FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

I am just curious if you have ever been to the states and seen Homeland Security at the airports. If I had to guess I would say that most homeland security officers have had little education about many subjects but namely the US Constitution, it seems that they often come from lower income families. BTW I have never been overseas either, just wondering how different it is over there.

This domestic terrorism thing though, is aimed at people who are either in debt, behind on child support etc and labeling them as domestic terrorists. In other words debt is now terrorism. So everybodys a terrorist basically.

Absolutely, I've flown into and out of most of the major airports in the United States since the TSA took over, and I do think you're right about the officials. Generally though they have seemed quite professional, although overworked and rather stressed.

One of the more interesting things I've noticed though in the United States is the absence of military troops at airports. I think I've only seen them once, in 2004 in Chicago I saw soldiers in the tunnels under the airport that connect it to the subway system, but in the United Kingdom, I regularly see fully armed and outfitted military in the airports, especially in London. The police in the UK also tend to be more heavily armed, more what you in the United States would call SWAT teams. Our police also wear their body armor on the outside, where American cops wear it under their uniforms. I've heard this is to make them look less intimidating.

The thing I do not understand about debt being equated with terrorism in the United States though is the percentage of people in debt in America. Aren't most of your citizens several thousand dollars in personal debt? Don't most marriages end in divorce in your country too? I know they do in mine. I remember hearing that in the US, most every divorce that has children involved ends up with some sort of child support system. Wouldn't this mean a very large percentage of your country is in some form of the state that you suggest equates to them being labeled as terrorists then?

reply to post by xSe7eNx

See where do you get this crap from that sovereigns are "rejecting" the constitution?! Sovereigns do just the opposite and REJECT SOCIAL SECURITY which is the contract that holds all the people into slavery. A sovereign citizen must follow the constitution and the bill of rights and is allowed to be free and do whatever s/he wants as long as THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS. Also not to mention the 1st amendment gives you a right to associate or not associate with any organization or (CORPORATION) you want and right now the UNITED STATES is corrupt as all get out and sovereigns are choosing not to associate with them and instead directly follow ONLY the constitution and bill of rights and living as a free people in the states of the Union located in the United States OF America.

Twaddle.

Social Security is both constitutional and legal. And there is nothing remotely like slavery involved, exactly the opposite. You are contributing to your personal welfare to a degree that would be unthinkable if you, and everyone else, were left to your own devices. But go ahead and abuse the English language because you aren't infringing on anyone's rights while you do it.

By refusing to participate in Social Security when legally required to do so (not sure what that means but anyway), you are explicitly doing so in violation of the laws of the United States of America. And if you are doing it because you think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the only legitimate law, then you are explicitly rejecting the Constitution.

Not because Social Security is specified in the Constitution, obviously it isn't, (though the Preamble does have something to say about promoting the welfare of the people as I recall - and that is just as much part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights) but because the Constitution empowers Congress to impose such a scheme (which it has done), empowers the President to administer it (which he does) and empowers the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality (which it has).

The Constitution DOES NOT give you the 'right' to dissociate yourself from the laws set forth by the Congress (though you can go to an overseas embassy and explicitly and in writing tell the ambassador you reject your citizenship if you are an adult).

Imagining that the Constitution is the only legitimate law of the land is so naive that it is mind boggling. Why on earth would the Congress be defined if there was no further need for laws? Can you not see circular loop here? By claiming that there is no need for Congress to pass laws because the Constitution is all we need, you are explicitly rejecting the Constitution.

reply to post by rnaa


I am not even going to bother to try and explain this all to you because it would be too much information to post on here. I must say I love your quote in your signature "Deny Ignorance Educate Yourself" or perhaps the one in my signature "The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate". With that said how about you read some of the material I have read and I will be more than happy to read any material you supply to me. So now please educate your self by reading some information about sovereignty, there is a good e-book that explains just about everything called the Great IRS Hoax. This book was written from a christian perspective but still contains a lot of very good information about our legal system.

Here is a direct link to the book...
The Great IRS Hoax PDF

reply to post by xSe7eNx


Sorry dude, that is the biggest load of tripe I've seen in a long time.

I know you are apologizing for its religious slant and trying to claim that that there some deeper secular truth to it but in fact the entire document is so intertwined with the authors' own religious ignorance that the entire argument is completely conflated.

I finally had enough when I got to the part where he is claiming that Jesus was a tax protestor and states: 'remember that Matthew who was a disciple and wrote the Gospel of Matthew'...

Accepted scholarship contends that Matthew the disciple did NOT write the Gospel of Matthew, though this is still in contention. More damaging to the 'Jesus was a tax protester' claim is the authors' use of one of the 'trumped up claims' by his enemies, and ignoring Jesus own words: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...". The guy doesn't even understand his own religion that he is proselytizing about for crying out loud, and you expect him to understand tax law?

Jesus was a social reformer not a tax protester, and consistently preaches about social reform and community responsibility. To believe this author(s) as he/she/they twists Jesus' message into some kind of "anti-socialism" campaign is to embrace ignorance at the most fundamental level.

These mistakes are typical of the document and its attempt to weasel out of participating in American society. The legal quotes may (or may not be) accurate, the interpretation are certainly not. This is a case of bamboozling you with smoke and mirrors. Just enough stuff looks and sounds correct to make allow you to be lazy and think it is all good. It isn't.

Here is some reading for you: Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments. Harder to read than your quote because it isn't a narrative, but it is at least accurate.

edit: grammar

[edit on 18/4/2010 by rnaa]

I love the "Domestic Terrorism" headline in the FBI report.

As if sovereign citizens are terrorists intent on killing people or something.

What a f%cking joke.

According to government, anyone that opposes them is a terrorist. Something our government and Stalin have in common.


I hope everyone takes careful note of what is going on here. By labeling people who disagree with government as "terrorists" - they now have full access to the patriot act.

Don't pay your taxes? - You must be a terrist!

Don't like permits and licenses? - You must be a terrist!

Thanks to the patriot act, people who disagree with government no longer have due process. The FBI can write their own warrants, search your home without telling you, inspect your bank records, track your movements, etc.. etc.. etc.. - all because you must be a terrist.





[edit on 18-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Its just NWO,and they have this idea of making it resemble China, like Rockefeller wishes, without individuality, all people, equalized as lower income slaves in state assigned slave jobs frequently, always contributing to the whole.

Note this isn't the came as cooperation or contributing freely, give and take in true freedom and advancement, this is contributing to the common good, which translates FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FEW AND THEIR CORPORATE RULE.

We must resist and all of us should inform all our representatives, that we're all sovereirng to reduce their legislations and de-criminalize as we don't approve, and that they're all replaceable.

Also demand disclosure of all things, ufology, buried technology, everyhting hidden, including the shadow government.

reply to post by rnaa


Ok well you obviously barely even read through it to try and see the point but I do agree with you the author has a very religious tie especially in this document but I have done my research and concluded that law proves this all to be correct. Now however here is another pdf if you even care that explains a lot of it in a far more legal sense because these are documents you could send in to the government and every bit of religious tie in this document can be taken right out and is not required (there is barely any not near as much as the other pdf). PDF And I am also curious for one who claims to be from Australia why do you give a # anyway and knowing that it must make you a little upset that you do not have this opportunity that every American does... To live free.

reply to post by xSe7eNx

Ok well you obviously barely even read through it to try and see the point but I do agree with you the author has a very religious tie especially in this document but I have done my research and concluded that law proves this all to be correct. Now however here is another pdf if you even care that explains a lot of it in a far more legal sense because these are documents you could send in to the government and every bit of religious tie in this document can be taken right out and is not required (there is barely any not near as much as the other pdf). PDF And I am also curious for one who claims to be from Australia why do you give a # anyway and knowing that it must make you a little upset that you do not have this opportunity that every American does... To live free.

You obviously didn't read the stuff I linked like you promised. I most certainly did read your link more than enough to see the point. The document is wrong on every level. Period.

Three points I'd like to point out to you:

1) In his FAQ he asks the question on behalf of his readers "Do you pay tax". And he answers, "No our status does not require us to do so". What he fails to make obvious, is that 'us' is a tax-exempt non-profit (religious?) organization.

2) The authors' then go on over more than a hundred pages to imply that citizens don't have to pay taxes. And never lets on that 'he' doesn't pay taxes because he is a tax-exempt non-profit organization. The advice he gives is wrong, wrong, wrong. His interpretation of the law is wrong, wrong, wrong.

3) Finally the five or six pages of disclaimers at the front of the book, supposedly there 'to protect the authors from whistleblowers and any interested law enforcement agencies does nothing of the sort. It serves only to try to establish a case against lawsuits from people who actually try to take the advice in the document.

This is exactly like the guys with the magnetic motor toys they say can provide more energy than they use to operate when they show a battery running the thing. They give some gobble-di-gook psuedo-scientific answer about the battery is just there to get it started (during the entire demonstration) or because it is the only way to get the timing pulses accurate enough. So then when an investor sues for fraud, the guy can say, "but didn't you see the battery that was there the whole time? Where did I lie?"

It might work on stupid people, but it won't work in court.




Where do I claim to be "from Australia"? Please provide documentary proof of that allegation (a link would will be sufficient).


[edit on 18/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by xSe7eNx


And I looked at your PDF too. I know about the possibility of voluntarily relinquishing your American citizenship (I even pointed that out in an earlier post in this thread). That doesn't make you any less liable for paying taxes in the country where you reside, citizen or not. And according to your other document from 'the religious nut', social security only applied to non-citizens anyway, so why would you do that (besides cutting yourself off from the protection of the Constitution you so loudly proclaim)?

You have dug your self a great big hole, listening to these nut-cases. And I am struggling to keep this polite when referring to these guys. Since you are obviously smart enough to have found ATS, I'll assume you are not in that class and are merely deluded.

Have a nice life.

Edit: by the way, that PDF document about 'divorcing the United States' is hilarious. You most certainly can give up your citizenship, and the procedure is well documented on the Department of State websites. But you cannot give it up half way. That is just daft. This document talks about becoming a citizen of the 'Kingdom of Heaven on Earth'. If this was sustained, it would be in violation of the constitutional restriction on a state religion and discriminatory to religions that don't have that concept (how would it apply to Hindus or Jains or Zoroastrians)?

How can you claim that you are trying to reinvigorate the Constitution when everything you espouse is either unconstitutional or completely antithetical to the Constitution?

[edit on 19/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by mothershipzeta

Nichols was his co-conspirator. The were like-minded individuals. And he did give sovereigns a bad name...but you can't discard an example merely because it's inconvenient. You can't say no "sovereign citizen" would ever do anything violent, because you can't stereotype a whole group (either negatively OR positively).

Every agent of the F.B.I. is fairly called a co-conspirator to the crimes committed by the F.B.I., and the list of crimes runs long. From their more visible and noted culture of crime with COINTELPRO, to their shameful actions on Ruby Ridge, to the myriad of isolated incidences of federal agents acting under color of law, the culture of crime that persists in that distinctly domestic federal agency known as the F.B.I. reveals a "domestic terrorist" group more deadly and posing a greater threat to the security and well being of the United States than any other group, militia or lone wolf in this country.

Not particularly favoring any political ideology, the F.B.I. will gladly terrorize both the left and the right if this agency so decides to. From the regular harassment they shoved upon the so called "new left" of the '60's to the Clintonian era of harassment of the right, to today's willingness to harass anyone perceived as a threat to their hierarchy, this is a very well funded, well trained, and extremely committed group of terrorists who will continue to murder, rob, extort and black mail anyone they feel deserves such "justice", and if the people get too concerned about the F.B.I.'s willful criminality...well, they must a homegrown terrorist!

If we are to agree that the "sovereignty movement" must bear the responsibility for Terry Nichols and by association McVeigh, then logic demands we agree on holding the F.B.I. accountable for their actions and even if there are good and upstanding agents within that organization, we should never forget the crimes this agency has committed and the very real threat they pose to the security of a nation that cherishes freedom above all else. Further, if we were to "keep score" between the sovereign movement and the F.B.I., it is undeniable the F.B.I. leads in criminality by a wide margin. The F.B.I. should move out of its glass offices if it intends to keep throwing stones at people who disagree with them.

reply to post by rnaa

That doesn't make you any less liable for paying taxes in the country where you reside, citizen or not.

No truer words could be said about taxes and liability. If a person is indeed liable for a tax, then they must pay that tax. Of course, for many, "sovereign", or otherwise, there is the very valid question about the so called "Personal Income Tax", and how it is one has been made liable for a tax under that particular revenue law. While the IRC can be quite clear when it wants to be about who is liable and why, this clarity is reserved for a few specific activities named as the subject of the tax, but for the remainder of people who are told they are liable for this tax, the question remains; where in the Code have they been made liable?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Source

("All citizens of the US are liable for income taxes and every person born in the US is a citizen of the US.") Cox v. CIR (10th Cir unpub 10/28/96) 99 F3d 1149(t), 78 AFTR2d 7015, 96 USTC para 50598; ditto US v. Lyman (10th Cir unpub 12/24/98) 166 F3d 349(t), 99 USTC para 50199, 83 AFTR2d 354; (claimed to be a citizen of "of the country of Nevada USA" and claimed "the benefits of a US income tax treaty with the foreign country of Nevada") Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244; (claimed to be immune to taxation as "a Moorish-American Aborigine of Cherokee Indian Descent, a Free Regnatrix National Continental United States Citizen, Legitime Immunis Person") Curry-Bey v. US (Fed Claims Ct unpub 6/22/95) 76 AFTR2d 5148, 95 USTC para 50604; (altho perps admitted that the IRS can tax non-citizens residing in the US, they denied being either US citizens nor resident aliens but "state citizens of Missouri (not State of Missouri)" and presented their homemade oaths of "Abjuration of Citizenship" and "pledge of allegiance to the Missouri Republic") Erwin v. CIR (10/17/95) TC Memo 1995-498; (repudiating his US citizenship one reason that court would not allow Terry L. Nichols, in the Oklahoma City Bombing trials, to get bail or pre-trial release) US v. Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542; (failing to comply with court orders on the pretext "that he had not 'elected' to be treated as a US citizen and was not born 'subject to the Internal Revenue tax" punished with a contempt order) US v. Graber (8th Cir unpub 1/2/98) 98 USTC para 50134, 81 AFTR2d 429.

Continuing on

[NOTE: Under a law first enacted in 1866, everyone born in the US and not subject to a foreign power "are declared to be citizens of the United States", RS sec. 1992, 8 USC sec. 1401. Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of proper legal evidence to the contrary; Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342. Renunciation or revocation of US citizenship is regulated by 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq and is applicable only in a limited range of situations, such as expatriation and allegiance to another country and almost always combined with a voluntary and formal renunciation of US citizenship made to a US diplomatic office abroad, in fact 8 USC sec. 1483 makes clear that this is virtually impossible for someone who is still inside the US (among the very few exceptions, instances of having obtained US naturalization by fraud or subsequently committing treason or sabotage). For example, it was not possible for someone born with US citizenship, namely a Puerto Rican, to renounce his US citizenship while remaining in Puerto Rico as a "Puerto Rican national", since that was not a bona fide foreign nation. Lozado Colon v. US Dept of State (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 43. When the proper formalities have been accomplished a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is given to the ex-citizen; 8 USC sec. 1501. Heuer v. US Secretary of State (11th Cir 1994) 20 F3d 424 cert.den 513 US 1014. A person who is alleging that he has relinquished his US citizenship has, under 8 USC sec. 1481(b), the burden of proving that revocation of his citizenship, which would be unlikely without the CLN. Even for an American who has validly renounced his citizenship, the effective date of the termination of his citizenship (e.g. for tax purposes) would not be earlier than his formal renunciation before a US diplomatic officer. Dacey v. CIR (3/30/92) TC Memo 1992-187. Oddly enough, since the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986, it has been illegal for anyone "who, having been a citizen of the US, has renounced his citizenship" to purchase or possess a firearm; 18 USC sec. 922(g)(7) -- it is not clear if that renunciation must meet the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 for this law to apply; the Congressional reports accompanying this law do not mention any of the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq nor give specific examples. ]

and more, specific to claiming 'sovereignty'

Goode v. Foster (D Kan unpub 10/21/96); similarly Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B ("that he is not a citizen of the Federal United States but a natural sovereign citizen of the United States not subject to the Social Security system"); similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028; similarly US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; McDowell v. US (9th Cir unpub 6/17/97); McKeague v. The Corporate United States Govt of Washington DC (D. Haw unpub 10/9/97) 97 USTC para 50866; similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; similarly Industrial Devel. Bd of Tullahoma v. Hancock (Tenn.App 1995) 901 SW2d 382; similarly Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); similarly In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; (county recorders instructed not to accept this document for filing) Texas Atty-Gen Letter Op. 98-16 (3/13/98); Snyder v. District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 9/27/96) 98 F3d 1350(t) (claiming to be "natural born free people" and "a state" and "of freemen character" and not a "federal emergency citizen"); Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141; similarly ("natural born free sovereign US citizen") Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812; similarly (claiming to be "one of the indigenous sovereign people" and of "a Freemen Character" and therefore not susceptible to any court except "only to common law jurisdiction and process" by his own "Peers") L.L. Russell v. Clark (6th Cir unpub 2/9/99); (claiming to be "a sovereign state" and thereby trying to remove his traffic cases to a federal court) People v. Glaser (10th Cir unpub 1/19/96) 74 F3d 1250(t); US v. Studley (9th Cir 1986) 783 F2d 934 (claiming to be "an absolute, freeborn and natural individual"); similarly T.M. Thompson v. IRS (ND Ind 5/22/98) 23 F.Supp. 2d 923; T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); similarly US ex rel Brailey v. Aldesman (ND IL unpub 2/23/89) aff'd (7th Cir 1990) 904 F2d 38 cert.den 498 US 897 (perp making this claim held to be too mentally ill to stand trial and was confined to psych. hospital); Fair v. CIR (6/16/94) TC Memo 1994-276 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 6/30/95) 76 AFTR2d 5724, 95 USTC para 50418 cert.den 516 US 1098 (claiming to be a "free person" or "free citizen" and not a taxpayer); (claiming to be a "Sovereign Man On the Land") Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub 6/18/98); Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders);...

and on and on and on and on.

Review the link, there is lots more. NO ONE has ever gotten away with this nonsense. The whole idea is a con and there are no magic loopholes that is going to make it different.

reply to post by rnaa


You just proved my point, didn't you? Do you honestly believe a judge, even the SCOTUS, can simply invent liability that doesn't all ready exist by statute? Do you have any idea what the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax" is, or do you just cut and paste case law citations without even considering what you are posting.

Can you supply an actual statute from the IRC that makes a dishwahser, a plumber or a shoe salesman liable for this tax? Good luck.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


In America our legal system has been changed quite a bit and it's these smalll modifications they make that don't correct the problems but in some cases make them drastically worse. Like say the child support system, once they called them dead beat dads, but now if you do not fully cooperate you are labeled a terrorist?

You see in my own opinion it was the non-profit orginizations masquerading as charitable orginizations that became a conduit of funds with no paper trails that support a more transperant agenda, as most non-profits do not report their income or pay taxes they funnel their money back into the system and further try to modify laws in America.

It is no wonder that it is corrupt after all at the very top their are billions of dollars to be made and zero accountability.

To make matters worse, instead of regulating commerce Obama now wants to try regulating the stock market. Once our financial system becomes rolled into healthcare system and every other asset in our lives depends on the Government.

Homeland Security though was never a constitutional form of government, but is protected and has the right to exist under the US constitution. It could better be defined as a militia or a military coup but in the end it is a corporation with foreign interests and has gained alot of power and influence within the United States Federal Government in the aftermath of 9/11. I do not believe we would have seen such an organization rise to power within the US had 9/11 not ever happened.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Can you supply an actual statute from the IRC that makes a dishwahser, a plumber or a shoe salesman liable for this tax? Good luck.

Can you supply an actual case where someone has tried this on an gotten away with it? Someone who wasn't, for example, already operating under Tax Exempt status on a Religious or Non-profit basis? Good luck.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Can you supply an actual statute from the IRC that makes a dishwahser, a plumber or a shoe salesman liable for this tax? Good luck.

Can you supply an actual case where someone has tried this on an gotten away with it? Someone who wasn't, for example, already operating under Tax Exempt status on a Religious or Non-profit basis? Good luck.

Why are you answering my questions with a question? Are you incapable of finding an actual statute to support all that nonsense you posted earlier?

Originally posted by 911stinks
Sovereign means that the government has to answer to the people.

The government doesn't like that. They are targeting people who know
their rights afforded through the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.

The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:

The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states. But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized as being the true sovereigns:

www.civil-liberties.com...

No judge will admit it, but they wont honor any supreme court hearings before 1933.

1933 Roosevelt declared the USA as bankrupt at the Geneva convention in Switzerland. Therefore shifting courts from common law to admiralty/maritime law. (corporate law)

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Why are you answering my questions with a question? Are you incapable of finding an actual statute to support all that nonsense you posted earlier?

Because the burden of proof in on you. I'm pretty sure that is still part of the Constitution and the (un)Patriot Act hasn't overridden it: innocent until proven guilty. You are accusing (or are supporting/defending those who do, lets not play games) the Government of a criminal act. Prove it.

The "Family Guardian" fraud cites twaddle, Bible verse (often completely out of context and always without relevance), opinion, silly definitions, false assertions, and occasionally a statute (which may or may not be accurate) in order to lull the gullible. Of course they can claim to not have to pay taxes, they are a non-profit, religious organization, and the Tax Law provides for that tax exempt status. Their disclaimer, while ostensibly 'to protect them from attack' is really to reinforce their non-profit status - they go to great lengths to describe their non-profit status. They also make it impossible to identify who 'they' are.

The fact is that they are legally tax-exempt under the current Tax Law. They can jump through all kind of hoops to convince you that they are in some kind of magic tax limbo land, and use all kind of rhetoric to snow you, reinvent word definitions and just make up jargon, but its still all bull-pucky.

I listed dozens of cases that unambiguously said the claims these people are making DO NOT HOLD WATER. And I only scratched the surface, the source I quoted from has over a dozen sections covering different aspects of this claim each with dozens of case citations. Case citations that demonstrate beyond a doubt that the law is the law and your 'interpretation' is not just wrong, but in many cases demonstrably fraudulent.

I don't have to 'find' a statute to prove you wrong, but I have demonstrated that others have already done that and tested them in a court of law. Remember that the Constitution gives the Courts system the task of interpreting law, not some itinerant preacher who prides himself on claiming no education in the law (or anything else for that matter).

That is much more than I need to do. Since the burden of proof is on you, it is you that needs to prove your case. Can you find one case, just one, where the claim of 'sovereignty' has succeeded?

reply to post by AzoriaCorp

No judge will admit it, but they wont honor any supreme court hearings before 1933.

I have heard this claim made before, but such an assertion flies in the face of simple concepts of jurisprudence, such as judicial review. Judicial review was not mandated by Constitution and was inferred to be the case by the SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Clearly the courts honor this Supreme Court ruling that was held 130 years prior to 1933. There are, of course, numerous other rulings made prior to 1933 that remain in a state of stare decisis today. It is not, I think, that judges won't honor SCOTUS rulings prior to a certain year, but more reveals the profound arrogance and ignorance of many judges today.

reply to post by rnaa

Because the burden of proof in on you. I'm pretty sure that is still part of the Constitution and the (un)Patriot Act hasn't overridden it: innocent until proven guilty. You are accusing (or are supporting/defending those who do, lets not play games) the Government of a criminal act. Prove it.

It is not true that I made any such accusation. I asked you questions. Your profound ignorance of the law is inexcusable.

The "Family Guardian" fraud cites twaddle, Bible verse (often completely out of context and always without relevance), opinion, silly definitions, false assertions, and occasionally a statute (which may or may not be accurate) in order to lull the gullible. Of course they can claim to not have to pay taxes, they are a non-profit, religious organization, and the Tax Law provides for that tax exempt status. Their disclaimer, while ostensibly 'to protect them from attack' is really to reinforce their non-profit status - they go to great lengths to describe their non-profit status. They also make it impossible to identify who 'they' are.

What does any of the above have to do with anything I have said? Even bad magicians are better at misdirection than you are.

The fact is that they are legally tax-exempt under the current Tax Law. They can jump through all kind of hoops to convince you that they are in some kind of magic tax limbo land, and use all kind of rhetoric to snow you, reinvent word definitions and just make up jargon, but its still all bull-pucky.

If one is "tax-exempt" they must necessarily be subject to the tax law and liable for a tax to begin with. If one is not subject to that law and therefore not liable for a tax they need no exemption. Learn the law!

I listed dozens of cases that unambiguously said the claims these people are making DO NOT HOLD WATER. And I only scratched the surface, the source I quoted from has over a dozen sections covering different aspects of this claim each with dozens of case citations. Case citations that demonstrate beyond a doubt that the law is the law and your 'interpretation' is not just wrong, but in many cases demonstrably fraudulent.

You have hidden behind case law you, in all likelihood have not read yourself. What you have failed to do is provide the statutes these court rulings are based upon. You, nor anyone else, can make a person liable for a tax based upon case law. The courts have no jurisdiction to impose a tax. Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation, not the courts. Your libelous remark that I have made demonstrably fraudulent claims is beyond the pale. Your ignorance of the law is inexcusable.

I don't have to 'find' a statute to prove you wrong, but I have demonstrated that others have already done that and tested them in a court of law. Remember that the Constitution gives the Courts system the task of interpreting law, not some itinerant preacher who prides himself on claiming no education in the law (or anything else for that matter).

If you are attempting to present yourself as one who has the legal authority to asses my tax liability, you bet your sweet patootie you have to back that up with legislation authorizing you to make such an assessment. Your blatant falsehood that only the courts have jurisdiction to interpret law is insane. All other branches, each government official is required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. This would mean they necessarily have to interpret it to do so. Further, each and everyone of us are presumed to know the law. How are we expected to know the law if we are not allowed to interpret it?

That is much more than I need to do. Since the burden of proof is on you, it is you that needs to prove your case. Can you find one case, just one, where the claim of 'sovereignty' has succeeded?

You arrogance knows no bounds. The burden of proof, as long as you are insisting "everyone" is liable for this tax, lies upon you. You can stick your fingers in your ear and scream La-La-La-La-I can't hear you! all you want. The law remains the law.

Your ignorance of case law is astounding. If a sovereign successfully uses the court what has happened is that this sovereign has successfully demonstrated to the judge that there is no jurisdiction over him. Since that sovereign was successful, this means the only authority the judge has in the matter is to dismiss the case. How many instance of dismissals have you read as case law? None! Absolutely none!!