stija
Forum Replies Created
Admin,
First I agree with you. Second, I would respectfully argue that it is a direct unapportioned tax on the income and an excise in relation to the public office/officer. The private person agreed to the debt obligation (contract) by accepting office.
In fact, the Brushaber opinion says so by stating that the tax was a direct tax on income but cannot be taken out of that context and transformed into a direct tax on the source itself. And this was all because of Pollock decision. Even the 16th amendment proposal says that the general govt always possessed a power to tax itself so the 16th amendment is irrelevant. It did not confer any new powers onto Congress.
This tax can be levied on any artificial entity’s income and privileges granted by Congress IRREGARDLESS of one’s domicile, nationality, citizenship, because it is not a tax on the person……it never was. Like you said, it is a tax on an artificial legal entity (excise) measured and levied on its income (direct).
Had the above IRS website said that it authorized a new direct tax on income (not citizens) it would have been 1/2 correct (because it didn’t authorize anything new, that’s a lie).
I love it!
This one is excellent too. This man knows that cops have no duty to citizens to protect and serve them. He also destroys every ‘argument’ made by the host.
I respectfully disagree. You see, people some times sign what is called DNR or do not rescuscitate order which tells the health care provider (HCP) that they do not want cpr. Emergency medical personnel on the other hand is not a HCP and they can do it if they choose to or if they job calls for it. Also, the DNR order does not apply to them but only to the person’s HCP.
I do not know the details nor do i pretend i do, however i know that the elderly lady’s family said in an interview that their mother did not want cpr performed on her and kept alive.
Have any of you performed CPR on a 80+ yr old? Needless to say you are breaking ribs and making more damage than good. How well do you think an 80yr old heals broken bones?
So, like i said at the outset, i disagree with this assessment. The article would hold true if the nurse was forced by her employer to perform CPR against elderly lady’s wishes, something which was not done. I could argue that in this instance, private rights and wishes were upheld and protected by the nurse and the facility. So this story is really +1 for private rights.
There are also limited code options, for example you could check that you want oxygen support but no chest compressions. Without getting into all the details, it’s really like ordering a pizza with different toppings.
Thanks for answering 1 and 2. I cannot find a rule that explicitly allows only motion, response and counter response. There isn’t a local one or one in general Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As far as 3. goes…..it was a memorandum or treatise that explained how to force the judge to administer the law instead of interpret it. It explained in detail that judges are not supposed to interpret the laws but administer them instead. In other words, you provide legal ground for the judiciary to stand on and do what you tell them to do instead of act on their own and “interpret” it how they want to.
I do not know if that helped at all, but i know i read a memorandum of that sort about a year ago on this site. It could have been linked to SEDM.org. I cannot find it again unfortunately.
I have a two fold question that i would need assistance with. For the purposes of this scenario, the litigation would be in federal court under constitutional diversity of citizenship, not to be confused with statutory div of citiz.
First Question:
Are arguments or allegations made in a Motion (like Mt for Dismissal rule 12 or Mt. for Sanctions Rule 11) applicable only in regards to the Motion in question or does it pertain to the whole proceeding? For example, party files Mt for Sanctions and makes three arguments: A, B, and C. Are these A, B, C arguments just arguments for the purposes of the motion, and if not rebutted are conceded for the purposes of the motion only or are they pertinent to the whole proceeding and therefore become conceded for the entirety of the proceeding?
Second Question:
It is my understanding that when a moving party files a motion, the non moving party is allowed to respond. Then the moving party is allowed to respond in support of their motion again, and then the non moving party would get the last word, thus responding to the moving party’s supporting response. Is this understanding correct? I could not find a rule that unambiguosly and clearly explains this.
And finally, I once found a treatise/memo explaining how to force the judge to adminster the law instead of interpret it. Could someone please point me to the link or give me the correct name of such document. I tried searching for it and have come up with nothing.
Thank you.
Video cuts off within the first minute saying it is unavailable. But when you reload the page and play it again, it plays again to the same point and then says unavailable.
What the?
I have no idea what ‘real money’ argument is. Is there a treatise or memo on lawful money here or on sister site sedm.org?
I never heard of Global Entry, but that is probably because i am an “infrequent” traveler. But it does make sense. Great catch.
Also, DHS administers E-Verify and gets the citizenship info from the SSA, while also administering Global Entry which is provided political citizenship info from the DOS. Did it ever occur to anyone that DHS administers two programs with respect to citizenship, but they obtain the “citizenship info” from two separate agencies? E-verify from SSA (civil), and Global Entry from DOS (political). Now you know why. They are trying to blur the lines between Title 8 political contexts and the SSA/Tax related contexts promulgated in the I-9.
Wow. I do not see two shots when seen from the profile. From the front, i can see two distinct and foreign clouds 0f smoke forming 🙂
Good find. I don’t think i’ve ever ran across this reg.
You’re technically right. But you’re wrong in practice. In reality IRS doesn’t care because they get money if they let them commit perjury. It’s all ’bout the benjamins.
You best course of action is to sue the party that “converted” your private money to public use and gave it to IRS.
Welcome to the forums. I remember when i was in your 'shoes'.
You have a long long way to go before you can start to understand what is going on in the 'matrix'. Sometimes it is better not to know and sometimes i think what my life would be like if i didn't know and understand what is being done to me and us.
Long story short, if one incurs U.S. taxable income one has to file proper returns and pay a tax on that income. The real question is what is income and how do you incur any. I would strongly suggest you start with fundamentals of law such as hierarchy of law etc. Read the Great IRS Hoax book. It in itself can explain the basics of the matrix and what is what really.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
Before you use anything on this website for your personal and private endeavours, make sure you follow the steps outlined in the Path to Freedom book found in the middle top of the main website page.
Do you really want to know what the matrix is? -_-
Not all of them are tyrants….some of them actually understand what is going on but are powerless like the rest of us….I believe.
Pg 704 lines 22, 23, 24 state:
Quote:22
Every other type of subject matter jurisdiction exercised by the federal government within the states is not authorized by the
23
Constitution, and therefore can only be undertaken with the voluntary consent and participation of the state governments
24
and the people within them. This type of consensual jurisdiction is called “comity”.
This is not correct if am to understand the teachings of this ministry and constitutional law itself. Federal jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the consent of the state governments EXCEPT insofar granted by the constitution itself in which case it doesn't have to be allowed or consented by state officials/govt because it would be constitutionally mandated. People on the other hand are free to do and contract however they please.
Correct me if i'm wrong. Or fix the document please.
