Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

[Pottapaug1938]

My comment about the artificial distinction between citizens and human beings, that you make, came from your assertions about how citizens have benefits and duties, while human beings have rights. We are BOTH human beings and citizens, Sparky; and as citizens of a freely elected government in a civilized society, we give up certain rights (the right to go wherever we want, when we want, how we want) for our own safety (would you like me driving at 140 mph down your street? Would you like to have me rear-end your car, and kill everyone inside, because I don't want to bother with safety inspections? Would you like me to drive a school bus, with your kids inside, if I have a long record of at-fault traffic accidents? and so on). The UN Declaration of Human Rights, so beloved by you, has NEVER been interpreted by ANY country to give ANYONE the UNRESTRICTED right to travel freely; and the UDHR has NEVER been interpreted to trump national laws.

Go back to school; and come back here when you're done.

The Constitution and the law in my country has to be in harmony with the UDHR.

Article 29.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

So, if I go to your country and decide to travel on your country's roads, I can disregard all of your country's laws about driving, insurance and so on because of the UDHR? I don't think so; and if you take a look at your beloved Article 29, you'll have to admit tjhat, even in your country, my human right to drive, when, where and how I please ends where the body of your car begins, and where the requirements of public safety in your country so require.

[darling]

I'm not from the USA.

OK, I'll bite. Where are you from, exactly?

I'm really hoping you're not going to say the uSA (or the united States).

[Pottapaug1938]

fmmcosta reminds me of a girl I knew when I was growing up. When I walked past her house, she used to like to throw a rubber ball at my head; and when I objected, she said "it's a free country" (just like fmmcosta seems to think that the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Common Law trump any laws that make you unable to do as you please). One day, she threw the ball at hit me in the eye; and I threw the ball into the trees behind her head. Miss Free Country promptly ran into the house to whine to Mommy, who then came boiling out of her house to yell at me for "mistreating a girl".

Next day, I got the rubber ball in my eye again; and this time she got to find out, the hard way, what it felt like. She runs into the house again; Mommy comes out of the house in a rage again, screams at me for "hitting a girl", and runs back into the house to call my mother. God bless Mom -- she told Miss Free Country's mom that if she couldn't control her daughter's behavior towards me, she wasn't going to say anything if I struck back. That evening. MFC's dad called my house and yelled at my father; and Dad told him to STFU and to get his daughter under control, or she'd keep on getting balls thrown at her the way that she was throwing them towards me.

I never saw that ball come near me again.

Don't distort my words nor the UDHR. When did I say that?

I'm not distorting anything, Sparky. My point -- which, unsurprisingly sailed right past you -- was that this girl believed that, in a "free country", she could do as she pleased. She eventually found out, the hard way, that she couldn't.You seem to think that the UDHR trumps national laws when it comes to the rights of human beings, and that the act of being a citizen limits those rights in a bad way.

[Prof]

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/contrusts.htm#bond this one I don't even know where to start... it's ridiculous.

Leave out the words "it's ridiculous" and I'll be the first to agree with you. You certainly don't know where to start except with your pre- and misconceptions.

[Pottapaug1938]

Even if the UN Declaration of Human Rights was a treaty and had been ratified by the United States -- and thanks to the Captain, we know it wasn't-- it still wouldn't give rise to the rights which fmmcosta claims that human beings have a right to enjoy. Even such seemingly unlimited rights as the right of free speech embodied in the First Amendment is balanced with other rights when the subject of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater comes up. The right to travel is simlarly balanced against the need for public safety and the rights of others.

If there was ever a requirement for internal passports in the U.S. (such as in the old USSR), or a requirement that interestate travel be licensed or taxed, then fmmcosta might BEGIN to have a point; but if I so desired, I could pack some bags and embark on a road trip to every one of the "lower 48"; and as long as I respected the laws applicable to each state, no one could stop me from doing so. That's plenty good enough for me.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

After reading a few pages of this conversation, I find myself imagining what life in fmmcosta's dream world is like. Visions of wives in non-European, 3rd world nations seeing jars of babyfood from Gerber and jumping to horrified conclusions of cannibalism based upon assuming that the image of an infant on the label is what's inside. Ghastly.

Do you jump to conclusions based on what you think the label of the law is about, or open the jar and smell the carrots for yourself, Mr. fmmcosta?

[LPC]

[The Universal Declaration of Human Rights] is not a treaty and it certainly is not a law here or anywhere else. It is nothing more than fancy speechification and is in no way, shape or form binding on any one, or any organization. It carries the same weight and force of law as something I have written on toilet paper and read aloud from my roof.

Agreed.

What we're seeing here is the common tax protester tendency to jump from broad generalizations about "rights" to conclusions about specific laws and taxes without any pause for logic or reality.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Many tax protesters seem to be unable to understand that the judicial decision-making is more than choosing from among competing generalities.

The great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (who served on both the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court and wrote a classic text on jurisprudence, “The Common Law”) wrote that “General propositions do not decide concrete cases.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75 (1905) (dissenting). And so many tax protester “arguments” have been characterized by judges as nothing but a “hodgepodge of ... irrelevant platitudes” (Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984)), by which the judge meant that the tax protesters were doing nothing but stating an overly-general proposition without any justification for why that particular proposition should apply to the particular case.

One of the most banal platitudes that is frequently trotted out by tax protesters is that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which is found in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. But obviously people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. In fact, that’s what courts do. They deprive people of life, liberty, or property. Every time a court finds a defendant guilty, the court has deprived the defendant of life or liberty, and every time a court rules in favor of a plaintiff or defendant, the court has deprived either the plaintiff or the defendant of some property. So saying that a court has deprived someone of life, liberty, or property is not particularly interesting unless you can explain exactly what the court did (or did not do) that deprived that particular someone of due process.

Similarly, the general proposition that every man has the right to his own labor does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the government cannot tax the “common right” of labor. If the government could never impose a tax that took away someone’s rights to their property, then the government could never tax anyone for anything. So the claim that a tax deprives someone of “property” or a “right” is pretty much meaningless.

A generality frequently cited by tax protesters is the following statement by the Supreme Court:

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 152 (1917).

The actual issue in Gould v. Gould was whether alimony is a kind of income subject to tax, and the court held that it was not. (The Internal Revenue Code has since been amended to make it clear that alimony is deductible by the payor and income to the recipient.) But tax protesters continue to trot out this “one size fits all” generality in support of just about any kind of claim, including the claim that wages are not income, or that the Internal Revenue Code must identify the “source” of their income, even though I.R.C. section 61(a) is clear that gross income includes all income “from whatever source derived” and that “compensation for services” (such as wages and salaries) is included in gross income, so there is no “case of doubt” to be construed.

To the extent that the Gould case (in 1917) represents a restrictive view of the scope of the tax laws, that view was over-ruled by Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-431 (1955), in which the Supreme Court declared that it “has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology [defining “gross income”] in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.” And the Supreme Court has also stated that it is a “settled principle” that “exemptions from taxation are not to be implied; they must be unambiguously proved.” United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 (1988), citing Oklahoma Tax Comm‘n v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 606 (1943); United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U.S. 57, 60 (1939); Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573, 592 -593 (1938). This “settled principle” works against tax protesters, because it shows that, once their receipts are within the definition of gross income” in section 61, any claimed exemption (such as the exemption claimed in the “section 861” argument) must be “unambiguously proved.”

Notice that the reliance of generalities is the opposite of the tendency of tax protesters to fail to see the forest for the trees. Tax protesters sometimes seem to go “guardrail to guardrail” in crashing back and forth between over-generalities and over-specifics. Anything to avoid the important realities.

[The Operative]

I just finished reading all of the UDHR. It will probably come to no surprise to anyone, except for a few of our resident kooks, that for most citizens and residents of the geographic area known as the United States, the UDHR is not violated at all. It is only in a tortured fantasy reality that the UDHR is violated for the average person.

[The Observer]

I find it even more ironic that fmcosta believes that the United Nations has supremacy over the US Constitution and our federal and state laws. I seriously doubt that he has thought about the implications of this fanciful interpretation and what life would really be like if we suddenly were to submit to the UN as the new "world" government. At that point, what law is he going to claim trumps those UN laws that impinges on his freedom?

[Pottapaug1938]

I find it even more ironic that fmcosta believes that the United Nations has supremacy over the US Constitution and our federal and state laws. I seriously doubt that he has thought about the implications of this fanciful interpretation and what life would really be like if we suddenly were to submit to the UN as the new "world" government. At that point, what law is he going to claim trumps those UN laws that impinges on his freedom?

He'll probably come up some piffle like, perhaps, the natural, God-given rights of freeborn human beings which are supreme over any man-made laws which try to limit them, or something....

[fmmcosta]

On a somewhat serious note, I think part of the sovereign movement stems from the way many of us casually use the term, "rights". For instance, we all quote, "endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights...". I tend to shock people when I say that I disagree with this statement. A man, left alone, has no rights. There are no immutable forces of the universe which grant a man "rights". To think so can lead to inane arguments that we see from the nut-du-jour.

Instead, what really transpires is that a group of people decide that they have certain core moral beliefs that everyone in their group should adhere to. As such, the group grants its members "rights". It is only because the group has formed and enacted laws that there are rights. And the rights only have meaning because they are enforced through a legal system. Without all these constructs of a society, there can be no rights. When a nutjob claims that he has rights outside of the laws of this country, he unwittingly is attempting to destroy all the rights that he may have. In anarchy, there are no rights of man.

As I already said, I'm not anti-government. One of the main jobs of governments is to secure those rights not to create laws as they will over their subjects.

Look,

Am I a Human Being? Yes.
Do I have legal capacity to be a citizen? Yes, when I'm in enjoyment of civil and political rights.
Do I have legal capacity to be a taxpayer? Yes, when I benefit from the Social Security Number.
Do I have legal capacity to be a trustee? Yes, when I'm in the enjoyment of rights and duties of the trust.
Do I have legal capacity to be a beneficiary? Yes, when I'm in a position where I could benefit.

As Human Being do I have legal personality to have multiple legal capacities? Yes.
As Human Being can I contract/trust? Yes.
As Human Being can I create a trust not subject to statutory law? Yes.
If I violate any law mentioned on Article 29 of the UDHR does the government have jurisdiction over said trust? Yes.
As Human Being can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.

As citizen can I have multiple sub-legal capacities? Yes.
As citizen can I contract/trust? Yes.
As citizen can I create a trust not subject to statutory law?
Does the government have jurisdiction over a trust create by and/or trusted to a citizen? Yes.
As citizen can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Even if you are beneficiary of something you still have "all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" and so you can opt-out.

I'm not saying that I want to benefit without being subject, I'm saying that I don't want to benefit but when or if I do benefit I will assume the responsibility. Until I benefit or otherwise somehow prejudice someone, just leave me alone.

I don't want to pay income tax because I don't want to benefit from the Social Security BS. If you and everyone else wants to... it's fine my be.

[Quixote]

As Human Being can I create a trust not subject to statutory law? Yes.

It's doubtful. Any jurisdiction that recognizes trusts is likely to have statutes related to them.

[Pottapaug1938]

On a somewhat serious note, I think part of the sovereign movement stems from the way many of us casually use the term, "rights". For instance, we all quote, "endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights...". I tend to shock people when I say that I disagree with this statement. A man, left alone, has no rights. There are no immutable forces of the universe which grant a man "rights". To think so can lead to inane arguments that we see from the nut-du-jour.

Instead, what really transpires is that a group of people decide that they have certain core moral beliefs that everyone in their group should adhere to. As such, the group grants its members "rights". It is only because the group has formed and enacted laws that there are rights. And the rights only have meaning because they are enforced through a legal system. Without all these constructs of a society, there can be no rights. When a nutjob claims that he has rights outside of the laws of this country, he unwittingly is attempting to destroy all the rights that he may have. In anarchy, there are no rights of man.

As I already said, I'm not anti-government. One of the main jobs of governments is to secure those rights not to create laws as they will over their subjects.

Look,

Am I a Human Being? Yes.
Do I have legal capacity to be a citizen? Yes, when I'm in enjoyment of civil and political rights.
Do I have legal capacity to be a taxpayer? Yes, when I benefit from the Social Security Number.
Do I have legal capacity to be a trustee? Yes, when I'm in the enjoyment of rights and duties of the trust.
Do I have legal capacity to be a beneficiary? Yes, when I'm in a position where I could benefit.

As Human Being do I have legal personality to have multiple legal capacities? Yes.
As Human Being can I contract/trust? Yes.
As Human Being can I create a trust not subject to statutory law? Yes.
If I violate any law mentioned on Article 29 of the UDHR does the government have jurisdiction over said trust? Yes.
As Human Being can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.

As citizen can I have multiple sub-legal capacities? Yes.
As citizen can I contract/trust? Yes.
As citizen can I create a trust not subject to statutory law?
Does the government have jurisdiction over a trust create by and/or trusted to a citizen? Yes.
As citizen can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Even if you are beneficiary of something you still have "all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" and so you can opt-out.

I'm not saying that I want to benefit without being subject, I'm saying that I don't want to benefit but when or if I do benefit I will assume the responsibility. Until I benefit or otherwise somehow prejudice someone, just leave me alone.

I don't want to pay income tax because I don't want to benefit from the Social Security BS. If you and everyone else wants to... it's fine my be.

What a pile of unadulterated horsedada.

To begin with, you've been told, morer than once, that the UDHR has NO legal effect in the US or anywhere. It's just an expression of aspirations.

You are a citizen of a country when you meet its criteria for citizenship. In the US, that means that you are either born a citizen, or naturalized as one. If you are, indeed, not a citizen of the US but of a different country, you are an alien who is still required to obey US, state, county and municipal laws as long as you are here.

You are a taxpayer if you do anything -- such as receive wages or other compensation for your labor within the US -- whether you like it or not. Your fantasy about being a taxpayer only when you [sic] "benefit from the Social Security Number" is unsupported by anything in the history of US jurisprudence. If you don't want to receive Social Security, fine; but you are still a taxpaper -- or maybe a parasite who lives entirely off of the labor of (taxpaying) others.

[Famspear]

Do I have legal capacity to be a taxpayer? Yes, when I benefit from the Social Security Number.

Wrong. For U.S. federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is someone "subject to" the internal revenue laws. Your status as a taxpayer has nothing to do with whether you "benefit" from a "Social Security Number."

Do I have legal capacity to be a trustee? Yes, when I'm in the enjoyment of rights and duties of the trust.

Wrong. A status as trustee of a trust does not depend on being "in the enjoyment of rights and duties of the trust." A trustee is someone who holds legal title to property for the benefit of ANOTHER person, called a "beneficiary." The trustee may also happen to be a beneficiary of the trust. A trustee may be burdened by DUTIES as trustee, and we don't generally say that being burdened by duties as a trustee constitutes an "enjoyment."

Even if you are beneficiary of something you still have "all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" and so you can opt-out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about "opting out" of.

I don't want to pay income tax because I don't want to benefit from the Social Security BS. If you and everyone else wants to... it's fine my be.

Sorry, but that's too bad. Your legal liability for U.S. federal income tax is not based on whether you "benefit" from "Social Security", and there is no general provision in the law allowing you to opt out of liability for federal income tax on that basis.

[The Operative]

I'm not saying that I want to benefit without being subject, I'm saying that I don't want to benefit but when or if I do benefit I will assume the responsibility. Until I benefit or otherwise somehow prejudice someone, just leave me alone.

I don't want to pay income tax because I don't want to benefit from the Social Security BS. If you and everyone else wants to... it's fine my be.

It doesn't work that way Sparky. You cannot claim for all of your life that you do not want to benefit from Social Security and then when you get old change your mind and attempt to opt back in. You cannot claim that you don't want to benefit from anything that society or the government provides and then when you do benefit supposedly assume the responsibility. Benefits of belonging to a society and benefits provided by a government are not a pay when you use them type. The benefits are provided by society or the government for a person when or if they need them. In order to provide those benefits equally and fairly, society and the government has to earn revenue to pay for them. That revenue is collected from the members of the society or country of the government and is an OBLIGATION of the members of that society.

BTW, providing freedoms and rights is a BENEFIT of belonging to a society. It may be morally wrong for one person to deprive another person of their property and it may be a "right" for a person to be secure that their property won't be forcibly taken, but without MAN-MADE laws and the THREAT OF ENFORCEMENT of those laws, that "right" is nothing but a belief. One benefit of a government and/or society is in providing the reassurance that "rights" will be protected. As a member of a society, you have an OBLIGATION to contribute to the government that helps ensure those rights are protected.

Article 10.

* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

[fmmcosta]

No, you are subject to the laws of a government because you are in a place where the government can enforce its laws.

Putting it quite bluntly, if you are in a place where the US Marshals can seize you, then you are subject to the laws of the United States.

It's really that simple.

I get it that you like being told what to do, but I don't. I'm subject to the laws mentioned on the article 29 of the UDHR.

It's kinda sad (for me) watching a once called "Country of the free" being slowly turned into something where there are no rights nor freedoms.

And we know that's true because you say so?

It's basic trust law. If there are benefits there are beneficiaries and if there are beneficiaries there is, normally, a trust.

I pay more attention to what the courts say, such as:

“All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.” United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#contract and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges for other citations of authority. (By "authority," I mean opinions that matter--unlike yours.)

Does a trust have to involve wages or income?

[Prof]

A number of folks have jumped on your statements; I'll "pile on," but I will try to do this line by line.

On a somewhat serious note, I think part of the sovereign movement stems from the way many of us casually use the term, "rights". For instance, we all quote, "endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights...". I tend to shock people when I say that I disagree with this statement. A man, left alone, has no rights. There are no immutable forces of the universe which grant a man "rights". To think so can lead to inane arguments that we see from the nut-du-jour.

Instead, what really transpires is that a group of people decide that they have certain core moral beliefs that everyone in their group should adhere to. As such, the group grants its members "rights". It is only because the group has formed and enacted laws that there are rights. And the rights only have meaning because they are enforced through a legal system. Without all these constructs of a society, there can be no rights. When a nutjob claims that he has rights outside of the laws of this country, he unwittingly is attempting to destroy all the rights that he may have. In anarchy, there are no rights of man.

As I already said, I'm not anti-government. One of the main jobs of governments is to secure those rights not to create laws as they will over their subjects.

Look,

Am I a Human Being? Yes.correct
Do I have legal capacity to be a citizen? Yes, when I'm in enjoyment of civil and political rights. Close but no cigar; if you become a citizen, you enjoy civil and political rights. Until you are a citizen, some rights may be limited. See, e.g., the debate about undocumented residents or "illegal aliens."
Do I have legal capacity to be a taxpayer? Yes, when I benefit from the Social Security Number.Wrong; all you have to do is live in the US and earn money here, or even just earn money here.
Do I have legal capacity to be a trustee? Yes, when I'm in the enjoyment of rights and duties of the trust.Generally incorrect. Usually, a trustee holds funds in trust for a beneficiary, and the two are not the same, certainly at common law; some states now recognize self-settled trusts, but IIRC, the trustee must always be separate from the beneficiary.
Do I have legal capacity to be a beneficiary? Yes, when I'm in a position where I could benefit.
Pretty close; to be a beneficiary, you must be a beneficiary of something; here, you are referring to a trust. You cold also be a beneficiary under a will, if some testator wanted you to be.
As Human Being do I have legal personality to have multiple legal capacities? Yes.Absolutely correct, unless you are incompetent.
As Human Being can I contract/trust? Yes.Yes, unless you are incompetent or "under a disability" such as age.
As Human Being can I create a trust not subject to statutory law? Yes.No.
If I violate any law mentioned on Article 29 of the UDHR does the government have jurisdiction over said trust? Yes.No, because Art. 29 is not "law" in any jurisdiction that I know about, although it could be. It is not "law" in the US, the states, or territories, or D.C.
As Human Being can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.Wrong; trustees often commit defalcations, and steal, defraud, cheat, etc., in the name of the trust. This is strongly discouraged by statutes making such activity wrong and even criminal. Further, crooks set up trusts to steal, etc.
As citizen can I have multiple sub-legal capacities? Yes.Correct.
As citizen can I contract/trust? Yes.Yes, see above.
As citizen can I create a trust not subject to statutory law?No more than you could as a "human being." See above.
Does the government have jurisdiction over a trust create by and/or trusted to a citizen? Yes. And, at least in the US, the government, state or federal or perhaps even local, would have jurisdiction over any trust created by any body, thing, in the jurisdiction, whether the creator is a citizen, is a corporation, or is "human."
As citizen can I kill, steal, defraud, cheat, injure, etc. in the name of said trust? No.Certainly you can; it's just not legal to do so.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The term "trust" here refers to what is called a "trust territory" and not a "trust." See, e.g., Mircronesia.
Even if you are beneficiary of something you still have "all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" and so you can opt-out.You have none of these rights and freedoms; you have the rights and freedoms guaranteed to a resident of the US and one of its states, territories, or DC; if you are a citizen, you get greater rights and freedoms; if you are not a citizen, you might get deported.

I'm not saying that I want to benefit without being subject, I'm saying that I don't want to benefit but when or if I do benefit I will assume the responsibility. Until I benefit or otherwise somehow prejudice someone, just leave me alone.Sorry, you do not get to pick and choose or mix and match. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

I don't want to pay income tax because I don't want to benefit from the Social Security BS. If you and everyone else wants to... it's fine my be.

I don't want to pay income tax, and my tax bill last year was significan, at least to me. If there was a way to avoid paying that amount in taxes, in exchange for taking nothing from Social Security or even Medicare, I'd do it in a minute. Sorry, but you are totally wrong about this one.

You really should learn a little more; read some cases involving people who have taken the positions you are buying into. See what happened to their neat theories and the results -- economic and criminal -- of taking such positions. Good luck and I hope you come to your senses.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm subject to the laws mentioned on the article 29 of the UDHR.

No! No! No! How many times do you have to be told that the UDHR has NO legal effect? How many times do you have to be told that there are NO laws based on your beloved UDHR?

I'm guessing that you are refusing to listen unless you get the response that you want to hear from us.

[Dr. Caligari]

Do I have legal capacity to be a taxpayer? Yes, when I benefit from the Social Security Number.

How do you explain the fact that the current U.S. income tax sysytem was enacted in 1913, while the Social Security Act was not passed until 1935?

[grixit]

After reading a few pages of this conversation, I find myself imagining what life in fmmcosta's dream world is like. Visions of wives in non-European, 3rd world nations seeing jars of babyfood from Gerber and jumping to horrified conclusions of cannibalism based upon assuming that the image of an infant on the label is what's inside. Ghastly.

Do you jump to conclusions based on what you think the label of the law is about, or open the jar and smell the carrots for yourself, Mr. fmmcosta?

In Frikentardistan, conclusions jump to you.