PDA

View Full Version : Transforming America



jetgraphics
18th July 2010, 04:59 PM
There is one reform that would transform American government and eliminate a host of problems.
It would reverse centuries of corruption and partisanship.
What is it?
Make all taxation voluntary.

Do YOU want a government to help secure your rights, then ante up.
Otherwise, don't pay.

Without coercion, the revenue stream would shrink, as would the government.
All the bureaucracies would be unfunded. All the politicians would not afford their staffs and perks. Only truly selfless individuals would wish to serve in such a government.

Freedom means being able to say "No" to taxation.

jetgraphics
18th July 2010, 08:40 PM
There is one reform that would transform American government and eliminate a host of problems.

Make all taxation voluntary.

Involuntary servitude has been made illegal. All servitudes are now voluntary. Taxes are a servitude. Possibly you just have to dig a little deeper to find a remedy?

Involuntary servitude, except after conviction, is unconstitutional.

The o.p. was not an invitation for rhetorical questions. It was to infuse the idea that if all taxpayers ceased volunteering, that would transform America. {Which is a thought that no "talking head" in mass media dare utter to the people, wingmanship notwithstanding.}

In Article 1, Section 8, we see that the States delegated the power to impose taxes (and uniform imposts, duties, excises) to the U.S. Congress.
In Article 1, Section 9, we see that direct taxes are apportioned by population (not only citizens).
{But direct taxes on non-private property or citizens is based on consent.}
Import duties (aka imposts) are "voluntary" in that one can choose not to buy an imported product or service.
Excises are taxes levied on government granted privileges, again, not compulsory to purchase them.

The income tax was an excise levied upon a revenue taxable activity (ex: usury, alcohol), where the tax was based on the income from the activity and not necessarily levied on the specific product or service. The flat rate corporate income tax is a constitutional excise tax.
The progressive rate income tax on wages is based on a compact, via FICA, and compacts with usurers (Federal Reserve).

However, thanks to widespread indoctrination, few Americans connect the dots.

One's right to life cannot be subject to taxation. . . unless by consent.

What folks should do is to write a polite letter to their respective governments - city, state, federal - asking about which evidence of consent empowered them to "violate" your natural and personal liberty, and your private property rights. When did you consent to a tax upon your right to life, to work, to trade your labor, and to own?
At best, I get "We'll get back to you later...". More prevalent are the absence of replies.

Of course, if you read their laws, they only tax privileges or "real and personal property". They never bother private property, absolutely owned. Likewise, only citizens are burdened with civic duties to pay taxes, serve on juries, and in the militia. American nationals aren't mentioned as obligated parties.

But until you look for yourself, you won't believe me.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/constitution-and-law/disinformation-eradication-ignorance-amputation-pt-1

jetgraphics
19th July 2010, 06:15 AM
American nationals aren't mentioned as obligated parties.
In life you get to control what you create. Look to your creator to determine your obligations. American nationals are the SUBJECT of these regulations. I don't pay Panama taxes because I am a non-resident alien to Panama.

Please present corroboration to such statements.

I can find no evidence that the American national is subject to or object of any regulation or taxing statute that is limited to "persons liable".

jetgraphics
19th July 2010, 07:41 AM
I don't pay Panama taxes because I am a non-resident alien to Panama.

Please present corroboration to such statements.

I can find no evidence that the American national is subject to or object of any regulation or taxing statute that is limited to "persons liable".

You can find this material in Ch 17.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/browse.html

http://i26.tinypic.com/ngx1f7.jpg

Hope you feel comfortable being classed a "demonym".

Have you had any success obtaining an American National passport? American National, U.S. National, U.S. citizen are synonymous terms. But you can define yourself as a U.S. Buttercup if you so desire. These are not greatly covered by the U.S. code either.

Coincidentally, I contacted the Passport office, in 2000, about passports for nationals who were not citizens. They answered that one should fill out the same form, omit sections that do not apply, and attach an addendum if one wished.

In my passport, it states "citizen/national" of the United States of America.
In other words, one can be a citizen and or national of the USA.
Does that satisfy you?

BTW - American National, U.S. National, U.S. citizen are NOT synonymous terms.
A citizen is a subject, and in the republican form, a voluntary assertion.
A U.S. citizen is one born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.
No free American can be born a subject, obligated to perform civic duties without it being involuntary servitude.
Nationality is a condition of birth and parentage.
Title 8 defines a "U.S. national" but not an "American national".

jetgraphics
19th July 2010, 07:53 AM
FWIW - The word demonym comes from the Greek word for "populace" (δῆμος demos) with the suffix for "name" (-nym).
(From Wikipedia)

sirgonzo420
20th July 2010, 06:15 AM
Coincidentally, I contacted the Passport office, in 2000, about passports for nationals who were not citizens. They answered that one should fill out the same form, omit sections that do not apply, and attach an addendum if one wished.

In my passport, it states "citizen/national" of the United States of America.
In other words, one can be a citizen and or national of the USA.
Does that satisfy you?
I am not the one who needs to be satisfied. You are the only one who can be satisfied with your own status. I am quite happy with my status of non-resident alien with respect to the USA. I don't have a passport but I do have a notarized apostilled (Mexico/Canada only) request for safe passage. Other countries would cost $5 each (added as necessary). I'll go with the supreme court from 1831 in their discussion of Cherokee Nation vs Georgia (5 Pet 1) in which the U.S. is described as foreign to the several States. I don't like passports anyway as they are used to request safe passage across battle lines during time of war (and there is no war).



BTW - American National, U.S. National, U.S. citizen are NOT synonymous terms.
A citizen is a subject, and in the republican form, a voluntary assertion.
A U.S. citizen is one born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.
No free American can be born a subject, obligated to perform civic duties without it being involuntary servitude.
Nationality is a condition of birth and parentage.
Title 8 defines a "U.S. national" but not an "American national".
I classify myself as an Iowan. I could care less what others choose to call themselves.


Care to share how you went about doing that?

sirgonzo420
20th July 2010, 07:37 AM
Care to share how you went about doing that?

No one can force you to participate in a body politic. The 14th amendment body politic that everyone confuses with the organic U.S. was only created in 1868 and 15 Stat 249 declares participation to be voluntary. You un-volunteer in a lawful manner that makes your intention fairly clear. This is not expatriation. It is un-volunteering. The background material is provided by LB Bork and PAC.

That does not necessarily make the position easy to support. Probably 99% of the people (being brain washed) identify the U.S. with a land mass. They even think the constitution is the "law of the land" as if the land really had a law outside nature. If the land did have a law then an amendment would not be capable of changing it.


But how did you get them (gov't officials) to acknowledge that you don't volunteer into their body politic?

Lots of things sound good in theory and on paper, but getting gov't employees to do what is asked of them is another thing entirely.

Can you travel to Mexico without a passport?

If so, what steps can I take so that I can do the same?

jetgraphics
21st July 2010, 11:48 PM
PAC concentrates on the 14th amendment problem and its solution.

I find PAC to be less than correct (i.e., inaccurate) in its logic, statements, and facts.

An example from:
http://www.pacinlaw.org/perspectives/part_1.php

As noted in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted by the consent of the governed.

Actual text:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In more modern English, governments are instituted to secure rights, governing those who consent.
Those who haven't consented, cannot delegate powers.
But that does not vitiate the original authorization - to SECURE the aforementioned rights (life, liberty, and property ownership).
That is why the government MUST act to secure rights of the illegal aliens, the accused, a corpse, and anyone else, whether or not consent was granted by them.

What PAC wants you to assume, is that the governments of the states of the American Union are not de jure.
(In law, the term de jure simply means: Lawful; or, of right.)

However, I found that all the constitutional (and thus de jure) power for the alleged abuses of Congress can be traced back to Article IV of Confederation, 1777:


Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them. If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, - or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

In case you weren't properly informed by the indoctrination centers of government propaganda, a pauper is defined as one who accepts charity from the public treasury.
(i.e., all enumerated human resources are paupers at law.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/361

"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p.1410

The "joke" is that constitutionally suspect status crimes were prosecuted between 1777 and 1935, with vigor. But for some reason, after Socialist Insecurity (and the abolition of the pauper's oath), the constitutional government ceased prosecuting them. Ergo, we have "the homeless" problem that didn't exist 100 years ago. (Vagrants got the "bum's rush" or 90 days in the slammer.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath
PAUPER'S OATH - A pauper's oath is a sworn statement or oath by a person that he or she is completely destitute or a pauper, i.e. without any money or property.

Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.

One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States
Federal law is as follows:

" I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."

[Ed. note: Seventh amendment guarantees the "rules of the common law" and a constitutional jury trial when the value exceeds $20. FDR abolished pauper's oath as a prerequisite for "entitlements" because every participant surrendered his private property rights, and became a "human resource" owing billions and billions more than he would ever own or possess.]

I conclude PAC to be another disinformation source, to confound the sheeple.

Phoenix
22nd July 2010, 12:18 AM
There is one reform that would transform American government and eliminate a host of problems.
It would reverse centuries of corruption and partisanship.
What is it?
Make all taxation voluntary.


According to Harry "I'm a liar for money" Reid, it is "voluntary." ::)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Phoenix
22nd July 2010, 12:19 AM
All servitudes are now voluntary.


Yup, that's right! You have the choice of compliance, jail, or death. Whoever said the US Government doesn't believe in self-determination!

jetgraphics
22nd July 2010, 12:27 AM
You have the choice of compliance, jail, or death. Whoever said the US Government doesn't believe in self-determination!

That is an erroneous conclusion.
I left national socialism in 1993, and haven't been jailed or killed off (yet) for non-compliance with non-law.

I stipulate that it is difficult for most properly conditioned people to think of the alternatives, since there are so few examples of success. But that may be remedied by a patient study of law, and a series of innocent queries to the public servants.

I sympathize with the quandary that many readers are in. If I went back in time, 30 years, and told myself what I know now, I wouldn't believe me, either.

Until the Republican form of government is eradicated by the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, there is still hope.
The law is still on the books, wherein you will find that servant government honors the individual's natural and personal liberty, his absolute ownership of himself, his labor, his property, and even his children.

However, if you're one of the persons liable (voluntary subjects), you will not prevail, for you have surrendered that precious birthright, that endowment of your Creator.

jetgraphics
22nd July 2010, 04:16 PM
I conclude PAC to be another disinformation source, to confound the sheeple. That is your call. A trespass must be detected before a remedy might be constructed.


If charged for a criminal injury to the person or property of another, what purpose would "demanding" their oath and bond have on your case?
None.

If charged for a violation of a regulation or rule that is only applicable to a "person liable", what purpose would "demanding" their oath and bond have on the case?
None.

In short, if you're not a "person liable" and you haven't injured another person or their property, the servant government will leave you alone, regardless of the convoluted (and somewhat entertaining) verbiage on the PAC site.

But if you ARE a "person liable", you will be held accountable for violations of the rules and regulations that pertain to you and yours.

Beware the con men who make simple things complex so as to hide their predation upon you and yours.

All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.
If you surrendered your property rights, in exchange for access to "entitlements" (pauperization), all that remains is policy.
If you surrendered your birthright of sovereignty, in exchange for political liberty, all that remains is policy.
Participation is sufferance (passive consent).

iOWNme
28th July 2010, 07:25 AM
Good info here....


I have read most of the PAC site, but have never gotten into what it takes to 'get on board'.

Palani - Does PAC/Bork advocate getting rid of the SS number (non consent) as a part of the 'State National' move?

Just curious....

I just know back in the day, there were people who sued the IRS proactively to prove what authority they had, and these men had an SS#, and the IRS would drag out the lawsuits for YEARS. Maybe this was just a bunch of crapola (on the IRS part) or there may have been something to being the Plaintiff and forcing them to prove liability? The only thing they would ever show up with was a 10 year old 1040 where the guy had signed his name under 'Taxpayer', that was their only proof....But then they killed him anyway before it ever went to trial. Ala Bill Cooper....