franklin
Forum Replies Created
Bing
Make sure those affidavits are part of their administrative records! 😆
Author #5
Thanks very much for the cogent and easy to follow narrative of the fraud. The SEDM forms are also easily grasped. However, I tend to follow all the links and I think I got lost in information overload and didn?t read the text closely enough. (A better strategy would probably be to understand the text first, and then go back and check the sources for the conclusions.)
You?ve spent a lot of time on this to my benefit. So here?s how it now seems to me?
In the federal income scam?Fifth Amendment violation [seemingly] does not occur because there is no required compensation for donations?only for takings.
Quote:That donation process is accomplished by your own voluntary self-assessment and ONLY by that method. Before such a self-assessment, you are a “nontaxpayer” and a private person. After the assessment, you become a “Taxpayer” and a public officer in the government engaged in the “trade or business” franchise.So anyone who files a non-zero 1040 sworn self-assessment is considered, by virtue of that act, a de facto public officer involved in a statutory trade or business [if they file a zero 1040 they?re still saying their public officers but they?re not paying their ?fair share?]. But they are not de jure public officers because?.
Quote:You can?t elect yourself to public officeand?
Quote:No IRS form nor any provision in the Internal Revenue Code CREATES any new public officersSo?
The unwitting ?public officer? gives power of attorney via the W-4 form to his employer to take the fruits of his labor and send them to the IRS as ?income tax? [as it says on the W-4. If it said donation few would sign it] but are really Tax Class 5: Estate and Gift Taxes (this agreement with the employer and Tax classification prevents taking by unlawful conversion).
Then the unwitting public officer tells them it wasn?t a gift and attaches a W-2 form to his 1040 form, which matches what was sent to the IRS. Thus, he affirms under penalty of perjury that the gifts [referred to as Federal income tax on the W-4] he donated via the W-4 power of attorney to the employer, are really ?wages? (to be included in Gross Income) [and were described on the W-2 ?Federal income tax withheld?, ?Social Security tax withheld?, medicare tax withheld?.]
If I?m understanding it correctly, the fraud is that by deceptive means they?ve only created an unlawful prima facie public officer, presumptively domiciled in the District of Columbia, who has to be disowned and disavowed by the victim of the fraud (the natural person) otherwise he helps unwittingly [or wittingly out of fear or out of hope of getting a deduction or a refund] to perpetuate the fraud that he is a public officer.
I hope I?ve got at least the major bones in the right places on this skeleton.
I?ll go back and reread the SEDM form more closely in light of your summary.
Speaking of reading more closely
Quote:Author #2 is busy at the pool with the kids, but I know they concur.Bing, what documented proof do you have that the kids concur? 😀
Thanks Bing for the encouragement. I'll look at Schulz's stuff as you suggest but my
strong inclination is to stay out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
I've been in federal court many times as an expert witness and once with a judge who couldn't remember my name and who kept interrupting me and asking what field I represented (the defendant I was testifying for was facing along sentence from this impaired judge). Another time I had a very expensive box seat in federal court as plaintiff against the Commissioner and watched in dismay as my two attorneys put on a pathetic dog and pony show. At times I wanted to jump up and object to what my attorneys were saying!
I used the FG search engine for “Bob Schulz” as you suggested and came up with the most inspiring thread on the topic. It was Doug Herich's memo to “Linda and Scott” about how working with Ed Rivera and the material that he and C. Hansen have uncovered; he simply avoids the jurisdiction of courts altogether. That's the rock-solid ground I want to stand on and not spend my time writing highly documented letters to idiots who have nothing but evil intent.
Reading the Herich memo will certainly be an antidote to getting “bummed out” after understanding, in 5k pages of documentation, the craven evil of the government of the land of the free and the home of the brave.
As long as there are Hansens and Riveras and the good folks of this forum Godliness has a real chance of prevailing and that has to be the real motivator and the safe high ground for any pursuit of victory against government.
I won't get the CD of What Happened to Justice for four weeks. But I'll have to respond before then.
I'm inclined to believe your view
Quote:Basically, unless the IRS summons was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and signed by a judge, you are free to ignore it with impunity. But that's because I want to believe it, not because I have pro se experience to guide me to take effective action in this current matter.
Bing
Thanks for the reply.
I agree with your suggestion that there is another government sponsored attack ready to be launched. Banks in other parts of the world (e.g. the Royal Bank of Scotland among others) are warning that the dollar is in serious trouble that will become apparent to all very soon. Americans still seem clueless. But when the dollar hits the fan for real, they will (hopefully) be outraged at their losses. Though I'm not going to count on that. But, that will be a time to distract people with another terrorist act by the out of control servants, and it should be coming in the very near future.
If everyone used that time honored epistemological technique “ask yourself a question”, as you do, people would begin to note the obvious cookie cutter approach to government-sponsored terrorism. Asking a question is the first step to thinking (even if it's something like “hey, what's going on here?”) and would get people to see, pretty quickly that “there's something rotten in Denmark”. But, most people (boobus americanus) I know don't ask that simple question, and they don't want anyone asking them the question either.
But on my point about understanding accurately, I'm not yet confident that I'm drawing correct conclusions from what I'm reading. I appreciate your statement that the IRC is a repealed code. And I can read 53 stat1 sec 4(a)
“The Internal Revenue Title, as hereinafter set forth (to me this means whatever they're going to say next applies to the text I'm reading 53 stat as a whole) is intended to all general laws…etc. (The purpose was to include all internal revenue laws in 53 stat). “In furtherance of that purpose, all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed (the next day after this act [53 stat] is enacted).
My conclusion is that this clause is like a mission impossible tape that self destructs after a day. So, 53 stat itself is repealed which would mean there is no statute at large to justify any code for 1954 or 1986. These then are like mirror sites but without the original image.
I need to be able to understand this with confidence so I can give a lecture on it on my feet if I have to. I don't want to merely quote others unless I can elaborate on the quote and explain it thoroughly.
Sorry to be laboring a point which others seem to have a thorough grasp of. But with legal language I am not as confident (with good reason I think. See 53 stat 1 sec. 5 where some things appear to stay in effect).
And it seems to me that without any law at all, there's no justification for anything the IRS does or for the courts to have jurisdiction over. Also a lack of law would go to reasonable belief I think? And it would also be different to argue lack of law as opposed to misapplied law in shifting the burden of proof to the IRS.
So, let me ask my question in a nutshell. If I say to you “there are no statutes at large for internal revenue laws, they were repealed in January 1939, therefore there are no internal revenue codes that can be derived from actual law and that's why 26USC is only prima facie (rebuttable) evidence of actual law and that's why 26USC cannot be enacted into positive law.” Would you say, “well, actually you're wrong, it's not that simple”? Which would mean I have to rethink it.
Or if you're a teacher (and you are) and you 'ask a question' (as you are wont to do) as a test: Why can't 26USC be enacted into positive law?” And I, the student, answer, “because the Statutes at Large for internal revenue laws were repealed in 53 stat sec. 4 in 1939 and there is no law to codify and enact into positive law.” do I get an A, B, C, or an F?
Understanding this is important because you suggested above that 53 stat 1 sec 4 was a way to shift the burden of proof to the IRS without citing the (virtual) Code.
I think challenging jurisdiction should start at the administrative level, hammering away at it as you suggest, and not be brought up only when one finds themselves in an administrative court. If there's no law, that seems to be a pretty good hammer to take to jurisdiction.
Reb
Thanks for the clearest summary statement I've read about the necessity of keeping the burden of proof on the IRS. Many very bright people have gone down in flames because they thought they had to prove something in court. Defendant means all they have to do is defend. And you've made it clear that the only viable way to do that is to require a prosecutor to prove a non-exstent case.
Thanks too for the lead about the Hamling case and how they use that for authority that a statute can be vague. How they can get that from Hamling is a mystery. The appellants alleged the statute was vague and the court patiently spelled out the promulgated legal definition of obscenity and the statute itself says mailing the stuff is the crime. So they had been sufficiently apprised and knew what they were defending against. (What was confusing about the case was the statement that appellants were convicted of mailing obscene material but the jury was hung on the mailing issue — but that's beside the point of someone using this case as an authority for a vague statute.)
Also you said something curious:
Quote:if a court was to deny a Motion to Dismiss and compelled me to assume a statute, I would consider assuming IRC #11 and submit an affidavit that I am not a corporation with another motion to dismiss.Can a court actually do that? Force you to waive your right not to inciminate yourself. Why would you do that? That amounts to indicting yourself and you can't guess what's in the grand jury's mind any more than the prosecutor or the judge. Under that scenario, you'd be trying to prove a negative. Do you know anywhere it's been done?
If I'm understanding it correctly so far…Reb you make the case for keeping the burden on IRS
Bing…I think you suggest by citing 53 Stat 1…that the IRS would have the burden of proving that the Internal Revenue Code is in effect at all…that it is not merely a reprinting of a defunct set of statutes.
If so, it would seem that no case against an alleged taxpayer could state a claim for which the court could grant relief. There's apparently no standing…no offense…no jurisdiction.
Am I close on sifting the essential points out of the discussion or have I gone too far and wide of the mark?
This thread is rich…useful education by guys that have done much of the heavy lifting.
Thanks again (and again!)
Bing,
I have to agree with you this is pretty confusing from a man who is usually pretty cogent in what he writes. But he takes some linguistic leaps that don't seem to compel, or even suggest, the conclusion that there are two presidencies.
He puts great emphasis on the Constitution being styled as “this” and not “the” Constitution to suggest that there are two constitutions…one referred to as “this” and one referred to as “the”. He says that “the Constitution” only occurs twice in reference to the Constitution…and he cites Article VI clause 2 as the second example.
Quote:?The Constitution? appears in only one other place?Article VI Clause 2:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
But “the Constitution” in that clause is a reference to the Constitution of any State, not to “This Constitution” at the beginning of the clause. The word 'or' between Constitution and Laws of any State make both words refer to the single noun 'State”. So there are two distinct constitutions referenced in that clause, one federal, one state.
If there are two presidencies, two constitutions, two oaths of office, and there may be, Dr. Rivera hasn't made a case for them as far as I can tell from his analysis of the grammatical articles 'the' and 'this'.
Well, enough of 'this' for now.
Mental health screening done by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and clinical social workers usually winds up being summarized by a “diagnosis” taken from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM with various Roman numerals to indicate the updated version). It is widely relied on by third party insurers to reimburse mental health clients or their therapists.
However, the DSM (now coming up on version five — DSM-V), grows fatter by the day with 'diagnoses' that are manufactured by committees of psychiatrists (not research scientists) and a sprinkling of token psychologists here and there.
Psychiatry is not a science…and never claimed or pretended to be one. It's an art…along the line of Jackson Pollack's paintings. Psychology is a science and…the Code of Ethics for psychologists states that their work must be based on accepted scientific knowlege. Social work…really apes psychiatry…there is no body of knowlege called 'social work'.
But the point is that the American Psychiatric Association tried to validate the diagnoses in the DSM-III using scientific methods. They used a standard interrater reliability format.
Here's what they did.
For each diagnosis they gave a set of clinical patient data to different mental health workers to see if they would independently agree on the diagnosis. The results were abysmal.
There were two diagnoses with very high agreement — profound mental retardation and florid hallucinating schizophrenia. But you don't need to be a doctor to diagnose those…anyone can do it. But for the rest of the lexicon…the same symptom picture led to a wide variety of diagnoses among the clinicians. Not only that…but it gets worse; the individual clinicians often disagreed with their own original diagnosis when given the same patient data at a later date.
They published these paltry findings in the DSM-III but not in subsequent editions of the manual — too embarrassing. But the American Psychiatric Assn will send them to you via fax on request.
There needs to be a book about The Great Diagnostic Hoax: Why You're Not As Crazy As The Shrinks Think.
These non-sensical, invalid, unreliable diagnostic labels have real effects on people's lives because, if they are put on an insurance form, they are stored in medical data bases like the Medical Information Bureau (MI:cool: and the information is supplied to “member companies”, like the company you're applying for a job with, and assistance is given to member companies to help them comply with 'legal requirements' under the USA Patriot Act.
Like the tax code…the DSM is a house of cards and not nearly as consistent as the tax code. Stay out of its jurisdiction at all costs. The question in my mind is whether a psychiatrist as an expert witness is putting any facts before the court by using the DSM diagnoses.
Admin
Thanks for this post and the links. Jurisdiction and standing are compelling interests of mine. I'm fascinated how defendants seem to let prosecutors' statements to the court pass as testimony without objection. But this reply is to agree with your opinion
Quote:It is my opinion that lawyers and judges seem to know so little about law because their legal education was grotesquely inefficient, dwelling on the intellectual morass of political correctness, sophistry (false logic), fine-tuning the art of deception, and learning the art of intentional obfuscation. In plain language, they are being taught how to lie, cheat, and steal.A year ago a family member graduated from a highly regarded catholic law school. A federal judge was the keynote speaker. At one point his remarks turned to honesty…and he said as catholic lawyers the graduates would bear the burden of honesty in their legal work.
The spontaneous giggling and the buzz that rippled through the five hundred graduates came as a shock to me.
It seemed plain that this remark of the judge created cognitive dissonance with what the students presumably had been taught about “fine-tuning the art of deception.” and the art of false logic. Lawyers appear to be masters in the art of making contradictions seem like truth…war is peace (Dubya, not a lawyer but 'thinks' like one)…The president swears to uphold the Constitution execute the laws faithfully but can also decide to override Congress without using the veto (John Yoo, presidential adviser and tenured professor of constitutional law at Berkeley)…killing innocent children to protect them from possible sexual abuse (Janet Reno)…Oral sex is not sex (Billary)…killing innocent people to protect them from dictators is collateral damage and it's worth it (Madeleine Alldim…has a Ph.D. in something or other).
Contradictions are always false (lies) and should create cognitive dissonance. The problem is that people with advanced degrees and people without them take such big whoppers in uncritically. A few years ago, a high school in Maryland wanted to have Aristotle's logic as an elective. A group of parents objected that the subject was too hard. Even though the course was not required it was not allowed.
To sum this up and sit down…lawyers and other leaderly types are products of their culture…their people. So the people, not as an abstract noun, but on an individual basis, have to develop the qualities of intellect and character that would defeat the liars (as that page turner The Great IRS Hoax helps to do). But with the family and marriage now words of art, full of contradictions,I'm not sure how that will happen. But if I get any ideas, I'll post 'em.
Thanks again.
Now you can't say anything that might make others think anti-semitic thoughts
http://rense.com/general82/semit.htm
So if you teach anything about the Crucifixion of Jesus or the attempts to try him by the Sanhedrin, Pilate or Herod, you could cause some person unknown to you to have anti-semitic impure thoughts.
While AIPAC instructs Pelosi to remove language they object to from proposed legislation, The Office of Global Anti-Semitism instructs the State Department to prevent speech that might get other people to think.
It gets perniciouser and perniciouser.
It seems to me that any new law has to be about something lawful…and that's not always easy to define.
But I think it's well settled pretty much the world over that marriage…even civil non-religious marriages or common law marriages
…are between a male and a female.
To extend the definition to same sex couples makes it no longer marriage but something undefined because by legislative fiat you could extend marriage to include one human and one blow up doll or one human and one robot…or one human and one cow…or two cows for that matter.
Definitions can't be arbitrary…they exist to distinguish between things. When they include contradictions…they lose their meaning and there is chaos when nothing means what it's supposed to mean. Good examples are the words of art in legislation where a “person” is not a breathing entity. Look at the chaos that occurs in people's lives because of such definitions. People don't even know the nature of their own citizenship.
All of the things the gay activists put forward to justify their legal marriage fail to persuade and are mere propaganda.
For example, to have the right to access their 'spouse' in times of illness without family interference. This can be settled by power of attorney.
To have the right to inherit property from the 'spouse' is settled by joint ownership and rights of survivorship. To raise a family. Most upstanding community members can adopt children. I know of a Roman Catholic priest who adopted two Vietnamese children and raised them at home in the rectory.
What I'm suggesting is that the well-settled motive for ordinary marriage is lacking…to found a family and raise it the natural way. Same sex couples can't do that but they have alternate perfectly legal means to accomplish what they say only 'marriage' will accomplish.
So, I think to call same sex unions marriage…turns the definition of marriage into a word of art…and those always seem to have far reaching pernicious and destructive results.
Yesterday, California gays and lesbians lined up to get married. The first couple was two lesbians, one 84 and the other 87. I could only chuckle and think of that slogan “You've Come A Long Way Baby”.
It seems that any argument made to IRS is deemed f rivolous. And I guess most of them are if they are made by “taxpayers”.
In most of the list the IRS refers to taxpayers as the ones making the f rivolous arguments.
It does seem f rivolous for “taxpayers” (those liable for some tax under the code) to argue against various points in the tax code.
Taxpayers, as defined, also have to lose the argument because in all those “silver bullet” arguments they take the burden of proof on themselves. Now that's f rivolous! It's one thing to say “You have no jurisdiction” and another thing to say “I'll pay up as soon as you verify your jurisdiction”. The first statement is an argument to be proven by the unhappy taxpayer. The second statement agrees and argues about nothing; only requiring information. And the burden of proof stays where it belongs.
Same thing applies to the IRS. If they prosecute for willful failure to file they have to prove their argument on three points. They don't prove their f rivolous arguments any more frequently than disgruntled taxpayers (who are liable for a tax) prove theirs. (Which is not to say the IRS doesn't get convictions, they do but not because they prove their argument).
The IRS has no legal leg to stand on, but what criminal says “Gosh, I can't do that…it's illegal”
Its no surprise that the MSM suppresses such a story about the Constitution actually working at the office on pay day.
The only alternative for anyone who cares about this issue is to email it to everyone on their list, put it on blogs with links to the story, etc.
I've emailed this story several times to friends and family. Haven't heard back from anyone, but that's where faith comes in. Scatter the seed and hope that it falls on a patch of fertile ground.
Problem is, I think, most people don't understand what fiat money is (nothing!!) and so they don't see the necessity for sound valuable coinage for trading.
Most people also think that their income tax supports the federal government and the state governments through grants from the federal government. They don't know that the income tax pays the interest on the federal debt…that Congress bypasses the people to borrow money.
I try to get people's interest in this by telling them that if there were no Federal Reserve to borrow from…Congress would have to come to them and ask them for the extra 50 billion here and there to continue the war in Iraq. What would you say to that? I ask. Everyone so far says they would be pretty unwilling to keep writing the checks.
So the problem seems to be the disconnected synapses in people's brains that don't link up Constitutional money (gold and silver coins)…direct taxes…Congress's ability to borrow etc. People know about these things but in an unrelated way that doesn't create and Aha! insight into the scam (fiat money) and the solution (Constitutional money).
Just have to keep chipping away.
I've just finished reading the astonishing pdf file on the corporatization of American institutions. And I must say that I am highly impressed with the prince of lies (for political correctness we might have to say the princess of lies), with his intelligence, his understanding of human weakness (which often shows up in virtues, such as giving 'respectable' people like judges and IRS agents, the benefit of the doubt), his marketing skills, his rhetoric, and his fanatical devotion to crime and its highly successful cover up.
What a genius!
But the weak spot seems to be the corporate contract issue. You can't be lawfully compelled to contract nor lawfully defrauded into a contract.
I'm wondering if anyone has gone into court and asserted that there is no such thing as corporate jurisdiction…since challenging jurisdiction should be routine. In the pdf on corporatization, there is a quote from the Supreme Court (Inc.?) that when the government enters commerce in the form of a corporation, the playing field is level and it is no different from any other corporation.
That being the case, if an ordinary corporation (e.g., IRS, Inc.) can call people into its jurisdiction, accuse, convict, fine and jail anyone it wants, Wal Mart Inc. or KMart Inc. could call anyone into 'court, inc.' and do the same thing.
I'm reminded of Jesus after he was arrested. Most people I know think he was being long suffering and humble taking all that abuse. But in my reading he was being defiant by rebuffing the incompetent attempts of the Sanhedrin, the 'sincere' attempt of Pilate and the wily attempt of Herod to get him to step into their respective jurisdictions. No way did that happen. So they had to murder him (and this may still be a corporate administrative choice today given the number of dead bodies connected to some politicians and the determined people who commit suicide by firing not one, but two fatal shots into their own head ).
Instead of going through lengthy trials with jail time a real prospect, what would happen if a person just said “NO” right to the judge's face. “There is no contract that you can enforce. This isn't even a forum where a contract dispute could be settled. It's just Wal Mart with a different name.”
I think its suggested in the pdf but
Anyone tried this defiant approach yet? 😎
544 trials for treason shouldn't take all that long (I'm leaving Ron Paul out for the moment). And, there could be kangaroo courts just like they use to move matters along faster. And they would all fit into just one of Halliburton's concentration camps…so their every move could be watched and recorded.
And when they demand their constitutional rights we can just 😆 or when they demand their rights under the Geneva convention we could 😛
And since the press doesn't want to be free…they could also be accommodated. 😀
Don't get me started. Such fantasies are too much fun.
All the best.
I remember this case and used it to try and educate a group of religious sisters whose members believed they had to pay taxes to the IRS on their ministry activities.
It was in the US District Court for the Southern (?) District of Idaho, Civil No 93-405-E-EJL.
The Plaintiff had sued the IRS.
The Assistant AG (I think that's who it was) came to court and asked for dismissal because of improper service.
At #4 the AAG states “The IRS is not an agency of the United States government.”
At SECOND DEFENSE the AAG asserts that the IRS cannot be sued because it is not an agency and that the United States is the proper defendant.
At FOURTH DEFENSE the AAG asserts that by serving the IRS, no service has been made upon the United States.
I've heard some patriot gossip to the effect that NARA no longer provides certified copies of this case. 😡
