Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- Now let me ask you this, IF one were to NOT have a bank account, but otherwise carried on as per normal, ie; used FRN's, etc. . . would that be sufficient to be "unseen" by the IRS? Usually it might be sufficient, but there is always the matter of receipts. Unless one has receipts stating, "Paid at law in coin", the IRS will assume one was using FRN's for their purchases. Even if one used clad coins for their purchase, such receipts can still be obtained by asking the seller to sign the receipt that way. Frog Framer styled clad coins as "unlawful counterfeit with intent to deceive", but mentioned they are still a step up from FRN's: private script. He also mentioned that when using clad coins he gets "Paid at law in coin" receipts all the time: "Most people have no idea what it means, but judges do." OR are there attachments to the use of FRN's, and if that is the case how is this invisible contract brought to bear? FRN's are private script, and (I assumed) can be seen as having the same 'invisible contracts' attached as bank accounts have -- by default. Although after exchanging a couple messages with Frog Farmer on the issue of gold/silver coins vs. clad coins vs. FRNs these past few days, it seems I was mistaken about the importance of "invisible contract" with regards to FRNs, and that legally their day-to-day use is not as significant as I had previously assumed. [But having a book full of receipts stating "Paid at law in coin", sure as hell wouldn't hurt anything] When I asked Frog Farmer, "what legal considerations caused you to exclusively use coins instead of FRN's?" he replied: "I began after being asked to do so by Jack Metcalf (Washington State Sen.), who explained the harm done by FRNs to our country. I was further supported in the decision by George Gordon (pro se guru), who made further distinctions between Law and Equity, and how what we each choose to do says a lot about ourselves. Actions have implications and ramifications." "...Do any of the people still understand the difference between form and substance? Between Equity and Law? Between debts and assets? Has anyone cared to read any monetary law, starting with the Act of 1792? Has anyone cared to research the history of the FRN? Yet they still have trouble differentiating between FRNs and coin?" "...You can't get receipts saying "paid at Law in coin" when using FRNs - people aren't yet THAT stupid. I use all kinds of coins. And I just don't want to support the Federal Reserve, personally. Do you?" He suggested reading "Everything I Have Is The IRS" by Merrill Jenkins, "which thoroughly explains the fraud of the clad coin, and the Catch-22 situation that the government has put itself in by pretending to treat a quarter coin made of silver the same as a clad counterfeit." Where is it hidden? What role does the Social Sec. Sys. have in this, since all people must pay into it (though obviously this is probably grossly unconstitutional as well), how does one avoid this attachment, especially since this would give the "King" another avenue to pursue one for the collection of revenue? Since courts have ruled that you cannot "opt out" of the system, how do you get around it? Is it even necessary in the context of our discussion? Mercier has a chapter in "Invisible Contracts" that answers the above questions [Chapter 5, The Employment Contract (pgs 229-299) http://www.etext.org/Legal/Invisible.Contracts/incon05.txt]: "A lot of folks don't realize it, but the presentation of a Social Security Number to your Employer is a contract with the King to pay taxes, and an acknowledgment of personal Status as a Taxpayer." He explains, step by step, how one can legally get around this 'invisible contract', "but it's not an easy thing to do". The best way and the most obvious thing to do, of course, is not to be an employee or employer. I realize these answers are a bit general in scope, and are lacking much substance, and I apologize for it. I've been extemely busy lately and didn't have nearly as much time to spend on these subjects as I would liked to have spent. Hopefully next time around philately DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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:
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 10/22/99 6:52:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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). I do, and did, understand the gyst of your statements and those in the Armen C. letter. The idea is that you are in effect contracting with the Federal Government, via the Treasury Department, and having my local bank be intermediary only. Thus, and in all other cases of civil CONTRACT LAW, the constitution DOES NOT apply, meaning that the constitution cannot be used to nullify contractual agreements, especially when knowingly entered into. Now let me ask you this, IF one were to NOT have a bank account, but otherwise carried on as per normal, ie; used FRN's, etc. . . would that be sufficient to be "unseen" by the IRS? OR are there attachments to the use of FRN's, and if that is the case how is this invisible contract brought to bear? Where is it hidden? What role does the Social Sec. Sys. have in this, since all people must pay into it (though obviously this is probably grossly unconstitutional as well), how does one avoid this attachment, especially since this would give the "King" another avenue to pursue one for the collection of revenue? Since courts have ruled that you cannot "opt out" of the system, how do you get around it? Is it even necessary in the context of our discussion? discussion? ** *** "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of seas of infinity, and it is not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft; "The Call of Cthulhu" DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector-
See my comments interspersed below.
In a message dated 10/19/99 4:39:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Granted.
[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.]
Granted.
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).
This may well be correct, but it also seems to me that there are other
invisible contracts as well. Like a W-4 form, W-2's that the employer must
provide to the state, ones Social Security number and one's payment into the
fund, as well as, perhaps, one's Drivers license.
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 $100", he would say something like, "It will be
about 10 rolls of quarters"]. With the exception of an
occasional barter, coins are the only form of payment
Frog Farmer has accepted for his services since the
early '80's. Needless to say, jurisdiction was never
established and the case was dismissed (note: I don't
recall if this particular case was a tax case, but the
same principles apply).
How could the same principles apply if, as you admit, the constitution does
not apply in tax cases, but does in civil and criminal court?
[Also note that most pro se wins are 'dismissals', thus
there is no record of them. On the other hand, *all*
IRS wins are recorded in the law books. Therefore, a
statist imp like Dan Evans can pull out a seemingly
endless supply of cases where Protestors lost with
off-point tort or constitutional arguments (which were
overruled by "Invisible Contracts") and say: see, the
IRC is constitutionally valid (when it isn't) and the
Bill of Rights is impotent (when it isn't). This way,
most listening to Gremlins and imps like Dan Evans,
will forever pay their taxes without a why and a
wherefore, and also 'throw the book' at Protestors
if they ever serve on a jury in a tax case.]
Granted. Remember I am not here to defend the IRS, or the tax system. I
would love to have real and effective means of avoiding it. The problem is
always with interpretation and one's BELIEF as to what constitutes an
effective legal means of avoiding the taxing authority. I see MUCH talk on
the subject but little actual KNOWLEDGE. Apart from your comments to NOT use
a bank account,
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector- MHO, What one must do is that your "defense' should start at arrest and must be brought up before arraignment. Quo Warranto, is your defense, with that declared to the arresting officer and to the judge before arraignment, hopefully in a written statement, but oral is enough at the time, to be backed up later with written brief. Act as your own attorney. The declaration of quo warranto and the act of presenting a motion to determine status before arraingment STRIPS away any "invisible", "reticentia" and colour of law actions and holds persons directly liable for their actions with no immunity "official, quasi or actual. Also in tax cases it is always good to present any payments as under duress. The whole 'money' system is "unconstitutional" -- a racket and a fraud. MHO Om k In a message dated 10/18/99 8:01:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Incidentally I hate taxes and think that they should be abolished, as excessive, and immoral, etc. 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. I didn't post his information as an endorsement per se, but to illustrate a point. 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? 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? Thanks for your comments it was my intention to spur discussion! DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-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 $100", he would say something like, "It will be
about 10 rolls of quarters"]. With the exception of an
occasional barter, coins are the only form of payment
Frog Farmer has accepted for his services since the
early '80's. Needless to say, jurisdiction was never
established and the case was dismissed (note: I don't
recall if this particular case was a tax case, but the
same principles apply).
[Also note that most pro se wins are 'dismissals', thus
there is no record of them. On the other hand, *all*
IRS wins are recorded in the law books. Therefore, a
statist imp like Dan Evans can pull out a seemingly
endless supply of cases where Protestors lost with
off-point tort or constitutional arguments (which were
overruled by "Invisible Contracts") and say: see, the
IRC is constitutionally valid (when it isn't) and the
Bill of Rights is impotent (when it isn't). This way,
most listening to Gremlins and imps like Dan Evans,
will forever pay their taxes without a why and a
wherefore, and also 'throw the book' at Protestors
if they ever serve on a jury in a tax case.]
The point is, in order to be free of the 'king', one
cannot partake in any benefits offered by the 'king',
including using the 'kings' chartered banks, or his
chartered banks' federale reserve notes and, in most
cases, even a regular 'job'. Some Tax Protesters have
gone this route in order to be free of the 'king' and
his Privateers, like the IRS,[1] only to later find
that under their particular economic circumstances,
going back into the 'king's' 'box' -- getting back into
the 'system' (or 'Matrix', if you will) -- was in their
best interest at this point in their life, so they did
-- they gave up some freedom for a little more
'security' and comfort. But that's the way it goes.
Freedom from the 'king' is not for everyone, in fact,
it's probably not appealing for
[CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector-
From: TenebrousT
Subject: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:16:13 -0700
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg26403.html
-Caveat Lector-
Here is a list of topics from http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
snip
No offense Teo, but Dan Evans is a statist imp, and a
wanna be shyster -- as anyone who ever subscribed to
misc.taxes well knows -- it's saddening to see you post
his swill on CTRL.
His Tax Protester FAQ is deceptive in that the
constitutional issues the FAQ seems to debunk, are
*not* decided in tax court on constitutional grounds.
Indeed many of the 'debunked' arguments are
constitutionally correct, the problem is that (as far
as tax court goes) constitutional arguments with
regards to income tax are utterly irrelevant. That's
why federal judges presiding over income tax cases
often blurt out something along the lines of, "The
constitution does not apply in my court!"
Income Tax cases are decided on "Invisible Contracts",
thus constitutional arguments based on tort are losing
arguments, not because they are legally incorrect on
constitutional grounds, but because whenever contract
law applies, tort arguments are automatically
overruled.
I've read enough of Dan Evans' usenet posts over the
years to understand that he *knows* this, and instead
of "letting the cat out of the bag", and exposing the
true nature of why these constitutional arguments are
losing arguments (because of "Invisible Contracts"), he
deceptively pretends that these constitutional
arguments lost on *constitutional* grounds, which is
not the case.
In short, the information in the "300,000$ reward"
posted by Bob Stokes is *not* bunk, at least with
regards to tort and constitutional law, although it is
bunk when "Invisible Contracts" are factored into those
cases brought forward in tax court -- cases that Dan
has *deceptively* based his FAQ on. When these
"Invisible Contracts" are not present, the IRS never
goes to court with Protestors because their tort/
constitutional arguments (that Dan Evans styles as
'bunk') would be legally potent, and the IRS knows it
would be a losing case.
There are numerous Americans that have legally not paid
income taxes in 15-20 years -- individuals whom the IRS
would *never* bring into tax court because they are not
bound by the "Invisible Contracts" which the IRS
actually bases it's income tax cases on -- individuals
such as Frog Farmer http://www.frogfarm.org/, for
example.
The following was recently posted to CTRL, but does
such a good job of explaining what is really going on
with these losing constitutional arguments (and
debunking that non sequitur fallacies Dan's Tax
Protester FAQ is based on) that it's worth re-posting:
philately
"The Armen Condo Letter"
-- background --
In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage
Protection Agency ("YHPA") was being prosecuted by the
Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes,
as well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.
The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the
largest organized tax protester group to ever have
existed in the United States (with respectful deference
to our Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung
"tax protester" patriots living and laying their lives
on the line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its
heyday in the 1970s/1980s, the YHPA's dues-paying
membership reached well into the 20,000 to 30,000
range, before it was ultimately brought into a state of
non-existence through the intervention of strongly
persuasive federal influences.
The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and
continued on in their efforts for several years, with
their primary focus based upon the illegitimacy of
Federal Reserve Notes, contending thereon that receipt
of said Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute
"income," therefore, no one receiving said notes was
liable under federal income tax statutes. Although
additional proprietary "tax protester" positions were
routinely addressed, the YHPA's primary focus remained
centered around Federal Reserve Notes.
Curiously, as a side note, individuals choosing to join
the YHPA (usually in the context of a dinner/seminar
setting), were guided through a "joining process" at
the conclusion of the seminar, where dual ID photos
were taken (the YHPA kept one photo, and you received
the other, using a dual-photo camera similar to the
dual-photo cameras used at your local Department of
Motor Vehicles or local passport photo vendor) and
slick, professional looking "ID cards" were processed
on the spot and given to each new member at that time.
In hindsight, the stated reasons given at these
dinner/seminars with respect to the "necessity" of
having/creating a photo ID card were rather specious at
best, and in fact, there was s
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 10/18/99 4:42:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No offense Teo, but Dan Evans is a statist imp, and a wanna be shyster -- as anyone who ever subscribed to misc.taxes well knows -- it's saddening to see you post his swill on CTRL. His Tax Protester FAQ is deceptive in that the constitutional issues the FAQ seems to debunk, are *not* decided in tax court on constitutional grounds. Indeed many of the 'debunked' arguments are constitutionally correct, the problem is that (as far as tax court goes) constitutional arguments with regards to income tax are utterly irrelevant. That's why federal judges presiding over income tax cases often blurt out something along the lines of, "The constitution does not apply in my court!" Income Tax cases are decided on "Invisible Contracts", thus constitutional arguments based on tort are losing arguments, not because they are legally incorrect on constitutional grounds, but because whenever contract law applies, tort arguments are automatically overruled. I've read enough of Dan Evans' usenet posts over the years to understand that he *knows* this, and instead of "letting the cat out of the bag", and exposing the true nature of why these constitutional arguments are losing arguments (because of "Invisible Contracts"), he deceptively pretends that these constitutional arguments lost on *constitutional* grounds, which is not the case. In short, the information in the "300,000$ reward" posted by Bob Stokes is *not* bunk, at least with regards to tort and constitutional law, although it is bunk when "Invisible Contracts" are factored into those cases brought forward in tax court -- cases that Dan has *deceptively* based his FAQ on. When these "Invisible Co 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. Incidentally I hate taxes and think that they should be abolished, as excessive, and immoral, etc. 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. I didn't post his information as an endorsement per se, but to illustrate a point. 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? 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? Thanks for your comments it was my intention to spur discussion! discussion! * "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of seas of infinity, and it is not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft; "The Call of Cthulhu" DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
[CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector-
Here is a list of topics from http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
You'll see that the issues raised in the Tax Protester FAQ are some of the
same ones addressed in this reward notice. You must file a return with the
IRS, and the 5th amendment will not save you, since tax court is not a
criminal court. IF you are tried CRIMINALLY by the IRS then you may use your
5th amendment rights to not incriminate yourself, it is just like a civil
case, where you are compelled to testify. Additionally the "tax amendment"
was ratified by the appropriate number of states, and it is only a matter of
typographic errors that hold no meaning from a legal perspective that the
claim of inadequate ratification stems. One MUST pay taxes, except for
specific exemptions which are encoded, such as if you are below minimum
income levels. AND, lastly but not least, since the courts have rejected all
of these arguments (whether because they were following the law or because
they were kowtowing to the IRS is irrelevant for the purposes of this
discussion), AND further case law is dependent to a large extent on PRIOR
citations it is only reasonable to presume that they will continue to reject
these claims in the future.
Believe me, I am no fan of the IRS and feel it should be abolished
completely, and taxes done away with (in an IDEAL situation anyway, but I'd
settle for a drastic reduction). I present this information because I don't
want to see people rushing off to do something foolish. Linda Miller has
provided good information in this area (she is another list moderator).
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ
Created by Daniel B. Evans
[Last updated: 2/21/99]
Table of Contents
What is the purpose of this FAQ?
A "tax protester" is only someone classified as a "tax protester" by the
Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the IRS definition of "tax
protester."
The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a "direct tax" that
must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a
"direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution.
The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a "direct tax"
that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any
provision of Article I of the Constitution.
The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.
The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word "income" is not defined.
The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income."
The Internal Revenue Code cannot define "income" because it is a term used in
the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.
Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on
labor would be a tax on property and a "direct tax" within the meaning of the
Constitution.
Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be
taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens
of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Wages are not "income" because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a
form of "property") for money (another form of property), so there is no gain
and no income.
Wages are not income, but only a source of income, and therefore not subject
to tax.
Payment in Federal Reserve Notes is not "income" because Federal Reserve
Notes are not lawful money ("coins in gold or silver") within the meaning of
the constitution.
The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia,
the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the
United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of
those "federal areas."
The income tax cannot apply to "sovereign state citizens" because they are
not "citizens" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia
and territories of the United States because the way "United States" is
defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the
United States.
The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due
process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment
to the constitution.
Withholding of income tax from wages, and the assessment and collection of
income taxes without any court order, is a deprivation of property without
due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a
form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be
compelled to testify against yourself.
The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would
be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.
Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the
income tax.
Re: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
-Caveat Lector- My apologies to Linda Minor, for incorrectly identifying her (as Linda Miller) in the previous post on this subject. subject. * "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of seas of infinity, and it is not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft; "The Call of Cthulhu" DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
