Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

WHO PAYS TAX?

Expand Messages
  • m4thdown
    Contracts are entered into by the acceptance of benefits, and they are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits [ explain section on Federal
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Contracts are entered into by the acceptance of benefits, and they
      are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits [
      explain section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And Citizenship is one of
      the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice of for
      purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment
      And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will
      sever the adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction
      that attaches itself invisibly to everyone else. So getting rid of
      your National Citizenship,

      "... that there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
      annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all
      sources in the preceding calendar year to every Citizen of the United
      States, whether residing at home or abroad..." - The Revenue Act of
      1913, chapter 16, Section IIA (1913). "The United States chose to
      base its tax jurisdiction on Citizenship from the inception of the
      Income Tax in 1913." - Citizenship as a Jurisdictional Basis for
      Taxation: Section 911 and the Foreign Source Income Experience by
      John Christie, 8 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 109, at 109
      (1982).
      The very fact that some Congress off in the 1990's enacts a statute
      declaring that State Citizens are Persons adhered to Title 26,
      automatically admits in inference that all previous income taxation
      dollars collected by the King were illicitly looted -- absent express
      contracts
      Notice how the Supreme Court did not try to distinguish between
      Person clothed with multiple layers of juristic accoutrements lending
      to their very appearance a special and suggestive flavoring to it --
      and individuals without such juristic accoutrements [or "liberated"];
      the Supreme Court was contrasting Corporate entities and Individuals
      due to the Juristic Personality that benefit acceptants clothe
      themselves with.
      Because your natural biological Status as an "Individual" means
      absolutely nothing when juristic benefits were accepted by you: That
      is the seminal point of the formation of contracts in Nature, and
      contracts overrule Natural Law Rights arguments
      I am not aware of any explicit statement that exists which
      specifically attaches reciprocal taxation liability for Persons
      holding Citizenship, nor is there any explicit indication that
      Citizenship is a contract. To have folks think in terms of contract
      when addressing Citizenship, would result in some folks eventually
      figuring out that the underlying indicia that create commercial
      contracts might also create political contracts where Juristic
      Institutions are a party thereto; and so it would not be too long
      before folks start figuring out that the seminal point in all
      commercial contracts stand on that practical operation of Nature
      taking place called Consideration, where benefits are exchanged
      "Income taxes are a recognized method of distributing the burdens of
      Government, favored because requiring contributions from those who
      realize current pecuniary benefits under the protection of the
      Government, and because the tax may be proportioned to their ability
      to pay." - Shaffer vs. Carter, 252 US 37, at 51 (1919).
      MUST DO:
      "... the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to time
      of birth, and one not owing allegiance at birth cannot become a
      Citizen save by subsequent naturalization, individually or
      collectively. The words do not mean merely geographical location, but
      `completely subject to the political jurisdiction'." - Elk vs.
      Wilins, 112 US 94, at 102 (1884)
      The most predominate ways that an individual can become subject to
      the jurisdiction of the United States is by:
      1. 1. Violating a law the Government is authorized to prosecute
      (counterfeiting, bank robbery, treason, etc.);
      2. Be employed by the Federal Government;
      3. Apply for its privileges, or accept its benefits; LIKE FRN'S ,
      SOCIAL SECURITY
      MUST DO: OBJECT AND DENOUNCE AS STATED IN GEORGE MERCIER

      Yes, benefits are the key to lock yourself into state and federal
      taxation webs:
      "... it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the
      defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
      activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
      protections of its laws." - Hansen vs. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, at 253
      (1957); [A state taxation jurisdiction question Case].

      I am not aware of any Federal statute anywhere that comes right out
      in the open and explicitly correlates the benefits of Citizenship
      with the reciprocal duties and liabilities all participants in that
      contract encumber themselves with; however, on a parallel tangent,
      but there is an interesting slice of lex in the Civil Rights Statutes
      which announces a similar theme of benefits and duties, which I
      mentioned in two fragments:
      "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
      the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce
      contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
      equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons
      and property as is enjoyed by White Citizens, and shall be subject to
      like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of
      every kind, and no other." - Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"]
      (enacted May, 1870)
      Title 26 was deliberately designed by its draftsmen in Congress to
      convey only that thin, tiny, minimum sliver of jurisdiction to
      Federal District Courts that was necessary to hear grievances
      initiated by the King's Agents, seeking the enforcement of taxes,
      penalties, assessments, injunctions, summonses, etc.; Title 26 does
      not offer, and was not intended to offer, a good source of statutes
      invoking Federal District Court jurisdiction to either abate or
      remedy the naked Torts or contractual errors of IRS termites. Tax
      Protestors might want to emulate the Modus Operandi of Federal Judges
      when dealing with a Title 26 related grievance, and invoke the 16th
      Amendment as a source of jurisdiction for their District Court
      Kingdom, which Federal Judges quietly do [nowhere in the 16th
      Amendment do the words Jurisdiction, District Court, or Convey appear
      anywhere, but pesky little deficiency impediments like that are not
      about to stop Federal Judges].

      Federal Jurisdiction is necessarily limited to the exclusive
      legislative jurisdiction of the United States Congress -- meaning
      limited to Federal Employees, residents of the District of Columbia
      and Federal Territories, and other Federal Enclaves.
      Question: Is that closed private domain of King's Commerce a
      Federal Enclave? Is the acceptance of Federal protectorate benefits
      the creation of a situation specific ad hoc Federal Enclave?

      "But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed..."
      [meaning Americans can dissolve the tie whenever they feel like it, a
      severance not possible under the old Britannic rule of Kings.] -
      Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in ["Citizenship"], 10
      Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 394, [W.H. & O.H. Morrison,
      Washington (1868)].


      "Since the 14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state where ever
      he resides, the fact of residence creates universally recognized
      reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and
      support by the Citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay
      taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter." -
      Miller Brothers vs. Maryland, 1. 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).


      Question: What are the benefits you give to American Citizens?
      The definition of American Citizenship and the correlative concise
      presentation of the benefits of American Citizenship, simply does not
      exist.
      Other benefits offered to American Citizens by the King [and Federal
      Judges know this, so we should too] is financial assistance to
      American Citizens returning from foreign countries. In
      Title 42, Section 1312 the Secretary of State is authorized to
      provide temporary assistance to Citizens and to dependents of those
      Citizens, if they have returned to the United States in a state of
      destitution resulting from war, threat of war, invasion, or some
      other crisis some Gremlin pulled off somewhere. Another benefit
      offered to American Citizens is the protection of the United States
      Government when travelling abroad; this service is provided through
      foreign diplomatic consular offices. Our family has businesses in
      other parts of the globe, and whenever we have made phone calls to
      the American Embassy for assistance, they have always sent out
      someone immediately.
      In Title 22, Section 1731 ["Protection of Naturalized Citizens
      Abroad"], the King has decreed that Persons who have become
      naturalized Citizens are entitled to this same benefit of protection
      assistance in foreign lands, both for themselves and their property
      while over there. In Title 22, Section 1732, the
      President of the United States is under a specific duty to first
      inquire of foreign governments and then offer assistance whenever an
      American is incarcerated abroad.

      Under the classical contours of International Law, only political
      jurisdictions were subjects accountable to it, and individuals were
      simply not included; while the Nuremberg Trials changed all this on
      an ad hoc basis, the status of people as being strangers to
      International Law continues on down to the present day -- but when
      the adhesive Equity tentacles of World Citizenship are nestled in
      place someday, [just like today when your State will not intervene
      in any manner whatsoever on your behalf when Federal Marshals come
      knocking on your door]. For a commentary on the relational setting in
      effect between individuals and International Law that is neither
      critical nor justifying the enlargement of International Law that
      took place at Nuremberg, see The Responsibility of the Individual
      Under International Law by Ernst Schneedberger in 35 Georgetown Law
      Journal, 481 (1947).
      When money is at stake, Federal Judges have noted that all of a
      sudden the traditional allure of possessing American Citizenship now
      suddenly takes upon itself an unattractive dimension:
      "... since United States Citizenship is considered by most to be a
      prized status, it is usually the Government which claims that the
      Citizen has lost it, over the vigorous opposition of the person
      facing the loss. In this rare case the roles are reversed. Here the
      estate of a wealthy deceased United States Citizen seeks to establish
      over the Government's opposition that she expatriated herself. As
      might be suspected, the reason is several million dollars in tax
      liability, which the estate might escape if it could sustain the
      burden of showing that the deceased lost her United States
      Citizenship." - United States vs. Matheson, 532 F.2nd 809, at 811
      (1976).

      "The people of the United States resident within any State are
      subject to two Governments; one State, and the other National; but
      there needs be no conflict between the two... It is the natural
      consequence of a Citizenship, which owes allegiance to two
      sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The Citizen cannot
      complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form
      of Government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to
      speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties
      which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can
      demand protection from each with its own jurisdiction." - United
      States vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 @ 550 (9875)
      Although there are 115 Sections of lex where the root word Citizen
      appears in Title 26, when considered as a whole they only
      inferentially suggest that the Citizenship Contract is the primary
      center of gravity for federal taxation liability attachment purposes.
      For example, some of these are:
      Section 63 ["Taxable Income Defined"];
      Section 303 ["Distributions in redemption of stock to pay death
      taxes"];
      Section 407 ["Certain employees of domestic subsidiaries engaged in
      business outside the United States"];
      Section 861 ["Income from sources within the United States"];
      Section 864 ["Definitions"];
      Section 871 ["Tax on nonresident alien individuals"];
      Section 872 ["Gross Income"];
      Section 883 ["Exclusions from gross income"];
      Section 906 ["Nonresident alien individuals and foreign
      corporations"];
      Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United States living
      abroad"];
      Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United States"];
      Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];
      Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
      Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source income"];
      Section 1491 ["Imposition of tax"];
      Section 2002 ["Liability for payment"];
      Section 2037 ["Transfers taking effect at death"];
      Section 2039 ["Annuities"];
      Section 2045 ["Prior interests"];
      Section 2053 ["Expenses, indebtedness, and taxes"];
      Section 2101 ["Tax imposed"];
      Section 2104 ["Property within the United States"];
      Section 2107 ["Expatriation to avoid tax"];
      Section 2208 ["Certain residents of possessions considered Citizens
      of the United States"];
      Section 3121(e) ["State, United States, and Citizens"];
      Section 6854 ["Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax"];
      Section 7325 ["Personal property valued at $2,500 or less"];
      Section 7408 ["Action to enjoin promoters of abusive tax
      shelters..."];
      See also Title 42:
      Section 410 ["Definitions relating to employment"];
      Section 411 ["Definitions relating to self-employment"];
      Section 8143 ["Definitions"]. [return]
      [26] For purposes of collecting an Estate Tax, the statutes in Title
      26 are blunt and clear that Citizens must pay:
      "A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of
      every decedent who is a Citizen or resident of the United States." -
      Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"]. [return]
      [27] The Code is divided into 50 titles or Parts, which do not always
      correlate to statutory Titles. For example, Title 26 United States
      Code pertains to Taxation, and the corresponding Part of CFR that
      also pertains to Taxation is Volume 26; however, Title 50 United
      States Code deals with War and National Defense, while CFR Part 50
      deals with Wildlife and Fisheries.
      44 United States Code 1507.
      44 United States Code 1510.
      26 CFR 1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
      What we view as Citizenship Duties are, when view from the King's
      perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator
      once expressed some ideas regarding the "sale" of the duties of
      Citizenship to other parties, by asking the question: Should Citizens
      be able to contract out to others their required reciprocal services?
      Under the concept of inalienable duties [inalienable meaning that
      they cannot be transferred], Government requires certain actions of
      its Citizens and forbids the transfer of these duties to others. For
      example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and Military Enlistment are
      based on the invisible contract attachment of Citizenship, and are,
      at the present time, inalienable.

      Question: Are we protected from their bankruptcy, or their war,
      or given any republic, or Constutional freedoms ?

      Federal Benefits that Federal Judges have had all neatly tied up in a
      bundle and handed to them in that Bench Book of theirs:

      Part 1: General Provisions;
      Part 2: [Reserved];
      Part 3: The President -- Proclamations, Executive Orders;
      Part 4: General Accounting Office;
      Part 5: Federal Administrative Personnel;
      Part 6: [Reserved];
      Part 7: Agriculture -- price supports, inspections, counseling
      benefits;
      Part 8: Aliens and Nationality [Citizenship];
      Part 9: Animal and Animal Products, Plant and Health inspections;
      Part 10: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
      Part 11: Federal Elections;
      Part 12: Banks/Banking -- FDIC, Import-Export Bank and other handouts
      to looters;
      Part 13: Business Credit & Assistance -- SBA, Economic Development
      Administration;
      Part 14: FAA, Aviation, Department of Transportation;
      Part 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade;
      Part 16: Federal Trade Commission -- Regulatory intervention on
      behalf of consumers;
      Part 17: Commodities and Securities Exchanges -- Regulatory
      intervention;
      Part 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources -- Federal
      Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy;
      Part 19: Customs, Duties -- United States Customs Service;
      Part 20: Food and Drug -- FDA and related inspections;
      Part 21: Employee's Benefits -- Railroad Retirement Board, Office of
      Workman's Compensation;
      Part 22: Foreign Relations -- United States International Development
      Cooperation Agency and related pipelines to looters;
      Part 23: Highways -- Federal Highway Administration;
      Part 24: Housing and Urban Development;
      Part 25: Indians -- Bureau of Indian Affairs; grants and counseling;
      Part 26: Internal Revenue;
      Part 27: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory intervention;
      Part 28: Judicial Administration -- Federal Prisons (concentration
      camps);
      Part 29: Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;
      Part 30: Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations --Inspections;
      Part 31: Money and Finance -- Treasury;
      Part 32: National Defense -- Contract administration;
      Part 33: Marine Navigation & Navigable Waters;
      Part 34: Education -- Grants to colleges, bilingual education,
      vocational training;
      Part 35: Panama Canal;
      Part 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Lands;
      Part 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights;
      Part 38: Pensions, Bonuses, Veteran's benefits -- Veteran's
      Administration;
      Part 39: Postal Service;
      Part 40: Environmental Protection regulatory matters;
      Part 41: Public Contracts and Property Management;
      Part 42: Public Health -- Health care grants, Hospital enrichment;
      Part 43: Public Land and Interiors -- Secretary of the Interior,
      related infrastructure;
      Part 44: Federal Emergency Management Agency (a Gremlin's dream come
      true);
      Part 45: Public Welfare -- Office of Family Assistance and Child
      Support;
      Part 46: Shipping -- Coast Guard Services;
      Part 47: Telecommunications -- FCC regulatory intervention;
      Part 48: Federal Acquisition Regulatory System -- Federal
      Procurement;
      Part 49: Transportation;
      Part 50: Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the Interior --
      fishing, hunting in National Forests, wildlife management. [return]
      Question: So, if Citizenship is the contract operated on by Federal
      Judges, then why will Federal Judges simply not refer over to the
      Citizenship contract as overruling justification to tax Governmental
      Employees?
      1. The Answer lies in the fact that Citizenship is an implied
      contract created and structured largely by statutory devices; as an
      implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and individually
      written down], Citizenship can only fill the vacant contours that are
      left open by other premier boundary line restrainments of a higher
      priority. Here we have a fundamental intergovernmental immunity
      doctrine related to that granddaddy Itself: Sovereign Immunity. Under
      this Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine, Federal and State
      instrumentalities are pre-emptively disabled from even asking for any
      taxation reciprocity back in return from each other -- even though
      Federal juristic benefits were accepted by a state employee in
      Collector vs. Day, and an implied taxation contract was in effect.
      2. Remember that the Congress is operating on a limited profiled
      slice of multiple jurisdictional assignments; the Congress is pre-
      emptively disabled from pulling off many things in the Bill of Rights
      that requires either a Commercial Contract or individually negotiated
      contract consent to overrule. The Corpus of the Constitution also pre-
      emptively disables the Congress from asking for taxation reciprocity
      back in return for important Commercial benefits accepted in Article
      1, Section 9 ["No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from
      any State"], even though those articles destined for foreign nations
      were very much the product of otherwise taxable Interstate Commerce.
      The right of taxation, where it does exist, is necessarily unlimited
      in its nature: "... the right of taxation, where it exists, is
      necessarily unlimited in its nature." - McCray vs. United States, 195
      U.S. 27, at 57 (1903
      Question: Are there some Judges who would like to merely cite
      national Citizenship as the justifying taxation contract, and ignore
      Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are:
      "... respondents, though Employees of the New York Port Authority,
      are Citizens of the United States; the tax levied upon their incomes
      from the Authority is the same as that paid by other Citizens
      receiving equal net incomes; and payment of this non-discriminatory
      income tax by respondents cannot impair or defeat in whole or in part
      the governmental operations of the State of New York. A Citizen who
      receives his income from a State, owes the same obligation to the
      United States as other Citizens who draw their salaries from private
      sources or the United States and pay Federal income taxes." -
      Helvering vs. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, at 424 [Justice Black
      concurring] (1937).

      Aliens from foreign political jurisdictions, who do not reside in the
      United States and accept no political or protectorate benefits from
      the United States, are still very much liable to be bound by Title
      26, if they experience any Commercial enrichment over here. See Emily
      De Ganay vs. Lederer, 250 US 376 (1919)
      [A French Citizen and French resident very much owes equity
      participation income taxes to the United States, because she
      experience Commercial enrichment over here when she deals in debt
      instruments such as mortgages, corporate paper, and securities.] See
      also similar reasoning in Cook vs. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1923) [non-
      resident aliens who participate in American Commerce are subject to
      the American Income Tax and Citizens residing abroad are liable to
      pay the Income Tax]. The requirement for American Citizens who live
      abroad and, seemingly, do not enjoy any benefits of an American
      origin, to pay Income Taxes has irritated a lot of folks -- see the
      Foreign Earned Income Act of 1978: Non-benefits for Nonresidents,
      Editor's Note, 13 Cornell International Law Journal 105, at 107
      (1980) --
    • Nilbux@aol.com
      Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver coins. It is not possible to pay taxes weith paper and no one wants us to pay taxes. They want us to pretend or be
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver
        coins.

        It is not possible to pay taxes weith paper
        and no one wants us to pay taxes.  They
        want us to pretend or be punished. When
        be believe that we have paid taxes, we then
        believe that we have less money to spend
        when all we had in the first place was paper.


        The illusion called "taxes" effectively regu-
        lates out bidding of numbers against those
        counterfeiters who created the numbers and
        thus prevent prices from going out of sight
        and exposing the fraud of the numbers.

        There are MANY other ways to reduce our
        bidding of the numbers.  Who cares to know
        them?
      • Steve Laubly
        Income taxes cannot be paid unless you have income.... Do you have income? _____ Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver coins.
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Income taxes cannot be paid unless you have income.... Do you have
          income?

          _____

          Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver
          coins.
        • Joseph Toman
          ... You are RIGHT ON! Taxes is just a kick back for the use of Federal Reserve Notes. So who wants to stop using them? A great CONFIDENCE game. The US inc. is
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Nilbux@... wrote:

            > Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver
            > coins.
            >
            > It is not possible to pay taxes weith paper
            > and no one wants us to pay taxes. They
            > want us to pretend or be punished. When
            > be believe that we have paid taxes, we then
            > believe that we have less money to spend
            > when all we had in the first place was paper.
            >
            > The illusion called "taxes" effectively regu-
            > lates out bidding of numbers against those
            > counterfeiters who created the numbers and
            > thus prevent prices from going out of sight
            > and exposing the fraud of the numbers.
            >
            > There are MANY other ways to reduce our
            > bidding of the numbers. Who cares to know
            > them?
            >
            You are RIGHT ON! Taxes is just a kick back for the
            use of Federal Reserve Notes. So who wants to stop
            using them? A great CONFIDENCE game. The US inc. is
            responsible for our debts. So lets make them pay (thru
            Redemption and HJR 192 of 1933)



            _______________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
            http://messenger.yahoo.com
          • Joseph Toman
            ... wow sombody knows the truth. Arken3 thanks. How many know or realize we are living in an ALICE in WONDERLAND world. a major confidence game by our
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Nilbux@... wrote:

              > Taxes cannot be paid with less than silver
              > coins.
              >
              > It is not possible to pay taxes weith paper
              > and no one wants us to pay taxes. They
              > want us to pretend or be punished. When
              > be believe that we have paid taxes, we then
              > believe that we have less money to spend
              > when all we had in the first place was paper.
              >
              > The illusion called "taxes" effectively regu-
              > lates out bidding of numbers against those
              > counterfeiters who created the numbers and
              > thus prevent prices from going out of sight
              > and exposing the fraud of the numbers.
              >
              > There are MANY other ways to reduce our
              > bidding of the numbers. Who cares to know
              > them?
              >
              wow sombody knows the truth. Arken3 thanks. How many
              know or realize we are living in an ALICE in
              WONDERLAND world. a major confidence game by our
              "friendly" banking cartel. No one has anything: no
              money, no property; no cars; no anything. We "pay" our
              debts with dept scripts = Kennedy was killed trying to
              stop it. Taxes are the kick back for using their
              notes. People 'buy' their houses and homes with a
              signature on their unlimited credit and the banks make
              the profit. What a world. Yet we still vote and want
              to be US citizens. [a us citizen is a member of the us
              corporation and not an American] The Revolution is not over!



              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
              http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
            • Utlage
              What we view as Citizenship Duties are, when view from the King s perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator once expressed some ideas
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                What we view as Citizenship Duties are, when view from the King's
                perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator
                once expressed some ideas regarding the "sale" of the duties of
                Citizenship to other parties, by asking the question: Should Citizens
                be able to contract out to others their required reciprocal services?
                Under the concept of inalienable duties [inalienable meaning that
                they cannot be transferred], Government requires certain actions of
                its Citizens and forbids the transfer of these duties to others. For
                example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and Military Enlistment are
                based on the invisible contract attachment of Citizenship, and are,
                at the present time, inalienable.
                I believe you have used the wrong word in using inalienable.  It is unalienable that means your rights can not be transferred.  You can transfer or contract away inalienable rights.
                K
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: m4thdown
                Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:25 AM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] WHO PAYS TAX?

                Contracts are entered into by the acceptance of benefits, and they
                are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits [
                explain  section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And Citizenship is one of
                the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice of for
                purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment    
                 And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will
                sever the adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction
                that attaches itself invisibly to everyone else. So getting rid of
                your National Citizenship,
              • Nilbux@aol.com
                In a message dated 8/3/2004 1:07:17 PM US Mountain Standard Time, ... a major confidence game by our friendly banking cartel. ... Nilbux@aol.com The Fed
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 18, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 8/3/2004 1:07:17 PM US Mountain Standard Time, joseph_toman@... writes:

                  we are living in an ALICE in WONDERLAND world.

                  a major confidence game by our
                  "friendly" banking cartel.


                  Nilbux@...
                     The Fed admits on page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics
                  that they operate a confidence game and that the history
                  of banking is a history of fraud.

                  It matters none what they admit if less than one percent
                  read it and the few who recite it are subject to ridicule.

                • Frog Farmer
                  ... At least the few who understand it can avoid the suffering experienced by those who cannot. As Tonto asked the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 27, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Aug 18, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Nilbux@... wrote:

                    >    The Fed admits on page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics
                    > that they operate a confidence game and that the history
                    > of banking is a history of fraud.
                    > It matters none what they admit if less than one percent
                    > read it and the few who recite it are subject to ridicule.
                    >

                    At least the few who understand it can avoid the suffering experienced
                    by those who cannot.

                    As Tonto asked the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by hostile
                    Indians, "what you mean 'we', Kemosabe?"

                    Children often ridicule that which they are incapable of understanding.

                    I once had a court case dismissed because prior to going to the trial,
                    I had captured the court clerk on tape demanding payment in Federal
                    Reserve Notes, using just those words. First he said, "regular green
                    money", but upon a request for clarification, he said, "we demand
                    Federal Reserve Notes"! There were also three witnesses.

                    The first words out of the judge's mouth were not about my alleged
                    offense, but were about my pre-trial visit to the clerk's office to
                    ascertain just what it was they wanted from me, as there was a "note"
                    attached to the case file. He didn't want to discuss the issue in
                    front of a roomful of FRN-laden sheep, so instead he said, "should I
                    denominate the fine in doubloons?" I replied, "you'd still have the
                    same problem". He replied, "Case dismissed". I was ready to plead
                    "guilty" just to force the issue of the payment of the fine, but the
                    results were not worth it to the court. Better to lose a little on me
                    than a lot from any who might wise up as a result of hearing any
                    discussion.

                    People do not understand that little encounter. They imagine a lot
                    more had to be said, but that was how it went.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.