Many Americans love franchises, just drive to any venue, village, town or city in America and before you get to the center with its local stores, museums and houses, you are bombarded by franchises from fast food companies, oil companies, hotel and motel companies.

You might as well never have left your hometown.

Franchises prosper in their love affair with Americans. Franchises are among our most important exports (you can shake hands with a life-sized statue of the Colonel in run down neighborhoods in Penang. Slum dwellings in Cebu City back up to trendy stores that you find on Rodeo Drive. And McDonald's is everywhere (and in Moscow you can order Vodka with your supersized fries).

Americans love government franchises.

So why would the faith-based initiative be any different.

Established churches love money and don't care much about where it comes from.

Makes you wonder why God doesn't just let gold coins instead of manna rain down from the sky.

Until you realize that genuine love can never result from bribes, which are intended to coerce and control, and in the First Commandment God makes it plain that we are to be free, so that we have standing to enter into a beneficent contract with him.

I agree that it should not be used for tax information of any kind. One post I read several years ago made the undisputed point that the Brushaber decision was a one time only permission for the Congress to levy a direct tax on incomes in spite of the requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.

Clearly a genuine tax researcher or constitutional scholar would know that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress new taxing powers, and the Brushaber decision did no such thing as give Congress a one time exemption to the apportionment requirement for direct taxes.

Clearly propaganda.

On other issues that I know nothing about, I will sometimes use Wikipedia as a starting point to familiar myself with some topic that I want to research. But never do I take any of the entries at face value.

It's funny 😆 until you realize how prophetic it is 😮

Stija,

I wrote

then you wrote

I apologize for being too general and not accurate in my statement. Litigation is necessary more than it should be. There is a real distinction between litigating and actually winding up at trial in front of a completely compromised black robed lawyer.

I agree with you, administrative “due process” is really “dumb process”. Once I was a witness for a friend at an IRS appeal. The “officer” had the file on his desk which was easily 9-10 inches thick. He seemed unaware of the issues on appeal. My friend asked if he had looked at the documents sent to him and sitting in front of him. He said “No, first he had to do a re-audit to see how his audit compared with those of the others”. My friend said “you have no authority to audit anyone”. Meeting adjourned. Waste of time dealing with people who don't even know what their job is.

The expanded point I would make is that in litigating it is desirable to put yourself on the most favorable documented ground so that the other party concedes or does not want to proceed to trial because of what is in the record. The CH documents on this site show that CH used the prosecutor's own willful actions to show that the prosecutor had agreed to become the defendant in the case. In that case it wasn't whether they wanted to proceed or not, it was that they simply didn't know how to proceed with the prosecutor as the admitted defendant.

Homework, as I understand it, boils down to what you put into the record before you go to trial, and, if you do go to trial, what you put in the trial record that makes for an appeal.

With non-government employers, it is admittedly more difficult because you don't have 42 USC 1983 to threaten them with. But, there are two contracts in most employment situations. And they have to be discussed as separate issues.

One is the employment agreement, the contract for a particular job based on your suitability.

The other is a W4 contract, which is optional for both employer and employee, both before and after the agreement is signed. You cannot be coerced into a contract and this is reflected in the language of the W4 agreement. Questions to be part of the record would be:

• How can you have a voluntary meeting of minds about a W4 if the employer acts as if it is a government agent required to withhold money from you.
• Can the employer actually give you notice in the policy handbook for employees and evidence that it is a withholding agent as defined and that you are lawfully obligated to hand over some loot as a legal condition of employment?
• If legal compulsion is involved, what creates the need for a W4? The contradiction can be expanded upon in the record (all contradictions are demonstrably frivolous).

NB: Strategy discussions are not legal advice or any other kind of advice either.

The strategy is to deal with the issue by keeping the burden of proof on the employer and documenting their failure of proof in the record.

The other strategy is to convince them that they are wrong, they're only human, and will indeed ignore you.

One strategy is to get them to prove that you must be party to the W4 contract [Can you coerce someone into a contract?]. The other strategy is to get them to admit that you're right and they're wrong. Each strategy will produce a different reaction from the employer.

My guess is that most employers do not reference the W4 contract in their company policy manuals (which are legal documents that companies have to follow) and are informally enforcing an IRS wish and hope that you would sign the W4 power of attorney which prevents the employer from trespassing on your property.

This, of course, is not advice of any kind, just First Amendment bantering. But, preparing a record that your opponent does not want to see aired in court is a strategy issue, not a legal issue. And effective strategy is as crucial as being legally right whether you are victimized by the malice aforethought in litigation by the IRS and the DOJ, or whether you are victimized by the ignorance of a gullible employer.

My point about Mitchell is that he's really short on strategy. And without a substantial record of success using his knowledge, it remains largely academic (which is not to say that it is not useful in other ways).

You can observe many patriotic litigants, right on the law, who have not done their homework. They fail on strategy and not on knowledge of the law. Being right is necessary but not sufficient in litigation.

So if employers think you're a “loon” you may want to think about your strategies and, if you decide it's a strategy problem, make some changes that cause them to think “this applicant may be onto something”.

Amen. Such betrayal of Christians by Christians is routine in grand and petit jury rooms everyday.

The Nova Scotia man, Rick Simpson, who used cannabis oil to cure his neighbors' cancers was declared to be trafficking in drugs (though he never sold anything to anyone).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

What is ironic is that in the 19th century farmers had to grow hemp. It is a wonder plant for medicine and just about everything else, paper, clothing. The Constitution is probably written on hemp paper.

Henry Ford even built a car made of hemp…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI

And God probably used hemp fiber to weave clothes for Adam and Eve (Gn 3:21)

Just as God made sure that the guilty pair Adam and Eve were prevented from accessing the Tree of Life so they would surely die, today the pharmaceutical companies have made sure that innocent people are prevented access to this miracle plant so they will surely die (assisted by expensive and useless synthetic drugs).

Many Christians believe in the sacramental magic of substances brewed by the high priests of the legal drug trade, but will put their fellow Christians in jail for 99 years for possessing an ounce or two of one of God's natural miracle plants.

This is only one example of how bible-thumping, hymn-singing, politically correct Christians persecute other Christians.

It is a sad irony that with respect to this one issue, the healing powers of a natural gift of God, the persecuting Christians keep themselves from the Tree of Life by their own consent.

Well, not everybody who cries “Lord, Lord” is going to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. They will be told “Depart from me you evildoers, I never knew you” (Mt 7:21ff).

[Though psychoactive medicinal cannabis is not the same as industrial hemp, both are treated by convicting Christians as the same class of mj. Industrial hemp is relatively low in THC, the psychoactive element, but it can be extracted from industrial hemp to produce the natural drug.]

Interesting but not surprising. All three branches of the government appear to operate as if no law applied to them.

The problem with Mitchell's work is that there is no demonstrable way to use it. It's difficult to follow up on his litigation efforts and the results hard to find.

There is an informal 'maxim' that says,

The FG and SEDM sites give powerful data that create an administrative record to get much achieved out of court. But, they're also ready with useful ammo if a member has to litigate.

Mitchell's stuff is interesting to read, but not useful as guidance in becoming and remaining sovereign over one's daily destiny.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of genuine American man the alleged 'president', his wife, his freeloading mother-in-law, the alleged 'congress', and the alleged 'judiciary' hold in contempt. It wouldn't be any surprise to learn that Mr. Estes received a visit from federal thugs who will undoubtedly conclude that he is an “enemy combatant”.

On the bright side, if we pass around Estes's letter it may serve as a wake up call to those who have abandoned America to believe in and follow the antichrist character of the alleged 'president'.

It's just like the big bang theory — controlled chaos 😀