But Ned says, all federal taxes are voluntary!

[Joey Smith]

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.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The appellate courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, has routinely affirmed the convictions of TPs. You can stand on a streetcorner and shout "There are two classes of citizenship!" all day long, and it will not do you any good. Just ask Al Thompson, Ward Dean, Dick Simkanin, etc., about the "dual citizenship" arguments that they made and how effective they were at preventing their convictions. You can talk with them from 10:00a to 10:15a on Saturday mornings through the thick glass.

[natty]

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.

Yes, there are two citizenships each with diversity of rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

The fantasy is the CONCLUSION you have drawn that one citizenship is inferior to the other, and having one or the other immunizes you from taxation. Absolutely no court case supports your fantasized conclusion.

[natty]

Wrong!
Jesus never paid taxes to ceasar.

How do you know? He certainly implied that if you had a coin of Caesar's you owe him a tax. And when the Pharisee's accused him of teaching the people not to pay taxes to Caesar, Pilate found him not guilty. And Jesus paid the Temple tax with a coin provided by a fish. At that time, Jesus also said the kings of this world tax foreigners, so pay the tax so as not to offend them.

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

Is that the secret translation according to rachel where oath = tax?

[LPC]

To refresh my memory and others, what is the status and/or current residence of the following:

Pete Hendrickson

Larken Rose

Irwin Schiff

Bob Schulz

Hendrickon: Unindicted, enjoined, and investigated.

Rose: Sentence served, conviction still on appeal, and no other actions pending.

Schiff: Imprisoned and enjoined.

Schulz: Unindicted, enjoined, and investigated.

I'm still working to keep the Tax Protester Dossiers current, so that's one place to check on the status of your favorite tp.

[Ned Netterville]

UGA Lawdog wrote:

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.

Come on, Dog. You should know better than to mess with a crack defense lawyer like Ned. Here is the whole story in the one and only account of the incident to which you refer:

24When they came to Capernaum, those who collected (V)the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay (W)the two-drachma tax?"
25He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect (X)customs or (Y)poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"

26When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt.

27"However, so that we do not (Z)offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find [c]a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

That is it. That is all there is to the story. Now let us examine (cross examine) your ridiculous claim that Jesus paid a tax. (Note first that he did say "Then the sons are exempt," which obviously applied to him as a son of God, king of the universe. And since he was exempt, he obviously wouldn't and didn't pay taxes. Kinda like me.)

What evidence can you present that Peter did what Jesus told him to do? THERE IS NONE! Peter was a fisherman and would know darn well that coins are not to be found in the mouths of fishes, and that Jesus was plying him with a little traditional, ironic, Jewish humor, which is still alive and well to this day among Yiddish comics.

What evidence do you have that even if Peter caught a fish with a coin in its mouth that he used it to pay the tax. THERE IS NONE! Peter was notorious for screwing up. (Need I show you where to find the passages wherein Jesus chastises him?)

And what evidence do you have that even if Peter found a coin in a fishes mouth and gave it to the tax collectors for himself and Jesus that Jesus paid a tax? YOU DON'T! THERE IS NONE! The only evidence you have at the very most implies--but certainly doesn't prove--that PETER--NOT JESUS--GAVE A COIN HE FOUND IN A FISH'S MOUTH TO THE TAX COLLECTOR. That mere supposition is evidence of what? Say it. Go on, say it. NOTHING! Good boy.

So you see, my dear boy, you are the one who is demonstrably wrong. So repeat after me: JESUS NEVER PAID A TAX! You were wrong, again, and for about the fourth time in this one thread Ned has proven to be right at the expense of those poor Quatloosian nay sayers.

UGA Lawdog also said,

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

I second the motion! Keep Ned out. He keeps proving us Quats wrong. He keeps raising issues pertaining to our beloved taxes that Quatloosians cannot adequately address without being rhetorically embarrassed.

Even if Ned's not banned, he's outa here, for my thread has once again deteriorated among you Quats and Rachel to ad hominem attacks. Bye, bye sweetie pies.

[rachel]

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.

Yes, there are two citizenships each with diversity of rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

The fantasy is the CONCLUSION you have drawn that one citizenship is inferior to the other, and having one or the other immunizes you from taxation. Absolutely no court case supports your fantasized conclusion.

Ahh yes!
But if you were smart enough to see past your upright nose you'd see that 26CFR 1.1-1(c) are the same citizens of the citizenship that the 14th establishes.
26 CFR 1.1-1(c) doesnt encompass the state citizen. They do not fall within the jurisdiction. The 14th did not in anyway do away with the citizenship of the individual states

You fail to read correctly or you are reading dan evens posts which are purposely misread to support his theories which go against Congress's legislation and the courts interpretation.
I never said:

and having one or the other immunizes you from taxation.

I have always said the state citizen is not within section 1 as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) does not include that citizenship.
The 16th doesnt say what or who is being taxed, but who the government is taxing is easily seen in 26CFR 1.1-1(c).

[rachel]

UGA Lawdog wrote:

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.

Come on, Dog. You should know better than to mess with a crack defense lawyer like Ned. Here is the whole story in the one and only account of the incident to which you refer:

24When they came to Capernaum, those who collected (V)the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay (W)the two-drachma tax?"
25He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect (X)customs or (Y)poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"

26When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt.

27"However, so that we do not (Z)offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find [c]a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

That is it. That is all there is to the story. Now let us examine (cross examine) your ridiculous claim that Jesus paid a tax. (Note first that he did say "Then the sons are exempt," which obviously applied to him as a son of God, king of the universe. And since he was exempt, he obviously wouldn't and didn't pay taxes. Kinda like me.)

What evidence can you present that Peter did what Jesus told him to do? THERE IS NONE! Peter was a fisherman and would know darn well that coins are not to be found in the mouths of fishes, and that Jesus was plying him with a little traditional, ironic, Jewish humor, which is still alive and well to this day among Yiddish comics.

What evidence do you have that even if Peter caught a fish with a coin in its mouth that he used it to pay the tax. THERE IS NONE! Peter was notorious for screwing up. (Need I show you where to find the passages wherein Jesus chastises him?)

And what evidence do you have that even if Peter found a coin in a fishes mouth and gave it to the tax collectors for himself and Jesus that Jesus paid a tax? YOU DON'T! THERE IS NONE! The only evidence you have at the very most implies--but certainly doesn't prove--that PETER--NOT JESUS--GAVE A COIN HE FOUND IN A FISH'S MOUTH TO THE TAX COLLECTOR. That mere supposition is evidence of what? Say it. Go on, say it. NOTHING! Good boy.

So you see, my dear boy, you are the one who is demonstrably wrong. So repeat after me: JESUS NEVER PAID A TAX! You were wrong, again, and for about the fourth time in this one thread Ned has proven to be right at the expense of those poor Quatloosian nay sayers.

UGA Lawdog also said,

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

I second the motion! Keep Ned out. He keeps proving us Quats wrong. He keeps raising issues pertaining to our beloved taxes that Quatloosians cannot adequately address without being rhetorically embarrassed.

Even if Ned's not banned, he's outa here, for my thread has once again deteriorated among you Quats and Rachel to ad hominem attacks. Bye, bye sweetie pies.

I never attacked you Ned.
I just took it the point you never made; the oath.
Just like today you must provide an oath on all federal and state 1040's and w4's. All of which confer the federal "U.S." citizenship. State citizenship does not.
You really need to leave if you are going to act like a greenhouse lilly which cannot withstand anything; the suns heat or even a small breeze.

[rachel]

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.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The appellate courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, has routinely affirmed the convictions of TPs. You can stand on a streetcorner and shout "There are two classes of citizenship!" all day long, and it will not do you any good. Just ask Al Thompson, Ward Dean, Dick Simkanin, etc., about the "dual citizenship" arguments that they made and how effective they were at preventing their convictions. You can talk with them from 10:00a to 10:15a on Saturday mornings through the thick glass.

All those courts found the defendents were "U.S. citizen" residents.
Schiff will tell you himself.
Hendrickson will tell you he is.
All the rest will say they are "U.S. citizens".
So they have no right to question or protest taxes as 14th amendment citizens dont have that right.

[Joey Smith]

Show me one (1) case where the "14th Amendment citizen" argument worked. You can't, of course.

This is just TP gibberish, sure to get nothing but a good belly laugh by the law clerks when it goes before any judge.

But go ahead and try it. You'll not only lose, but get slammed with the frivolous penalty too.

[Joey Smith]

No use in arguing with Ned; he has made his mind up and neither reasoning nor the facts will convince him otherwise.

Not that anybody who matters cares of course.

[iplawyer]

differences between the common law and civil law

You have not a clue what you are talking about.

There are two types of law in the United States Rachel. There is what is referred to as "black letter law," which is derived from law made by legislative bodies like Congress. Those can be both "civil" as in patent law, or "criminal" as in the Federal laws against interstate drug trafficking. The second type of law is called "comon law," which is made by judges in court decisions. An exampe of that is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) opinion interpreting 35 USC 103, the black letter law that says you can't get a patent if it is obvious over what was already known. Well - what does "obvious" mean? Well the CAFC created a formula for district court judges to use to determine that. So the inquiry a judge makes into determining obviousness is based on both the black letter law enacted by congress, but also judicially created law to apply it.

In short - the answer to your question is that the federal system never abrogated common - it is alive and well and practed every day. Okay - I'm done with you now. You won't listen to me, so it doesn't really matter. But you are demonstrating your ignorance in every post.

[rachel]

Show me one (1) case where the "14th Amendment citizen" argument worked. You can't, of course.

This is just TP gibberish, sure to get nothing but a good belly laugh by the law clerks when it goes before any judge.

But go ahead and try it. You'll not only lose, but get slammed with the frivolous penalty too.

Umm.... first of all. I, as a paramount state citizen, would not be going to federal court over federal taxes or federal deductions as I would not be having them deducted from my pay. No jurisdiction for the feds to take me to court.
Boy you guys are really brainwashed from that law school cool-aid they served you, but then again you voluntary paid for it.
You must have thought you were getting an higher class education. You were suckered in and paid for it. Dumb!

[rachel]

Umm.... first of all. I, as a paramount state citizen, would not be going to federal court over federal taxes or federal deductions as I would not be having them deducted from my pay. No jurisdiction for the feds to take me to court.
Boy you guys are really brainwashed from that law school cool-aid they served you, but then again you voluntary paid for it.
You must have thought you were getting an higher class education. You were suckered in and paid for it. Dumb!

Anyone know of any court cases where a person has claimed the feds have no jurisdiction over them and actually won? Other than the occasional person operating under diplomatic immunity. I am guessing it is 0 to forever against the "feds have no jurisdiction over me" argument.

Well, if Rachel is fortunate she will never have to put her theory to use, mainly because no employer is going to accede to her wishes to not have federal taxes withheld. If she is self employed and chooses to not pay federal taxes, she can try, but as a whole lot of people can attest to, all that gets you is, at the very least, a really, really big tax bill when the dust has settled.

Now, if she works strictly under the table, well that is a whole different ball of wax. However, the downside of that is, it makes it damnable difficult to get a loan (like for a house, or a business). Can it be done all on a cash/check basis? Yes, but it just makes it a whole lot harder.

It's a free country and she is entitles to her opinion about her pet theory, but I don't think a dawg like that will hunt.

[Joey Smith]

Show me one (1) case where the "14th Amendment citizen" argument worked. You can't, of course.

This is just TP gibberish, sure to get nothing but a good belly laugh by the law clerks when it goes before any judge.

But go ahead and try it. You'll not only lose, but get slammed with the frivolous penalty too.

Umm.... first of all. I, as a paramount state citizen, would not be going to federal court over federal taxes or federal deductions as I would not be having them deducted from my pay. No jurisdiction for the feds to take me to court.
Boy you guys are really brainwashed from that law school cool-aid they served you, but then again you voluntary paid for it.
You must have thought you were getting an higher class education. You were suckered in and paid for it. Dumb!

The U.S. Marshal Service will arrest you and bring you into court even if you claim that you are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Most recent example: Eddie Kahn, who also claimed that he was not subject to the court's decision, refused to attend his trial, and is about to spend the next decade or so at a medium-security facility.

When the Marshals come for you, just tell them your theory. Yeah, that will really work.

[Joey Smith]

What did Jesus do until his thirties? He worked . . . and paid his taxes.

Next.

[natty]

I never said:

and having one or the other immunizes you from taxation.

I have always said the state citizen is not within section 1 as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) does not include that citizenship.
The 16th doesnt say what or who is being taxed, but who the government is taxing is easily seen in 26CFR 1.1-1(c).

If you are a citizen of any state of the Union, you are a U.S. Citizen ipso facto. None of those citizenship cases say otherwise.
And the govt taxes ALL INCOME whether it is of a U.S. Citizen, state citizen, resident alien or non-resident alien unless you can show some exemption.

Your argument depends on so many layers of misinformation that you would have to be smarter to even realize that you have failed to make an argument.

[natty]

Umm.... first of all. I, as a paramount state citizen

As evidenced by your posts, you are paramount to nothing.
Do you know what 'mutually exclusive' means?

[Joey Smith]

One can be a citizen of their town or city; AND

One can be a citizen of their state; AND

One can be a citizen of their nation.

To make the argument that "I am not a citizen of the United States because I am a citizen of Texas" is just plain stupid and repeatedly fails.