-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> How could the same principles apply if, as you admit, the constitution does
> not apply in tax cases, but does in civil and criminal court?
Look at it this way: the Bill of Rights does *not*
apply to corporations. Agreed?
Now consider: if the federales played the role of a
corporation, and one contracted with them as if they
*were* a corporation, and experienced commercial
benefits from them as if they were a 'corporation',
then would they not, in effect, be a 'corporation'
(under, and limited to these specific circumstances)?
Granted, this is all coming from imaginary "what if"
land (as Wayne in "Wayne's World" retorted, "Yeah, like
sure, and 'what if' monkeys flew out of my butt'?); but
'what if' evidence existed proving such a scenero was a
legal reality? If so then, as with any other
corporation, would the Bill of Rights also *not* apply
to any obligations one agreed to be bound by?
Due to "Invisible Contracts" when one sets up a bank
account this is exactly what happens. By opening a bank
account, one simply signs away all their constitutional
'protections' -- at least as far as income taxes go.
It's just as if one signed on a dotted line at the end
of the Income Tax Code, and agreed to follow all the
rules to-the-letter in exchange for benefits gained by
using the bank account. Mercier points out this is due
to the Instrumentality Doctrine:
-quote-
Commercial contracts in effect with banks are invisible
juristic contracts in effect with the King. In the
Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are in a
special Status with the King, and likewise so are the
individual people who experience profit and gain from
any Commercial contract they enter into with a bank.
This relational effect of doing business in King's
Commerce is pronounced quite clearly in the
Instrumentality Doctrine the Supreme Court initiated
publicly with Davis vs. Elmira Savings:
"National banks are instrumentalities of
the Federal Government, created for a public
purpose, and as such necessarily subject
to the paramount authority of the
United States."[1]
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/161/275.html#283>
This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and
the word Instrumentality means an Equity Relationship
that is quite strong in American Jurisprudence. As
nationally chartered banks are the Instrumentality of
the Congress, consider the subordinate Party (the
banks) as being the "right hand" of the Master (the
Congress). This is a very powerful Doctrine indeed, and
it needs to be understood for what it really means. In
the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that, from a
Judicial Perspective, any profit or gain experienced
from a bank carries with it the same identical full
force and effect as if the King himself created the
gain. Consider, for a moment, the application of the
Instrumentality Rule to corporations:
"Under this Rule, corporate existence
will be disregarded where a corporate
subsidiary is so organized and controlled
and its affairs so conducted as to make
it only an adjunct and instrumentality
of another parent corporation."[2]
(Black's)
Now think what happens if the King is substituted for
the parent corporation, and your local bank is
substituted for the subsidiary corporation. Under the
Instrumentality Doctrine, the local bank as a Person
and a legal entity fades away in significance as if it
was transparent, and the King and the Secretary of the
Treasury then appear as the real contracting Persons
you are entering into Commercial agreements with. Are
you beginning to see the legal significance of this
Doctrine? Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper
meanings of the bank account in that it is the King
that you are really contracting into Commerce with, and
the bank is just the King's local agent? That bank is
literally the private personal property of the King.
Entrepreneurs who go out and capitalize a new bank from
scratch do not own that bank. The bank is owned by the
King who created the corporation, and his Comptroller
of the Currency later issued out a banking charter to;
and the individual shareholders only hold an equitable
interest in the bank's operations.[3]
-end quote-
In short, under the Instrumentality Doctrine when one
opens a bank account they agree to "follow all the
rules of the bank". In other words, to follow all the
rules of the Treasury, *including* Title 26 USC -- all
the rules of the Income Tax Code. As much Tax Protestor
research implies, this Code violates the Constitution
10 ways from Sunday. The only problem is that these
violations are utterly and totally irrelevant -- by
signing up for the bank account, one *promised* to
follow the terms and the *rules* of the contract.
Whether these rules actually are constitutional or not
does not matter in the least.
Likewise, when one closes their bank account the
contract ends. One instantly regains the Rights that
they signed away. This is why the constitutional
defense can sometimes apply to income tax cases, and
why other times it can't. Does this make sense?
> Granted. Remember I am not here to defend the IRS, or the tax system. I
> would love to have real and effective means of avoiding it. The problem is
> always with interpretation and one's BELIEF as to what constitutes an
> effective legal means of avoiding the taxing authority. I see MUCH talk on
> the subject but little actual KNOWLEDGE. Apart from your comments to NOT use
> a bank account, what are the means by which people can LEGALLY avoid the tax?
Apart from my comments to NOT use a bank account (or
other "Invisible Contracts")? Apart from that, the only
way I know to LEGALLY avoid the tax is by making under
the minimum yearly income, which I believe is about 5K
a year or so. There might be other ways to LEGALLY
avoid the tax, but all the theories I've yet come
across seem like a 'crapshoot' in comparison.
It obviously didn't happen in your case, but when I
read Mercier's letter to Armon Condo the countless
loose ends and endless contradictions found in all
other Tax Protestor theories suddenly vanished;
everything made sense: Ordo ab Chao. IMO, if you can't
'get it' by reading Mercier's "The Armon Condo Letter"
and "Invisible Contracts", then you certainly can 'get
it' by reading my sound bites and analogies.
Most of the other Tax Protestor research I've seen is
based on constitutional loopholes or tort arguments of
'fairness'. In and of themselves, some are certainly
valid. IMO, if it wasn't for the "Invisible Contracts"
making those valid arguments off-point, a lot of those
constitutional defenses would be legally potent; but
with those contracts present, they're totally impotent
(and only occasionally work via random luck -- by jury
nullification).
> Can you provide some legal reference for the contention that the use of Coin as
> opposed to FRN's is a seperation from the "King's" system, and not subject to
> the same legal scrutiny?
Don't take my word for it, take Frog Farmer's; who's
'been there, done that' and has been doing it for over
15 years. On Wed, on the FWO list, Frog Farmer wrote
something dealing with the use of coins as opposed to
FRN's (quoted below). As follow up, someone asked him
basically the same question today that you asked above.
When he responds in the next day or two, I post it in
this thread.
-quote-
Woodsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lastly, there is the unbelievable FRN. Completely fiat, completely
> worthless. Yet few can escape this dilemma either.
Frog Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
CRAP!! "Yet few can escape this dilemma either"???
How about, yet few have the guts or brains to demand
coins? How about, yet few realize that FRNs are only
3% of what is taken to be "money"? How about, yet few
realize that is approximately the same amount of coins
in circulation? How about, yet if one who wanted to
use one part of one 3%, suddenly decided to use one
part of another 3%, nothing could stop him? How about,
yet most people will waive rights and accept a lower
lawful status so that they can look or feel "cool" and
not "weird"? Dilemma indeed! Here's the dilemma: how
does one make a sheep want to be a man? How does one
make a herd of sheep all take off in their own
individually chosen direction?
-end quote-
...to which someone responded:
-quote-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good day frog, here's a topic I have been following as
closely as I can. As early as a year ago I have noticed
discussion here and from a couple personal e-mails from
you regarding coins and their relationship to frn's.
I'm trying to understand clearly and have only sketchy
background. My present state -o- residence does NOT
publish code, a secret club exists at the law library
and my presence is not welcomed there. I still go as
often as I can though. (and laugh at the weak attempts
to keep the code secret)
Can you give reference to data for the purpose of
expanding my understanding the function of coin for
daily use? I suspect one of the reasons for requesting
coins will turn out to be; coins have fewer hidden
contracts attached, and use alllows retaining common
rights, unlike the frn.
Thanks for any effort, I do respect the time necessary
to cause understanding and experience.
-end quote-
Again, when Frog responds in the next day or two, you
should have a much more satisfying answer then I could
provide.
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
