RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 2:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Actually...a business does NOT have to verify the SSN, most companies just are under the impression they do. And what I find interesting, is not that its voluntary, but that once you are an adult and can make your own choices about SS and whatnot, your parents already made the decision for you.


yup its entrapment, they use prima facia to nail you if you try to fight it as an adult.

agreed



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 2:55:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

this is the checkbook having the effect of law phenomenon tho.

of the documents that are acceptable for verification, the ones you likely have are a drivers license and ssn card.




keep in mind the purpose of a licenxse is a special dispensation to do what is otherwise illegal.  (nope it was more corect the way i said it the first time)

Much like gun control, we have the inalinable right to arm ourselves, thus a license or special dispensation is an infringemtn.  We also have the right to travel on any public roadways therefore none required there either.

Its all a prop to "control" which is vastly different from regulate.



subfever -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 2:56:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

I should have stated that no one who takes the constitutionality of taxing wages to court wins....my bad for not stating that more precisely


I believe you are correct. As far as I know, no one has won in court, using the argument that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified.  



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 2:59:30 PM)

finally its great to live in a free country aint it?


Judge Orders Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves
On February 26, 2007 and again on May 2, in Michigan’s Eastern District Court, a team of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorneys and Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ordered Peter and Doreen Hendrickson to testify against themselves. Judge Edmunds granted the DOJ summary judgment in a lawsuit filed to force the Hendricksons to change sworn testimony on their tax returns in order to give the federal government a pretext for claiming the couple owed income taxes in 2002 and 2003.
The Hendricksons point out that ordering or forcing someone to change sworn testimony is a crime and contrary to the US Constitution, even when a judge orders it. Judge Edmunds issued her ruling without the formality of a trial. Official Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment show the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years in question. Nowhere in the complaint does the DOJ present evidence that the Hendricksons owe anything or that their testimony is false. 

The Hendricksons are taking the matter to a higher court.
The DOJ has tried and failed in three previous lawsuits to suppress Peter Hendrickson’s book, 'Cracking the Code- the Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America'. The DOJ’s efforts to silence Mr. Hendrickson appear to result from its fear of what he reveals in that book. 'Cracking the Code-...' shows that the application of the income tax is far more limited than most Americans believe. It demonstrates how key terms in the code such as “wages,” “employer,” “employee,” “trade or business” and “self-employment” are explicitly defined in the law in order to limit the income tax to certain federally privileged activities. Earnings unconnected with such privileged activities are not subject to the tax. Unaware of these special definitions, most Americans

http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm



Alumbrado -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 3:01:17 PM)

quote:

Actually...a business does NOT have to verify the SSN, most companies just are under the impression they do.


So are the Social Security Administration and the IRS.

"Employees are required to show their Social Security cards, if available. More important than seeing the actual card, is submitting a worker's Form W2 with the employee's correct number and the EXACT name that appears on the worker's Social Security card."
http://employer-ssa.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/employer_ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=231&p_created=956859908&p_sid=yuHr_4Ii&p_accessibility=0&p


Pieces of folk wisdom that start off with 'They can't make you...' usually have some imbedded factoid, but in practice, the bureaucracy has dealt with them many, many times.

So, as I said, Good luck with that.



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 3:01:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

I should have stated that no one who takes the constitutionality of taxing wages to court wins....my bad for not stating that more precisely


I believe you are correct. As far as I know, no one has won in court, using the argument that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified.  


i agree.... the illinois dood is trying but after reading his case i think it is a bust.   Just not the right approach, not because he does not have a jusfied point but our "government" is not open to hear it any more than to do a true investigation into 911.



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 3:04:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

Actually...a business does NOT have to verify the SSN, most companies just are under the impression they do.


So are the Social Security Administration and the IRS.

"Employees are required to show their Social Security cards, if available. More important than seeing the actual card, is submitting a worker's Form W2 with the employee's correct number and the EXACT name that appears on the worker's Social Security card."
http://employer-ssa.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/employer_ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=231&p_created=956859908&p_sid=yuHr_4Ii&p_accessibility=0&p


Pieces of folk wisdom that start off with 'They can't make you...' usually have some imbedded factoid, but in practice, the bureaucracy has dealt with them many, many times.

So, as I said, Good luck with that.


we are talking law here not instructions.



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 3:52:06 PM)




Now if y9ou are in governemnt on the other hand:

President Reagan has refused to order Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and Lieut. Col. Oliver L. North to appear before the commission reviewing the activities of the National Security Council, the White House said today. The White House spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, said the President's counsel, Peter Wallison, told the chairman of the White House-appointed panel, John Tower, that ordering Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North to appear would compel the two former officials ''to testify against themselves.''http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDD1F30F932A25751C0A961948260



i guess you have to be an employee of the governemnt before you have any constitutional rights.

Granted old news but nonetheless concretes the point









michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 3:55:10 PM)

quote:

America: Freedom to Fascism


the title says it all...guess the cat's out of the bag now



thompsonx -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 4:18:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Actually...a business does NOT have to verify the SSN, most companies just are under the impression they do. And what I find interesting, is not that its voluntary, but that once you are an adult and can make your own choices about SS and whatnot, your parents already made the decision for you.



Gihtaamati:
There  was a recent supreme court ruling concerning the S/S tax.  It was about a sheriff in Santa Barbara county who felt that the S/S number was the "mark of the Devil" and so forth....The court ruled that he did not need to have a S/S number.
Now this begs the following questions.
First: Does he get all of his money back with interest from S/S?
Second:  Since your S/S number is your taxpayer ID number how does one file their income tax?
thompson



thompsonx -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 4:30:37 PM)

Ghitaamati:
Even though the supreme court has ruled that one does not need a S/S number try to open a bank account without one or even try to get phone service with out it.
When  I tried it the phone company simply said if you do not want to give it to us that is just fine but until you do you will not get a phone line.  This was after I went through about twelve layers of managers and supervisors.  Essentially; "we are the phone company and if you don't like how we do business go fuck your self"
thompson



UtopianRanger -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 5:34:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Anyone else watched this movie? Any thoughts or opinions?



Hello Ghita.....


This topic has been discussed /re-hashed here many many times - So you'll see no long drawn-out posts or rebuttals from me. I will simply re-post in the quote box a brilliant post by my friend Subfever that addresses my basic theory /viewpoint as it relates to various alternative scenarios. I STRONGLY emphasize the last paragraph.


quote:

Seriously though, "conspiracy theory" debates rarely ever end with their participants reaching common conclusions.

Disbelievers want proof. Well, what constitutes "proof" other than actual verbal admission from conspirators themselves, or actual documents that prove a conspiracy?

In cases of real conspiracies, conspirators rarely ever go public with their knowledge while their co-conspirators are still in power. It's just not a healthy action for them to take! And classified documents are not released until the conspirators are long dead and/or out of power. By then, focus on the topic has been reduced to a tiny fraction.

Therefore, debating over current, forefront conspiracy theories is generally pointless, as it becomes nothing more than an exchange of opinions.

What about conspiracy theories of many years past that were eventually proven to be true? My experience has been that people who disbelieve in conspiracy theories across the board will often take the position that the topic at hand was never really a conspiracy theory to begin with.

It is of my opinion that people like this have a strong need to believe in structure and order, and that those who are in power are benevolent. In other words, conspiracy theories work against their core belief systems.




Have a great night.



- R



luckydog1 -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 6:32:56 PM)

Ghita, what did you want me to try to state more clearly?

All laws (all the way down to  jail walking or spitting on the sidewalk)are backed up by guns, thats what laws are.  After the "revolution" laws will still be backed by force....

A few people have attempted to claim they did not understand that they had to pay taxes, and pointed to the outlandish sources real often refers to.  It really is as silly as claiing to not know murder or rape is illegal.  A few Juries have accepted that the defendants did not "willfully" violate the law due to ignorance or mental issues, and they did not go to Jail for refusal to file.  Every single one has still been held liable for the taxes though.  Certain posters want to pretend this means that the courts ruled taxes are not legal.  Whether this is due to ignorance or willfull lying is subject to debate.  Much of this stuff is just put out there to find fools who will fall for such nonsense, and then sell stuff to them, such as NORFED dollars, as well as books or simply direct donations.  Seems to be a profitable.

The courts have affirmed many times, the 16th amendment is legal, and so is the income tax.  Don't like it, convince the majority of the people to repeal it.



michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 6:34:21 PM)

maybe the title should have been: "America: Freedom or Farce"



luckydog1 -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 6:52:08 PM)

Ghita the reason I asked you about the case was that  a friend mentioned this movie to me 2 weeks ago, and kept telling me that the movie said the USSC ruled that the Income Tax was illegal in that case (stanton v Baltic), and people did not have to pay it.  To him it was the central point of the movie, and he was certain that the Court ruled the tax was illegal.  Russo had to dishonestly edit the quote to get what he did out of it.  I was curious about your perception after having seen it.  I don't have 2 hours to waste watching a movie that the basic facts can be aquired in text and checked for accuracy in 15 minutes.  I do understand that the scary music, dramatic lighting and slow panning make it seem more convincing, along with dishonest editing.   But why does Mr russo have to be intentionally dishonest to make his point?



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 7:07:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Ghita the reason I asked you about the case was that  a friend mentioned this movie to me 2 weeks ago, and kept telling me that the movie said the USSC ruled that the Income Tax was illegal in that case (stanton v Baltic), and people did not have to pay it.  To him it was the central point of the movie, and he was certain that the Court ruled the tax was illegal.  Russo had to dishonestly edit the quote to get what he did out of it.  I was curious about your perception after having seen it.  I don't have 2 hours to waste watching a movie that the basic facts can be aquired in text and checked for accuracy in 15 minutes.  I do understand that the scary music, dramatic lighting and slow panning make it seem more convincing, along with dishonest editing.   But why does Mr russo have to be intentionally dishonest to make his point?


where was russo dishonest?  its been a long time sine i seen it and i do not remember that part at all.  you sure its russo who is wrong or is your buddy wrong?


your buddy heard wrong i just watched enough to hear them go over it so your buddy is wrong.  it wasnt even russio that brought that case up it was someone else and it was used to reference the 16th and the new york times agreess with that in a jan 16th 1913 article



Real0ne -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 7:33:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
The courts have affirmed many times, the 16th amendment is legal, and so is the income tax.  Don't like it, convince the majority of the people to repeal it.


Hey lucky i think its we the people who has the $50,000 buck challenge to any one who can come up with a law says you have to pay federal income tax on your wages.   Its still unclaimed but it should be easy ching for ya man, go for it!



OrionTheWolf -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 8:07:18 PM)

So how do the rules on the I-9 apply? http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0572194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=91919c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD


Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Actually...a business does NOT have to verify the SSN, most companies just are under the impression they do. And what I find interesting, is not that its voluntary, but that once you are an adult and can make your own choices about SS and whatnot, your parents already made the decision for you.


yup its entrapment, they use prima facia to nail you if you try to fight it as an adult.

agreed




sappatoti -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 8:39:58 PM)

Instead of an individual SSN, you could set yourself up as a corporation and get an Employer Identification Number (EIN).

As far as phone service goes, it's not necessarily the cheapest way to do this but you can get prepaid wired and cell services. They don't ask for SSNs.


<edited for clarity>



MsBearlee -> RE: America: Freedom to Fascism (8/1/2007 8:46:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

keep in mind the purpose of a licenxse is a special dispensation to do what is otherwise illegal.  (nope it was more corect the way i said it the first time)

Much like gun control, we have the inalinable right to arm ourselves, thus a license or special dispensation is an infringemtn.  We also have the right to travel on any public roadways therefore none required there either.

Its all a prop to "control" which is vastly different from regulate. 


K...but isn't a driver's license a document that says you know how to drive a vehicle?  It is not permission to travel public roadways; you can do that even without a driver's license.
 
At least that is how I understand it,
B



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875