Conceptualizing the TP/Soverign Movement as a Religion

[Burnaby49]

Peter Schiff, son of infamous TP Irwin Schiff, appeared on CNBC to voice his opinion on the "fiscal cliff" issue.

Normally, this wouldn't rate to be mentioned on Quatloos, except for the comment that Peter makes: "I don't care what the majority voted to do, they don't have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it." I think that comment shows the underlying thinking of many TPs and sovruns who view taxation as theft. There is a strong disconnect between their payment of taxes and receiving benefits from that taxation. And apparently the disconnect is strong that they begin to act on their belief rather stop and get the entire view of the picture.

I'm not saying that Peter Schiff is a TP just because of that statment or because of his relationship to his father. However, I am sure that Irwin got his start into the koolade barrel because he just didn't like the thought of his money being given over to someone else - a view that possibly he shares with his son.

Depends what you mean by "disconnect". You seem to indicate that it means a lack of awareness. If so I disagree. The first posts I made on this site were about Chandler Turnnir, a Canadian tax dodger who felt the government had no right to tax him but was careful to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan because he would eventually get more back than he put in. He also applied for GST credits, a tax credit for low income individuals which, given his undeclared income, he wasn't entitled to. There was no disconnect or lack of awareness, he was shamelessly gaming the system while involved in tax fraud. I believe the majority of these clowns are dressing up fraud in high minded purported ideals.

However I do accept that some truly believe the bilge they are swilling. Daren McCormick, who I wrote about today, had absolutely nothing to gain by telling a policeman he had an illegal handgun and he would shoot any cop who tried to take it away from him. His resulting three year jail sentence was the entirely inevitable outcome of his actions but he did it anyhow. He must truly believe in the Sovereign delusions without needing any rational basis. He was relying on American arguments based on misunderstandings of your laws and constitution which have no relevance whatever in Canada. Why otherwise would he have risked his freedom defending his Second Amendmend rights when we don't have a Second Amendment?

Anyhow,as the court said in the Turnnir decision:

5. Despite claiming on his tax returns for 1999 and 2000 that his income was “N/A”, the accused claimed GST credits. He explained this by stating that “the taxpayer is entitled to any benefits which he is entitled to.”
6. In the year 2000 the corporate T4 summary, which was signed by the accused, showed Insurable Earnings for the accused of $38,000.00, the maximum for Canada Pension Plan purposes. The accused explained that this was inserted because “the taxpayer” wanted to maximize his Canada Pension.
7. While the accused stated that he believed he was exempt from the payment of tax he sought to maintain his right to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and to receive GST credits. His explanation was that the “taxpayer” was a separate entity from himself as a “natural person.”

[The Observer]

Depends what you mean by "disconnect". You seem to indicate that it means a lack of awareness. If so I disagree.

No, I meant by "disconnect" that they are purposely being intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging that they receive benefits by having a government in place. It is a willful disconnect, and sometimes that willfulness goes to the extremes in terms of making distorted claims and idiotic arguments that government is either enslaving us or otherwise robbing us of our wealth. See this thread for an example of willful disconnect.

[searcher]

Them sovrun whackadoosters rely on absurd sicko statements,as follows, from Justice Jimmy Wilson, Chisholm v GA.: “I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker.(BS!!) I have already remarked, that in the practice, and even in the Science of politics, there has been frequently a strong current against the natural order of things; and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means.(more BS!!) This remark deserves a more particular illustration.(not 2 me) Even in almost every nation, which has been denominated free, the State has assumed a supercilious preeminence above the people, who have formed it:(absurd!!!) Hence the haughty notions of State independence, State Sovereignty and State Supremacy.(Jimmy is the haughty one,and blind as a BAT) In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the State and the people: (Oh is that right?) Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable, power of Government.(No kidding !!) In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in human affairs: In the latter, the State as well as the man is degraded.(can you believe this !?!?) Of both degradations, striking instances occur in history, in politics, and in common life.” (Justice Wilson, OPINION, pure frontier garbled gibberish BS !!! ) In addition to such nonsensical statements by JIMMY, the wackos (sovruns) also use other sicko S.C.O.T.U.S cases that speak of "stealthy encroachments" against the "original order of things," all nonsense. True, like attracts like. They (SOVRUNS) refuse to enter into this the enlightened age understanding and want to hold on to the archaic frontier hogwash backwoods gibberish. They, most of-umm, believe, Bean WHITE make it RIGHT !!! sho-nuff do.

[wserra]

I have no idea if that post is meant to be sarcasm. One way or another, the poster should be aware that Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419 (1793), was good law only until the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795. That means it has not been the law for some 218 years.

Good cite.

[searcher]

@That means it has not been the law for some 218 years.
I wrote,> "Them sovruns" STILL rely on, in essence, that case, especially what Jim Wilson,said.

Why is it a "good cite?"

[searcher]

Came across an "interesting" Supreme Court of the U.S rule, Rule 45. Process; Mandates, > "All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States."
"ALL" process ?? Seems as if a Judicial Branch is doing ALL things in the name of an Executive Branch. IF so, how is this not a violation of the "Separation of Powers Doctrine?"
Thanks for any help from anyone on helping me understand what this "Rule" really means.

[wserra]

Thanks for any help from anyone on helping me understand what this "Rule" really means.

In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a Georgia man for being a non-Indian on Indian lands without a state license, a statute which the Court found unconstitutional. President Andrew Jackson did not approve, and allegedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." The point is that the Supreme Court itself has no ability to enforce its decisions, and must rely on the Executive to do so. Probably the best-known example is Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), following which Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy both deployed federal troops to enforce desegregation. Hence Supreme Court mandates (the final orders) issue over the name of the President.

Most stuff like this has a quite normal explanation.

[searcher]

Thank you,wserra,
@"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
WOW !! Does this ever say a lot !!!

This tells me that if the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Executive Branch does not "agree with," it (the decision) is worthless, made in vain,etc. which also tells me who is really in control. Thank you for responding to me. I truly am searching, hoping to understand the "law." it looks like we are under that "one body" that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, & others warned of that has destroyed liberty, rights, etc., in "every government that has existed under the sun."

[Pottapaug1938]

Thank you,wserra,
@"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
WOW !! Does this ever say a lot !!!

This tells me that if the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Executive Branch does not "agree with," it (the decision) is worthless, made in vain,etc."

No, it's not worthless at all. It then turns into the foundation on which the impeachment of a sitting President, and then his/her removal from office, can be built. Others will, I'm sure, elaborate on your point further.

[wserra]

Thank you,wserra,

No problem.

@"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
WOW !! Does this ever say a lot !!!

Well, it did 180 years ago. Worcester, despite the Supreme Court's order, was not actually freed for months.

This tells me that if the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Executive Branch does not "agree with," it (the decision) is worthless, made in vain,etc. which also tells me who is really in control.

Far too simplistic. Times have changed since 1832. FDR - a very popular President, as his four terms show - got in significant political trouble for "packing" a Supreme Court that kept scuttling New Deal legislation. From time to time Congress tries to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over something or other, which also usually goes nowhere.

it looks like we are under that "one body" that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, & others warned of that has destroyed liberty, rights, etc., in "every government that has existed under the sun."

It doesn't look that way to me. Moreover, it's not what Jefferson wrote. I take it that you refer to his famous letter to Joseph Cabell from 1816. The heart of Jefferson's thesis: "Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself." He was discussing dividing powers between various levels of government, not between separate branches of the same government (although he surely believed in the latter as well).

[searcher]

Thanks again for everyone's comment !!!

I do not remember the source of the following comment from Jefferson & maybe he did not say this, but the following is what I have.

Thomas Jefferson asked, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has existed under the sun”? He answers by saying: “The generalization and concentrating of all powers under one body;” and, as written in Federalist # 47: “No political truth is of greater intrinsic value than that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether hereditary, self appointed or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny;” and, The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, said in his farewell address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers on one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism”

[searcher]

P.S. I forgot to say, we don't have "Departments" anymore. We have branches. So, my last post apparently only applies to Departments, & not "Branches." What happened to the, DEPARTMENTS? A branch, is an extension of its source but a department is a separation from another body. Department is defined as, a separate part or division. Branch is defined as, “any offshoot of a MAIN stem, as the branch of a stream; an offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision, a tributary stream.”
I am not trying to be "cute." Sincerely trying & wanting to understand.

[Famspear]

P.S. I forgot to say, we don't have "Departments" anymore. We have branches. So, my last post apparently only applies to Departments, & not "Branches." What happened to the, DEPARTMENTS? A branch, is an extension of its source but a department is a separation from another body. Department is defined as, a separate part or division. Branch is defined as, “any offshoot of a MAIN stem, as the branch of a stream; an offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision, a tributary stream.”
I am not trying to be "cute." Sincerely trying & wanting to understand.

Oh, we still have the departments. Let me explain. The branches -- the ones that are offshoots, lateral extensions and subdivisions -- they are certainly still here. But long ago the subdivisions were quietly recombined into divisions, and the divisions were eventually combined as departments. So, it might not be obvious, but we do still have the departments. I am trying to be "cute." And, since I'll never learn to roller skate, I'm trying my best to obfuscate.

[notorial dissent]

Cuteness, obfuscation, and obscurity aside.

There were, at the founding, and still are, to this day, three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.

There were, at the founding, four departments, the Departments of State, War, Treasury, and Post Office, each presided over by an appointed Secretary, in the intervening 220 some years there has been considerable expansion, rearrangement, a few name changes, some consolidation, and an outright displacement, to the point there are now 15 departments, all still styled Secretary and Department of.

The Departments are all collectively part of the Executive Branch, the Secretaries of appointed and serving at the pleasure of the President.

[searcher]

@ > "But long ago the subdivisions were quietly recombined into divisions, ......"

Our Army also has divisions. I guess there are many different ways to divide. Maybe Justice Wilsom was right. It's beginning to appear that way. I forgot to say that I will always stand to be corrected.

[Imalawman]

Thank you,wserra,
@"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
WOW !! Does this ever say a lot !!!

This tells me that if the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Executive Branch does not "agree with," it (the decision) is worthless, made in vain,etc. which also tells me who is really in control. Thank you for responding to me. I truly am searching, hoping to understand the "law." it looks like we are under that "one body" that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, & others warned of that has destroyed liberty, rights, etc., in "every government that has existed under the sun."

[Mod deletes political content. See my comment here.]

This picking and choosing what case law to obey is a hallmark of tax protesting and its troubling to think it could subtly seep into mainstream society.

[Famspear]

This picking and choosing what case law to obey is a hallmark of tax protesting and its troubling to think it could subtly seep into mainstream society.

If I agree with the result, then the judge's reasoning and decision were jurisprudentially sound.

If I disagree with the result, then the judge was engaged in judicial activism and was usurping the American political system.

Pretty much the same thing for jury verdicts. If I disagree with the result, then the jury "didn't follow the law," and it's "jury nullification."

Ah, life is so simple!

[wserra]

To Famspear: Exactly so. And so will it always be.

[searcher]

Why was my last comment deleted ?? I clicked on the "submit" button & everything seemed to be working properly. But my comment doesn't appear. My comment was an answer to weserra

[wserra]

Why was my last comment deleted ??

I just checked the log. Nothing of yours was deleted, redacted, folded, spindled or otherwise mutilated.