an exception). The people had to, and still have to, use federal reserve notes and digital cash for most all of their transactions.
It is also not useful to talk about paper currencies being backed by gold. There are none. Switzerland was the last country to go off the gold standard.
If a currency is backed by gold, then the paper has to indicate that it is a receipt for an actual amount of gold (and there isn't a lot of it in the world). The US dollar used to say that the paper could be traded in for silver, it no longer can be done even though the federal statutes still say that anyone can go to a federal reserve bank and exchange federal reserve notes for “lawful money”. I called a few federal reserve banks.
New York was the only one who would answer my question about how to give them their notes for silver or gold coins.
After I got passed from one employee to another…some brave, nameless soul told me “There is no lawful money in the United States…and we do not deal with the public”.
Gold is money (a moral way of exchanging value for value). When gold is thought about as a commodity, all one is doing is trying to predict how many worthless pieces of paper an ounce of gold will buy.
It's not rocket science and does not require a Ph.D. in 'economics'. It all boils down to what your neighbor will accept from you in return for what he gives you. That's money. Manhattan island was bought for 24 glass beads. That's money.
Until the early part of the 20th century, when the criminal bankers went to Jekyll Island, most of the people on earth saw gold as money. No longer true.
Recently, some of us tried paying for a meal in a Chinese restaurant with one ounce silver eagles. The waiter went for the manager.
The manager arrived at our table, got mad and, thinking we were deadbeats, demanded non-money…federal reserve notes or a credit card. We asked the waiter if he would accept a silver coin as a tip. Nope…he pointed to the tip space on the credit card form.
So, gold and silver aren't money…yet.
It's confusing for an average American to measure gold against federal reserve notes. $2000 gold does not mean gold has become more valuable. It only means, as with other hard goods, commodities and products, that there are more worthless pieces of paper around.
It also means that you could take an ounce of a valuable substance like gold and buy two thousand worthless pieces of paper with it.
Who in their right mind would do that?
In fact, the value of gold, the purchasing power of gold never changes. That is why gold is a store of value and not a speculative investment against monopoly money (which is at least backed by hotels and houses in desirable neighborhoods).
In the 16th century, if you were a courtier to Queen Elizabeth I, a good suit of clothes to go to court would have cost you one ounce of gold. Today, if you were invited to have tea with Queen Elizabeth II, and needed a new suit for the occasion, a good suit of clothes would cost you one ounce of gold.
When you understand gold in terms of what it will buy, it is highly stable in value.
When you put gold next to federal reserve notes, it looks like it changes in value. But it doesn't.
That's just one of the many illusions about bogus wealth that federal reserve notes and digital 'money' have created in people's minds. When fiat currencies are inflated prices have to be inflated and it simply takes more of the circulating paper to buy anything, including gold.
Zimbabweans have such a worthless currency, billions of pieces of paper to buy a few eggs, that people now pan for gold in the rivers and estimate that it takes 2.5 grams of gold to trade with each other for life's necessities on a daily basis. But that number is fixed and its purchasing power remains stable. Societies stabilize and prosper when the money is stable. The golden economic age in America was right after the ratification of the Constitution. Paper money was poisoning life in the colonies and so the coin clause was added to the Constitution. Rapidly, the new states stablized and prospered.
But here in the world's only alleged superpower, there are still people who have credit card fever instead of gold fever. And that's all about to change.
Incredible.
And written in plain easy to follow standard American English
Thanks for this post.
Who gets the IRS???
FreeMe
Welcome back. You wrote in response to Bing's question about why you were suing in federal rather than state court…
“Anyways, I had to move on to higher court because the Federal court is the only one who can punish banks.”
It would be a useful contribution to others in the forums if you would show the actual legal basis for this statement. If there is a valid legal basis for your statement then you would be making a contribution to others and not just asking others to contribute to your situation.
Contracts, whether with banks or anyone else, usually state the jurisdiction under which disputes will be settled. And banks are incorporated by the states not by Congress.
They get a federal connection by becoming FDIC insured, but how this affects your legal and jurisdictional relationship to a state corporation is not clear from your above statement.
It would be really helpful for you to share your knowledge in this regard.
You also wrote…
“I have a pretty good handle on the state level, but am very unfamiliar to Federal level. So I am learning and if your not willing to give insight, please do not hinder my progress.”
Questions and comments about your post were intended to give you insight (including Bing's very important one to take the stand because attorneys, whether that's you representing yourself, or a hired gun representing you as an incompetent ward of the court, are not fact witnesses under oath). Bing's insight could only facilitate your progress. Only you can hinder your progress.
Let us know how it goes.
Lindsey Springer doesn't seem to understand the tax 'court'. He approaches it as if it is an Article III court that can exercise the judicial power of the United States, dispense justice and provide remedies for constitutional torts. When, in fact, the tax 'court' is a clerical administrative office in the executive branch with its worker bees parading as 'judges' (a title taken from Article III). And he makes 'defenses' when he is the plaintiff (which you are when you petition the tax 'court') and it is the plaintiff who gets to state the law of the case (assuming you're in a genuine court).
Quote:“In December, 1996, I petitioned Tax Court using the same address appearing on the notice of deficiency (i.e., bill of attainder), asserting use of such statistics to impose a tax liability was synonymous with slavery and involuntary servitude. In February, 1997, Tax Court ruled my slavery claims were frivolous and impose a sanction of $4,000 against me for raising slavery and servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment as a defense.”His heart is in the right place, but his extensive knowledge does not seem to be organized usefully.
I've got two problems with Benson's case and his appeal to the SC with its newly installed injustice.
First is, as I read it, the issue is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment was not the law of the case. The prosecutor, the sovereign of the court, said the law of the case was 26 USC 6700. Benson failed to rebut the law of the case by making the prosecutor prove 1) that Benson was subject to the law of the case (if he's not a taxpayer as he claimed, how does the code apply to him? A person cannot violate a statute they are not subject to. They called him a tax protester, but he does not appear to have objected.). 2) If federal courts are enjoined from hearing and ruling on internal revenue issues, how is it the the IRC is the law of the case?
With respect to 1) Benson ignored the law of the case and took the high ground of his right to free political speech and association. The court dismissed this defense…ingeniously…by agreeing with him. He could sell his book and call the IRS any names he liked. This still left in place the presumption that he was personally subject to the IRC. And the presumption that he was violating a statute that applies only to taxpayers. In order to meet the law of the case, his defense, it seems to me (and I'm open to education here), would have to be along the lines “I didn't know that I was subject to the IRC, I thought it was only for taxpayers” which keeps the burden of proof on the prosecutor whose presumption was that Benson was subject to the code.
Instead the court's opinion affirmed his First Amendment rights to political free speech, even to the extent of selling his opinions, and they spent the rest of the time making the point of the statute; that he was promising something in commerce he could not deliver. If his customers were acting as taxpayers and public officers in possession of public property, no Reliance package could possibly save their bacon (for purposes of this post the term bacon shall mean “backsides”).
With respect to 2) I can't square this away with the Declaratory Judgments Act. So, I've found a weak spot in my knowledge. They didn't come out and declare that he was subject to the IRC, the prosecutor simply proceeded on the presumption of law. And Benson never required him to replace that presumption with proof that the code actually applied to a declared non-taxpayer.
I think there's a chance that SC will grant certiorari because it seems like a slam dunk case to remove the First Amendment from the discussion; then reinforce the idea that the lower court dispensed justice after it affirmed Benson's First Amendment rights; then to reinforce the “nutty” notion that political association and contract association have “penumbras” that differentiate them under the First Amendment. (I can't fathom the difference because political speech is full of knowing lies and people are asked to send money to the liar who has no intention of delivering on his promises.) In short, my intuition tells me that they will not find that the lower courts erred and they will take advantage of Benson's non-defense (he did not respond to the law of the case) and seize the opportunity to get some bad case law out there that can be cited against people who, however clumsily, are seeking to give truth a place in the sun.
Johnwk
You're preaching to the choir.
Instead, why don't you write czarina Inez and put your statements into admit or deny format and give her a time limit to respond and publish your results here. You clearly have enough knowledge to turn it into practical thumbscrews to be applied to government criminals. One of your statements to the czarina should be — Your fine and punishment would be a bill of attainder. Admit___Deny___.
Maybe FG or SEDM would publish your research in a form that anyone contemplating a garage sale could send to her and then hold their sale, and all future sales, with impunity after she fails to reply.
Admin wrote:
“It's all for you to see so take a peek by running to your Federal Depository for the original 1939 Statutes at Large Vol. 53 Part 1 Internal Revenue Code. You will not find it on the Internet.”
The SAL from 1917 thru 2007 including 1939 can be downloaded in pdf format from…
http://whatistaxed.com/statutes_at_large.htm
Hope this encourages more folks to follow up on admin's exciting post.
