It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

page: 15
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


Thanks dude.I do have to admit something here tho. I came to this thread hoping to read that people were actually physically harmed in order to pay their taxes. Kind of like a person watches racing, not for the race but for the crashes.
I've been around violence most of my life.This thread did disappoint me in that respect and the title is just attention seeking. Like I said, I know violence, and it isn't here.

Glad to have acquainted with some people who have an idea. On both sides of the issue too.Mind if I add you as a friend?




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No physical harm paying taxes. So no harm, no crime, that's your belief right? No injury no crime.

So no violence was committed.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 
I think there was also irony in:

This thread was premised on "threats of violence" and "arrests;" not the legitimacy of taxation: "7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State of Indiana."

vs.

I care not whether you "can walk away without paying a dime" (unless you live in Indiana and want to see what I can do).

Perhaps jdub is merely referring to the fact that what he can do is send people in Indiana a stern letter, but it sure doesn't sound like it.


No irony. I deal with final judgments, which are debts. In many states these are capable of being satisfied through garnishment ( a "stern letter" to the bank or fiduciary) or sale.

Whether you believe in the legitimacy of the underlying claim or not, once a court has rendered a final judgment, and you've either failed to appeal, or lost on appeal, the debt is subject to satisfaction.

Do any of you contend that people should be free to walk away from ALL of their legal and financial obligations, or just some that you can pick and choose?

If you are dissatisfied with the law, and the legal rights of the people you owe, change them.

Choosing to ignore them does not help anyone.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





Absolutely! And when they fail to challenge the tax or assessment, or lose on appeal, then they must accept responsibility.


At least we have a foundation on which we can agree. That is, at the very least, encouraging.




In most states, you must pay a license fee or excise tax to maintain your vehicle registration. If you borrowed money to purchase the vehicle, the lender has a lien against it.


Of course, that is in regards to vehicle registration. If a person owns their car outright, (when registering a vehicle with any DMV a person surrenders the bill of sale in exchange for a "title of registration), they can use that bill of sale to show proof of ownership. A "title of registration" is not proof of ownership, a bill of sale is. People voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with DMV's to obtain a license to drive, and register their vehicles, which makes any "tax" voluntary.




You may challenge it. But if you refuse to pay, there is no "right" to drive that prevents the lender or the licensing authority from "peacefully" collecting the debt.


If a person refuses to pay for registration of a vehicle and licensing fees, it is fairly presumed they are asserting their right to travel in a manner they deem necessary, and have no interest in joining the DMV country club. In this regard, their right to drive, or travel, is asserted, and it is up to the state to prove they do not have a right to drive. If a person has not voluntarily applied for license and registration of a vehicle they have no debt to the state.




If you do not like the law, change it. Or, do not participate. No one says you must own taxable property, or earn state-taxable income. You can always "opt out."


"taxable income" is not income. All people have the right to earn income. If they choose to assess their income as "taxable income" that is their choice. I have no problem with the legislation regarding "taxable income", I would have a problem with a tax collector assessing my liability and claiming I am engaged in a taxed event and earning "taxable income".

When Congress wants to be, they are perfectly clear who is being made liable for an "income tax", i.e. 26 U.S.C. Section 5005, and Section 5703. However, 26 U.S.C. Section 1 is not so clear on who has been made liable for any "income tax", and declaring a tax has been laid upon "taxable income" doesn't make it any clearer. Then engaging in a tautological game of circular definitions only confounds the confusion. What is not confusing is that "taxable income" is not income, and income has not been made the subject of any tax in The United States Code.




However, if you "opt in," you've accepted the premises and the responsibility that accompany them.


Agreed. If I join the club I am bound by the rules of the club and must pay my dues...if I "opt in". If I don't opt in, this does not make me criminal, nor does it obligate me to leave this country. Refusing to "opt in" to becoming a statutorily defined "taxpayer" does not mean I don't or will not pay taxes, it simply means I have declined to "opt in" to the Internal Revenue Country Club with their privileged members of "taxpayers".

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

You know it's wrong to violently loot people and force things upon them, yet you need to justify this to yourself as being good.


Of course it is wrong. As JPZ says, "This is the rule of law."

Unfortunately for your thread and credibility, the IDOR does not "violently loot people" or "force things upon them."

People who live or work out of state (like in Texas) pay NO Indiana income taxes. No one "force[d] things upon them."

No justification needed, just an ability to perform rational thought and analysis.

deny ignorance

jw

(So far, largely absent from this thread.)



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Fortunately for the people, there are clear rules and principles of Constitutional taxation that demand that tax collectors abide by those rules and principles.

Absolutely! And when a business or person has exhausted all their legal and administrative remedies, they must face the legal and Constitutional consequences. "This is the rule of law."


That you "couldn't care less" matters not, all that matters is that if and when you are operating outside of the scope of your jurisdiction that the people have a right for a redress of grievance.


Absolutely! And when the people or the business have exercised their rights and the obligee ( whether for child support, medical maintenance, debt or taxes) has prevailed, then the obligor must accept the legal and Constitutional consequences.

This is the rule of law.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No physical harm paying taxes. So no harm, no crime, that's your belief right? No injury no crime.

So no violence was committed.


I said threats - threats - threats of violence.

Threating to arrest someone for not paying their taxes is a violent threat against their person.

If you don't pay, bad things are physically going to happen to you.

This is why 7000 people jammed into a tiny building trying desperately to fork over their hard earned cash to some criminal bureaucrats. They were in fear of being assaulted.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





Absolutely! And when a business or person has exhausted all their legal and administrative remedies, they must face the legal and Constitutional consequences. "This is the rule of law."


Absolutely! And when the government has exhausted all their legal and administrative maneuvers, they too must face the legal and Constitutional consequences. This is the rule of law.

It is quite pleasant to have what seems to be an adversarial position with you, and yet find so much agreement.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I said threats - threats - threats of violence.


No your topic title says "Violently Threatened". That is way different than "threats of violence".

Violently is an adverb, a word that modifies a verb (action). They didn't violently do anything... There was no violence what so ever. Your topic title is wrong, and misleading.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Of course it is wrong. As JPZ says, "This is the rule of law."

Unfortunately for your thread and credibility, the IDOR does not "violently loot people" or "force things upon them."

People who live or work out of state (like in Texas) pay NO Indiana income taxes. No one "force[d] things upon them."

No justification needed, just an ability to perform rational thought and analysis.

deny ignorance

jw

(So far, largely absent from this thread.)



The State takes great pains to hide the violence as much as possible and to diffuse it across as wide a spectrum of actors as possible.

For example, what would happen to the business owners that don't agree to automatically fork over their employees taxes?

What would happen to the bank owners that refuse to cooperate in account confiscation?

Ultimately - the ultimate end of this collection process is the gun.

The gun is buried amid layers and layers of actors.

This is done so people like yourself can righteously claim that "there is no violence" in the collection of taxes. As if I'm supposed to believe taking money that doesn't belong to you never necessitates the threat of force.

Your logic is Orwellian.

If we were to create a situation where no government employee could own a gun, yet every citizen could own a gun, we could justifiably say the forcible collection of non-voluntary taxes would be impossible.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsALL

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I said threats - threats - threats of violence.


No your topic title says "Violently Threatened". That is way different than "threats of violence".

Violently is an adverb, a word that modifies a verb (action). They didn't violently do anything... There was no violence what so ever. Your topic title is wrong, and misleading.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]


LOL ok, I'd change the title if I could.

If that's your beef, fine.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No harm no crime, threats cannot harm you. So, therefore, no crime has been committed this is by your standards.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No harm no crime, threats cannot harm you. So, therefore, no crime has been committed this is by your standards.


Threatening someone with physical violence is assault.

Such an action has a victim.

If a mafia enforcer came to your business and threatened you with violence in order to collect protection money he is guilty of:

-assault
-extortion
-racketeering

If the mafia enforcer uses force against you to make his point, he is now guilty of:

-battery

If the mafia enforcer uses force to take your money from you, he is now guilty of:

-strong arm robbery



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


If we were to create a situation where no government employee could own a gun, yet every citizen could own a gun, we could justifiably say the forcible collection of non-voluntary taxes would be impossible.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


So who would be the tyrannical enslaver with the threat of violence then?It seems a bit of a double standard, no?You were gaining a lot of respect from me, until just then.You can use the threat of violence, but they can't?Man, I was diggin this stuff you were posting. Really believing what you say.Unless I'm not getting something, here.
Sorry man, I just need some clarification maybe?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No harm no crime, threats cannot harm you. So, therefore, no crime has been committed this is by your standards.


The legal definition of assault:


At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.


By this definition, the O.P. is consistent with his standards.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But those are by this government's rules, not by your anarchic rules, if you go with this government's rules then you have to automatically obey all of their rules. If you believe JPZ, that means that you contract with them and have to obey all their rules.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It took you 15 pages of people telling you this to finally understand it?

My "beef" is that you lied on your topic title to sensationalize the story to fit your agenda.

There was no violence at all, you made that all up.

It's kind of rude.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsALL
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It took you 15 pages of people telling you this to finally understand it?

My "beef" is that you lied on your topic title to sensationalize the story to fit your agenda.

There was no violence at all, you made that all up.

It's kind of rude.


I did not lie.

Sending out arrest warrants is a violent threat.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I did not lie.

Sending out arrest warrants is a violent threat.


Again you lie.... they didn't send out "arrest warrants" they sent out "civil warrants".

Sending out warrants is not violent. That is as non-violent as it gets! Yes it is a threat to their bank account and property if they don't pay, but not in any way violent.

This is an honest question. Is your first language english?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join