7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

Originally posted by whatukno
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.

You are mischaracterizing what I have said. I am not saying that people have entered into some sort of "social contract" simply by agreeing to government. If a person files a valid tax return, then they have signed a contract assessing their own tax liability and giving tax collectors such as jdub every reasonable right to presume that a debt is owed. This is not some sort of nebulous "social contract" but a very real contract that functions under the law of contracts.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sure they have, if you obey the speed limit, you contract with the government that you will continue to obey the speed limit and all other laws they pass for the road.

In fact, if you go by the freeman mentality, one must always disobey all laws in order to not be contracted by the government, if one law is obeyed then by proxy you contract to obey all laws or face the penalty of breaking that contract.

reply to post by whatukno

Sure they have, if you obey the speed limit, you contract with the government that you will continue to obey the speed limit and all other laws they pass for the road.

You are not relying on contract law in order to reach that conclusion. In order for a contract to be enforceable there are certain elements that must be present.

Mutual consent, or a "meeting of the minds" is one element.

Offer and acceptance is another element.

Mutual consideration is yet another element.

Finally, there is performance and delivery. All of these elements must be in play in order to claim a valid contract has been made.

It is not the action of driving at the "speed limit" that constitutes any contract. If a person who is driving a registered vehicle and with a license, even if registration and license has expired, goes beyond the "speed limit" then a contract has been broken, but that contract was made when the person driving beyond the "speed limit" applied for license and registration, of which that person signed an agreement to "obey" traffic regulations.

In fact, if you go by the freeman mentality, one must always disobey all laws in order to not be contracted by the government, if one law is obeyed then by proxy you contract to obey all laws or face the penalty of breaking that contract.

There is nothing factual about this claim of yours. I am not a part of the so called "freeman movement" and not privy to all of their machinations and declarations, but "disobeying all laws in order to not be contracted by the government" is not at all one of their tenets, that much I am sure of.

Originally posted by Lightrule
To all you people that think it is mandatory you pay your taxes I have something for you to ponder...

In Can/US the government exists. We can all agree on this right?

Now this government that exists claims to be one of REPRESENTATION. Still Follow?

In order for someone/thing to represent you you must first give them/it your PERMISSION.

Permission that must be given freely. When you revoke your permission for the government to represent you then what?

Think about it... please?

Now if you really have thought about it and still think paying taxes is the right thing to do, then fine. You are entitled to think that, however you are not entitled to assume I must pay my taxes as well. There is no "us and them" anyway... We are all the same, pro-government/tax/welfare people just don't know it yet.

-Lightrule

It is good to see like minded people on this forum.

The thing most people do not understand is their own existance and WHO formed government and why. So I say again and again.......God/Nature created man, then man needed an organization of sorts to "help" him deal in commerce (i.e. government), and so men came together and debated and came up with a contract that was mutually agreed on, the Constitution, IT is a corporate contract.

The Bill of Rights was added later as some men, like Jefferson and Madison, saw that the others were getting greedy and stealing land and posterity from the public. So they came up with the Bill of Rights TO PROTECT the public from an overbearing corporation, the rest is history that all should learn and learn from.

SO....I say to the government all the time....."Prove up your claim or cease and desist under the color of law against the Sovereign...."

They can't and they have to back off. No taxes no licenses no nothing I DO NOT CONSENT TOO!!!!

Well done on you Lightrule to point out just a small portion of it.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by daddio]

Originally posted by IsALL

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]

The article specifically says "arrest" - I can read - I have two eyes.

Thus, I did not lie.

Claiming the article is wrong does not make me a liar. If I knew the article was wrong and then proceeded to say they sent out arrest warrants, I would be a liar. Of course, this is not what happened.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The manager didn't give you a choice.

He rammed the steak down your throat.

Then in this case, you not only get a free steak, but you also could probably have the restaurant owner arrested for assault, and sue him for everything he has.

Yea, that analogy doesn't fly at all.

Fact is, this thread is yet another of your pointless fear mongering tax rant threads.

Yeah, he should be happy about having a steak rammed down his throat that he didn't order.

That uncomfortable feeling you have right now is called cognitive dissonance.

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.

It's not good.

It's wrong.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

The analogy is hard to work with. We all get steak, things the government provides. I agree that we should not be taxed for it. The government has plenty of ways to finance itself. It is wrong but we all have agreed to pitch in. Not pitching in does not change the laws, it only releases the violence cops are paid to do.

Originally posted by earthdude

The analogy is hard to work with. We all get steak, things the government provides. I agree that we should not be taxed for it. The government has plenty of ways to finance itself. It is wrong but we all have agreed to pitch in. Not pitching in does not change the laws, it only releases the violence cops are paid to do.

The analogy points out that we don't have a choice in "getting things" from government.

I can not chose to live a life where I do not take anything from government and therefore do not have to pay any taxes.

This is not an option in our society.

Just like the steak, the man does not have a choice in taking the steak. It is forced upon him whether he wants the steak or not - and he is then forced to pay for the steak he did not want.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


The ideological flaw in your position is that you say you don't want the steak right now because you've got your own steak.

And if you don't want the steak, then why should anyone else be entitled to it.

But what happens on the day that you realize you're fresh out of steak and suddenly feel hungry?

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The ideological flaw in your position is that you say you don't want the steak right now because you've got your own steak.

And if you don't want the steak, then why should anyone else be entitled to it.

But what happens on the day that you realize you're fresh out of steak and suddenly feel hungry?

That's not a logical flaw.

If I suddenly realize I want a steak, I'll pay for the steak at that time.

This is how markets work.

I buy only what I want to consume at the present moment.

reply to post by Hefficide

But what happens on the day that you realize you're fresh out of steak and suddenly feel hungry?

Given the analogy was a restaurant where he entered into and order fries, but was instead served steak, forced to eat that steak, and then forced to pay for the steak he didn't order but was forced to eat, the analogy is appropriate in regards to forced taxation.

Why anyone would go back to such a restaurant is beyond me, but if he feels the need for steak, he can always go to a better restaurant that will actually serve him the steak he ordered, instead of something else. In this regard, it is arguable that he is arguing that we should demand a better restaurant.

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

reply to post by mnemeth1

You have to use things the government provides. Think about it. How are you going to survive not using roads. Who is going to protect you against stronger enemies? No way can you live apart from it, there will always be something the government is giving you.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You have to use things the government provides. Think about it. How are you going to survive not using roads. Who is going to protect you against stronger enemies? No way can you live apart from it, there will always be something the government is giving you.

Think about your claims yourself. How did people survive before the roads were built? In all honesty, roads tend to be made by private persons, and it is highways, freeways, and streets that are made by government. If government weren't making these highways, freeways, and streets, somebody would be, as this is the nature of humanity.

Did the government protect all the people who have been murdered from their stronger enemies? Did they protect all those who have been raped from their stronger enemies? Did they protect all those who have been beaten from their stronger enemies?

In order for government to "give" anything, it must first take from someone else in order to do so.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You have to use things the government provides. Think about it. How are you going to survive not using roads. Who is going to protect you against stronger enemies? No way can you live apart from it, there will always be something the government is giving you.

I'm aware of this, which entirely the point I am making.

I have no choice in the matter.

I can not chose to live a life where I don't use any government services and therefore do not have to pay taxes.

This is called tyranny.

Government forces me to use its services and then forces me to pay for those services even if I didn't want them.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Arrest
Pay your damn taxes
[edit on 24-8-2010 by Demoncreeper]

How about you pay your unratified income taxes, and i will do like the founding father said, i will pursue my happiness another day.


I will not pay for the U.S. Govts choice of loan sharks though, there would be no need for income taxes if we did like the constitution says......Govt printed currency...NOT FIAT FEDERAL RESERVE PAPER, which is the most virulent scam out there.


LOL, sorry to grave dig a post...lol.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by SilentBob86]

reply to post by SilentBob86

How about you pay your unratified income taxes, and i will do like the founding father said, i will pursue my happiness another day.

This is a "taxpayer's" argument and will only get you into trouble in a court of law. What I mean by "taxpayer's" argument is this: Presumably you are arguing that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. There are a number of flaws with this argument.

First of all, by arguing that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and this negates any tax liability is the same as saying that if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified you would be liable. Secondly, the 16th Amendment did not make a single person liable for any sort of tax, nor did it name income as the subject of any tax. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct the confusion that stemmed from a Supreme Court ruling; Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. that struck down the entire income portion of the Revenue Act of 1984 as unconstitutional because that income tax was viewed as a direct tax on income without any apportionment.

Congress did not, as is all to often erroneously claimed, "overturn" the SCOTUS with the 16th Amendment, but instead flexed their own powers and asserted their complete and plenary power of taxation, which includes the power to tax on income indirectly. When the 16th Amendment was passed, it was challenged as unconstitutional in two seminal cases; Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co. and Stanton v Baltic Mining Co.. Brushaber and Stanton made several erroneous assumptions about the 16th Amendment that The Supreme Court explained were wrong.

What Chief Justice White, who rendered the opinions in both rulings, made clear was that the 16th Amendment did not grant Congress any new power of taxation, (Congress all ready had the power to levy a non apportioned tax on income), but instead forced any future court to view an non apportioned tax as an indirect tax, where all income taxes inherently belong.

Thus, the current non apportioned income tax is not a direct tax on income as property, but is an indirect tax on some specific taxed event where income is used to measure how much is owed. The question is not whether or not the 16th Amendment was properly ratified, that is irrelevant. The question is what specific taxed activity are you engaged in that would make you liable for the tax?

reply to post by daddio


Thanks brother!

It is true, this is only one small step in the giant staircase. A couple years ago I too took my registration and DL into the DMV and told them to shove it. Went home with my signed piece of paper saying I have returned my Reg. and DL and do not consent to the contract. Then I slapped a private personal "plate" on my car and off I go. Been pulled over tons of times, been pulled over at 170kph, cop was red in the face screaming at me to get on the ground with my hands on my head. Of course I did what I was told, I'm not stupid and don't wanna be shot, this cop had no idea yet that I wasn't part of his motoring club.

He told me he was going to charge me with everything he can find, including "Reckless Endangerment" and "Criminal Negligence" (

Originally posted by bad man incorporated
reply to post by Lightrule

 

Mind if I add you as a friend?

Not at all! Please do!

2nd line for the love and bunnies.

-Lightrule

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Dude......you do know that taxes are a fraud....right?

Your taxes go to pay the interest on the national debt.......that the government owes the fed/international foriegn interests. Think about it.....why would a nation give up it's right to print their own currency backed by something of value......only to give it to a private organization to print and have it lent back to them at interest? Why? Isn't it funny how the federal reserve act and the 16th amendment were passed rather surreptitously in the same year?

Check it out before you become a mouthpiece for the tyrants that want your liberty.......

pay you damn taxes.........what a joke

Originally posted by Buddywhasisname
Your taxes go to pay the interest on the national debt.......that the government owes the fed/international foriegn interests.

uhm ... These are/were State Property Taxes ... not Federal Income Taxes.

Huge difference.

reply to post by sakokrap


I liked your post here.

The older I become the more I realize that my knees no longer work as well they once did, therefore I have a hard time bending knee to the kings of tyranny. New name for the collectivists.

Their collectivist dream is coming to an end, just have to swim far enough away from the ship as it goes down. No need for the individuals to go down with the ship.

I believe THAT is the furvor going on here on this site and others I am a member of.

Those on the dime and that are not self sufficient, are beginning to get scared. When they get scared is when things like seizure laws are instituted.

Peace and be safe.