louisiana passes law banning cash for sales of anything 'used'

[chad]

has this already been discussed? can't believe i missed this.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/236218-Cash-Transactions-Banned-by-Louisiana-Government-Takes-Private-Property-Without-Due-Process

This summer, the State Legislature and Governor of Louisiana passed a law that bans individuals and businesses from transacting in cash if they are considered a "secondhand dealer". House Bill 195 of the 2011 Regular Session (Act 389) broadly defines a secondhand dealer to include "... Anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a non-profit entity, shall be deemed as being in the business of a secondhand dealer. " The law then states that "A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property..." The broad scope of this definition can essentially encompass everyone; from your local flea market vendors and buyers to a housewife purchasing goods on ebay or craigslist, to a group of guys trading baseball cards, they could all be considered secondhand dealers. Lawmakers in Louisiana have effectively banned its citizens from freely using United States legal tender.

The law goes further to require secondhand dealers to turn over a valuable business asset, namely, their business' proprietary client information. For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller's personal information such as their name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports. If a seller cannot or refuses to produce to the secondhand dealer any of the required forms of identification, the secondhand dealer is prohibited from completing the transaction.

This legislation amounts to a public taking of private property without compensation. Regardless of whether or not the transaction information is connected with, or law enforcement is investigating a crime, individuals and businesses are forced to report routine business activity to the police. Can law enforcement not accomplish its goal of identifying potential thieves and locating stolen items in a far less intrusive manner? And of course, there are already laws that prohibit stealing, buying or selling stolen goods, laws that require businesses to account for transactions and laws that penalize individuals and businesses that transact in stolen property. Why does the Louisiana State Legislature need to enact more laws infringing on personal privacy, liberties and freedom?

Motivating the introduction of this legislation was an increase in criminal activity, necessitating law enforcement to develop additional tools in tracking potential criminals. Thefts of copper and other precious metals have risen recently with higher commodity prices and mounting pressures from the economic downturn. The added restrictions under this recent legislation have come about under the pretense of cracking down on crime and helping the government take care of you, all at the cost of your individual privacy, economic, civil liberty and freedom.

Interestingly enough, although Pawnshops are still required to obtain clients personal information and transmit their client database information to law enforcement, they are exempt from the restriction of cash payments. A jeweler next door to a pawnshop cannot offer clients the same payment method offered by its competing pawnshop neighbor.

Act 389 passed by unanimous consent of the Louisiana House of Representatives and only mustered one nay vote (Senator Neil Riser) from the State Senate. The governor signed legislation into law on July 1, 2011.

[Cebu_4_2]

First I heard of it. Sounds like they are getting desperate for sales tax and want everything they can not electronically track. Besides a few sting operations I don't see how they can effectively enforce any of it. I don't see PMs being second hand except of course 'junk' silver.

[mamboni]

Capital Controls, Capital Controls, Capital Controls.

If the state was really motivated by theft of state property, they could have specified which items are subject to reporting, such as industrial guage copper wire, fire hydrant parts etc. Instead they throw a wide net. They want to snuff out cash transactions so they can collect taxes and track incomes for capital gains purposes. They will fail. The harder they squeeze, the more commerce will move to the underground black market. Professional criminals are not going to have any trouble fencing their ill-gotten goods, just as criminals have no concern for gun laws. The only people who suffer form these neverending laws are the lawbiding.

[gunDriller]

i knew i saw another article about this this morning.

""But if they see a large number of pieces of scrap metal coming in, they need to call the police to be sure," he said.

In July, government issued a 90-day ban on copper and other scrap metal exports, and the Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers Bill, which aims to tackle "unregulated cash for gold and scrap metal businesses" was tabled in parliament last week."

http://www.tribune242.com/news/10112011_Copper-theft_news_pg5


THE BAHAMAS ?!?!?!

i couldn't figure out where "Tribune 242" is ... i looked at one of the obituaries -
http://www.tribune242.com/10062011_Sophia-Olivia-Greene--32_Obits

... did a search for the funeral home ... MORAL OF THE STORY - even in the Bahamas, they're cracking down on pawn shop gold & scrap metal sales ?

[palani]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XifQdIycWVMJ:e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/343620/Louisiana-2011-HB195-Chaptered.pdf+louisiana+house+of+representatives+a ct+389+cash&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgDAeTVRKQI_sG4FMVMH_thjASjicqgGhWaon81 7eIZnzD4bsV80HjzDNVmMzDv-Izg-f4NDG21ezn5mL5YVP-wwH8uw501-vJF-RWfUzvV_msSoU3PKDj4_46DSKVZkYIoXBmU&sig=AHIEtbQq_E4_IVc9SzA4DikP2w_SbNDLHA


§1861. "Secondhand dealer" defined

A.(1) Every person in this state engaged in the business of buying, selling,.....

Ask yourself how you arrived in this state which has been established as the federal overlay of Louisiana. One method is by the possession of cash in the form of FRNs. Get rid of these negotiable instruments and find that this statute has no application. In fact the statute will not apply at all because you will not accept FRNs and you will not have any to pass around.

[palani]

Here is a part of the act that should be of interest


§1864.2. Purchase of precious metals and stones from minors; purchase of junk
from minors prohibited; penalty

B. No owner, employee, keeper, or proprietor of a junk shop, junk store or
yard, of a junk cart or other vehicle or boat, or collector of or dealer in junk, shall
receive or purchase from any minor under seventeen years of age, any goods,
chattels, wares, or other merchandise, including any material defined in R.S.

37:1861.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the sale or purchase of
manufactured registered bullion bars, coins, or other numismatic items. The
provisions of this Section shall not apply to a retail tire outlet or an automobile dealer
dealing in tires.

D. Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not less than twenty-five
dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not less than fifteen
days nor more than three months, or both.

Quite odd ... evidently a retail tire outlet or auto dealer can deal with minors for junk or precious metals.

[beefsteak]

Ask yourself how you arrived in this state which has been established as the federal overlay of Louisiana. One method is by the possession of cash in the form of FRNs. Get rid of these negotiable instruments and find that this statute has no application. In fact the statute will not apply at all because you will not accept FRNs and you will not have any to pass around.


interesting interp, Palani. Thank you.

In otherwords, since the feds own the FRNs and not the possessor is the owner, the feds get to dictate what you can and can't use the FRNs for.

Perfectly convoluted nanny state logic, and Louisiana has fallen for it. Fascinating!

[chad]

the slow march towards digital, trackable, 'currency' continues.

[palani]

Perfectly convoluted nanny state logic, and Louisiana has fallen for it. Fascinating!

Not just Louisiana. All the several States now ONLY write code for the federal overlay. Do a search in the code of any state and find that all code ONLY apply to THIS STATE.

I believe the controversy is left over from the 1840's and Andrew Jackson taking on banking. I have code from Iowa in 1866 that establishes that each country treasurer is to keep two sets of books, one for specie and one for paper. What places you in jepardy of ALL state laws is the presence of a FRN (a single one, that is all it takes) in your pocket or billfold.

The FRN is what makes you less a man and more a corporation. The income tax liability comes attached to the paper as well.

[7th trump]

Not just Louisiana. All the several States now ONLY write code for the federal overlay. Do a search in the code of any state and find that all code ONLY apply to THIS STATE.

I believe the controversy is left over from the 1840's and Andrew Jackson taking on banking. I have code from Iowa in 1866 that establishes that each country treasurer is to keep two sets of books, one for specie and one for paper. What places you in jepardy of ALL state laws is the presence of a FRN (a single one, that is all it takes) in your pocket or billfold.

The FRN is what makes you less a man and more a corporation. The income tax liability comes attached to the paper as well.
Palani please specify where you find that merely having frn's in your possession qualifies you in the over lay!

Having mexican peso's in you possession doesnt make you a mexican national. Neither does having a mark make you a german national....neither do FRN's make you fall within the federal overlay. All American bills have on them "legal tender for all private and public".
You've talked about the differences between private and public before..................public is not what jurisdiction you want to be in.......private is!
Take for instance the general population, for the most part, didnt file 1040's, werent required, until they applied and used the ssn. In order for to get a ssn you must say, under penalty of perjury, you are a "US citizen".
Furthermore, the SS5 form is the only form that requires you to attest to being a "US citizen". All other subsequent application forms require the disclosure of the ssn.......drivers license, marraige license, mortgages, ect..........nothing but you asking permission as a serf to do something otherwise is free to do as a Iowan, or Texan or Californian.


"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


The Federal Reserve Act was enacted years before the Social Security Act and Americans were using FRN's between that time and not required to file.
You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, to being a federal "US citizen" in order for you to fall under their jurisdictional code.


As for the income tax liability thing frn's have nothing to do with your liability.
As history records tens of millions of Americans filed 1040 for the first time in their lives (1940) 1 year after working towards social security credits. This is also 1 year after the 1939 code which for the first time included anyone working towards Social Security credits (chapter 24 of subtitle C). In 1940 tens of millions of new 1040's were filed.
The income tax liabilty is found in Section 1 of title 26 and the regulation thereof (26cfr1.1-1(c)) specifically says only "US citizens" are imposed.


1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income....



(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349............

If your analysis is correct the income tax code would read something like this:


Who is liable. Every person holding in possession of frn's. For other rules governing the acquisition of frns.....................................

But it doesnt!

[beefsteak]

Me thinks someone is trying to "pick a fight" with palani here.

Consider this, your own Source of sources. Then sit down and shut your piehole, 7th.

Sure is hypocritical when you want to bash someone with scripture, and yet you want to argue with palani when you conveniently forget your own straight from the lips of the Crucified One when you disagree on this self-same forum on this particular FRN topic?

Hypocrite!

New Covenant, Book of Mark, Chapter 12, verses 15-17 (NIV)


....But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

They brought the coin, and He asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

[ximmy]

Palani's interpretation of laws should be challenged... One might end up in jail otherwise...

[Spectrism]

Me thinks someone is trying to "pick a fight" with palani here.

Consider this, your own Source of sources. Then sit down and shut your piehole, 7th.

Sure is hypocritical when you want to bash someone with scripture, and yet you want to argue with palani when you conveniently forget your own straight from the lips of the Crucified One when you disagree on this self-same forum on this particular FRN topic?

Hypocrite!

New Covenant, Book of Mark, Chapter 12, verses 15-17 (NIV)


Errr uh, Beefstake- you might consider getting some control of those emotions. Any member here has the right to question any other and you are not elected, crowned or ascended to be the rulership hereover.


What Palani says is true in principle. Just engaging in the money system means that you respect the authority of that system. Using FRNs implies that you value THEIR money. At some point soon, you will either be outside the money system or totally under their control for every move you make.

[beefsteak]

Disagree. Anyone can challenge anyone. Witness the Temple Priests challenging the Christ re: denarius.

Obviously the idiots and pre-conditioned can't accept authoritative speech or literal translation of common sense law applications.....Christ nor palani's.

There is no bodily injury in buying and selling. That's administrative court tactics, and not common law. After many months of observation, you have snark down to an art form. Must be lonely, yes?
Not the first time I've suffered your slings an arrows.

If nothing else, Christ not only spoke then and speaks now TRUTH, but also as the supreme authority on common sense.

[beefsteak]

Just hate hypocrisy, Spec. Especially your ilk's selectively applied brandishing of it.

And yes, hatred is an emotion.

Duh.

[Spectrism]

Just hate hypocrisy, Spec. Especially your selectively applied brandish of it.
And yes, hatred is an emotion.
Duh.

LOL....BeefSnark, your words reveal you. Actually, hate is not an emotion. It is a choice. If you allow emotion to be your guide and drive your choices, then you have no foundation in truth. One really should not lash out in emotional outburst about hypocrisy, and then exhibit that same loathful trait.

Any time you would like to point out hypocrisy in my words, I would be glad to review them. Until then, eat some pie.

[Joe King]

Me thinks someone is trying to "pick a fight" with palani here.

Consider this, your own Source of sources. Then sit down and shut your piehole, 7th.

Sure is hypocritical when you want to bash someone with scripture, and yet you want to argue with palani when you conveniently forget your own straight from the lips of the Crucified One when you disagree on this self-same forum on this particular FRN topic?

Hypocrite!

New Covenant, Book of Mark, Chapter 12, verses 15-17 (NIV)
....But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

They brought the coin, and He asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.


7th is technically correct in that one must have and use an SS# in order to be liable in the first place.

Also, that scripture you quoted is the most mis-quoted scripture in the Bible and it does not say to give Caesar the coin, but rather to give to him that which is already his. Which can be applied to anyone.
ie everyone gets what is his and nothing more.

Besides, in our system I am as Caesar. Does that mean you have to give me your coin?

[beefsteak]

My wife would tell you that the most misquoted scripture is obey your husband. LOL

And, yes, that is exactly what that means. Doesn't mean you get it "back" without consequences, but if it's yours and I'm possessing it and you want it back, then under many spiritual and commonsense laws, it is yours.

Coming anytime soon?

[7th trump]

Beefsteak, I do not in anyway purposely bash Palani at all. I have conntacted palani off board.....he sometimes visits the city I live in....we live in the same general area.
I for one think Palani is in the lead in everything except this frn note issue suggesting liability of income taxes.
I simply dont see any correlation between using FRN's and being liabilty when statute says something totally different.
History suggests most common Americans werent liable until Social Security, being voluntary, brought them under the jurisdiction thereof (14th amendment).
Actually it wasnt until 1913 did you see the income tax cross into the private sector, but the full force wasnt until 1940 when title 26 added chapter 24 (Social Security) to subtitle C "Employment taxes" in 1939.
Funny thing is Social Security defines "employment" for the private sector in order to be liable under Subtitle C-Emloyment Taxes.

You forget that Rome was based on subjects when America we are suppose to be King, self rulers!
So if I want to render to what is ceasars then I will, but I dont and I dont have to..........................its America is it not?
FRN's are used in the private as well as the public, so no "one" ceasar is involved.

[beefsteak]

LOL....BeefSnark, your words reveal you. Actually, hate is not an emotion. It is a choice. If you allow emotion to be your guide and drive your choices, then you have no foundation in truth. One really should not lash out in emotional outburst about hypocrisy, and then exhibit that same loathful trait.

Any time you would like to point out hypocrisy in my words, I would be glad to review them. Until then, eat some pie.

Boy, do you have a lot to learn about emotions. That sterilzation / holiness standard denudes fundamentalist practictioners of even being able to identify and claim emotions correctly.

Astounding.

Your pie hole and your fly hole are both open it would seem. LOL

Palani is correct. Disagree all you want. Emotionally or otherwise.

[7th trump]

LOL....BeefSnark, your words reveal you. Actually, hate is not an emotion. It is a choice. If you allow emotion to be your guide and drive your choices, then you have no foundation in truth. One really should not lash out in emotional outburst about hypocrisy, and then exhibit that same loathful trait.

Any time you would like to point out hypocrisy in my words, I would be glad to review them. Until then, eat some pie.


"Until then, eat some pie"
Hahahahahahahahahaha...............
You have a way with words Spec!

[Joe King]

My wife would tell you that the most misquoted scripture is obey your husband. LOL

And, yes, that is exactly what that means. Doesn't mean you get it "back" without consequences, but if it's yours and I'm possessing it and you want it back, then under many spiritual and commonsense laws, it is yours.

Coming anytime soon?He did not say the coin was in fact Caesars.
...but even if he did mean that, if in our system I am as Caesar, what then? Who gets the coin?

[ximmy]

Boy, do you have a lot to learn about emotions. That sterilzation / holiness standard denudes fundamentalist practictioners of even being able to identify and claim emotions correctly.

Astounding.

Your pie hole and your fly hole are both open it would seem. LOL

Palani is correct. Disagree all you want. Emotionally or otherwise.

"Pie hole" is unacceptable language... go stand in the corner... :p

[Spectrism]

Boy, do you have a lot to learn about emotions. That sterilzation / holiness standard denudes fundamentalist practictioners of even being able to identify and claim emotions correctly.
Astounding.
Your pie hole and your fly hole are both open it would seem. LOL
Palani is correct. Disagree all you want. Emotionally or otherwise.

First, what are you doing in my "fly hole"? Wherever that is, please remove yourself immediately.

I did not disagree with Palani and I think the discussion was fine as correspondents were seeking to uncover truths.... until you stomped in trying to shut people's pie holes and other holes... wherever they are.

I don't claim to have all of the answers, only the right ones. :)


BTW- I will share my favorite with you-

http://simplyrecipes.com/photos/serving-blueberry-pie.jpg

[Horn]

I don't see how they can effectively enforce any of it.

In the U.S., its only a question of when they want to enforce it.

[Spectrism]

In the U.S., its only a question of when they want to enforce it.

Yeah- I think this is true. With the ability to make all transactions digital, we will see a zombie world of slaves owned by the ruler of this world. It will be important for everyone to understand that even under death threats, it will be necessary to exit the system. Not only will it mean refusing to use their fake money, but also not using their terms of commerce. You will not buy or sell, barter or trade. You will give and receive. You will not own anything but be a steward for your master. If you have not been diligent in selecting the RIGHT Master, you will be lost.

[palani]

Palani please specify where you find that merely having frn's in your possession qualifies you in the over lay!

First and foremost, there are no geophysical boundaries established for "this state". This can be found in Texas penal code


Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as: “This state includes the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water over which this state has power to define offenses.”

Adask covers the topic really well so I might direct you to his site for more in depth review of "this state".

Now what do you suppose is going to give "this state" power to define offenses. Once thing is certain, to gain jurisdiction you have to do something to grant jurisdiction to them. A person is a word, an action or representation. Say something or write something ... a word. Have in your possession something ... an action. Vote for a senator or representative ... representation.

I opine that possession of a negotiable instrument involving the debt of the U.S. is sufficient to introduce U.S. jurisdiction to you personally. AFter all, the FRN is said to be debt of the U.S. It is something that belongs to the U.S. (or the Federal Reserve). You would be classed a criminal if you destroy it so it does not belong to you (you ought to be able to destroy anything that belongs to you). 12 USC 411 says that ONLY Federal Reserve banks or their agents may handle a FRN. That seems pretty straightforward. An agent of the Federal Reserve is controlled by the Federal Reserve. Isn't this jurisdiction after all?

I guess maybe the concept I am suggesting is a little too simple. If you have no FRNs in your possession then you have nothing to report to the IRS. You have not used the credit of the U.S throughout the year and so should not owe anything to them or their agents for your non-useage.

Alternatively you might use David Merrills method of converting a FRN into lawful money by demanding the exchange from a Federal Reserve bank. You do this by asking a teller to exchange your FRN's per 12 USC 411 or by endorsing checks given you with "REDEEM FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411". These FRN's then given you (while they look the same) have the desirable feature of being "lawful" ... carrying no debt with them. Still, they look the same and have as little backing as any other FRN so carry much the same fraud with them as any other FRN. But then Congress says this is the way you SHOULD handle the situation and maybe you will find a jury to agree with you (don't be holding your breath though).

So as far as I am concerned the best solution is not to be in possession of any FRN at all. Nothing to report. No fraud propagated. No attached jurisdiction for this non-action although there are a few other avenues for jurisdiction to attach to the person.

No proof. No evidence. No smoking gun. Just logic.

[palani]

Palani's interpretation of laws should be challenged... One might end up in jail otherwise...

One ends up in jail for his/her own actions. Don't you believe it irresponsible to blame others for your situation?

[palani]

in our system I am as Caesar.

The Romans sure led everyone down the ole Appian Way. To be Caesar was to be the one chosen to be next in line for the throne. It was a wannabe position. The emperor was the one in power.

[7th trump]

First and foremost, there are no geophysical boundaries established for "this state". This can be found in Texas penal code



Adask covers the topic really well so I might direct you to his site for more in depth review of "this state".

Now what do you suppose is going to give "this state" power to define offenses. Once thing is certain, to gain jurisdiction you have to do something to grant jurisdiction to them. A person is a word, an action or representation. Say something or write something ... a word. Have in your possession something ... an action. Vote for a senator or representative ... representation.

I opine that possession of a negotiable instrument involving the debt of the U.S. is sufficient to introduce U.S. jurisdiction to you personally. AFter all, the FRN is said to be debt of the U.S. It is something that belongs to the U.S. (or the Federal Reserve). You would be classed a criminal if you destroy it so it does not belong to you (you ought to be able to destroy anything that belongs to you). 12 USC 411 says that ONLY Federal Reserve banks or their agents may handle a FRN. That seems pretty straightforward. An agent of the Federal Reserve is controlled by the Federal Reserve. Isn't this jurisdiction after all?

I guess maybe the concept I am suggesting is a little too simple. If you have no FRNs in your possession then you have nothing to report to the IRS. You have not used the credit of the U.S throughout the year and so should not owe anything to them or their agents for your non-useage.

Alternatively you might use David Merrills method of converting a FRN into lawful money by demanding the exchange from a Federal Reserve bank. You do this by asking a teller to exchange your FRN's per 12 USC 411 or by endorsing checks given you with "REDEEM FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411". These FRN's then given you (while they look the same) have the desirable feature of being "lawful" ... carrying no debt with them. Still, they look the same and have as little backing as any other FRN so carry much the same fraud with them as any other FRN. But then Congress says this is the way you SHOULD handle the situation and maybe you will find a jury to agree with you (don't be holding your breath though).

So as far as I am concerned the best solution is not to be in possession of any FRN at all. Nothing to report. No fraud propagated. No attached jurisdiction for this non-action although there are a few other avenues for jurisdiction to attach to the person.

No proof. No evidence. No smoking gun. Just logic.
You say "nothing to report to the IRS". I take that as your bases as not owing anything to them and their agents. Makes perfect logic!
However, the participation in Social Security, statute wise, causes the reporting.
If you will, I'd like to start a thread on this reporting issue and show just how its done.
Are you up for it Palani?
I'd like you to participate and bring in your logic to the table.
I want to put what I have researched and discovered over the last 13 or so years to test.

[palani]

You say "nothing to report to the IRS". I take that as your bases as not owing anything to them and their agents. Makes perfect logic!
However, the participation in Social Security, statute wise, causes the reporting.
If you will, I'd like to start a thread on this reporting issue and show just how its done.
Are you up for it Palani?
I'd like you to participate and bring in your logic to the table.
I want to put what I have researched and discovered over the last 13 or so years to test.

I urge everyone who owes taxes to the IRS or whoever to pay them promptly and not engage in the practice of dishonor. While I believe the ultimate loophole is that if you do not accept or hold any FRNs then the obvious conclusion is that there is nothing to report this is not the reason to adapt a policy of avoiding FRNs. Instead the reason is to expatriate "this state" and ALL of the statute code that has been generated for those who derive benefits from it. This includes state criminal codes and federal statutes (if not engaged in interstate commerce). But lets not forget the main benefit .... that you are not participating or cooperating in any way with perpetuating a fraudulent system on others.

The idea of expatriating "this state" I would suggest is more complicated that just giving away your cash. There are aspects of your behavior that will peg you to the fictional world. Recognizing the authority of a policy man or black robed cross dresser will get you there. Accepting mail with zip code attached will place you in the federal zone. These are just two behaviors. I expect there are around 20 more that I have not analyzed.

When it comes to evidence it has been said that the facts are on the moon. Facts mean nothing. It is your response when confronted with someone espousing facts that lands you in trouble. Arguing is dishonor. You will be punished for that dishonor.

So if you want to open a thread dealing with the short subject of IRS and withholding have at it. If I have anything to say I will mention it but I am not one to be held as an authority on the topic.

[ximmy]

I If I have anything to say I will mention it but I am not one to be held as an authority on the topic.

Might end up in the pokey huh?? :p

[palani]

Might end up in the pokey huh?? :p

As I indicated, I believe the path out of Oz is not a simple one but then you are in more of a "pokey" than I ever will be. Best review the construction of the bars of your own cell.

[midnight rambler]

Might end up in the pokey huh?? :p

The beast has it right where it wants you, living in fear and 'policing' others. Nice.

[7th trump]

Palani I do say, like you, do not dishonor or argue. If you have any liability pay it!
My intention is not to land anyone in jail, but to review and discuss the statutes and regulations pertaining to being a "paying" slave.
A simple reverse engineering of the statutes that lead straight back to Social Security.

[palani]

A simple reverse engineering of the statutes that lead straight back to Social Security.

When you use a statute you are proclaiming your participation in "this state". Rather than claiming these are foreign statutes which you have no duty to understand you are proclaiming instead that they are domestic laws that you not only understand but that you have adapted to prove your position (which I understand to mean that without the SSN there is no tax liability).

Sometimes people go too far to show that they have been educated when a little ignorance is better suited to the problem at hand.

[Large Sarge]

this is in response to the story I posted yesterday, in Penn. an entire steel bridge was dismantled, and hauled away for scrap (overnight)

LOL

you cannot make this stuff up.....

people showing up with bridge components to the scrap yard

LOL

[gunDriller]

this is in response to the story I posted yesterday, in Penn. an entire steel bridge was dismantled, and hauled away for scrap (overnight)

LOL

you cannot make this stuff up.....

people showing up with bridge components to the scrap yard

LOL

well, that's how the government can save money.

next time they want to build a Bridge to Nowhere, they can buy a stolen bridge.

makes as much sense as anything else they're doing.

[7th trump]

When you use a statute you are proclaiming your participation in "this state". Rather than claiming these are foreign statutes which you have no duty to understand you are proclaiming instead that they are domestic laws that you not only understand but that you have adapted to prove your position (which I understand to mean that without the SSN there is no tax liability).

Sometimes people go too far to show that they have been educated when a little ignorance is better suited to the problem at hand.
Whenever I have used a statute in response to addressing their issue I use it to let them know I understand its meaning and dont want it to apply to me.
Ignorance is surely two sided.
Ignorance of a statute almost got me in trouble because silence is consent.
So when my parents applied for my ssn when I was a weee youngin and I was still ignorant of its implications at the age of consent (18 ) ........didnt help matters after becoming aware of its implications!
Didnt stop them from proceding as I remained silent out of ignorance.

[jbeck57143]

Has anyone seen this website?
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/forum.php

According to these people frns can still be redeemed for lawful money, since the redemption clause is still present in the Federal Reserve Act. They say there are two sides to frns- the "public side" and the "private side".

The idea is that by endorsing your checks a certain way, for example "redeemed for lawful money", or something like that, you will then receive lawful money--not just frns, but US Notes in the form of frns, which serve the same purpose as US Notes, which aren't printed anymore (or the money deposited in your account will be lawful money)-because you're using the "public side" of the frns, not the "private side".

Here are a few more links
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/forumdisplay.php?16-Private-Credit-vs.-Lawful-Money

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/forumdisplay.php?33-Success-Stories
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think

[palani]

Ignorance is surely two sided..
.
.
Didnt stop them from proceding as I remained silent out of ignorance.

Bouvier does a good job of describing ignorance. It is a deeper subject than you might believe

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm


IGNORANCE. The want of knowledge.

2. Ignorance is distinguishable from error. Ignorance is want of knowledge; error is the non-conformity or opposition of our ideas to the truth. Considered as a motive of our actions, ignorance differs but little from error. They are generally found together, and what is said of one is said of both.

3. Ignorance and error, are of several kinds. 1. When considered as to their object, they are of law and of fact. 2. When examined as to their origin, they are voluntary or involuntary, 3. When viewed with regard to their influence on the affairs of men, they are essential or non-essential.

4. - 1. Ignorance of law and fact. 1. Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know. The law forbids any one to marry a woman whose hushand is living. If any man, then, imagined he could marry such a woman, he would be ignorant of the law; and, if he married her, he would commit an error as to a matter of law. How far a party is bound to fulfil a promise to pay, upon a supposed liability, and in ignorance of the law, see 12 East, R. 38; 2 Jac. & Walk. 263; 5 Taunt. R. 143; 3 B. & Cresw. R. 280; 1 John. Ch. R. 512, 516; 6 John. Ch. R. 166; 9 Cowen's R. 674; 4 Mass. R. 342; 7 Mass. R. 452; 7 Mass. R. 488; 9 Pick. R. 112; 1 Binn. R. 27. And whether he can be relieved from a contract entered into in ignorance or mistake of the law. 1 Atk. 591; 1 Ves. & Bea. 23, 30; 1 Chan. Cas. 84; 2 Vern. 243; 1 John. Ch. R. 512; 2 John. Ch. R. 51; 1 Pet. S. C. R. 1; 6 John. Ch. R. 169, 170; 8 Wheat. R. 174; 2 Mason, R. 244, 342.

[palani]

They say there are two sides to frns- the "public side" and the "private side".

Equivalent to Congress declaring it is permissible to commit murder with a shovel but not a pickaxe. Either way there is nothing behind the FRN (either public OR private) and whoever uses them in either fashion is propagating fraud. If not propagating then you are participating in a benefit provided by a foreign potentate (Congress).

[beefsteak]

Interesting, Beck.

Can't say as I've seen nor heard of that website before. However, one James Timothy Turner has publicly characterized David Merrill (whose user name appears multiple times on the first link you posted) as a "sits in the basement of his mother's home endlessly typing away on blogs" type person. Not exactly someone whose disasterous personal life squares with his lofty ideas typed endlessly and posted profusely on the internet.

Thanks for the heads up, tho'. Seems like a very deep rabbit hole to me, although I do accept the validity of the "public vs private" side of non-corporate fiction posited by brave explorers.