Last year I started a thread inquiring into this concept of there being a legal "code" which (at least US) courts appear to follow. See the thread there for the discussion, and definitely check the OP for the premise and the video which intrigued me.
I'm starting this thread to renew the discussion, as I've come across another example of this, and the last discussion got sidetracked.
Where the last one actually included audio from the court proceedings, this one only includes video from the actual arrest, with written commentary about the courtroom events that followed. This does make it difficult to confirm the accuracy of what really went on there, but it sounds pretty much like the stories I've heard of how this goes...
My court case and glorious vindication!
As with the last thread, my main objective in posting this is to hopefully get more information on this concept and resources documenting more occurrences like this, as well as more details of the practice and doctrine behind it.
Of course, feedback and discussion is fine too, but as you can see with the last thread, most of the discussion was essentially irrelevant knee-jerk claims basically based in the notion that it's all nonsense...yet no one was able to even begin to answer basic questions to support such a claim...such as, for instance, why the guy wasn't thrown in jail, along with other simple questions I posed here. ...Questions which — if someone were so sure of what the guy explains in the video being nonsense — they should be able to easily answer sufficiently.
So I guess, if you're going to argue "yeah that's crazy, if you really tried that they'd throw your ass in jail!!!"...it would be useful if you actually could offer an explanation as to not only why that didn't happen with these guys, but also as to the other seeming oddities that surround this kind of proceeding (e.g., the way the judge threatened the guy with contempt, and then when challenged on it, the judge withdraws his request.)
I would also think it goes without saying that if you plan to comment on any of what is linked, that you would actually view/read what is there...particularly if you're going to make claims about what was said or not said in it. (But evidently as you can see in the last thread, this doesn't always happen.)
So anyone have any more resources on this?
It is not a corporate identity. It is a title of a citizen franchise of the incorporated body politic of a republic. Citizen of the United States. Proper nouns are capitalized. English 101.
United States citizen = United States common noun = United States generic thing = United States possession.
It is a title of a government office because in a republic all citizens are constituent members of the body politic.
That said ... there are people who have been bringing this shit up for years and I have posted many times on this very forum asserting everything is voluntary. For as incompetant as politicians are it is hard to believe but after all the legislation is authoried by attorneys and the entire legal code is crafted with precision based on the very principles of the American Revolution ... consent of the governed.
It has been explained title = rank and the entire reason everything in legal land is 100% fictional bullshit is because anything that has anything to do with rank is 100% arbitrary. There is no absolute measure to determine the rank, status, condition, or social standing of a man.
Party A claims title of president. Party B claims title of vice president. Court says party A has superior title (ie. outranks) party B therefore party A has the superior right of possession to the white house.
United States citizen is the title and any person in possession of a government issued identification is presumed to be occupying the office of citizen. (keyword presumed, you can figure out on your own how to rebut that presumption). Government exercises a privilege to profit off land God gave to man. If you are in possession of a government identification it is presumed whatever you are doing is privileged government business in the office of a citizen, for hire by using or employing something to derive a gain or recieve a benefit.
The responses in the thread you linked to are a perfect example of why I do not post much online anymore outside of groups I collaborate with that are actually trying to get shit done and move the legal ball downfiield to freedom. Quite frankly I do not give a fuck about people who volunteer into their own slavery anymore. I get tired of listening to their bullshit. Oh, I am afraid of my own government or the state to exercise any natural or fundamental rights followed by a sad fucking story and more bullshit. I might go to jail yada yada yada. No shit you might go to jail. You can't stop a criminal from being a criminal. You might get robbed by a criminal in libertopia and instead of defending yourself you would probably feed everyone a sad story and a line of bullshit about how you were coerced and unable to defend yourself. Oh but the risk just wasn't worth it yada yada yada. It is hard to believe libertarians of all people espouse such bullshit. Am I supposed to believe people governed by fear are going to somehow man up and self defend just because there is no state? I am not that gullible. Being governed by fear means it rules over you. It is that simple. if you are an electron governed by a negative charge simply eliminating the state or nucleus is not going to turn you into a proton.
I just can't listen, read, or debate about any bullshit such as if the state goes away tomorrow everyone will be saved and able to defend themselves or do whatever they want without fear of being coerced. As far as I am concerned anyone that wants to learn more about this information can pay for it just like they pay for austrian economics information. I have listened to enough dumbasses say but but but but but you will go to jail. I simply can't listen to that bullshit anymore. The plain truth is if you are afraid now you will be afraid in libertopia because even in libertarian utopia there is no natural and fundamental right not to be trespassed against. Yes, there are some people that have gone to jail. It happens. The only reason they are in jail along with all other political prisoners of victimless crime is because there are too many people governed by fear and afraid to just say no to the state.
Ask Clayton to explain it to you since he was pretty confident about how things work in the thread you linked. Also in the thread you linked you stated the judge is the court. The judge is not the court. It is the plaintiffs court because the it is the plaintiff who is the king and who brings the law. The king's judge is merely there to rubber stamp the kings judgement which is merely testimony the king or his counsel followed the rules. That is probably the reason appeals do not relitigate established facts only procedure.
Actually don't ask Clayton because he is 100% full of shit judges have absolute immunity. They don't. A traffic court is an administrative tribunal which is not a judicial function which makes a judge 100% liable if you can articulate your injury and the reason the judge is liable. However focusing on the judge is a complete waste of time so I won't even bother explaining contracting with a judge on the oath of office and simply say your controversy is with the prosecutor for malicious prosecution or an act of tresspass or a trespass on the case. If you do not have a countercomplaint against the prosecutor for bearing false witness or false accusation go pay whatever they want you to pay, go home, hop online and bitch about the state coercing you to make yourself feel better.
Follow A.J.'s advice and go pay to subscribe to Dean Clifford's forum: deanclifford.info. Daily Paul isn't free to sign up anymore so paying shouldn't be a problem. I think I will go send him an email and suggest his new web master set up an affiliate program like Tom Woods is using for Liberty Classroom so I can get a kickback on anyone who joins after clicking my affiliate link..
P.S.
A judge is not the court.
People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980);
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980), Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821);
Perhaps a distinction I made about judicial v. non-judicial functions has merit with regards to your inquiry...
Live_Free_Or_Die:It is not a corporate identity. It is a title of a citizen franchise of the incorporated body politic of a republic. Citizen of the United States. Proper nouns are capitalized. English 101.
English 101 teaches that "capitalized" typically means the first letter is capitalized. Not the entire name. So this isn't English 101.
United States citizen = United States common noun = United States generic thing = United States possession. It is a title of a government office because in a republic all citizens are constituent members of the body politic.
So basically you're alleging that a person's name is the "title of a government office." K. So what does English 101 teach us about the difference between titles in which the first letter is capitalized and those in which all letters are capitalized?
Oh, I am afraid of my own government or the state to exercise any natural or fundamental rights followed by a sad fucking story and more bullshit. I might go to jail yada yada yada. No shit you might go to jail. You can't stop a criminal from being a criminal. You might get robbed by a criminal in libertopia and instead of defending yourself you would probably feed everyone a sad story and a line of bullshit about how you were coerced and unable to defend yourself. Oh but the risk just wasn't worth it yada yada yada. It is hard to believe libertarians of all people espouse such bullshit. Am I supposed to believe people governed by fear are going to somehow man up and self defend just because there is no state? I am not that gullible.
You're honestly comparing the risk of defending yourself against a single mugger to defending yourself against a State (particularly one with a $14 Trillion economy)?
anyone that wants to learn more about this information can pay for it just like they pay for austrian economics information.
The Mises Institute offers courses on this? Link?
Follow A.J.'s advice and go pay to subscribe to Dean Clifford's forum: deanclifford.info
He looks interesting, but from what I can tell he is a "non-resident of Canada" or "Grantor and Sole Beneficiary Sovereign Creditor of Canada"...which sounds to me like he lives within what most of the world recognizes as the borders of the country of Canada (i.e., the geographic region described here.) This also leads me to believe that when he talks about "going to court", he is talking about courts that are understood to operate within a jurisdiction of the "country of Canada".
I'm not sure how this helps someone who does not reside within that region.
RE: English 101
My point was ...
Citizen = Proper noun which is the name of a specific thing such as a title, and
citizen = common noun which is defined as a generic thing or possession in a dictionary like Webster's.
Therefore "Citizen of the United States" as it appears in the constitution up to the 14th Amendment is not identical to "United States citizen" as there is no sameness. This distinction in citizenship is well settled by the courts and if you want to understand the distinction further feel free to consult any of the vast cases discussing it.
RE: Dean
Dean is just as interesting as other folks who have taken the time to break out legal dictionaries and learn about law, courts, etc. Once you know your shit, you know you know your shit so it doesn't really matter what you say. Sovereignty is like a federal reserve note in that it is only backed by faith. If you don't have any faith in your individual sovereignty or natural and fundamental rights do not expect to receive any credit in any court or by any police officer. Yes Dean is in Canada so while the general principles are the same some of the specifics are different in other countries. It is the general principles that count which build faith. Specifics are petty details that once one graps the principles they can be adapted to any situation.
Furthermore in my experience I find that people who have knowledge of the bible easily get the principles the legal system is built upon because there is a direct parrallel. It really doesn't matter what people think of the bible the bottom line is that if you are ignorant of it you are clearly at a disadvantage. It is kind of like Blackstone writing in his commentaries about the Roman civil law. He states to the effect if one must be ignorant of the English common law or the Roman civil law jurisprudence relies upon, let people be ignorant of the latter. Did not Justinian rewrite civil law following the Council of Nicea? Who attended that? Clearly ignorance is a legal disadvantage. Knowledge is power, etc.
RE: A CAPITAL NAME
First one must understand the legal definition of a "name," "designation," "legal name," true name," "corporate name," alias," "alias dictus," "surname," "christian name," etc. So go look all of those legal definitions up to determine what constitutes the name of a person.
Second, one must understand what the term "use" means. In legal land it measn to employ or hire. Think of it as hiring or employing all capital letters to ___(do something)____. What is the history of the term capitalize. What is the history of the word "capital." Are certificates of birth recorded? If something is "recorded" does it have "book value"? Is property capitalized? Why do you capitalize something? To convert a periodic payment into a lump sum? Would a bankrupt government in default have any "use" for capitalziing anything? Have you looked up all of the legal definitions of terms, in say Black's Law Dictionary, I just used to understand the legal meaning of them?
If you want to further understand how government styles certain things certain ways such as the use of all upper case letters refer to government style manual. Again, nothing new.
RE: Offers courses.
Do austrian economists publish books to earn money for their labor or to improve the lot of man at their expense? I don't think anything further needs to be said unless someone has an objection to capitalism or that a laboring man is not worthy of his wages.
Actually don't ask Clayton because he is 100% full of shit judges have absolute immunity. They don't.
Uh huh, yeah, I'm full of shit.
As far as the judge being the Court, I meant only to say that the judge speaks as "the Court". When the judge orders something, it is recorded as "the Court orders such-and-such". This is because the judge is really speaking on behalf of an abstract, non-existent entity, just as the Pope speaks ex cathedra on behalf of Christ. This is why the judge is immune... because the judge is merely conveying the decision of the Court. He is not himself the Court... any judge could be the Court.
As far as the "voluntary" nature of American law, it's just a legalistic trick... it's well and truly involuntary, it's just mostly structured in such a way that it is impossible - within the confines of the government's courts and their rules of procedure - to actually diagnose what is involuntary about it, thus making it very difficult to challenge the law on the grounds that it is compulsion.
My favorite example is tax law. It is true that there is no statute says "An American citizen must pay taxes" or even "anyone who earns an income must pay taxes" or anything equivalent. However, if you don't file your 1040 (long enough), you'll eventually go to jail. Why? Well, because you didn't report your income to the government, which there is a statutory requirement (no, I don't know the statute offhand) to do. You are compelled to report your income - if you earn an income - to the government. But the thing is, you can't just send off an email to the IRS saying "I earned $42,000 last year" and be done with it. You must complete the appropriate forms - Form 1040 or whatever. In order to complete a Form 1040, you must fill out the line that says "Taxes You Owe", and you must follow the form's rules in doing so. So, if your taxes are $6,500, you must fill this in.
Once you do this, you have confessed the amount of taxes you owe. If you later try to challenge the IRS legally, they will produce the Form 1040 as a written confession of your tax obligation. So it's a nice trick they've put together. I suppose you could challenge the compulsion to report income... I would be shocked if no one has - and if it went all the way to the Supreme Court, they will simply say "It is in the interests of State that the income reporting be compelled. Next case." In other words, the Supreme Court explicitly uses the "interests of State" (lower courts do, as well, but I think SCOTUS is the final arbiter of how this sledge-hammer gets wielded) as the criterion for upholding or striking down laws. But since you must confess your tax-obligation in order to report your income (and I believe this obligation is administrative, making it impossible to challenge through the courts!), this is tantamount to a forced-confession. The people that devise this crap are the biggest assholes, ever.
I'm currently researching (in cooperation with Aristippus) the Aulic courts in the Holy Roman Empire. I think a lot of this verbal fancy-pants business traces back to the royal-imperial law that developed under the Holy Roman Empire and has been embellished and enhanced since. But the basic features remain... you compel some "trivial public duty" and then use this as a wedge by which to saddle people with heavy, compulsory burdens.
Clayton -
From the linked article:
If you do so, make sure you know what you’re doing, and choose the right battle. I did not, but after 8 hours in solitary and 9 months of waiting for court, I got a positive result. I guess that’s the price for justice in a police state. But we’ll change that.
Emphasis mine.
This is the other part of it... you will never come out on the winning side of this. They'll just keep throwing your ass in jail and hitting you over the head. The police specifically leverage the fact that the slightest act of "non-compliance" will result in callous treatment and "jail-rotting" from the courts in retribution. It is true that you are not legally required to comply with most of these requests but it is also true that the police, judges, etc. will get away with punishing you out of all proportion for not complying with their perfect little clockwork world of self-incrimination, confession, plea-deals, etc.
Prosecutorial/judicial immunity in action. I'm not sure if Greenwald understands that there is zero possibility of any recourse here. This tragedy happened precisely because there is not the slightest possibility of any legal recourse against the prosecutors in this case.
Clayton: Prosecutorial/judicial immunity in action. I'm not sure if Greenwald understands that there is zero possibility of any recourse here. This tragedy happened precisely because there is not the slightest possibility of any legal recourse against the prosecutors in this case. Clayton -
I guess the biggest hurdle, even if the prosecutors can be brought to court, whos to say that other prosecutors won't use this opportunity to weed politically incorrect prosecutors out of the system and protect the politically correct, and making it seem like this issue is "solved"?
Schools are labour camps.
@eliotn: Clearly, the answer is not introspective political pogroms but, instead, to alter/abolish the statutes that grant prosecutors and judges absolute immunity - but without retroactivity. Let the chips fall where they may.
@Clayton
RE: Uh huh, yeah, I'm full of shit link
According to your own link ...
"Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench ..."
"Note, however, that, while the judiciary may be immune from lawsuits involving their actions, they may still be subject to criminal prosecutions ..."
"... the King's delegates for dispensing justice ..."
RE: "However, if you don't file your 1040 (long enough), you'll eventually go to jail."
I want to know how many years constitutes "eventually" because that statement is demonstratably false.
RE: Prosecutor immunity
"Conclusion. Prosecutorial immunity, an atextual and judicially-created doctrine, shields advocative conduct from suit. Whether or not the prosecutor acted with bad faith or ill will matters not. The challenge, then, is differentiating between “advocative,” “administrative,” and “investigatory” functions."
http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
RE: "but it is also true that the police, judges, etc. will get away with"
Like the post office, the institution of the peoples grand jury predates the constitution. Revive it and teach people how to use it.
RE: "However, if you don't file your 1040 (long enough), you'll eventually go to jail." I want to know how many years constitutes "eventually" because that statement is demonstratably false.
I haven't filed since around 1998, when I last worked (been supported by family since). A few years later they sent me a letter asking me to file, and I replied back stating that my understanding of the documents was that they were fine with me not filing since I wasn't working (I've since checked and see the same non-requirement to file if one has no income). They haven't bothered me since. I'm not looking forward to the day I start working again, and having to decide how to deal with the IRS. Maybe the country will implode by then and I won't have to deal with them...
@Clayton RE: Uh huh, yeah, I'm full of shit link According to your own link ... "Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench ..." "Note, however, that, while the judiciary may be immune from lawsuits involving their actions, they may still be subject to criminal prosecutions ..."
Y u no comprehend??
We were talking about judges on the bench.
And as for criminal prosecution, I can give you an illustration to show why this doesn't help. This judge liked to whack off during trials. He's going to jail. But see, he's not going to jail because of any of the victims of the injustices he doubtless dealt out (irrespective of the judicial sex toys, LOL). Rather, he's going to jail for violation of the law (exposing himself) completely irrespective of the role as judge he was performing at the time he was violating the law.
It is conceivable that the victims of this judge might even be able to file for mistrial and have their cases re-heard. But what they cannot do, is sue the judge for the damages done to them as a result of his decisions made while on the bench. In other words, let's say one of this judge's convicts files to have his prior court case resulting in conviction overturned and declared a mistrial by an appeals court. On re-trial, the person is found to be innocent... but he's lost five years of his life in prison. Can he sue the original judge for the five years of lost income, prison abuses, lost time with his children and family, missed recreation, etc. etc.?? No, he cannot. He cannot hold the judge accountable because the judge has absolute immunity. Even if the judge was committing a crime during the court proceedings, he still cannot be held liable because he is absolutely immune.
If you're a US citizen earning income, the IRS will hunt you down and throw you in jail if you do not report it. You are required by law to report your income to the IRS.
RE: Prosecutor immunity "Conclusion. Prosecutorial immunity, an atextual and judicially-created doctrine, shields advocative conduct from suit. Whether or not the prosecutor acted with bad faith or ill will matters not. The challenge, then, is differentiating between “advocative,” “administrative,” and “investigatory” functions." http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
"Advocative" conduct means as the advocate of the people. In other words, anything (s)he does/says/files in respect to the proceedings of the court case itself. Look at this Swartz case... there is no way in hell the prosecutors will be held responsible for anything they did to Swartz. At best, some other prosecutor might try to trump up some criminal charges against them in some unrelated way, or go after them for "administrative" misconduct in retaliation... if they decide to throw these prosecutors under the bus. But regardless - the charges that the prosecutors were filing, the threats of lengthy sentences and the other brass-knuckle legal tactics they were employing cannot be the basis of any action whether by the State or by the Swartz family. Period. Any case filed along these lines would be thrown out before it even crossed the judge's desk. The paralegals would handle roundfiling it - not even worth the judge's time.
RE: "but it is also true that the police, judges, etc. will get away with" Like the post office, the institution of the peoples grand jury predates the constitution. Revive it and teach people how to use it.
At this point, there are no magic cures. I agree that we need legal revivalism in a lot of areas, but activism - political, legal or otherwise - is a complete waste of time. We need to go back even further than that, we need to go back to the basic-basics... solid families, local communities of neighbors building solidarity with one another, informal commerce and contract networks (handshake law/economy), etc. And even further back than that, we need individual moral reformation... people need to throw this idea of amoral living overboard and go back to a basic commitment to being decent and upright on whatever basis works for them... religious, rational, mystical or whatever. We need to identify and ostracize moral nihilists and socially censor their ideas (mental ostracism). The whole case has been thoroughly argued and there is simply no possible argument for amoral human social order. It is and always was intellectually bankrupt but it has taken an immense toll on human life and flourishing.
"The gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." - Viktor Frankl
RE: Y u no comprehend?? We were talking about judges on the bench.
And what does that mean? What constitutes a court exactly? Judicial power? Administrative functions? A judgment? An order? A court of record v. non-record? The official record required to be maintained by law?
Such questions are merely the beginning of a long list that must be answered. Just because a so called judge is allegedly "on the bench" does not mean a judicial function is being peformed by a court of record with subject matter and personal jurisdiction with probable cause, etc.
RE: In other words, anything (s)he does/says/files in respect to the proceedings of the court case itself.
NO! That is complete horseshit. A public servant can not trespass against the king and claim ignorance of law.
RE: Look at this Swartz case
I don't care about the Swartz case. It does not appear to be in dispute the man stole something. If other people want to take up some crusade about the just punishment of theft that is their cause, not mine.
Theft is not even akin to government persecution based on fraudulent presumptions lacking full and honest disclosures. I care about people who are getting raped, pillaged, or plundered without their consent. I care about people who exercise natural and fundamental rights when there is no evidence the people are operating as a citizen franchise, for hire, to deerive a gain or government benefit at the time of an act complained of. I care about natural and fundamental rights to live, work, or travel without any government identification or interference.
I don't even understand 90% of what you said in your last post. Speak a language I can understand.
It does not appear to be in dispute the man stole something.
Um, that's exactly what's in dispute - JSTOR said he's fine after he returned the data (not pressing charges), thus, no theft occurred. This is no different than someone accidentally walking out with merchandise, being stopped by a store clerk, explaining his mistake, returning the merchandise and going on his way. And it's no crusade - this is par for the course in America today. The courts have financially destroyed both my life and my sister's life in different ways, so I'm pretty well acquainted with how the legal grist mill operates.
Clayton: My favorite example is tax law. It is true that there is no statute says "An American citizen must pay taxes" or even "anyone who earns an income must pay taxes" or anything equivalent. However, if you don't file your 1040 (long enough), you'll eventually go to jail. Why? Well, because you didn't report your income to the government, which there is a statutory requirement (no, I don't know the statute offhand) to do. You are compelled to report your income - if you earn an income - to the government. But the thing is, you can't just send off an email to the IRS saying "I earned $42,000 last year" and be done with it. You must complete the appropriate forms - Form 1040 or whatever. In order to complete a Form 1040, you must fill out the line that says "Taxes You Owe", and you must follow the form's rules in doing so. So, if your taxes are $6,500, you must fill this in. Once you do this, you have confessed the amount of taxes you owe. If you later try to challenge the IRS legally, they will produce the Form 1040 as a written confession of your tax obligation. So it's a nice trick they've put together. I suppose you could challenge the compulsion to report income... I would be shocked if no one has - and if it went all the way to the Supreme Court, they will simply say "It is in the interests of State that the income reporting be compelled. Next case." In other words, the Supreme Court explicitly uses the "interests of State" (lower courts do, as well, but I think SCOTUS is the final arbiter of how this sledge-hammer gets wielded) as the criterion for upholding or striking down laws. But since you must confess your tax-obligation in order to report your income (and I believe this obligation is administrative, making it impossible to challenge through the courts!), this is tantamount to a forced-confession. The people that devise this crap are the biggest assholes, ever.
From what I understand this is largely what Irwin Schiff taught. He would fill out their forms, and then just put "0" in the line for income and taxes owed.
Keep in mind of course, Schiff has spent something like 7 years behind bars, and is still there to this day. But there are several individuals holding seminars similar to Schiff's, who have yet to serve any time. Two of them are former IRS agents, whom you can see in the playlist below. I have a suspicion there may be a lack of interest in going after them because it wouldn't be worth the attention they could call to the whole thing (combined of course with the credibility that comes with their credentials. That would certainly be some spotlight that is a lot more costly than whatever meager tax liability these folks would otherwise be paying.)
Here's a playlist.
Well, I think it's a dangerous game no matter what. My view is that the prudential thing is to file all income that touches a bank account. Logically, then, a person should do all he can to have as much of his income never touch a bank account. Just by not paying taxes on that income, you will nearly double it if you earn anything close to a professional income in the banking system.
Where I think people might get away with this, to an extent, is that it's kind of like the old intelligence agency dictum that the most important secret of all is the secret itself. What does this mean? Well, the secret that you can eavesdrop on your enemy or have a mole in his organization is often so much more valuable than any particular intelligence you have obtained through this particular source, that you're better off not acting on the intelligence obtained than acting if it means giving away your source. The "secret" of the tax code is that it is wholly legally unjustifiable... so the IRS will endure a few crackpots - who make beans for income anyway - rather than risk going after someone and having to "explain" why they "must" pay taxes. It is better to leave the "secret" secret and lose a couple dollars here and there in taxes than go after every tax-resister crackpot and be forced to have to come right out and say "we force you to pay taxes whether you like it or not because we can." But it's a dangerous game and I don't recommend playing it.
Clayton:so the IRS will endure a few crackpots - who make beans for income anyway - rather than risk going after someone and having to "explain" why they "must" pay taxes.
Yeah that was kind of my point. In fact that was exactly my point.
On the bank note though...how exactly do you expect anyone - who doesn't "make beans for income" - to have any significant portion of it not touch a bank account?
@JJ: I think that online currencies - Bitcoin most notably - are opening up some new possibilities here. Also - if you're in a flexible position (young, no attachments), I would recommend refactoring one's thinking about earning an income altogether... move overseas to someplace(s) where under-the-table trade is part of the local culture's DNA. In some places in the US, this is still there but you have to be part of that particular sub-culture (e.g. gypsies). But even Craigslist is opening more possibilities for cash/coin/barter transactions. And then there's just the "mindset" aspect of it... if you own a small business that does all its business on paper, this is still an awesome way to get "leads" for off-the-books transactions of other kinds as you talk to, meet people, etc.
With some creative thinking, you can devise truly safe ways to move more of your income off the books than you realize. Let's start with the small business scenario. As you have your regular revenue coming in and expenses going out, you can also have unexpected revenue/expenses. For example, you come across an opportunity to make money buying a used car at a massively discounted price and turning around and reselling it. Since this income is not regular income, you don't need it to keep your regular P/L in the black, supposing it's ordinarily in the black. But now you need to "lose" this income somehow... if only you could... hire some "Mexicans" to fix your drywall or blow off your parking lot, or whatever. Now, generalize and get creative. The basic principle is that you move things off the books by fictional expenses (the IRS can't prove you didn't really pay someone cash for something!), not by trying to hide income. Trying to hide income is why 99% of people get caught.
Now, if you have a trusted partner - a family member or someone of that level of trust - who also owns a small business... why, you can do business with each other and charge each other for all kinds of "real" expenses. Do you see where I'm going with this? Now you can move some serious dough off the books. Just don't get greedy and try to bring in untrusted folks... if you get ratted out, you're doomed. In fact, that's the essence of how taxation works. By threatening both sides of a transaction "We'll come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't complay with reporting ALL your revenues/expenses (transactions)" which means that the IRS puts everyone on the "Prisoner's Dilemma" where the safest course of action for everyone is to simply report everything. But if you have a network of two or more people with solidarity (mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system. Not only can you do real business with each other off the books, but you can do real business with untrusted parties and then use each other to move that money off the books with fictitious expenses.
However (there's always a however... lol), I wouldn't try implementing a system like this on a very large scale. They do track the financial system absurdly closely and it is conceivable that they might have ways of detecting "money leaks" above a certain threshold. I.e. suppose every year for the last five years, there have been $5M per year less deposited in Mobile area banks than has been withdrawn. This means there is money "disappearing" in or around Mobile. This might set the FinCEN hounds off snooping. I'm not asserting that they can do this, but I would be surprised if they aren't trying to be able to do it or already capable of it. So, this is probably only valid in the 6-figures or less range. Above that, you need to get more "industry standard" methods like Cayman accounts or whatever it is these days that all the rich assholes are doing to keep their money out of harm's way.
RE: JSTOR said he's fine after he returned the data
Fair enough.
RE: I don't even understand 90% of what you said in your last post. Speak a language I can understand.
So you can understand I dug up a link to a free book available online:
A Treatise on the Law of Attachments, Garnishments, Judgments, and Executions by John R. Rood
http://books.google.com/books?id=16ozAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA552&lpg=PA552&dq=A+Treatise+on+the+Law+of+Attachments,+Garnishments,+Judgments,+and+Executions+by+John+R.+Rood&source=bl&ots=7kp-23RTnW&sig=r16eH7hD40VqiFlcN0EjGX33yXE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8UgBUe-BFor49gSP4IDACQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=A%20Treatise%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Attachments%2C%20Garnishments%2C%20Judgments%2C%20and%20Executions%20by%20John%20R.%20Rood&f=false
Read the first couple chapters which talk about fine technical details of courts, orders, judgments, etc. It is unreasonable to presume everything an official does is a judicial function or official duty. As previously stated ignorance is disadvantage. If one is ignorant they can not precisely articulate an injurty caused by abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction.
@John James
Schiff's argument was "show me the law." I do not dismiss the importance of Schiff's work but the work and arguments of those in his generation has evolved and there is now a far greater understanding is what is going on.
God created the earth and gave it to man for his use.
In God's system of nature man is whole and no man has any dominon over any other man.
Man has created governments and systems of law which divides man by title/rank/status/condition/standing/etc. whereas some men possess a superior title than others.
For instance:
Man, in a capacity of people, as in We the People, created the Government of the United States of America and in doing so provided the rules for government.
The constition has absolutely nothing to do with the people it is only applicable to government, its agents, or assigns. Same applies to all statutes, decrees, orders, and codes.
In the United States of America the form of government is a republic whereas like Rome, all citizens are constituent members comprising the body politic and all citizens are equal under the law.
Government exercises a privilege to derive a gain or profit from land given to man for his use.
Governments are created for the use of man by his consent.
A citizen is a capacity or division of a man. It is a title. A rank. A status. When a man is operating as a person he is using a citizen title to perform a function of government involving persons or property to derive a gain or benefit.
Now here is the reason the Dean Cliffords and all of us other folks who have evolved this argument are the biggest threat to governemnt:
Me to judge: Who are you?
Judge: I am judge so and so.
Me to judge: I did not ask "what" you are, I asked who are you because I do not recognize you. (ie. a title is a what not a who and the entire legal realm is the fiction of arbitrary what's)
Moving on ...
Me to judge: I do not care "what" you want to call me. Since the subject matter is "what" I only care that the prosecutor honestly and fully disclose "what" he is asserting I am and show proof of claim. If he is claiming I was operating as a person occupying the office of a United States citizen franchise performing a function of government to derive a benefit or gain and while operating in that capacity I performed some act afoul with some statute, code, order, or decree then I demand proof of claim I actually realized a gain or benefitted.
I will accept as proof of gain evidence of a payroll record or other document verifying a payment or benefit amount received at the time of the act being complained of.
Now .. this is not shit I am going to merely say. It is going to be in writing and on the official record.
I hope you enjoy your stay in prison. I'm sure it's a pleasant place.
@Live_Free: Did you never see the bullies beat up the nerds in middle or high school?
BULLY: (Knocks NERD up against locker, scatters his books and papers across the floor)
NERD: You can't do that! I'm going to tell Miss Fleenor!
BULLY: Oh yeah?
BULLY: (Drags nerd off to the stair well under the stair steps, and punches him in the stomach while his buddies muffle his cries)
----
There is no point in trying to hold a logical debate with the bully. At the end of the day, he always holds the trump card: wasting your ass. The dangerous game that tax-resisters are playing is that the power of the State cannot be wielded willy-nilly by government employees. Each kind of government employee has certain, very delimited powers. This limitation has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the public or even the law... it has to do with protecting the power both from internal coup and from inadvertent incitement of popular resistance to the government by braindead behavior of low-ranking government officials.
Thus, the police officer can't just bring you to your knees and execute you with a bullet to the back of your head. But he can shoot you on the thinnest of pretexts... the key is that the pretext must be there so that he can justify pulling the trigger to his superiors. If he were to pull the trigger without pretext, his superiors would turn on him not because he has committed murder (murder is absolutely fine, so long as the pretext is in place), but because he has endangered the entire structure. Popular revolt might ensue. The public might start calling for the police chief's head on a platter. The family of the victim migth sue and then the department will be in the legally "uncomfortable" position of having to justify a lot of things that are nomrally just taken for granted (for example, the right of police officers to hit people over the head - or even shoot them - for no good reason, etc.)
This is the same dynamic that is happening in tax law. You are a small fish - a minnow. The big fish out there - the multi-millionaires and even billionaires - can actually afford a phalanx of tax lawyers to make their legal case against the government. This means the government has to be very careful in how it allows tax law to be argued at all. This is why the law does not anywhere say "anyone who earns an income must pay taxes on it"... because this would open taxation itself to legal challenge. Since there is no law requiring it, it cannot be challenged. But it is a mistake to think that this means that it's all "just a trick" and all you have to do is dial this secret magic combination and you're free... if that were true, all the big fish would have long ago done that. But in order to avoid talking about why you have to pay taxes at all (in court), the government may choose to simply ignore your tax-resistance precisely because you are a small fish. This has nothing to do with the law or morality and solely to do with protecting the power to tax itself.
As with back-talking a cop, it's a dangerous game with very little upside and a very large downside. Remember that the police officer can get away with almost anything as long as he's smart... if you start back-talking him, he can say he felt "threatened" by your "demeanor" and this justified taking you down to the ground. Once on the ground, off-camera, he can then proceed to do pretty much anything short of shooting you and he has two ways to explain it. The first is to say you were resisting arrest (this is why he'll keep shouting "stop resisting! stop resisting!" for the camera even though you're not resisting) and the second is to say you were injured during the takedown. And even if he falters in his excuses because he's not been around long enough to fully understand how the system works, the worst that will happen to him is a write-up, which literally means nothing. It's like when your boss writes you up for being 5 minutes late to work. Big woop.
If you're playing the tax-resistance game and an IRS agent and/or tax court does take interest in you, they have the same kind of latitude. They can preemptively freeze all your assets including bank accounts and credit cards, garnish your entire paycheck indefniitely, put tax liens on any real estate or even automobiles you own, and they can physically intimidate you as well. Very little upside... lots of downside.
Clayton:(mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system.
Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges.
Above that, you need to get more "industry standard" methods like Cayman accounts or whatever it is these days that all the rich assholes are doing to keep their money out of harm's way.
I love how you're basically promoting tax evasion, yet still refer to those who avoid paying taxes the same way as all the progressives.
@JJ: Hmm, I don't see anything pejorative in "tax-resisters"... I mean, I know the progressives mean it pejoratively, but so what, they mean "capitalist" pejoratively, too... "tax-protestors" seems more patronizing to me so I don't use that and I can't think of any other labels... "fuck-no-to-taxation-ers" maybe? If you have any other suggestions, I'm happy to hear them...
Yes... and it's always through the use of moles, snitches and other individuals who really shouldn't have been trusted in teh first place. But the bigger point here is that, by the time you're moving enough revenue that you catch the attention of the authorities on that account alone, you need to be using the more sophisticated methods that are already being used by the big fish today. By the time you're there, you should have enough cash to afford to attend a "Sovereign Man" type seminar and learn from the pros who do it all the time (and don't get caught) how to keep big money off the books. A lot of it just boils down to being able to afford to be cross-jurisdictional.
Clayton:@JJ: Hmm, I don't see anything pejorative in "tax-resisters"... I mean, I know the progressives mean it pejoratively, but so what, they mean "capitalist" pejoratively, too... "tax-protestors" seems more patronizing to me so I don't use that and I can't think of any other labels... "fuck-no-to-taxation-ers" maybe? If you have any other suggestions, I'm happy to hear them...
This is the kind of thing that really confuses the heck out of me. You're obviously intelligent, but there's a great deal of the time when you avoid having to deal with things you say that don't make sense by simply ignoring them when you're called on it, or pretending something else was said entirely. One of the more prominent examples I can think of is this thread.
That being said, please point out to me where in the world the phrase "tax-resister" appears in the quote I posted from you. And then see if you can find anything that you do see as "pejorative" in it.
Clayton: But if you have a network of two or more people with solidarity (mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system. Not only can you do real business with each other off the books, but you can do real business with untrusted parties and then use each other to move that money off the books with fictitious expenses. John: Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges. Clayton: Yes... and it's always through the use of moles, snitches and other individuals who really shouldn't have been trusted in teh first place.
Clayton: But if you have a network of two or more people with solidarity (mafia, family, gang, subculture, tight-knit religion, whatever), then you can break this system. Not only can you do real business with each other off the books, but you can do real business with untrusted parties and then use each other to move that money off the books with fictitious expenses.
John: Right, because gangbangers and goodfellas totally stay out of jail. It's not like Al Capone or anyone like that ever got caught up in tax evasion charges.
Clayton: Yes... and it's always through the use of moles, snitches and other individuals who really shouldn't have been trusted in teh first place.
*sigh - and sometimes you obsess over crap that isn't really that important... this was nothing more than an honest mistake, I just completely missed that you were referring to "rich assholes".
And yeah, there are a lot of rich assholes in the world. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people who are rich are assholes... because they got rich by hurting people, that is, utilizing the political structure to trample over the rights of their fellow citizens. This is an inevitable consequence of the way the system is built. You think all those commentators, pundits, anchors, etc. that appear on FOX aren't loaded (6-figure net worth or greater)? And married to doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, city council-members, etc. who are also loaded? Whose fortunes are built on legal privileges (State-regulated licensures and permits) and on expanding, promoting and working for the State?
Clayton:You think all those commentators, pundits, anchors, etc. that appear on FOX aren't loaded (6-figure net worth or greater)? And married to doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, city council-members, etc. who are also loaded? Whose fortunes are built on legal privileges (State-regulated licensures and permits) and on expanding, promoting and working for the State?
Did I say that?
Thanks for providing another example of my point by completely avoiding the contradictory nature of your comments in the exchange I most recently quoted.
@stupid ass fear mongering comments
I haven't filed anything in over two decades. I have a sign on my car where a license plate is normally mounted that states "private property, not for hire, no licesne or registration required to travel, exempt from levy, consumer good" I do not carry any kind of government identification around. I am not in jail. I am not going to jail unless I am straight up kidnapped by thugs. I have been kidnapped and placed in jail before. I have been stolen from by thugs before. There was once a time I was ignorant and subscribed to all of this fictional, arbitrary, legal title bullshit but don't think for one second I am going to buy into any of the bullshit in this thread that I should be afraid of something ... kiss my ass. It is not going to happen. These people 1) put on their pants one leg at a time the same way I do, 2) chose to be a public servants, and 3) are there to serve me if I so choose. I am supposed to live in fear of <1% of the population? Get real.
If you do not have any taxable income to report and are exercising your natural and fundamental right to travel I might be interested in what you have to say but as I have previously stated ... If you are living in fear I do not give a shit what your opinion is. You want others to do for you that which you are afraid to do for yourself. You are the problem not the solution.
@Gotlucky
I hope you enjoy 100% taxation, being disarmed, and rounded up and placed in a FEMA camp when the SHTF. I am sure it will be a pleasnt country when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world and the capital possessing class gets out of dodge. Enjoy prison .. pfft ... who the hell are you? You are nobody and your words are not worthy of my attention. Let me know when the libertarian messiah arrives to deliver everyone from coercion so this free market utopia I keep hearing about that doesn't already exist because a free market by definition is absent violence can be implemented.
I've thought about compliance and traced it not just to fear, but also the idea that oneself is responsible for being put in jail, etc. because one can do things to reduce its likelihood (similar to the ideas on the way-overworked topic of rape). As long as that idea is legitimate, one will follow what they want so as not to regret what happens if they don't. But it's possible for one to arrive at the conclusion that it's a broken idea, that the things necessary to satisfy them are insane to try to do, and stop entertaining it intellectually. That dissolves all the empty beliefs around it, and starts a cascade revealing all the things one was doing to serve it, a much more compelling case for how fruitless it really was to try all that time. This sort of thing can occur in other situations, like family (where I experienced it).
@Live_free: I guess these folks were just all ignorant of their God-given right not to be indiscriminately fire-bombed:
The fact is that the government are thugs and, thus, if they deem it in their interests to kidnap you, they will. Your only recourse? The thugs' courts! And, by the way, they are not lawful proceedings, they are courts - an extension of the King's court. They are shams, star-chambers, kangaroo-courts... they are modeled on military tribunals (victor's justice) and Inquisitional courts (self-incrimination, confession, voluntary agreement to abrogation of one's rights, etc.) and are nothing but the administrative arm of the State cloaked in the robes of "law" to give the illusion that something to do with law is happening in them when, in fact, what is occurring has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with law.
The government is like a blind, rabid dog (h/t Blumert, Rockwell). Just like the safest place to be around a rabid dog is as far away the hell as possible from it, so the best place to be around the government's police or courts is as far away the hell from them as possible. The "freeman" does the precise opposite of this. He solicits contact with the police by not placing license plates on his car, and he solicits contact with jail guards and court officers by getting arrested in order to "prove" his innocence to the ambivalent-yet-slightly-amused judge. As Will Grigg ceasely documents, every one of these encounters is life-threatening.
They can do anything they want to you... and get away with it.
Same goes... let me know when the libertarian messiah shows up and makes trespass an impossibility so everyone can live in a free market. Government blah, blah, blah. And what would you do about a mafia or thug pda arising in a market with no state? Not a damn thing. Don't throw hypocrite arguments at me because I am going to point it out.
It is the king's court and I am one of the American King's. You are apparently one of the subjects of my government. I have no sympathy for you or any of your fellow indentured servants who volunteer into their own bondage. I 100% support my government keeping its subjects in line. The subjects get to pick and choose their own leaders so they have no reason to bitch about any of the rules their elected leaders impose upon them.
The "freeman" does not solicit conflict. The freeman knows he does not need a plate on his car and can back that fact up using governments own authorities of case law. So don't sit here and bitch or whine to me or try to distort "freeman" because you put a plate on your car despite that for the last one hundred years the supreme court has repeatedly held the people have a natural and fundamental right to travel. The right to travel is so well settled in case law it is not open for debate according to any court.
I have already acknowledged what I do but you are going to stil sit there and run your mouth and bitch about how afraid you are of your own government. You are going to continue to bitch about how evil the state is and pretend like you would act differently if there was no state. The majority of force rules in nature. Get over it because there is nothing you can do about it. It is never going to change and since the majority of force will always rule in nature it doesn't matter what so called system man thinks up it will always be subject to a potential hostile takeover.
As I previously stated an electron is ruled by a negative charge and simply removing the nucleus does not change that fact. Removing the nucleus simply creates an environment where an electron has no orderly orbit and I am not for electrons governed by a capacity randomly traversing society. I am hopping out of this thread because I am not going to continue to listen to an electron bitch about being governed by a capacity when men can be anything they want to be. You choose servitude and I choose freedom. Obviously servitude must have some good benefits and afford you a quality of life that you don't feel freedom offers. In any event it sounds like your problem and it also sounds like you have no right to bitch about your own choices when you are free to do anything you want to do. What you want is freedom with limited liability and I do not subscribe to or endorse the notion one can only be free in a so called free market because a libertarian messiah intervenes against nature to create a market absent violence.
@Blargg
I liked your post. I hope you write more about your thoughts on compliance.
I haven't filed anything in over two decades. I have a sign on my car where a license plate is normally mounted that states "private property, not for hire, no licesne or registration required to travel, exempt from levy, consumer good" I do not carry any kind of government identification around. I am not in jail.
Pics or it didn't happen. Even better, show us a video of you driving around in your car where there are police with that sign instead of a license plate.
And yet you respond anyway. Whatever, you're a liar, so it doesn't really matter what you say. Show us a video of you driving not only without a license plate, but also with your voodoo that apparently wards off agents of the state. You have to be driving IN SIGHT OF police officers for this video to even mean something. It's pointless if you drive it around in some backwoods area where no one can see it.
gotlucky:It's pointless if you drive it around in some backwoods area where no one can see it.
Whoa...Freedom4Me73986? Could this really be you?
Does that guy even drive a car? Wouldn't he have to buy gas...with gold? lol