-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Dave Miner
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:06 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:

The simple answer to your question is the fact that, absent the current taxes paid by people like you, there are no current funds to pay benefits to people like your parents.  I mean, you don't really believe that this is an investment program where your funds are invested and held for your retirement, do you?

 

Yours in financial freedom,

 

Dave Miner

www.IRx-Solutions.com

 

 

---

From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Email41@...
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 8:26 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:

On a lesser issue, the material published by the SSA states that after 40 quarters of contributions you are vested in the SSA program. If I am totally vested after 40 quarters, why do I still need to make contributions through my employer? I have always asked and never recieved an answer.

Not necessarily!

See definition of "Notice" in your State's UCC!
A party has Notice of something if it is in a different font or a
text box or different color and so on!

An "affidavit" is merely an attested or sworn statement of facts!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 02:32:12 -0000 "moonpoet67" <unwanted24hrs@...>
writes:
> hey all ive been reading the group i enjoy the information...i have
> a question is a "notice" the same as an affidavit?
>
>
>
>

You can call the child support department and have a phone hearing.

I don't know what the outcome would be but at least you could find out more.

You can also request/demand a full accounting which they have to supply.



allenhuenefeld wrote:

> The IRS is keeping my federal tax return to cover a disputed debt with
> child support under IRS code 6402 c and D.  ANyone know of a way
> around this.  I am disputing the debt with the child support office
> because there is no way their figure is correct, unless I am paying
> for children I never knew about.  The child support office says it can
> take up to a year to even get a hearing.  I just want my money.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "tips_and_tricks
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

It's not valid until you sign it, by which act you testify.  Can you be
commanded to give it validity ?

tdnorth@... wrote:

> Hmmm.  My Social Security Card has my proper name spelled with the
> first letter capitalized
> followed by lower case letters for the rest of my name.
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Does  anyone know if "MOOTNESS" is jurisdictional?

Background!    RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE §66-8.
"An appeal may be dismissed at any time for lack of jurisdiction."

The defendants motion claims the decsion I'm appealing "is moot and that
moot is jurisdictional, therefore the appeal should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction."

I would appreciate any thoughts or comments.

George

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a question in reference to 1st Amendment rights, IF I
understand things correctly.  If an individual has no trespass orders
or whatever - stating that said individual may not enter county
buildings or offices / and that individual is both a property owner
and tax payer in said county?  Additionally if that same person has no
trespass orders/whatever not to enter the same county's ISD offices =
Is not this a violation of 1st Amendment rights.  Seems I've seen
something referencing such and that the particular individual sued and
won.  Thanks.. Rob

Yes, folks should be aware of the WTP organization and all that they're
doing, but this lawsuit, the case is currently under appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals in DC, and they are not currently accepting new Plaintiff
applications.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm

Advancepum@... wrote:

> This is somthing that all real Americans should be
> awair [sic] of and probably be a part of.

<snip>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 4/3/06

-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of susanne waid
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:53 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] LACK OF JURISDICTION

Moot: open to discussion or debate; debatable, doubtful; a moot point.  Chiefly law:  not actual; theoretical; hypothetical  Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996

susannew@...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Advancepum@...
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:42 AM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] LACK OF JURISDICTION

 

George, I believe the definition of moot is not to talk or to say nothing therefore the decision must be moot (say nothing) if that's the ruling  I think that you may be able to record that and have the appeals court saying that the decision said nothing.

Paul

The defendants motion claims the decsion I'm appealing "is moot and that
moot is jurisdictional, therefore the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

If you go to the Dave Champion internet radio show on April 1, 2006,
on the second hour, he has some new information about someone being
prosecuted for using the "Cracking The Code" system of untaxing
oneself. More specifically filing form 4852.

http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive.html

wage garnishment::defaulted school loans

HELP!  I am definitely in over my head!

**the background:: graduated from a doctorate program 1994.
--primarily used I-Help (Iowa Higher Education Loan Progam) for
funds.
--stuck my little toe into "Sovereignty issues".
--joined Right Way Law with a friend, for ~2 yrs.
....learned about banks and the govt lending credit rather than
funds, and then decided to "let my loans go", esp as I was
completely unable financially to repay them(had worked 'in my field'
only 1 1/2 yrs, realizing I wasn't a business-person).

**the situation since::I have refrained from filing any IRS
since....???~~1995,1996??
--my income has been LOW, until 2002 (still no IRS filing)
--since Christmas 2001 I have worked a seasonal job, Thanksgiving
thru Easter.

**recent developments::recvd 'notice' from a collection agency
(contracted by the Dept of Education of the U.S.) re the school
loans, AFTER the "30 days response window"(out of town).....also
felt ~~'frozen in the headlights' and didn't know what to do...went
into denial.
--have recvd the Wage Garnishment forms.

**re Garnishment parameters::the papers I've recvd indicate that if
one has been working less than 12 months in the past year, and if
one was 'released' from the previous job involuntarily, THEN, upon
showing PROOF of such, supposedly one may be spared the wrath of
Garnishment.
....THIS applies to my situation::the season is Thanksgiving thru
Easter (at a ski resort); one is neither fired nor laid off--it's
seasonal employment.

....Due to the needs of the season, I've just had my two most
lucrative pay periods. The next two will be my lowest pay periods--
the 2 pay periods till Easter (closing). The Notice indicates that
one is to send the two most recent pay-stubs.... The Notice is dated
March 18th, 2006----due to the postal service and "life" (out of
town) I recvd the Notice only April 1st.

**I would appreciate information re how to proceed...
1)"can" one get around garnishment, in a 'normal' situation?
IF it were deemed 'necessary' for me to comply with this
Garnishment....
2)given the 'Garnishment parameters', what PROOF would be needed to
send, to show that my situation releases me from garnishment?
3)considering the time of year NOW, how to proceed, re the end of
the season approaching, and my receiving no more funds*payments
until the first part of December??

Thank You for your time and support!
Chandra -- cgr_lightsplash108@...

You need to see previous posts in this forum re: this
topic. Cool your jets... it ain't what it appears.

--- Scott <jazzstock67@...> wrote:

> If you go to the Dave Champion internet radio show
> on April 1, 2006,
> on the second hour, he has some new information
> about someone being
> prosecuted for using the "Cracking The Code" system
> of untaxing
> oneself. More specifically filing form 4852.
>
> http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive.html
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Apologies to all

I incorrectly stated "The defendants motion claims the decsion I'm appealing "is moot and that moot is jurisdictional, therefore the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction." " I should have said defendant claims the 'APPEAL' is moot because the decision against my wife is final. I forgot to have her sign the notice of appeal. I'm now filing a motion for leave to amend the notice of appeal.

 

The trial court relied upon dictum of lower courts which was a key point in my appeal. For the appeal I cited on point case law and the statutes which the trial court disregarded.

Regards to all

George

You may want to check your local state laws.  Usually, garnishment cannot occur
until after a court order is issued.  That court order has to occur after the
party desiring to garnish your "property" has presented its' case in court in
which you are a party to the action and have had a chance to defend yourself. 
In the event this has happened and you failed to mention it, there are some
things that can be done but it requires a higher degree of legal knowledge than
the average person has.  In the event there has not been any court action, you
may want to read the papers carefully because it will be the collection company
is trying to trick you into waiving rights and signing a waiver and admitting to
the debt so they can bypass the legal hassles of courtrooms, etc.  In that case,
you should think twice or three times before signing those forms.  Also, in most
cases, the government does not contract with those collection agencies. 
Instead, the government does like other
  corporations and sells the "debt" at a discount.  In this case, third party
debt collection procedures apply and you can have all kinds of fun playing with
them.  pd

cgr_lightsplash108 <cgr_lightsplash108@...> wrote:  wage
garnishment::defaulted school loans

HELP!  I am definitely in over my head!

**the background:: graduated from a doctorate program 1994.
--primarily used I-Help (Iowa Higher Education Loan Progam) for
funds.
--stuck my little toe into "Sovereignty issues".
--joined Right Way Law with a friend, for ~2 yrs.
....learned about banks and the govt lending credit rather than
funds, and then decided to "let my loans go", esp as I was
completely unable financially to repay them(had worked 'in my field'
only 1 1/2 yrs, realizing I wasn't a business-person).

The Most Successful Fraud in American History

by Gary North
27 March 2006

Before I identify what has to be the most successful fraud in the
history of the United States, I should first define my terms.

      Fraud: A deliberate attempt to deceive a targeted
      victim, so as to obtain something of value from
      him that would have been difficult to obtain, had
      the victim known the truth.

      Success: Securing an advantage for yourself and
      your heirs that is almost impossible to lose, even
      under competitive conditions.

I offer the following criteria as characteristics of a successful fraud.

First, the perpetrator who designs the fraud and then executes it is
subsequently hailed by the victims as a hero, a genius, and
indispensable to their own well-being.

Second, the perpetrators must be bound by an oath of non-disclosure,
which all of them keep until they die, yet which leaves no trail of
paper for historians to discuss.

Third, the nature of the fraud is well known by critics, who tell their
story in full public view at the time the fraud is committed, but a
majority of the victims reject this story.

Fourth, the critics' negative assessment is forgotten over time, leaving
the victims' heirs convinced that the original fraud was a great idea
and well worth defending.

Fifth, anyone who discovers the true nature of the fraud cannot gain a
hearing because the heirs of the victims dismiss him as a crackpot,
either in general or else regarding this specific issue.

Sixth, the heirs of the perpetrators extract a growing percentage of the
wealth of the heirs of the victims.

Seventh, the fraud must have a slogan, preferably very short, easily
memorized, universally accepted, and devoid of content, just in case
someone should try to sue the perpetrator or his heirs for the
commission of the crime.

Eighth, the heirs of the victims then consent to the plans of the heirs
of the perpetrators to extend the original fraud, whether by additional
fraud or else force, to new groups of victims, who whose ancestors were
not parties to the original fraudulent transaction.

Ninth, the heirs of the original victims pay all of the costs of this
extension of the original fraud to a new generation of victims.

Tenth, the new generation of victims is then persuaded to bear a growing
percentage of the costs of extending the fraud to still more victims.

Eleventh, the bulk of the net return on the extension of the fraud
continues to flow to the heirs of the original perpetrators.

Twelfth, the process must go on for more than a century; two centuries
are better.

There may be additional features of a successful fraud, but I think the
presence of this dozen constitutes a highly successful fraud.

Can you think of a fraud in American history that has these twelve, or
even more? If so, you should draw up your case in writing and submit it
for consideration to this site's editor, who loves a good fraud story
better than silver. Tie it to a conspiracy, and he loves it more than
gold. Get the government involved, and he cannot resist.

But you cannot match mine, for mine tops them all.

AND THE WINNER IS. . . .

James Madison and his unindicted co-conspirators.

First, the perpetrator who designs the fraud and then executes it is
subsequently hailed by the victims as a hero, a genius, and
indispensable to their own well-being.

Madison is universally heralded as the father of the Constitution. This
is an accurate assessment of his role. From the Annapolis Convention of
1786, which called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which (1)
closed its doors to the public and the press, (2) did not amend but
instead replaced the Articles, in specific violation of the instructions
officially given by several state legislatures to their attendees; (3)
unconstitutionally (Articles of Confederation) ratified the illegal
document in 178788, Madison was there, running the show. Everyone knew
it at the time.

Second, the perpetrators must be bound by an oath of non-disclosure,
which all of them keep until they die, yet which leaves no trail of
paper for historians to discuss.

No member of the Convention ever revealed what went on behind those
closed doors. This included the opponents of the Constitution. Luther
Martin of Maryland, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, opposed
the Convention's plan within days of his participation. He kept notes of
the debates, but his notes were not published until 1838, two years
after Madison's death the last member of the Convention to die. Martin's
notes were published along with Robert Yates' notes, who also attended
and opposed what had been done there: Secret Proceedings and Debates of
the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Today, this book is unread by most
graduate students of the era, let alone by the general public. I cannot
find it on-line in text form just offers to sell copies of the book.
When a document of this level of historical importance is not on-line
for free, the memory hole is still operating.

Madison turned over his notes to George Washington, who took them back
to Mt. Vernon. Madison knew that no one would or could force Washington
to surrender them. His notes were not published until 1845.

What could have kept opponents like Yates and Martin from publishing?
One explanation is obvious, yet rarely mentioned by historians: The
members took a vow of secrecy. That was an era in which oaths were taken
seriously.

Third, the nature of the fraud is well known by critics, who tell their
story in full public view at the time the fraud is committed, but a
majority of the victims reject this story.

The anti-Federalists published numerous criticisms of the secret
Convention and the proposed Constitution. Yet in every state ratifying
convention, the Federalists won. Madison was a consummate political
organizer. More than this: He is arguably the most organizationally
successful political theorist in man's recorded history. He even took
notes of the Convention and revised them just before he died the very
records that would shape what historians would record. Solon and
Lycurgus left no body of theoretical works. Madison did. So, only Lenin
comes close to Madison in this regard. But the product of Lenin's
conspiratorial revolution only lasted for three-quarters of a century.

Fourth, the critics' negative assessment is forgotten over time, leaving
the victims' heirs convinced that the original fraud was a great idea
and well worth defending.

The first complete collection of the anti-Federalist papers was edited
by Herbert Storing and published in an expensive collection aimed at
university libraries by the University of Chicago Press in 1981. You can
find these documents on the Web today, but in 1981, the Web did not
exist.

Typical of the attitude of twentieth-century historians is the title of
one of the most well-known articles in my graduate school days of the
1960s, Cecelia Kenyon's "Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on
the Nature of Representative Government" (1955). She was selected by the
editors at Bobbs-Merrill to edit the collection of Anti-Federalist
papers that grad students in my day read, or were supposed to have read,
before their Ph.D. exams in colonial American history.

Fifth, anyone who discovers the true nature of the fraud cannot gain a
hearing because the heirs of the victims dismiss him as a crackpot,
either in general or else regarding this specific issue.

I offer as evidence my book on the Constitution, Conspiracy in
Philadelphia (2004). I have posted it free on-line [1]. I wrote the
original as Part 3 of my 1989 book, Political Polytheism. This may be
the least popular book I ever wrote, even among my targeted audience. I
can recall one dedicated lady, a stalwart in the independent Christian
day school movement, who told her son, "Why did he have to write that?"

Sixth, the heirs of the perpetrators extract a growing percentage of the
wealth of the heirs of the victims.

Consider the United States government's budget, its annual deficit, its
on-budget debt, and its off-budget debt. If you do not know where to
begin, start here: M. W. Hodges' Grandfather Economic Report [2].

Seventh, the fraud must have a slogan, preferably very short, easily
memorized, universally accepted, and devoid of content, just in case
someone should try to sue the perpetrator or his heirs for the
commission of the crime.

"We the people." Want to try to match that one?

Eighth, the heirs of the victims then consent to the plans of the heirs
of the perpetrators to extend the original fraud, whether by additional
fraud or else force, to new groups of victims, who whose ancestors were
not parties to the original fraudulent transaction.

I offer as evidence the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II,
Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq. Then there are
these: foreign aid, the State Department, and innumerable CIA coups.

Ninth, the heirs of the original victims pay all of the costs of this
extension of the original fraud to a new generation of victims.

What are these costs? Read the collection of essays compiled by John
Denson, The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories. If this is too
much, then at least read David Gordon's review [3].

Tenth, the new generation of victims is then persuaded to bear a growing
percentage of the costs of extending the fraud to still more victims.

The acronym NATO comes to mind. More recently, the Bush Administration
assumed that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction of the
war-devastated country. There were actually people who believed this.
John Kerry's entire campaign position on the Iraq War was grounded on
the assumption that the Administration should have sought allies, who
would then have shared the costs. Desert Storm was his model. He
promised that, if elected, he would line up such cost-sharers.

Eleventh, the bulk of the net return on the extension of the fraud
continues to flow to the heirs of the original perpetrators.

If you want to read one book on this well, three read Philip Burch's
three-volume work, Elites in American History (1981). The complete set
is out of print, and it was published by an obscure publishing company.
You probably have never heard of it. I bought two sets, just in case.

With respect to the nature of the net return, consider the crucial
slogan of modern American politics. Although he went to his grave
denying that he ever said it [4], the archetype of this policy
prescription is still attributed to Harry Hopkins, the senior advisor to
Franklin D. Roosevelt: "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and
elect and elect." The constituents of whichever political party is
incumbent still accept this.

Twelfth, the process must go on for more than a century; two centuries
are better.

This one has gone on since 1788.

CONCLUSION

The most accurate assessment of this incomparably successful fraud was
Patrick Henry's. When asked why he did not attend the Constitutional
Convention, he replied: "I smelt a rat in Philadelphia."


[1] http://demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
[2] http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
[3]
http://www.mises.com/misesreview_detail.asp?control=15&sortorder=authorlast

[4] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003714


http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north445.html

One thing I can tell you, if you are considered
totally disabled and on SSI, SSDI or a VA pension, it
is non-attatchable and some smartie social worker can
get them off your back.  Just another angle.

--- Dvoltzow@... wrote:

> Also ask for a copy of the original promissory note
> that you supposedly
> signed, with time stamp on the note in relation to
> the time the check was
> actually sent.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Scott,

The other day I had listened to the radio program you had posted and
did not notice anything about the IRS having any such prosecution
underway for the Cracking the Code "philosophy" as Dave Champion
called it.

In fact, it might not even be the www.losthorizons.com group at all
as in addition to "Cracking the Code" filers there are a number
of 'groups' using the Form 4852 to correct erroneous presumptions
from private industry employers otherwise known as de facto
IRS 'withholding agents' as they are called.

So, if there is any such prosecution of any specific individual using
the 4852 based upon the Cracking the Code method, I'll be surprised--
and certainly very interested to see how the IRS would endeavor to
prosecute a case against a private, unprivileged individual and also
the Internal Revenue Code itself in the Federal courts.

Below is a copy of the letter I had sent to Dave Champion on Sunday
evening, April 2, 2006.

In Liberty,

Gare

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

Dave,

Listened to the Web archived show about illegal
immigration and was favorably impressed with your
position, which is identical to mine... not that there
is truth in numbers--just truth in truth, which we
both recognize obviously.

In your show's second hour, you'd mentioned the
Cracking the Code philosophy espoused by "Hendricks"
as you'd presumed his name to be to those who may not
know of this gentleman of impeccable integrity.

As one with the standard of practicing what I preach,
it's natural for me to be fairly well informed with
credible research and vetting prior to making a
comment publicly or privately... that's just me being
me.

Saying that to you, I place value on your integrity
with a similar standard in that your voice is reaching
an audience most interested in freedom, liberty and
the intent of our founding fathers.  In fact, I hear
you espousing this "intent" language quite regularly.

The casual even flippant dismissal of the Cracking the
Code "philosophy" without being able to correctly
identify the author of this body of work calls into
question your research and commitment to your audience
to being well-informed with credible, intelligent
research.  No offense, your conduct on this point
clearly smacks of the same attitude as the "stupid"
IRS employees to whom you refer as to being in the
same league as the mob.

Truly, I expected you to engage the reasoning behind
your dismissive accusations causing the Cracking the
Code philosophy to fall short of carrying any such
legal weight... you didn't.  Should the topic be
worthy of mentioning on the air, then, by all means it
certainly is worthy of your efforts to be fair, honest
and straightforward with your audience.  Agree?

You accurately explained the essence of an individual
filing a 1040 with a form 4852 showing a zero for
non-federal earnings.  However, you admit to having
"several reasons that this is a poor idea..." yet you
brushed off your purportedly reasoned contentions as
if they had no value to your listeners.

Please do yourself some justice and extend an
invitation to the book's author, Mr. Peter E.
Hendrickson, as a guest on your show to dispel his
'philosophy' face to face.  Otherwise, take a few
minutes of airtime to provide this listener with
factual information as to why strict adherence to the
Internal Revenue Code and the rule of law is a poor
idea as you speculatively suggest "they" have
"latched" onto due to "frustration" and the like.  I
am certainly open to your views and feel that we both
deserve the opportunity to make informed opinions from
informed positions.

Should you take a few minutes to vet the 'philosophy'
as such, you'd be amazed at the deep love of liberty
and freedom you share with Mr. Hendrickson and those
whose purpose is to embrace the rule of law.  As far
as I know, Irwin Shiff-type zero filers have no remote
connection to the Cracking the Code philosophy.

Should you have the inclination to be a
better-informed host, please visit
www.losthorizons.com and do us all right by being
faithful to your truth, honor and integrity first,
then to your listeners' in turn.

In Liberty,

Gary

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

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" <jazzstock67@...>
wrote:
>
> If you go to the Dave Champion internet radio show on April 1,
2006,
> on the second hour, he has some new information about someone being
> prosecuted for using the "Cracking The Code" system of untaxing
> oneself. More specifically filing form 4852.
>
> http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive.html
>

Nice "opinion"!

Irrelevant, immaterial, facetious, arbitrary, capricious & valueless!

But nice, anyway!