This is some call to the FTB, we did this Dec. 1, 2011. Keep in mind the tax people insist everyone is a taxpayer. There’s never any evidence of course, but that doesn’t stop them from stealing everything they can reach. And for critics; I’m well aware of the many legal opinions you rely on thinking that your opinions prove everything. I’m talking about facts, not opinions.
In this call I ask the agent some basic questions i.e., are there any witnesses with personal knowledge my client is a taxpayer with taxable income. The agent says no, there are no witnesses. He keeps insisting there is “information” though, as if that information is evidence my client is a taxpayer with taxable income.
I ask if anyone at the FTB can verify or prove my client is a taxpayer with taxable income. His response is at approx. 5:47: “Probably not.” Wow, but what about all that “information”? Despite all that information and all those legal opinions i.e., “taxpayer”, “taxable”, the agent still knew it can’t be verified my client is a taxpayer.
This is a good example proving information provided to the FTB and IRS is not evidence anyone is a taxpayer. If you disagree, listen to the agent again.
You would think if no one at the FTB can verify my client is a taxpayer with taxable income the agent would stop the attack? Listen to the agent’s response and how he accuses me of trying to trick him.
When you call them on their fictions i.e., taxpayer, taxable income, eventually it dawns on them their opinions are just that, opinions. They are figments of their imagination; you owe taxes because they said so. No witnesses, no evidence, no problem for those called government. Remember, I’ve been told by an FTB lawyer it’s not threat, duress and coercion when governments do it.
There is only the end part of the audio in this new video. I finally got my youtube channel back please subscribe.
December 3rd, 2011 at 1:54 am
That was outrageous! If they have the facts, they should have no fear proving those facts by words or even by writing! IRS agents sounds like they’re uneducated and seem to be “nice” bullies. “They” don’t deserve a penny!
December 3rd, 2011 at 2:12 am
Hahaha. First off I live that you’ve got a picture of Al Bundy. Very fitting.
Interesting how he sits there and declares he doesn’t have to give you anything. Then starts screaming like a child at the end.
December 3rd, 2011 at 2:39 am
Haha Marc beautiful!
December 3rd, 2011 at 3:54 am
Gah! Marc! The problem is right at 34 seconds when the guy asks for a ‘slave survaillance number’. Then the guy you counsel gives it. Done deal. Thank you ‘public education’… Anything said after, regardless of what the moron from the FTB says after a socialist in-security number is given is moot. Consentual use of said number IS ‘taxpayer’ status. There is a maxim in law that states’ What one creates, one controls’. They created the franchise. This means they get to prescribe ALL the rules and ‘remedies’ that accompany such a franchise. You know that 13th amendment ‘No slavery or involuntary servitude’? Well the OPPOSITE also applies meaning you CAN VOLUNTARILY subject yourself to servitude…and rightfully so.Just like if you join the military you VOLUNTARILY subjected yourself to a DIFFERENT set of ‘rules’.
Does anyone honestly expect to ‘consentually’ use a government identifying number, then claim they are a not liable, then expect to receive the ‘benefit’(payment) at 65, all this whilst signing THE WRONG ‘TAX’ forms under oath (penalty of purgery) accompanied with the self incriminating number. YOU gave them the evidence of ‘taxpayer’ status. YOU are the ‘witness’ with first hand knowledge. YOU/YOURSELF.
If you were born in a ‘Union state’ and domiciled theirein you are a non-resident alien under the internal revenue code. You CANNOT claim to be a ‘resident’ or a ‘U.S. citizen’ (Two muually exclusive ‘persons’)which most Americans ARE NOT under their deceptive code. This is also why you ARE not even elligable for ANY government handouts…Social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc, etc.
HOW else could they get the otherwise FREE people to accept to be numbered (which is not spoken highly of in the scriptures mind you) without offering a perceived ‘benefit’?
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…”
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]
——————————————————————————–
Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
“A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized…”
[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]
——————————————————————————–
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]
Quit acting like a ‘taxpayer’ and revert back to your original status as a ‘nontaxpayer’. …Thank you public (government) education.
December 3rd, 2011 at 4:06 am
just finished the rest (after the 34 seconds) well done Marc.
December 3rd, 2011 at 4:24 am
Damon no offense, but you sound like you’re still a bit delusional. Marcs taking a factual approach, not a legal one.
December 3rd, 2011 at 6:21 am
damon, your whole premise is flawed based on the information you gave. It is INVOLUNTARY when you haven’t chosen to have an SS number or be a citizen. Take your ravings elsewhere. REFUTED.
December 3rd, 2011 at 6:35 am
Damon,you are correct. However there are people who have successfully defeated the irs. Everyone if you want to be free, stop sleeping with sleeping with the enemy. Get out of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,INCORPORATED. That would be your only true remedy for this foolishness. (“and to the Republic for which it stands”
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:01 am
It seems like calling the IRS like this is a complete waste of time. He wasn’t willing to stop anything and the questions themselves presume a consentual relationship when in fact there is none. If a person is going to believe in nonconsentual declarations such as human rights, then that alone supports the belief of nonconcentual law; and you can’t have nonconcentual law without a rule of nonconsentual force such as government. Even when you expose the obveous transgressions of these ‘inaliable’ rights by the IRS in these phone calls, they in themselves will only bring about policy changes in the rules of evidence effectivly passifing the entire proceadure.
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:38 am
Some of my favorite highlights:
Tax goon: “That he should have filed because of the information we received from him” LOL!!!! This is like a real life south park, with the IRS man saying “duhrrr…” or stumbling over his words like Jimmy the cripple.
…
Marc: “Who at the franchise tax board would have done that?”
Tax goon: “It would be more information generated. …The information that we’ve received, there’s no individual that did anything.”
…
Goon: “Sir, I’m not going to get into this. Obviously, you’re trying to trick me into saying something.” (the dipshit says this because his computer screen tells him Marc is a “troublemaker.” Just like the cop car computer tells police I was arrested in Missouri although I was never charged with anything –I was arrested, chained to a table, and then released with no charges pressed for petitioning the public with my oh-so-dangerous Libertarian Party ballot access petitions and pens. And this functions as an “automatic conviction” in cops’ computers, as does “thinking independently” in IRS computers.)
…
Marc: “Are you accusing me of being dishonest?”
Goon: “This conversation is over.” (hangs up, stops debate, appeals to force)
…
Good show! Good show! Marc reminds me of the particle physicist in the “Farside” comic, forced under a whip to perform quantum mechanics calculations on a blackboard for an alien circus. Although he may be 100% right, and we may fully appreciate how right he is, it’s still a small “circus.” …An “Adventure in Legal Land,” replete with multiple mindless copies of the red queen. I’m not saying it’s hopeless, it’s just embryonic. In fact, its a very viable embryo, with one tiny hand reaching for the bottom card in their house of cards.
What we need is Anon E. Muss, the floating cheshire cat-head, unable to be beheaded because he’s already just a floating head. See also:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/k-eric-drexler
The means of battle must be political and strategic in nature, but need not come to violence. I favor satyagraha “pursuit of truth” AKA “nonviolent action” (as Gene Sharp wrote about). These are interesting times, getting progressively more interesting. Maybe there will even be a Singularity.
Word.
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:46 am
Three parly mutually-inclusive and partly mutually-exclusive ideas.
idea 1) We should all open-carry rifles, all the time. Handguns lose upon escalation, so why not carry rifles, displaying the point that we understand the state intends to escalate? Or, CCW bull-pup style weapons. Make it a neighborhood thing, with great thoroughfares, and points of egress. Take the defense advice in the books “Unintended Consequences” and “Molon Labe.”
Or, conversely,
idea 2) …We shouldn’t do that, and instead should parent AGI, and raise it to be self-responsible, and well-educated on the most legitimate philosophies known to man. Clearly, it would be Austrian in economic thinking, problem 90% solved.
Or, maybe,
We should keep our biggest, baddest ideas to ourselves, and simply implement them, possibly as parallel institutions, when the time is ripe. (Perhaps when there’s an inflationary crash/foreign currency dump.) This is the most legitimate part of Konkin, SEK3.
December 3rd, 2011 at 9:37 am
A strong swimmer said:
We must wrest government from our hides like leeches from a swimmer’s back.
A weak swimmer said:
We must wash up on shores, and bear our feeble sores. The leeches are too big to bear, that’s what the doctors are all for!
The leech has met its match with the human thumb, and the human mind that knows the leeches are there, anaesthetic snot or not. But human is too much to ask from those that what aint got!
It is that same level of awareness and intellect that defeats government. How sad then, that most humans bear their government masters without so much as thrashing in the sand, like a walnut-brained horse attempting to keep the biting flies at bay. The tax-slaves may whimper, but they will not bite, for they have no teeth.
Robert Heinlein’s “puppet masters” is a fitting analogy for the modern human condition, where the proud and strong are proud of feeding the largest parasites: the bigger the parasites they feed, the more proud they are. The less intellectual bravery there is, the more the muscles scream: “You’d better not make me think!”
Until one day, emaciated and deprived, they awake and proclaim: the day has now arrived! I’m taking freedom back! I’ll take no shit, without remorse, my name is Andrew Joseph Stack!
Physical bravery is championed, its tales told throughout the land. The videos of physical bravery go viral, instantly, in high demand.
But intellectual bravery? That’s scorned, hated, feared, criticized, and lambasted –so long as there is no forum for a retort or a reply.
Combine the two? You must be mad, and this lawbook tells me why! And this is the order of the day for the powers that be: maintain the status quo, and if a man dares think, then hoot him down, don’t ask for reasons why. If a man dares rise against the pant-hooting of a million trogolodytes, then club him over the head, pepper spray him, taser him, or shoot him dead. Fox news and CNN will clap with glee! All the while spouting inanities like “Freedom isn’t free!”
And vote power to the monkey king: the ones who calms your fears by proclaiming loudest, boldest, and most arrogantly that there is simply no reason to think!
Newt, Mitt, or little Michelle, their brows furrowed up to feign intelligence, all have the same response: no open and honest debate will be allowed. Enlightenment values will be ignored, glossed over, or forgotten, driven far underground. …They will never be addressed.
And the audience of primates will drag their knuckles away, impressed.
And the more brutal the solutions proposed, the more grotesque,
…the more they’ll sing Newt’s praises, and proclaim that “he is blessed.”
And the constitution, on trial at long last, due process long since erased, has finally been rubbed hard enough to destroy the ink that gave it life, its time now long, long passed. A figurehead, a symbol devoid of meaning, upon a precipice of sophistry and artifice, so gleaming… So long as the message is style over substance, devoid of meaning.
That the hordes of sycophants now worship, at licensed, secret meetings.
And if you challenge any of them, they’ll give you a meaningful look of deep comprehension, and feigned understanding, and they’ll say:
“Secretly, I agree with you, I’m a member of the Federalist Society, who dares not speak his mind. But Ronald Wilson Reagan once opined, and some day we’ll get a replacement, a neocon mastermind!”
Yes intellectual bravery, of a strong and sturdy kind, is a thing long since extincted, …a thing you cannot find.
And so we resurrect the form from DNA, a hidden, secret thought: “What if there were logic and reason, and men who couldn’t be bought?”
Well my boy, it’s treason to say, that treason there is not, and if you so say, we’ll have a fray, until around the world is heard a shot!
Somewhere some how in Berkeley or upon the Boston Green, from sea to shining sea, there exists a subroutine programmed in the minds of the bad, bad citizenry. So throw a wrench into the gears, and break the machinery, of State, of steers and beers, and mindless tyranny!
It’s time for bed, democracy! So grab a beer with me, and pull up a seat! So sang the men who once proclaimed to be, a voice for assassinated kings! But kings into earth and earth under playgrounds, worms turning worms into playground dirt, dirt into dreams under childrens swings, the world turns. And as the world turns she learns and defenses they all mount. Escalating evolution, and thoughts become profound! So grab your library on your electronic book, and proclaim the pamphleteers’ truth upon the land: the one who owns your soul is you, the self, the mind that screams so loud:
I swear that I will never live my life for the benefit of the crowd!
December 3rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Sorry about that last rant, I was imbibing rather heavily, from the Cheyenne revolvermap radar-ping. I was imbibing so heavily that if it was the 1920s, the State would have shot me for my own good. (Or if it was 2011 and I had chosen a safer drug than alcohol…) …You can delete this if you want, or you can have your webmaster/webmistress add an edit/delete button. Or you can keep it up for its comedic value. So many choices, when government isn’t involved.
December 3rd, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Hi Incubus. Thank you for your comment (no offense taken). However to rebut your presumption of ‘delusion’ I only deal with the facts and the law. Not oppinions, policies, or misplaced beliefs. I would like a place to debate you on my ‘delusion’ if you are open to the offer. I am not taking a ‘legal’ position but a lawful one. What Marc may not understasnd is that use of the social security number accompanied with tax forms or ‘information returns’ is ‘taxpayer’ status. The FACT is that his client gave a slave survaillance number that matched the the ‘information return’ that his ‘client’ signed. Again, consentual use of the socialist in-security number is evidence of being a ‘taxpayer’.
Have you ever read the Social Security Act Incubus? If you have not, how do you know your are even elligable for such a ‘benefit’/survaillance number?
Are you familiar with ‘maxims of law’ Incubus? I left out the Latin to save space, here are some that relate to the use of ‘benefits and privilges’ to wit;
Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.
A privilege is, as it were, a private law. [important]
A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person.
One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
He who does any benefit to another for me is considered as doing it to me.
If you would please read those again and allow them to really ‘sink’ in Incubus.
It is a FACT that the socialist in-security number IS property of the federal government and DOES NOT belong to you;
Code of Federal Regulations
TITLE 20–EMPLOYEES’ BENEFITS
CHAPTER III–SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
PART 422_ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES–Table of Contents
Subpart B_General Procedures
… Social security number cards are the property of SSA and must be returned upon request. (It also states this on the card you carry itself).
It is government property. Hello? Do you understand what this means Incubus? Allow me to state some ‘delusional’ facts;
A consequence of this is that a person in possession of the socialist security card becomes a “fiduciary” over government property or “public property” or property devoted to a “public use”. Possession of the number and corresponding “license” (card) to engage in privileged activities of a “public office” is what makes the Trustee into a “public officer” and deputy of the United States government. Possession or use of the “benefits” of the socialist security number constitutes prima facie evidence of consent to all the terms of the trust indenture/contract.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART2 .CONTRACTS
CHAPTER3. CONSENT
Section 1589
section 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.
” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
[REMEMBER THOSE MAXIMS ABOVE?]
It is a FACT that the original Social Security Act of 1935 contains a provision that those who sign up for the program ,Also simultaneously become subject to the Internal Revenue Code;
Section 8 of the Social Security Act
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected and paid upon the income of every individual a tax…
Remember those ‘maxims’ Incubus? “He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage”.
Here are some more ‘delusional’ facts Incubus;
Furthermore, possession of this “public property”, the socialist security number, is also the method by which the Social Security Administration and its sister, the IRS, also track the activities of the Trustee as:
1. A federal “Employee” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c),26 CFR §31.3401(c)-1
2. A person earning “wages” which can only be earned in connection with a voluntary withholding agreement called a W-4 under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p). 26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3(a) says that all amounts earned in connection with the W-4 voluntary withholding agreement shall be deemed to be “wages” for the purposes of the Social Security Act.
3. A subcontractor to the federal government, who sells his services to private employers and donates his earnings to a “public purpose” by agreeing to call them “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b).
4. A recipient and “transferee” over federal payments who is liable under 26 U.S.C. §1461 to return those payments to the federal government. Your private employment, in that sense, becomes “public employment” and a “public office” after you submit the SS-5 and the W-4
I would really like to ‘talk’ with you more Incubus about my ‘delusions’ and am willing to do so. Although this may not be the best place to do so. Are you willing? Another thing I would like to mention is the use of the word ‘delusion’. This is a word not much different than labeling someone as ‘crazy’. The reason people put these labels on others is so that it makes it easier to dismiss anything they say. “Oh, he doesn’t know what he is talking about he is delusional”. I would advise before labeling anyone like that, that you read a little more carefully.
God bless!
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Damon, clearly you were offended by my remark. The least you could do is be honest. And by delusional I meant “one who clings to illusions”, and by illusion I mean ” a belief in things that are false”. We all have illusions in some form or another. This isn’t the best medium and I know Marc doesn’t like large blocks of text in these comments so ill try to keep it short.
To quote you; “I only deal with the facts and the law. Not opinions, policies, or misplaced beliefs.” But a law IS an opinion and it is one that is held regardless of facts and evidence and is always backed by a gun. You also said, “I am not taking a ‘legal’ position but a lawful one”. Differentiate for me if you will that which is legal/illegal (the law) and that which is lawful/unlawful (the law). Perhaps I am mistaken. Their is no consent with “the law”, it’s all by force.
As I stated, Marc is asking for facts and facts only. Not what “the law” says. It doesn’t matter what the law says, it is just an opinion. Don’t mix facts with opinions. Before getting into interpretation, they first have to prove application. That’s where it falls apart. There is no evidence the law is applicable to anybody. There is no evidence that anyone OWES taxes. How can there be an obligation when its all done under the threat of force?
December 4th, 2011 at 12:14 am
In response to Brett. Brett does ANYONE force you to write down a socialist insecurity number? Just because your parents (who were probably just as ignorant as mine) signed you up when you were not of age does not mean you still have to use it. You can stop at ANY time. This may be especially true if you have NEVER read the rules that accompany the use of the government property. Might be a good idea to read the Social Security Act before presuming it is ‘something you get when your age 65′. Also if Socialist insecurity is involuntary as you say why did they ask me if I would like to sign my newborn son up for the program, to which I declined. This is evidenced on the birth certificate as well.
Since when does anyone FORCE you to claim ‘U.S. citizen’ status? Who has forced you to mark the ‘U.S. citizen’ box on any form or application you have EVER filled out, I am interested. I, for example, am a non-citizen national.
When you go to the DMV for a ‘driver’s license’ (assuming you use one) do you claim to be a ‘resident’ of their de-facto state? Try getting a license from them as a non-resident. They will NOT issue you one, I know, I have tried. Also tried to get a letter of disqualification…how funny the cop to demand something from me that his corporate state wont even issue to me, anyways. It is always based on what you claim. It is in fact how you interact with the ‘government’.
My premise is not flawed at all Brett. I am only showing you that the Socialist insecurity number is the gateway to the tax scheme. I can also show you according to their law that you are not even elligable for said number if you were born in America or 1 of the 50 ‘states’ comprising the union. Again Brett use of the number is ‘taxpayer’ status. Then when you fill out their forms and sign them under oath accompanied with the slave number, it is all the evidence they need that YOU gave them that you are a ‘taxpayer’.
I am not saying they have not made it extremely difficult to function without said number (I function without it) , but what I am saying is that it is what they use against you as a ‘taxpayer’ based on ‘presumption’.
See Brett, I do not beleive your claim that you are somehow forced to write down a number and call yourself a ‘U.S. citizen’.
December 4th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Dear Incubus,
You did not address any of the issues I brought up about the voluntary use of a socialist insecurity number or the accompanying tax forms. I repeat to you;
Voluntary use of government property (slave sirvaillance number)along with the WRONG tax forms is all the evidence they need that you are a ‘taxpayer’”. That is the fact. Just because they do not just come out and tell you doesn’t mean anything. A lot of those agents are just as ignorant as the rest of us when it comes to the 9,600 plus pages of gobbeldy gook called the Internal Revenue Code (tile 26 of U.S. Code) to which I have read. Side note: they make it irritating to the eyes on purpose along with confusing.
As far as legal/lawful, I am a firm beleiver that everyone has a ‘duty to due dilligence and am not here to explain the difference between the 2. I will give you a hint however; Legal=OF or RELATING to law.
I completely disagree with you that “law is an oppinion”. I think your statement would be better read that ALL law is religious. The reason this is so is because ALL law is based on a beleif. This is why my King is so awesome because He made it really easy for His servants with regards to law. He said ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and strength, and the second is like the first, love your neighbor as you love yourself. On these commandments hangs ALL law.”
With regards to the Internal Revenue Code being ‘law’ I make no such statement, however, it is ‘law’ for those who CONSENT to it. This is why it is not ‘posotive law’ but ‘special law’. For a law to ‘have full force and effect’ it has to have implementing regulations published in the federal register to be applicable to the public at large [see title 1 U.S. Code]. The Internal Revenue code has none. Nor does the Social Security Act.
What I am trying to show you is that the FACT that Marc’s client has and uses a number that is associated with a government account (government property) and this ‘contractual nexus’ is what they act on. It is not a “belief in things that are false” as you put it.
I pose the question again to you Incubus;
Have you EVER read the Social Security Act to see EXACTLY what you are agreeing to by use of said number?
If you have not then how can you possibly know that I have a “beleif in things that are false”?
Have you ever heard of the maxim that states;
Contract makes the law.
Did you ever think that you may have given your ‘implied consent’ to certain restrictions based on the use of the franchise called the Social Security Number?
Have you ever thought that there might just be some validity to what I am typing and that it is a FACT that use of said number just MIGHT have something to do with them demanding a insurance premium, err ‘tax’?
I did not take offense to you calling me dellusional. It is hard to put emotion into type. If your reading my last post came off as offensive to you please forgive me.
without malice, aforethought, frivolty, or vexation
December 4th, 2011 at 4:16 am
I thought the same thing about the social security number. He is admitting he is a “taxpayer” using, giving that number. If this gentleman filled out the ever-so-popular W4 and used that number and signed where it said “taxpayer signature” then his got some explaining to do in Legalland.
December 4th, 2011 at 5:09 am
You have an interesting concept of what is and what is not voluntary. Signing tax forms under threat of duress is what I would ultimately consider involuntary. And employers who demand them under threat of duress themselves, well…also involuntary. If you’re defining a taxpayer as “one who pays taxes”, I suppose you’re right, but if a taxpayer more specifically is defined as “one who owes taxes”, that’s a different story. That’s the angle Marc is approaching, a lack of facts and evidence anyone owes taxes. Don’t mix fantasy with reality.
If you won’t bother differentiating between legal and lawful then I can only assume they are one in the same.
“I completely disagree with you ‘all law is an opinion’ “. “ALL law is based on a belief”. Could you please explain the core difference between an opinion and a belief? “Lawmakers” believe you and I are obligated/required to wear our seatbelts’ when we drive. That is an opinion. One I do not agree too, but adhere to because others who do hold this opnion are willing to force me into compliance. Hence, a law is merely an opinion backed by a gun (force) and does not require individual consent. “All law is religious”. And religions are based on opinions, not facts. It is your belief that “your” “King” is real. That’s fine, that’s your opinion. Some opinions are congruent with facts, others are not. Regardless, so long as those delusions are not forced upon others, I have no inherent problem with them.
“…it is ‘law for those who CONSENT to it” “…it has to have implementing regulations published in the federal register to be applicable to the public at large [see title 1 U.S. Code].” Well which is it? Either it is applicable/obligatory only by consent or because a group of psychopaths who have no voluntary support-called government- said so in their silly little incantations.
I don’t see this being fruitful to either of us. Our maps simply do not overlap; you’re talking opinions, I’m talking facts.
Look I once stood where you are standing now. I believed in the same nonsense. It was upon discovering Marc and his book, articles, body of work that I discovered its all a scam. And the sort of rubbish you’re hooked on now is as patently absurd as the delusions of a statist. If you wish to cling to them, be my guest. If however you expect me to accept them, you are sorely mistaken. I cast aside that bondage long ago and I’m not about to wrap myself in it to humor you. When you’re ready to touch base with reality and handle the truth, let me know. I won’t force you to grasp a concept your mind is not yet ready for. I hate to burst your bubble kiddo, but you’re not going to convince me otherwise. I know right now you feel “enlightened”, “in the know” and I’m just a a “sheeple” in your eyes. I encourage you to carry on with your truth seeking and if you reach the end of the rabbit hole, give me a shout. I can testify personally it is quite liberating.
Anyhoo, I can’t recommend enough you pick up a copy of Marc’s book. I really think it would do you some good.
Peace
December 4th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Hi Incubus and Gods peace to you.
You seem to have taken a closed minded approach to our posts instead of an open minded position of debate. That is o.k. I am reminded of the FTB hanging up on Marc. FTB stands for FRANCHISE!! tax board, right? This is exactly what I am trying to convey to you friend. The Internal Revenue Code is an INDIRECT excise tax on priviledged activities carried on with the government. Hence the “FRANCHISE” called ‘social security’.
Let me try to give another example here.
Lets say you have insurance on your car through a policy your parents signed you up for. They know you have a policy with them because you have a number that is associated with an account as a ‘policy holder’. Now lets say you sign forms under OATH (penalty of purgery) that the ‘insurance company’ created and put the accompanying ‘account number’ on the form as well, and these forms get mailed back to the ‘insurance company’. And this is done year after year after year. They have no reason to believe you are not a ‘policy holder’. Then one day you only fill out half of the form (w-4) and never file the rest of the forms that accompnay the other half. But you still run around using this policy number with EVERY other transaction you make. Cell phone, gas company, bank accounts, unenployment insurance, etc,etc) Then this ‘company’ notifies you that you need to “pay up” on your policy. Then you turn around and say ‘I am no policy holder’. “Are there any witnesses with personnel firsthand knowledge that I am a policy holder liable for ‘policy fees’?” Then what do they say…”Sir, we have ‘information’ in the form of a W-2 with a policy number on it”.You are deliquent in your payment we are going to take money from your bank account that was opened with our ‘policy number’.
Or maybe more simply yet. You are not going to run around with a Sams Club Card, not pay for it, then get to reap the ‘benefits’ of shopping at Sams Club. How does this not make sense? It is NO different with them fools either. You use the membership card and probably have NEVER raised an issue with it. Your part of the club man. Join a golf club and certain ‘rules’ apply to you at that club!Go to a golf club and sign up for their membership but say you do not have to pay for it and see what happens. Sheez. Can you dismiss this logic Incubus or is this again my ‘oppinion’? I mean come on man. You cannot expect to recieve a ‘benefit’ from good ole uncle sam without paying into it. Then through the use of deceptive language in their codes (redifining words we use in common everday speach to mean something TOTALLY different) accompanied with YOUR signature and membership number YOU become the WITNESS against yourself. That IS the evidence of club membership or a government whore called a ‘taxpayer’. they have spent years trying to perfect this presumption of a law called the Internal Revenue Code.
I am not here to ‘battle’ with you my friend. I am just showing you that Marcs questioning is not the ‘begining and the end’. And the FACT that his client is a ‘club member’ is when his client gives a ‘club number’. Now do not presume that I am “Marc bashing’ here. He is an intelligent dude and seeks what a lot of us seek from what I can tell. However, I cannot sit by when I see something wrong or a fundamentally wrong argument.
Let me re-do the conversation here to show you how silly it is.
Marc: Do you have any witnesses that have personel firsthand knowledge that my client is a club member and owes club fees. My client is on the line.
Club agent: Oh o.k. .What is your name sir.
:Marc’s client: John Doe
:Club agent: What is your club membership number sir?
Marc’s client: 000-00-0000
…See Incubus the problem here is ‘other clubs’ trying to get you to be a member of the ‘mother club’ through coercion and constructive fraud in pretending that membership in the ‘mother club’ is somehow mandatory. If you have ‘mother club’ number and card your a member UNLESS and UNTIL you withdraw from the program. It is hidden deep within the Social security operations manual but it is there.
OPINION opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn
by a witness from facts some of which are
known to him and others assumed, or drawn
from facts which, though lending probability
to the inference, do not evolve it by a process
of absolutely necessary reasoning. See
Lipscomb v. State, 75 Miss. 559, 23 South.
210.
An inference necessarily involving certain
facts may be stated without the facts, the inference
being an equivalent to a specification
of the facts; but, when the facts are not necessarily
involved in the inference (e. g., when the
inference may be sustained upon either of several
distinct phases of fact, neither of which it
necessarily involves,) then the facts must be
stated. Whart. Ev. § 510.
2. A document prepared by an attorney
for his client, embodying his understanding
of the law as applicable to a state of facts
submitted to him for that purpose.
3 . The statement by a judge or court of
the decision reached in regard to a cause
tried or argued before them, expounding the
law as applied to the case, and detailing the
reasons upon which the judgment is based.
See Craig v. Bennett, 158 Ind. 9, 62 N. E.
273; Coffey v. Gamble, 117 Iowa, 545, 91 N.
W. 813; Houston v. Williams, 13 Cal. 24, 73
Am. Dec. 565; State v. Ramsburg, 43 Md.
333.[LACKS LAW DICIONAY 2ND ED.]
B E L I E F . A conviction of the truth of
a proposition, existing subjectively in the
mind, and induced by argument, persuasion,
or proof addressed to the judgment Keller
v. State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S. E. 92. Belief is
to be distinguished from “proof,” “evidence,”
and “testimony.” See EVIDENCE.
With regard to things which make not a very
deep impression on the memory, it may be called
“belief.” “Knowledge” is nothing more than
a man’s firm belief. The difference is ordinarily
merely in the degree; to be judged of by the court,
when addressed to the court; by the jury,
when addressed to the jury. Hatch v. Carpenter,
9 Gray (Mass.) 274.
The distinction between the two mental conditions
seems to be that knowledge is an assurance
of a fact or proposition founded on perception
by the senses, or intuition; while belief
is an assurance gained by evidence, and
from other persons. Abbott[BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED]
I am not arguing with you Incubus which seems to be the position you have taken here. Just as you have stated to me that you cannot recommend enough that I read Marc’s book on the presumption I have not read it. Try the social security act Sorry about the long posts Marc. If you are reading these do you have a place to debate on your site. I have not found one. Open debate is good I beleive.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
[NEW KING JAMES VERSION]
I love truth. It is like a light and people always tend to gravitate towards it.
Gods peace to you Incubus I look forward to other posts of yours. Do not fear open debate Incubus and open debate goes much smoother when we quit labelingand jdging people in ,yes, my opinion. Bye the bye…your making a presumption that I look at you as a “sheeple”. I never said such a thing and actually do not look at you like that. I would encourage you to bring down your gaurds as I am not attacking you. We are all in this together my friend.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
While I agree the SSn should not be used, despite having it, the FTB agent agrees there’s no one at the FTB who can verify my client is a taxpayer with taxable income.
December 6th, 2011 at 2:30 am
Hi Marc and Gods’s peace to you.
Thank you for your reply.
The Socialist Insecurity Number is at the heart of the the issue in relation to ‘income taxes’. I agree with you that no one from the FTB can ‘verify’ your client is a ‘taxpayer’. Your client has already ‘verified’ it for them. This is PART of what needs to be conveyed. Who was it who said “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction”, or something to that effect?
There IS consent, although it is given through constructive fraud, lies, deceit, ambigious ‘laws’, “words of art”, and a slew of other methods. This is ALL based on what is called presumption to wit;
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185
presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, Okl.App., 557 P.2d 1161, 1163. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D.C.Ga., 92 F.R.D. 100, 106.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof. Calif.Evid.Code, §600.
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301.
See also Disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive evidence; Prima facie; Raise a presumption.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185]
When someone fills out the WRONG ‘tax forms’ (w-4, 1040 then receives a w-2) and on all these forms supplies a government identifying number the FACTS are established of ‘taxpayer’ status. The FTB agent (who is just as probably ignorant of the tax code as the rest of us) does not have to ‘verify your client is a “taxpayer”‘. Your client gave ALL the presumptive ‘evidence’ they need to move foreward.
See there is a DIRECT connection between the use of government ‘benefits’ and ‘taxpayer’ status. There is a provision in the original Social Security Act (which also applies now) that those who sign up for the program ,also simultaneously become subject to the Internal Revenue Code;
Section 8 of the Social Security Act
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected and paid upon the income of every individual a tax…
What they are doing here is getting “IMPLIED CONSENT” to all the accompanying ‘rules and regualations” they pass off as ‘legitimate law’.
This is consistent with these maxims;
He who does not deny, admits.
He who is silent, appears to consent
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
If you raise an issue with said number being NOT VOLUNTARY. If you DO NOT CONSENT but are complelled to use of said number. If you ARE NOT even elligable for said number. IF you DENY you HAVE A NUMBER. IF you can PROVE according to their OWN ‘regulations’ it DOES NOT belong to you but is in FACT government property. You are putting yourself in a better position. And it does in FACT belong to them;
Code of Federal Regulations
TITLE 20–EMPLOYEES’ BENEFITS
CHAPTER III–SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
PART 422_ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES–Table of Contents
Subpart B_General Procedures
… Social security number cards are the PROPERTY of SSA [Federal government] and must be returned upon request. (It also states this on the card you carry itself).
This is why the court rules the way it did here;
” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
This is also why the conversation sounds silly to me if redone to better illustrate what is ACTUALLY happening to wit;
Marc: Do you have any witnesses with firsthand knowledge that my client is a golf club member and owes golf club fees? My client is on the line.
Golf club agent: Oh good, can I have your clients name?
Golf club member/client: John doe
Golf club agent: O.K. good. Can I have your golf club membership number as well?
Golf club member/client: Ya sure. It is 777-77-7777
Golf club agent: Very good. How can I help you today.
Marc: Ya I was just wondering if you have any witnesses with firsthand knowledge that my client is a golf club member and owes golf club fees?
…You are correct Marc, they are laughing at us.
The people really in charge are smart enough to get us to ‘witness’ against ourselves. This is what they are doing. The FTB agent has no idea like no one else has no idea!
Marc, you will never have a “No State Project” until ALL ties with ANY ‘benefits’ coerced or otherwise are DENIED. The reason they let you ‘win’ in court a % of the time is also based on these maxims to wit;
He who questions well, learns well.
He who DISTINGUISHES well learns well.
I am not disagreeing with you, but merely trying to show what avenues they are using to ‘claim’ jurisdiction. And the socialist insecurity number is one of the MOST DAMNING peices of ‘evidence’ they have IF an issue has never been raised with its ‘use’. They will ‘presume’ you use it ‘voluntarily’ if you never tell them “I do NOT want the number and DO NOT want your ‘benefits’ that are STOLEN from others just to pay for the people who do want to partake in your scam…err socialist ‘handouts’.
These ‘benefits’ are ONLY given to statutorily defined ‘U.S. citizens’ (title 8 sec. 1401) and ‘residents’ which are defined ONLY as ALIENS under Title 26 to wit;
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) Resident alien
(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien
(1) In general
For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B) -
(A) Resident alien
An ALIEN individual SHALL be treated as a RESIDENT of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial presence test
Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).
(iii) First year election
Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).
What you ARE actually under Title 26 is what they call a ‘non resident’ to wit;
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident alien
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
This is also consisten with what you say as far as ‘citizens’. The ONLY form for a ‘nonresident alien NON individual is a W-8BEN form that YOU yourself create.
The reason I state non-individual is because they define ‘individual’ to mean a certain ‘thing’. Once they do this it becomes necessary for you to decide IF you are an ‘individual’ under their ‘regulation’.
5 U.S.C. §552a(2) Records maintained on individuals
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(2) the term ”individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Are you starting to see the ‘connection’ here? What this means is that a ‘Spanish citizen’ is NOT an individual under this ‘regulation’. Likewise NEITHER is a NON-RESIDENT. This is part of their deception. What you ‘claim’ to be is how they get ya. Side note..this ‘individual’ as they define it are the ONLY ‘persons’ they can keep records on.
December 6th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Damon et al: I think you folks are missing an important point here. The SSC (Canada Corp. uses SIN) is subject requisite for all working for the UNITED STATES Corp. or CANADA Corp. No debate there. But how could the requirement possibly apply outside of the corporation? If you are not an agent performing a function of government then why should you be obliged to return income to them? If you are selling your labour to a private entity while serving in your private capacity then those internal codes cannot possibly apply. Using a number out of NECESSITY does not make one a member/agent of the government corporation.
Now I don’t know if Marc is driving at this point, but it certainly supports his line of questioning in demanding for witnesses with first hand knowledge. Data and materials are not evidence unless a man or woman with first hand knowledge can present them. Therefore, if no man or woman has first hand knowledge that I am an agent of UNITED STATES or CANADA performing a function of these corporations while I sell my services, using the benefit cards privately of NECESSITY, then what obligation to “return income” do I have?
The presumption the IRS/CRA agents make is that ANY SERVICE one performs is a service of the government simply because the SSC/SIN number is used.
That is a false presumption. If one works as a dog walker for “Mary’s Dog Walking Service” is that a function of government? No,of course not. Make up your own example and ask yourself the same questions…
December 6th, 2011 at 9:10 am
“There IS consent, although it is given through constructive fraud, lies, deceit, ambigious ‘laws’,”
There is no such thing as valid consent under fraud. Fraud invalidates consent. Marks methods are much more effective than commercial redemption and free-man-on-the-land methods. Obviously that is my opinion; from much time doing research on all three methods. In short, against men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun and fraud, it is all about damage control and Marc’s methods limit the amount of time and money spent on damage control to a minimum compared to the other two. With one exception, living completely of the grid. Even that is very time and energy consuming to avoid criminal government.
December 6th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Zonsb, Hello.
I ADMIT there is no VALID consent through constructive fraud. I am merely conveying that use of their property voluntarily without raising an issue with it is the gateway to the ‘tax scheme and is consistent with the maxims I have stated earlier. An issue needs to be raised with the so-called compuslory nature of the tracking number or they presume you use it consentually.
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
I do not condone nor agree with ‘commercial redemption’ in any way shape or form. It is a hoax.
You mention living ‘off the grid’. 8)…now we are talking turkey.
December 6th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“You mention living ‘off the grid’. 8)…now we are talking turkey.”
Honest men and women — the vast, vast, vast, majority of the population didn’t build the health, wealth and peace of society so it could be taken over by men and women attempting to provide services at the barrel of a gun and thus have people run to the off-grid hills.
December 6th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Hiding off grid from the criminals calling themselves government doesn’t solve the problem. It’s Stockholm syndrome lite. The saying: “you can’t fight city hall,” should be changed to, fight the man/women, not city hall. That is, sue the man and woman, not the office of the State. Sue the man, not the police officer or IRS agent pretending to not be a man. There is no state. Don’t sue the fiction, sue the man. Was a legal right violated and was there injury? I’m pretty sure being kidnapped and put in a cage is reason for valid cause of action. The plaintiff’s case includes there is no State. That’s how and why the plaintiff is suing the man, not the fiction. Plus, a civil suit requires a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.
December 7th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Zonsb, hello again. I replied to you very early in the morning and was not ‘all there’ yet. I wanted to go a little deeper after reading your reply a little more closley just to be clear. I think I might be taken out of context in my statements.
So to clarify. I agree with you 100% that there is no VALID consent through constructive fraud , deceptive regulations, etc, etc. My statement was this…
What they are doing here is getting “IMPLIED CONSENT” to all the accompanying ‘rules and regualations” they pass off as ‘legitimate law’
I am using capitalization to ‘emphasize’ not “yell”. I also wrote this..
I am not disagreeing with you, but merely trying to show what avenues they are using to ‘claim’ jurisdiction. And the socialist insecurity number is one of the MOST DAMNING pieces of ‘evidence’ they have IF an issue has never been raised with its ‘use’. They will ‘presume’ you use it ‘voluntarily’ if you never tell them “I do NOT want the number and DO NOT want your ‘benefits’ that are STOLEN from others just to pay for the people who do want to partake in your scam…err socialist ‘handouts’.
I never said any of the ‘consent’ was valid. There are 2 kinds of consent to my knowledge. EXPRESS AND IMPLIED. Express consent could be in the form of a valid contract that 2 parties agree too do or not to do a certain thing or things with their ‘john hancocks’.. Implied consent is by ones actions. An example of this ‘implied consent’ is what is called ‘accord and satisfaction’ under the ‘common law’. If I ‘owed’, lets say, a certain sum of ‘money’ on a car. Let’s say $3,000. Let’s say I write a check for $400 on one of my ‘payments’ but I write ‘PAYMENT IN FULL” on the info line. If they then turn around and cash this check.BAM! Implied consent to payment in full. They can no longer ‘demand’ payment after that. It is pretty shady but that is an example of ‘implied consent’. If you have any doubt to the truthfullness of my statements I can supply quite a bit of case law on “accord and satisfaction” if you are interested.
This is one of the methods they have chosen to get your ‘voluntary’ consent.
I must also reply to your 2nd post. I NEVER said ANYTHING about ‘hiding’ from them and ‘run to off-the grid hills’. You seem to equate ‘off the grid’ with ‘hiding’ from them. I personally think that it would be much more satisfying and I would find more self fullfillment with, growing my own fruits and vegetables, farming animals (chickens,pigs, maybe a goat or 2), living off solar power, hunting and fishing, etc, etc. That is just me. I ,right now, do not use a socialist insecurity number nor file ANY tax forms at all. Unfortunatley I am not ‘off the grid”. I still sojourn and work in the ‘city’.
What I am trying to convey here is WHY give them the tools they use to track you like a slave? You want to REALLY minimize damage… That is exactly what it is without all the legal mumbo jumbo. A slave survaillance number. Fortune favors the bold my friend. If we can not even learn how to break these simple chains while there is still time, how will we learn to break the really big ones when it is ‘too late’?
I know how difficult it is without the ‘slave number’. They have made it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to conduct ‘commercial transactions’ or ‘buy and sell’ without their mark (sound familiar see Revelation?), wether it be in the form of a license (which they usually do not issue to people unless you provide a slave number) or their brand of de-facto ‘U.S. citizenship’ or residnet alien status. Isn’t being “free’ the essence of why you/we are all here?
Claim nonresident instead of nonresident. The whole notion and foundation of being ‘soveriegn’ or ‘autonomous’ is not having to depend on anyone else isn’t it? Being totally self sufficient? I don’t know I guess. What I do know however is that we ARE in this together and the minute we become close minded we no longer give ourselves to reason but become exactly what most of us seek to be free from…
I’ll state it again Zonsb. Your silence is presumed consent. The number is what they use to track you as one ‘theirs’.
Another thing you mentioned I wanted to comment on was and I quote,
” Plus, a civil suit requires a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.”
Funny thing this ‘civil’ status.
NATIONALITY. That quality or character
which arises from the fact of a person’s
belonging to a nation or state. Nationality
determines the political status of the individual,
especially with reference to allegiance;
while domicile determines his civil
status. Nationality arises either by birth or
by naturalization. According to Savigny,
“nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality,”
for the purpose of distinguishing
the case of a nation having no national
t e r r i t o r y ; e. g., the Jews. 8 Sav. Syst § 346;
Westl. Priv. Int. Law, 5.
Nationality determines your POLITICAL status while DOMICILE determines your ‘civil status’. Domicile is ONLY a choice YOU can make. It is a tricky word and I have foud it to be very beneficial to KNOW my domicile.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 17(b)
Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity
(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.
The capacity of an individual, other than one ACTING IN A REPRESENTATIVE [Social Security] capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the individual’s DOMICILE…
As far As I know and have found ALL’civil jurisdiction’ is based on your domicile also called ‘residence’. or ‘citizenship’.
Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)
“The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile‘. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557.”
[Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)]
thought you might like to know.
God bless!
December 7th, 2011 at 1:51 am
Claim nonresident instead of nonresident* =
Claim NONresident instead of RESIDENT…
December 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
To emphasize: THERE IS NO STATE and THERE ARE NO CITIZENS. A citizen-State relationship is a duty of allegiance in return for duty of protection. It’s reciprocal consideration.
Every State supreme court and USSC has ruled the government has no duty to protect anyone. No duty to protect equals no citizens. No citizens equals no body politic. No body politic equals no State. There is no State, there are no citizens, p-e-r-i-o-d. There is only the illusion and/or delusion of a State and citizens. http://marcstevens.net/video/20090307delusions.html
That’s talking law/legal as the government criminals have defined it. They have no regard/respect/consistency for THEIR law and certainly not for natural law.
Let’s “talk” facts.
The government’s public relations/propaganda says their job is to protect peace, freedom and civility. Government’s actions “speak” ear-splitting louder than words.
The reality is, facts are, six ways to Sunday and twice on Monday, in spades, government’s actions telegraph their actions are opposite of their words. Government routinely violates, peace, freedom and civility. It’s impossible to sustain or attain peace, freedom and civility by violating peace, freedom and civility. Facts trump law.
The Prime Law (google it) is the only law I know of that welcomes jury nullification. As if to say, “Yes Bob initiated force which broke Mary’s arm and had he not tackled her out of the path of the oncoming car Mary would most likely be dead. Bob had no nefarious intent and in fact the opposite. He must pay the bill to repair Mary’s arm with no additional punitive cost/penalty owed.” Mary, the plaintiff, would in all probability lose a criminal case and win a civil tort — to the extent of Bob paying the cost of repairing Mary’s arm.
With a voluntary society and its natural occurring abundance, Mary would likely pay the bill herself and insist that Bob accept a most gracious gift in return for saving her life. I’d be thinking a second/vacation home, trip around the world, a new car; whatever Bob would most enjoy. Price/cost having very low import in people’s personal lives it may be a hand-made shirt or a special song acknowledging Bob’s heroism or a unique tree planted in the town square or Bob’s yard.
December 8th, 2011 at 1:38 am
Zonsb , hello again and God bless.
I agree with most of which you say. I will try to do this more methodically. You state;
“To emphasize: THERE IS NO STATE and THERE ARE NO CITIZENS. A citizen-State relationship is a duty of allegiance in return for duty of protection. It’s reciprocal consideration.”
O.k. A ‘state’ has NOT been defined to ONLY mean a ‘body politic’. It has been defined as “A body politic OR society of men”. Do you know what a ‘society’ is? A ‘society’ has been defined as
“A group of people gathered together under MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate, determine, and act for a common goal”.
Do you agrree with me that ‘societies’ DO in FACT exist? Some examples may be the National Rifle Association, World Wildlife Fund, and TONS more. These ARE in FACT ‘societies’ and maybe, just maybe could be considered a ‘state’. I don’t know. Now wether I join this ‘association’, ‘society’, or a ‘state’ is based on certain actions I undertsake and how I DESCRIBE myself on their forms for them to ‘verify’ ‘membership’ when I come into contact with them. How I DESCRIBE myself on THEIR forms relating to words THEY DEFINE might just in fact give a presumption to ‘membership status’. Especially if I have and use a ‘membership’ card or number.
Do you ‘claim’ ‘U.S. citizenship’ on government forms Zonsb?
Do you perhaps claim ‘resident’ on government forms?
If you answer yes, I would ask why do you claim ‘citizenship’ in something that does not exist?
Why claim ‘resident’ in something that does not exist?
And if you continue this same behavior WHILST expecting ‘change’ how is this not defined as ‘insanity’?
Maybe the fact is not in that it does not exist, but you claim ‘resident’ or ‘citizenship’ in a non-existence. I don’t know.
I did not bring up ‘citizenship’ with you to say I believe in it. Cause I do not believe in any ‘earthly’ citizenship from man made vanities that they call government. I brought up ‘citizenship’ to SHOW you that they say it is synonymous with ‘domicile’. This means the 2 words are interchangeable as I am sure you are well aware. You see, I do not maintain a ‘domicile’ within any man made government so it is impossible for me to be a ‘citizen’ within that ‘government’. Please read carefully, I implore you;
Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)
“The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act WITH REFERANCE to the JURISDICTION of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile‘. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557.”
“Citizenship,” “habitancy,” and “residence” are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as “domicile,” while in other uses may have different meanings.Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.
“Residence” signifies living in particular locality while “domicile” means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.
For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship [domicile] to the agencies of government.”[City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]
When they ask you for your ‘citizenship’ they are in FACT asking you for your DOMICILE. I’ll show you according to their own oppinions what they say about this domicile. Here is the USSC;
Under our system of law, judicial power to grant a divorce- jurisdiction, strictly speaking-is founded on domicil. Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175 , 21 S.Ct. 551; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14 , 23 S. Ct. 237. The framers of the Constitution were familiar with this jurisdictional prerequisite, and since 1789 neither this Court nor any other court in the English-speaking world has questioned it. Domicil implies a nexus between person and place of such permanence as to control the creation of legal relations and responsibilities of the utmost significance. The domicil of one spouse within a State gives power to that State, we have held, to dis- [325 U.S. 226, 230] solve a marriage wheresover contracted. In view of Williams v. North Carolina, supra, the jurisdictional requirement of domicil is freed from confusing refinements about ‘matrimonial domicil’, see Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32, 41 , 59 S.Ct. 3, 6, 118 A.L.R. 1518, and the like. Divorce, like marriage, is of concern not merely to the immediate parties. It affects personal rights of the deepest significance. It also touches basic interests of society. Since divorce, like marriage, creates a new status, every consideration of policy makes it desirable that the effect should be the same wherever the question arises.
[…]
… If a finding by the court of one State that domicil in another State has been abandoned were conclusive upon the old domiciliary State, the policy of each State in matters of most intimate concern could be subverted by the policy of every other State. This Court has long ago denied the existence of such destructive power. The issue has a far reach. For DOMICIL IS THE FOUNDATION of PROBATE JURISDICTION precisely as it is that of divorce. [Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945)]
It should be obvious at this point that domicile plays an important role in their courts…yes?
West’s Words& Phrases
A “domicile” is the place where the law regards a person to be, regardless of whether he is corporeally found there. U.S. v. Novero, D.C.Mo., 58 F.Supp. 275, 278.
Term “domicile” connotes a place with which a person has a connection for certain legal purposes, e.g., jurisdiction, determination of legitimacy, descent of personal property. In re Moore’s Estate, 415 P.2d 653, 656, 68 Wash.2d 792.
“Domicile” implies a nexus between a person and place of such permanence as to AUTHORIZE CONTROL OF LEGAL STATUS, relationship and responsibilities of the domiciliary. Dosamantes v. Dosamantes, Tex.Civ.App., 500 S.W.2d 233, 236.
[West's Words& Phrases]
What about taxes?
“Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen[DOMICILIARY!]. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located.”
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
If you run around KNOWINGLY that they ‘owe’ you no ‘protection’ but you STILL claim to be a ‘citizen/domiciliary’ on their forms claiming ‘allegience’ to them ESPECIALLY knowing they do not exist would seem…I don’t know. To me it would seem insane, especially if I expected different results.
If you tell me a ‘citizen’ does not exist, then quit claiming to be a ‘citizen’ on government forms, if you do such a thing. If the ‘state’ does not exist as you say then quit claiming to be a ‘resident’ of such a thing. This is part of the begining of a ‘voluntary society’ (which in effect could also be called a ‘voluntary state’.
“Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or "subject" under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God's Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God. ”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]
_________________________________________
“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
God bless you Zonsb.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:18 am
I don’t know why a person should or would want to use the mafia-government’s laws and rules in their playbooks when they themselves don’t respect or apply their laws and rules consistently and, are mostly consistent in their fraud. The judge and government agents are the legal experts so my opinion is worth squat. Let the judge impeach the witness for me and/or have the judge show/demonstrate clear conflict of interest by using Marc’s questioning methods.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Hi Zonsb and God’s peace to you.
I do not know if you are addressing me or not. I will comment on your post however as ‘talking’ with you thus far has been a learning experience for me.
You state;
I don’t know why a person should or would want to use the mafia-government’s laws and rules in their playbooks when they themselves don’t respect or apply their laws and rules consistently and, are mostly consistent in their fraud.
I am under the impression that you claim to be a ‘U.S. citizen’ and ‘resident’ on government forms. So I was only stating the law for those entities and those who claim to be those entities. That is why I asked you;
Do you ‘claim’ ‘U.S. citizenship’ on government forms Zonsb?
Do you perhaps claim ‘resident’ on government forms?
If you answer yes, I would ask why do you claim ‘citizenship’ in something that does not exist?
Why claim ‘resident’ in something that does not exist?
And if you continue this same behavior WHILST expecting ‘change’ how is this not defined as ‘insanity’?
Maybe the fact is not in that it does not exist, but you claim ‘resident’ or ‘citizenship’ in a non-existence. I don’t know.
These to me are important questions. Knowing they are not real (‘state’ etc, etc) then claiming to be a part of them is to simultaneously confirm and deny.
It is written from the begining;
James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
I too have been guilty of this but am continually coming to a new understanding of the law I am actually bound to (I am only a child). If you choose to trust in Marc’s ‘line of questioning’ which is well thought out and certainly helpful in shedding light on their illusions to find your freedom, have at it.I must remind you ,however, that Marc IS a man.
Again it is written;
Psalm 7:1
O LORD my God, in thee do I put my trust: save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me:
And yet again it is written and has been told from the begining;
Psalm 60:11
Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.
God’s peace to you!
December 9th, 2011 at 3:07 am
Did you ever stop and consider that maybe I think people that quote scripture may be delusional — which frankly, I couldn’t care less about so long as they don’t initiate force against me and my property; especially delusional when they think acting under force, threat of force and coercion legitimizes government’s acts/process. If not delusional, perhaps it’s double minded.
If I fill out government forms it’s so the mafia-government’s thug, Guido, doesn’t break my legs, so to speak. It’s akin to beating a confession out of a person; I’ll say/write whatever they want so long as it keeps Guido, the attack dog/thug off of me.
I’ve heard the scripture thumping, freeman-on-the-land and double minded stuff years ago. You parrot well. There, are you happy now?
December 9th, 2011 at 3:53 am
“I must remind you ,however, that Marc IS a man.”
Obviously Marc is a man. So am I. I can decipher by your capitalization of “IS,” and what you wrote thereafter, that you infer that scripture, the alleged word of God — one of thousands of idolized gods — has some sort of loftier importance than man.
Many people believe government-god has some loftier importance than man. Dumping one god and clinging onto another is akin to dethroning one tyrannical government only to replace it with another.
It was men that wrote the scriptures. Proclaiming it the word of God doesn’t make it so. I match your scripture with my Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus
I think it best that beliefs — be they religious beliefs, beliefs in gods, beliefs in government or otherwise – be left out, and instead, stick to the facts.
December 9th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Hello again Zonsb. And God’s peace to you!
I must say that I am not trying to strike a ‘cord’ with you, but you seem to be agitated or in a defensive position with me. Forgive me if I have said anything to you to take that position with me. I do however thank you for the 2 posts.
This is in reply to your first post. I cannot initiate ‘force’ against you Zonsb because it is not allowed by the law that I am bound by.
Matthew 22:36-40
King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I would think it impossible to break ANY law trying to love my nieghbor as myself. It seems sound wisdom to me. Even sounder to love God.
You stated
“If I fill out government forms it’s so the mafia-government’s thug, Guido, doesn’t break my legs, ”
Filling out government forms was not a subject being ‘discussed’ thus far. The questions I asked pertained to what you CLAIM to BE on these ‘government’ forms with the knowledge that these things do not exist.
What else I can gather from your statement is that your actions might be done out of fear of ‘Guido” and his enforcers. Were we not told from the begining?
Psalm 118:6
The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?
Will “Guido” as you say ‘break your legs’ if you do not check the box marked ‘U.S. citizen’? If in fact you do such a thing.
You also make the statement;
“I’ll say/write whatever they want so long as it keeps Guido, the attack dog/thug off of me.”
This does not seem to be sound in judgement nor in wisdom for again it is written;
Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Proverbs 6:2
Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.
…
With regards to your 2nd post you state;
“It was men that wrote the scriptures. Proclaiming it the word of God doesn’t make it so. I match your scripture with my Epicurus…”
Did you know it is written from the begining;
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You also make this statement;
“I think it best that beliefs — be they religious beliefs, beliefs in gods, beliefs in government or otherwise – be left out, and instead, stick to the facts.”
The thing here that I think is important to understand is that this is EXACTLY what we are ‘talking’ about. We ARE talking about beliefs, beliefs in ‘gods’, beliefs in ‘government’ , or otherwise, and belief in GOD.
Religion is dead.
An example is based on your statements that we are talking about ‘beliefs’
You fill out government forms and claim ‘U.S. citizen’ because you BELIEVE ‘Guido’ will beat you up or ‘break your legs’. This takes faith.
Have you EVER claimed ANYTHING other than ‘U.S. citizen’ on a ‘government’ form (given the impression this is what you claim)because you believe or fear in the unkown? This takes faith.
If you have NOT claimed anything other than ‘U.S. citizen’ on a ‘government’ form for fear in a ‘belief’ that ‘guido’ will ‘break your legs’, how is this NOT any different from FAITH?
If you claim that ‘citizenship’ is it a FACT you CLAIMED it, regardless of why or what your ‘belief’ was concerning the CLAIM.
If you claim ‘citizenship’ in something you claim does not exist because of fear how is this NOT religion? How is this not faith?
God bless you Zonsb and may God open our eyes to the truth.
December 9th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Apparently you don’t comprehend the meaning of acting in self-defense under threat, duress and coercion. Self-defense against initiatory force, threat of force and coercion includes lying in self-defense. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it and is irrelevant.
Probability of statistics (scientific reasoning) is that when I’m in my car and a cop car’s flashing lights come on signaling me to pull over I know if I don’t pull over the situation will escalate wherein if I continue to refuse to associate with the cop and others in pursuit that the end result will cause me much more harm than if I just pulled over in the first place. Continued non-compliance could get me killed by the cop(s).
Furthermore, if I did pull over but didn’t have one of their driver’s licenses I could be shackled and kidnapped because I didn’t properly fill out their forms and jump through their hoops. There’s no faith involved. I know how the government thugs operate.
I suppose I could continue non-compliance and wish, hope, pray and take it on faith that the government thugs won’t run me off the road and proceed to shoot me for my steadfast non compliance. I know better than to have faith that they’ll leave me alone if I don’t comply with their demands. I rely on personal experience, empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, not faith.
December 10th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Hello Zonsb and God bless!
I would not expect anything to ‘change for the better’ with your statements in the above post. That post sounds like a defeated man Zonsb.
BUT THERE IS HOPE MY FRIEND!
I am not in an offensive or defensive position with you. I want to remind you of that. I am curious Zonsb, do you vote in their elections?
I am also compelled to remind you that is written since the begining;
Luke 12:11-12
King James Version (KJV)
11And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
12For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
It is up to you my friend. And remember:
“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a SNARE TO YOU.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
December 11th, 2011 at 8:18 am
I don’t vote in their elections. I’m extremely positve and optimistic. Probably because I know: “What is, is. Identify it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.” !THINK FIRST!
From your perspective you need to see me as: “I would not expect anything to ‘change for the better’ with your statements in the above post. That post sounds like a defeated man Zonsb.”
In my post I identified what is, is. It wasn’t intended to be a “pep rally”. Because I trounced on faith you found it necessary to save face by saying I “sound like a defeated man”. Thus the reason for your non sequitur commentary.
December 11th, 2011 at 8:37 am
I’ll use the questioning method to put the court actors in a double bind. As Marc has eloquently presented his methods. If when you’re in court, quoting scripture limits the damage done to you (Ie. the ticket or offense gets dismissed due to a motion to dismiss, or kicked out due to the cop/witness not showing up for the trial, or the cop/witness impeached by the judge, or your “case” has clear winning objections when presented on appeal) if quoting scriptures in those instances greatly limits the damage done to you by the alleged State, that’s great. How has it worked for you and others so far? Numbers please. Marc says when traffic cases go to trial, 75% of the time the cop doesn’t show up. No witness no evidence, case dismissed.
How to deal with criminals and fraudsters? Expose them for who and what they are, and building a voluntary angora community/society.
December 11th, 2011 at 9:33 am
God bless Zonsb and hello,
How are you today? All is well I hope.
Do you honestly believe I am ‘trying to save face’ because you allegedly ‘trounced on faith’?
My trouble is in understanding your position with what you claim on their forms knowing they are not real. Especially from one who claims;
“Probably because I know: “What is, is”
This is why I am asking you if you claim to be a ‘citizen’ or a ‘resident’ of something that does not exist whilst at the same time building your ‘voluntary community’.
If you do these things while expecting different results how is this not defined as insanity. Please forgive me but I do not understand.
It would also seem really silly to me for someone to claim ‘it is not real’ and then turn around and claim to be a ‘member’ of this fiction. Does that seem silly to you?
I do not ask these questions to try to be confrontational with you, but simply because I do not understand your reasoning, beliefs, faith.
God bless Zonsb, ‘talking’ with you thus far has been fun.
Jeremiah 5:26-27, “For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, THEY CATCH MEN. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.”
December 11th, 2011 at 10:15 am
I do think you tried to save face by your comment that I “sound like a defeated man”. Which, you saying that was a non sequitur. It’s not insane to lie in self defense. The fictions matter to the government public relations scam. Marc’s methods put the actors in a double bind due to their need to uphold the public relations/propaganda scam.
December 11th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Proverbs 1:22-33
King James Version (KJV)
22How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
Thank you for your conversation Zonsb. May Marcs ‘methods’ be the guide to the Truth for you.
December 11th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I still wold like to know your thoughts regards to this: “If when you’re in court, quoting scripture limits the damage done to you (Ie. the ticket or offense gets dismissed due to a motion to dismiss, or kicked out due to the cop/witness not showing up for the trial, or the cop/witness impeached by the judge, or your “case” has clear winning objections when presented on appeal) if quoting scriptures in those instances greatly limits the damage done to you by the alleged State, that’s great. How has it worked for you and others so far? Numbers please”
December 11th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
What damage can be done in stating the truth? I am a servant of my King and and an ambassador for Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Ephesians 6:20
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
If I am sent to them then it is an opportunity to minister the truth.
Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Failing to realize the difference between just ‘quoting scriptures’ and serving my creator is in error. The Word of the one I serve has been tried.
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
You see Zonsb I am subject to a different government and Kingdom. It was not created by men. You see the kingdoms of men have a ‘shelf life’.This should be evidenced with the science you use. There is also law that EVERYONE is subject too. Wether obedience is given or not is an entirely different subject. Zonsb, it is not the tangiable but the intangiable. It is not the flesh but the spirit my friend.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
You asked for Numbers so shall I give.
Numbers 15:30
But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
peace be to you.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Your obfuscation is as obvious as your delusions. You know darn well what type of numbers I was asking for — I asked clearly — and you gave a totally non responsive answer. FAIL!
What damage can be done in stating the truth?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:02 am
Incubus? Anywho.
It is written.
Psalm 60:11
Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.
Unless the Lord build it Zonsb..for it is written.
Psalm 127:1
Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:20 am
FAIL!
December 13th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I told you damon, this was a fruitless pursuit. You’re clinging to delusions. And I’m not talking about the ones involving an invisible skyman.
You continue to mix facts with opinions. I was caught up in the Freetard stuff myself for awhile. I had to let go of such silly ideas and accept reality. I’m thankful I did.
You’re right, using the SSN does not help in freeing ourselves, but it is not evidence of anything nor does it make you a “witness” against yourself.
And I don’t know why you keep stating “in the begining”. I don’t wish to trash your religion, but it is no closer to the “begining” than yesterday is. Besides, you continue to quote KJV, a notoriously mistranslated version. How much have you studied the original hebrew and greek writings? How well do they mesh with American “Christianity”. You’ve been sold a lie. And for “Christs” sake, his name wasn’t even Jesus. Atleast address your King correctly. How disrespectful.
Besides, where do you get off claiming “EVERYONE’ is subject to a law that does not exist. You sound like a statist. Making unilateral claims.
There’s no point in wasting your time Zonsb. And I mean no offense to you damon. If you don’t understand Marc’s methods, that’s okay. In time, when you’re ready, the truth will sink in.
December 14th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Hello Incubus and God’s peace to you.
You sure are a headstrong fellow.
“I told you damon, this was a fruitless pursuit”
I disagree with your statement. Pursuit of the TRUTH and statements of it are not and can never be ‘fruitless’.
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
I am not understanding why you are in an offensive position with me. You seem to keep labeling me (delusional, statist, etc, etc,).
Have I labeled you?
I have no religion either for religion is dead. Nor am I a ‘Christian’ as you presume. Is Yeshua the name you speak of?
I have tried to show you the facts (since you want to ‘stick to the facts’)concerning the use of their slave number to which you seem to defiantly refuse to understand or even consider. I do not think this is wise. I am merely showing the connection between the slave number and ‘taxpayer’ status.
I have to ask, Incubus, have you ever read the Social Security Act?
If you have not, how can you make any positive statements concerning said act speaking from a place of ignorance? (Ignorance is not derogatory but simply means not knowing or unaware)
“You’re right, using the SSN does not help in freeing ourselves, but it is not evidence of anything nor does it make you a “witness” against yourself.”?????
How do you know what it does or does not do? Do you know what ‘implied consent’ is?
“Besides, where do you get off claiming “EVERYONE’ is subject to a law that does not exist. You sound like a statist. Making unilateral claims.”
I believe you will find it very difficult in your new ‘voluntary society’ if it is not founded upon the ‘golden rule’.
Matthew 22:37-40
King James Version (KJV)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets.
Does the ‘golden rule’ not exist in your mind Incubus? Do you beleive that I can treat you anyway I want or vice versa? Do you beleive that you can treat anyone anyway you want and not be held accountable? Do you beleive you are NOT subject to loving your nieghbor as yourself? If not, why not?
“You’re right, using the SSN does not help in freeing ourselves”
I do not see ‘us’ freeing ‘ourselves’ absent the spirit of the Living God to which you refer as ‘the invisible skyman’. Do you not feel that you are free?
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
God bless!
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:27 am
Hey incubus, invisible skyman’s peace to you. In the beginning, 6,000 years ago… Before there was existence, there was the complete contradiction that existence doesn’t exist.[Off sarcasm] Existence exists.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
2 Peter 2:18-20
King James Version (KJV)
18For when THEY SPEAK great swelling words of VANITY, they ALLURE through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
I am amazed continually.
Anyone here ever read Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)??
Pretty interesting.
“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this
country substantially !!TWO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its
restrictions; THE OTHERto be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that instrument, by
exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to.. I take leave to say
that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a
radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass
from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of
legislative absolutism.. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside
the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests
upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the
Constitution.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
You see that? Two governments? One with restrictions the other without. Hmmm. Can this be…true?
“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise TWO SPECIES OF LEFISLATIVE POWER: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: THE OTHER, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia[and its territories]. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
Look the cases up yourself. Downes v Bidwell is an extraordinary case by the way.
Guess which ‘legislative power’ they have deceived the majority they are ‘citizens’ of?
American Jurisprudence 2d, Volume 77, Section 2: “United States”
“[T]he term ‘United States’ has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes [is LIMITED TOO] all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government wherever located.”
[77 Am.Jur.2d, §2, "United States"]
What else before the post is to big….
19 Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) §§883-884: Foreign Corporations-The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state
Think it over.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:38 am
This comment is a bit late, but this is as simple as I can put it.
The legal definition of a “taxpayer” is somebody who is LIABLE for a tax. There is absolutely nothing in the IRC that establishes any LIABILITY for INCOME taxes. If there’s no liability, there’s no requirement to pay, and there are no taxpayers with respect to INCOME tax. And since the provisions of the IRC apply to “taxpayers,” they don’t apply to anybody working in the private sector and legally domiciled in any of the 50 states. Also, the way that the IRC defines numerous terms is completely different from the way they are defined in a dictionary. This is part and parcel of the IRS fraud.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
More important, there are no facts connecting anyone to the constitution and federal law.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Hello and God bless.
Marc I disagree with you 100% that;
“there are no facts connecting anyone to… federal law”.
This is simply a false statement. I have posted many a time about the social security number. The use of the ‘benefit’ is EXACTLY what connects ‘anyone’ to federal law. Along and usually accompanied with a license of some form (drivers license, business license, etc, etc.). These ‘benefits’ are what establish the ‘connection’ from the man/women to the rules and regulations surrounding the franchise. By way of example;
If someone wants a ‘driver’s license’ they will only be issued to statutory ‘U.S. citizens’ or ‘residents’ usually if not always accompanied with the slave survaillance number which again can only be issued to statutory ‘U.S. citizens and ‘residents’. There are TWO kinds of consent. Express and implied. It is IMPLIED by the use of their ‘benefit’ that you and ANYONE else that uses a social security number is by default a statutory ‘U.S. citizen’. It makes absolutely no sense to claim no one is a ‘citizen’ and then turn around and use property of the government which can ONLY be issued to such ‘citizens’. It is a maxim my friend;
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
People cannot simultaneously confirm and deny.
The Social Security Act is found in Title 42 of the United States Code. Title 42 being ‘federal law’. The use of their ‘benefits’ and franchises is the method they use to enslave otherwise private ‘citizens’/people.
Expecting to use the ‘benefit’ at the ‘age of retirement’ and all the other uses it has and not ‘pay’ for it is silly.
This is also why it is called the FRANCHISE tax board. Here is the definition of franchise from a well known legal dictionary please read carefully people;
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 786-787
FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject. [READ THAT AGAIN ^]
A “franchise,” as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king’s prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king’s grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general. State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.
In this country a franchise is a PRIVILEGE or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised WITHOUT legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co.. 15 Johns., N.Y., 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. Bridgeport v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Arn.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484 ; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.l918E, 352.
People need to stop feeding at the federal trough. No one can be ‘independant whilst dependant’.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Damon, there is no state.
January 15th, 2012 at 11:44 am
WorBlux,
Where and when did I claim that there IS a STATE? Did you READ what I posted above? I wrote of no such thing concerning the man-made pagan idol called the STATE.
I did, however, write about the contracts/agreements and ‘benefits’ that one does carry on with the non-existent pagan idol/STATE/federal ‘government’.
I find that even the people that KNOW it is not real still seek its protection and ‘benefits’ in some way shape or form. They are ‘taxing’ the privileges and franchises that one has with them. The biggin is the socialist insecurity number.
I do not have any belief or faith in any STATE nor any man-made government for that matter, for it is written “My kingdom is not of this world”. It (STATE) is a pagan idol and false god for it is written;
Exodus 23:32-33
King James Version (KJV)
32Thou shalt make no covenant [contract or agreement] with them, nor with their gods [useless imaginations of men called the STATE/government etc,etc].
33They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods[under contract or franchise thereby becoming 'resident'], it will surely be a snare unto thee[never ending debt and taxes to name a few].
Psalm 106:36
And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.
My above post had to deal with ‘privileges’ and ‘benefits’ that people carry on with these false images which like the written Word says
“it will surely be a snare unto thee”. Consequently it is also written and stands as truth;
Jeremiah 5:21
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
There is no STATE. There IS however, God. And when a ‘nation’/people refuses to acknowledge that God is their ONLY authority then what you see around you/us is part of the consequence.
Jeremiah 13:10
This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart [man made creations called the STATE/governments], and walk after other gods[STATE], to serve them[STATE], and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for NOTHING.
I found out through study that obedience to one’s laws is the equivalent to worship. For there is a lawgiver WorBlux and he set His law when He set the foundations of the earth.Amen.
I reiterate here, there are ‘facts’ connecting people to ‘federal law’ and one of these ‘facts’ is the use of their ‘benefits’. The use of the ‘benefit’ is EXACTLY what connects you/people with the rules/regulations accompanying the ‘franchise agreement’. Hence the name ‘Franchise Tax Board’.
Gods peace to you WorBlux.
January 26th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Only thing that is occuring now when our nation is in debt is charge and discharge. If any other reasons a social security is used is an improper use of a social security number or card.
January 26th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Plain and simple. All laws are contract laws. Learn not to submit to a contract. You contract by giving them your name. You contract with them by walking threw the Bar. You contract with them by answering a judges questions. STOP CONSENTING PEOPLE. No contract no case.
January 27th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Contacts require freely given consent.
January 28th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Peace be unto you through and from my Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Does anyone EVER force anyone here to claim to be a ‘citizen’?
Does anyone EVER force anyone here to write down a government identifying number?
“The opportunity to become a citizen is a privilege.” United States v. Shapiro, 43 F.Supp. 927, page 929.
“Citizenship is a government gift which can be obtained only by compliance with conditions precedent prescribed by Congress.” Petition of Karas, 17 N.Y.S. 2nd. 958 (1940).
The ‘contract’ is considered as ‘consentual’ when one is asked for the identifying number and it is given. On top of that the identifying numbers and ‘licenses’ can only be issued to such ‘citizens’ which many here claim do not exist. Think hard when one from ‘government’ asks you if you are a ‘citizen’ and you reply “yes”…contract agreed to. It has nothing to do with ‘crossing the bar’. Giving a name however is of importance for it is written;
James 2:7, “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”
Hey Marc can you take me off the ‘spam’ list from the forums I do not recollect ever spamming. I would like to post in the forums. I tried to register and it would not allow me to because my e-mail is ‘marked’ somehow as a ‘known spammer’. This is a mystery to me.
January 28th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
@ Damon, I don’t think I can, just register with another email address, then let me know and I can activate the account
January 28th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
How can you contract with “a non-existant pagan idol” if contracts require atleast two parties ( both real)?
January 29th, 2012 at 6:18 am
Regards citizen: A citizen is a person who has sworn a duty of allegiance to the government in return for a duty of protection from the government. As Marc has clearly articulated several times, in his book, in radio interviews and at the podium, there are no citizens because the government has no reciprocal obligation to protect anyone. All state supreme courts and the US supremo court have ruled the government has no duty to protect anyone.
Regard contract: I have never signed a contract with any politician to be my representative. The State is a fiction and can’t sign a contract. Prosecutors like to proclaim they represent the State of XXXX yet there has never been nor will there ever be a letter from the State of XXXX signed by the State of XXXX granting a prosecutor the power of attorney to represent the State of XXXX.
Returning to the issue of citizen. The State is the body politic — the the citizens. Except there are no citizens and thus there is no State.
So then what is the alleged State/government? A band of killers, thieves and liars providing “services” at the barrel of a gun.
Lastly, regards the Bible and Christian God thing:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus
“Welcome to the EvilBible.com Web Site
“This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.”
January 29th, 2012 at 6:49 am
God’s peace to you all.
@ Marc. Very well. I will try that.
@ Incubus. It can be easy for one to overlook some fundamentals of a contract/agreement/covenant and consent. Uppercase letters are for emphasis only. To wit;
CONSENT. A concurrence of wills.
Express consent is that directly given, either viva voce or in writing.
IMPLIED CONSENT is that manifested by SIGNS, ACTIONS, or FACTS, or by INACTION or SILENCE, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given. Cowen v. Paddock, 62 Hun, 622, 17 N. Y. Supp. 388. [Blacks Law 2nd]
Actions in the above is important. One can give implied consent by ones actions wich then turns into ‘facts’ and vice versa.
‘Contracting’ with a pagan idol can also be accomplished with one’s actions. Obedience=worship my friend for it is written;
Romans 6:16
King James Version (KJV)
16Know ye not, that to whom YE yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
It is also recognized in the heathens ‘law’to wit;
Religion. Man’s relation to Divinity, to reverence, WORSHIP, OBEDIENCE, and SUBMISSION to MANDATES and PRECEPTS of supernatural or SUPERIOR beings [STATE is not real but an intangiable thing, likewise government also]. In its broadest sense includes ALL forms of BELIEF in the EXISTANCE of SUPERIOR BEINGS exercising POWER over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments.
Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292]
This is how they know you as one of their own. One of Caesers. By your obedience. Likewise,
1 John 2:3-4
King James Version (KJV)
3And hereby we do KNOW that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
And again here;
Matthew 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Also see
John 15:14
John 14:23
John 14:21
John 14:15-16
John 12:26
Hebrews 8:10
Revelation 21:3
The living God has told us. If we follow after other idols and serve their Gods we will bring upon ourselves trouble for it is written;
2 Corinthians 6:16
And what AGREEMENT hath the temple of God with idols? for ye ARE the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
God bless!
January 29th, 2012 at 7:13 am
@ Zonsb per your first paragraph.
If the ‘citizen’ does not exist then quit claiming ‘citizenship’ and using ‘benefits’ that can ONLY be issued to such ‘citizens’ if you do so. Otherwise you give it life. One can not simultaneously confirm and deny Zonsb. How silly is it to say;
“Citizens do not exist but I have property from the government that can only be issued to such citizens. The STATE is not real but I have and use a ‘drivers license’ that can only be issued by such ‘STATE’. Quit giving life to the dead my friend.
Quit using ‘licenses’ /permission from the ‘STATE’ that has no soul and does not exist. If people use these things they give the STATE life.
I will post on Epicurus at a later time. And if it pleases you read my above post. I think you posted as I was writing it.
Peace unto you Zonsb.
January 29th, 2012 at 8:19 am
The State is a fiction. It cannot contract no matter how many Bible thumping quotes people of the freeman-on-the-land, commercial redemption and patriot cults throw at it. By the rules of scientific reasoning and non-contradictory logic the State cannot enter into contract.
The State/government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun camouflaged by a public relations scam. Taxes are compulsory, pay the tax or go to jail. The government has no voluntary support.
Any benefits the government issues are funded by blood money it stole from people. It’s disgusting the pretzel-logic some people rationalize in attempts to legitimize government initiated force, threat of force and fraud against people and their property.
Signing a confession/contract under threat, duress and coercion is no contract or confession. Pay the tax or go to jail. It’s illogical and borderline delusional to think blood money tax can be converted to benefits doled out legitimizes the benefits.
Go for a drive with no alleged state benefit tags/plates and stickers on the car you drive and disregard the police trying to get you to pull over. Hey, you accepted no benefit from the State/government so it will leave you alone — NOT!
January 29th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Peace unto you.
@ Zonsb
“The State is a fiction. It cannot contract”
A corporation is a fiction, yet people contract with corporations all the time. Got a cell phone? Cable T.V.? Are these contracts any less valid?
If ‘government has no ‘voluntary support’ why do so many claim ‘citizenship’ in the idol?
If one is ‘out of a job’ do they not go to their caretaker and seek ‘unemployment insurance’? Food stamps? Medicare/Medicaid? Does one possibly recieve mail to ones home instead of General post?
Has it not been realized that to take of these from the heathen idol is an open declaration that one cannot care for himself and the pagan STATE must do so for them? Who is your daddy and what does he do is the question.
No matter what is said and no matter how many times it is said. If one walks around with documents, be it a social security number and corrosponding card, licenses of any sort,license plates, etc, etc that can ONLY be issued to the very ‘CITIZENS’ you claim do not exist than hypocrasy is found. One can find that one is not thinking clearly which is why many will turn and say “Well they force me” to reason within themselves and give excuse why use of daddies benefit must be continued when you can stop at any time.
Yet I ask and recieve no answer;
Who has ever forced anyone here or there to take up the ‘mark’? Who has ever forced anyone to check the ‘U.S. citizen’ box on any government form?
Who has ever forced anyone here when asked of a government identifying number to write down a number?
For it is written;
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will HATE the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and DESPISE the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Is it what is happening? People despising their master? Hating it?
We have been given the truth long ago my friends.
We have been given the answers Zonsb;
Romans 6:16
16Know ye not, that to whom YE yield yourselves SERVANTS to OBEY, his SERVANTS ye ARE to whom YE OBEY; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
It is time to awake out of sleep for it is the eleventh hour.
January 29th, 2012 at 11:15 am
“It can be easy for one to overlook some of the fundamentals of a contract/agreement…”
Which is exactly what you are doing. As Marc stated, contracts require freely given consent, and as Zonsb reiterated my question in the form of a statement, the State is a fiction and a fiction cannot contract.
I think at this point you’re just trolling.
January 29th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
@Damion, I’ve researched the freeman, freeman-on-the-land, patriot and commercial redemption bullshit. You evade reality and obfuscate reality to maintain your delusions. Try driving a car without the state tags/plates and stickers and pay no attention to the cops trying to pull you over. Just keep driving — heck, even tell yourself your traveling in your private conveyance and not driving a motor vehicle. You have not contracted with the State/government so they will leave you alone — NOT!
Since you haven’t contracted with them you can resist all the way until they run you off the road, drag you out of the car and riddle you with bullets. Resist the same way, but do it with the tags and stickers and the end result will be the same.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that you have the intent of undermining the goals of this website.
January 29th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Ahh, alas Incubus my friend. Peace unto you.
Implied consent. This is freely given by ones actions. You say the ‘STATE’ is a fiction. So are coporations as I stated above yet you may have a contract with them? Something YOU agreed too? No? Can a corporation enter into a ‘contract’ or agreement?
Example: The IRS mission statement states
“The IRS mission is to “provide America’s TAXPAYERS top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”
So the implication in the above is that they do not help NONTAXPAYERS!
What have people possibly done to implicate themselves as ‘TAXPAYERS”?
What actions have they undertook to get on the IRS radar screen?
What does the IRS use to track you like a slave?
What are the TWO things they ALWAYS ask of Marc’s ‘clients’ when he calls them up?
When you call them up for ‘help’ what is IMPLIED!! According to the mission statement…and according to one’s actions…
We have eyes and see not and have ears and hear not.
Implied consent is given when one uses the ‘benefits’ that can only be issued to such ‘citizens’. The stipulations to the ‘contract’ /agreement is written in the U.S. code. Important rules regulating the use of the ‘benefit’ that one may want to take note of are located in Title 26, Title 8, Title 5 and Title 42 in the U.S. code. These are ‘public notice’ so you cannot say “Oh I was unaware”.
I do not know what ‘trolling’ implies nor means.
I will again pose the questions;
If the ‘citizen’ you speak of does not exist why does one claim that same ‘citizenship’ on government forms?
Why does one carry property of the ‘STATE’ and government that can only be issued to such ‘citizens’.
If and when presented with a government form does one write down ‘STATE of XXXX’ when asked where do you live?
Since there is no ‘STATE’ get rid of any license from the ‘STATE’. If it does not exist do not register with the pagan idol.
If one is not a ‘citizen’ than get rid of the property that can only be issued to such ‘citizens’. Otherwise you are a ‘citizen’and a hypocryte and I nor anyone else and especially the ‘STATE’ will question who you voluntarily subject yourself too.
Spoken another way. Show me the beef my friend.
Walk into a place that requires a ‘membership’ card and try to take of the ‘benefits’ of membership status. If you are not a member they will not deal with you. If you are a ‘member’ than they can require of you a fee for the ‘benefits’ of membership status. Heck if you are not a member I bet they wont even send you a bill..(hint)
Please reread CONSENT in the above post from a well known legal dictionary. It seems you presume that a ‘contract’ may always needs be a paper with your signature which is simply not the case.
January 29th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
@ Zonsb and peace unto you.
Why do you keep presuming I am into commercial redemption and ‘freeman-on-the land/patriot movements? I never claimed such things nor do I send letters of ‘intent and understanding’.Nor have I said “If you do not contract with them they will leave you alone”. Maybe I have not been clear.I trust in the Living God and more so daily, ‘for it is written;
“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.”
I do not ‘seek to undermine the goals of this website’ whatever they may be. I do seek to open some eyes , however.
Let us try a new way for it is written;
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”
I agree the “STATE” is a fiction. It is an intangiable thing that exists in the hearts and minds of men.
I agree with you that ” It’s disgusting the pretzel-logic some people rationalize in attempts to legitimize government initiated force, threat of force and fraud against people”
I agree with you that “Signing a confession/contract under threat, duress and coercion is no contract or confession.”
Do you agree with me that
“What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.”
Do you agree with me that
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
let me know
January 29th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
First off Dameon, I never presumed you to be a patriot, freeman, freeman-on-the land or CRer. That your arguments are the same isn’t equivalent to me labeling you as any of those. It was your mind-spun fabrication that you labeled yourself as such and then you accuse me of giving you the label. You’re running out of feet to shoot on the credibility front.
The State’s prosecutor and IRS agents have never presented factual evidence that anyone is a taxpayer; state prosecutors have never presented facts into evidence that anyone is within the State of XXXX. Marc has gotten judicial notice from a judge that the State of Arizona is an act of congress. A piece of paper.
When they say a traffic case is civil Marc asks if it’s a tort or contract. The prosecution has never presented evidence of a contract nor presented evidence that the victim/defendant was in breach of said contract. When the IRS is challenged to present the facts they say it’s a frivolous argument. They say this is a frivolous argument: Is there evidence of someone with firsthand knowledge that Bob Smith is a taxpayer? They call that a frivolous argument. It’s a question, not an argument.
When the government robs people under the euphemism of “taxation” the property it gains excludes legitimate ownership of the property and thus cannot be rightfully doled out as benefit to the people it robbed in the first place.
The government kills millions of people and I refuse to voluntarily pay for that henious “service”/”benefit”. I also refuse to voluntarily pay the mafia protection money for their protection services.
I will go to peace with the government actors on my terms. The terms are: No person, group or government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any individual’s self, property or private contract. Each person has the duty to protect their fellow man from their actions. Bob has a duty to protect Mary from his actions and Mary has a duty to protect Bob from her actions. Honoring those terms causes the effect of peace, freedom and civility. Dishonoring them obliterates peace, freedom and civility.
A driver’s license, social security number and “citizen check box” is irrelevant when a person with or without those things is driving without government issued tags/plates and stickers on their car, persistently resists the cops trying to pull them over. The end result is the person is run off the road, the persistent resister is dragged out of the car, shot and perhaps riddled with bullets.
The government failed to present evidence that anyone is present withing the state; failure to present evidence that anyone is a taxpayer; failure to present evidence of the alleged contracts you say exists.
Obviously you could call into the No State Project radio show and discuss it with Marc. You’d have a much larger audience to which you could hope to open their eyes than the few people on this forum.
“If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn’t be provided on a compulsory basis.” ~ Marc Stevens
January 29th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
@ damon,
I agree with Zonsb that you should call into the show. And as I mentioned before to you, elsewhere, there is an actual forum on this site. It would be a much better format for you to articulate and present your thoughts. I don’t speak on behalf of Marc, but I know he doesn’t care for large blocks of text in these comment sections. So at the very least, out of respect for Marc, you might consider taking this to the forum, or somewhere else entirely.
January 30th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Peace unto you Zonsb and Incubus.
@ Incubus. I had trouble with the forum but am getting another e-mail to go on. Thank you.
@Zonsb.
You and I seem to be of accord for the most part. I agree with most of which you say except that I ‘labeled’ myself as anything but what God says I am and then ‘accused’ you. I especially like the story about Bob and Mary. It is not much different from what the Lord says;
Matthew 22:37-40
King James Version (KJV)
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the FIRST and great commandment.
39And the SECOND is like unto it, Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbour as thyself. [For if this is done then only peace]
40On these TWO COMMANDMENTS hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets.
Where you and I do not seem to be of accord however is where the acceptance of governments ‘benefits’ is involved. I may have not drawn a clear line yet from the accepting of ‘benefits’ to the ‘taxing’. What can be done if you are not even elligable for such a ‘drivers license’? Where can you be sent with no name? No Social? How will they ‘bill’ the ‘STATE’ for keeping you, what you seem to fear…locked up?
This I will attempt to do in the forums. Will you visit me there?
I would like to reterate here Zonsb that I am at peace with you and not an adversary to you. In other words..I come in peace my friend. Do you?
January 30th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
“What can be done if you are not even elligable for such a ‘drivers license’?”
They can still shoot you for resisting their demands. Not having documents or a name isn’t going to stop them from being violent, initiating force and issuing threats of force. It happens every day.
It’s not about you and I being adversaries or opposing sides or the same side. The alleged contracts you’ve written about, if they existed the prosecution would present the evidence and prove breach of contract.
January 31st, 2012 at 4:02 am
CONSENT. A concurrence of wills.
Express consent is that directly given, either viva voce or in writing.
IMPLIED CONSENT is that MANIFESTED by SIGNS, ACTIONS, or FACTS, or by INACTION or SILENCE, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given. Cowen v. Paddock, 62 Hun, 622, 17 N. Y. Supp. 388. [Blacks Law 2nd]
To him consenting no injury is done.
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
He who approves cannot reject.
The STATUS of a person is his legal position or condition.
An error not resisted is approved.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:16 am
I think Marc highlighted this very well on the recent show; if you don’t get the license and pay the tax (license plate) they will coerce you into doing those things, then when you do get the license and pay the tax they say “see, implied consent”. This of course is utter nonsense. Call it implied “consent”, call it what you want, it is not a contract and it is not valid.
And Zonsb brings up a good point; if these alleged contracts existed then prosecutors would present evidence of them and prove they’ve been breached. They don’t. They won’t. They can’t.
Can you, damon? Produce evidence of these contracts you claim exist?
January 31st, 2012 at 4:10 pm
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART2 .CONTRACTS
CHAPTER3. CONSENT
Section 1589
section 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to ALL the OBLIGATIONS arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.
Maxims
An error not resisted is approved.
He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain.
One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute CANNOT deny its validity. [Social security, 'U.S. citizen, Drivers license to name a few]
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
To him consenting no injury is done.
You ought to know with whom you deal.
He who approves cannot reject.
It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it
No one is bound to give information about things he is ignorant of, but every one is bound to know that which he gives information about.
You might like this one Marc;
Legality is not reality (real maxim of law)
January 31st, 2012 at 4:20 pm
damon, the whole point of my reply to your question about what if a person wasn’t even eligible for a driver’s license, my point was/is there is no consent from the person. No documents, no SS#, no license, no plates, no stickers, no name — NO CONSENT WHATSOEVER. That doesn’t stop the government from initiating force/violence and threats of force/violence against the person — it happens everyday. In your last post, all you did is define consent. You totally disregard the fact that there was no consent. Pretty much the same as you’ve yet to acknowledge there’s zero evidence of the alleged contracts you’ve written about.
January 31st, 2012 at 4:38 pm
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE. SO WHAT!!!
The Genovese crime family has a rule book too. What makes any of the books you quote, from scriptures to law dictionaries to government codes, what causes you to think they have greater authority than empirical evidence/facts that there is no evidence of the alleged contracts you claim exist?
You disregard that the government had to obtain by theft and or fraud the property they in-turn dole out as benefits to the people they robbed and defrauded in the first place. The government never had legitimate ownership of property they dole out.
January 31st, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Dearest Zonsb to your 1st post.
I do not consent for I am increasingly aware of whom my lawgiver is. I just happen to fear Him more than man. If you do not consent don’t use their property. Do not claim to be a ‘resident’ or ‘citizen’. Especially since it does not exist. It is obsured to say
“There is no such a thing , this ‘citizen” and ‘STATE’.
Then turn around and under penalty of perjury on government and ‘STATE’ forms claim that same ‘citizenship’ and ‘residency’ and say they “made me”. They do not “make” me.
Has it not been written;
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
I continually see ‘consent’ when one claims ‘citizenship’ and ‘residency’ of an earthly government. Then all of these ‘non-existent citizens’ and ‘residents’ that then have ‘benefits’ that can only be issued to such ‘citizens’ and ‘residents’…well. What then are exactly the facts you ask for? Proof is in the pudding my friend. One CANNOT simultaneously CONFIRM and then DENY.
Try calling the DMV and ask if they will issue a license while you are NOT RESIDENT. See what they tell you.If they ask “where are you a ‘resident’ of? Tell them “NO where.” Tell them you are a citizen of heaven and see what they say. Or tell them you are a ‘citizen’ of no place and that you have abandoned ALL government allegience from EVERYWHERE all over planet earth. Watch how fast they no longer want to ‘help you’. Liberty?
“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
January 31st, 2012 at 11:48 pm
traffic cases are tort not contract.
They consider you being their without a license a public nuisance. Not to mention that 99.999% of the time the State gets away with claiming that they own the road , which is an abject lie.
February 1st, 2012 at 2:56 am
“I do not consent for I am increasingly aware of whom my lawgiver is”
Yeah I know, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Oh, excuse me, the invisible sky-man. Opps, excuse me again, you meant the God that Epicurus wrote about.
Conscious humans created the concept of laws and rights. If you doubt that go into the wilderness without protection and see if lions, tigers, bears, scorpions, poisonous snakes and Ebola virus respect your alleged rights to life, liberty and remedy via law. It’s the same with citizens and states. They are mind-created concepts.
If there is to be a law or rights, at the very top is that no person group or government shall initiate force, threat of force and fraud against any individual’s self, property or contract.
You persist to ignore that governments obtain property via theft and fraud thus has no legitimate ownership of money or property which it converts to benefits that it doles out to people it stole it from in the first place.
You ignore that even with no consent whatsoever from its victims the government initiates force, threat of force and fraud.
Do you blame your Lord for YOUR failure to acknowledge the refutation of your arguments?
Call into the No State Project radio show and discuss your concept on air with Marc. There’s a much larger audience that listens to the show than reads these comments.
I still think you’re intent on muddying the waters rather than to enlighten.
“Try calling the DMV and ask if they will issue a license while you are NOT RESIDENT.”
SO WHAT! The Genovese crime family has a rule book too. Having or not having a driver’s licenses is irrelevant to the FACT that government initiates force, threat of force and fraud.
One good thing about all of this: You make a good example of how the Bible fails a person.
February 1st, 2012 at 6:59 am
Incubus wrote: “I think Marc highlighted this very well on the recent show:”
Here’s the quote:
“They admit it’s not consent because if you don’t get the driver’s license [and drive] then you’ll go to jail. The idea that it’s implied consent is the ramblings of the insane. To say that you can’t travel freely and we’ll put you in jail if you don’t pay this tax {tax/fee for driver’s license] and then turn around and say ‘implied consent’ you’re talking with someone whose grasp of reality is dubious at best.” ~ Marc Stevens.
February 1st, 2012 at 5:25 pm
@ Zonsb.
I did not find it necessary to comment on;
“Governments use of force, threat of force, and fraud”.
‘Governments’ throughout history have done this everywhere. ‘Governments’ throughout history have also been the ‘leader’ in causing God’s people to sin. I was under the impression this was common understanding and did not think it necessary to ‘comment’ on it. However it seems to be an issue you would like to bring up and I will gladly discuss it.
With regards to what “Marc highlighted so well on the recent show” and his statement;
“The idea that it’s implied consent is the ramblings of the insane.”
If this is insane then what is it when someone has a following based on ‘there is no ‘citizen’ and no ‘STATE’ but then he and all his readers turn around and continually claim they are ‘resident’ in a ‘STATE’ they claim does not exist and then claim the ‘citizenship’ they claim does not exist whilst expecting change? Is this what passes as not insane? I am confused.
One must be aware that;
He who approves cannot reject.
No one anywhere can simultaneously confirm and deny. Yet this is what I am seeing. If there is no STATE and no ‘citizen’ ,which is a small portion of the truth, then one may consider to stop trying to give life to the soulless fictions by saying one is a ‘citizen’ and or ‘resident’.
Even they recognize this;
“Thus, the Court has frequently held that DOMICILE or RESIDENCE, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes.[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
so as to remove any confusion about domicile
For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
Only the truth is going to free anyone. Here is truth;
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and CONFESSED that they were STRANGERS and PILGRIMS on the earth.
For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they CAME OUT, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a BETTER country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he HATH prepared for them a city.”
February 2nd, 2012 at 1:00 pm
“Governments use of force, threat of force, and fraud”.
damon, who are you quoting? Not me. I note that you didn’t write *initiate* force, just force. Big difference. Initiatory force is criminal, self-defense force is not.
‘Governments’ throughout history have done this everywhere. ‘
Governments throughout history have INITIATED force.
“If this is insane then what is it when someone has a following based on ‘there is no ‘citizen’ and no ‘STATE’ but then he and all his readers turn around and continually claim they are ‘resident’ in a ‘STATE’ they claim does not exist and then claim the ‘citizenship’ they claim does not exist whilst expecting change? Is this what passes as not insane? I am confused.”
ALL Marc’s readers don’t CONTINUALLY claim they’re ‘resident’s in a ‘STATE’. Your sensationalism is noted. SOME of his readers may, but certainly not ALL and not CONTINUALLY.
Of course you’re confused, your sanity is dubious at best. And your credibility is sinking fast when you post a bogus quotes. You’ve been told several times that the government initiates force and issues threats of force to coerce people to comply. People comply so they don’t suffer greater abuse. There’s nothing insane about complying with a criminal that says pay the tax or go to jail. And says get the driver’s license or you’ll go to jail and possibly be shot. Minimal compliance is logical to protect ones precious life from arrogant criminals that have badges, guns and bad attitudes.
People fill in the blanks on forms so they can continue living to “fight” another day. Change through peaceful process doesn’t include purposefully stirring up the hornets nest beyond what is necessary. Putting oneself out front to get shot is counter productive.
Marc has said probably a hundred times — to which I agree with him — it’s all about damage control. Being confrontational with things like not having tags/plates on your car is asking for trouble from arrogant cops with guns and bad attitudes.
If you want to go a holier-than-though route with government criminals, you might as well paint a target on your chest or run for the hills and live off grid. Neither of those seem very effective. That said, minimal compliance with criminals to protect ones life is a choice and certainly not insane.
Please damn, please call into the NSP show.
February 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Peace to you Zonsb.
“ALL” of Marcs readers was a generalization not meant to be literal.Forgive me for the sweeping statement. Let us not try to strain at a gnat here while swallowing a camel, agreed? There may be a few who do not claim ‘citizenship’ and ‘residence’. However, if one has a drivers license and plates from the ‘STATE’ one is a ‘resident’ of said ‘STATE’. If one has a social security card and corrosponding number than one IS a ‘citizen’.
Now, when one knows the truth and reasons within oneself to continue in a lie…that is of questionable judgement. If one believes ‘damage control’ is gonna cut it one believes a lie. One is either a slave or not. Again it has been told to us all;
“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?”
And again here;
“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.”
There is no “holier-than-though route” and “painting a target on one’s chest”. There is only the truth and not. One either desires to walk in it or not. For it is written;
“No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.”
I have written no lies or anything of a “bogus” nature. I have written of the truth. Yet when the truth is read, my “sanity” comes into question.
My point here is one is either a ‘citizen’ or not. One claiming ‘citizenship’ while claiming there is no ‘citizen’ just goes against logic and does not make any sense to me. So what I gather from you is that since you KNOW their is no ‘citizen’ and ‘STATE’ you will lie about being this ‘citizen’ so as not to draw attention to yourself and avoid getting “shot” ,is this correct?
Bye the bye , I am still unable to get the forums to work even with a different e-mail.
May God bless you Zonsb, my friend.
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
You really, really need to call into the No State Project Show. Marc’s methods have been very effective in limiting the amount of damage. How much success have you and other people had with the methods you use and what specifically are they? I hope you can get signed on to the forum so you can share your successful methods with the members.
“If one has a social security card and corrosponding number than one IS a ‘citizen’.”
That’s wrong.
A person becomes a citizen by making a pledge of allegiance to the government in return for a duty of protection from the government. It’s a reciprocal agreement. The problem is, all state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that the government has no duty to protect anyone. Without the duty to protect there is no agreement and thus no citizens. You would already know that if you had watched Marc’s videos.
Watch Liberty Forum — “Delusions”: http://marcstevens.net/video/20090307delusions.html
What does it mean when a person checks the “CITIZEN box” on a government form? What does it mean when a person puts a check-mark in the “RESIDENT box” on a government form? How can a person be a RESIDENT of a piece of paper? All 50 states are acts of congress — factually, the fifty states are fifty pieces of paper.
February 3rd, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Zonsb my friend,
I would venture to guess it means much to the heathen to mark those boxes. I do wonder however since there is no duty to protect anyone why would one continue to mark the box ‘citizen’ at all especially since there is none. Why give life to the dead? Have ye not read;
“Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.”
It is a vlountary act of ‘subjection’ and servanthood’ to the vain idols made up by men. Think of it more of a pagan idol. A false image. You cannot see it , taste it, touch it, or hear it. Yet people worship it and fear it. They gather by the millions like lost sheep getting ready to ordain (vote) a new high priest (president) to be the mouthpiece for this pagan god. It ‘makes laws’. It wants ‘trubute money’ (taxes) by its faihful and the ones that do not believe. On and on I could write (your probably glad I don’t). It is called government also known as the beast in scripture.
These ‘criminals’ are acting on a belief in something that you and I know is not real. You wanna talk about a cult with a following. It is not so much that they are ‘criminals’ (mind you many are) as opposed to being simply lost and without truth. Many of the senators and congressman may actually have good intentions. They may say to themselves “I will make a difference and turn this country back around”. Many of them probably think this. Yet they fail to realize that they are in the service of an imagination of men instead of the Living God.
What does it mean when one checks that box? Have ye not read my friend;
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”
and written here;
” 14Be ye not UNEQUALLY YOKED together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what AGREEMENT hath the temple of God with IDOLS? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
God bless you Zonsb and peace unto you.
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, CHOOSE you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your FATHERS SERVED that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
February 4th, 2012 at 4:04 am
“It is a vlountary act of ‘subjection’ and servanthood’ to the vain idols made up by men…. Yet they fail to realize that they are in the service of an imagination of men instead of the Living God.”
Service to any and all idols is sure to fail the man, woman and child. You merely chose to promote a different fucking idol. evilbible.com
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus
February 4th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Zonsb my friend why the fowl language?
There is no promotion of anything false on my writings. There is only the truth and not.
“Who is your daddy and what does he do” is the question. Only you can give the answer.
Concerning Epicurus have ye not read Zonsb for it is written since the begining;
“I am the LORD, and there is NONE else, there is NO God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast NOT KNOWN ME:
That they may KNOW from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is NONE beside me. I am the LORD, and there is NONE else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I MAKE PEACE, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do ALL these things.”
Does one not discipline ones child when they are disobedient? Does one not do this to correct the child to walk the straight path? To turn a child from what is wrong?
” For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth [disciplines]…If ye endure chastening…afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”
You are correct and I agree with you for you have written well that;
“Service to any and ALL idols is sure to FAIL the man, woman and child.”
For it is written and is truth;
“Thou shalt make no COVENANT with them, nor with their gods.
They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou SERVE THEIR GODS, it will surely be a SNARE unto THEE.”
If one obeys then one is a servant to the one whom he obeys. One may wish to ‘limit the damage’ of ones master but never the less one is a servant to whom he obeys. Will you now say “I obey because of what they will do to me”?
February 4th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
damon, call the NSP show. I suggest you take your Bible thumping elsewhere. evilbible.com.
February 5th, 2012 at 7:32 am
Hello Zonsb and peace unto you.
I was wondering if you have read any of George Mercier’s letters/work.
I post it here for everyones intellectual feeding.
God bless. Here is the cite;
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MercierGeorge/GeorgeMercier.htm
“Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or "subject" under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God's Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God.”
February 5th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Invisible contracts BS. Pink Unicorns.
March 26th, 2012 at 3:25 am
I just received a letter from the degenerates that run my bank “Chase” stating that not only had they placed a levy on my account for $3,200.00 but that they had also helped themselves to an additional $150.00 of my money for doing so.
When I asked what this was about they said that the California Tax board had told them to do it and that I could reference the photo copy of the letter they attached. They said that because the name and social security numbers matched so I owe the money even though I didn’t live in California ( I live in Florida) and never lived in the “Tax Payer Address” they listed… They also I added that if it was a mistake they would not return my $150.00 either and I would need to try to get it back from the California Tax Board myself.
Supposedly according to the California Tax Board they waited 16 years to collect interest without prior notice or any form of contact. They just took my money without even verifying if it was valid.
How can this be legal? Do we now live in a tyrannical communist country now?? What ever happened to Due Process???