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: 18
38
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Hey... I'm Canadian...


Yeah I hate our money too... Whats with the colors? We are finally getting polymer bills in 2011... Its fun for novelty sake right? hahaha

-Lightrule

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Lightrule]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


So, you are Canadian. Why are you lecturing US taxpayers then? What do you care what us crazy Americans think anyway?
You have the bloody Queen of England on your money and you presume to look down your runny nose at us? Pfff!

gtfokk thanks

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Smack]


I didn't presume anything.
Paying taxes isn't just an American thing. Despite what you think, the world doesn't revolve around Americans. I care, because I share the same continental land mass as you. As a "westerner" in democratic countries, we should be setting examples of progress.


As for the money. It's just a piece of paper in your wallet. Regardless of the picture. Amazing how this piece of paper sparks so much hate and violence. The other paper that incites as much negativity, is the paper the bible is written on.

My biggest beef is the misrepresenting title of the thread. In grounded terms, it's just plain fear mongering. But if the OP wants to make the leap with those words, lets just say Money is violent and people are just its' puppets.

Really, think about it. Lets ALL join hands, leap off and sing how paper is the root of all our problems.





It's really people.
And their different perceptions.

meh.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by Demoncreeper]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





His "standards" are premised upon fantasy. There are no "threats" made of any offensive physical contact in the issuance of a tax warrant. Moreover, your subjective perception is irrelevant under the "reasonable man" standard of the common law.


My subjective standards? (Ring, ring. Ring, ring.) Hello? Yes, hello Kettle? This is Pot, you're black! (Click)

Let's talk about your subjectivity for a moment before addressing the common law standard of the "reasonable person".

As an admitted tax collector you have called the O.P. a liar, among other things, for asserting that the article he posted claimed arrest warrants for failure to pay to taxes. While the term arrest warrant was never used by the article he posted, this is what was said by that article:


Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.


Again, the article does not state specifically that arrest warrants were issued, but does lead one to believe this was the case, even if what is actually stated is that it was the belief of "many" that an arrest warrant issued had been issued.

If you had any interest at all in being objective it would have been you actually quoting what was in the article and pointing to the misleading, (if in fact it is misleading, at this point we only have your word to take for it, a word I was willing to take until you decided to dismiss my "subjective" view as irrelevant.), but you chose not to quote the article to support your accusations of the O.P. lying, and it is reasonably presumed you avoided doing this because any reasonable man would understand why the O.P. believes arrest warrants were issued.

Instead of acting in a reasonable manner to clear the issue up, you instead relied upon character assassination in order to frame the O.P. as unreasonable, and you as a tax collector as being more than reasonable, and indeed, non violent. Is this the truth of matter? Let's investigate further.

First let's just look at some of the claims you've made in this thread. You first claim that:




A Tax Warrant authorizes the sheriff to seize PROPERTY to satisfy a tax lien, nothing more. With a warrant, the Sheriff can garnish bank accounts and wages; conduct auctions of real and personal property. He CANNOT take anyone into custody!


While this statement, on the surface is true:


If your taxes and penalties go unpaid, the Department issues a tax warrant to the county clerk, notifying the clerk that you owe a tax debt. The clerk gives the warrant to the county sheriff or a collection agency to collect your outstanding tax debt. Methods for collection include placing a lien on your property, selling your property at auction, levying your bank account or garnishing your wages. Read more: Penalty for Not Filing State Taxes in Indiana | eHow.com www.ehow.com...


It is also true that in certain circumstances criminal charges in the State of Indiana can and will be enforced regarding taxes:


Indiana has several penalties in place if you fail to file a state tax return. In most circumstances, the penalty is a civil fine. However, failure to file a tax return could result in criminal charges. These penalties are an effort to deter tax payers from not filing or paying annual state taxes. Read more: Penalty for Not Filing State Taxes in Indiana | eHow.com www.ehow.com...


Criminal charges generally come with an arrest warrant. The article posted by the O.P. made no distinction between a civil tax warrant and a criminal arrest warrant, and further most certainly did imply that people were afraid of being arrested. Why were they in fear of being arrested? Well, you claim that:




Did none of you realize that there is no such thing as "debtor's prison" in Indiana, or the United States?


While this certainly used to be true, and I would like to think it remains true, there is the matter of certain reports regarding "debtors prison" in recent times:


Herman Button listened in stunned silence as a judge in Perry County, Ind., threatened him with jail time unless he agreed to pay $25 a month toward an eight-year-old housing debt.


In fairness to you, and for the sake of objectivity, the article does go on to say:


Unemployed and living on a disability check, Button decided to fight back after the January 2009 hearing. He and an attorney from Indiana Legal Services appealed, citing the Indiana Constitution's Bill of Rights, which says "there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud."

To Button's surprise, a state Appeals Court judge agreed. "I'm no lawyer, but I knew we abolished debtors prisons in this country a very long time ago," said Button, 50, who now lives in Hawesville, Ky.


However, in the fairness of objectivity, the article further states:


"We have created a de facto debtors prison system in the United States that is largely unconstitutional," said Judith Fox, a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. "In some parts of the country, people are so fearful of arrest they are scrambling to pay money they might not even owe."


And continues with:


In states such as Indiana and Illinois, people are being locked up for not making court-ordered payments. Known as "pay or stay," it can mean days in jail and multiple arrests for the same debt. Some legal experts say the practice is unconstitutional because the arrest is directly linked to the failure to pay a debt.


www.startribune.com...
CiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUUr

The Post Tribune offers this:


Yes, "debtors' prisons" were condemned more than a century ago, and it's not a crime to be in debt. But thousands of Americans -- and hundreds of Northwest Indiana residents -- are getting tossed in the clinker after not showing up in court to make bill payment arrangements or to plead their case in front of a judge.

"Nobody is thrown in jail for not paying (their bills)," said Porter Superior Judge David Chidester. "People are jailed because they fail to appear for three consecutive court appearances and they are held in contempt of court for failing to appear."


While the government is claiming that people are not being jailed for failure to pay a debt but for failure to appear in court to answer for a debt, the article continues:


But I spoke to a dozen or so debtor-defendants who were summoned to court or arrested for not appearing at court hearings, and many told me they never saw a judge during the entire collections process.

"I was told I couldn't talk to a judge, so I eventually left," said Leanna Alexander, 66, of Gary, arrested three years ago for an outstanding bench warrant. "I was treated like a criminal, not a law-abiding citizen."


Whether it be the case of Herman Button, where an Indiana judge blatantly disregarded the State Constitution and usurped power to threaten Button with jail time over a $25 a month debt, or if it be a less direct form of debtors prison where people are jailed for contempt of court because they have been alienated by the courts in terms of debt collection, your claim that "debtors prison" does not exist in Indiana, or The United States, rings hallow and false. Certainly it screams subjectivity at best.

You have used your subjectivity as a tax collector, (that would be a person who makes a living by collecting taxes, and is also paid money to collect taxes by taxes, which when it comes to any objective truth regarding the enforcement of tax collection it is arguable you have a deep conflict of interest regarding truth), to attack the O.P.'s standards.

While the O.P. is a self avowed anarchist, he is also one who has consistently and tirelessly advocated non violent social standards. This matters not to you, and of course, being a government agent it is understandable why you would ignore the fact that the O.P. has tirelessly advocated peaceful means of politics in order to attack his character. Under common law who is the reasonable person here?

Under common law, a reasonable person will consider these factors before acting; a.) the foreseeable risk of harm of his actions v. the utility of his actions; b.) the extent of the risk so created; c.) the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others; and finally, d.) any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

You claim the O.P. does not live up to this standard, but the O.P. claims to have once been a tax collector. Here is the difference between you and he, both claim to be tax collectors, but the the O.P. claims to have walked away from that job, where you claim to continue doing so, and unabashedly so. The foreseeable risk of his actions causing harm versus your actions causing harm at this point give him the advantage in terms of reasonableness. Where the O.P. advocates free market systems, if you do, I am unaware of it, and what you claim to be is a government employee paid by tax dollars. The likelihood that your actions will cause harm to others is far greater than that of the O.P.'s at this point. The O.P. has apparently weighed his actions a tax collector and alternative lesser risks and chose the latter, you on the other hand clearly choose to remain a tax collector and avoid objective truth in favor of character assassination and bold unsupported claims. Who is the reasonable man between you?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

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.


No, you didn't. Read your own title if you are afraid to admit it.

You have NOT YET shown any proof of a threat of arrest or any other "violence."

Your thread is a lie.




Pointing a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger is definitely violence.

People exert control over others in 1 of 3 ways:

1. Psychological
2. Economic
3. Physical

In the case of taxation, it definitely falls under #3.

Oh sure, you may be able to defeat #1 by saying, "I don't care if I'm a dead beat no good slouch."

But then along comes #2. You begin to incur late charges, added fees, interest. If you overcome that one and respond with, "Can't get blood from a turnip!" then you've already got a meeting with #3.

It might not be a gun to your head, but a man with tassels and wearing his biker "colors" that shows up and says, "hey bud. Fork over the dough or me and the boys are going to take you for a ride."

... that's definitely violence- even without the broken teeth on the floor and blood splattered walls.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by Lightrule
I don't pay any taxes, I have stated this before.
-Lightrule


Then why are you crying like a baby about taxes??



I know I'm late to the party, but I've just gotta add something here.

Now, there are many forms of taxation, but I'd like to hone in on an income tax.

In every sense of logic and moral code, an income tax is the legitimization of slavery. To demand (by force) a portion of a man's labor means his labor is not his own= servitude.

Everyone should be up in arms about income taxes. Everyone! Hopefully they'll do more than cry like babies though ;-)

The rationale behind taxes is that some forced plunder is necessary in order to provide some great and necessary service/commodity/information. In every and all cases throughout history... well... it just proves it ain't so!

A sales tax can be likened to sharing one's wife with the neighbor. In an exchange of services/products along comes some fella, sharply dressed. He joins in the exchange without invitation, and takes a share. Kinda like romancing the wife with wine, dance and song, and then some man with drool shows up about the time the britches come off.

Taxes upon value added items- again servitude. The toils of labor or mind are not one's own.

Taxes upon manufacturing can be likened to cutting off your child's arm for the same guy that showed up when the wife's britches came off. Really?

In all cases, the required plunder's purpose is not an enfranchised service/commodity/information- you can't opt out! Therein rises the dilemma of force and compulsion versus inclination and voluntary contracting.

Everyone should get excited about taxes!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 





Hey... I'm Canadian...



Sorry 'bout that. I have nothing against Canadians.

reply to post by Demoncreeper
 




Really, think about it. Lets ALL join hands, leap off and sing how paper is the root of all our problems.


Fiat currency is at the root of all our problems. We agree on that I think.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Yes, citizens are double and triple taxed and noone questions it. Most on this thread are not getting it. What about a 'fair' share of taxation? Why is our labor taxed? Government spending is out of control. People are a slave to this greedy system and this is something I realized at a young age. Noone is free!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

You have used your subjectivity as a tax collector, (that would be a person who makes a living by collecting taxes, and is also paid money to collect taxes by taxes, which when it comes to any objective truth regarding the enforcement of tax collection it is arguable you have a deep conflict of interest regarding truth), to attack the O.P.'s standards.


There is no subjectivity in reading a statue.

There is nothing subjective about a FINAL judgment that states that X owes $$$ in overdue taxes on YYY property, located at ZZZZ.

X has the option of paying the judgment or having it satisfied through civil process.

You, the OP, and others seem to think that the "Rule of Law" stops when it comes to honoring a FINAL judicial determination of rights.

You have bastardized the objective "reasonable man" standard into a subjective analysis based upon false false assumptions.

You have no idea how or by whom I am compensated. I assure you that taxes are not in any way part of my income. Even so, you presume a "conflict of interest" where none exists.

In my career I have been an advocate AGAINST the government longer than I have for any other client, including civil and criminal governmental agencies.

Read the statutes (as the OP should have before accepting a reporter's conclusions as fact.)

The OP did not quote the article or the reporter; he didn't even cite the reporter as authority, he merely linked a misinformed news story.
The OP applied his own biased and unsupportable interpretations to create a thread titled: "7000 Citizens Violently Threatened ... ."
Those are his words and they are without foundation.

Anyone who assumes the role to "report" should verify his sources and their authority. The OP either chose not to, or ignored the truth.

Either way, the thread is a lie.


Under common law, a reasonable person will consider these factors before acting; a.) the foreseeable risk of harm of his actions v. the utility of his actions; b.) the extent of the risk so created; c.) the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others; and finally, d.) any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.


That is a TORT standard. Filing tax warrants can not ever be construed as a tort.

Again, you misapply and misrepresent facts to suit some agenda other than an objective analysis of the underlying actions that prompted the OP to post
a false thread.


The likelihood that your actions will cause harm to others is far greater than that of the O.P.'s at this point.


My actions will never result in a person's arrest. Your undefined, subjective, use of the term "harm" is so vague as to be meaningless. In the case of taxes, it is relative: harm to the public coffers and the "Rule of Law" supporting civil judgments v. harm to lawfully-taxed assets.


The O.P. has apparently weighed his actions a tax collector and alternative lesser risks and chose the latter, you on the other hand clearly choose to remain a tax collector and avoid objective truth in favor of character assassination and bold unsupported claims. Who is the reasonable man between you?


Objective truth? You imply that I am a liar when I point out the false statement of the OP's thread. I have not attacked the OP; I exposed show the falseness of his assertions.

What "bold unsupported claims" have I made?

This thread is premised upon exactly such bold unsupported claims.

Even the OP has devolved to the position of "This is what I read," or "This is what it might lead to;" neither of which serve to justify his false assertions.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 27-8-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


This is from another thread I posted in;
For the police haters - Page 8 post by Lightrule

"My God... This took my breath away (like it does every time I read it) I studied law for 8 years, I've been practicing it for another 3. And I haven't seen ONE SINGLE LAW created by "our communities". Wake up call for you, laws are made in private, behind closed doors by powerful greedy men. We are then TOLD that these laws are for our own good. Get a clue.

I am just gonna add this as well. Government cannot create LAW. They have only helped design a LEGAL SYSTEM. Law is that which is universal, there is only one LAW paraphrased it goes "Do unto to others as you have them do unto you." heard that before? I wouldn't be surprised if you have, I was taught in on the playground by my mom when I was 3 the first time I pushed another kid off the swing.

In my first year of law school we were taught the definitions in our LEGAL DICTIONARY are NOT the same as that in our ENGLISH DICTIONARIES. There is a VERY good reason they call them "Acts, Statutes, Bills" on paper. They fool you into believing they are laws. When in fact they are CORPORATE RULES. Are you a member of the corporation? Hmmm?

Police do NOT enforce laws. Police enforce the rules of the company!
Peace Officers enforce the law."



There is no subjectivity in reading a statue.


Correct.

The problem we are having is people think a statute is law when in fact it is not.


There is nothing subjective about a FINAL judgment that states that X owes $$$ in overdue taxes on YYY property, located at ZZZZ.


Correct.

Are you claiming these people were ALL given a final judgment that their taxes were owed... Or did the tax collection agency decide to mail out some letters stating if you don't pay us we (or we will get someone who) will arrest you or your property. The latter is most likely the case. Although, I'm not sure.

-Lightrule







[edit on 27-8-2010 by Lightrule]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


So what are you claiming exactly?

That confiscating money from people is done so without any threats of violence?

That the seizing of private property by the government is a totally peaceful act?

That the threats of tax warrants is a totally civil and peaceful thing with no implied coercion or threats?

Is that what you are arguing?

So 7000 people, some old and handicapped, packed a downtown building on a single day because government politely asked them to pay their taxes?




[edit on 27-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What are you claiming exactly?

With your logic... when someone buys a car they can't afford using a loan from a bank, and they stop making their payments on it, but keep using the car... the repossession of said vehicle by the bank is a non-peaceful act?




[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

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 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.

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 people cause harm, then I'm perfectly fine with their assets being seized to pay the restitution required to compensate the victim who has been damaged in some way. The only valid reason to take someone's money without their permission is if they caused harm that needs to be undone using the money. The taking of money as "punishment for a crime" has too much room for corruption and power trips.

I wouldn't find it offensive if someone is required to give money to a charity of their choice as punishment for a crime, but not a specific charity and definitely not a government program where the money will be wasted!

But regarding wage garnishment, that does involve the threat of violence against a person. Lets say I want to hire Jane Smith on Craigslist for a mesassage tonight. But then a judge puts in a garnish order against her and it specifies me to withhold her message money. What the judge did is take money away from me through threat of violence instead of taking the money from Jane Smith using violent threats, since despite me just minding my own business, you are suddenly forcing me, against my will, to hand over money to your organization, despite that I've never been declared guilty of any crime.

Wage garnishment simply switches who is being stolen from.

Even if I volunteered to take $25 of Jane Smith's money and give it to the IRS (just because I thought that would be a good idea), then I've just stolen $25 of Jane's money. She should then have every right to sue me in court for every penny she is owed that I fail to pay her in full. If I owe her $75 for a message, then I have to pay Jane Smith the promised $75. If people make a promise to pay someone money, then they should keep their promise... not just part of it, but all of it. Wage garnishment is a simple parlor trick that disguises the unprovoked violence of the state.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 


LOL!

Yeah well have you ever stepped back and took a good long look at how a loan is created?

Step 1: You go into the bank and tell them you would like to take out a loan. They smile and get their loan officer.

Step 2: Loan officer asks you all the usual questions like what type of loan and how much you would like. You tell him you would like a personal loan of 10,000 dollars.

Step 3: Loan officer draws up the paper work and brings it to you to sign, what you are signing is called a "loan agreement" but it does have other names, such as security, promissory note etc. they don't tell you this.

Step 4: You sign the "agreement" and the SECOND you finish your signature the agreement becomes a promissory note and instantly gains the exact value of the $10,000 you wanted to "borrow". YOUR SIGNATURE MAKES THE MONEY AND CREATES THE VALUE.

Step 5: Loan officer sends all the papers to head office where they record YOUR $10,000 promissory note as an ASSET item to the bank, a free $10,000 you have now loaned the bank, but bank laws state the banks balance sheet must equal 0 at the end of the day.

Step 6: So what they do is, they take the $10,000 out of the account that your $10,000 created and put it into your personal account. You now think the bank has loaned you $10,000 of its own money. And the bank's balance sheet shows they have taken $10,000 from you, then gave it right back, making it equal to 0. You got duped into paying it back AGAIN with the agreement you signed now plus interest.

Step 7: You walk out of the bank happy you have $10,000 dollars but now on the hook for $11,500 to repay.

Step 8: Bank laughs at you. You keep paying, and paying, and paying...

So you tell me, who is the creditor?

-Lightrule



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


LOL. You failed at making any sense.

I bought a new truck 3 years ago, and it went like this:

Step 1: I found a new truck, with all the goodies, and it is worth $41,000.

Step 2: I sign some papers that promises that I will pay them $41,000 plus interest. Then I make a down payment of $8,000 to get it started.

Step 3: They give/loan me the truck that is valued at 41K, and their account is now -33K.

Step 4: I now have a tangible object in my possession worth 41K, yet I only payed 8K to get it, and made a promise to pay the rest.

If I fail to keep my promise that I will pay for the 41K truck they gave me, they will take the truck back so their account is no longer in the negatives.

So where did the 41K truck come from, thin air?? NO. Someone (the bank) payed for it in order for me to have it in my possession, and I am paying back that someone (the bank).

You totally left out the tangible object in your post, meaning you willingly ignored an important fact to make a point. If for instance you would have said, "the bank gave you 10K CASH" your entire non-existent point would have gone down the tubes.

 


Becoming a citizen of the USA is KIND OF (very vaguely) like buying a truck. The government loans you public services, military protection, etc., and you have to pay them for it while you use those services. Just being within the borders of the USA, you are technically using said services.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


How do you explain the legality of welfare? People are receiving government benefits but not paying for them. By your own words, this appears unethical.


Welfare is a benefit that you, me, or anyone should have access to if we are in a time of need. It's like ensurance. We should pay for it in case we ever need it.

Welfare is only unethical if the person on welfare doesn't pay taxes at some point in their life. Welfare doesn't last forever.. and not everybody can get it (well so they say). Sooner or later that person on welfare will have to pay taxes, so, why not have that service?

I despise those who abuse it, and I think something should be done about those who are too lazy to at least try to get off of it. But the service is just another benefit that we all should have at our fingertips to make the world a better place.

If you are against welfare, well why don't you do something about it?


Welfare is nothing like insurance. First of all, you get it whether or not you've paid into it. Secondly, the people who pay the most to welfare (in real life) are normally the people who turn out to get the least benefit. The people who pay the least into welfare turn out (and again we are talking real life) to be the ones who receive the most benefits. Therefore, it works opposite to most insurance programs where the more you pay the more you can expect to benefit on average. Thirdly, insurance companies don't cost anywhere near as much to administer as welfare funds do and therefore are not so wasteful. But wait, there is more. Insurance companies don't rob people at gun point if need be without the consent of the consumers whereas the IRS will if you decide you won't be paying for welfare programs any more on the grounds you want to opt out.

Unemployment insurance is something that is actually insurance in most cases. So then you'd have an argument. But as always the government manages it poorly and you cannot opt out of it.

If you think you are governed by consent (regardless of the country you are in), then see how easy it is to withdraw from the government system so that you neither receive government benefits nor pay for them (and pay for actual costs of roadway usage where appropriate). Its funny how roadways take up a tiny fraction of all government budgets combined yet they alone are the reasoning used to rob the entire population blind. Why do I have to pay for Iraqis and now Afghanis to be murdered? Oh, because we need the roads. Yeah, nice try. Or not.

You shouldn't assume that I'm not doing something about the welfare problem. I've been working on a very important project that should bear fruit within the next year. I'm putting a hell of a lot of hours and effort into it. I'm one to put my actions where my mouth is. As for people who support welfare, they just figure the government will fix all that stuff. Well, no. They can patch things over but then welfare tends to breed more welfare until the system collapses, as is currently being proven across the globe.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 


No. To all of the above.

All you did was agree to put the truck up for collateral if you could not pay. The process I described above still takes place.

I'm telling you the part of the loan process you don't see... Get it?

What you described is the same steps as me, the only difference is I didn't use collateral in my example and I added the extra steps you are not told about and not able to see because they happen behind closed doors at the bank.

The signature on your loan agreement creates the exact amount of money you are asking for in the loan. The bank then WITHOUT telling you deposits this into their account as an ASSET because banks can MONETIZE it. They can only monetize it because you have given it value with your signature... Get it yet?

If you don't believe me, read this;
Modern Money Mechanics - Written by the Federal Reserve of Chicago (pdf)

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." - John Kenneth Galbraith

-Lightrule



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 

Are you claiming these people were ALL given a final judgment that their taxes were owed... Or did the tax collection agency decide to mail out some letters stating if you don't pay us we (or we will get someone who) will arrest you or your property. The latter is most likely the case. Although, I'm not sure.


At least you have the ability to admit you do not know. Some pretend they do, or deny what they said.

I have made no claims about any of "these people," I am merely conveying objective facts. Look for yourself. (These documents are public record; why don't you GET ONE AND READ IT? Or, does it better suit your agenda to just fantasize about them?)

All you have to do is read the statute. A tax warrant is the result of a judicial determination, a judgment, that tax is owed. The "warrant" is the court's means of enforcing its judgment.

A "stock warrant" is an authorization to convert certain corporate investments into common or preferred stock. A "pay warrant" is an authorization to receive payment, usually under a government contract. In a "warranty deed" the conveyor "warrants" to the recipient that certain conditions of title, ownership and possession are true.

The word "warrant" in no way implies or expresses violence, threat, or harm. It is a legal authorization or promise.

In reality (apparently a place neither you nor the OP care to visit), the tax assessor/treasurer sends multiple notices prior to any enforcement actions.

As in all civil cases, the taxpayer can contest at multiple levels the assessment. In both property and income taxation, the taxpayer has the opportunity to make her own assessment of liability, including ZERO!

They have the right to petition the trial court and appeals courts for relief. Even AFTER judgment, the state must wait at least 30 days (usually at least 60, and sometimes YEARS) before seeking to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.

No tax lien or tax warrant is created without multiple opportunities for the taxpayer (or non-payer, in your case) to contest the existence or amount of their liability. Most taxpayers are permitted to make their own determination.

There is no such thing as an "arrest" of property. Property is neither detained nor held against its "will." Ownership is legally transferred according to "the Rule of Law" (as JPZ seems to invoke when it suits him).

A bank account, automobile or business license are no more arrested or "harmed" than an apple at the grocer; their possession and ownership are transferred according to the rules society has adopted for commerce.

Would you prefer that child-support obligors keep their accounts, wages and possession without regard to their obligations to their children? The state carries out child-support enforcement through the same rules of garnishment and auction that apply to tax (or almost any other) judgments.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





There is no subjectivity in reading a statue.


If this were true, The Supreme Court wouldn't be striking down legislation by Congress as being unconstitutional. Clearly, say for example, in the matter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, (a title that is steeped in irony), Congress took the subjective view that they were not bound by the 1st Amendment in this matter. Had they read the 1st Amendment objectively, there never would have been a need for judicial review.

Congress is not the only branch of government that winds up, all too often, taking subjective views of statutes, and it is unfortunate but law enforcement officers also wind up taking subjective views of statutes.

One of the most egregious instances of subjectivity is in regards to the 16th Amendment. The popular view of the 16th Amendment is reflected in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article:


The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results.


Objectively speaking, this is clearly a false assumption based upon a subjective reading of the 16th Amendment. An objective reading of the 16th Amendment would require an understanding of the Constitution and what it says in regards to Congress' power of taxation. Objectively speaking, it is clear that Congress was all ready allowed to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the several states, or basing it in a Census result. All Congress has to do is levy an indirect tax uniform across the states using income is a measurement of what is owed, and Congress did not need to pass an Amendment to do that. Why they needed to pass that Amendment was to force the Courts to view any non apportioned tax as an indirect tax, and not a direct tax.

This objective view is supported by both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings I cited earlier in this thread.

Your smoke and mirrors tactics of attempting to frame yourself as an objective person only makes you look like an amateur magician who fumbles and stumbles with bad hat tricks. Only three sentences after you claim there is no subjectivity in reading a statute, you make this undeniably subjective remark:




You, the OP, and others seem to think that the "Rule of Law" stops when it comes to honoring a FINAL judicial determination of rights.


It seems that way does it? Seems that way to who? To you!




You have bastardized the objective "reasonable man" standard into a subjective analysis based upon false false assumptions.


And yet, you offer not one iota of objective reasoning to support your claim, and just simply make the claim. Nice.




You have no idea how or by whom I am compensated. I assure you that taxes are not in any way part of my income. Even so, you presume a "conflict of interest" where none exists.


If you are the government agent you claim to be, being a tax collector for the State of Indiana, your assurances sound like lies. Are you suggesting you derive your income from free market principles? You of course do not make any attempt to support your assurances with any explanation as to how you get paid, and just simply offer up assurances as if this is all it would take.




In my career I have been an advocate AGAINST the government longer than I have for any other client, including civil and criminal governmental agencies.


Advocate against is a contradiction in terms. Advocate defined:


To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.


If you were indeed arguing against the government this would necessarily make you an advocate of the people, or person, being unjustly accused, or prosecuted by the government, but that is not how you phrased it, is it? You did not claim to be an advocate of the people, did you? You are playing games of semantics, but not very well.




Read the statutes (as the OP should have before accepting a reporter's conclusions as fact.)


Have you supplied the statutes in question? Did I miss that in this thread? You are quick to attack the O.P., but I have not seen any of your posts that endeavored to clear up the matter by simply supplying the statutes in question.




The OP did not quote the article or the reporter; he didn't even cite the reporter as authority, he merely linked a misinformed news story.


If by O.P. you mean original post, then this statement is true. However, The O.P., as in original poster, did quote the article, and quoted the same part of the article I did, and did so on page 2.




The OP applied his own biased and unsupportable interpretations to create a thread titled: "7000 Citizens Violently Threatened ... ." Those are his words and they are without foundation.


Again, on page 2 the O.P. quoted the article. Your accusations are without foundation and are false.




Anyone who assumes the role to "report" should verify his sources and their authority. The OP either chose not to, or ignored the truth.


Nor have you offered any authority, and have only made unsupported claims, many of them demonstrably false.




Either way, the thread is a lie.


You have either missed his post on page 2, or willfully chose to ignore it in order to make your accusations. Either way your accusation is a lie.




That is a TORT standard. Filing tax warrants can not ever be construed as a tort.


If it is not a TORT standard, then it is a CRIMINAL LAW standard, and if it is a CRIMINAL LAW standard then the O.P. was well within reason in assuming that those warrants were arrest warrants. You cannot have it both ways.




Again, you misapply and misrepresent facts to suit some agenda other than an objective analysis of the underlying actions that prompted the OP to post a false thread.


Uh-huh. And yet, you just showed all reading this thread how you are doing what you accuse me of doing. TORT standards are a part of CIVIL LAW. There is CIVIL LAW, and there is CRIMINAL LAW. When it suits your subjectivity the O.P. is a liar because the warrants issued, by your claim, were not a matter of CRIMINAL LAW. Now, when it no longer suits your purposes, suddenly tax warrants cannot be construed as a TORT standard.




My actions will never result in a person's arrest. Your undefined, subjective, use of the term "harm" is so vague as to be meaningless. In the case of taxes, it is relative: harm to the public coffers and the "Rule of Law" supporting civil judgments v. harm to lawfully-taxed assets.


Let's just clear up the matter and have the term "harm" defined:


1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.

2. Wrong; evil.


Causing someone harm goes well beyond arresting them. Of course, all you did was make the claim that your actions "will never result in a person's arrest". More semantics?




Objective truth? You imply that I am a liar when I point out the false statement of the OP's thread. I have not attacked the OP; I exposed show the falseness of his assertions.


You did not "expose" anything. You made accusation, and offered up no proof, not even any viable evidence to support that accusation. Your false claims have been exposed and backed up with evidence. Do you understand the difference, or does your own subjectivity not allow it?




What "bold unsupported claims" have I made?


1.) The O.P.'s assertions of arrest warrants are false. You have not supported by an fact or piece of evidence that this is true.

2.) Tax warrants are not arrest warrants. Again this can only be true when it is true, and when a tax collection agency pursues criminal charges, then arrest warrants are necessary.

3.) There is no such thing as a "debtors prison". I have exposed this false assumption of yours.




This thread is premised upon exactly such bold unsupported claims.


Yet another bold unsupported claim.




Even the OP has devolved to the position of "This is what I read," or "This is what it might lead to;" neither of which serve to justify his false assertions.


At least the O.P. has offered up an article that gives any reasonable person an opportunity to see what he read. You have not offered up any evidence what-so-ever to support your claims.




deny ignorance


This standard coda of yours is becoming more and more the hypocritical assertion of one who asserts; "do as I say, not as I do."



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 
Once again, you take a misinformed story, and twist it to fit your agenda without regard to fact or truth. Why do you persist in your mendacity?


So what are you claiming exactly?
That confiscating money from people is done so without any threats of violence?


Yes, exactly. A writ of garnishment is delivered to the bank, the bank delivers the funds to the treasurer. No threats, no violence.


That the seizing of private property by the government is a totally peaceful act?


Yes, exactly. The notice of auction is posted and published, an auction conducted and title transferred entirely peacefully. It happens every month (or more frequently), everywhere; just go to the courthouse.


That the threats of tax warrants is a totally civil and peaceful thing with no implied coercion or threats?


Yes, exactly.

A tax warrant is not a threat, it is an authorization for the sheriff to do certain things, outlined above, to satisfy a tax lien. It is a totally peaceful thing with neither express nor implied coercion or threats.

This happens all the time across the country. Face facts. As JPZ would tell you, "it is the Rule of Law."


Is that what you are arguing?


No. I am making a statement of fact. You are arguing based upon false statements and imaginary situations.


So 7000 people, some old and handicapped, packed a downtown building on a single day because government politely asked them to pay their taxes?


No, they did not!

"7000 people" received notices. Not all 7000 were ignorant enough to think they would be arrested. Even the ONE person quoted in the misinformed story admits that she owed her taxes, could pay them, and was at fault for not doing so.

Once again, you take a snippet of fact and fantasize, exaggerate and bastardize it into something it never was or could ever be.

No one, except you, said 7000 people all jammed into a building on a single day. You made that up 100%. (Even your "source" makes no such an assertion. You cannot claim "it's in the article." )

Of course, posting facts is nowhere near as gratifying as sensationalizing something you made up in your head.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 

Do you even read what you post?


She should then have every right to sue me in court for every penny she is owed that I fail to pay her in full. If I owe her $75 for a message, then I have to pay Jane Smith the promised $75. If people make a promise to pay someone money, then they should keep their promise... not just part of it, but all of it.


And if she gets a judgment against you because you did not pay her, then she has the right to what? Garnishment!!

So, why isn't anyone else entitled to the same rights? Including the state.

Your "logic" is laughable.


Wage garnishment is a simple parlor trick that disguises the unprovoked violence of the state.


That is entirely meaningless, and completely contradicts your example of the $75 you owe Jane agter she wins in court.

deny ignorance

jw



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join