-Caveat Lector-
See my comments interspersed below.
In a message dated 10/19/99 4:39:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I may be mistaken, but you seem to be getting 'a'
> point, while missing 'THE' point....
>
> With a few exceptions, when the IRS terrocrats
> (terrorist-bureaucrats, collecting debt for the
> privately-owned Federale Reserve) take one to court,
> they pretty much already know they have an air-tight
> case. If they didn't, they might try some coercion to
> get what they want or, in rare cases, they might just
> go ahead and seize whatever they want, waiting to see
> if the victim is competent enough to take it back from
> them (via properly written and filed paperwork), but
> they wouldn't knowningly adjudicate any case they
> weren't 99.9% sure they could win.
Granted.
> [Although, since federale tax cases are tried by a
> jury, in reality anything could happen -- no matter how
> strong a case the IRS has -- it, as Al Adask put it, is
> a 'crapshoot' ("that is, nothing, not even brown paper
> bags filled with hundred dollar bills and handed to the
> judge will absolutely guarantee victory in a juducial
> trial or administrative hearing") and occasionally some
> people get lucky using tort and constitutional
> arguments, via jury nullification (as in the 'Long'
> case, defended by anti-IRS attorney, Larry Becraft
> <http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/>); but such cases are
> rare.]
Granted.
> You state, "the LAW and the CONSTITUTION do not matter
> a hill of beans if you can't go into court and win the
> case". I reply: the IRS is *only* going to take one to
> court if they have what they believe to be an air-tight
> case -- if they have the ace up their sleeve (i.e.,
> 'Invisible Contracts'). In other words, if one is not
> bound by these "Invisible Contracts", then the IRS is
> bound by the Bill of Rights, and their *own* 'laws'.
> Under such circumstances, they will not go to court --
> ever.
>
> The main 'ace' up the IRS's sleeve -- the main
> "Invisible Contract" -- is a bank account, and if one
> does not have a bank account, the IRS no longer has
> that all important ace. There are several other
> "Invisible Contracts" that the IRS can usually use in
> it's place, but with these low-cards the IRS would
> still be vulnerable in court to a tort defense based on
> the Bill of Rights, and their *own* 'laws', if they
> can't prove one is bound by these other "Invisible
> Contracts" (such as the use of Federal Reserve Notes).
This may well be correct, but it also seems to me that there are other
invisible contracts as well. Like a W-4 form, W-2's that the employer must
provide to the state, ones Social Security number and one's payment into the
fund, as well as, perhaps, one's Drivers license.
> For example, a prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to
> gain jurisdiction over Frog Farmer once through these
> "Invisible Contracts". Even though he knew Frog Farmer
> didn't have a bank account, the prosecutor thought he
> could nab him by getting him to admit in court that he
> used Federal Reserve Notes. As it turns out though,
> Frog Farmer (an auto mechanic with his own shop) was
> aware of the nature of these hidden contracts and had
> only been accepting coins from his clients [e.g., when
> he would give an estimate he wouldn't say "it will be
> about $100", he would say something like, "It will be
> about 10 rolls of quarters"]. With the exception of an
> occasional barter, coins are the only form of payment
> Frog Farmer has accepted for his services since the
> early '80's. Needless to say, jurisdiction was never
> established and the case was dismissed (note: I don't
> recall if this particular case was a tax case, but the
> same principles apply).
How could the same principles apply if, as you admit, the constitution does
not apply in tax cases, but does in civil and criminal court?
> [Also note that most pro se wins are 'dismissals', thus
> there is no record of them. On the other hand, *all*
> IRS wins are recorded in the law books. Therefore, a
> statist imp like Dan Evans can pull out a seemingly
> endless supply of cases where Protestors lost with
> off-point tort or constitutional arguments (which were
> overruled by "Invisible Contracts") and say: see, the
> IRC is constitutionally valid (when it isn't) and the
> Bill of Rights is impotent (when it isn't). This way,
> most listening to Gremlins and imps like Dan Evans,
> will forever pay their taxes without a why and a
> wherefore, and also 'throw the book' at Protestors
> if they ever serve on a jury in a tax case.]
Granted. Remember I am not here to defend the IRS, or the tax system. I
would love to have real and effective means of avoiding it. The problem is
always with interpretation and one's BELIEF as to what constitutes an
effective legal means of avoiding the taxing authority. I see MUCH talk on
the subject but little actual KNOWLEDGE. Apart from your comments to NOT use
a bank account, what are the means by which people can LEGALLY avoid the tax?
> The point is, in order to be free of the 'king', one
> cannot partake in any benefits offered by the 'king',
> including using the 'kings' chartered banks, or his
> chartered banks' federale reserve notes and, in most
> cases, even a regular 'job'. Some Tax Protesters have
> gone this route in order to be free of the 'king' and
> his Privateers, like the IRS,[1] only to later find
> that under their particular economic circumstances,
> going back into the 'king's' 'box' -- getting back into
> the 'system' (or 'Matrix', if you will) -- was in their
> best interest at this point in their life, so they did
> -- they gave up some freedom for a little more
> 'security' and comfort. But that's the way it goes.
> Freedom from the 'king' is not for everyone, in fact,
> it's probably not appealing for most Americans living
> in this decaying, socialist 'democracy' (so-called) --
> living in modern Babylon.
Okay, you answered my question there. In reality the system, "outside the
system" is not a really cool way to live, since it makes everything MUCH more
difficult. Incidentally, I question whether there is a distinction UNDER LAW
between Federal Reserve Notes and Coinage, or United States Notes. Can you
provide some legal reference for the contention that the use of Coin as
opposed to FRN's is a seperation from the "King's" system, and not subject to
the same legal scrutiny?
> For example, on another list last year, when Frog
> Farmer was touching on the above concepts, the
> conversation eventually turned to the following:
>
> -quote-
>
> > : If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T have a SSN, DON'T have a
> > : driver's license, DON'T use FRNs, DON'T use banks, DON'T etc, etc, etc,
> > : etc., then there is NO advantage. I guess the question is, what is the
> > : point of being free if all you've got are don'ts.
>
> If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T
> have a SSN (slave tattoo), DON'T have a
> driver's license (Massa's permission to go
> to town), DON'T use FRNs (Massa's credit
> card), DON'T use banks (instrumentalities of
> Frog Farmer's public servants), DON'T etc,
> etc, etc, etc., then there is NO advantage.
> I guess the question is, what is the point
> of being free if all you've got are don'ts?
>
> If that's how you have to frame the question,
> you should quit resisting immediately and go
> volunteer all your time at the UN. You know,
> throughout history, there have been slaves
> who have had a higher standard of living than
> some free people. And again, you are coming
> at this from the side of a comfortable slave.
> It really isn't a concern of yours what free
> people enjoy, since the option is apparently
> closed to you.
>
> > : I would like a specific answer here. What rights can someone who uses
> > : an ATM machine not defend?
>
> The right to be paid and the right to privacy.
> And the right to retain all the product of
> their labor. There are probably many more,
> but it really doesn't matter how many.
>
> -end quote-
Well, that does sum up the position. Few people would choose to live this
way, especially when they can see little advantage to it. Whether we like
the system or not we must live in some relationship to it, just in order to
survive. It would be extremely difficult to have a job and get paid in coin
only, and to not have a bank account or driver's License.
> Teo:
>
> > Incidentally I hate taxes and think that they should be abolished,
> > as excessive, and immoral, etc.
>
> As the 'philatelic motto' goes ['philately' is from the
> Greek meaning, literally, "the love of what is free of
> further tax"]:
>
> Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
> once said, 'Taxation is the price we pay for
> civilization.' But isn’t the opposite really
> the case? Taxation is the price we pay for
> *failing* to build a civilized society.
> The higher the tax level, the greater the
> failure. A centrally planned totalitarian
> state represents a complete defeat for a
> civilized world, while a totally voluntary
> society represents its ultimate success."
> -- Mark Skousen, "Persuasion Versus Force"
> <http://www.geocities.com/philately.geo/>
>
> > However I am not foolish enough to quit paying KNOWING full
> > well that if I am brought to court I will LOSE and be made to pay, and
> with
> > interest and penalties as well.
>
> And *that's* the kind of mentality which reading the
> likes of statist imps such as Dan Evans will produce.
>
> One will only be brought to court if they are partaking
> in the 'kings' benefits (bank accounts, using federale
> reserve notes, etc.). One must ask themselves if
> benefits of being free from the 'king' (no income
> taxes, licenses, registrations, etc., and the
> psychological freedom that goes along with it) outweigh
> the drawbacks of trying to live in the midst of
> Babylon's house without a bank account, mortgages,
> loans, (most) 'jobs', etc.; and having to spend
> countless hours of research at the law library, and be
> ready to competently defend one's rights in any number
> of legal/law enforcement situations in which they may
> ever find themselves. If the answer is no, then it is
> indeed foolish not to give unto Caesar that which is
> Caesar's. But that does not mean that 'no' is the only
> answer -- that living without the hassles of the IRS
> and other terrocrats (all the 'kings' men) -- is not
> possible. Yet such 'death and taxes' swill is the
> underlying theme of Dan's Tax Protestor FAQ.
>
> As Frog Farmer pointed out in the same message
> I quoted from earlier:
>
> Why not ask, "how many in pro per will ever
> be good enough to defeat that man standing
> in oppostion over there at the similar table
> on the other side of the room, the one who
> wasn't good enough to succeed in private
> practice, the one who doesn't even know
> that his license to practice could not fit
> into one of those little credit card windows
> in his wallet (we have a video of our local
> county counsel searching his wallet for his
> license after being asked to produce it -
> and coming up empty handed), the man who
> didn't even see the case file for the first
> time until he was in court on the arraignment?
> When you're in court, the entire (imagined)
> might of the government is focused through
> the brain and mouth of usually one man, a
> man who cannot survive without government
> support. How often do they rely upon the
> supposedly impartial judge for support?
> Almost all the time. One might better
> ask "can this man over there fight his
> way out of a wet paper bag"? Most
> government wins are a result of pro se
> incompetence, I would say....
>
> -end quote-
>
> [and much pro se incompetence is from failing to
> understand the nature of "Invisible Contracts"....
> I'd love to see Dan Evans attempt to prosecute
> someone like Frog Farmer on taxes. LOL!]
Granted, what you say is probably true, lawyers are a bane to be sure.
Lawyers first and then judges.
Lastly, thank you for your comments. I am always eager to hear positions in
this subject and enjoyed your comments here very much
much
*****************************************************************************************************************
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human
mind to correlate all its contents.
We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of seas of infinity,
and it is not meant that we should
voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have
hitherto harmed us little; but someday
the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying
vistas of reality, and of our
frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation
or flee from the deadly light into the
peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft; "The Call of Cthulhu"
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
