But Ned says, all federal taxes are voluntary!

[LPC]

Well captain can you explain why the courts say there are two citizenships with diversity of rights, privileges and responsibilities.
And yet you claim the courts dont side with those previous court opinions.
Whats going on here?

Captain Kickback, and the rest of us, can read and write.

[grixit]

Jesus never paid taxes to ceasar.
Jesus went on trial and in that trial they tried to say he gave an oath to ceasar.
Jesus only replied "you claim I made an oath to ceasar" No such claim ever came to light.
No evidence of an oath to ceasar

I don't recall that being in the Bible. Am i missing something, or is this an early example of TP creativity in trial transcription?

[Ned Netterville]

Judge Roy Bean and Rachel, if either one of you two peas in a pod had read the blog to which I initially referred, (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page.html), you would have read the following:

Many Americans say they oppose the Iraq war, but do they really? If one pays federal taxes, those tax dollars are as important to the war effort as the killing weapons of the soldiers and marines on the ground. Your tax dollars are far more important to prosecuting the war than the wishes of Vice-President Chaney or the commands of President Bush. Our military personnel would not be there, could not go to war, without your tax dollars. You may say you don’t support the war, but if you pay federal taxes the undeniable truth is that you do support the war. It truly is your war...

You are America’s sovereign authority! All you need do to exercise your authority and stop the killing is to stop financing the war with your federal-tax dollars. Therefore, I urge you to follow the way of Jesus: Stop paying federal agents to kill for you! Stop paying federal taxes! In the United States today, federal taxes, like military service, are voluntary. They are levied on products you need not buy, and on income you need not receive. So–stop paying those taxes that finance war.

Now Judge, and Rachel, and all of you other Quats, if there is anything in the above two paragraphs with which you disagree, please state your case to show where I am wrong.

[jg]

Your tax dollars are far more important to prosecuting the war than the wishes of Vice-President Chaney or the commands of President Bush.

From all the evidence of which I am aware (which is admittedly empirical) the revenue and expenditures of the federal government are not directly correlated. That is, whether or not there are sufficient tax collections the government will still spend the money as they choose.

Hence, my tax dollars collected may or may not be a factor (much lesss more important) in what the money is spent to do; and there is no evidence, to date, that tax collections are significant in the decision making process.

You may speculate (or wish) that there is a theoretical, yet untested, point at which it might make a difference; but that is far from saying "Your tax dollars are far more iimportant".

[Ned Netterville]

Joey Smith wrote (and I respond by interlining in red):

I think that it can be safely presumed that in those years before He became the Savior, Jesus paid taxes like everybody else.

This statement is illogical. It is like saying Jesus must have committed a lot of sins "like everybody else." Jesus did not do what everybody else did. He was exceptional. He did what he did so that everybody else might stop doing what they had been doing and follow in his ways, which lead to salvation. Not paying taxes was one of the ways he showed us.

The Bible is so distorted and self-contradictory in many respects that one can do as Ned does and take bits and pieces out of the abstract and make a case for nearly anything (and self-annointed "evangelical Christians" frequently do).

Joey, it is easy to make a charge like you are making, but quite another thing to make it stand up. Can you point to where I have taken bits and pieces out of the abstract? I think not. As a matter of fact my essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER, is the first comprehensive analysis of everything Jesus was reported in the canonical and non-canonical gospels to have ever said or done viz-a-viz taxes and tax collectors. It is a synthesis of the whole, not bits and pieces.

But that doesn't mean that Ned is right.

Oh, but what I have said that you are unable to prove wrong is a darn good indication that Ned in fact is right.

Jesus paid; you should too. (No he didn't--see above--and neither do I, if I can avoid paying any tax without resorting to force or dishonesty.)

And I still think that it is one of the worst forms of piousness for you to (1) believe that only you have the correct interpretation of the Bible,...

Joey, I am not at all pious, in fact I am rather irreverent, and I certainly don't believe mine is the only correct interpretation of the Bible. The essay to which I point above, was first published on the Internet in summer of '03, and I have invited one and all to criticize it and/or point out errors. Many have been good enough to do just that, and where they showed me to be wrong, I made the necessary changes and, if they were willing, credited them in revised editions of the essay for the changes. I think the current version of the essay is the 33rd or 34th revision. (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page2.html)

and (2) wrap your pure selfishness and greed in not paying any taxes in the Bible.

Joey, learn this parable from Jesus, and I will let him speak for me in answer to your charge.

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15DON'T I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY OWN MONEY? OR ARE YOU ENVIOUS BECAUSE I AM GENEROUS?'" (MT 20:8-15 New International Version, emphasis by CAPS added.)

What you are doing is little different from the pornographers who used to couch their movies in patriotic terms to keep from being prosecuted.

Joey, I hate to lecture, but you really should stop watching pornography. Those who have repented of watching it attest to the fact that it warps the brain. You should keep an eye out for symptoms, such as, say, making illogical statements.

[Nikki]

Considering the various posts across Quatloos today, I believe that all of Ned's and Rachel's blather on all the threads to which they have been posting are significantly less significant and have less of an impact on the world than does the news regarding King Q-Tip.

[Joey Smith]

It's amusing, really. Like so many who profess to be Christians, Ned doesn't understand what Jesus was all about. Instead, he tries to study quotes really, really hard and then assemble them all together like a giant mathematics equation.

Jesus was all about helping others; there is absolutely in Ned's writing or tone that indicates an iota of that. Ned is all about selfish and greed; if he can't get it through the law (and the courts have all given TPs the big thumbs-down), then he'll try to wrap himself in the Bible and offer us a bunch of scriptural word lasagne that in Ned's opinion proves that west is east, that cold is hot, and that anarchy should rule the land.

At the end of the day Ned is just another nut that nobody takes seriously. His essays don't even seem to have attracted any significant attention among the nutty tax protestor circles which probably frustrates him all the more.

[rachel]

Well captain can you explain why the courts say there are two citizenships with diversity of rights, privileges and responsibilities.
And yet you claim the courts dont side with those previous court opinions.
Whats going on here?

Captain Kickback, and the rest of us, can read and write.

Good for you. I'm happy for you, but unfortunately you exercise the lack of comprehension to the question or you are just deliberately skirting the question.
Btw, I didnt think captain buttercup could answer why.
I didn't think captain buttercup knew why the federal government abrogated the federal common law back in the 1930's.
Apparently you dont either.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well captain can you explain why the courts say there are two citizenships with diversity of rights, privileges and responsibilities.
And yet you claim the courts dont side with those previous court opinions.
Whats going on here?

Captain Kickback, and the rest of us, can read and write.

Good for you. I'm happy for you, but unfortunately you exercise the lack of comprehension to the question or you are just deliberately skirting the question.
Btw, I didnt think captain buttercup could answer why.
I didn't think captain buttercup knew why the federal government abrogated the federal common law back in the 1930's.
Apparently you dont either.

Authentic frontier gibberish!

Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.

[rachel]

Abrogated Federal common law back in the 1930s?

Well, considering common law, is common law, is common law, your statements make less than zero sense.

So too did your statements regarding citizenship, as you can be a citizen of the state and enjoy all the privileges that entails (as well as having to obey its laws) AND be a cxitizen of the United States of America and enjoy all the privileges that entails (as well as having to obey its laws). In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive.

More importantly, claiming you are solely a citizen of a state in no way releases you from the privileges and duties of being a U.S. citizen. Now, if you find some of those duties and obligations.

Of course I could be completely wrong in GUESSING what you are trying to say, as you come off as a blithering yutz, whose statements lack a certain amount of clarity and sense. Whoever you bought your bill of goods from, I hope you saved the receipt, because you got royally snookered.

More importantly, I do not give a tinker's damn what you say, think, do, believe or write. But, I do bnelieve you serve a purpose:

Just as I thought, you really dont know what happened to know why it was abrogated.
Here are some hints; 5USC 552a(a)2 and 5USC 552a(a)13, The Social Security Act and understanding the differences between the common law and civil law. Heres a link http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-law?cat=biz-fin


US Supreme Court
Civil Law
Has two distinct meanings. As used within the American legal system, “civil law” is noncriminal law such as the law of property, commercial law, administrative law, and the rules governing procedure in civil cases. But “civil law” also refers to a body of law distinct from common law, and that is the sense of the term that is treated here.

Civil law is the legal tradition that derives from Roman law. The civil-law tradition developed on the continent of Europe and spread throughout the world as a byproduct of the European expansion that took place from the fifteenth through the twentieth centuries. Some of the countries whose legal systems are based on the civil-law tradition are France, Germany, Italy, Spain, all of Latin America, and Japan. Most nations of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, were civil-law jurisdictions prior to the communist era, and with the collapse of the communist bloc they may revert to that tradition. While legal systems within the civil-law tradition differ among themselves, they are so closely related that legal scholars refer to them as members of a single civil-law “family.”

Civil-law systems differ from common-law systems in the substantive content of the law, the operative procedures of the law, legal terminology, the manner in which authoritative sources of law are identified, the institutional framework within which the law is applied, and the education and structure of the legal profession.

Thus, for example, in common-law systems, the law of contracts requires consideration for a promise, but consideration has no true analogue in civil law. In common-law systems before the statutory reforms of the mid-twentieth century, a seller's warranty had to be expressed in a contract of sale; it could not be implied. But in civil-law systems, buyers have always had remedies based upon the seller's implied warranty that the goods sold possessed qualities that the buyer could presume. Other differences can be found in the law of property, the law of torts (delicts), family law, and other areas of substantive law.

Civil-law systems depend heavily upon written codes of private law, such as the French Civil Code (Code Napoléon) of 1804 and the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the “B.G.B.”) of 1900, as primary sources for authoritative statements of the law. Judicial decisions are less important than they are in common-law jurisdictions. While a line of judicial decisions establishing a particular legal proposition (Fr., jurisprudence constante) does carry substantial weight, the common-law rule of binding precedent (Lat., stare decisis) is not recognized in traditional civil-law systems.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The problem, Rachel, is that we can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you.

[LPC]

Just as I thought, you really dont know what happened to know why it was abrogated.
Here are some hints; 5USC 552a(a)2 and 5USC 552a(a)13, The Social Security Act and understanding the differences between the common law and civil law. Heres a link http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-law?cat=biz-fin

US Supreme Court
Civil Law
Has two distinct meanings. As used within the American legal system, “civil law” is noncriminal law such as the law of property, commercial law, administrative law, and the rules governing procedure in civil cases. But “civil law” also refers to a body of law distinct from common law, and that is the sense of the term that is treated here.

Civil law is the legal tradition that derives from Roman law. The civil-law tradition developed on the continent of Europe and spread throughout the world as a byproduct of the European expansion that took place from the fifteenth through the twentieth centuries. Some of the countries whose legal systems are based on the civil-law tradition are France, Germany, Italy, Spain, all of Latin America, and Japan. Most nations of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, were civil-law jurisdictions prior to the communist era, and with the collapse of the communist bloc they may revert to that tradition. While legal systems within the civil-law tradition differ among themselves, they are so closely related that legal scholars refer to them as members of a single civil-law “family.”

Civil-law systems differ from common-law systems in the substantive content of the law, the operative procedures of the law, legal terminology, the manner in which authoritative sources of law are identified, the institutional framework within which the law is applied, and the education and structure of the legal profession.

Thus, for example, in common-law systems, the law of contracts requires consideration for a promise, but consideration has no true analogue in civil law. In common-law systems before the statutory reforms of the mid-twentieth century, a seller's warranty had to be expressed in a contract of sale; it could not be implied. But in civil-law systems, buyers have always had remedies based upon the seller's implied warranty that the goods sold possessed qualities that the buyer could presume. Other differences can be found in the law of property, the law of torts (delicts), family law, and other areas of substantive law.

Civil-law systems depend heavily upon written codes of private law, such as the French Civil Code (Code Napoléon) of 1804 and the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the “B.G.B.”) of 1900, as primary sources for authoritative statements of the law. Judicial decisions are less important than they are in common-law jurisdictions. While a line of judicial decisions establishing a particular legal proposition (Fr., jurisprudence constante) does carry substantial weight, the common-law rule of binding precedent (Lat., stare decisis) is not recognized in traditional civil-law systems.

The first paragraph is typical rachelese, but everything after that is obviously a cut-and-paste, because it is coherent and, as far as I can tell, accurate. (I say "as far as I can tell" because I really know very little about the European civil law tradition, which in the United States is followed only in Louisiana.)

I wonder what rachel thinks it means? Or what it has to do with the Social Security Act?

Also, rachel may be one of those persons who think that Erie Railroad v. Thompkins eliminated common law, when of course id did nothing of the course.

As I said years ago about someone else, trying to explain law to rachel is like trying to explain a nuclear physics to a primitive people who haven't yet mastered fire.

[rachel]

Jesus H. F*cking Christ on a pogo stick. Rachel is one of those jack-ases, like SteveSy who is absolutely sure that Social Security is some "ebil gummint plot" to strip citizens of their rights.

What next Rachel, going to bitch about "da ebil gummint" putting microchips in your head, or a bar code on your neck?

What a complete goddamn waste of time you are. Barring a rare occurrence, this is the very last time I will ever respond to you as you are a complete and total tool.

So live your sh*t-wad little life, in your crappy apartment, working a crappy job, and being a crappy individual and keep on blaming "da ebil gummint" for all your woes, when the real and ONLY cause of your woes can be seen whenever you look into a mirror. And in 20 years, when your life is still a big steaming heap, and you are a bitter, nasty little gnome, I will not give you or your richly deserved fate a single thought.

And one last thought Rachel, I hope you win a low 8 figure lottery, but only so that I can view from afar the massive impact crater you will leave when it all comes crashing down around your ears.

Lots of luck, you are really, really going to need it.

<EDIT> I apologize for lumping in SteveSy with Rachel, it was unfair to SteveSy.

Yep I was correct. You dont have a clue why the feds abrogated the federal common law. And no I dont think social security was some ebil plot. It was seriously considered unconstitutional by some judges, but as far as "ebil plot" thats your injection of your belief that the government is ebil.
I asked a couple of questions not even related to stevesy's theories which nobody here could answer my questions as I expected.
Great job of trying to avoid answering by lumping me in with stevesy to call in the rest of a buzzards. I see you only attracted two buzzards to come to your aid

Can you just answer the question captian buttercup or are you just a babling jesturing idiot hiding behind your pointless posts hoping to fool everyone into thinking you actually know something?

[rachel]

Just as I thought, you really dont know what happened to know why it was abrogated.
Here are some hints; 5USC 552a(a)2 and 5USC 552a(a)13, The Social Security Act and understanding the differences between the common law and civil law. Heres a link http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-law?cat=biz-fin

US Supreme Court
Civil Law
Has two distinct meanings. As used within the American legal system, “civil law” is noncriminal law such as the law of property, commercial law, administrative law, and the rules governing procedure in civil cases. But “civil law” also refers to a body of law distinct from common law, and that is the sense of the term that is treated here.

Civil law is the legal tradition that derives from Roman law. The civil-law tradition developed on the continent of Europe and spread throughout the world as a byproduct of the European expansion that took place from the fifteenth through the twentieth centuries. Some of the countries whose legal systems are based on the civil-law tradition are France, Germany, Italy, Spain, all of Latin America, and Japan. Most nations of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, were civil-law jurisdictions prior to the communist era, and with the collapse of the communist bloc they may revert to that tradition. While legal systems within the civil-law tradition differ among themselves, they are so closely related that legal scholars refer to them as members of a single civil-law “family.”

Civil-law systems differ from common-law systems in the substantive content of the law, the operative procedures of the law, legal terminology, the manner in which authoritative sources of law are identified, the institutional framework within which the law is applied, and the education and structure of the legal profession.

Thus, for example, in common-law systems, the law of contracts requires consideration for a promise, but consideration has no true analogue in civil law. In common-law systems before the statutory reforms of the mid-twentieth century, a seller's warranty had to be expressed in a contract of sale; it could not be implied. But in civil-law systems, buyers have always had remedies based upon the seller's implied warranty that the goods sold possessed qualities that the buyer could presume. Other differences can be found in the law of property, the law of torts (delicts), family law, and other areas of substantive law.

Civil-law systems depend heavily upon written codes of private law, such as the French Civil Code (Code Napoléon) of 1804 and the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the “B.G.B.”) of 1900, as primary sources for authoritative statements of the law. Judicial decisions are less important than they are in common-law jurisdictions. While a line of judicial decisions establishing a particular legal proposition (Fr., jurisprudence constante) does carry substantial weight, the common-law rule of binding precedent (Lat., stare decisis) is not recognized in traditional civil-law systems.

The first paragraph is typical rachelese, but everything after that is obviously a cut-and-paste, because it is coherent and, as far as I can tell, accurate. (I say "as far as I can tell" because I really know very little about the European civil law tradition, which in the United States is followed only in Louisiana.)

I wonder what rachel thinks it means? Or what it has to do with the Social Security Act?

Also, rachel may be one of those persons who think that Erie Railroad v. Thompkins eliminated common law, when of course id did nothing of the course.

As I said years ago about someone else, trying to explain law to rachel is like trying to explain a nuclear physics to a primitive people who haven't yet mastered fire.

Care to take a stab as to why the federal government abrogated the federal common law or are you just going to act like captain buttercup and skirt the question.

[LPC]

Care to take a stab as to why the federal government abrogated the federal common law [....]

Care to take a stab as to why the federal government turned the moon into green cheese?

[Joey Smith]

Rachel,

Very simply, you don't have a clue what you are talking about ... and nobody who matters agrees with you. The courts don't agree with you, the legal scholars don't agree with you, no reputable tax or constitutional law attorney would agree with you, etc. The subject of the "federal common law" is quite complex, but it has absolutely nothing to do with tax liability. It is your fantasy, and nothing more, that there are two classes of citizens in the U.S., one that is taxable and one that is not.

Personally, I don't care if you believe me or not. You are just another TP nut who has ruined their life believing some combination of legalgarble and conspirobabble, and in the end you are going to find that none of this is going to help you one iota.

So,

[rachel]

Care to take a stab as to why the federal government abrogated the federal common law [....]

Care to take a stab as to why the federal government turned the moon into green cheese?

As usual cant aswer the question.
And no dan, the case you cited did not aborgate the federal common law.
An act of congress did.

[rachel]

Rachel,

Very simply, you don't have a clue what you are talking about ... and nobody who matters agrees with you. The courts don't agree with you, the legal scholars don't agree with you, no reputable tax or constitutional law attorney would agree with you, etc. The subject of the "federal common law" is quite complex, but it has absolutely nothing to do with tax liability. It is your fantasy, and nothing more, that there are two classes of citizens in the U.S., one that is taxable and one that is not.

Personally, I don't care if you believe me or not. You are just another TP nut who has ruined their life believing some combination of legalgarble and conspirobabble, and in the end you are going to find that none of this is going to help you one iota.

So,

Another flaming idiot burning down into flames with his hearsay opinions.
Its not a fantasy, the courts numberous times have said there are two citizenships after the ratification of the 14th each have diversity of rights privileges and resposibilites.
The courts recognize one as a state citizen and the other a federal citizen. Its been recorded.
Your brain is not comprehending what the courts have said which goes against your civil law training.
I'm getting the picture your brain is like a grape in a wine press.

Whats increditable is that you act just like Pete Hendrickson on the "wage" issue.
You, like Pete Hendrickson also ignore court cases that say otherwise.

[rachel]

Ah choices in life. Do I follow the advice of some old fart who has to drive a pedicab to make ends met and some kool-aid drinking clownette (who needs to be in the kitchen baking me a cake ), both of who combined probably don't have a pot to p*ss in? Or should I follow the teachings of people like Bill Gross, Warren Buffet, Jim Cramer, et al, and invest, better myself, pay taxes and just have to suffer with what is a 7-figure worth and what will be at retirement an 8-figure worth (net for both)?

WOW!! That is tough.......hmmmm........p*ssing away time on causes that are beyond lost and will only cost me time (and my time is not cheap) and money, or using that time and money to generate more free time and money for the future........hmmmm.........Neddy and Rachel's lives or Buffet and Gross' type of lives.........

Well, to quote Liberace, "They made me feel so bad, I cried all the way to the bank."

Sorry Rachel, sorry Ned, you have no coin, no traction, no gris-gris and offer NOTHING and bring NOTHING to the table, so I am going to engage in my right and privilege to roundly ignore the both of you. And this just about sums it up nicely regarding y'all:

Simply put; captain buttercup is a failure.
I guess captain buttercup is also like Pete Hendrickson who likes to ignore the courts for his own beleifs.

You foolishly put wealth ahead of life and thats expected from your types.
Money is nothing.
And in a very short economic time your material wealth will be reduced to absolutely zilch.

[The Observer]

Dear Ned:

You need to just shut up. Saying Jesus did not pay taxes is not true. According to Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus performed a miracle (a coin was found in the mouth of a fish) in order to pay the temple tax for both himself and Peter.

I vote for a ban on Ned. I'm tired of reading his crap. Do I hear a second?

Not from me. We need examples of hypocrites like Ned on this site so there is evidence of the depths that they will go to in misquoting, spinning, twisting and lying in order to justify their greed and selfishness. Joey is right in his analogy of comparing Ned to pornographers; the proof of this is in Ned's non-response and ad hominen attack in implying that Joey must watch pornography - note that Ned could not rebut the point of the analogy itself, so he resorted to personal attacks instead. Always the first sign that your opponent doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Ned will probably come back in his next drive-by and accuse me of not contributing anything original to the thread at hand. But he fails to notice that he has not contributed anything original to this site - ever. He only has been regurgitating the tripe that was created long ago.