FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am not at all "feigning ignorance". Hell Einstein couldn't understand it. Einstein!

“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”

~Albert Einstein~

Notice that Einstein wasn't saying that he didn't understand the income tax. He just stated the truism that it can appear to be complicated to the casual observer.

Albert Einstein was a renowned wise cracker when he had an audience, and could use hyperbole as well as anyone. He was trained in Physics but wasn't very good at Mathematics and had to have colleagues check even his most trivial stuff (every scientist get colleagues to cross check their stuff, Einstein was much more nervous of his math than 'normal'). So he wasn't even 'super genius' at skills that were essential to his work. Why would he be anymore expert at taxes than any other non subject matter expert?

It was once said that there were only three or four people in the world that understood Relativity. Well I could understand it when I was in the 5th grade. Not the minute detail of course and not to be able to predict "stuff" implied from the mathematics, but enough to understand the predictions when described in fairly technically detail. An I'm worse at math than Einstein was.

How about a sentiment a bit more applicable to the point under discussion:

Ignorantia juris non excusat

or in English: Ignorance of the law is no excuse


This has been a basic principle in civil affairs since before the Roman Empire.

Oh yeah, are you a married individual, a surviving spouse individual, a head of household individual, or simply an individual? Or do you claim to be none of the those?

[edit on 29/4/2010 by rnaa]

Since I have been skulking in the background on this thread, I would like to bring into the argument between you two.

What was the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders?

Instead of rehashing the comment, I will bring a comment I made in this thread-

Fifth Column Movement : The United Nations, Your Country, and Defending Your Rights...

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Nice layout SKL.

I just wanted to interject what the Founders of this nation saw as the problems in their time and their purpose of creating the form of government they did.

They knew of all types of intrigue and power. They may not have known all the ways of the corrupt and scheming but they knew of only one way to try and subvert these machinations before they even began.

Libertarianism and individual rights. To limit the power of those governing over those governed. Also to place as little power in the government as possible, while at the same time leaving the power of self determination in the individual.

I refer to the true meanings behind their words and meanings as ORIGINAL INTENT. Anytime I try and argue the merits or components of the Constitution, I try and frame my thoughts and reflections on this one tenet of Original Intent.

They trusted no one with power, no one. Even themselves. It did not take long for them to realize that the Constitution as written did not deter the power hungry and corrupt and it took only a few years for them to realize that they HAD TO create the Bill of Rights to further protect their intentions.

We see it today, our courts including the Supreme Court completely subvert the true meaning of this great Libertarian document. You could say the courts of this past century and a half, were one of the greatest fifth column victories, to ever be devised.

We now have the "priest class" of lawyers and academicians furthering the demise of this country and it's founding documents. I have argued with many a lawyer and others that the Original Intent is the ONLY way to interpret the Constitution. We now have people and lawyers stating that the "elastic clause" emboldens our government to pass any and all legislation to further the government's position of it's interpretation of the document.

They even go so far as to state that the rights of the government, if they have substantial interests, will outweigh the rights of the citizenry. Even if those rights take away the very rights of the citizenry.

Oh this raises my ire. The Original Intent of the Constitution in no way shape or form places the rights of government above the rights of the citizenry. It is such a grievous position and argument that I am amazed the Constitution does not burst into flames when asshats state such drivel.

A video explaining exactly what I am saying-

Rule of Law and indefinite detention.

This is one of those times that the Constitution, WRITTEN ON HEMP by the way, should have burst into flames. Look at it this way, if the Founders would want 20 guilty people to go free so that no one innocent person would go to jail, what would you say was their Original Intent would be.

I would argue that they respected the fact that society at large would have had to deal with those 20 guilty at a later time, so that the one innocent would not be subjected to tyranny.

I am slightly going off on a tangent here so back on track. I think Beck gave me the idea that TRUST is the current problematic component in our country today. When politicians have a worse favorability rating than say terrorists, I would say he is right. Take a gander at the favorability of Congress, the last poll was at what, 7%? I wonder if they did a poll on terrorists? Do you think maybe it would be higher than 7%?

I could list a huge number of politicians that BALD FACE lie, and people give them a pass! I am just going to post this video to prove my point-

Now we have this piece of #, forming the legislation to "supposedly" regulate the financial industry. They are not passing this legislation for actual regulation. It is the same thing day in and day out, they are creating controls to keep those in power, in power. Period. Next up, or is it part of it, Cap and Tax.

If anyone would like to look into "WHO" has the Carbon Credits components all set up and ready to go, it may open your eyes to what the hell is going on. Goldman Sachs and a bunch of politicians and other corporations are all set up to implement the largest TAX SCAM ever to rear its bloody head in the history of mankind.

Let me reiterate the Original Intent of the founders. They did not trust big government. They did not trust power in anyone's hands. They did not want the people to give up their God given right of self determination for the "supposed" security our government now uses, to define it's very existence and power.

Original Intent

I would say one more thing SKL, at what point in time do we say the 5th column is the very government, that rules over us in the name of the tyrants our founders warned us about?

To end my spiel, one more video-

edit to add, S&F and a little editing for gramma

[edit on 4/29/2010 by endisnighe]

Oh, and anyone against the sovereign movement are for bigger government, tyranny and against the founders-

Original Intent!

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If I am one who has been made liable for this tax, then there should be some section of the code that explains to me how I became liable for that tax. Where is that section? What is so hard to understand about that?

True, I cannot personally point you to chapter and verse any closer that Title 26 USC 1 which I have already done and you have ignored.

Check that. Caught myself just before I posted. I just looked it up, a quick google on Title 26 and a couple of clicks on index links and didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

The actual law uses language like:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
...every married individual...
...every surviving spouse...
...every head of a household...
...every individual...

Ok I would like to take a look at the term that is used here “individual” and the term you deceitfully used in one of your later posts after the one I quoted I here. Anyway I have a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition sitting here next to me so let's look up a few definitions real quick...

“individual, adj. 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group”
Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition p.642

“legal person. See artificial person.”
Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition p.960

“artificial person. An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV, Section 2, and in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition p.960

So give the fact that I am human being and not a person or individual according to legal definition I don't believe I am liable. And by resigning from social security, which is very possible, and must be possible for one to achieve otherwise this would be forcing participation in a program with so called “benefits” but when in reality the program offers far more negative aspects than positive ones. If the government is forcing the people to participate in a program than the government can no longer be considered to be constitutional. By not participating in social security I can no longer be considered a corporation either or cannot be considered to be operating in “trade or business”. To continue on more about “trade or business” I would like to quote the e-book “The 'trade or business' Scam” found on sedm.org

“1. Introduction



As explained in sections 5.3.2 and 5.6.12 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, one must be engaged in a “trade or
business”, which is defined as “the functions of a public office”, within the statutory but not constitutional “United
States**”, which is defined as federal territory, in order to earn “gross income”. The only exception to this is nonresident
aliens with income from the statutory “United States**” (federal territory) under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) . This is because:



1. The income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax, as the Supreme Court pointed
out repeatedly. See section 5.1.3 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 for details. The “subject of” all indirect excise
taxes are voluntary “taxable activities” that are privileged and in many cases licensed. The tax may only be instituted
by the agency or government entity that issues the license or bestows the privilege to the person who volunteers to be
the “licensee” , and the tax is only enforceable within the legislative jurisdiction of the taxing entity. The “privileged
activity” in this case of the federal income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is that of holding “public office” in the U.S. Government. A “public office” is therefore the only excise taxable activity that a biological person
can involve themselves in that will make them the subject of the municipal donation program for the District of
Columbia called the Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A through C.


2. According to 4 U.S.C. §72, all “public offices” may be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere,
except as “expressly provided by law”. That is why the “United States” is defined in Subtitle A of the I.R.C. as federal
territory in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). There is also no provision of law which
authorizes “public offices” outside the District of Columbia other than 48 U.S.C. §1612, and therefore, the I.R.C.
Subtitle A Income tax upon “public offices” can apply nowhere outside the District of Columbia other than the Virgin
Islands. This is also consistent with the definition of “U.S. sources” found in 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3) , which identifies
all earnings originating from the “United States” as “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business”.

28

3. “Income” has the meaning it was given in the Constitution, which is “gain and profit” in connection with an excise
taxable activity. Congress is forbidden to define the word “income” because the Constitution defines it. This was
pointed out by several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); So.

Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921). Where there
is no “taxable activity”, there can be no “taxable income”. This is covered in section 5.6.5 of the Great IRS Hoax,
Form #11.302 if you want more detail.


4. Because all “taxpayers” under Subtitle A of the I.R.C. are “public officers” who work for a federal corporation called
the “United States” (see 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)), then they are acting as an “officer or employee of a federal
corporation” and they:



4.1. Are the proper subject of the penalty statutes, as defined under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b). This is true even though the
Constitution prohibits “Bills of Attainder” in Article 1, Section 10, because the penalty isn’t on the natural person,
but upon the “office” or “agency” he volunteered to maintain in the process of declaring that he has “taxable
income”.


4.2. May have the code enforced against you without implementing regulations as required by 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1)
and 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)


4.3. Are the proper subject for the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which identify officers of
corporations as the only “persons” within 26 U.S.C. §7343.


5. Earnings not connected with a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §864 and not originating
from the statutory “United States**” (federal territory):


5.1. Are identified as part of a “foreign estate” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). A foreign estate is outside the jurisdiction
of the Internal Revenue Code and not includible in gross income either, based on the definition of “foreign
estate”, BECAUSE it is not connected with a “trade or business”

5.2. Are not includable as “gross income” if paid by a nonresident alien. See 26 U.S.C. §864(b)(1)(A) . Remember:



The Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 showed in sections 5.2.13 and 5.6.15 that states of the union are “foreign
countries” with respect to the Internal Revenue Code and all of their inhabitants are “nonresident aliens”.


This means one must be engaged in a “public office” in the District of Columbia in order to earn “gross income” as a
human being. Statutory and not ordinary “gross income” that meets this criteria is described in the code simply as “income
” effectively connected with a trade or business from sources within the United States”. This is confirmed by 26 U.S.C.
§7701(a)(31), which says that an estate that is in no way connected with a “trade or business” and whose sources of income
are outside the statutory but not constitutional “United States**” (federal territory) may not have its earnings identified as
statutory “gross income” and is a “foreign estate”, which means it is not subject in any way to the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code:



TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions


(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust

(A) Foreign estate

The term ''foreign estate'' means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is
not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in
gross income under subtitle A.
”

reply to post by xSe7eNx

...So give the fact that I am human being and not a person or individual according to legal definition...

Sorry. It does not compute.

How is it you have decided you are not a person?

Are you not an indivisible entity? Are you not a single person?

Are you perhaps a computer program?

Data? Is that you?

(edit: hit enter too soon, post wasn't complete)

[edit on 30/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by endisnighe

Original Intent

I don't have a lot of problems with "original intent", actually.

But one of the undeniable "original intents" was that the Constution would from time to time need to be amended by future generations.

Anyone claiming to want to uphold the "original intent" of the authors of the Constitution must take that into account and accept that the Constitution has been amended to meet the changing needs of the nation.

reply to post by rnaa


No read the definition I just posted on what a legal person is.... A CORPORATION. By law the definition of a person is not the same as Websters definition of a person. So no ACCORDING TO LAW I am not a person because I am not a corporation. You must be straight government dis-info thats the only explanation of why your still fighting this battle that you are obviously losing.

Here www.mind-trek.com... is a link to a paper published by Lysander Spooner written after the Civil War and delves into the legality of the Constitution. It is called The Constitution of No Authority. It may or may not open your eyes and cause you to question the Constitution and all of the arguments that most people fight with each other over.

The only rebuttal that I have been able to locate of Spooners findings is called Common Law vs. Conquest and can be found at www.biblebelievers.org.au...

I just wanted to interject quickly and give some food for thought. Also, most of the research that I have done on the Sovereign Citizen Movement involves becoming an agent for your Strawman. The Strawman still pays taxes, abides by the law etc., but it is a seperate entity from the Natarul Born, Flesh and Blood Person. Off to work now, just wanted to give my spin on how I see things.

reply to post by xSe7eNx


I went over what you are stating in this thread. Using the UCC to define person and it's meanings.

Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?

A brief History Lesson re the use of the word "Sovereign"




In England, the KING was Sovereign.

There was only ONE Sovereign = THE KING

In 1766 an english activist/publisher/politician fellow named John Wilkes... (yes the same John Wilkes that Wilkebarre PA is named after) published an IDEA that occurred to him..in his newletter called "The North Briton"

John Wilkes introduced the idea that, and I quote:

"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"

This idea, was published in the 45th issue of his newsletter "The North Briton"

One guy, STILL living in England at that time, who read it, and was deeply affected by it, and other ideas by John Wilkes was a man named Thomas Paine.

John Wilkes was also, Lord Mayor of London.

When the KING found out what John Wilkes said, he arrested John, and placed him in the Tower - because THE KING was the only Sovereign. Are you guys getting this?

This is important, to place this in proper perspective.

John Wilkes is also called by some the first Populist in England.

The citizens of London, marched around and around the Tower of london by Torchlight at night and by day... until the KING had to release him to restore "order".

----------------

a decade later, Thomas Paine moved to the colonies and started propagating the ideas of POPULIST John Wilkes. The "Sons of Liberty" adopted the message and imagery, and would dedicate trees as "liberty Trees" on those trees they would place paper, upon which was written the number

45

They would also hang a boot... as a reference to evil Lord Bute, a member of the house of Lords who was the head of the party supporting taxation and military repression in the colonies.

They would also hang an 'effigy' of the tax collector, and then set the effigy on fire...while 'marching around the tree of liberty'

So... the number "45" was a reference to the original IDEA that

"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"

-------------

KINGS and Totalitarian ilk intensely dislike this idea, consider what happened the last time this idea spread...

During pre-revolutionary 'riots' in Boston about taxation, (organized by the sons of liberty, the people would get a bit liquored up and then march through the streets, hauling an effigy of The Pope ( as a demonstration against Popery ) while chanting Liberty and Property! ON one of these events they ransacked the home of the tax collector, throwing his furniture out the windows...

(edit: His name was John Hutchinson or sen... memory not as fast as it used to be)

The number 45 was written on doors and walls of houses THAT WERE NOT TO BE TOUCHED BY THE REVELERS, signifying that occupant was a supporter of "The Sons of Liberty"

-------------

They don't teach THIS STUFF in school anymore, do they?
if you liked this post, please save it and pass it on...

45!



[edit on 30-4-2010 by seataka]

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Bottom line to the so-called Sovereign Citizens: You are criminals, even though you reject it, you are hold to the social contract, and you have violated it.

That's true. Someone who is a "sovereign citizen" (in the US) has legally volunteered into the jurisdiction of the United States under the 13th and 14th amendment. Legally the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

However, one can be sovereign and reside in the United States and NOT be subject to their jurisdiction, but must not be a citizen in order to claim that status.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by MKULTRA]

Originally posted by seataka
A brief History Lesson re the use of the word "Sovereign"

In England, the KING was Sovereign.

There was only ONE Sovereign = THE KING

In 1766 an english activist/publisher/politician fellow named John Wilkes... (yes the same John Wilkes that Wilkebarre PA is named after) published an IDEA that occurred to him..in his newletter called "The North Briton"

John Wilkes introduced the idea that, and I quote:

"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"

This idea, was published in the 45th issue of his newsletter "The North Briton"

One guy, STILL living in England at that time, who read it, and was deeply affected by it, and other ideas by John Wilkes was a man named Thomas Paine.

John Wilkes was also, Lord Mayor of London.

When the KING found out what John Wilkes said, he arrested John, and placed him in the Tower - because THE KING was the only Sovereign. Are you guys getting this?

This is important, to place this in proper perspective.

John Wilkes is also called by some the first Populist in England.

The citizens of London, marched around and around the Tower of london by Torchlight at night and by day... until the KING had to release him to restore "order".

----------------

a decade later, Thomas Paine moved to the colonies and started propagating the ideas of POPULIST John Wilkes. The "Sons of Liberty" adopted the message and imagery, and would dedicate trees as "liberty Trees" on those trees they would place paper, upon which was written the number

45

They would also hang a boot... as a reference to evil Lord Bute, a member of the house of Lords who was the head of the party supporting taxation and military repression in the colonies.

They would also hang an 'effigy' of the tax collector, and then set the effigy on fire...while 'marching around the tree of liberty'

So... the number "45" was a reference to the original IDEA that

"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"

-------------

KINGS and Totalitarian ilk intensely dislike this idea, and considering what happened the last time this idea spread, please pass it on..

During pre-revolutionary 'riots' in Boston about taxation, (organized by the sons of liberty, the people would get a bit liquored up and then march through the streets, hauling an effigy of The Pope ( as a demonstration against Popery ) while chanting Liberty and Property! ON one of these events they ransacked the home of the tax collector, throwing his furniture out the windows...

The number 45 was written on doors and walls of houses THAT WERE NOT TO BE TOUCHED BY THE RIOTERS, signifying that occupant was a supporter of "The Sons of Liberty"

-------------

They don't teach THIS STUFF in school anymore, do they?
if you liked this post, please save it and pass it on...

45!

Hell yeah, I am not a slave defined by the Priest Class of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES!

Excellent, will pass along!

reply to post by MKULTRA


Please be more specific with your terminology and terms.

Do you mean a citizen of the UNITED STATES? A corporation.

Or do you mean a sovereign citizen of the United States of America? A country.

Cannot just go throwing any old words out there and infer something. You must be more articulate or the Priests of the "color of law" will call you a heretic and burn you at the stake!


[edit on 4/30/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe

Please be more specific with your terminology and terms.

Do you mean a citizen of the UNITED STATES? A corporation.

Or do you mean a sovereign citizen of the United States of America? A country.

Cannot just go throwing any old words out there and infer something. You must be more articulate or the Priests of the "color of law" will call you a heretic and burn you at the stake!

[edit on 4/30/2010 by endisnighe]

Yes this is very true because of different definitions for example...

United States = Only Federal Zones including District of Columbia, Samoa Islands, Guam... BUT NOT ANY of the states of the union (i.e. All 50 states)
The laws of the United States are from the UCC and the CFR.

United States OF AMERICA = All 50 states of the union
The laws of the United States of America are from the constitution and individual state constitutions but not the UCC or CFR.

state (lowercase s) = All 50 States of the union

State (capital S) = Only Federal Zones

So therefore if you say you are a "U.S. (United States) Citizen" you are claiming to live in a federal zone and consider yourself to be a public employee operating in "trade or business". However if you are like most Americans and live in one of the states of the union, that state in regard to the federal government is a foreign country hence why its state with a lowercase "s". So in regard to the federal government you can be considered a non-resident alien.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by xSe7eNx]

No read the definition I just posted on what a legal person is.... A CORPORATION. By law the definition of a person is not the same as Websters definition of a person. So no ACCORDING TO LAW I am not a person because I am not a corporation. You must be straight government dis-info thats the only explanation of why your still fighting this battle that you are obviously losing.

Utter and complete twaddle-twat.

You even highlighted the part of the sentence that demonstrates that you both do not believe what you are saying and that you are purposefully and willfully pretending to be ignorant in order continue your argument. That, is one definition of a troll, so perhaps you are indeed not a person.

Your quote of the definition:

“individual, adj. 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group”
Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition p.642

You highlighted it: person or thing

I raised the word 'or' in the repetition above. Do you see it there? Note how the word 'person' is placed 'in opposition to' the word 'thing'.

I don't have a Black's Dictionary. Would you do me a favor and look up the definition of a "Natural Person" and post it please? I think you will find it means 'an actual human being' and is a 'legal definition' that places it 'in opposition to' a 'legal person'.

Can you really reasonably assume the word person' means only 'legal person' and cannot possibly mean 'natural person' in this context? That is an extremely long bow to draw, especially when it is followed immediately by the words 'or thing'.








[edit on 30/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa


See this thread here about what the person you are deriding is talking about.

Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?


United States Code Title 26 Subtitle F Chapter 7701 Cornell University Law
School

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(1) Person
.....The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a .....trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or
manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(30) United States person
.....The term “United States person” means—
..........(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
..........(B) a domestic partnership,
..........(C) a domestic corporation,
..........(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph ..........(31)), and
...............(E) any trust if—
....................(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary ....................supervision over the administration of the trust, and
....................(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all ....................substantial decisions of the trust.


These are statutes that define YOU.

So tell me, are you a person, corporation, resident, citizen, or a HUMAN BEING?

reply to post by endisnighe


Thank you for beating me to this reply and nice job on proving the point. I rest my case.

reply to post by rnaa

Notice that Einstein wasn't saying that he didn't understand the income tax. He just stated the truism that it can appear to be complicated to the casual observer.

Casual observer? Who do you think you're kidding? This nation is overflowing with tax attorneys, and tax accountants.

maps.google.com... t&ei=mqvbS9jRK5KqswOvs_ylBg&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQtwMwAA

maps.google.com... ext&ei=WqzbS_3bHYjMsQOI0MjCBg&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQtwMwAA

That is just two links providing a partial list of the tax attorneys and tax accountants in Los Angeles California alone. Casual observer! Twaddle.
As if businesses hire tax accountants because they are merely casual observers to the taxes they pay all year long. Twaddle!

You have changed your legal arguments every step of the way, first deigning to answer questions about tax liability by posting data you took from the ADL. The ADL! Your timing with that couldn't be more hysterical given that organizations persona non gratis in this site lately.

You stupidly assumed I and others had no understanding of the Constitution for the United States of America, then you foolishly attempted to assert that the burden of proof for the questions I asked was mine.

You desperately accuse I and others who have posted in this site as "feigning ignorance", and the irony of this is that you are clearly feigning knowledge. It must be frustrating for you indeed, to be faced with people clearly smarter than you willing to admit they don't understand the tax code, while you pretend you do.

Your inability understand who you are dealing with is so pathetic, you have arrogantly deemed to lecture me about the long held common law principle of ignorantia juris non excusat, seemingly unaware of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So willing are you to make a fool of yourself, and so behind the curve that you embarrass not only yourself but the IRS as well. Surely, you can't possibly work for this organization or they would have shut you up by now, demanding you stop embarrassing them with your nonsensical rhetoric.

All it takes is a simple quote of Einsteins, and suddenly you feel compelled to yammer on about the man and relativity for several paragraphs, desperately wanting someone, anyone to believe you know what you're talking about. But, you have lied, engaged in misdirection, misquoted, and presumed foolishly, never recognizing your own folly, and still continue to believe if you keep posting this rhetorical nonsense that people will believe you, as if people are so stupid to not recognize your deceit, and will just believe you simply because you say so.

You continue with foolishness such as this:

Oh yeah, are you a married individual, a surviving spouse individual, a head of household individual, or simply an individual? Or do you claim to be none of the those?

As if any of that has anything to do at all with tax liability. You all ready made a big deal in a previous post how the income tax is not a capitation tax, so what damn difference does it make if I am married, head of household, or simply an individual? You are desperately grasping at straws and vines to keep you from plummeting down the cliff you stupidly followed other lemmings off of, when all you have to do is just extend your hand to one of us, and we will gladly pull you up and out of danger, but noooooooo! You'd rather be "right" about something you have no understanding of.

You have shown time and time again, not just a pigheadedness, but a willful ignorance of the law in order to argue that people are subject to any legislation that comes down the pike. You stupidly believe that government can't make a single decision without first consulting the priest class lawyers you so solemnly worship, and it is doubtful you are a lawyer, and if you are, God save your clients, for they surely don't stand a chance in hell if you are their advocate.

You arrogantly argue that I and others don't understand the Constitution, then even more arrogantly dismiss the Preamble as being not worthy of consideration. You ignore principles of law, in order to worship legislation, and even when you do admit defeat, you pretend it was some genius strategy on your part, to loose and thereby give your opponent a "Pyrrhic victory". I don't know my friend, but it seems to me that long ago, somebody put you in a round room and told you to help yourself to the six pack in the corner.

Either the FBI doesn't really understand the "law" and pseudo law of the "war powers" or they are carefully leveraging the promotion of ignorance. The FBI, as basically an organization that has no lawful authority outside of DC and the territories, has a lot to loose with a Restore American effort. I suspect, most down to earth FBI agents don't buy into this kind of high level propaganda fed to them. Like my cops, they know that their organization is mostly for the perpetration of fraud.

reply to post by endisnighe

So tell me, are you a person, corporation, resident, citizen, or a HUMAN BEING?

I am a person AND a citizen AND and a HUMAN BEING.

I am not currently a resident and I do not currently own a corporation.

Does that answer your question?

Which are you?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

Eh. Everything is connected to McVeigh. He's like Hitler. Dont like something? Draw 6 degrees to McVeigh. Instant demonization.

Conspiracies aside McVeighs actions were his own. Nobody elses.

That other "paper terrorism" crap is just that. Boo-hoo if the fed doesnt like putting itself out because somebody isnt cooperating the way they want them to. The only thing being hurt is the system they set up. The credit card fraud bit is absolutely wrong though. If he entered into a contract with the credit issuer he's responsible for his end of the contract. Whether the money is bunk or the system corrupt he still had a contract within that corrupt system. You cant use sovereign citizenship as an excuse to default on your debts if they are true debts. Which is one the problems with the movement. Too many involved are simply deadbeats who want to rationalize their bad behavior. Gives the real sovereigns a bad name.

The problem is most people do not understand the so called credit system. The credit card company did not loan him any money therefore there is no debt. The contract was fraudulent The money was created on his signature and he is the creditor to the credit card company and they fractionalized his note and enriched themselves on his credit and tricked him into believing they loaned him money when they did not. He created the money and they brought nothing to the table and risked nothing and defrauded him

reply to post by rnaa


So how are you a citizen and not a resident? Despite that I feel bad for you, because you willingly call yourself a person and because of your ignorance you will be stuck in the social slavery system. Your right on the fact that you don't "own" a corporation but you do use one every day and that would be your name in all capital letters but at least your willing to admit that you don't own it. The government owns you and your name in caps.
I AM NOT a person, resident, corporation, individual. I am ONLY a living human being with a soul.