-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm not offended in the least by your comments here. You have all but agreed
> with my basic premise, which is amply illustrated by the court cases which
> are cited in the FAQ, that is that the LAW and the CONSTITUTION do not matter
> a hill of beans if you can't go into court and win the case.
I may be mistaken, but you seem to be getting 'a'
point, while missing 'THE' point....
With a few exceptions, when the IRS terrocrats
(terrorist-bureaucrats, collecting debt for the
privately-owned Federale Reserve) take one to court,
they pretty much already know they have an air-tight
case. If they didn't, they might try some coercion to
get what they want or, in rare cases, they might just
go ahead and seize whatever they want, waiting to see
if the victim is competent enough to take it back from
them (via properly written and filed paperwork), but
they wouldn't knowningly adjudicate any case they
weren't 99.9% sure they could win.
[Although, since federale tax cases are tried by a
jury, in reality anything could happen -- no matter how
strong a case the IRS has -- it, as Al Adask put it, is
a 'crapshoot' ("that is, nothing, not even brown paper
bags filled with hundred dollar bills and handed to the
judge will absolutely guarantee victory in a juducial
trial or administrative hearing") and occasionally some
people get lucky using tort and constitutional
arguments, via jury nullification (as in the 'Long'
case, defended by anti-IRS attorney, Larry Becraft
<http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/>); but such cases are
rare.]
You state, "the LAW and the CONSTITUTION do not matter
a hill of beans if you can't go into court and win the
case". I reply: the IRS is *only* going to take one to
court if they have what they believe to be an air-tight
case -- if they have the ace up their sleeve (i.e.,
'Invisible Contracts'). In other words, if one is not
bound by these "Invisible Contracts", then the IRS is
bound by the Bill of Rights, and their *own* 'laws'.
Under such circumstances, they will not go to court --
ever.
The main 'ace' up the IRS's sleeve -- the main
"Invisible Contract" -- is a bank account, and if one
does not have a bank account, the IRS no longer has
that all important ace. There are several other
"Invisible Contracts" that the IRS can usually use in
it's place, but with these low-cards the IRS would
still be vulnerable in court to a tort defense based on
the Bill of Rights, and their *own* 'laws', if they
can't prove one is bound by these other "Invisible
Contracts" (such as the use of Federal Reserve Notes).
For example, a prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to
gain jurisdiction over Frog Farmer once through these
"Invisible Contracts". Even though he knew Frog Farmer
didn't have a bank account, the prosecutor thought he
could nab him by getting him to admit in court that he
used Federal Reserve Notes. As it turns out though,
Frog Farmer (an auto mechanic with his own shop) was
aware of the nature of these hidden contracts and had
only been accepting coins from his clients [e.g., when
he would give an estimate he wouldn't say "it will be
about $100", he would say something like, "It will be
about 10 rolls of quarters"]. With the exception of an
occasional barter, coins are the only form of payment
Frog Farmer has accepted for his services since the
early '80's. Needless to say, jurisdiction was never
established and the case was dismissed (note: I don't
recall if this particular case was a tax case, but the
same principles apply).
[Also note that most pro se wins are 'dismissals', thus
there is no record of them. On the other hand, *all*
IRS wins are recorded in the law books. Therefore, a
statist imp like Dan Evans can pull out a seemingly
endless supply of cases where Protestors lost with
off-point tort or constitutional arguments (which were
overruled by "Invisible Contracts") and say: see, the
IRC is constitutionally valid (when it isn't) and the
Bill of Rights is impotent (when it isn't). This way,
most listening to Gremlins and imps like Dan Evans,
will forever pay their taxes without a why and a
wherefore, and also 'throw the book' at Protestors
if they ever serve on a jury in a tax case.]
The point is, in order to be free of the 'king', one
cannot partake in any benefits offered by the 'king',
including using the 'kings' chartered banks, or his
chartered banks' federale reserve notes and, in most
cases, even a regular 'job'. Some Tax Protesters have
gone this route in order to be free of the 'king' and
his Privateers, like the IRS,[1] only to later find
that under their particular economic circumstances,
going back into the 'king's' 'box' -- getting back into
the 'system' (or 'Matrix', if you will) -- was in their
best interest at this point in their life, so they did
-- they gave up some freedom for a little more
'security' and comfort. But that's the way it goes.
Freedom from the 'king' is not for everyone, in fact,
it's probably not appealing for most Americans living
in this decaying, socialist 'democracy' (so-called) --
living in modern Babylon.
For example, on another list last year, when Frog
Farmer was touching on the above concepts, the
conversation eventually turned to the following:
-quote-
> : If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T have a SSN, DON'T have a
> : driver's license, DON'T use FRNs, DON'T use banks, DON'T etc, etc, etc,
> : etc., then there is NO advantage. I guess the question is, what is the
> : point of being free if all you've got are don'ts.
If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T
have a SSN (slave tattoo), DON'T have a
driver's license (Massa's permission to go
to town), DON'T use FRNs (Massa's credit
card), DON'T use banks (instrumentalities of
Frog Farmer's public servants), DON'T etc,
etc, etc, etc., then there is NO advantage.
I guess the question is, what is the point
of being free if all you've got are don'ts?
If that's how you have to frame the question,
you should quit resisting immediately and go
volunteer all your time at the UN. You know,
throughout history, there have been slaves
who have had a higher standard of living than
some free people. And again, you are coming
at this from the side of a comfortable slave.
It really isn't a concern of yours what free
people enjoy, since the option is apparently
closed to you.
> : I would like a specific answer here. What rights can someone who uses
> : an ATM machine not defend?
The right to be paid and the right to privacy.
And the right to retain all the product of
their labor. There are probably many more,
but it really doesn't matter how many.
-end quote-
Teo:
> Incidentally I hate taxes and think that they should be abolished,
> as excessive, and immoral, etc.
As the 'philatelic motto' goes ['philately' is from the
Greek meaning, literally, "the love of what is free of
further tax"]:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
once said, 'Taxation is the price we pay for
civilization.' But isn�t the opposite really
the case? Taxation is the price we pay for
*failing* to build a civilized society.
The higher the tax level, the greater the
failure. A centrally planned totalitarian
state represents a complete defeat for a
civilized world, while a totally voluntary
society represents its ultimate success."
-- Mark Skousen, "Persuasion Versus Force"
<http://www.geocities.com/philately.geo/>
> However I am not foolish enough to quit paying KNOWING full
> well that if I am brought to court I will LOSE and be made to pay, and with
> interest and penalties as well.
And *that's* the kind of mentality which reading the
likes of statist imps such as Dan Evans will produce.
One will only be brought to court if they are partaking
in the 'kings' benefits (bank accounts, using federale
reserve notes, etc.). One must ask themselves if
benefits of being free from the 'king' (no income
taxes, licenses, registrations, etc., and the
psychological freedom that goes along with it) outweigh
the drawbacks of trying to live in the midst of
Babylon's house without a bank account, mortgages,
loans, (most) 'jobs', etc.; and having to spend
countless hours of research at the law library, and be
ready to competently defend one's rights in any number
of legal/law enforcement situations in which they may
ever find themselves. If the answer is no, then it is
indeed foolish not to give unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's. But that does not mean that 'no' is the only
answer -- that living without the hassles of the IRS
and other terrocrats (all the 'kings' men) -- is not
possible. Yet such 'death and taxes' swill is the
underlying theme of Dan's Tax Protestor FAQ.
As Frog Farmer pointed out in the same message
I quoted from earlier:
Why not ask, "how many in pro per will ever
be good enough to defeat that man standing
in oppostion over there at the similar table
on the other side of the room, the one who
wasn't good enough to succeed in private
practice, the one who doesn't even know
that his license to practice could not fit
into one of those little credit card windows
in his wallet (we have a video of our local
county counsel searching his wallet for his
license after being asked to produce it -
and coming up empty handed), the man who
didn't even see the case file for the first
time until he was in court on the arraignment?
When you're in court, the entire (imagined)
might of the government is focused through
the brain and mouth of usually one man, a
man who cannot survive without government
support. How often do they rely upon the
supposedly impartial judge for support?
Almost all the time. One might better
ask "can this man over there fight his
way out of a wet paper bag"? Most
government wins are a result of pro se
incompetence, I would say....
-end quote-
[and much pro se incompetence is from failing to
understand the nature of "Invisible Contracts"....
I'd love to see Dan Evans attempt to prosecute
someone like Frog Farmer on taxes. LOL!]
> I didn't post his information as an endorsement per se, but to illustrate a point.
In all fairness to Dan Evans, I have heard him say on
occasion that if one doesn't want to pay income taxes,
then go live on a farm or what not, grow/sell your own
food, but be sure not to make over 5k in a year, so
that one falls under the IRS minimum -- which is a
semi-honest statement, but not enough to "let the cat
out of the bag".
One can actually make well over the IRS minimum, even
millions, and live anywhere, as long as they do not
accept benefits offered through the 'kings' commerce
[via contracting with his chartered banks for accounts,
mortgages, loans, etc.; using federale reserve debt
notes (the 'kings' "credit card"); using a SS# (the
'kings' "slave tattoo")] when obtaining their money.
Sure, it's not as easy or comfortable to do in modern
Babylon, but it's certainly possible.
> BTW, your comments may be 100% factual in your representation of them,
> BUT the point still is, how can you gain anything by it, if you will
> just lose the case in court?
One will never go to the 'kings' tax court if they
don't partake of his commercial benefits; and on the
impossibly slight chance that they do go to court, and
have done their homework, the case will be dismissed.
[note: Frog Farmer no longer argues constitutional law
or tort. Currently his favorite technique is to
disqualify anyone who tries to impose Mammon's
jurisdiction over him by using his PSQ ('Public
Servant's Questionnaire') -- which is a 'silver bullet'
-- as long as one has integrated their research to the
point that they can comfortable improvise, and think
on their feet.] <http://www.frogfarm.org/> see also:
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/>
> It is virtually impossible to live without being enmeshed in the state machine in
> some way, thus even if the overriding factor is "invisible contracts" there
> is no way to get around it, or is there?
As touched on above -- as rare individuals like Frog
Farmer have proved -- there are ways to escape the
numerous 'traps', 'snares' and 'boxes' set long ago by
the 'Gremlins' (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.,
through the 'Great Work' of their shyster / politico /
intelligentsia imps), but it's a difficult choice for
most to make. To remain 'outside the box' is based
mainly on a Moral choice (i.e., Principle), while to
remain 'inside' is based much more on monetary/economic
considerations (i.e., the Emotions of comfort or
'security', and not having one's friends and relatives
think that one is a 'kook'). Kinda like the 'Judas' in
"The Matrix" -- the dude who wants to go back into the
Matrix, knowing full well what it *really* is, but who
would much rather 'taste' steak in the Matrix, and be a
'slave', than eat gruel outside it and be free.
While were're on the subject, in light of information
above, reconsider what Charles was *really* getting
(at least, what he *seems* to be getting at, IMO) in
the sagacious message he posted for us last Christmas:
-quote-
> Subject: Re: [CTRL] vs. socialism, vs. capitalism, what now?
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 17:12:13 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 12/26/98 3:49:36 AM, MJ wrote:
>Name one business one may participate (legally) which is devoid
>of government.
This has been an interesting discussion. I doubt we're
going to find ourselves all simultaneously agreeing to
one single perfect economic solution anytime soon, but
I think it's very important to discuss this type of
thing along with the various other abuses and
manipulations of power discussed on CTRL. Disagreements
aside, how can we expect to actually have a positive
impact on the status quo unless we mentally hack the
system, as well as our own preconceptions?
When I said "slightly mixed," I wasn't trying to deny
that we live in Babylon, and that we cannot escape
Babylon's grip (Babylon as a metaphorical
representation of the United States). You cannot
operate a "business" of any substantial sort without
entangling yourself with the government, and you cannot
gain employment legally without paying taxes, which go
to support all sorts of nasty stuff that people
generally wouldn't approve of if they realized what was
actually going on.
The question is, are you one of the few who the system
is built to serve, or are you one of the rabble which
the system feeds upon? I guess that's what I meant by
"slightly mixed," in the sense (quoth Noam Chomsky)
that we have in effect a form of state socialism for
the rich, with free markets reserved for the poor.
Those who are able to claw their way out of the free
market and gain entry to the "top of the pyramid club"
will, on the way, learn all the bloodthirsty tricks
necessary to maintain their prosperous new positions.
The social rot begins to smell like roses; decay
becomes new growth; crisis becomes opportunity.
Corporate execs draw $250,000 paychecks with $100,000
bonuses on a bad year (and blow every dime of it,
saving surprisingly little), while the kids in the
public housing project down the road have to put
plywood over their windows because all the glass has
been broken out.
But the system (any mass system) is perpetuated by
building a conceptual "box" (laws, regulations, social
controls, etc.), then tricking and/or forcing as many
people as possible to stay within the box.
Automatically the perpetuation of this system becomes
its primary occupation; that's a given. There is no
system that can be built which will be able to
withstand the probing of those who seek to use it to
their own advantage.
Maybe the revolution will come one day, but even if it
did, would anything new really come along? The real
revolution is within each of us -- the systematic
individual process of eliminating one's own
contradictions, false values and preconceptions. We
have been conditioned since birth in a rancid sea of
lies, contradictory messages, dead ends, and
greed-inspired motivations. We must deprogram
ourselves, dig deep into our own souls, and determine
what exactly it is we want to do in these 70-some-odd
years that most of us are given on this earth. Only
when we have cleansed ourselves of the weaknesses
instilled by years of unconscious programming can we
come together as a people and really build a better
society.
And it IS a matter of building alternative systems
(while we continue to resist and expose the evils of
the old system). Look at that overpriced machine
sitting on your desk -- yeah, the one that's allowing
you to read this blathering email message, and reply to
it if you so choose. It won't be long until one of
these gizmos is a necessary tool for pretty much any
type of economic activity. Go ahead, get rid of the
government, extricate yourself all you want. How the
hell are you going to extricate yourself from Apple and
Microsoft (or CrappleSoft, if they ever get around to
merging)? How are you going to send email or check
USENET without BellBeast's phone lines?
But technology, of course, is a two-edged sword. There
are many, many potential technological solutions that
could help us set ourselves free, but they must be
solutions that are developed and initiated
independently of the established system. We must learn
to survive independently in the midst of Babylon's
house, if for no other reason than to prove it can be
done. Why not set up an independent international
network of Internet servers based on packet radio? Why
not set up an online bartering system and opt out of
the Beast system entirely? Why not organize corps of
volunteer knowledge workers and guerilla information
activists to develop the software and hardware that
would be necessary to set up these alternatives? All we
really need is food, shelter and a little time.
There is no end to the possibilities, if people
actually got together and started DOING something.
Again, it's important to debate economic issues as
thoroughly as one might beat a dead horse, but it is
also extremely important to put ideas into action. When
our leaders are derelict and corrupt, we must lead
ourselves; when the system has deteriorated beyond
repair, it is up to US to build a new one. Failing
this, we embrace the idea of controlled dissent with
open arms.
And the tools we need are sitting right here in front
of us. Stop thinking of your computers as boxes with
microchips and circuits inside. Start thinking of them
as infinitely malleable blocks of clay, or as cans of
paint with your own mind serving as an infinite canvas.
Start thinking about the possibilities. Start thinking.
I came to a snare in the woods kind of half-assed
covered in some leaves. I spent years staring at it in
muted anger. Then I spent some more years pointing at
it in a rage and yelling at others to come help me
stare and point at it. Finally I realized that the
snare was not only doing its work quite well, it had
actually managed to entrap many more than it would have
caught if I'd just ignorantly stepped into it and been
caught. Then, finally, I remembered the knife in my
back pocket. I took it out and cut the rope, and I've
been pretty happy ever since.
Peace out,
Charles Overbeck
ParaScope
-end quote-
In other words, it is much more 'difficult'
(uncomfortable) for most American's to live outside the
Matrix today as Frog Farmer, et al. currently do, then
it is to remain inside it, for the simple reason that
there is not a viable *system* that has been built
outside it -- there's just 'Morpheus' and some others
others living free, eating gruel, trying to "cleanse
weaknesses instilled by years of unconscious
programming" and, of course, trying to find others of
like mind to help establish a foundation for a viable
alternative system. Of course there is still a long way
to go before it will be a truly independent system that
most individuals can conformably switch to. But hey, it
has to start SOMEWHERE, with SOMEONE doing SOMETHING.
---- footnote ----
[1] Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother England
in the 1700's, there was a practice going around Europe
called Privateering, which is when small privately
owned armed navies would roam the High Seas in search
of prizes to steal for themselves. A Privateer, then,
is an armed vessel, owned, fitted out, and manned by
private parties with a legal commission from a
political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the
vessels and cargo's of the enemy. This legal
commission, called a Letter of Marque, impressed upon
the Privateer's banditry an aura of legitimacy in
International Law, without which Privateers would be
hung as pirates by any nation's ships fast enough to
capture one. But back safely at home, the Letter of
Marque also served as a legal basis for an Admiralty
Court to condemn the captured property, the Prize, and
assign it over to the Privateers themselves who stole
it (this was also called Prize Jurisdiction).
[In remarkably similar ways today in the United States,
private contracting Privateers are at work in the IRS,
acting under a legal commission, which largely
precludes the imposition of Civil Rights damages
because of their operating under the recourse
protective umbrella (color) of Governmental authority;
and like the Privateers of old, today's tax loot is
also handed over to a private party: To the owners of
the Federal Reserve System, for payment on the King's
National Debt. And even more astounding in parallel,
today's IRS collection of loot and banditry is also
governed under a Federal Court acting under the rules
of Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.]
That analogy between the Privateers of old out on the
High Seas, and of today's private contracting termites
inside the IRS sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The
requisite blend of comparative background elements of
thievery are present, an underlying tone of IRS
illegitimacy runs throughout the analogy, and that,
generally is the kind of talk Tax Protestors like to
hear... "looters," "theft," "banditry" and the like.
Yes, analogies like that are music to the ears of Tax
Protestors Extraordinaire like Irwin Schiff,[65] and
Representative George Hansen.
But just one tiny little problem surfaces here which
makes the Privateers to IRS Termites analogy fall apart
and collapse, a tiny little problem Irwin Schiff and
George Hansen do not want to talk about -- a tiny
little problem most folks had better start to talk
about, now, before getting in front of Father at the
Last Day: An invisible Contract....
-- George Mercier,
"Invisible Contracts"; Chapter 3 (Bank Accounts)
<http://claimhelp.com/initiative/march98%20article.htm>
philately
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
