 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM Did a search, didn't find this topic anywhere on the forums: "In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being perceptible through the senses and subject to physical laws, as opposed to an artificial person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner." The above is the Wikipedia definition of "natural person". The below helps clarify the definition. It speaks of Canada but also applies to the U.S.: One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an "artificial-person / corporation" who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you (See Natural vs. Artificial). But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also have provide recognition in law for another legal entity called a "natural-person" (simply meaning a human-being in the law) with which most of your fundamental rights are still intact. So when you interact with the law, you may be represented as an artificial or natural person - you choose. http://www.natural-person.ca/ In order to implement slavery of it's citizens and control them according to its whim, the Government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the Government to "own" everything produced or gained by its citizens. The technique used by the Government was to create an artificial-person (referred to herein as a CORPORATION for emphasis) for every human-being in Canada. As creator of a CORPORATION, the Government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a CORPORATION does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by its creator and the CORPORATION must obey its creator. So for every John Doe human-being in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE CORPORATION. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and COMPANIES. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person. See Capitalization. http://www.natural-person.ca/artificial.html Just type "natural person" into a search engine for thousands of enlightening articles on this topic. Basically, the govt turns you into a corporation by monkeying with the rules of grammar. Your birth certificate probably follows the rules of grammar...capital first letters, other letters lower case. But then the govt starts issuing you paperwork with ALL CAPS. Your social security card, for example. You're asked to check it for spelling. You think your name is spelled correctly and sign off on it. At that point, you have created a legal corporation with YOUR NAME in all caps. It's called a "straw man." The U.S. govt cannot do business with individuals...only other govts and corporations. So, to cheat and abuse you, they turn you into a third-party, or a "straw man" corporation. If I could make everyone in the U.S. and Canada aware of one bit of information, it would be this bit. This trickery is the basis of all illegal taxes. Also, it makes you the actual, physical property of the govt. I'm researching this for some tax payments coming up. I have to print out the articles yearly, to amaze and stupefy the bureaucrats demanding money from me. They are totally unaware of this stuff. Even their software is set to print my name in ALL CAPS by default, and that's why I have to go in each year and speak to them, to have them manually override and type my name according to the rules of grammar. I point out the name on the deeds follows the rules of grammar (Cap the first letter, lowercase the rest), and if they want my taxes they need to correct their paperwork. Check your deeds and titles. If your name is in ALL CAPS, then your "corporate self" owns the property, and it can be seized at any time for any reason. If you change those things to rules of grammar so that your "natural self" is identified as the owner, then you have more rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: bobad Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:17 PM Natural person |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:17 PM What a screaming rasher of horse-pucky. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:20 PM Do you mind if I say that in my opinion you are FULL OF IT? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:22 PM Yet another natural person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:26 PM You people are a trip. Those are legal definitions. I didn't make them up. lol. I love breaking this news to people. They either recoil or react. Most recoil. Each year, when you sign your income tax statement, you are proclaiming that you are vouching for YOUR CORPORATE SELF. And as collateral, you are putting up your body (imprisonment is threatened). It is astounding how loudly people rail against the obvious. The top of the property deed I'm looking at right now says I don't have to volunteer my Social Security # or my driver's license number if I'm a "natural person." lol. They put it at the top of the page, the header, and the people in the tax district honestly don't see it. It's like it just suddenly comes into view for the first time each year when I point it out. You chattel. moo. lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: number 6 Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:46 PM Let's get right to the point here . . . . biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:50 PM You make me feel like a natural person ... oooh ... etc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM The Canadian Income Tax Act, section 2(1) states " An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year ". We are unable to find who shall pay the tax. Section 248 further defines person as being the corporation JOHN SMITH or anybody who acts as a "receiver" for JOHN SMITH. Therefore if the natural-person John Smith receives money for the corporation JOHN SMITH, he must declare that money as taxable income for JOHN SMITH. Such is the case with the Employee JOHN SMITH and the worker John Smith that is receiving money for the Employee. However when John Smith receives money for himself, such money is not necessarily taxable. http://www.natural-person.ca/incometax.html The above outlines the issue succinctly. A tip. The next time you are asked to sign something AND print your name, print following the rules of grammar. Upper case first letter, lower case the rest. That way, the printed name won't match what's on your government indenture documents. Throws a legal wrench into their claim over you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: freda underhill Date: 21 Dec 06 - 10:05 PM the True Natural Man with all the answers can be found here (scroll down) & of course, there's only one Natural Woman freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 06 - 10:36 PM "...Therefore if the natural-person John Smith receives money for the corporation JOHN SMITH, he must declare that money as taxable income for JOHN SMITH...." That's the crux of the issue. You are born a natural person. The government tricks you into creating a third-party corporation (by changing your name on paperwork to ALL CAPS), so then, any money you earn on your job is technically being earned by the corporation with YOUR NAME. As corporate income, it is taxable. The U.S. tax code of 1909 made this distinction, too, and that's why Americans have been turned into one-person corporations, because the govt can only tax corporations and businesses. See how simple it is? This is all laid out in an excellent film called "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 06 - 10:53 PM I think this is is bushwah. The legal entitiy of an individual is not a corporation under any law. To the contrary, a corporation is something to which SOME attributes of a person have been assigned. The reverse is not the case. If you assert that this IS the case, please cite the actual law so mandating. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:13 PM Nov schmoz ka pop? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: bobad Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:26 PM Nov shmoz ka pop |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:34 PM This is a bunch of hooey by someone who has completely reversed the way things work. The corporation has been granted "personhood" but it isn't so the government can take advantage of it--to the contrary, it is an umbrella so the individual people (stockholders, owners, managers) who own or otherwise invest in it can avoid any of the civil liability for the actions of the company. The Corporation is a protection against such things as individuals going to prison for chemical spills in poor communities, or individuals going to prison for not making sure a mine is safe or so individuals who own the company don't go to prison if their building burns down and their employees all die. Or if their product kills the people who bought or used it. And most commonly, it is a way individuals protect their personal assets from governmental seisure--the person of the Corporation stands between people and civil and criminal authority. Only humans can grant rights, and it is an ongoing argument around the world as to just who and what have rights. Adult, coherent humans and corporations are about it. Children and animals have representatives who speak for them. People are continually trying to assign rights to trees, rocks, whales, dolphins, cats and dogs, etc. It is the opinion of Gene Hargrove, the environmental philosopher who has written a great deal about animal rights and environmental ethics that a few animals--chimapanzees, gorillas, whales and dolphins (mainly just these, but he may have mentioned a couple of others the last time I heard him lecture) might be suitable to have limited rights. To have standing. Upper and lower case is nonsense--the "natural person" designation simply appears to be a way to distinguish between people who act for the corporation but who can be held liable for their acts (the auditors, for example) versus those who are protected (in most cases) by their role within the corporation. Example. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:39 PM Lots of laws and rulings thrown around at the links below: ...the Supreme Court clearly states that all income taxes are on corporations, as set forth in the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, not on people.... http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/person.html "Income" is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition. Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word "income" it is talking about corporate income. http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html (So once again I come back to the fact that you have to be turned into a CORPORATION in order to be taxed. And they do that by simply capitalizing the letters in your name and then have you sign off on it). Do you know which law requires you to file an income tax form? Is the Federal Reserve System a part of the federal government or a privately owned bank? Ask most Americans to name the law that mandates the filing of income tax forms and they'll tell you they can't – but they're sure it's in there someplace. As award-winning film producer Aaron Russo ("The Rose," "Trading Places") claims in this blockbuster of a film, it's not. "There is no law," Russo insisted to NewsMax.com.... ...CBS critic Todd David Schwartz called the film "The scariest damn film you'll see this year. It will leave you staggering out of the theater, slack-jawed and trembling. Makes 'Fahrenheit 9/11' look like 'Bambi.' After watching this movie, your comfy, secure notions about America – and about what it means to be an American – will be forever shattered." Russo and his colleagues at Cinema Libre Studio, Schwartz said, "deserve to be heralded as heroes of a post-modern New American Revolution. This is shocking stuff. You'll be angry, you'll be disgusted, but you may actually break out in a cold sweat and feel a sickness deep in your gut; I would advise movie theatre managers to hand out vomit bags. You may end up needing one." http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/8/180328.shtml?s=lh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:43 PM Partly, Sage. The corporate umbrella has been presented as a good thing that does all you describe, but it is also an abusive thing. If you pay income tax or social security, you are a corporation. You, by yourself, alone, not part of ANY group. Look at the name on your social security card. ALL CAPS. Doesn't match the name on your birth certificate. In a court of law, that makes you (yourself, as an individual with inalienable rights), a distinct entity from your CORPORATE SELF. Slickest and simplest scam ever pulled on America. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:49 PM See how easy? Isn't it NICE how simple life can be? Who'da guessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: katlaughing Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:52 PM Whether CAPS or not, etc. there is an interview of Aaron Russo, who made the docu. I have NOT listened to the whole thing, yet, but plan to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:55 PM So when you say that corporations Are waging war in Iraq And you point your finger at Cheney Three fingers will point back |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: katlaughing Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:59 PM Russo's actual website with all kinds of links, video, and info on the film. I'd feel better about it all if he cited his sources, but presumably he does so in the "docu." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: number 6 Date: 22 Dec 06 - 12:00 AM Where does a numbered person fit into all of this? sIx no it's biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Dec 06 - 12:20 AM No problem, biLL. Unless they are capitalized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:17 AM I think you're probably technically correct about this, Guest. The main thing protecting people (still) is simply the weight of past tradition and social custom rather than the laws. The laws have been cleverly arranged by lawyers to represent the great ruling powers that be, not the people. The powers that be, being: the richest people and the organizations that control money and military/police firepower. What primarily protects us from an open dictatorship is simply the face that it would not meet people's expectations of normality, and they'd get VERY upset! ;-) That would be damn difficult to enforce. It would require very large security forces. What the powers that be do instead is: they drug people from cradle to grave with empty entertainment, mostly unneeded consumer goods, phony news that is a combination of more entertainment plus lots of government propaganda, lots of sex stuff (in the entertainment)...and finally, just plain old drugs (both legal and illegal)...while simultaneously robbing them blind in such a way that they mostly don't even notice it...though they do feel vaguely trapped, and may join the hordes of people seeking pschological counseling and MORE drugs to dull the anxiety symptoms. But, hey, if a monkey in a cage is convinced he's free...than as far as he's concerned, anyone who says he isn't free is a nutcase. The monkey is so used to the cage that he just doesn't even realize it's there. The cage has become his only reality, and he would probably get very upset if it was suddenly removed, and demand "protection" from the zookeeper. ;-) Real freedom would look far too scary to deal with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:41 AM The web citations so far are entirely iffy. Anglefire, for example, sends red flags for me. This is lunatic fringe stuff, an ass-backwards interpretation of law and individual rights. This capital letter versus lower-case stuff is nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:06 AM When it comes to the IRS and determining tax liability, the one thing that has gotten everybody all twisted up is this idea of self-assessment and voluntary compliance. Those are ideas that the IRS has been indoctrinating us with our whole lives. Mr. McLeod said that when you self-assess yourself and voluntarily comply with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), you effectively become IRS agent against yourself. More specifically, you become an agent against your "strawman", which is an entity bearing your name spelled in all capital letters. http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/2/IRSfraud.htm Have you ever wondered why all legal documents such as your driver license, credit cards, utility bills and other legal and business documents depict your name in all capital letters? "In order to rightly comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for rightful knowledge of things depends upon their names." You have been deceived and betrayed! Suffice it to say that you have been swindled, out of nothing less valuable, than your birthright and your sovereignty... simply through the largely overlooked, corruption of your name. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/U-Inc.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:13 AM Good shot LH! This is Troll chum. Semantics. Legal verbage that attemps to cover all the bases. A GROUP that acts as an individual is taxed and treated as an individual for most legal purposes. This way it makes them liable and obedient to the laws of the land. One huge difference is that a business corporations NEVER pay taxes. Oh, they are taxed but that tax is always passed along to the consumer. Businesses (Inc., Corp., or Ltd.) operate on a profit margin and said margin is always maintained or the business goes under and the corporation either declares bankruptcy or is dissolved (or both). When an individual is treated as a corporate entity just remember where the word "corporate" stems from: corpus, i.e. a body, in this case your individual body. Stilly, some rights are self-evident, granted by our Creator, including but not limited to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, other rights are granted, bought or sold and may be temporary in nature, as well as transferable or not. And then there are priviliges and licenses but that gets pretty far afield. Only the natural RIGHTS exist without Manmade laws. Sometimes these are called the Law of the Jungle. You have the right to Life and the right to defend your existence and this is true from the virus and microbe, plant or animal, all the way up to the Human animal. For the more refined and extrapolated rights you must have a CORPORATE entity, a government to secure those rights. And tax its members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:25 AM This is the piece I'll print out to take to the tax office. They know me and refer me to the new kid to singe his or her eyebrows. Yeah, this article has it all: When your true name, written in accordance with the rules of English grammar and the prescriptions of law, is corrupted into an all-capital-letters format, a mutant straw man is created. The new all-caps name is a legal entity (corporate/corporately colored) distinct from you, and is the only type of "person" with whom government, courts, tax agencies/agents, courts, banks, etc. will, in fact, can do business. Consider the fact that when some corporate/governmental entity is coming after you for payment you will never see your true name listed as the account holder (initial letters only capitalized) in the caption of their legal briefs, only the TRADE NAME of your straw man. Why? This is the only way they can do business-and that is exactly and only what it is; business. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/U-Inc.htm I suggest reading this whole article. It's a good one. This is why I insist deeds follow rules of grammar, by the way. Let them harass my CORPORATE SELF all they want, they can't touch my personal property. Or so I've been told. Slag's post confuses me. Are you saying that we must pay taxes (as corporations) to have what our constitution calls God-given rights? Governments are abusive, not protective, by and large, and that's why the founders protected us from invasive govt with a severely limiting constitution. Maybe I missed something. I'll pick it up again tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:55 AM In winter, the lone wolf dies. Like it or not, we exist only as a corporate entity (s) and we derive our rights and priviliges from that entity. Jesus made a remarkable observation when he was challenged as whether it was lawful to pay Roman taxes. He asked who's image and superscription was on the coin. It was Ceaser's. I will ask you the same question. If your a Brit it is the Queen's image. In the US it is Washington or one of the other representatives of heads-of-state. Additional images are the Whitehouse, the Capitol, the Treasury Building, etc. You will also note that the currency claims no backing. It is a Fedral Reserve Note. I imagine it is something similar in GB. That is, it is "fiat money": money, because the government says its money! Furthermore the government claims sole right to print or coin the money and it, and only it, is "legal tender for all debts, both public and private." They own the money! And you rent your property from them too (i.e. "property tax" [just try not paying THAT and see what happens]). You owe military service to the Corporation. That means your ass is theirs if they so declare it. You are a child of the State and that is that. Protest all you want. Don't pay your taxes and see what you get. It doesn't matter whether they call you a corporation or JOE SCHMUCK, they will get it from you in the end, no matter what they have to do to get it. And as far as your personal property goes, Ha Ha Ha! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Paul Burke Date: 22 Dec 06 - 03:29 AM No, Guest 11:55. One finger will point back. Was it Johnson who didn't trust corporations, because they had neither a body to kick nor a soul to damn? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Dec 06 - 04:41 AM If this were addressing English law I could safely say it was a load of gibberish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: fat B****rd Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:56 AM For myself. Alone Again Naturally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 09:31 AM Fine, Slag. Yes it's a fiat system, but it's the WAY the govt gets you to turn the money back over to them that I'm addressing. Taxes are fine, but to deceive people like that Seems you've never heard of this. You should look into it further. You've been deceived into turning yourself into a corporation and becoming your own enforcer. A clever system. Hey, maybe it's even diabolical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 09:57 AM Waht all this is about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: DMcG Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:07 PM In the days when web servers were still fairly new, I was involved in trying to set up a web-based interface to something which had a database behind it. The licencing for that got us into a legal debate that lasted over 18 months trying to define who was a user. The database provider wanted to consider every "natural user" of the system as a separate person, so each person would need separate licence costing a few hundred points each. Given anyone in the world could potentially use it, that would have been a tidy sum! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:16 PM It would require a very large group of people to agree NOT to cooperate in order to change the $ySStem as it exists now. How is that going to occur when most of them believe they already have "freedom"? I have always been puzzled and intrigued by the way my name and everyone else's is spelled all in capitals on official documents, credit cards, etc. I thought it was really weird, because it's not difficult to print a name properly....with capitals only on the leading letters...therefore why the hell would they not print it properly? Therefore, I think Guest is right and they are covering their legal asses cleverly so that if people don't cooperate, they've got them exactly where they want them: under control. And the very few who don't cooperate can easily be dealt with by the powers that be. I've done some reading about this stuff before elsewhere, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:26 PM What this is about is the definition of "taxpayer." Many people argue that the U.S. constitution and court rulings prohibit the taxation of people. Only corporations can be taxed. The govt says that's BS, but to cover themselves anyway they developed a system where they turn every citizen into a one-person "corporation." They do it by capitalizing YOUR NAME. When you sign off on the paperwork (income tax form, social security paperwork, etc.) you agree to act as the representative of the new corporation with YOUR NAME attached to it. And if you think this is a petty distinction that doesn't make a difference in court, do some research. It does. Anyway, I make sure nowadays that everything I buy has "My Name" on it, not "MY NAME." I make sure the name on the title or deed matches what's on my birth certificate (capitalized first letters of names, lowercase the rest of the letters). It's a minor point, but technically, if the I.R.S. ever tries to seize my property, I'll let them go through the motions, then at the last minute I'll point out my name on their paperwork is in ALL CAPS, but the name on the deeds and titles follow the rules of grammar. Since I agreed to the income tax stuff for the corporation with MY NAME IN ALL CAPS, the property with my name following the rules of grammar is not subject to seizure. At which point they'll just shoot me. It's just a precaution, and if you've read these posts and linked articles and it still doesn't make sense, then it may never make sense. But I take it seriously and go in to my tax district (rural, small) each year and point out they need to tax Me and not ME, because My Name is on the deed, not MY NAME. They understand what I'm talking about by now, and they're all taking steps to transfer their property into their birth certificate names. They still look forward to the lecture though. As far as the United Kingdom, I heard an interview years ago with a man who was talking about this issue over there. Seems the U.K. has been doing this longer than the U.S. I think you have an "Inland Revenue" service over there, and it's called that to differentiate it from the maritime legal system. You Brits might want to look into it. Probably the same scam. I bet you're each an individual "corporation" for tax purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Amos Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:39 PM Guest, I am afraid you are sadly beguiled. A letter represents the same concept and the same phoneme grammatically whether capitalized or not. Capitalization is a convention of typography, not semantics. This whole notion that it is a different name, or a corporation, when printed in all caps, is just silly. On my driver's license my address, gender eye color, height and (past) weight are all printed in capitals, too. Which among these things is "a corporation" according to your mystic version of the law? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:43 PM Yeah, Little Hawk, they're covering themselves. The govts. In the U.S. at least it's pretty clear individuals can't be taxed unless they agree to it, so that's why we hear the term "voluntary tax" so often. You have to agree to it, and one way you agree is to become the overseer of your mutated name. They change your name to ALL CAPS and when you sign the agreement that that new entity owes X amount, you become responsible for enforcing the tax laws on yourself. And if the govt is ever backed into a corner on this, it'll point out that we agreed to it, it was all voluntary, we signed off on it. Like I said, if I could make people aware of one thing (even moreso and bigger than 9-11), it would be this scam. A govt that would do this would do anything, including terrorizing its citizens with bombs. Unfortunately there's a hundred years of snafu court rulings on this tax thing, and people WANT to believe big brother, so there's slim chance of making much of a difference. Think of the outcry though if everyone, all at once, realized they don't and never had to pay taxes...they were duped into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:49 PM Driver's licenses... In the U.S., that's a CDL, commercial driver's license...standard issue for the person on the street. Are you involved in commerce when you drive, Amos? 99 out of 100 drivers would answer no, probably, so why do you need a commercial driver's license? Technically, it's because you're driving around your corporate self. Or rather, your corporate self is driving the vehicle. See, all the paperwork is rigged to reinforce this self-corporatism...that's why all the important documents have your name in ALL CAPS. Every time you renew your license, file a tax form, etc., you are re-affirming that you are acting on behalf of your corporate self. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 01:56 PM Oh, and the capitalizing of everything on the license, Amos, is camoflague (sp?). If everything on the license is capped, you won't think twice about your name being capped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:52 PM Heaven forbid that I should self-assess myself. " ... some rights are self-evident, granted by our Creator, including but not limited to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, other rights are granted, bought or sold and may be temporary in nature, as well as transferable or not. And then there are priviliges and licenses but that gets pretty far afield. Only the natural RIGHTS exist without Manmade laws." Slag Since the time that Thomas Jefferson came up with that line, that interpretation, people have been agog at its simplicity, its pithiness. However agreement with it is NOT universal; not all people or governments agree with the thought. Driver's licenses... In the U.S., that's a CDL, commercial driver's license...standard issue for the person on the street. Are you involved in commerce when you drive, Amos? 99 out of 100 drivers would answer no, probably, so why do you need a commercial driver's license?" Don, try presenting a normal Driver's License when you apply for a commercial hauling job. They will quickly inform you that you will first need the training to get the special CDL Quite a different thing from a driver's license. I don't think this is a troll, as such. In my opinion, this is a fearful person who obsesses. I think he is bright- but not sensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: MMario Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:58 PM I've never had a legal form of any kind where my name was in all caps. That includes my license. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: number 6 Date: 22 Dec 06 - 03:08 PM My driver's licence recognizes me as a number ... come to think of it my tax return is also a number. We are all numbered ... our name is meaningless. biLL no ... it's sIx Hell .. it's 6 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Dec 06 - 04:03 PM I just checked. ALL my ID is in CAPS. ALL my credit cards are in CAPS. My Health Card is in CAPS. Everything is in CAPS. Odd, isn't it? Specially when you consider that just about everything else that normally gets written anywhere is not done all in CAPS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 04:28 PM Well, gee GUEST! I think you are really splitting hairs, but I like your attitude! Maybe I'll join the revolt (as started by e e cummings) and use ONLY small cased letters for the body (corporate or otherwise) of my name. Income tax itself is unconstitutional, at least it was until that darn XVI Amendment. If you own a business you become a tax collector for your given state, if they have state sales tax and you also collect any and all federal taxes too. Are you duly compensated for performing this work and the record keeping that goes with it? I think not. re commercial driver's licenses: In CA that applies to pick-up trucks and certain vans, IF you haul anything other than non-paying passengers. Why? So they can take extra money from us, I guess. I have held a class 1 lic. in the past and it is a very different deal than a class 3 (or I guess it's "C" now). When they started restricting it by type of load and requiring a current medical exam, I let mine go as I hadn't driven a truck for a number of years. Speaking of numbers the SSN was to never be used as an identification for anything other than Social Security. It could not be required by any other agency. That went by the boards in a hurry. Truly, you could not buy or sell except that you had the number (or the Mark) in your hand. The military did away with the old ID #s and used your SSN with some two letter designator in front of it, the pretense being that it was NOT your SSN. They finally did away with the pretense ( I think). The VA still uses the SSN or some form of it. With the advent of identity theft there is a swing away from having to produce your SSN for everything, or rather, the powers that be (that is, the NUMBER KEEPERS) are becoming more cryptic about hiding your SSN and other numbers which are tagged to it. The use of identification numbers is so open to abuse and oppression by governments that it truly is frightening. Its a question of control and power. And that is the name of the GAME. And look at the buggers who seek the highest offices in the land(s). What a sorry lot! Either party. "Our LIAR is better than your LIAR" Some choice. Talk about welfare. We put these "Bottom Feeders" at the top of the power structure. As I said before, You ARE a Child of the State. You don't last long in this cold cruel world without the protections of the State and many times you don't last long protecting the State. Me? I'm praying for the Second Coming! It has to be better than this Byzantine quagmire we're all subjected to today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Dec 06 - 04:43 PM I think I'd agree with SRS - a bunch of hooey. I expected to find Urban Legend information about this at snopes.com, but Snopes failed me this time. -JOE OFFER- -joe offer- -Joe Offer, Inc.- -Joe Offer®- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:03 PM Yup, Joe, Hooey! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:06 PM What a crock of shit! As a matter of fact, lemmee give it a blast from the past it really needs!BBBBRRRRAAAAWWWWMMMMPPPPDid a search, didn't find this topic anywhere on the forums: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:13 PM Spaw, er, I mean SPAW for pRESIDENT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Amos Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:37 PM Guest: No, it is not a commercial driver's license. Your argument doth leak like Spaw's Dependz. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Dec 06 - 06:04 PM Yeah, I checked Snopes too, and came up empty. But just because Snopes doesn't have anything on it doesn't mean this is not some kind of urban legend or conspiracy theory. There is more bovine excrement in the world than Snopes could possibly get around to discussing (but that certainly doesn't stop other people from talking about it!). I watched the Aaron Russo video and found him to be quite convincing in that he has most of his ducks more or less in a row. He doesn't offer any kind of genuine proof, but his story seems to hang together pretty well. But then, I've heard dire warnings about this kind of thing ever since I was a kid, from an acquaintance or two of my father's. Dad would listen patiently and ask a few questions, but when they left, he'd shake his head and laugh in wonder and amaze. My Dad was right. None of those dire predictions ever came to pass. And a lot of these same stories are still being presented as frantic warnings of imminent disaster. GUEST leads a very anxiety-filled life. There are indeed things to be anxious about on the political scene, but this kind of thing merely distracts form the real issues. I'm far more concerned with the erosion of the separation of church and state in this country—"Jesus camps," pushing for "intelligent design" to be taught in school, and that sort of thing—than I am in whether or not my name on my various ID and membership cards is all in caps or not. Some are, some aren't. What does that indicate? In checking Snopes, I did learn that Chef Boyardee (unlike Aunt Jemima, Betty Crocker, and Prudence Penny) is a real person. Hector Boiardi was born in northern Italy in 1898, worked as a chef in restaurants all over, became famous for his spaghetti sauce, and started marketing it. "Boyardee" is an anglicized version of the way his name is pronounced. Wow! Learn something new every day! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: catspaw49 Date: 22 Dec 06 - 06:12 PM Hey Don.....There is an excellent thing on the History Channel I believe that runs every now and again on Chef Boyardee. Very enjoyable. They were a pioneer in the fast home meal thing prior to TV dinners. There is also in the same program a segment on Birdseye. Watch for it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM Yeah, Spaw, I'll keep an eye open for it. I'm into food. And fortunately, food reciprocates. I understand that back in the early Fifties, when the holiday season was over one year, Swanson's found they had a whole warehouse full of frozen turkeys that hadn't sold. They didn't know what they were going to do with them until someone in the firm had a brilliant idea. He contacted one of the outfits that prepares frozen dinners in little aluminum trays for the airlines and had them use the turkeys to make up a bunch of airline-type dinners for Swanson's. Lots of people were eating in front of that new-fangled invention, television, to avoid missing Sid Caesar, Ed Sullivan, or the Firestone Hour. Swanson's market them as "TV Dinners." Thus is started (or so I've heard). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 07:48 PM Snopes, Urban Legends, Wikipedia...those things either ignore or misdirect, in my experience. Google shares office space with the CIA. Good luck finding clear information on this. At any rate, the people at my county tax office know a fair amount, and they've begun changing their deeds and titles to the rules of grammar spelling. I've convinced them something is suspicious, and since it's so easy to prevent against the possible abuse, why not do it? One more time... Taxes are fine. I'm no "tax protestor." I may argue about the amount, but then we all should. My point on this is that I've been surreptitiously turned into a corporation. Happened when I got my first Social Security card and was asked to check my name for spelling errors. The name was printed in all caps, but it was spelled correctly. So I signed off on the paperwork. At that point, I entered into a contract with the U.S. government to act as representative for the new corporation that had just been created...the one-person corporation using MY NAME in all caps. Etc., etc., etc. See the above posts. I know this is a kick in the head, but it's all true. The U.S. and Canadian govts can only do business with other govts and corporations. They can't do business directly with you, so they turn you into a corporation through subterfuge. The mechanism used is the ALL CAP system. I only offer this as an observation. Do with it what you will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Dec 06 - 07:49 PM Now, Spaw, you know you've been counselled about your use of scatological references around here. But in this case, it does seem that what we're talking about is a crock of sh... Sincerely, Your Anonymous Fellow Poster |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 08:02 PM A landmark Supreme Court case of 1795, which has never been overturned, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), defines governments succinctly: "governments are corporations." Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary-having neither actuality nor substance-is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/U-Inc.htm So, if this is the case, how can the govt. interact with you in a business way? Answer, turn you into a corporation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM This is my one-page printout for the tax office. I print several for the folks in the office: Have you ever wondered why all legal documents such as your driver's license, credit cards, utility bills and other legal and business documents depict your name in all capital letters? Your name is a legal expression of who you are. How it is written has legal and lawful significance. "John Henry Doe" signifies a true name written in accordance with the rules of English grammar and prescriptions of law. "JOHN HENRY DOE," on the other hand, does not. Names of men and women appearing in ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS are corporate/corporately "colored" renditions of a true name. Colored refers to the fact that they are fictitious, "having the appearance." They do not identify the "being," the real person, you. Proper names, set in all-capital letters, such as the one appearing on your driver's license, signify "artificial persons." When your true name, written in accordance with the rules of English grammar and the prescriptions of law, is corrupted into an all-capital-letters format, a mutant straw man is created. The new all-caps name is a legal entity (corporate/corporately colored) distinct from you, and is the only type of "person" with whom government, courts, tax agencies/agents, courts, banks, etc. can do business. A landmark Supreme Court case of 1795, which has never been overturned, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), defines governments succinctly: "governments are corporations." Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary-having neither actuality nor substance-is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. So, governments, courts, tax agencies/agents, banks, etc. can only do business with you if you are a corporate entity. The simplest way to make you a corporate entity is to turn you into a one-person corporation. This is done by changing your name to ALL CAPS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Dec 06 - 10:29 PM Google and the CIA share offices? I thought the CIA's offices were in Arlington, VA. You say they're in Pasadena, CA, then? Or has Google shut down it's Pasadena headquarters and moved to Arlington? Amazing revelation!! Don Firth P. S. Has anyone told this to Google and the CIA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 22 Dec 06 - 10:38 PM AAAAWWWWWGGGHHHH! I've been CAPPED ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Dec 06 - 10:39 PM "Scuse me all to hell! Google's main offices are in Mountain View, CA, not far from Palo Alto. At one time they did have offices in Pasadena, though. Don Firth P. S. "Google shares office space with the CIA." The problem with assertions like that is that when they run into to anyone who knows better, it's a bit like a automobile made out of Silly-Putty running full-speed into a concrete wall. And it does pretty much the same thing for the credibility of the person making the assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Dec 06 - 10:46 PM And even if they did share offices, what does that prove? I shared office space for a year-and-a-half with the Bonneville Power Administration, but I still can't write songs like Woody Guthrie. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 26 Dec 06 - 10:05 PM America: From Freedom to Fascism Editorial Reviews Product Description Controversial and throught-provoking are two words that describe one of the most talked-about documentaries of 2006. Determined to find the law that requries American citizens to pay income tax, producer Aaron Russo (Bette Midler'sThe Rose, Trading Places) set out on a journey to find the evidence. Neither left nor right-wing, this startling examination of government exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America since 1913 when the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created. Through interviews with two U.S. Congressmen, former IRS Commissioner and former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, and the national identity card, which becomes law in May 2008 and will use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. Could this be a precursor to an impending police state in America? Watch the film and make your own conclusions. http://www.amazon.com/America-Freedom-Fascism-America-Freedom/dp/B000JVSUSE/sr=1-1/qid=1167188302/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0270227-85 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Slag Date: 27 Dec 06 - 05:00 AM Google? CIA? Huh? Let me get my tinfoil hat on so they can't see what I'm thinking. ooooo, ooooo, I mean my tinfoil CAP! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Dec 06 - 05:24 AM STEP RIGHT UP AND GET YOURS TODAY!!!Get the latest in CONSPIRACY THEORIES byCREATING YOUR VERY OWN!!!We provide everything you need in our kit. DOMESTIC CONSPIRACIES have three lists that you can mix and match! Choose from Religious Conspiracies, Governmental Conspiracies, or Business Conspiriacies. You can use any number within a list or mix and match between lists.EVEN BETTER...When you buy our DeLuxe Conspiracy Kits, you can mix and match with the other categories as well. You get INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACIES (with 5 lists), SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACIES (with 8 lists), and ECONOMIC CONSPIRACIES (with a whopping 14 lists). Order Today and get the new ETHNIC CONSPIRACIES (with 3 lists) ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!!!!!!!!! When you have our kit, you are free to construct, by mixing and matching Categories and Lists, over 1,275,000 different theories!!!. PLUS IF YOU ORDER OUR PREMIUM UPDATABLE SOFTWARE PACKAGE YOU GET EVEN MORE!!!Not only are you assured of getting monthly updates (renewable each year for a low, low, fee) but you'll get every NEWLY DEVELOPED category or List at half price as they become available!!!BUT THERE'S EVEN MORE!!!!If you order today you get two invaluable tools to make your arguments secure, defendable, and completely unbreakable no matter how ridiculous your conspiracy might be. First, you get the "Faux Logic Creator" which can, with a few simple keystrokes, develop any argument, peppering it with key words and phrases to assure evryone of it's might and right while making no sense whatsoever. You also get the "Straw Man Synthesizer" which adds solid credibility to any argument no matter how stupid.ALL THIS CAN BE YOURS TODAY!!!!!by ordering with ONE YEAR SAME AS CASH ($1500. down and 10 Bucks a month) How can you pass it by? We offer a complete money back guarantee! If you're not satisfied, just return the unused portion of the kit and we'll return the unused portion of your money.GET YOURS TODAY FROM:Fuckyall Bullshit Associates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Nisargadatta Maharaj Date: 27 Dec 06 - 05:46 PM Realization is of the fact that you are not a person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: bobad Date: 27 Dec 06 - 07:09 PM Thank you my guru. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Started the thread Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:14 PM Here's a natural person. The media is talking about him like they did David Koresh. He committed the sin of asking to be shown the law: Situation in Brown Tax Evasion Case Uncertain Filmmaker Aaron Russo's America: From Freedom to Fascism documentary interviews a number of former IRS agents and other authoritative people who say that the powers that be, when asked to provide a copy of the law (such as an enabling statute) that requires American workers to pay federal income tax on their wages, come up empty-handed. Russo's view is that the income tax only applies to corporate capital gains, not the incomes of individuals, and that the IRS doesn't even define income. "Most Americans would cower and cringe and raise their hands and surrender like a good little slave," Mr. Brown said around the time of his conviction. He was also quoted as saying the state motto "live free or die." http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/brown_tax_evasion.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: robomatic Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:25 PM LXIX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Kim C Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:11 PM Oh. I thought this was going to be a thread about nudity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Started the thread Date: 24 Jan 07 - 09:03 PM Alright! Ed Brown. Being interviewed right now. He and his wife of 22 years quit paying income tax. Waited for repercussions, and the IRS waited 10 years to contact them. When they did, they showed up with 28 officers in body armor and full auto weapons, a sniper on the hill overlooking their house, etc. To download a hard drive. The subsequent proceedings ended in the govt dismissing charges. The govt can't produce a law showing you have to pay income taxes, folks. So they dropped everything, then the local law called Brown and asked him to come in and clear up some technicality. Brown says he knew what was going to happen as he drove in. He and his wife had been expecting abuse. He got to the station house and was tackled by 4 cops, made to strip, raped with a cavity search, then run in front of a judge asking for a plea. Judge wouldn't tell him what he was charged with and forced a court appointed atty who pled not guilty. Then the judge said Brown had to turn in all his guns for the safety of the police. Brown signed off on the gun collection and the cops stole lots of stuff from his house while he was locked up. 6 months later he filed 42 motions, all denied. Went on trial (Brown saw the judge's "instructions to the jury" before hand, and it was a directive to convict). Judge met privately with Brown and his wife and said all their evidence would be disallowed (evidence "not good enough"). Wouldn't allow him to call witnesses. Brown quit going to the trial, his wife had a breakdown, and Brown has chosen to go out shooting rather than be tortured the rest of his life in prison. His wife turned herself in and is now wearing an ankle tracker, a prisoner in her son's house. She used to be a dentist before they made her a "criminal". Brown doesn't know when the govt will move in, but the interviewer said the govt usually waits until the place is least defended, so they'll watch the comings and goings and wait for the media attn to wane, then there will be an assault. See, the IRS system is organized crime. There is no law requiring you to pay "taxes" to a private banking consortium (the Federal Reserve). This is like Spartacus. A slave standing up. He references the U.S. constitution and says it's his duty to defend his private property against criminals. Excellent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Grab Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:23 AM Have you ever wondered why all legal documents such as your driver's license, credit cards, utility bills and other legal and business documents depict your name in all capital letters? Not recently. Capital letters is standard usage in every area of life where accuracy is required, because capital letters are less prone to misreading. I do it myself regularly. In a court of law, that makes you (yourself, as an individual with inalienable rights), a distinct entity from your CORPORATE SELF. Point me at the legal decision which says this, and I'll believe you. the govt can only tax corporations and businesses Since when? Point me at the law which says this, and I'll believe you. If people *are* unsure about whether income tax is illegal in the US, I refer them to the US Constitution, 16th Amendment:- "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." For other taxes, section 8:- "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" No mention of it only applying to corporations and businesses. The top of the property deed I'm looking at right now says I don't have to volunteer my Social Security # or my driver's license number if I'm a "natural person." If the owner of the property is not a "natural person", it's an "artificial person" which does not physically exist. Therefore it's entirely normal that it doesn't need an SSN or driver's license, because there's no way it could have one. You don't regularly see metaphysical entities driving down the road, do you? As for those claims, I don't know how it works in the States, but in the UK an "artificial person" (called a "limited company" in the UK) can only exist by filing with Companies House to create a company. That costs money. Every financial year, companies are required to submit their accounts, which must be completed by a qualified accountant. Failure to do so incurs a fine. If you care to do so, you can look up details of any company (for free, doesn't cost a penny). I'm afraid that you'll find there is no such thing as "one artificial person per natural person" in the UK. ---- Oh, I had a little look at your website. On the "most important page", I saw:- "from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that: individual means a natural person, from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition: individual means an artificial person." So I went looking. In the Income Tax Act, I found the following text:- "individual" means a person other than a corporation" Oops. Sorry, there goes that hypothesis. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: JeremyC Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:49 AM I was trying to read this thread, but then I got weighted down with all the crazy coming out of it, and I lost my balance and fell on the floor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:00 PM http://www.natural-person.ca/ May be the best site I've found yet on this topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM Edward Mandell House was advisor and motivator behind arch-globalist Woodrow Wilson. House told Wilson: "[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America." http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM Wilson died in 1921 so House allegedly promising that "very soon" these things would happen means squat. I've been doing some reading about House. Your article is the least informative and believable of the lot. In these "private meetings" who was transcribing the conversations? In novels one is allowed to enter into someone's mind and relate what they were thinking but it is not a legitimate tactic otherwise. Your article also has House telling Wilson things that are treasonous and impeachable. Whatever you may think of Woodrow Wilson he was an honorable man and from all evidence available he loved his country. Your conclusions, sir, stink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:35 PM Edward Mandell House was a local boy. When I was going through school, the old teachers spoke of him with awe. Today he is known as the "Karl Rove of his time." But he was more than Rove. Rove just wins elections. House did that for 4 Texas governors, then he went to Washington and formed policy for Woodwrow Wilson. Wilson was the first great traitor to the U.S. in the White House. Took office in 1912, then in 1913 he allowed the Federal Reserve (private banking consortium) to be established. The Fed now controls the economy of the U.S. Because of Wilson and a handful of senators who violated their oaths to protect the U.S. Constitution. And in the quote above, House was commenting on the Federal Reserve system that was just coming into being...how it would make literal property of all citizens. I used to respect House because of the things he achieved (Texans love heroes, and House was a great one, I was told), but then I learned how the past 150 years has been a move to globalization and the destruction of national sovereignty, and House along with others went from hero to zero. House and Wilson were perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to the U.S. They made possible the imminent destruction of the country we are now facing. The excerpt below, concerning House's goals and what he helped established is 100% on target: "The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System. Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Groupmember's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims." From the link cited earlier. The central banking system, and the secret police to do its spying, form a hermetic control system. Karl Rove and the Bushes just help maintain this system, but House helped devise it. Brilliant man, but a cold-blooded traitor. And a mass-murderer. He supported WW1 because it was supposed to bring about the unified world govt (League of Nations), but it didn't, so laxness was allowed on the part of Germany, and that country was then funded AGAIN by the global bankers so it could create an even more horrible war. But WW2 didn't bring about world govt, so now we're looking at WW3. Out of this chaos, it is hoped by those in charge, the final unified govt will arise. Edward M. House took his shot at world govt with WW1 and the League of Nations, but he bit off more than he could chew. It would take another 100 years to reach the point of world govt. But a man who is far more interesting and more visionary than House is Albert Pike. If you want to look at biographies, I suggest you look into his. Civil War general, he predicted 3 World Wars. http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkiXLA9JFTXAAhbCl87UF?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=Albert+Pike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:24 PM Gracious. Guest, if you truly believe that stuff, you must believe that there is no hope. (By the way, the NWO allegedly is aiming at 1 billion in world population, through such means as birth restrictions, famine, wars, disease); would you agree that the trend is in the other direction? True, the birth rate in developed countries is much lower than 100 years ago, but in poorer countries that is not at all true.) As far as insalling a feudal world system is concerned, we already are experiencing a degree of it, imo. The greater the gap between the wealthy and the poor, the greater the liklihood of feudalism. I don't know how extensive, or powerful, or well planned the plot is to "take over the world"- for all I know, from its inception it has dwindled until it has become today merely the maniacal fantasy of a a senile few and the subject of fevered and fearful minds. In the meantime I will continue to live my life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:58 PM The NWO population reduction goal is 80-90%. All their leaders have stated this at one time or another over the past 50 years. That's a killoff of 5 billion+ people. And they have the public subscribing to the absurd notion that the world is "overpopulated" and can't control the breeding. But look at the birthrates in first-world countries. Sustainable. When people don't have to have 10 kids to help with the income, they have fewer kids. The answer is to educate the masses, let ALL participate in first-world life, and the birth rate will take care of itself. But the world leaders don't want that. They want to kill off the mud races. And they'll start by taking control of YOU after the economic collapse that is upon us. You are the literal property of the Federal Reserve, thanks to Woodrow Wilson and some other traitors. Study up on Pike. He seems to have forseen this by 150 years, lunatic that he was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Willie-O Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:44 PM Crazier and crazier and crazier. Go ahead and be crazy and paranoid. But do us Canadians a basic favour: quit lumping us in with your nutso theories. Whatever the validity of any of your US data, (about zero in my opinion) it doesn't matter a tinker's fart on this side of the St Lawrence. We have our own history, government and financial institutions, for what they're worth. (Thanks GRAB for pointing that out succinctly). Your brand of bullshit could all be true in the US, it still wouldn't go anywhere here. And LH, come off it, you're usually a lot smarter than you're letting on here. Depressing, really. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: NightWing Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:19 PM To 'nATURAL pERSON': As the Monty Python boys once said, "You're a loony!" So far as I can tell, every single assertion you've made is false. The only factual statements I can find is where you have stated or implied the existence of a book or movie or webpage ... and all of those I could find and check out were more of the same whole-cloth nothing. So, may I suggest, Have the doctor increase your thorazine! BB, NightWing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:57 PM This thread started by talking about case law in Canada. This ESPECIALLY applies in Canada, where you don't have the buffer of a Bill of Rights between you and your government. The Queen owns you from birth. In America, we have to be tricked into signing ourselves away. May 22, 2002 - "NORTHCOM's area of operations will include the United States, Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline." https://www.milnet.com/pentagon/northcom/unifiedcommand.html Does that ring a bell? Pretty big announcement. Tell me again now that Canada is separate from the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: number 6 Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:00 PM Hey NightWing ... You related to Catspaw ... jeeeezuz, my glasses just fell of reading that post! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM (From your own newspapers, fer chrissake) Canadian, U.S. and Mexican officials held secretive meeting on integration February 07, 2007 OTTAWA - Canadian, U.S. and Mexican politicians discussed using "stealth" to overcome public resistance to the integration of the three countries at a confidential meeting last year, according to documents just released under U.S. Freedom of Information laws. Top military brass, corporate executives and diplomats also attended the meeting in Banff, Alta., where participants discussed everything from the harmonization of food and drug standards, to common immigration policies, and the pooling of energy resources. The secret guest list of the North American Forum included then-U.S. secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld, Canadian Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Pengrowth Corp. CEO James Kinnear and Lockheed Martin executive Ron Covais. Presentation outlines for the forum acknowledge that the concept of North American integration - which some call a "North American Union" - is unpopular, and note that it might be tough to sell as a concept.... "Evolution by stealth" means using regulatory changes, such as food- and drug-safety benchmarks, which don't require parliamentary approval, to lay the infrastructure for North American integration. This allows for change with little or no public debate, critics say. Media were excluded from the September forum, and Day, who gave a speech at the event, declined to reveal the contents of his talk.... http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0484146c-2390-47e7-8930-f537758ee858&k=46864&p=1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:00 PM Natural Guest, don't you agree that any coordination and consolidation of neighboring countries' efforts to better their citizens' lives and wellbeing should be to the good? If one country takes steps to secure their borders and the other one is in total disregard, neither country is safer. That said, in my opinion, the danger(s) we, per capita, are in from terrorists is minute compared with a busy highway. But you take my point. That said also, I agree that a free country requires transparencey in its dealings. Vigilance and active participation of the people are important components. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Donuel Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:39 PM I incorporated myself twice so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Donuel Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM Naturally it didn't hurt a bit. Its purpose was to limit personal liability but the occaision never did arise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 15 Feb 07 - 01:01 PM No. This is entirely different. The govt of the U.S. can only do business with other govts and with corporations. It cannot do business with (tax) you. So "the law" was used to create two types of "persons." A natural person is you, as you were born, with the rights of a human being. Those rights are delineated in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. But for the govt to tax you and conduct other types of business with you as an individual, you have to be changed into a corporation. The govt does this through deceit. That's the gist of this thread, in a nutshell. I don't know...I think the concept is so simple that people refuse to believe they've been so easily duped their whole lives, therefore, the blind spot. If you want to form a business and incorporate and all that, great. But for you to be unknowingly changed into a corporation just so you can be cheated out of money is not right. And there are steps you can take to reverse the process. And also...Ebbie...the point of the NORTHCOM / North American Union stuff is that the 3 countries are being destroyed. Mixed into one big new continental entity. There will still be borders. Let me cut and paste again: "NORTHCOM's area of operations will include the United States, Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline." That's the new border. Just a bigger dog pissing on a bigger yard. And then next the CIA will blow up something in Hawaii and we'll have to merge NORTHCOM with PAC-COM, etc., etc., etc. Until there's a global, military govt. World govt wouldn't be bad if it were benign, but the people behind this merger move are the old colonial powers (Queen Beatrix of Holland, Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of England, Juan Carlos of Spain), and various Old World and New World bankers. These are the people who financed Hitler, Mao, Lenin, the Bush drug cartel, Auschwitz, the gulags, the Iraq war, etc., etc. So they're not doing this to "help" anyone. Sovereignty needs to be protected at all costs. The world govt being set up right now is tyrannical. It needs to be disallowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 15 Feb 07 - 01:32 PM "...the people behind this merger move are the old colonial powers (Queen Beatrix of Holland, Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of England, Juan Carlos of Spain), and various Old World and New World bankers. These are the people who financed Hitler, Mao, Lenin, the Bush drug cartel, Auschwitz, the gulags, the Iraq war, etc., etc." That is absolute piffle. Interesting how you list by name Queen Beatrix, Queen Elizabeth and King Juan Carlos (all most definitely NOT people who "who financed Hitler, Mao, Lenin, the Bush drug cartel, Auschwitz, the gulags, the Iraq war") and slide over identifying "various Old World and New World bankers." Have you, Natural, noticed that there is a BIG market for tripe? You are buying into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Spot Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:09 PM Allo... I laugh, I cry.... I love, I die... I eat, I sleep...I know not why.. I care, I whine, I sleep, I dine... I rest, detest... I am the "best" - all seems fairly natural to me.... Regards to all... Spot |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Donuel Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:33 PM For 75 bucks and filing fees I got a corporate seal that said Hypnosis Technology Inc. I'm ok with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:17 PM It's called cognitive dissonance. You can't accept challenges to your reality. The blind spot. One more time. You are born a natural person. Through the use of capitalization, your name is changed. Legally changed to something else. The ALL CAPS version of your name creates your "artificial person" corporate entity. The govt can then tax that entity. The govt is prohibited from taxing you, so they turn you into a corporate entity through subterfuge. Then that entity is charged Income Tax, among other things, and you spend your life feeding the privately-owned Federal Reserve in the U.S., paying "The Crown" in Canada. And the people who devised this system are the ones I mentioned by name. Once you have power, you never relinquish it, and the old colonial powers have made sure to keep their power. They've just changed the face of it so it's not readily recognizable. King Juan Carlos is a majority shareholder in CINTRA, and he's being given upwards of 9000 square miles in Texas now for the new NAFTA superhighway system. The land will be condemned and then given to CINTRA. The King of Spain is going to start taking possession of lands in Texas. Here's a straightforward question, Ebbie. Do you believe the Federal Reserve is privately-owned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:37 AM Is This Where You are Getting Your Information? Warning: This is one of those mind-boggling, spine-chilling, pseudo-religious sites that requires a strong stomach. This particular article purports to believe that Juan Carlos "may" be the Anti-Christ, based on the age-old story of the brothers Esau and Jacob. "Barring a change of plan, JUAN CARLOS I of Spain will be the EU's signatory/ representative/initiator of a COMPREHENSIVE PEACE (i.e. Hellish death) TREATY that could be done by next year, 1997. This was ALSO stated by the TV REPORT, not my speculation! If the U.S. or UN can't do it, why not give the EU a shot, goes the reasoning, I guess." And later: "It seems that Ussher and your calculations might just be correct, Bill. Now, it is still SPECULATIVE about Juan Carlos, but that news clip in my mind SET OFF BELLS & RINGS! "Who knows, maybe Gorby could replace him at that signing or someone WHO IS STILL LURKING BEHIND THE SCENES or our "pal" slick Willy, but neither Gorby or slick Willy have AROSE from the boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire. Juan Carlos is a LATIN MAN through and through with Merovingian/Knights Templar connections (royalists who believe they are descended by blood from the Messiah) and Opus Dei connections and he was TRAINED by Franco as a young lad till Franco's death in 1975. His father was the legitimate successor, but Franco deemed him too liberal,, so he bypassed him and chose his eldest son on the condition that he educated him and in essence, raise him. Franco was a DICTATOR, not a democratic. If you are trained by a dictator, if you get the chance you too could be a dictator; a very effective one! By the way, Gorby was mentored by Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov who ran the KGB for 15 years before he took over the reins of the Soviet empire. Anyway, Juan Carlos was planted out of SUCCESSION to succeed Franco and so he did, in 1975. He has practically all the right royal European connections and is very popular in the EU. We can't afford NOT to watch him VERY CLOSELY." Man. Life is too short for this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,eagle.eye.man Date: 20 Feb 07 - 02:16 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,eagle.eye.man Date: 20 Feb 07 - 02:26 PM Just a follow up for those uniniates, the united states no longer exist, what you have now is the corporate entity the United States. For those of you who think a capitilization of a letter does not make a difference, boy you are surely being deluded. Same applies to the thing called CANADA. Regards to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 20 Feb 07 - 02:53 PM Tell George W. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:28 PM George W. has nothing to do with this. He probably doesn't know about it. He's got a 91 I.Q. Hell, Reagan didn't even know about this until after he was elected president. I guess the light blinked on during his "briefing" for the job, because just after he took office he said in front of cameras that not one cent of income our tax goes to run the govt. Chuckled and shook his head as he said it, like it was new and amazing information. Shortly after that he was shot. Your income tax goes to a private bank called the Federal Reserve. The U.S. govt runs off those hundred other taxes we pay. But income tax is the property of the Federal Reserve. And the capitalization scam is one of the means they use to steal our money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:47 PM NG Guest, if I had to believe that you really know what you're talking about I would also have to believe that you are a dangerous man. Only those involved with, perhaps responsible for, such plans and events would know much about it. Would you be flattered if I say that I don't believe that you know what you're talking about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:56 PM From the thread list... BS: No Sex Since 1955 BS: Are you a 'natural person'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 20 Feb 07 - 09:42 PM (Puts fingers in ears) La la la, la la la, la la la... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM Believe what you wish, but the facts are spelled out in the case law cited above. Ed Brown of New Hampshire is holed up right now, waiting for the I.R.S. to murder him for non-payment of income tax. He's offered a $10,000 reward for anyone who can show him the law requiring him to pay income tax. The reward has been there for years, but no one has been able to show him the law. And other organizations are offering even larger rewards for the same information, so I suggest that since so many people on this thread are convinced they know the truth of this matter, you should get busy collecting those rewards. All you have to do is phone Ed Brown and quote the law # to him, and the money is yours. Get back to me, too, with that law #. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:56 AM So this one is for the ten grand? Let's see. As Grab pointed out above, the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear about the power of taxation. Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and the 16th Amendment provides: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." So, the Congress has been authorized and empowered by the U. S. Constitution to pass laws to collect taxes in general and income taxes in particular. Under that grant of power, the U. S. Congress has passed a bunch of laws doing just that. Here are some selected provisions of those laws: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS 26 USC § 1. Tax imposed (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table omitted] (b) Heads of households There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table omitted] (c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table omitted] and so forth. Note that these taxes are imposed on "individuals." Now, lest there be any major confusion, we can turn to TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART II—TAX ON CORPORATIONS 26 USC § 11 Tax imposed (a) Corporations in general A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation. b) Amount of tax (1) In general The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) shall be the sum of— [table omitted] Note that there's a completely separate section of the law regarding taxation of corporations, as distinct from individuals. Seems that both individuals and corporations are each taxed under their very own separate sections of the Code. If you want to read the whole thing yourself -- including all those tables -- here 'tis: U. S. Tax Code So, do share this with Ed, and if Ed, or anyone else, wants to send large sums of money out this way, please let me know and we can make the appropriate arrangements. And, I have to say, the whole notion of involuntarily changing one's legal status by virtue of the capitalization of one's name is beyond imagining. I will note that my business is incorporated and on our official corporate documents, the firm name is printed in lower case with Initial Caps. For whatever that may be worth. It sure doesn't change the corporation into a person. michael ps -- Nov schmoz ka pop? I like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:17 AM Ah, but Michael, surely you just don't understand? It saves so much time if one just believes what the fringenuts are saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:35 AM I just now googled "ed brown" +new hampshire and this tax story is the first link that came up. Evidently it's a standoff- Brown's wife has agreed to capitulate but Brown has not, and has barricaded himself in his house. Friends and supporters have descended upon the home; one of his "friends" is advising that Brown needs to murder the judge in the case and get himself killed, that at this point Brown is "worth more (to the cause) dead than alive". Natural Guest is hanging with his own kind for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:40 AM Ebbie -- You're probably right, of course, and I probably don't really understand. . . but there's this contrarian part of my nature that (sometimes) just can't resist giving that extra little bit of effort. michael PS -- You don't suppose Ed's really gonna send me the $10K? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:49 AM And ruin his martyrdom, Ebbie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:36 AM Michael, I am certain that hw will send you the 10 mil forthwith. :) Fooles, which one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:21 AM a) Any or all of the $10 mil.... :-) b) any one... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM But the 16th Amendment was never ratified. That's common knowledge: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp Any law based on the 16th is fraudulent. And Article 1 gives power to collect taxes on the United States, not individuals. What's being done now is the creation of "common law." The 16th Amendment was never ratified, but the American people never objected, so in the absence of objection they signified their approval of the collection of income taxes. That's why tax protestors are important. The American people have NOT signified approval. The case of Ed Brown and thousands of other tax martyrs can now be cited as precedence. No law was every produced showing they owed taxes, and they were wrongfully prosecuted. Forward your information to Brown. His email address is listed on the internet somewhere. You'll get the same reply you got from me, I imagine. No viable law exists. And what's more, no judge is able to point to such law. As far as the capitalization thing, it is what it is. The U.S. govt can only tax you if you are another govt or a corporation. Since most people live their lives never thinking of self-employment/incorporation, a method was devised to surreptitiously turn people into individual, one-person corporations. That's the Capitalization scam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM It sounds so SIMPLE. Whatever made me think that government is complex? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:52 PM From Wikipedia: Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:18 PM This and other arguments addressed here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:37 PM "But the 16th Amendment was never ratified. That's common knowledge:" Au contraire. The claim seems to be that, for a number of formal problems, the ratification of the 16th Amendment was defective, and that, therefore, the Internal Revenue Code – or at least that portion of it that depends on the 16th Amendment – is invalid. As a result, there is no law that requires or compels an individual to pay income taxes. Regardless of any defects in the ratification process, the fact that the Secretary of State in 1913 had declared that enough states had ratified the Sixteenth Amendment is sufficient to uphold the validity of the amendment as a matter of law and to render the validity of the amendment on those grounds non-justiciable, or non-reviewable. See Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. (1892); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). The question of the validity of the Sixteenth Amendment, against the ratification challenge, has been upheld by every court that has considered it. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 788 F2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986); United States v. Benson, 67 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 1995); and others too numerous to mention. To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely decided the specific question. On the other hand, despite having been asked repeatedly, the Court had declined to consider the matter. It may be that at some point someone might persuade the Supreme Court to revisit the question -- or persuade a lower court to toss the Sixteenth Amendemnt, which will certainly get the attention of the Supremes -- but until such time, it is indisputable that, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, for better or for ill, the Sixteenth Amendment is valid and binding and an accurate expression of what the law is. To say that the law is otherwise is simply not accurate. Although I'm not a Wikipedia true believer, I've read and case-checked the article entitled "Tax protester constitutional arguments" (see the link in jeffp's posting just above) and it seems to be an accurate statement of the issues underlying the argument regarding the purported defects in the ratification process and the law relating to the issue. All in all, I think that the lack of ratification of the 16th Amendment is an argument, not a fact. And neither the argument nor the "fact" seems to be common knowledge. One last thing, and then I have to get back to work: "As far as the capitalization thing, it is what it is." I still don't get what "it" is (with apologies to Mr. Clinton), or where "it" comes from. I'm unaware of anything in the law that makes any distinctions based on whether or not a name is capitalized. Is there a case (and please not someone else's website) you can direct me to? michael ps -- and I can't believe that I allowed myself to get into this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:01 PM Wikipedia's a govt dis-info site. So are Urban legends, Snopes, etc. And Google and Yahoo censor. It's getting more difficult to find untainted information on the web. As far as case law on the capitalization issue, I don't know what you're looking for, but there are lots of cases posted like this abatement case: http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm He beat the I.R.S. with that. Some imbedded links to other cases if you want to poke around there. But he won, so what more can you say? Lots of these cases on the web. The courts know when to argue and when not to, and rather than have this guy heard, and have his story reported, they went on to the next case. Happens a lot. As far as the 16th Amendment...if the govt HAD the power to tax individuals, then why was the 16th Amendment needed? The 16th Amendment was an admission by the govt that it did not have the right to tax incomes of individuals. All that was supposed to change when the Constitution was amended with the 16th, but the process was short-circuited. Many states changed the wording of "their" version of the Amendment, then the vote fell short, then the Executive branch cut the process short and announced it was the law. The 16th Amendment is not law. Any income tax laws based on it are void, and since the govt admitted it couldn't tax incomes BEFORE the 16th, well...we have no valid income tax laws at the federal level. Sorry, folks, but you've been ripped off. And if you want to stop paying income tax, look into the abatement approach at the link above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:11 PM Oh, and on the Supreme Court not touching the 16th Amendment, you're right. And that should be criminal in itself. They should rule on all cases presented to them, not cherry-pick. Because they pick and choose, they're allowing time to pass on the question of the 16th Amendment, thus establishing common law. The Supreme Court is part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:59 PM OK. I read the material on the captialization issue (and it was, indeed, someone else's website). I must be thorouhgly dense. I don't get what, if any, legal significance there is to the typographical happenstance of capitalization. Someone in the materials proclaimed that "John Smith" is the name of a natural person but "JOHN SMITH" is a fictitious name. Beats the hell out of me why that should be so. Nothing in the materials suggests any particular reason that there should be a difference, other than a citation to the fact that it violates the laws of grammar. So far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for violating grammatical rules. I still think the capitalization issue is nonsense. There isn't any law that requires the Supreme Court to hear every case submitted to it. Which, IMHO, is probably a good thing, given the current composition of the Supreme Court (whoever thought that John Paul Stevens, when he was appointed, would become the staunchest guardian of civil liberties on the bench?). If there were such a requirement, I can't imagine that, given the volume of cases that would be submitted -- and the enormously high percentage of pure bullshit in that volume -- they'd ever get anything done. Again, maybe with this Court, that's not such a bad thing. I noted that I was not a Wikipedian. . . but, in this particular case, so far as I was able to cross-check the cases that were cited, the one article seemed to be pretty accurate and comprehensive. Didn't know Wikipedia had government connections. No, don't tell me, I don't want to expand the discussion. So, a question for you, Mr. Natural Guest: have you personally tried the abatement method of avoiding paying income taxes? If so, how well did it work? michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:03 PM So any site that disagrees with you is a government disinformation site. Why can't you see that this is another one? Nobody agrees with you. We all post information counter to yours. Why do we do it? Of course! We're all government disinformation agents. And you're falling into our trap. The black helicopters will be coming for you soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:18 PM Sirens in the distance . . . getting closer. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:31 PM You're not dense at all, mrdux. Very cogent arguments. Perhaps the concept is too new to fully understand yet, but you've obviously seen and read a lot pertaining to legal matters, so haven't you ever wondered why so many proper names are in all caps? If you don't understand the difference between the Caps v rules of grammar spelling, look again at some of the entries above. The first one posted sums it up: "In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being perceptible through the senses and subject to physical laws, as opposed to an artificial person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner." With that as a guide, the simplest way to change you the natural person into you the artificial person (who can then be taxed, as a corporation) is through the manipulation of the rules of grammar. And you'd never go along with it voluntarily, so it's done through subterfuge. Like I said before I referred you to another link, I didn't know exactly what you were looking for. I don't have access to any of the paid legal search services, so I referred you to a typical abatement summation, posted by a man who won his case. If you have access to one of the legal services, maybe you can look up the particulars of that case, but 30 seconds in court shouldn't produce much more of a paper trail than what is posted at the above link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 22 Feb 07 - 12:41 AM I don't want to prolong this overly much -- it's getting late and I'm sort of tired -- so let these be my last comments. "'In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being perceptible through the senses and subject to physical laws, as opposed to an artificial person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner.'" While that's an archaic definition, it' still pretty accurate. There are persons, on the one hand, and there are entities -- corporations, partnerships, trusts, and the like -- that the law has recognized as having a legally cognizable existence, on the other. That's easy. (And, under the Internal Revenue COde, tey all get taxed). The second part makes no sense. "With that as a guide, the simplest way to change you the natural person into you the artificial person (who can then be taxed, as a corporation) is through the manipulation of the rules of grammar. And you'd never go along with it voluntarily, so it's done through subterfuge." A person's legal status can't be changed merely by the simple expedient of using capital letters or by the manipulation of the rules of grammar. The use of capital letters, as opposed to initial caps, is a purely stylistic, substantively insignificant phenomenon. Capital letters are typically used in the titles of legal pleadings, in transcripts when identifying the speaker, in the headings of reported cases, and the like. Lots of times you will see an named person and a corporation identified in caps in the title of a case and then, in the text of the case, both are identified in lower case w/ initial caps. Similarly with transcripts. Do you suppose that by identifying a corporation in lower case letters with initial caps it is somehow transform into a "natural person"? I don't think so. The use or non-use of capital letters simply makes no difference. The other difficulty I have with the notion is that corporate status is a sought after benefit, in that it classically shields the individuals who are the owners of the corporation from personal liability for the acts of the corporation (with some exceptions). Typically, there are quite a few hoops that need to be jumped through for the benefit of corporate status to be legally recognized. In no jurisdiction can it be accomplished by the simple expedient of capitalizing one's name. If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it to avoid personally liability for, say, their own debts -- "Hey, don't ask me: it's the "JOHN SMITH" corporation that owes you the money, not I, John Smith." Again, with apologies -- or thanks -- to Mr. Clinton, that dog still won't hunt. And on that cheery note, I bid you, Bon soir. michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:32 AM Time for the meds again then - til the next thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:01 AM A natural DD yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Grab Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:31 AM Natural Guest, you keep referring to the same site. Now a website can claim whatever the author wants, and this may be fact or it may be fiction. If you want credibility, point us to a *law* which says that capitalisation of names is considered significant, or any relevant caselaw which says this. I went looking myself on the web; couldn't find it. Your linked site also gives no such reference, although it's quite free in providing references for everything else. If caps is considered different, how's about typeface? Could "John Smith, Times New Roman 12-point", be a different legal entity from "John Smith, Arial 10-point"? Does bold-face or italics affect it? How about underlining? Bottom line: I'm prepared to believe anything that comes with evidence. Your "evidence" so far has either been absent or just plain wrong - I've already debunked the claim about Canadian income tax laws, for example. Given your other off-topic claims about the Queen financing Hitler and other bizarreness, it's clear to me that your claims are just a symptom of deeper underlying problems. If you're for real, seek help. Have your family ever mentioned therapy? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM If you pay personal income tax, you are a corporation. The govt of the U.S. can only do business with other govts and with corporations (same as in Canada). So if you're a corporation, how did you get to be one? Your "natural person" name was changed to an "artificial person" name. So while you may think you're paying income tax on your own income, you're technically paying tax on the income of your corporate, or artificial self. I don't mind explaining this a hundred different ways. Maybe one of them'll register. My family and the people I do business with in my county are aware of the points I've made here, and they've come to verify the points for themselves, mostly. Like I said, I don't have access to the high-cost legal search engines, but I don't know that I'd even waste the time researching this with them. It would be up to the government to prove they have taxing authority, and they do that over and over because people cave in when faced with the I.R.S. criminal color of law threats of imprisonment, but the people who present the capitalization/abatement argument walk free. See the record of the abatement case above. In and out of court in under a minute. The judge knew he was looking at someone who'd found the magic bullet. If you assert your rights as a "natural person" you do not have to pay income tax. If you go along to get along and allow the I.R.S. to prosecute you as an "artificial person," you'll have to pay the tax. Let's see...there definitely are legal distinctions between various spellings and grammar usages. The big controversy over capitalization began with the 14th Amendment, which technically makes us all slaves, just through the use of (or misuse of) grammar. Do your own searches for that controversy. And since they got away with it in the 14th Amendment, they tried it again in the 16th, but the states were wise to the federal abuses by then and tweaked the 16th and effectively killed it. The versions the different states voted on have differing rules of grammar, among other things. So yes, grammar makes a big difference in law. Another problem is jurisdiction and authority. That's why the abatement statement made by the man at the link above reads so strangely. He had to lay out for the court which authority he was operating under. Once that was done, the court acknowledged it had no say in the man's life, not in the matter of income tax. If this subject is really of interest to any of you, you'll do the reasearch. I've shown you a way out of the federal income tax system, if you want to pursue it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:28 PM SHEESH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM Approximately 18 and a half years ago, NG, I asked you how you proposed that government be funded if its citizens were to pay no taxes. I don't recall that you ever answered that, other than to intimate that government is too large. Unless you postulate that the postal service, the train system, the highway system (I know, I know : Eisenhower was a traitor to his country when he created the interstate highway system), the military, the social security system, and half a dozen others should all be taken over by individuals in for-profit schemes, how would these systems come to be and maintained? Just print off more bills? Really. I am curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 02:01 PM You are not a natural person if you wipe yer arse with toilet paper. If the good Lord meant for you to use toilet paper youda been born with it in yer hand. (That was my inspired thought for the day.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Grab Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:15 PM If you pay personal income tax, you are a corporation. For the umpteenth time, provide evidence. Cite the US Constitution. Cite the relevant laws (note that your favoured site was *wrong* on its citation of laws). Cite caselaw precedent. I don't mind explaining this a hundred different ways either. Maybe one of them'll register with you. Otherwise, I'm out. You can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't respond to your questions. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:18 PM Fuck me gently. Thanks for quoting that little piece of wisdom, Grab. Hell, yesterday I was just some guy making a living. Today I'm a corporation. YIPPEE. I'm gonna go multi-national real soon. Stay tuned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:00 PM Sorry folks, but I suppose words have failed me if I can't make you understand this. The U.S. govt has to PROVE you owe them income tax, and they can't do that if you proceed in a certain way. They tax the income of your "artificial" person, which they created (in most cases) through the capitalization scam. I think this is like a word puzzle...either you get it or you don't. Or a Rubik's cube. Talk to your tax preparers about it. As long as they're not with one of the big govt-friendly chains, they might tell you the truth. Basically it's a matter of "He who does not assert his rights, has none." You have to assert your right not to be taxed by the I.R.S. Ebbie...In the U.S., federal income taxes go to the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank is just the U.S. branch of the World Bank. The country of the United States never sees any of the money from your income tax payment. Your income tax goes to the World Bank, via the Federal Reserve. The U.S. is run off of other taxes. 300 million+ Americans paying dozens of taxes each day adds up, especially when that money is invested and pays interest. The U.S. runs primarily off of interest from investments and taxes OTHER than income tax. Simple as that. Research it if you don't believe me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM "they have taxing authority, and they do that over and over because people cave in when faced with the I.R.S. criminal color of law threats of imprisonment" That's called 'Civilised Society' - those who resist it have always been called 'Outlaws'. "The judge knew he was looking at someone who'd found the magic bullet." Or a long winded dickhead who would waste hundreds of hours of his Court's time... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:44 PM I hate to be meddlesome, but jeffp asked what seemed to me to be a pertinent question that warrants an answer: "Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:20 PM Well, if I told the I.R.S. to piss off, why would I discuss my income and such here? Believe this stuff if you want, research it if you want, continue to pay tax as an artificial person if you want. Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:26 PM Oh ho- my guess is that you are out of a job. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:17 AM In other words, you haven't done what you are exhorting us to do. Why haven't you? Are you afraid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:02 AM As long as ya feed the bear it will keep returning to the place it gets the food. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM I didn't say I hadn't done this. And if I went to court and told the I.R.S. it's none of their business how much money I make, why would I discuss it with you? The baiting tactics you use are just like those of the I.R.S. All I have to do is refuse to cooperate. Get the picture? Fear. The I.R.S. doesn't mind if a single taxpayer drops out here and there, but informing others of the loophole...that's the dangerous part. Fear is the hold the I.R.S. has over you, but what is the fear, in the final analysis? It's just a self-imposed restraint. Get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM I didn't ask how much you made. I asked if you had told the IRS to fuck off. I'm betting you haven't. I think you are absolutely full of it. You are just a petty little pissant trying to stir up trouble. You offer no proof and everybody else has shown proof that your statements are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:05 PM "The I.R.S. doesn't mind if a single taxpayer drops out here and there..." NG And that explains Edward Brown, how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: fumblefingers Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:37 PM Stilly River Sage and my old business law professor has it right about corporations. The rest of this stuff is horseshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:35 AM "All I have to do is refuse to cooperate." And so do we. If we can't keep our fingers out of this crap, then let's just close the thread.... PLEASE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:40 AM This thread is just another nail in teh coffin of those who insist that non-members should be allowed to start BS threads... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:07 PM I don't agree about closing this thread or in classing it as feeding a troll or any of those good things. I do agree that this person's take on reality is of a fragile nature. But I also think that take is symptomatic of a lot that is going on out there. It may be more important to post reasoned responses- somebody out there may suddenly realize that #1: his or her take on it doesn't make sense, #2: that it is classic paranoia, #3: that to believe it to be true would require believing that the mass of people are out to get you, #4: If having masses of people conniving to get you does not make sense then just perhaps you are free to look at people differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:40 PM I know I am paranoid, but... I have often wondered "Am I paranoid enough?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Feb 07 - 06:42 PM FT, yes. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:03 AM Since this thread hasn't been closed, I thought I would share this with you. While emptying out a bulk pack of Coke cans into my fridge, I came across some entry forms for a competition. Now note this: they want you to fill in your name using ALL BLOCK LETTERS (Capitals)! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM So, which you would that be? The corporate you or the corporeal one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:19 PM OH NO! It must be true! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:39 PM Geez...you folks SHOULD limit this forum to members only. Talk about being closed to new ideas. This makes me think of the Stockholm Syndrome, where you develop an affinity with your kidnapper. You folks are being held captive by the I.R.S., and you love it. You WANT to pay taxes. Somehow you've been convinced the Federal Reserve is a part of the government (must be the inclusion of the word 'federal' in the name of the bank, which makes Federal Express a branch of the govt, too, I guess). So you've been duped into paying a hefty portion of your income to a private bank, and now you want to continue throwing away your money in ignorance. But you really shouldn't do that, because the World Bank uses that money to wage war on poor countries...in order to extend its usurious banking practices into those countries. Bush's Rogue States are the 60-odd nations that don't have a branch of the World Bank. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran...they don't (or didn't) have central banks linked to the World Bank, therefore, your income tax was and will be used to kill civilians in those countries so the World Bank can seize the national assets. You really don't have any idea how the world works, do you? As far as my taxes go, you'd cry if I told you what my status is. It'd piss you off too. I pay local taxes, gasoline tax, property tax, etc., but why would I even THINK about paying protection money to the I.R.S. strongarm thugs? All change begins at home, so if you want to get out of the income tax scam, do some searches and hire one of the consulting services. Just curious, how many of you think Federal Express is a part of the government? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:01 PM My Gawd! I'm a freakin' GENIUS! I've been wondering how long it would take for one of our resident conspiracy theorists to accuse those who disagree with his latest paranoid seizure of being victims of the Stockholm syndrome! Accusations of MEMEs and cognitive dissonance are ones I have been waiting for also. This, of course, is a dodge. You accuse those who disagree with you of one of these goodies, then if they protest, you sit back, smile smugly, and claim that that's all part of the syndrome, hence you are proven right. Bovine excrement! You think it saves going to the trouble of providing solid evidence for your contentions. But it doesn't. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:21 PM NG, it seems never to have occurred to you that other people- people who actually think - are way ahead of those of you who get your ideas and theories in one great lump from basically one source. The fact that the one source is then quoted ad infinitum, ad nauseum, by and to like-minded paranoics does not lend legitmacy to the source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 25 Feb 07 - 03:14 PM I challenge you to tell us what your status is. And prove it. If you're so brave, give us your name and show us how you are standing up to the IRS. I think you're a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM Oh no. Firthing at the mouth has begun. And Ebbie has unloaded a lump of something nauseum. And jeffp is pissed. lol But okay...I'll tell you exactly how to avoid income tax... get the door honey ...avoiding taxes. Let's see, all you need is this one little form. I have one here. It's called a.... damn officer! where'd you come from? Weapon? It's just a keyboard. Don't shoo... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:02 PM So, when is your release date? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM I want some of what he's on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:08 PM I hear that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM Peace, I was talking about our guest... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:18 PM I know. I want some, too. That's why I said "I hear that." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:18 PM Sorry, FT. "I hear that" is a North American expression that means, "I agree with you." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:36 PM I thought you were talking about what the police officer is on. *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:39 PM WHAT COP? OK, maybe I don't need what whoever is on is on. In fact, I just noticed that this is NOT the 'unnatural acts with melons dressed in state-of-the-art imitation mother-of-pearl sequin gown' thread. I am SO embarrassed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:09 PM Actually, I'm greatly amused at your antics. I can't believe you expect to be taken seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM Everybody expects to be taken seriously. Consider, for example, people like George Bush...or the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to your door and mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM I know, but sometimes people are just asking to be laughed at. What can one do but oblige? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:49 PM Hey, Little Hawk, I came across some interesting stuff about the Jehovah's Witnesses a while back. Lost that link but there are others. Things about the pyramids and the Pleides star system they claim (or the founders did) was the seat of heaven. Here's the first site that popped up on a search: http://www.jwfiles.com/outline.htm Maybe this is where income taxpayers think their money is going. Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:29 AM Hmmm. Lotta strange stuff there. The funny thing is, I've known some very intelligent people who were Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as numerous others who were just average intelligence). This has proven to me that the most important component determining people's beliefs is not their intelligence, but their personal background. What I mean is, most of them grew up in families that were JV's, and they just naturally adopted that view of things as they grew up and it became their bedrock understanding of reality. The same is true of most people. They are not nearly as objective as they think they are. The most interesting case was a very bright young Chinese woman who did the other thing: she rebelled totally against her traditional Chinese family by becoming a Jehovah's Witness in her early 20's. That can happen too. I could never figure out how she could reconcile her keen intelligence with some of her JV beliefs. On the other hand, I'll say this of the JVs. They are generally very well-behaving, responsible, honest people, and good neighbours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM "I just noticed that this is NOT the 'unnatural acts with melons dressed in state-of-the-art imitation mother-of-pearl sequin gown' thread. " For duty, the woman. For pleasure, the boy. For Ecstasy, the melon. Old Arab Saying - so I was told... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:52 PM http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234 15-minute video clip of Marcella Brooks. She was featured in the film America: Freedom to Fascism. She was the foreman on the jury that found Whitey Harrell not guilty of failure to file. The jury was TOLD it was the law and had tax code thrown at them, but they were never shown the law. Fascinating. This is film of her speaking at a Press Club somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:21 PM Interesting. However, in what way does Illinois state law - or lack thereof - affect federal law? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM Actually I found the real answer to the tax thingie on CreationWiki Creationist 'employed by God' charged with tax fraud While facing 58 counts of tax fraud, Kent Hovind asserts he has no income or property because everything belongs to God. WorldNetDaily. July 26, 2006. http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51236 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Undeniable Truth Date: 08 Mar 07 - 06:08 PM Guest, the natural person is just a legal entity and not the real man or woman. Check out the reasoning, below. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/3801-sovereign-person-entity-individual-3.html Some people misunderstand the use of the phrase "natural person". Supreme Court has held that a "person" (of any kind) is a fictitious legal or commercial entity. Most people think that a natural person is a reference to a human being, and they are right - partially. While a natural person is technically a human being, it is not a human being in sovereign form, but a human being in legal or commercial form. The definition of "natural person" given in Black's Law Dictionary, as well as the state codes is "A human being which has been ascribed rights and duties by the State". In other words it's more word games trying to make you think that, if you are a human being, the word "natural person" applies to you. This is ONLY if you declare yourself to be a "person". If you are a sovereign, you cannot be given rights and duties by the states, because, as Supreme Court said, "Let a State be subordinate to the people... [the State] is the inferior contrivance of man..." If a State is inferior to me, how does the State presume to tell me what my rights and duties are? It is the PEOPLE who tell the STATES what the State's rights and duties are, and the only way that role can be reversed is if the sovereigns agree to it. If you are a sovereign (which the people are), then you are not a "person" OF ANY KIND, unless you declare yourself to be so. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held this, and "natural person" is the latest word game of the attorneys. Supreme Court says if you ARE a sovereign, you CANNOT be a "person". Last edited by hooded50 : 02-07-2007 at 06:56 AM. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/3801-sovereign-person-entity-individual-4.html So far, I've had three judges recuse themselves from any case involving me, another judge who retired rather than answer my questions, and another judge who refused to act against me when confronted with these facts. Hence, your contention that "...it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument." is, in and of itself, erroneous. There is no "legal argument", because what I've given is facts that the Supreme Court for the united States of America has confirmed. The various Codes of the States defines a "person" as "..an individual, corporation, trust, estate, association or other legal or commercial entity."The Supreme Court for the united States of America held in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens that: "...The definition of "person"...includes...any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity." Even Supreme Court admits that a "natural person" is still a "legal entity", and that the term "natural person" falls within the definition of "person". A "natural person" is a human being, but it is a human being that is legally recognized as a "legal" entity, and not recognized as a "sovereign". Last edited by hooded50 : 02-07-2007 at 06:52 PM. See the reference to the court case, below. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1828.ZO.html 14 The dissent contends that our argument "prove[s] too much," since the definition of "person" in §3733(l)(4) includes not just States, but also "any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity"; under our reasoning, it contends, all of those entities would also be excluded from the definition of "person" under §3729. Post, at 11. Undeniable Truth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Ebbie Date: 08 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM See? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: mrdux Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:18 PM How could I have missed it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:36 PM So we're all 'Sovereigns' then? Ah - who can remember the original 'be your own pope' movement/conspiracy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Ayzed Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:13 AM This being my first(and possibly only)visit to this site I couldn't help but add my two cents worth. Two cents of what? you may ask. You all need to read a book by 'Mary Elizabeth Croft' entitled 'How I Clobbered Every Cash Confiscatory Agency Know To Man'. It can be found at http://www.finacialoutrage.org.uk You wont have any problem finding it once you're there. This will give a good heads up on the situation. There's plenty more out there if you search for it. Natural Guest knows their stuff. Listen (read) wisely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Mar 07 - 06:51 AM http://www.finacialoutrage.org.uk does not now exist... more paranoia!!!!! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: jeffp Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:05 AM Natural Guest is a paranoid idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:36 PM Sheep. Can't even do a yahoo search for financialoutrage. Here are some links: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu4u8LvhFeNEAkiCl87UF?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=financialoutrage Here's an interesting page from the site: http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/returning_the_money_to_the_people.htm Yes, Ayzed, unfortunately I do know this stuff. The people around me are living in a dream world. If you neanderthals want further enlightenment on financial matters, I suggest you look at the "Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports" thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM Sheep. Can't even do a yahoo search for financialoutrage. LOL. NG, you just did not understand the post from Foolestroupe. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM "DURING AN AVERAGE LIFETIME THE FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ARE STEALING £180,000 FROM EVERYONE WITH A PENSION AND A MORTGAGE" Funnily enough Little Fascist Johnny and his mad mates have finally realised that ripping off Superannuation by triple taxing it is only pushing people to NOT have sufficient super, thus ensuring that they will all want pensions, so now they have decided that as from NEXT year, payouts will now be tax free. A bit late for many... The clever rich bastards who can use tax credits to pay mortgages on any property used for investment definitely DO have an advantage over all the poor bastards who cannot have a tax credit for the mortgage payments on their own principal residence.... Interestingly, if you are on a pension (but not if you are just unemployed!) you can get extra 'rent subsidy' to help someone ELSE pay off a mortgage on a property you RENT, but you are screwed for paying off you OWN mortgage where you live. If you think about it, those paying off their OWN mortgages in difficult financial situations probably need the help MORE to stop them losing their OWN home. None of this is due to 'conspiracies', it's just bloody stupid minded laziness on the part of politicians, who are almost always form a 'richer' class than many of the people they represent! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:47 PM The site refused to show when I tried to access it. At the bottom of the yahoo search link above currently is have you checked "www.financialoutrage.org.uk"? No. Best Answer - Chosen by users :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:44 AM Well, I was thinking you were making a joke about Ayzed's typo by repeating it. I thought it was a good joke but I was wrong. Correcting the typo in the URL instead of just c&p finds the site. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:49 PM I just copy pasted the given url - how would I be expected to know there was a typo? And why would I not know that there was supposed to more paranoia in a 'paranoia thread'? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,toadz100 Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:31 AM Hi all, I see that some of you reference Mary Croft's book "How I Clobbered..." Has anyone used the the info in her book to access their 'closed account' funds from the Dept. of the Treasury. If you have would you be willing to share the info as to how one accesses it?? Any help helps!! CU!! toadz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:34 PM Wow. I thought this was about Do you shave your legs if you're American, or something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Donuel Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:30 PM Despite my suburban exterior I was an American Shaman at one time. Of course I wasn't the fascinating part. It was the clients who had the amazing experiences that were beyond a real life Twilight Zone. Out of 12,000 people there were about 500 people whose stories need to be told. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:40 PM Oh yeah, tax day in the U.S. When was that? A couple of days ago? I meant to file this year, but then I remembered...I DON'T HAVE TO! ...I also told her, "If it makes you feel any better, you're not alone - the credit card banks think I owe them $40,000. I know that I don't really owe them, I just don't know how to prove it." Lo and behold, she said, "You just send the letters." I leapt from my chair - my prayer had indeed been answered - ask and ye shall receive. She then produced a series of letters, the drift of which was to request the bank to provide me with three things: 1. validation of the debt (the actual accounting); 2. verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice); and, 3. a copy of the contract binding both parties. I was to write, as soon as I received these three documents, that I would be happy to pay any financial obligation I might lawfully owe.The banks can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; they can't verify any claim against me because I am not the NAME they are billing - more on this later. They can't produce a copy of the contract because one doesn't exist. What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer to as 'your contract with us' is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card 'application', namely: 1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature); 2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose); 3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and 4. Signatures of the Parties (corporations can't sign because they have no right to contract as they are legal fictions). Credit cards are win/ win for the banks and lose/ lose for everyone else - it is the slickest con game on the planet.... Interesting book. http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=How+I+Clobbered+Every+Cash+Confiscatory+Agency&u=www.freedomfiles.org/mary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:00 AM Your link doesn't seem to work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:08 PM http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=How+I+Clobbered+Every+Cash+Confiscatory+Agency Several links to the book there. One of them should work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 05 May 07 - 10:07 PM "Land, protected by Land Patent, can't lawfully be seized for debt or taxes." Therefore, no mortgage or tax liability can stand against a Land Patent. http://www.teamlaw.org/LandPatents.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 May 07 - 06:33 AM We love the moon, cause it is close to us.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 08 Jun 07 - 09:06 PM http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Ed+Brown+says+feds+have+no+jurisdiction+in+New+Hampshire&articleId=844a9c5f-547 The US govt is being revealed for the criminal enterprise it is, because of the internet, so they're staging an event. This Ed Brown situation is potentially the most explosive thing going on in America right now. The feds are going to murder these people and hope some of the police get killed in the exchange. That way, Bush can enact the 'insurrection' provisions of the new Patriot Act. After half a million cops are killed, the ferrign troops will be called in. I don't know how cops go along with this crap. Buy ammo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Jun 07 - 09:18 PM I bought the wrong bannanas... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Jun 07 - 09:20 PM There is a videotaped interview of Mr. Brown HERE. I have not studied it enough to really comment, but from what I hear he sounds a bit off the wall/crazy BUT my Rog and I both have a tiny bit of admiration for him because he seems willing to "turn the screw." I do NOT believe it is going to go the way you have predicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 09 Jun 07 - 12:41 AM Well, I just listened to an interview with people inside the Brown's house. People have been coming and going in support, and one young man was out walking the Brown's dog this moring. The dog sensed something and the dog walker noticed tree branches had been cut back into the wooded area nearby. He approached, and two men in camoflauge jumped up and confronted him. Aimed rifles at him. The dog took off running, and so did the man. Two shots were fired and they narrowly missed his head. The cops ran him down, tazered him, then later told him to repeat some story they made up about what happened. They told him he'd spend 25 years in prison if he told what happened. And he was on a radio describing the event in detail. lol Witnesses say a hundred federal cops have surrounded the place, there are 4 armored personnel carriers patroling, two hover drones photographing. The feds are switching the power on and off, jamming communications, etc. The young man this morning possibly disrupted a sniper assault on the house. The federal government IS going to kill these people. I was very glad when Elaine Brown returned to her husband. She had a breakdown during the government's torturing and agreed to some kind of sentence which required her to wear an ankle bracelet ID tag while staying with one of her kids. She cut the fucking thing off and returned to her husband, and she says they don't plan to leave the house alive. She also said plans are in place to deal with the feds who have tortured the couple over the past few years. And the Brown's friends know what the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is for -- the right to bear arms to prevent government abuses. So when the Browns are killed, the judges and attorneys and cops that tortured them will probably be eliminated. The feds have evacuated everyone within a mile of the place, and that's because they know what snipers can do. The local cops won't have that luxury if this develops into a rebellion. The cops in my area will kick in one door, kill the family, and that will be it. They won't make it to the second door. Half my neighbors can kill a deer at 400 yards, so the police will be in for a hard time if they try to go along with the federal government's martial law plans. I don't think our cops will though. Should be interesting. I just want to drill a few ChiComs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 07 - 02:46 AM la la la la la .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 07 - 02:46 AM 200 thank you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 07 - 03:36 AM Do you really believe that this will be "Waco, part 2" ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: katlaughing Date: 09 Jun 07 - 10:01 AM From what I have read that's exactly what the Browns want...to be martyrs. They are threatening a fight to the death rather than be taken into custody. The feds have been talking with them on a daily basis since January, so they are not in any hurry. If they'd wanted to take them out they could have done so ages ago. Here's a bit of why the Browns are holed up: The Browns insist federal income tax laws are invalid and stopped attending their trial partway through. They were convicted in January of scheming to hide $1.9 million of income between 1996 and 2003. They also were convicted of using $215,890 in postal money orders to pay for their residence and for Elaine Brown's dental office in neighboring Lebanon, the property seized Thursday. The money orders were broken into increments just below the tax-reporting threshold. U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe sentenced them each to 5 1/4 years in prison. They skipped the April 24 sentencing hearings that ordered them to being serving time immediately. The couple has described the court as a "fiction" unworthy of their attention and returned government mail unopened. The Browns answered a telephone call from The Associated Press about 11 a.m. Thursday by saying: "This is the Lord's House. This is Sister Elaine and Brother Edward." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 09 Jun 07 - 07:35 PM The Browns have gone through all the steps required to exit the fraudulent Income Tax System. That Amendment to the constitution was never ratified, by the way. No one has ever been able to produce the paperwork showing the amendment was ratified. It was just announced as "the law" one day in 1913. So the Browns have asked to be shown proof that the Amendment was ratified. They've also gone through all the processes you can use to legally exit the taxing system. One of those processes involves making your religious principles public knowledge. You can legally claim that allegiance to God or the Creator supercedes the laws of Man. So they did that, and all the other things required by law to file and buy their way out of the Income Tax system. They have been left with no alternative now but to retreat to their property and tell the 'authorities' to leave them alone. Of course they expect to die. Remember Waco. No matter what news the government puts out about how bad the Browns are, don't forget that a hundred snipers are surrounding them right now. Surrounding American citizens accused of financial mischief. This action won't scare people like actions against Leona Helmsly did in the old days (was that her name, the woman they busted on tax day to put television fear into taxpayers nationwide?). Now we know what the Federal Reserve and the IRS are, and people are tired of having private banks pick their pockets. And the jurisdiction of US courts is an interesting subject. Courts have American flags fringed in gold. Whenever you see a nation's flag fringed in gold, that means it is the flag of a conquered nation, under maritime, Admiralty law. So, when a judge is sitting in front of a fringed US flag, he or she is passing judgements under Admiralty law. That's why they constantly say things like, "The Constitution has no place in my court." They're judging you under Admiralty law, not US law. So the quickest way to throw a wrench into legal procedings, and piss off judges, is to ask which 'jurisdiction' they're operating under. Nowadays they just lock you up for contempt of court for a month and then bring you back to start over. Federal courts are in actuality criminal maritime courts (seriously, the piratical law of the sea). The Browns know this are apparently tired of fooling with the pirates in control of the courts. I thought we all knew this stuff here. Don't believe the government's press releases about the Browns. They're just a couple who figured out HOW they were being taken advantage of, they tried to get out of the system, and now the criminals in control of the government feel the need to kill them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Natural Guest Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:56 AM From an email: IRS Loses! - Tom Cryer acquitted by jury - video Here's another story about a unaniimous acquittal by a lawyer who sued the IRS...complete with video: PASS IT ON! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgbYkElqxw0 (Of course, youtube has removed the video, but there's a story about this at the link below): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855 A jury of 12 could not be shown the law that Cryer owed income tax, so he was acquitted. This is happening more and more around the U.S. Income tax is voluntary. When you sign your tax form for "last year," you are in reality volunteering to pay taxes for next year. Get a lawyer and get out of the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:44 PM "could not be shown the law that Cryer owed income tax" This only applies to the USA... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Shaun Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:37 AM I have been watching this thread for awhile now. I can't sit back and watch what everyone is doing to this individual. You are calling this person all types of names and such and putting them down. Well I am an Attorney in Fact, and their are many secrets that you dumbed down people do not know, and now is a very good time for you dumb asses to wake the fuck up!!! The world is full of illusions!!! For instance to start off with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a non-profit religious corporation, a 501(c)3 corporation. It's not a country, It's a church!!! Under what religion are we held? We are under satanic freemasonry rule as a British colony! The president and vice-president, are the president and vice-president of the corporation so is the treasurer, secretaries, etc. You should also know that all corporations are fictions in law. All CORPORATION/FICTION are seen by their ALL CAPS NAMES. What makes matters worse is that they have made everyone a ALL CAPS CORPORATE/FICTION. This is done for many, many, reasons but the main reason is control of everything and everyone. A person is a corporate fiction, so is the U.S., STATES (STATE OF CONFUSION, STATE OF AWARENESS, ETC.) COUNTIES, CITIES, ETC.!!! A human being in a law dictionary is a monster!!! A NAME is something given to a slave!!! ETC., ETC., ETC. But ALL LAW IS CONTRACT LAW. For example: Are you a U.S. CITIZEN? What this question is really asking you is were you born within the 10 square mile area known as WASHINGTON, D.C. or a 14th amendment citizen? You can make a CORPORATION NAME anything you want to, it doesn't make it so. Just like the UNITED STATES are NOT the states united. So we were fraudulently put in the D.C. jurisdiction by contracts of our SHADOW GOVERNMENT. We are all under Admiralty/maritime law NOT common law. Admiralty/maritime law supercedes the constitution, and any and all law. Admiralty/maritime law is the "Law of the World". In other words if you were pulled over for speeding, arrested for anything, broken any so-called law, IT HAS TO BE ON THE OCEAN OR SEA TO LEGALLY CONTRACT IN WITH THEM!!! A judge is a high priest of the freemasons but in actuality their hasn't been a judge since 1789!!!! You need a lawyer to re-present you because you are a fiction and the judge cannot see nor hear you without one!!! Real living people cannot be re-presented by lawyers because they have no juris-diction over living people, only fictions. Juris means oath, diction means spoken from the mouth. The BAR ASSOCIATION stands for the BRITISH ACCREDITED REGENCY/REGISTRY. Jails and prisons are privately owned warehouses and are only holding corporate entities/fictions, the fictions are warehoused and have to be bonded just like any other warehouse no matter what the merchandise. They cannot hold real living people. That's why they had to create the "strawman" a man of no substance, a third party transmitting utility, to use as they see fit. Merchandise is a sea term like the merchant marines. When a so-called judge ask you, do you "understand" what you are being charged with, he is asking you to "stand under" his jurisdiction and all charges so they can do what they want to you, as you are assuming the unaware role for the fiction!!! When they ask you this ALWAYS ANSWER WITH NO! I DO NOT STAND UNDER THESE CHARGES!!! If they ask you how you plead guilty or not guilty, you have to realize that they have taken out the innocent plea back in 1973, and their is a huge difference. Always plead non-assumpsit because you are telling them that you are NOT ASSUMING the role of the fiction and your not playing their game!!! Coincidently, where do you play basketball, tennis, etc,.... on a court, it's all on big sick game they want you to play, just like you play tennis with a racket, it's all one huge gigantic....wait for it....RACKET!!! ....Hmmmmm........I could go on and on....just like Jordan maxwell says.....We are all word controlled beings, and they do not make these words up by mere chance....everything is for their purpose and gain from the mindless wage slaves!!! LAND OF THE FEE, AND HOME OF THE SLAVE!!! We should learn by this to NEVER contract with these bastards. But now we are under fake government, fake laws, fake names, fake states, counties, cities, etc. Living and going along with the illusions like they were real. The only power they have is the power that we give or have already given to them, and we have obviously given them way too much. House joint resolution 192 of June 5th of 1933 4:30pm, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the non-profit religious freemasonry satanic corporation is BANKRUPT!!! Hello! Their is NO MONEY!!! We are paying so-called debts with debt money promissory notes!!! Look at your satanic freemasonry 1 dollar bill!!! Real "living souls" cannot owe a debt, be in jails or prison, or do business with anyone legally!!! But they are!!! Do "real people" really realize that everything is already paid for by our u.c.c.-1 filing? That if we accept the presentment, charge, bill, monetary value, etc. WE WOULD ALL BE MULTI-MILLIONAIRES FROM THE SO-CALLED DEBT ALONE!!!! Guess not, ignorance=stupidity!!! I know all about the illusions but other people not knowing is why I have to suffer. It's also the reason 12 mason cops broke into my home, kidnapped me, made me take their drugs 3 times daily for 90 days imprisoned until I was forced to illegally contract with them. They don't want me teaching people the truth, but I refuse to be fearful of "the powers that be". As for other people, get some balls, it's time we take what is rightfully ours. Stop living in the illusions and feeding them!!! Ignorance is not bliss!!! It's literally killing the ones on this earth that are trying to save everyone from this hideous monster that has been let run amok. I have only barely scratched the surface with all the illusions, the amount of actual research material would astound and bewilder the public. We have been fooled and duped into living in a fairy tale nightmare, when will it ever end? When we look at the presidential candidates, and truly understand these illusions, we can then see why Ron Paul has an overwhelming advantage to us, the real living people. The truly bewildering question would be that if Ron Paul actually won, would it actually change anything in the illusions we are trapped in? Would the "powers that be" allow such a thing as sovereign citizens (real living people instead of fictions), the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MASONRY CHURCH changed to a actual country, the subsidiaries like the states, counties, cities, us, wal-mart, target, mc donalds, etc given actual free enterprise and are real? Would they allow doing away with these fictitious corporations including the treasury and IRS, and ALL CORPORATIONS for that matter since by so-called law all corporations are fictions? Will we actually be able to own our own land, home, vehicle, ourselves (souls), or anything for that matter? Etc., Etc., Etc.............. To tell you the truth I like Ron Paul, and he is the best candidate that we have. But.....their is something that bothers me. It makes me feel like their is something else going on that we don't know about. He is noted as being a MASON with all the signs in place. I would personally love to have a one on one conversation with Ron Paul, and ask the real questions, the ones that the majority of our populace have no clue or hint about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fastest way to find out who is the legal owner is to stop paying property tax and see who sends you notices, or knocks on your door, demanding payment. "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover The FCC is the government agency that licenses and regulates "free speech." Regulation is control! All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing. "The Matrix is a system Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you are inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters: the very minds we are trying to save. Until we do, these people are part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many are so hopelessly dependent on the system, they'll fight to protect it." (Morpheus, from "The Matrix") Just my 2 cents worth.....Wait....Why is it that you only get a penny for your thoughts but you have to put your 2-cents worth in? Who's pocketing the difference? With kind regards from a real living soul, Shaun |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: GUEST,Wynetta Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:20 PM So your saying that all I have to do to correct this thing is put my name in regular grammar? If thats the case tell me how?what? and when? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: artbrooks Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:24 PM Upper case - but probably not. Do you have your towel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'? From: quokka Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:43 PM ...and your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses |
