What Limits?

[iOWNme]

"To all those who still talk about representative government, will of the people, consent of the governed, and limited government, it's time to face reality. Here is one reason why."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyndl2NuFI

[7th trump]

"To all those who still talk about representative government, will of the people, consent of the governed, and limited government, it's time to face reality. Here is one reason why."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyndl2NuFI

Got to the 1:43 marker and shut it off.......the guy has no idea the difference between "The People" and "US citizens" or the jurisdictional plane between the two.
He's the product of the very same "garbage civic's 101" he's complaining about.
How do I know.....because in todays government class taught in public schools they don't teach the difference between "The People" and "US citizens".
But he's going to arrogantly stand there yapping his mouth about what's wrong with everything when he himself hasn't a clue.

He doesn't see the forest through the trees. And probably hasn't ever looked at any court to get a better understanding of the type of government we have.



"On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . ."
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.


"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)


“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)


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


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)



Some of the best court cites.


“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 , for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, [U]and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)


"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.


"The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)


Had this guy known what these court cites are speaking about he'd change his tune and know exactly what he needs to do and where.
But then again he's young, ignorant and cocky!
A recipe of off the cuff disaster!

[Cebu_4_2]

He is not mentioning who is behind this. He blames Barry as the sole proprietor of this take over. The video was taken offline in the middle of me watching it. Why THE FUCK are people letting the JEWS fucking TAKE IT ALL?

Talmud....

[Libertytree]

He is not mentioning who is behind this. He blames Barry as the sole proprietor of this take over. The video was taken offline in the middle of me watching it. Why THE FUCK are people letting the JEWS fucking TAKE IT ALL?

Talmud....

He's just telling you and showing you it's all BS.

Lots of YT's are crapping out lately, even stupid shit ones, entertainment ones etc..etc... da Joos have nothing to do with it.

[Cebu_4_2]

He's just telling you and showing you it's all BS.

Lots of YT's are crapping out lately, even stupid shit ones, entertainment ones etc..etc... da Joos have nothing to do with it.

Then why are the joo threads disappearing off jew tube?

En-Masse?

[Libertytree]

Got to the 1:43 marker and shut it off.......the guy has no idea the difference between "The People" and "US citizens" or the jurisdictional plane between the two.
He's the product of the very same "garbage civic's 101" he's complaining about.
How do I know.....because in todays government class taught in public schools they don't teach the difference between "The People" and "US citizens".
But he's going to arrogantly stand there yapping his mouth about what's wrong with everything when he himself hasn't a clue.

He doesn't see the forest through the trees. And probably hasn't ever looked at any court to get a better understanding of the type of government we have.
















Some of the best court cites.









Had this guy known what these court cites are speaking about he'd change his tune and know exactly what he needs to do and where.
But then again he's young, ignorant and cocky!
A recipe of off the cuff disaster!

Maybe you and Palani can team up together to give us all a step by step method of being free?

[Libertytree]

Then why are the joo threads disappearing off jew tube?

En-Masse?

IDK dude but it's clearly not a political/social thing because a lot of YT's are fucking up.

[iOWNme]

Got to the 1:43 marker and shut it off.......the guy has no idea the difference between "The People" and "US citizens" or the jurisdictional plane between the two.

Its because when it comes to human morality THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The only difference exists between your ears. Why do you IMAGINE there are 2 classes of humans? Stop looking to the scribbles of politicians and try actually thinking for yourself. Everything you cited is nothing but the scribbles of criminals who you IMAGINE to be legitimate. THEY ARE NOT. By citing them and referencing them you are only further legitimizing the enslavement of everyone, not just you.



He's the product of the very same "garbage civic's 101" he's complaining about.
How do I know.....because in todays government class taught in public schools they don't teach the difference between "The People" and "US citizens".
But he's going to arrogantly stand there yapping his mouth about what's wrong with everything when he himself hasn't a clue.

What species of men exist in either of these 2 'planes' you speak of? Are they both human? Then they both have the same Rights, and neither can morally use the initiation of violence. So according to human morality THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME. Again, YOU are clinging to what YOU were taught about the nature of 'Government' and all of the euphemisms it brings. You IMAGINE that people in 'Government' are something other than human. Costumes, magic ink and pseudo-religious ceremonies DO NOT change this, no matter how much you were told they do. Larken is trying to free your mind of the superstitions you were taught about how the world works. He is not the first. He is only repeating what many great philosophers have said for literally thousands of years. He is trying to open your cage and you are telling him to shut the door!


He doesn't see the forest through the trees. And probably hasn't ever looked at any court to get a better understanding of the type of government we have.

Can i start a 'Government' with 'courts' tomorrow and MORALLY hold you accountable to my 'laws'? What if i have a bunch of people who agree with me and sign a fancy document to prove it? What if we use magical ink and 'christian type' ceremonies? Then will you obey me? No? What it the difference? If men in 'Government' can create 'courts' and FORCE me or anyone to comply, why cant i do it to you? Oh, i forgot, you IMAGINE that people in 'Government' have special Rights that you or i do not have. I bet it has something to do with our prior discussion about 'Can a man delegate a Right he does not have'? The answer is OBVIOUSLY no he cannot.



Had this guy known what these court cites are speaking about he'd change his tune and know exactly what he needs to do and where.
But then again he's young, ignorant and cocky!
A recipe of off the cuff disaster!

Larken just PROVED to you (if you would have watched the video before yapping) that the 'Government' does not follow its own laws. People in the 'States' have passed laws that the Feds do not follow. They have done this since day 1 of the founding. Using the game of 'politics' ALWAYS leads to your own enslavement. Why dont you watch the vid and rebut his points?



Rebut this 7th,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

[iOWNme]

He is not mentioning who is behind this. He blames Barry as the sole proprietor of this take over. The video was taken offline in the middle of me watching it. Why THE FUCK are people letting the JEWS fucking TAKE IT ALL?

Talmud....

Do you have a mirror?

If you want to rationally debate the 'Jew' thing, start a new thread and i will be more than happy to oblige you. This thread is not about 2% of the population that may be evil. It is about the 98% of the population who IMAGINE they must obey the 2%. What do you suppose would have to exist between the ears of the 98% in order for them to IMAGINE that they are beholden to the 'tiny dot'? (the 2%)

[mick silver]

this make alot of scents , thanks it made me think ...Can i start a 'Government' with 'courts' tomorrow and MORALLY hold you accountable to my 'laws'? What if i have a bunch of people who agree with me and sign a fancy document to prove it? What if we use magical ink and 'christian type' ceremonies? Then will you obey me? No? What it the difference? If men in 'Government' can create 'courts' and FORCE me or anyone to comply, why cant i do it to you? Oh, i forgot, you IMAGINE that people in 'Government' have special Rights that you or i do not have. I bet it has something to do with our prior discussion about 'Can a man delegate a Right he does not have'? The answer is OBVIOUSLY no he cannot.

[EE_]

I'm not sure I follow some of your thoughts?


Its because when it comes to human morality THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The only difference exists between your ears. Why do you IMAGINE there are 2 classes of humans? Stop looking to the scribbles of politicians and try actually thinking for yourself. Everything you cited is nothing but the scribbles of criminals who you IMAGINE to be legitimate. THEY ARE NOT. By citing them and referencing them you are only further legitimizing the enslavement of everyone, not just you.

Q. Is it wrong to imagine 2 classes as the "haves" and "have-nots"



What species of men exist in either of these 2 'planes' you speak of? Are they both human? Then they both have the same Rights, and neither can morally use the initiation of violence. So according to human morality THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME. Again, YOU are clinging to what YOU were taught about the nature of 'Government' and all of the euphemisms it brings. You IMAGINE that people in 'Government' are something other than human. Costumes, magic ink and pseudo-religious ceremonies DO NOT change this, no matter how much you were told they do. Larken is trying to free your mind of the superstitions you were taught about how the world works. He is not the first. He is only repeating what many great philosophers have said for literally thousands of years. He is trying to open your cage and you are telling him to shut the door!

Q. Are they both human? Do we not have to ask the question "why do we exist" before that can be answered?



Can i start a court tomorrow and MORALLY hold you accountable to my 'laws'? What if i have a bunch of people who agree with me and sign a fancy document to prove it? Then will you obey me? NO? What it the difference? If men in 'Government' can create 'courts' and FORCE me or anyone to comply, why cant i do it to you?

Q. Would you agree that "might makes right".
Wouldn't your army and weaponry have to be larger then the existing to create your own court?



Larken just PROVED to you (if you would have watched the video before yapping) that the 'Government' does not follow its own laws. People in the 'States' have passed laws that the Feds do not follow. They have done this since day 1 of the founding. Using the game of 'politics' ALWAYS leads to your own enslavement. Why dont you watch the vid and rebut his points?

When a government doesn't follow it's own laws, they have pretty much sealed their own fate of a limited reign...no?

[7th trump]

Seriously Sui.....go here http://1215.org/ and take the red pill (click on the red pill) and please read what Mr. Thornton has to say. If its any insight, Thornton won against the IRS........Larken lost against the IRS and went to prison for it.
Bill Thornton blows Larken Rose (Roses arguement is heart felt, but wrong, and emotions should not be involved when dealing with law) completely out of the water at all levels of understanding. You never want to bring in personal emotions and thats just what you are doing with your crying about this human morality thingy.......its blinding you from seeing the forest!

Later when I get some time I'll respond to your post.....you wont like it, but I'll respond nonetheless.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I went to your link 7th Trump. That is truly a clever strategy for challenging the IRS.

Here's a brief summary of Bill Thornton's strategy. Let the IRS initiate a claim in a court action against you. They will open a 'Court of Record' which is a common law court. In a Common Law court, the sovereign makes a decree--"The defendant is required to file." That decree is the law--because it is coming from 'the sovereign'. So don't bother asking anyone to show you the law. The way to dodge this decree (the law) is to make a counterclaim challenging the IRS's claim of sovereignty--that is, their right to make that law. In the United States, no government agency is sovereign--it is the servant of the sovereigns of the country--the people. You just say to the IRS "I am not required to file or pay taxes. It is not my will. By what authority do you make this decree?" You just put them in their place. You (as one of the people) are the sovereign, they, as a government agency are servants, and cannot make decrees that their masters must obey. This is as far as Thornton goes. He provides links to where you can get more background on the legal aspect of this strategy. I would like to see a transcript of a court record where this strategy works before I would be willing to try it. I'd hate to be tricked where the consequences are going to jail.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

I'm not sure I follow some of your thoughts?



Q. Is it wrong to imagine 2 classes as the "haves" and "have-nots"

No, you can see it that way. But is there a difference in human morality between the two? I want YOUR personal opinion.





Q. Are they both human? Do we not have to ask the question "why do we exist" before that can be answered?


Ummmm.....Im not sure if your kidding or not, so i will entertain you. Human morality exists REGARDLESS of whether or not we can figure out 'why' were are here. We ARE here and human morality DOES exists.





Q. Would you agree that "might makes right".
Wouldn't your army and weaponry have to be larger then the existing to create your own court?

No i wouldnt. 'Might' can overpower me, enslave me or even destroy me, but 'might' CANNOT alter human morality by changing something bad (the initiation of violence) into something good (morally right).





When a government doesn't follow it's own laws, they have pretty much sealed their own fate of a limited reign...no?


ALL 'Governments' have a limited reign. I wonder why that is?

[iOWNme]

Seriously Sui.....go here http://1215.org/ and take the red pill (click on the red pill) and please read what Mr. Thornton has to say. If its any insight, Thornton won against the IRS........Larken lost against the IRS and went to prison for it.


Ive been there a million times years and years ago when i used to research the scribbles of 'Politicians'. I like how on the first page he quotes Cicero

"Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature."


Yet what did Bill do whne the IRS came knockin? He looked to the SCRIBBLES OF POLITICIANS to see if he needed to pay them or not. Does that sound very 'reasonable' to you? If i sent you a DEMAND to pay me money, would you go and check some of my scribbles to see if you should pay me or not? Or would you use REASON and LOGIC to figure out that you dont owe me a fucking dime?

Your arguing over who won or who lost, when the only thing that matters is Right and Wrong. I dont care about ANY 'court ruling' whatsoever. Its as laughable as the chicken scratches of a serial killer. Do you IMAGINE that something bad (stealing) can be made into something good (taxation) by way of magic scribbles and religious-cult like ceremonies? Why do you CONSTANTLY look to the scribbles of the most insane irrational self contradictory CULT on the planet when trying to figure out Right and Wrong? Do you have your own brain? Or do you rely on the scribbles of 'Politicians' to TELL you what Right and Wrong are? Do you IMAGINE that the 'Law' determines if something is Right or Wrong?

Thorton was Right because stealing is wrong. I dont need to be a Judicial scholar, or a Harvard Constitutionalist to figure that out.




Bill Thornton blows Larken Rose (Roses arguement is heart felt, but wrong, and emotions should not be involved when dealing with law) completely out of the water at all levels of understanding. You never want to bring in personal emotions and thats just what you are doing with your crying about this human morality thingy.......its blinding you from seeing the forest!

Later when I get some time I'll respond to your post.....you wont like it, but I'll respond nonetheless.

There is no such thing as 'Law'. Walmart has a bunch of 'Laws' on their books. Why dont you IMAGINE you must obey them? The scribbles are indistinguishable.

Now by me DARING to mention human morality, i am being 'blinded' from seeing reality? WOW! That takes the cake! Im not sure i have EVER met someone so INDOCTURNATED into the cult of STATISM in my entire life. Im not sure you are EVER going to be TRULY free. Because Freedom only exists in one single place: Between your ears. And every time i ask you to look there and tell me what you see, you INSIST on looking to 'Government' to give you your opinion.

[7th trump]

Ive been there a million times years and years ago when i used to research the scribbles of 'Politicians'. I like how on the first page he quotes Cicero

"Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature."


Yet what did Bill do whne the IRS came knockin? He looked to the SCRIBBLES OF POLITICIANS to see if he needed to pay them or not. Does that sound very 'reasonable' to you? If i sent you a DEMAND to pay me money, would you go and check some of my scribbles to see if you should pay me or not? Or would you use REASON and LOGIC to figure out that you dont owe me a fucking dime?

Your arguing over who won or who lost, when the only thing that matters is Right and Wrong. I dont care about ANY 'court ruling' whatsoever. Its as laughable as the chicken scratches of a serial killer. Do you IMAGINE that something bad (stealing) can be made into something good (taxation) by way of magic scribbles and religious-cult like ceremonies? Why do you CONSTANTLY look to the scribbles of the most insane irrational self contradictory CULT on the planet when trying to figure out Right and Wrong? Do you have your own brain? Or do you rely on the scribbles of 'Politicians' to TELL you what Right and Wrong are? Do you IMAGINE that the 'Law' determines if something is Right or Wrong?

Thorton was Right because stealing is wrong. I dont need to be a Judicial scholar, or a Harvard Constitutionalist to figure that out.





There is no such thing as 'Law'. Walmart has a bunch of 'Laws' on their books. Why dont you IMAGINE you must obey them? The scribbles are indistinguishable.

Now by me DARING to mention human morality, i am being 'blinded' from seeing reality? WOW! That takes the cake! Im not sure i have EVER met someone so INDOCTURNATED into the cult of STATISM in my entire life. Im not sure you are EVER going to be TRULY free. Because Freedom only exists in one single place: Between your ears. And every time i ask you to look there and tell me what you see, you INSIST on looking to 'Government' to give you your opinion.
You cant see the forest through the trees.....you're confused.
Keep participating in Social Security and refuse to pay the associated taxes and see if your theory works out for you.
Tell the DoJ the IRS cannot steal from you when the government has you on the Social Security books as earning "wages"...........aka taxable income!
What do you think is going to happen?

Do you think
A They are going to run scared or-
B Look at you as a hypocrite wanting something from the public for nothing.

You have the choice to participate in Social Security or not....which is it?
Or are you going to keep yapping your ignorant mouth looking foolish because you are ignorant that Social Security is voluntary?

The government hasn't forced anyone to participate in Social Security...there is no law that says you must participate or go to jail.
In fact, grasshopper, there an administrative regulation saying the opposite.
Do you understand what administrative means?
Yes moron, its really under the administrative section............it means how is Social Security applied to the public.
You sign the W4 do you not?
Why is it that you must sign a W4 if you are under the belief its mandatory.
Its sounds pretty fucking stupid doesn't it.....but that what you believe....you believe in stupidity.
You never questioned it.
That's because you are out chasing idiots like Larkin Rose when you should be asking the real questions and doing the real research.....but apparently drumming up your emotions with Larkins stupidity must be extremely appealing to you.

[7th trump]

Tell me Sui Juris what does the 16th amendment say to you?
In your own words explain what is the 16th saying.


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Ares]

Tell me Sui Juris what does the 16th amendment say to you?
In your own words explain what is the 16th saying.

It tells me they attempted to give themselves power for which they have no power or right to do.

Sui Juris is saying that the laws you read and interpret have no meaning in the grand scheme of things. If your neighbor came and plowed your driveway and sent you a bill. Put a gun to your head and forced you to pay it. Was it morally right? Under what obligation are you to pay for a service you did not want, or ask for?

We've had many discussions on the repercussions of signing a W-4. But I've seen the IRS go after people who were being paid under the table. How can they justify taxing that income when there was no signed W-4?

[palani]

How can they justify taxing that income when there was no signed W-4?

If the payment were specie (gold and silver) then there would be no justification. The fact that most transactions (whether plastic card or FRN bills) are the property of the Federal Reserve then there is every right for the Federal Reserve (and IRS as the agent of Treasury) to regulate those transactions.

[EE_]

Q. Is it wrong to imagine 2 classes as the "haves" and "have-nots"


No, you can see it that way. But is there a difference in human morality between the two? I want YOUR personal opinion.

A. *Not sure I understand the question, but the haves, meaning those with great wealth, tend to sell-out their morality for power and money. In my experience, average people are mostly moral people that stand on principle.
The elite care nothing about morality, or human life...only that they keep power. Is it just the nature of man, or something more? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When I was in charge of people in my business, I can truthfully say I never pulled a power play over the people under me. It was a fault to the people I worked under. The people I worked for wanted me to rule people by fear. My management style was to work with people, treat them as equals and to gain their respect. Respect out of fear is not respect.

Q. Are they both human? Do we not have to ask the question "why do we exist" before that can be answered?


Ummmm.....Im not sure if your kidding or not, so i will entertain you. Human morality exists REGARDLESS of whether or not we can figure out 'why' were are here. We ARE here and human morality DOES exists.

A. you seem to take life and humanity at face falue, by what you see. Is it possible we all have it all wrong and this is all some kind of bizarre illusion?
The older I get the less I understand why we exist, or if any of us are really human. I do believe a higher evolved alein species walks among us.
Is human morality in our genitic make-up...or is it something that is conditioned, or taught to us?
Maybe trying to understand why we are here, will lead us to the answer of morality?

Q. Would you agree that "might makes right".
Wouldn't your army and weaponry have to be larger then the existing to create your own court?


No i wouldnt. 'Might' can overpower me, enslave me or even destroy me, but 'might' CANNOT alter human morality by changing something bad (the initiation of violence) into something good (morally right).

A. Look man, I have always been a rebel and will die a rebel. I have never believed in anyone having authority over me. I've ignored their laws and have broken most of them.
The only thing that exists in my world, is the might these people in power have and the consequence of my actions.
Still not sure where morality comes from?

Q. When a government doesn't follow it's own laws, they have pretty much sealed their own fate of a limited reign...no?


ALL 'Governments' have a limited reign. I wonder why that is?

A. *see 1st answer

[7th trump]

It tells me they attempted to give themselves power for which they have no power or right to do.

Sui Juris is saying that the laws you read and interpret have no meaning in the grand scheme of things. If your neighbor came and plowed your driveway and sent you a bill. Put a gun to your head and forced you to pay it. Was it morally right? Under what obligation are you to pay for a service you did not want, or ask for?

We've had many discussions on the repercussions of signing a W-4. But I've seen the IRS go after people who were being paid under the table. How can they justify taxing that income when there was no signed W-4?

All depends on what the IRS has on the individual.
For instance illegal substance dealers, most of the time they are getting some sort of assistance from uncle government be it food stamps, disability or what ever.....all of which is public money coming from the Social Security Trust fund. Lets say they get arrested for dealing in drugs and are found with 10,000.00 dollar cash. The IRS is notified who then start the investigation process who find out none of the moneys has been reported.
Another example is my neighbor who's brother installs furnaces. My neighbors furnace went out so he called his brother. His brother was just about done when the city inspecter came on site from seeing the company trucks parked out side and called the city to see if there was a permit....there was no permit recorded so the inspecter shut down the installation.
His brother was audited by the city which some how kicked up the IRS to audit the business from doing work under the table.

All income is to be reported when you are on the public dole....even income from oversea's unless the income is exempt from the statutes.

Guess which government agency decides which earnings are exempt from being "income"?
Its not Congress!
Nor is it the IRS!

Yep you guessed it....its the Social Security Administration
If any occupation is exempt from Social Security's "employment" definition.........the earnings from those exempt occupations are also exempt from being "income", by definition, and arent even required to be reported.
Now lets just not participate in Social Security all together....do you think any of the earnings are required a W4 for reporting?

Ever wondered why the IRS ( a collection agency having no legislative powers) can issue ssn's?
Ever wonder why a 1040 cannot be processed without a ssn?

Get the idea just how much Social Security plays a role in taxation in this country?
The government despite what Sui has to say about it not obeying its laws obeys the Constitution to the letter.
Sui's problem is he doesnt ask the right questions nor is he looking in the right places.
Hes in reality blinded himself from seeing the truth.
He wants to accuse me of being a statist because he doesnt understand whats going on.
How I appear to some as being a statist is beyond me when the anwers they are seeking are in the statutes.
It may not be in the form they like or want to see but the answers are right in front of them.

[Ares]

Now lets just not participate in Social Security all together....do you think any of the earnings are required a W4 for reporting?

Would love not having to participate in social slavery. But I do have a signed W-4 on file. Have been doing some reading over at 1215.org, and even the SSA's website, and I'm not finding any information on how to contest my earnings with SSA. They pretty much go on the presumption that you signed, that's it, you're now required to pay.

Some could argue that being forced to sign in order to provide sustenance is Threat, Intimidation or coercion. However, you wouldn't be able to prove it in a court of their law.

[palani]

Would love not having to participate in social slavery. But I do have a signed W-4 on file. Have been doing some reading over at 1215.org, and even the SSA's website, and I'm not finding any information on how to contest my earnings with SSA. They pretty much go on the presumption that you signed, that's it, you're now required to pay.
You have to sign one every year you know.

[Ares]

You have to sign one every year you know.

Yep and it has to match what my employer tells the SSA, if not I get red flagged and subject to an audit.

[palani]

Yep and it has to match what my employer tells the SSA, if not I get red flagged and subject to an audit.
Maybe I phrased my sentence improperly. What I meant to say was a W4 signed several years ago is not valid this year. You have the OPTION to sign one every year and if you don't then you may cite the statute of fraud.

[7th trump]

You have to sign one every year you know.
You are only required to sign a W4 if you are going to decide to participate in Social Security.
There are only two (2) statutes the Paperwork Reduction Act requires on the form W4.
One, not all, of the reasons behind the Paperwork Reduction Act was to give the public the authorizing law behind the W4.
These two statutes found on the W4, by PRA and PA rules, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf are statutes 26usc 6109 and 26usc 3402 (specifically 3402(f)(2) relating to "employment").

You should know that the purpose of regulations are to help interpret the statute to properly apply the law.
Each statute can have different regulations listed at different locations in the CFR (code of federal regulations) for different interpretive reasons. The law can be vague, but the interpretation is in the regulations.
For administrative reasons (section 301) you have regulation 301.6109-1(d).
This reg is about disclosure of the ssn on government forms (Privacy Act plays a role here).
This reg says an individual doesn't have to disclose the ssn (participating in Social Security) if the individual does not "wish" to.
26usc 3402 is the statute that authorizes the employer to withhold and deduct from your pay.
The W4 is doing two things...one is disclosing the ssn to participate in Social security and the second is authorizing the employer to withhold and deduct.
It takes your signature to allow these two impositions to happen to your property.
This by no means sounds like the government is simply stealing property from you.............you are giving them the authority to do so.....by ignorance of the employer.

[7th trump]

Maybe I phrased my sentence improperly. What I meant to say was a W4 signed several years ago is not valid this year. You have the OPTION to sign one every year and if you don't then you may cite the statute of fraud.

Actually there's a regulation that says if there is no change in what an individual claims for deduction amounts then the W4 doesn't need a yearly signature except if/when a change of address has taken place.

[Ares]

This by no means sounds like the government is simply stealing property from you.............you are giving them the authority to do so.

But it is theft when they fail to tell the person each and every time that signing said agreement in completely voluntary and will have no impact on your job if you refuse. That's not what happens, its presented in such a way that if you don't sign, you put your employer in an awkward position (not able to claim the stupid tax breaks) and will most likely not hire you in order to hire someone who will voluntarily sign it and give the employer what they want. A reduction in their taxable liability.

We can go over how the employer is not obligated, but their accountants, auditors etc will scream to high heaven that you are wrong (even though you're right) and will threaten your job for bucking the system. It's presented in such a way that signing said W-4 is mandatory and is a requirement for your job. I work for an organization that has 14,000+ employees. No way I can just waltz on down to HR and explain I don't have to sign a W-4. I'll be let go in a matter of days and will be replaced. So knowing that, I signed mine.. :-/

[palani]

No way I can just waltz on down to HR and explain I don't have to sign a W-4. I'll be let go in a matter of days and will be replaced. So knowing that, I signed mine.. :-/

So the scales balanced this time in favor of signing and not creating a conflict. Just keep the concept in mind and 15-20 years from now maybe your actions under the same circumstances will be different. Or maybe the same. Who knows?

[Libertytree]

So the scales balanced this time in favor of signing and not creating a conflict. Just keep the concept in mind and 15-20 years from now maybe your actions under the same circumstances will be different. Or maybe the same. Who knows?

There you go again contradicting yourself when it pleases you.

[palani]

There you go again contradicting yourself when it pleases you.
The actions I choose to take are not for everyone. I base my actions on reason. Others analyze their options differently and base them on their own reasons. With experience reasons tend to change.

Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus

[7th trump]

But it is theft when they fail to tell the person each and every time that signing said agreement in completely voluntary and will have no impact on your job if you refuse. That's not what happens, its presented in such a way that if you don't sign, you put your employer in an awkward position (not able to claim the stupid tax breaks) and will most likely not hire you in order to hire someone who will voluntarily sign it and give the employer what they want. A reduction in their taxable liability.

We can go over how the employer is not obligated, but their accountants, auditors etc will scream to high heaven that you are wrong (even though you're right) and will threaten your job for bucking the system. It's presented in such a way that signing said W-4 is mandatory and is a requirement for your job. I work for an organization that has 14,000+ employees. No way I can just waltz on down to HR and explain I don't have to sign a W-4. I'll be let go in a matter of days and will be replaced. So knowing that, I signed mine.. :-/

Hold on here....tax breaks?
Employer tax breaks do not equal the total taxes imposed...its just a small amount to deduct from the total taxes the employer is imposed.
Did you know the employer is imposed multiple taxes because he has employees wishing to participate in Social Security?
Its beneficial to help eliminate multiple taxes the employer incurs over the employer getting a measly tax break don't you think?
That's exactly how I presented this to the company I work for.

What do you think of this statute?
This is the statute that imposes the employer to pay half of the Social Security tax for the employee.....but look at what else it is saying.
The employee pays half and the employer mandatory pays the other half...of the tax for the employee to Social Security.
If this statute didn't exist the employee would be paying 13% of their earnings into social security instead of the 6.5% on top of medicare and federal and state.


26usc 3111
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax,[U] with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

Not only is the employer imposed what used to be my half of the SS taxes he is also imposed other taxes (in addition to other taxes) based on me participating in Social Security.
And this adds up for each employee the employer has.
I eliminated more tax impositions for the employer than the tax breaks covered....and only I could do that for him. I made myself very valuable to the employer.
A win win for the both of us!

[Ares]

Hold on here....tax breaks?
Employer tax breaks do not equal the total taxes imposed...its just a small amount to deduct from the total taxes the employer is imposed.
Did you know the employer is imposed multiple taxes because he has employees wishing to participate in Social Security?
Its beneficial to help eliminate multiple taxes the employer incurs over the employer getting a measly tax break don't you think?
That's exactly how I presented this to the company I work for.

What do you think of this statute?
This is the statute that imposes the employer to pay half of the Social Security tax for the employee.....but look at what else it is saying.
The employee pays half and the employer mandatory pays the other half...of the tax for the employee to Social Security.
If this statute didn't exist the employee would be paying 13% of their earnings into social security instead of the 6.5% on top of medicare and federal and state.



Not only is the employer imposed what used to be my half of the SS taxes he is also imposed other taxes (in addition to other taxes) based on me participating in Social Security.
And this adds up for each employee the employer has.
I eliminated more tax impositions for the employer than the tax breaks covered....and only I could do that for him. I made myself very valuable to the employer.
A win win for the both of us!

You're preaching to the choir reverend. :) My problem however is that my employer is so large that they have outside auditors, accountants, etc. That would in no way do anything to benefit the business, or myself by going this approach. They would most likely recommend I get let go, and they would go with said recommendation. It's an assumption, but I've worked with outside payment processing systems in the past. If it's not in their predefined system they are at a loss on how to do the auditing and accounting. I'm powerless to change it.

[iOWNme]

You cant see the forest through the trees.....you're confused.
Keep participating in Social Security and refuse to pay the associated taxes and see if your theory works out for you.
Tell the DoJ the IRS cannot steal from you when the government has you on the Social Security books as earning "wages"...........aka taxable income!
What do you think is going to happen?

So the SS number i got WHEN I WAS BORN is now some sort of 'legitimate' contract in your mind? Unless i was able to make a clear and conscience choice, unless ALL of the stipulations of that contract were known by me, IT IS FRAUDULENT!


Do you think
A They are going to run scared or-
B Look at you as a hypocrite wanting something from the public for nothing.

How is paying into something, and then getting only partial of it back later 'getting something for free'? Do you even think about what your saying?


You have the choice to participate in Social Security or not....which is it?
Or are you going to keep yapping your ignorant mouth looking foolish because you are ignorant that Social Security is voluntary?

Does EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYER in the entire country have a 'choice' whether they want to take pay out of their employees for SS?


The government hasn't forced anyone to participate in Social Security...there is no law that says you must participate or go to jail.

Does the 'Government' FORCE private business to participate in their Ponzi scheme?



In fact, grasshopper, there an administrative regulation saying the opposite.
Do you understand what administrative means?

Yes. It is a euphemism for the 'scribbles of Politicians', which has absolutely NO relevance to human morality. Right and Wrong exist REGARDLESS of any 'Law' or 'administrative' GARBAGE. Do you disagree?




Yes moron, its really under the administrative section............it means how is Social Security applied to the public.

Ad Hominem. Ive told you i think you are smart, well meaning and good natured person, yet you call me names like you are 12. Ad hominem is used by people with no intellectual acumen and who resort to attacking the person, instead of their message.


You sign the W4 do you not?
Why is it that you must sign a W4 if you are under the belief its mandatory.
Its sounds pretty fucking stupid doesn't it.....but that what you believe....you believe in stupidity.

I NEVER said SS was mandatory. I said that ALL BUSINESS are FORCED to steal their employees money under threat of VIOLENCE. Do you deny this?


You never questioned it.
That's because you are out chasing idiots like Larkin Rose when you should be asking the real questions and doing the real research.....but apparently drumming up your emotions with Larkins stupidity must be extremely appealing to you.

Why do you call studying the scribbles of the most insane irrational self contradictory CULT on the planet 'research'? And then you have the nerve to call me a 'moron'?

[iOWNme]

Tell me Sui Juris what does the 16th amendment say to you?
In your own words explain what is the 16th saying.

Its hard for me to even make it past the first 12 words because i know that NO MAN can FORCE another man to hand over his wealth.


The Founders literally told the King "We wont pay your 2% tax".....Then they turned around and supposedly gave something called 'Congress' the same Right they had just complained about. Contradiction soup.

The 16th Amendment is a euphemism for 'One class of humans is morally obligated to let the second class of humans STEAL THEIR WEALTH'.

I answered your question, now answer mine:

WHERE did the powers laid out in Article 1, Sec 8 come from?

[iOWNme]

If the payment were specie (gold and silver) then there would be no justification. The fact that most transactions (whether plastic card or FRN bills) are the property of the Federal Reserve then there is every right for the Federal Reserve (and IRS as the agent of Treasury) to regulate those transactions.

Where is the contract that is signed by each individual human showing FULL UNDERSTANDING that if they decide to use 'FRNs' they are AGREEING to 'pay taxes'?

I feel another euphemism coming on.....

[iOWNme]

All depends on what the IRS has on the individual.
For instance illegal substance dealers, most of the time they are getting some sort of assistance from uncle government be it food stamps, disability or what ever.....all of which is public money coming from the Social Security Trust fund. Lets say they get arrested for dealing in drugs and are found with 10,000.00 dollar cash. The IRS is notified who then start the investigation process who find out none of the moneys has been reported.
Another example is my neighbor who's brother installs furnaces. My neighbors furnace went out so he called his brother. His brother was just about done when the city inspecter came on site from seeing the company trucks parked out side and called the city to see if there was a permit....there was no permit recorded so the inspecter shut down the installation.
His brother was audited by the city which some how kicked up the IRS to audit the business from doing work under the table.

All income is to be reported when you are on the public dole....even income from oversea's unless the income is exempt from the statutes.

Guess which government agency decides which earnings are exempt from being "income"?
Its not Congress!
Nor is it the IRS!

Yep you guessed it....its the Social Security Administration
If any occupation is exempt from Social Security's "employment" definition.........the earnings from those exempt occupations are also exempt from being "income", by definition, and arent even required to be reported.
Now lets just not participate in Social Security all together....do you think any of the earnings are required a W4 for reporting?

Ever wondered why the IRS ( a collection agency having no legislative powers) can issue ssn's?
Ever wonder why a 1040 cannot be processed without a ssn?

Get the idea just how much Social Security plays a role in taxation in this country?
The government despite what Sui has to say about it not obeying its laws obeys the Constitution to the letter.
Sui's problem is he doesnt ask the right questions nor is he looking in the right places.
Hes in reality blinded himself from seeing the truth.
He wants to accuse me of being a statist because he doesnt understand whats going on.
How I appear to some as being a statist is beyond me when the anwers they are seeking are in the statutes.
It may not be in the form they like or want to see but the answers are right in front of them.


You seem to put a lot of value into what the 'Law' says. Lets look at some other 'Laws':


In NAZI Germany it was the 'Law' for the Gestapo to stop, accost, steal from and even MURDER innocent non violent people. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?

In Communist Russia it was the 'Law' that Christians and others should be STARVED out and exterminated, their farms and property STOLEN and their families and loved ones SLAUGHTERED. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?

In Communist China it was the 'Law' that all non state worshipping people and other 'political' enemies should have to work in concentration camps for 20 hrs a day, should be starved out and should have to give up their homes and belongings for 'the good of the State'. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?


The above 'Laws' were the reason that entire armies of well natured good intentioned people MURDERED close to 300 MILLION innocent non violent people. And that is just in the last 100 years. Democide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide)

So 7th, should ALL 'Laws' be obeyed because a 'Politician' scribbled it down? Or are there certain 'Laws' that SHOULD be disobeyed? Why is that? How is a human supposed to tell the difference between which 'Laws' to follow and which 'Laws' should be disobeyed? I'll tell you how: Your own conscience and HUMAN MORALITY.

[palani]

Where is the contract that is signed by each individual human showing FULL UNDERSTANDING that if they decide to use 'FRNs' they are AGREEING to 'pay taxes'?

I feel another euphemism coming on.....

One place you might go to obtain legal notice is the U.S. code. Were you to check 12 USC 411 you will find the following statement

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
are authorized.

This is CONGRESS telling you why FRNs exist and who may handle them. Should you find any in your possession you are holding them as an AGENT. That means there is a PRINCIPAL involved somewhere. Just who do you suppose your principal is? Why a Federal Reserve Bank who just happens to be the issuer of the note and also the current OWNER of it.

Did you ever believe in your wildest dreams that you actually OWNED any of these notes or that property transfer took place when you made what you would call a 'purchase'?

Should you be capable of digesting this (and I presume you do not have that capability since I have discussed this topic on this board numerous times) we might move on later to who actually owns your house and car.

Another place you might check for NOTICE is your signature card should you carry a bank account of any type. Flip the card over and you will find that you agreed to abide by all the rules Treasury can throw at you. And IRS is just a stooge agency for Treasury.

[palani]

Oh .. and all those cudos you appear to have gotten on this thread for stirring up a controversy ... you need to do a lot more studying because should you go into this conflict with attitude only not only are you destined to lose but I expect you will take a lot of gullible people down with you. To me it appears you want the current system to dissolve but don't have a clue in the world what to replace it with.

Are you the type who perceives the world to be against him without regard to reason?

[7th trump]

Its hard for me to even make it past the first 12 words because i know that NO MAN can FORCE another man to hand over his wealth.


The Founders literally told the King "We wont pay your 2% tax".....Then they turned around and supposedly gave something called 'Congress' the same Right they had just complained about. Contradiction soup.

The 16th Amendment is a euphemism for 'One class of humans is morally obligated to let the second class of humans STEAL THEIR WEALTH'.

I answered your question, now answer mine:

WHERE did the powers laid out in Article 1, Sec 8 come from?

Hey douchebag........listen the fuck up!
I'm explaining in the terms of Congress (the law) how you....you yourself.....let yourself be extracted of money's.
Theres no freaken law anywhere on the books that forcibly extracts taxes from one to give to another.
In fact, douchebag, the government wont even allow you to receive the collected taxes unless you first sign up for the same welfare program that extracted the monies from someone else in the first place.
Get over your God damned ego!


My point of asking you what the 16th says is that the 16th doesn't say who or how they are imposing this income tax....see you didn't even understand the 16th...you just read it and assumed what you heard was true....which turns out as someone's emotional bullshitting rant.
Get off your high horse and tell your employer you aren't going to participate in Social Security anymore (should be much easier and less bloody than the founders in telling a king to get fucked....don't ya think?)
Your rant about morality is bullshit...especially bullshit when you have the power of participation that actually increase the taxes for the employer.
Your so fucking stupid you cant...no you refuse to see the forest through the trees.

[7th trump]

You seem to put a lot of value into what the 'Law' says. Lets look at some other 'Laws':


In NAZI Germany it was the 'Law' for the Gestapo to stop, accost, steal from and even MURDER innocent non violent people. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?

In Communist Russia it was the 'Law' that Christians and others should be STARVED out and exterminated, their farms and property STOLEN and their families and loved ones SLAUGHTERED. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?

In Communist China it was the 'Law' that all non state worshipping people and other 'political' enemies should have to work in concentration camps for 20 hrs a day, should be starved out and should have to give up their homes and belongings for 'the good of the State'. Should those people have just let them do those things, or should they have DISOBEYED and RESISTED the 'Law' enforcers?


The above 'Laws' were the reason that entire armies of well natured good intentioned people MURDERED close to 300 MILLION innocent non violent people. And that is just in the last 100 years. Democide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide)

So 7th, should ALL 'Laws' be obeyed because a 'Politician' scribbled it down? Or are there certain 'Laws' that SHOULD be disobeyed? Why is that? How is a human supposed to tell the difference between which 'Laws' to follow and which 'Laws' should be disobeyed? I'll tell you how: Your own conscience and HUMAN MORALITY.
Ok dumb ass....Nazi's and socialist china...huh?
Theres so many wrongs with comparing Nazi and communism to the US constitution...you're not right in the head bud...just not right!

Boy you play the "emotion" card a lot don't you....remove the emotion card and what do you suppose is left of your rant.....just random babbling words.....well actually just your first sentence....the rest is just emotions trying desperately to make a point.

Show me the law that states all Americans must participate in social security to receive a number to be taxed?

[Son-of-Liberty]

You know I think you guys are arguing over nothing.

I agree with Sui Juris on the philosophy that he and Larkin Rose espouse. However philosophy alone isn't enough to deal with a system that we have all been been trained and tricked into using, even though it is against our own best interests. That is why knowing the laws that we volunteer into and are used against us is important.

Instead of arguing over nothing why don't we discuss the best methods of achieving what we want?

Freedom right?

[BrewTech]

Hey douchebag........listen the fuck up!
I'm explaining in the terms of Congress (the law) how you....you yourself.....let yourself be extracted of money's.
Theres no freaken law anywhere on the books that forcibly extracts taxes from one to give to another.
In fact, douchebag, the government wont even allow you to receive the collected taxes unless you first sign up for the same welfare program that extracted the monies from someone else in the first place.
Get over your God damned ego!


My point of asking you what the 16th says is that the 16th doesn't say who or how they are imposing this income tax....see you didn't even understand the 16th...you just read it and assumed what you heard was true....which turns out as someone's emotional bullshitting rant.
Get off your high horse and tell your employer you aren't going to participate in Social Security anymore (should be much easier and less bloody than the founders in telling a king to get fucked....don't ya think?)
Your rant about morality is bullshit...especially bullshit when you have the power of participation that actually increase the taxes for the employer.
Your so fucking stupid you cant...no you refuse to see the forest through the trees.


Aren't people supposed to be banned for this kind of crap?

Doesn't really add to the discussion...

[7th trump]

Its hard for me to even make it past the first 12 words because i know that NO MAN can FORCE another man to hand over his wealth.


The Founders literally told the King "We wont pay your 2% tax".....Then they turned around and supposedly gave something called 'Congress' the same Right they had just complained about. Contradiction soup.

The 16th Amendment is a euphemism for 'One class of humans is morally obligated to let the second class of humans STEAL THEIR WEALTH'.

I answered your question, now answer mine:

WHERE did the powers laid out in Article 1, Sec 8 come from?

The answer to your question is in the preamble.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

My ass the 16th is a euphemism.



euphemism
The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive

You are calling the 16th an euphemism because you arent comprehending what the 16th is actually saying and substituting in what you want it to say.
All the 16th says is they are going to be impose an income tax unapportioned.....thats it...nothing else.
Furthermore, the 16th doesnt nullify "
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


Doesnt say "who" or even "how" they are going to do this. Fact is the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 and it wasnt until 1940 do you see a huge increase in filed 1040's.....so you have a critical problem with your understanding.
7 million americans never filed a tax return until 1940 so 27 years went by since the 16th was ratified.......so what happened and why 27 years later?

You know what sui.....just stay on the porch....ok!

[iOWNme]

The Nazi's, Communist Russians and Chinese were ALL REPUBLICS. They ALL had 'protected Rights' in their 'Constitutions'. They ALL promised to keep their people safe, and to 'protect' their individual Rights. And you somehow think this is an unfair comparison? That there is some sort of difference between those 'bad' guys and the American version of the same thing?

For the record i asked 7th 35 questions so far in this debate. He chose to ALWAYS change the subject into something like 'Social Security' or 'W-4's'.......Why is it so hard to answer my simple questions? You did ATTEMPT to answer my question about 'where did the power to tax come from', but all you did was point to more scribbles of 'politicians' and that IS NOT an answer. My question was WHERE did mortal men get the super-human power to 'tax', not where did one set of scribbles get its idea from.


7th you have resorted to name calling once again and i refuse to waste more of my time with someone who has no respect for people who share different opinions. It is obvious we are not going to agree. I choose my own conscience and free will to guide my life (because im human) while you choose to follow the scribbles of something called 'Politicians'. (what does that make you?)

I will not reply to anymore of your childish insults.

I will however challenge you to a live debate where you cannot hide behind your Masters scribbles. Where i can instantly call you out for the contradictions you espouse. Debating on forums is almost useless, except for the other members get to see what type of tactics and cheap shots you try and take. I will let you choose the date, the time, the method of communication and i will even let you lead the debate. I will then upload it to my Youtube channel UNEDITED. You may record it as well in case you think i will not upload an honest version.

Unless you going to accept my challenge, i am bowing out of this debate.

And for the record i DO NOT think 7th should be banned. I dont even take his words as 'evil' or 'malicious'. He is like a child being told there is no Santa, he only has emotional responses based on his BELIEF system. And when you challenge someones belief system, there are VERY FEW people who can objectively analyze themselves and and their beliefs for fear they may have to admit they have been wrong about some things. 'Government' is a religion, and i dont expect me to be able to change his mind about his religion.

[7th trump]

The Nazi's, Communist Russians and Chinese were ALL REPUBLICS. They ALL had 'protected Rights' in their 'Constitutions'. They ALL promised to keep their people safe, and to 'protect' their individual Rights. And you somehow think this is an unfair comparison? That there is some sort of difference between those 'bad' guys and the American version of the same thing?

For the record i asked 7th 35 questions so far in this debate. He chose to ALWAYS change the subject into something like 'Social Security' or 'W-4's'.......Why is it so hard to answer my simple questions? You did ATTEMPT to answer my question about 'where did the power to tax come from', but all you did was point to more scribbles of 'politicians' and that IS NOT an answer. My question was WHERE did mortal men get the super-human power to 'tax', not where did one set of scribbles get its idea from.


7th you have resorted to name calling once again and i refuse to waste more of my time with someone who has no respect for people who share different opinions. It is obvious we are not going to agree. I choose my own conscience and free will to guide my life (because im human) while you choose to follow the scribbles of something called 'Politicians'. (what does that make you?)

I will not reply to anymore of your childish insults.

I will however challenge you to a live debate where you cannot hide behind your Masters scribbles. Where i can instantly call you out for the contradictions you espouse. Debating on forums is almost useless, except for the other members get to see what type of tactics and cheap shots you try and take. I will let you choose the date, the time, the method of communication and i will even let you lead the debate. I will then upload it to my Youtube channel UNEDITED. You may record it as well in case you think i will not upload an honest version.

Unless you going to accept my challenge, i am bowing out of this debate.

And for the record i DO NOT think 7th should be banned. I dont even take his words as 'evil' or 'malicious'. He is like a child being told there is no Santa, he only has emotional responses based on his BELIEF system. And when you challenge someones belief system, there are VERY FEW people who can objectively analyze themselves and and their beliefs for fear they may have to admit they have been wrong about some things. 'Government' is a religion, and i dont expect me to be able to change his mind about his religion.

Woooow!
Who said anything about banning me?
Did I miss something?
I most certainly did answer your questions....not my problem you refuse to acknowledge them.
Can I ask you a question.....are you Larken Rose?
From reading your comments my intuition says you are Larken Rose.

I know you have the ability to look into things because somewhere you came up that I'm up for "banning" consideration.....so why cant you understand what I said about the ss and W4?
I mean geesh....I already did the hard work for you......anybody with a small amount of knowledge of law and a small amount of common sense can see what a W4 is doing......its not all that difficult, heck its on the fine print at the bottom of the W4 what laws regulate the purpose of a W4.
Nothing is hidden from view.
All 50 title of law are on the internet for your disposal at any time you desire to look them up.....like i said I did most of the hard work for you. I stripped out all the armchair lawyer theories attached to law and gave you exactly what the law says and court cases to back it up.

[palani]

Woooow!
Who said anything about banning me?

That would be post #43


Aren't people supposed to be banned for this kind of crap?

I vote 'no ban'. I believe people with tourettes should be given special consideration.

[palani]

To those people who think the issues come down to RIGHT vs WRONG please be aware that the controversy boils down to RIGHT vs LEFT. With this paradigm shift both sides become RIGHT in their own PLANE (yes ... even the LEFTYs might qualify as 'right') and the controversy becomes 'why are you occupying the plane whose rules you currently obey?'

[7th trump]

To those people who think the issues come down to RIGHT vs WRONG please be aware that the controversy boils down to RIGHT vs LEFT. With this paradigm shift both sides become RIGHT in their own PLANE (yes ... even the LEFTYs might qualify as 'right') and the controversy becomes 'why are you occupying the plane whose rules you currently obey?'

One of your better posts Palani.
Yes, hes right in his own plane to which I have said I agree. But he neglects to understand why hes occupying the plane that violates his "moral" plane.
I'm explaining that he did this to himself, but he refuses any and all acknowledge by calling it scribbles.
Having your parent assign a ssn to you as an infant has no revellency when it comes to using the ssn. The law says you can have a ssn assigned to you but that doesnt mean you are forced into participation.

A good example of this is going to court and saying Social Security is unconstitutional....all you are doing is challenging the law on the constitutional basis. They'll throw that case out the door.
What they should be doing is not challenging government over the constitutional aspect of SS ( its very much constitutional, because its voluntary) and challenge the employer in court for blocking your access to the Bill of Rights to become "The People".
A US citizen does not have much for the Bill of Rights (or the ability to express God given natural rights), however, The People do.
You challenge the employer (sue the pants off them) for blocking your ability to get back on the natural rights plane.
What they fail to realize is its not the government....its themselves because there is no law anywhere that says you must participate in SS that strips you from being on "The People" plane.
The responsible party from you achieving the plane of "The People" rest squarley on the employer. The employer has no right in forcing anyone onto the plantation plane.

Theres nothing anybody can do for him...he himself is the only one that can open his mind to a higher understanding.
He'll most likely have to go to hit bottom before he realizes his premise was wrong......a giant big humbling of thyself.


If my gut feeling is correct (which most of the time it is) Sui here is the one and only "Larkin Rose".