It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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).
That doesn't make you any less liable for paying taxes in the country where you reside, citizen or not.
("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.
[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. ]
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);...
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.
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.
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:
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?
No judge will admit it, but they wont honor any supreme court hearings before 1933.
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?