Real Men of Genius

Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

Harvester wrote:I'm a law-abiding Nontaxpayer. I know most of the population continues to pay the tax they likely don't owe. That doesn't make them right. Just ignorant, like yourself. I'm trying to show everyone the way but, ignoramus' keep blocking the view.
To your question - it never did; so neither a yes or a no.

http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com

Repent, for the day of judgment is near.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

I have to admire your chutzpah, Harvester - coming on to a site that regularly skewers people who think there's no legal requirement to pay your taxes to defend not paying your taxes.

And that we're always right.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

Harvester wrote:
Doktor Avalanche wrote: Keep hope alive, Sparky - there are more of us than there are of you.
Thank you for your kind words. Is your large number reference a threat or does it suggest the bankruptcy of your position?

I'm so glad He let me try it again
cuz my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad I know more now than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Til I reach a higher ground
Til I reach my highest ground
No one's gonna bring me down
Til I reach my highest ground
Don't you let nobody bring you down
~Stevie Wonder


Technically they are bereft. Quatlosers are bereft.
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

David Merrill wrote: Technically they are bereft. Quatlosers are bereft.
The guy without a piss pot or a window to throw it from is calling us losers.

Pot, kettle...
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by jg »

Apparently the premise is that there is no law that makes one liable for filing and paying income tax as seen at http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/liable.html
The income tax liability could have been as clearly and concisely imposed as the distilled spirits tax liability is. It is not. An examination of Constitutional issues (elsewhere in this website) suggests itself as the reason why.
•If you put an amount of tax due on an IRS Form 1040 and send it to the IRS, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized to assess that amount of tax.
•Once the tax shown on the Form 1040 is assessed, you have been made liable for the income tax
◦If you were not liable or legally obligated to pay an income tax to begin with, by giving the IRS an amount to assess, you have certainly made yourself liable.
•If you do not show a tax due because you have not filed a form 1040 return, the Secretary or his delegates have nothing to assess.
Recap:

If for some reason, you are actually not required to pay an income tax, Then you certainly can make yourself liable and legally obligated to pay such a tax by filling out a form 1040 and filing it with the IRS.

•If you fill out and return the form, (even if you are not required to,) then:
◦You are required to pay the tax shown on the form.
◦You give the Secretary an amount to assess.
How can a tax be imposed for which one is not liable?
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Demosthenes »

Harvester wrote:I'm a law-abiding Nontaxpayer. I know most of the population continues to pay the tax they likely don't owe. That doesn't make them right. Just ignorant, like yourself. I'm trying to show everyone the way but, ignoramus' keep blocking the view.
To your question - it never did; so neither a yes or a no.

http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com

Repent, for the day of judgment is near.
That's so cute. The very first link on the page is for Phil Hart's book.

Phil Hart pays federal income taxes...
Demo.
Harvester

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Harvester »

Ah yes David, Quatlosers are bereft. I think whoever is funnelling them $ for defending the offshore tax scam will soon be bankrupt. I continue to be beside myself with joy over the restoration of our country. I also note most of them have no clue about the coming tsunami.

BTW, Stevie Wonder played all instruments (including drums) on that track.

I make plenty of money and PAY NO INCOME TAX. I'm not liable for the tax. Quite simply, I redeem lawful money and the IRS has no presumptive evidence of taxable income.

(they love it when you say this David, you should try it.)

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/TakeTheRedPill.htm
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Famspear »

Harvester wrote:....I continue to be beside myself with joy over the restoration of our country.
Interesting choice of words.

From Millon:
The term paranoia can be traced back over 2000 years in the medical literature, preceding the writings of even Hippocrates. Translated from the Greek it means "to think beside oneself," and it was used rather freely in ancient times as a general designation for all forms of serious mental disturbance. [ . . . ] Griesinger picked up the term Wahnsinn in 1945 to signify pathological thought processes and applied it to cases that exhibited expansive and grandiose delusions. In 1863 Kahlbaum suggested that paranoia be the exclusive label for delusional states.
--Theodore Millon, Ph.D., D.Sc., Disorders of Personality/DSM-III: Axis II, pp. 373-374 (John Wiley & Sons, 1981) (bolding added; italics in original).

Dr. Millon is a Retired Professor from Harvard Medical School (Psychiatry) and the University of Miami (Psychology). I think he's on to something.

And, in reading the posts of "Harvester," I'm reminded of this:
In every utterance a speaker or writer unknowingly tells us a great deal about himself of which he is entirely unaware.
--Walter C. Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report, p. 147 (Basic Books Inc. 1972).

Note: Langer was a psychoanalyst commissioned by U.S. intelligence services during World War II to provide the report on Hitler, which was eventually de-classified and published as the aforementioned book.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by The Operative »

Harvester wrote:Ah yes David, Quatlosers are bereft. I think whoever is funnelling them $ for defending the offshore tax scam will soon be bankrupt.
You keep providing further proof that you are insane.
Harvester wrote:I continue to be beside myself with joy over the restoration of our country. I also note most of them have no clue about the coming tsunami.
Yeah, right. :roll: The nonsense that you have been following is the inane ramblings of a few uneducated idiots that don't have a clue about the Constitution or the operation of government.
Harvester wrote:BTW, Stevie Wonder played all instruments (including drums) on that track.
Yes, Stevie Wonder is a very talented person. BTW, he pays income taxes.
Harvester wrote:I make plenty of money and PAY NO INCOME TAX. I'm not liable for the tax. Quite simply, I redeem lawful money and the IRS has no presumptive evidence of taxable income.
(they love it when you say this David, you should try it.)

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/TakeTheRedPill.htm
It doesn't take much money to live in your mother's basement, just ask David. If you do make more than the standard deduction, then you are supposed to file income tax returns and pay taxes on any income that exceeds the LEGALLY deductible amounts. If you do not, THEN YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. You may not like it, but the income tax laws are valid and Constitutional.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by The Operative »

David Merrill wrote:Not if you redeem lawful money.
David,

To put it simply, you do not know what you are talking about. Whether you get paid in FRNs or all in coins produced by the U.S. Mint is irrelevant. Receipt of either as compensation for work performed for an employer IS INCOME and IS TAXABLE.

BTW, income does not have to be money at all, though it generally is. If a person wins a $200,000 boat in a contest, the value of the boat is income and is taxable. If an employer gives a $1,000 laptop to an employee as a bonus, the value of the laptop is income and is taxable.

Your theories about redeeming lawful money are simply nonsense because you do not understand what you read within the Federal Reserve Act.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

The Operative wrote:
David Merrill wrote:Not if you redeem lawful money.
David,

To put it simply, you do not know what you are talking about. Whether you get paid in FRNs or all in coins produced by the U.S. Mint is irrelevant. Receipt of either as compensation for work performed for an employer IS INCOME and IS TAXABLE.

BTW, income does not have to be money at all, though it generally is. If a person wins a $200,000 boat in a contest, the value of the boat is income and is taxable. If an employer gives a $1,000 laptop to an employee as a bonus, the value of the laptop is income and is taxable.

Your theories about redeeming lawful money are simply nonsense because you do not understand what you read within the Federal Reserve Act.


It certainly works well when applied; so I will stick with my reading of it.

In registering the boat, one would declare the value of $200K in lawful money and only pay the registration fee. No taxes. Simple.

You are wrong. Not me.

Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]

Financial Markets War Precious Metals The Federal Reserve Energy Survival

Back to Top
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

I have a friend who works in capacity as State Trooper - I am informed that there are no outstanding tickets or action to be taken, no FTA or OFA - nothing. thank you for your counsel.

The billing cycle has been interrupted! Praise be to Yehovah.

For True Name is trusting in Yehovah;

I hope to be sanitizing and sharing shortly, maybe Sunday.


True Genius indeed; maybe a little late for April Fools - but only a few hours!!

What happened here was the fellow handled the two tickets - about no license and plates - with Refusal for Cause. When he went in to check if his abatement held, the clerk of court actually printed out his tickets right then and there, he could feel that the paper was just off the printer. She created the file when she suspected he might be the defendant.

He went to the US courthouse evidence repository and got certified copies of his R4C (Refusal for Cause) and had them served on the court by process server.


End of story. When he gets the sanitized copies out, I will sanitize them for Quatloser eyes and share them!

David Merrill.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7580
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by wserra »

Harvester wrote:I also note most of them have no clue about the coming tsunami.
"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

- Daniel Shays, of Shays' Rebellion, 1784.

Is this the "tsunami" to which you refer? Sounds a lot like it, no? It seems to be taking a while to hit.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by Duke2Earl »

One thing I know is that schemes and "solutions" work just fine until they don't. David van Pelt's schemes and gibberish work just fine because he has no income and nobody that matters give a damn what he thinks. This new wacko's (a term of art) schemes and gibberish work because nobody has called him on it. He's doing great so far because he hasn't come to the attention of the glacially slow moving government. What we know is if he does fall into those gears they will chew him up and spit him out and all his schemes and misreading won't help a single tiny bit. When that happens his best and only hope is for a revolution... good luck on that one. Hendrickson had the "solution." Rose had the "solution." Schiff had the "solution." Kahn had the "solution." How did that work out for them?
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

Duke2Earl wrote:One thing I know is that schemes and "solutions" work just fine until they don't. David van Pelt's schemes and gibberish work just fine because he has no income and nobody that matters give a damn what he thinks. This new wacko's (a term of art) schemes and gibberish work because nobody has called him on it. He's doing great so far because he hasn't come to the attention of the glacially slow moving government. What we know is if he does fall into those gears they will chew him up and spit him out and all his schemes and misreading won't help a single tiny bit. When that happens his best and only hope is for a revolution... good luck on that one. Hendrickson had the "solution." Rose had the "solution." Schiff had the "solution." Kahn had the "solution." How did that work out for them?
That is the same thing Wesley posted!
Wserra wrote:"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

- Daniel Shays, of Shays' Rebellion, 1784.
The 'saving to suitors' clause properly applied (1789) and the Federal Reserve Act properly applied (1913) do make things seem slow. But the truth be told, remedy has been written into the law all along. It is just a matter of proper application.



Regards,

David Merrill.
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by The Operative »

David Merrill wrote: It certainly works well when applied; so I will stick with my reading of it.

In registering the boat, one would declare the value of $200K in lawful money and only pay the registration fee. No taxes. Simple.

You are wrong. Not me.
Prove it. That means something that is verifiable. So far, none of your postings are verifiable and are nothing more than the idiotic ramblings of a deranged mind.
David Merrill wrote:Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks.
A 26 year old document that starts with an erroneous statement. So what? The rest of the document is simply more conspiracy theory nonsense written by someone who does not understand economics, the structure of the monetary system, or the income tax laws.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source.

Here's the sentence you were hoping to quote. Be careful now.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7521
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by The Observer »

The 'saving to suitors' clause properly applied (1789) and the Federal Reserve Act properly applied (1913) do make things seem slow.
Hmmmm. So if the Shay's Rebellion particpants filed for remedy back in 1789, they would still be waiting for justice. That is far more than just seemingly slow.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
David Merrill

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by David Merrill »

David Merrill wrote:
I have a friend who works in capacity as State Trooper - I am informed that there are no outstanding tickets or action to be taken, no FTA or OFA - nothing. thank you for your counsel.

The billing cycle has been interrupted! Praise be to Yehovah.

For True Name is trusting in Yehovah;

I hope to be sanitizing and sharing shortly, maybe Sunday.


True Genius indeed; maybe a little late for April Fools - but only a few hours!!

What happened here was the fellow handled the two tickets - about no license and plates - with Refusal for Cause. When he went in to check if his abatement held, the clerk of court actually printed out his tickets right then and there, he could feel that the paper was just off the printer. She created the file when she suspected he might be the defendant.

He went to the US courthouse evidence repository and got certified copies of his R4C (Refusal for Cause) and had them served on the court by process server.


End of story. When he gets the sanitized copies out, I will sanitize them for Quatloser eyes and share them!

David Merrill.


This is really funny when you consider the reason why the clerk made up the cause upon appearance.

This same fellow identified himself correctly while handing over the state's driver license about a year ago. He R4C'd the presentment and published it in his US courthouse Libel of Review jacket. He then showed up with a certified copy of it and was presented with an option at arraignment day. 1) Go visit with the DA and work out a settlement of the charges, 2) Go to the cashier and plead guilty (pay up), or 3) Proceed to the courthroom to plead Not Guilty and set up a Trial Day.

He chose 1) by accident and the ADA and his friends got a laugh out of the R4C and dropped it into the wastebasket ceremoniously. They told him what day he was to show up in court for pre-trial stuff. He and his witness called me from the front of the courthouse. It was a twenty minute drive to his house to get another certified copy so I told him go back in and fish that copy out of the wastebasket - get it up to the judge and inform him he was appearing restricted to prevent fraud on the court. The state trooper chief must not have forwarded the R4C to the court. They went back in and found that ADAs had already fished it out and forwarded it up to the courtroom so they went up after it, only to find the ADA ahead of them by running up the stairs to fetch it from the bailiff and tender it back to them.

The judge called him immediately and he stood in front of the podium "altar" as he felt it was, and the judge was quite thankful to hear that he was appearing restricted to prevent a fraud on the honorable court. He walked it up to the judge who looked at it, apparently noted that there was nothing on it in the case file, put it into the jacket and said, Okay!

These guys went back two weeks later and the two cases had been combined into one jacket. The only paper in the jacket was the certified copy of his R4C - so he grabbed a certified copy of that while there.



Regards,

David Merrill.
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Real Men of Genius

Post by The Operative »

David Merrill wrote:
A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source.

Here's the sentence you were hoping to quote. Be careful now.
David,

Unlike you, I do not try to dodge things. I quoted exactly what I intended to quote and my statement still stands. The document you reference is conspiracy theory nonsense written by those who do not understand economics, the monetary system or law.

However, since you emphasize it, I will discuss your quote. The purpose of the 16th amendment was to ensure that income taxes would be treated the same as indirect taxes under the Constitution. In other words, they only have to be geographically uniform and are not subject to apportionment. Congress was never limited to levying income taxes only on government granted privileges. In fact, Congress has ALWAYS had the power to levy a tax on the compensation a person receives from providing a service or labor to another. A limitation on Congress' power to tax incomes came from the two Pollock decisions where the Supreme Court essentially said that a tax on income from personal property was the same as a tax on the property itself and was therefore a direct tax. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to lay a tax on income from personal property and the few other sources of income restricted by the Pollock decisions.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.