This essay changed my whole outlook.

I no longer pay tribute [Federal Income Tax] and I no longer see the U.S. Federal government as a legitimate entity.

Everyone in this sub should read this essay.

Stop playing the game of despots and they become helpless.

They only have as much power as WE AGREE they have.

So to clarify, you are prepared to go to prison for tax evasion right? Or are you planning on leaving the country? I'm just trying to understand your position.

1.) They can only imprison me if they determine that I have violated their codes and laws.

2.) They must be able to factually demonstrate that I have violated their codes and laws.

3.) There is no evidence that I'm aware of that their codes and laws apply to me.

4.) I'm not evading anything. If they have any evidence that their codes and laws apply to me I'll cut them a check immediately.

5.) I have no interest in moving away from my friends and family. I'm a peaceful person who acts ethically and properly. I'm not the one waving a gun and demanding money [IRS]. I don't see why I should move.

6.) The U.S. Federal government kills people. I do not support known killers.

From my understanding:-

1. True but that makes me assume you are simply hoping your tax evasion isn't discovered. I see no reason that you wouldn't be charged for tax evasion upon discovery of your nonpayment.

2. Assuming you are working legally, if you earn enough money to be eligible to pay tax and wilfully evade payment IRS records will show that you haven't paid. It would be extremely difficult to mount any kind of legitimate defence in the face of those figures.

3. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence.

4. Not paying tax for political reasons is still evasion and a prison sentence is enforced regardless of subsequent payment. Ask Wesley Snipes or Lauryn Hill.

5. By living in the USA you live under the laws enforced by the US government, if you break a law you should assume that you will held accountable for your actions. Disagreeing with one of your country's laws is fine but it doesn't give you license to ignore it.

6. This is your ideology but it doesn't give you immunity from the USAs tax law.

I can understand someone disagreeing with a law or how their country is run but thinking that your political or ideological views gives you the right to break the law without consequence seems short sighted and downright foolish to me. It looks to me like an inefficient way for trying to effect change in your country.

I saw nothing in his post that indicated he was seeking to escape "consequence" for his civil disobedience. He even said he'd pay up if they prove their case.

Use of the "law" to describe the regime we have all grown up under is a misnomer. We're all plundered and subjected to brutality if we try to meaningfully resist the plunder.

It's an old conundrum, better said by someone that lived before us:

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." -Bastiat

Indeed.

I value ethics above law.

Ok, it sill strikes me as a waste of your life. What change can you effect from prison? If you are a known figure then there can be something in this but as the unknown person you are it's throwing your life away cheaply.

Paying up once they proved your case isn't how it usually goes down either. In this case of wilful evasion it would be likely that back taxes and interest would be levied as well as a prison sentence. If you don't agree with the system of your home country that's fine but this action doesn't really do anything to change things in my opinion.

It's a bigger waste of a life to unquestioningly submit to injustice for one's entire life.

Hear hear.

Ok, but I think there are better ways to address you perceived injustices than set yourself up for losing the freedom to do so by getting imprisoned and losing your vote. Isn't this merely wilfully becoming a victim to the system that you believe so unjust?

That's kind of the point: this system victimizes people whether they willingly participate or attempt to divorce themselves from it.

It's how pimps operate. How does one get away from the biggest, meanest pimp on the planet?

How does one get away from the biggest, meanest pimp on the planet?

Are you familiar with the kitchenware revolts?

Might I recommend a very well done documentary on the topic?

It's called "America - Freedom to Fascism", and it was done by Aaron Russo.

If you're not sure you want to commit to 2 1/2 hours of viewing, you might try this 10 minute teaser, where Russo interviews IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo

Cohen CURSES Russo - in YIDDISH!?!?!?

Is that crazy, or what?

Aaron was the shit. He used his position to try to warn people of the danger of slavery and servitude we're all faced with, day, day out. A very inspirational soul he was.

1.) I do not see how I'm evading anything. If their codes and laws don't apply to me then how am I evading anything?

2.) I am not interested in defending against anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If they're going to accuse me of violating their codes and laws then they must be able to factually prove that their codes and laws apply to me. If they have no such proof that their codes and laws apply to me then I'm A.) not evading anything and B.) have no need to defend myself against their baseless accusations.

3.) If their codes and laws don't apply to me then I don't need to know their codes and laws.

4.) Whether or not I tie it to ethical considerations is irrelevant if they have no facts to support the legal opinion that their codes and laws apply to me. If they have no facts to support their claims that their codes and laws apply to me then my reasoning is just as irrelevant as their baseless claims against me.

5.) My location means that their codes and laws apply to me? What is the connection?

6.) I'm not interested in ideology. If they have facts to prove that I owe them money then they may have my money. If they have no such facts to prove that I owe them money then I will not give them money.

Why would the law not apply to you?

The burden of proof is on plaintiff - not defendant.

If they're going to claim that I violated their codes they must first produce facts that would suport their claim that their codes and laws apply to me. The correct question is: "What facts do you rely on to support the conclusion that your codes and laws apply to me?" Then you wait for them to answer. If they have such facts then you give them money. If they have no such facts then inform them of the nearest park where they may fly a kite.

You didn't really answer my question. What evidence do you have that standard US law won't apply to you? I'm just curious to what you're referring. You obviously think you have some ace up your sleeve as to why law doesn't apply to you.

Where's the law that states that Americans have to pay taxes on income?

I'm not a federal or state body, I'm not requiring you to prove it. I am just curious as to your thinking. You don't have to play the "burden of proof" card with me, as you will use it to no avail.

However the 16th amendment to the US constitution states:

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

the 16th amendment to the US constitution states:

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

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981) - "Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981) - "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"

Internal Revenue Code: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(b) Heads of households

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 2

§ 2. Definitions and special rules

(e) For definition of taxable income see section 63.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 63

§63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus...

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize their deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income minus...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 62

§62. Adjusted gross income defined

(a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 64

§64. Ordinary income defined

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary income” includes (NOTE: does not say means) any gain from the sale or exchange of property...**

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

§61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived...**

In review:

§63a - “taxable income” means “gross income” minus...

§62a - “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, “gross income” minus...

§61a - “gross income” means all “income” from whatever source derived...

§??? - “income” means ?????............... Nowhere to be found in The Internal Revenue Code!!!

These are the only definitions in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, that include the word “income” yet none of them actually define the word “income”. The definition of the word “income” does not exist in Title 26.

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976) - "...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

It should also be mentioned that "from whatever source derived" (also used in Title 26) makes it abundantly clear that wages and compensation for services are not "income" but are a source from which one derives income. Example: One receives $100 as compensation for services. Then one invests that $100. Any profit that is derived from that $100 investment is "income".

Thus sayeth Title 26 and the 16th Amendment.

Were you agreeing with me?

Last paragraph:

It should also be mentioned that "from whatever source derived" (also used in Title 26) makes it abundantly clear that wages and compensation for services are not "income" but are a source from which one derives income. Example: One receives $100 as compensation for services. Then one invests that $100. Any profit that is derived from that $100 investment is "income".

Edit: IRS agents deceive the public by claiming wages are "income".

I don't know about your "Example."

There appear to be many cases where your example is disputed or proven false by courts.

My second paragraph

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981) - "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"

That applies to judges as well.

proven false by courts

"Proven" only if a judge misrepresents the actual law.

It is my understanding that judges are the ones to properly interpret the law. And law meanings can and do change based on the outcomes of trials.

Once again:

It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority

Exactly what is not clear about that? Judges intentionally misrepresenting a law to assure enough revenue is acquired so that their own salaries are paid is not a difficult concept to grasp.

So you are basing your whole argument on crooked judges? Under what system of laws and government would you ever be satisfied?

Under what system of laws and government would you ever be satisfied?

Absence of government is the only moral solution.

I see. Anarchy and no laws. Humans are not inherently good beings. Morality is not a replacement for laws and justice.

Humans are not inherently good beings.

That goes for agents of government also.

That's the claimed power. Where is the law stating that we have to file? That would be an abrogation of our 5th Amendment rights which would be illegal for the government to ask.

If they're going to claim that their constitution applies to me they must back that assertion up with facts. Otherwise it's speculation at best.

The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

What facts do they rely on to support the conclusion that their codes, laws and Constitution apply to me?

In this case, what DOES apply to you? If not the highest governing document of a nation?

1.) I obey the codes and laws of my employer. There is a factual connection between myself and my employer.

Offer / accept.

2.) The U.S. Constitution is all fine and well, but what does it have to do with me?

Well there you go.

So what I'm hearing is, you kind of do whatever the hell you want. Because no one has any lawful power over you in your mind.

I do what is right because it is right.

Not because someone is threatening me.

Many agents of the State and agents of many corporate entities do whatever the hell they want, with impunity, and claim it as lawful authority.

That's the actual problem, not people who are claiming their right to be unencumbered by unlawful rule.

The law of the land applies to everyone who lives in it.

Only kings and idiots believe that.

No, it doesn't. That's a patently false proposition. People break the law, every day, with impunity. Corporations evade taxes with no accountability. Politicians, the privileged wealthy, "police officers," legislators, lobbysists, and civil servants disregard the law of the land whenever it suits them.

The legislature disregards the Constitution. As has most every executive and leader of a nation.

Every day, these things happen. If the "law of the land applies to everyone who lives in it," then why are so many of the people charged with creating and administering the law not held accountable? If those who are elected to legislate hold no good faith in the supposed social contract of our nation, then why should the people?

The "law" only applies to those unfortunate souls who find themselves inconveniencing those who are privileged to hold the power. There is no true "law" but what one perceives and believes.

A person might find themselves subject to arrest, trial, judgment, and imprisonment, but it doesn't mean they've submitted themselves to the idea of breaking a law. It doesn't mean that law is a true "law." It means they were held at gunpoint, kidnapped, judged, and thrown away to a cell. The law only exists in the minds of those who uphold it.

One of the best bosses I ever had once told me, "Locks are only for honest people." I would say the same thing about supposed laws.

Then you shouldn't be using any public services, including infrastructure. You're free to pay no taxes on a deserted island. But participating in human society is like a contract. You are obligated to follow others' rules and you don't always get to pick and choose.

Some may disregard the law and the law enforcers may sometimes be corrupt, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't or didn't apply to them. It means that they committed an injustice and got away with it. It's possible.

I can do whatever I want. That's the point.

You can do whatever deeds you're capable of... until you get caught then isolated from society and punished.

Sorry, you have no legal super-powers.

I haven't claimed any.

Your statement is that the law applies to all and that's not true. I don't wish to make assumptions about your country of origin, but I'd like to describe a way in which this is shown to be false in the United States.

When George W Bush signed bills into law, he often used an executive function called "signing statements" to exempt his administration from the law which he just signed. This was an abuse of what is considered, by most legal scholars, a ceremonial act. I can assume that the current president has used that precedent to his advantage, as well, since W was never held accountable.

Representatives within the U.S. congress exempt themselves from laws all the time when they draw up legislation. Lobbyists who help fashion legislation draw up exemptions for their employers and then encourage their respective representatives to make those exemptions into law.

Law enforcement officers break the law, every day, and are not held accountable to the "law."

This notion of "law" is simply whatever set of rules a privileged class has the capacity to hold over a less privileged class of people. The law did not come from God. It certainly doesn't come from the "people." It comes from a privileged class of elite rulers and their friends. It has mostly, if not always, been this way.

I hold about as much regard for most current law as I hold for the laws written in Leviticus in the Old Testament. It's my hope that, one day, most other folks will cast off the superstition of the nation or government in the way they've cast off superstition of religion.

Yes, you are correct. If I don't follow the rules, they can do whatever they like to me. They can detain, judge, imprison, kill, seize any of my property, remove my children, ruin my name, and whatever else the current authorities wish to to.

Their capacity to do this, however, is not proof of their legitimacy.

Look, I don't want to argue with you. I'm simply trying to get across a point to you that you are refusing. You don't have to agree with the sentiment, but it'd be nice to acknowledge the reasoning behind it.

I'm a pretty conservative fella. I pay taxes. I use the library. I look after my neighbors and folks I meet. I wish to serve folks. It's in my nature. I'm in a monogamous marriage sanctioned by the state. I carry life, health, and auto insurance. My children have nine digit codes that prove their legitimacy as citizens. Hell, even their vaccinations are up to date, mostly. It just so happens, I do these things either of my own volition or under duress for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.

So, i behave according to this so-called "law" not because it is legitimate but because the reach and violence of the state is almost inescapable and it because, well, I'm a decent, non-violent person.

If there's a law I follow, it's the golden rule. Do we need more?

That doesn't matter if their codes and laws do not apply to you.

Don't enter their arena. Let them prove - factually - that their codes and laws apply to you.

Then ask for the specific law.

Staying out of the arena is the key.

Like always, people that "dont pay" evade that question

I did answer the question.

The burden of proof rests on prosecution.

If they cannot factually prove that their codes and laws apply to me then that's their failure. Not mine.

Burden of proof is on plaintiff - not defendant.

They must prove their accusations.

Not the other way around.

You have views on citizenship and law which I don't fully understand. If you are genuinely not paying tax then I commend your commitment to your ideals but fail to see your argument that the tax laws "don't apply to you" as being a good defence in a court which is run according to the established laws of the country, not your interpretation or definition of them.

I would recommend, if you haven't already, talking to an accountant and a solicitor ASAP to get fully qualified information on what you are getting into.

You may also want to look up, if you haven't already, articles on "birthright U.S. Citizenship" which applies to you point 5 and "tax protester statutory arguments"

in a court which is run according to the established laws of the country

It's not an impartial court. They're employees of the State which is claiming the power of life, death and taxation over the accused.

There's no justice in such an environment.

I have to agree here. Judges don't care so much about these details of citizenship. There is theory and then there is practice. This idea of immunity is half-baked and not supported by evidence.

Of course judges don't care. They don't want their authority questioned. No one ensconced in the legal system wants their authority questioned. That's what beatdowns are for.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

It's more than an opinion. It's a demonstrable fact.

1.) The U.S. Supreme Court defined citizenship as "A member of a body politic owing a duty of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection; these are reciprocal obligations." (Luria vs. U.S. paragraph thirteen) This means that they owe me a duty of protection if it's to be a meaningful relationship.

No duty to protect. Warren vs. D.C.

No duty to protect. Lozito vs. NYC

They breech their supposed duty every day of the week.

They give us nothing and so I owe them nothing.

2.) I am not going to argue anything. I am not going to put up a defense. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. If they're going to accuse me of violating their codes and laws then they must prove, factually, that their codes and laws apply to me. That's not a defense - that's a request for evidence.

3.) I'm not going to interpret laws or codes. If their codes and laws don't apply to me then I have no need or interest in interpreting them. If their codes and laws do apply to me then I will think onit. If they have facts proving that their codes and laws apply to me then I'll go ahead and think about interpretations; otherwise it's a waste of time.

4.) I've spoken to lawyers, accountants, law students, paralegals and so on. They all tell me I'm crazy, but I tested it out on a parking ticket (all legal controversies are structured in a manner that's basically the same) and I won. I'm doing it again i a week or two. I'm going to induce a more formal attack by smoking pot in public or something later on. I want a prosecutor. I want the full dog and pony show. I fought the law and I won. The next question is how to do it as effectively as possible in the shortest time possible.

And, yes, I'll be going pro se.

5.) The citizenship thing is irrelevant. If they want to call me a U.S. citizen they'll have to prove that I am a citizen. Which they can't do since they have no duty to protect.

6.) I'm not interested in tax protest bullshit.

If they have proof that I owe them money then I'll give them money.

Until then I see no reason to give them anything.

I think I understand what you are getting at but what makes you think they will play fair? The US imprisons people wrongly every day for anything under the sun. What makes you think that the judicial system won't just squash you just to prove it can? You are putting a lot of faith in your interpretation of the law and that's fine but the law is upheld by humans. These are the same humans who enslaved, murdered, and beat one another since the dawn of human record keeping.

I would be scared out of my mind if all I had against the US justice system was, "prove your code and citizenship applies to me."

They will not play fair.

They will cheat.

They will lie.

That's their whole game.

The only defense, and I mean the only defense, I have is that I get to create a public record that anyone can look up for themselves. Expose their villainy and they become obvious villains. No one wants to play with a villain. So show them as the villains they are and fewer will want to play with them. Since I'm using their own words against them the villains will want to minimize their exposure to public view.

The aim is to get them to withdraw before a trial manifests.

Look up the Bhumisparsha. Buddha was sitting under a tree and was tempted by every fear and terror. They all came at him. Rather than give in to fear he simply touched the ground. "I am here." That is how I deal with them. They will hurl every unholy and horrible threat they can at me and I know it. But behind all of that is nothingness. All they have is the willingness to commit violence. If that is the source of their power then all I have to do is reject their threats as being meaningful. And suddenly they're common thugs.

Another way of looking at it is this way: even if they attack me, violate their own due process clauses and force an erroneous conviction I still win. I show them for the villains they are. And I create a public record of their treachery. And then everyone will know and fewer people will want to cooperate. It doesn't matter if they win or I win. I still win the point of exposing them for what they are.

And I'd like to realy drive this point home:

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Not the defendant.

By calling them out I force them to prove their position. They're just people. The only difference between myself and them is that they're willing to use violence to support their position. Other than that they're just men. I do not bow to men.

Fuck the haters man, it's easy to side with the law and tell you you're wrong. If you want this fight take it to em. The majority of people here wouldn't have stood alongside MLK so

1) fuck seeking approval here

2) fight your fight

3) get back to us

Cheers

[deleted]

There was an AMA by an "ex-IRS" man recently.

He said that the IRS is coming apart at the seams and needed more funding. I don't know if he was for real or not, but all I heard was, "This is a great time to totally de-fund the war machine by halting participation with the tribute system [Federal Income Tax]."

It only takes a few to start the snowball.

Principles are only principles when they cost you something. You're not principled, you're a free-loader.

1.) What I risk is violence by the state.

2.) I owe them no fealty.

If you were truly principled, you'd go off into the woods and create your own "perfect" society.

But you don't. You stay here, drinking clean water, eating safe food, driving on paved roads, using the Internet, and bitching like a spoiled brat that wouldn't know tyranny even if Machiavelli kicked you in the ass.

I refuse to support known killers and I am therefor bad.

Okay.

No. You're "bad" for taking advantage of the goods and services this country provides by way of its social contract, but refusing to either put up your share or leave.

1.) I didn't ask for wars or spying. I'm not taking advantage of anything.

2.) Where is this social contract? What is the wording? Where may I obtain a copy?

3.) I'm not going to pay people to kill and spy - I don't care if you dislike my position.

And I don't care if the "state inflicts violence" in you for not paying your taxes. The social contract, which you agree to by remaining in this country and using its services, is something we've all agreed to by not moving out of the country. Don't like it, leave. But don't cry about it like a spoiled brat, fresh from his first poly-sci class.

1.) Not my taxes. Taxes are imposed on me by an external and hostile group. They are not my taxes.

2.) What is the wording of this social contract? What department can I contact to get a copy? When did you sign your social contract? What is the wording of this social contract?

3.) I'm not crying. I refuse to pay people to kill. I find it odd that you think this is bad.

the social contract

I hear this BS all the time. Where's this "contract"?

If you read the essay by Spooner linked in the opening of this thread, you'll see the argument that there is no social contract.

Contracts are agreed to by two equal parties, not imposed and enforced by threats of violence.

No one is keeping you here. By staying, you're agreeing to the social contract.

p.s. Spooner isn't fact, it's an argument. A badly supported argument with little history behind it. The social contract is evidenced by thousands of years of human history. If you want to be a loner, good for you. Leave. Otherwise, pay your fair share.

The "social contract" is just a form of contract of adhesion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

It's a bullshit contract, which is ok because it doesn't actually exist. You're more than welcome to keep getting suckered by it.

Wow, you really are obtuse, huh? Good luck to you.

You still haven't shown me this supposed contract, just a link to an academic exposition.

I'm not responsible for your willful ignorance.

If you can't show me this supposed contract, the ignorance isn't mine.

It isn't a contract. Call it what is: submission.

It's only submission if you're kept against your will. Nobody's keeping you here. I, for one, would even be happy to help you leave. Have some balls and live your principles. Either that, or quit your whining.

The choice is submit or go into exile.

Are you transmitting from the Soviet Union circa 1972?

Exile? If you really believed in all the bull you're spouting, you'd think of it as opportunity. A nirvana, free from all traces of other people's "slave labor." People who truly live in oppressive nations die trying to leave. But, you? You're still here. Language is a funny thing.

You're selfish, immature, and lack the courage of your convictions. Every day, you pay for war. We all do. That phone or PC you're on? In some way, when you bought it, you paid for war. Same with your breakfast cereal. Welcome to the world, kid.

But, you're not trying to fix it. You're not trying to change anything. All you're doing is ignoring a problem instead of fixing it, and increasing your chances of seeing a specific tax-funded institution - jail. Grow up.

Likewise, I find you selfish, immature and cowardly for taking it up the ass without questioning for a second why you're a catcher to someone's pitcher. I guess there's some security in being someone's bitch.

You shouldn't let mere ideas upset you so much, btw. One of the marks of an immature mind is the inability to entertain a thought or idea that one finds abhorrent without letting emotion run rampant.

Take your own advice and grow up.

It's a mutual relationship. Me and the gov. have taken turns pitching and catching for years.

But, am I consumed with an emotion? Yep, amusement. I thought out your position - like 15 years ago. I spent 14 months homeless, so you could say I even lived outside the system at one point. And you know what I think? Society's pretty fucking great compared to the alternative. But, once again, you're free to leave at any time.

You and the gov sound very happy together, Beeks.

Oh, it's a love hate relationship. But we're working on it.

BDSM is not a viable form of governance, son.

"They call me son cause I shine like one..."

Lemme, know when you've been oppressed by the tyranny. I'll pay for your escape ticket. Unless, of course, you like it here too much to leave...

Government is not society.

Society is not government.

You're conflating the two.

Provide me an example of a society without government. Government naturally arises in society, it's necessary. Incas, Maasai, even the small tribes that wandered Europe had government.

But that's besides the point. You're still here.

Just because other people believe in government doesn't mean I have to.

I'm not here because of government; I'm here despite government.

What do you government is, a fucking rainbow unicorn?

I'm sorry, but I've had all the selfish obtuseness I can stand for the week.

Good day.

Selfish?

How is non-compliance with known killers selfish?

I said, GOOD DAY, sir.

Well then, I hope you also have a pleasant afternoon.

What would you say to those who would make the argument that more harm than good is being done with their taxes?

That A: they're wrong. Far more is spent on services like infrastructure, healthcare, and safety than war.

B: you don't like it? Vote, get involved in citizen activism. Try to change the system instead of ignoring it and freeloading.

C: if you sincerely believe in the bull you spout, go out into the woods and live without any of the services taxes provide.

I'm just as anti war and anti corruption as the next guy, maybe even more than most, but these antitax positions are asinine.

Oh, you're anti-war?

And yet you pay them to commit war?

Makes sense to me.

Far more

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this. 40% of the budget goes towards "defense", which is just more corporate imperialism. Beyond that, you have corruption and grift which account for god knows how much. Not only that, but you are essentially paying for and incentivizing people to make bad decisions in life through many social programs that result in only more dependency on the state.

Don't expect to be taken seriously with such a brainwashed 10th grade sociology worldview.

Yeah! He's not helping to pay for corporate welfare and war! What a free loader!!!

A lot of people have tried this. Once the tax liability becomes big enough they will overcome the frivolous pretrial motions. Not to be a downer, but if you haven't been done in yet, you probably aren't yet worth the cost of pursuit. See Lauren Hill, Wesley Snipes, and pretty much every gangster they couldn't pop on other crimes. Tax evasion jail sentences.

1.) What is the basis for the obligation to pay tribute [Federal Income Tax]?

If they cannot prove you have an obligation to pay then it doesn't matter how much money you make.

2.) A request for evidence is not frivolous.

3.) Wesley Snipes, Lauren Hill, Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, and Sherry Peel Jackson all made the same mistake: they went for an interpretation of law approach. Since you don't get to interpret the law you are at the mercy of the judge. I am not using their line because I know it fails.

4.) I am not evading anything. If they have evidence that I owe them money then I will give them money. If they have no evidence that I owe them money then I will not give them money.

3.) Wesley Snipes, Lauren Hill, Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, and Sherry Peel Jackson all made the same mistake: they went for an interpretation of law approach. Since you don't get to interpret the law you are at the mercy of the judge. I am not using their line because I know it fails.

Sounds like a good approach. So what line are you using then, my brother?

4.) I am not evading anything. If they have evidence that I owe them money then I will give them money. If they have no evidence that I owe them money then I will not give them money.

I see. Playing devil's advocate here, what about the following:

Your line of approach is that they have no evidence that you owe them money. You don't think they can figure out some way to finagle around that argument? Can't they say something like "The state provides you with 'this, that, and the other' service which requires communal/public financial support and cooperation from the plebeians to continue operating. You have to pay taxes because you are using services the state provides that the public - which you are part of - uses. It's not fair or legal for you to NOT pay taxes, yet use services (public roads, libraries, etc, etc) that exist because of taxes that everyone else pays."

1.) The line I'm using is a purely Taoist line.

They're the energetic party and I am the water. If they come at me they expend energy. All court proceedings operate under this general concept: the attacking party must have reason to attack. Absent a reason to attack the attack must cease.

Offer no resistance other than to force them to adhere to their own rules.

All lines begin with halting all cooperation and all participation. The moment you stop communicating with them they become the acting party. You don't go to them. They come to you. Once they come to you this means you're in the position of power. You then have resting initiative. Like how in the game chess, if they position to attack you merely move to a more advantageous position in response to their move. Let them expend energy into a temporarily attacking pose; if your long game is better than their short game then you've allowed them to set themselves up for a failure.

Let them attack first.

In legal proceedings the acting party has the burden of proof (this is why Bill Cooper failed when he tried to sue the IRS, by the by). Since the IRS has no evidence that their codes apply to anyone you let them hang themselves by merely calling out their lack of evidence. All due process errors stem from this request: "where's the evidence?"

If they fail to provide evidence (which must always be the case since they have none) you merely file a motion to dismiss based on their lack of evidence. You cannot be the one to make this assertion, however. You must induce this admission from them. So call them, with a witness and a full audio recording as well as a written recording, and ask them for their evidence. Use all of their deflections and non-responsiveness to show bad faith (due process error). Note that they say that tbey have no evidence. Use their own admissions against them.

Aikido.

Read Sun Tzu and I'm actually mimicking him, but in a curt setting rather than on a battle field.

2.) "Public services" are not individually offered to me. I have no legally binding agreement with any municipal organization. If they have evidence of a legally binding agreement with a municipal organization then so be it, but absent any binding agreement this is mere rhetoric. It would be like me offering to cut you lawn, cutting your lawn without your approval and then demanding two hundred bucks for cutting your lawn on pain of violence. If you and I had no agreement then it doesn't matter if I cut your lawn. You don't owe me two hundred bucks.

It's also worth noting that threats of violence are duress and always void any otherwise legally binding agreement. The very fact that they're threatening me with violence automatically voids what could be considered an agreement (not that there is any evidence of such an agreement).

This is why the Sun Tzu approach is effective.

You got to flow like water, my friend.

the attacking party must have reason to attack. Absent a reason to attack the attack must cease.

Offer no resistance other than to force them to adhere to their own rules.

I think that's a wonderful philosophy, but there seems to be an unsettlingly voluminous amount of evidence suggesting that the attacking party in this case is a covertly sociopathic one. As such, their reason to attack may not necessarily be one tethered exclusively to either the rule of law or to the rules they set for the rest of the public to follow. As a result, although it seems your argument is a valid one, I wonder what kind of shenanigans they may attempt (illegal or otherwise) if push comes to shove.

All lines begin with halting all cooperation and all participation.

Even with what I said above, I fully agree with this line of reasoning.

if your long game is better than their short game then you've allowed them to set themselves up for a failure.

Theoretically, this is 100% correct. I guess, of course, the only problem with this is that they have billions of dollars worth of "long game", and most of us plebs have, at most, a few short thousand dollars worth of it. The game here isn't all about money, of course, and there are things that can be done that don't strictly involve financial expenditure, but the game of attrition is one that we plebs would have to be willing to REALLY commit to in order to fair well.

Read the rest of what you had to say, and can't upvote enough.

It would be like me offering to cut you lawn, cutting your lawn without your approval and then demanding two hundred bucks for cutting your lawn on pain of violence.

Beautifully-said. Very good, intelligent rebuttal, sir.

If I wasn't one of the many jobless Americans in this nation, I'd give you Reddit Gold, my man.

Going to save this response for future personal reference and for things to think about regarding this very subject.

Cheers,

I honestly think that with more people refusing to cooperate with psychopaths we're fine.

At the highest level this is all a mind game.

Winning is all in how you define winning. I define winning as doing what is good and avoiding what is bad. Hence non-compliance with the self-appointed rulers and their proxies in government always puts me on the winning side.

My models are Zatoichi, Sanjuro and this guy.

I honestly think that with more people refusing to cooperate with psychopaths we're fine.

I cannot agree more with this. and, believe it or not, I'm actually trying to do my little part in getting you to talk more and more about this - how you're actually going about doing it and explaining your process, etc - so that it can maybe take a bit of the intimidating mystique away from it all and allow some people reading this (not the least of which is me) to see that it is indeed doable.

At the highest level this is all a mind game.

Very, very correct.

I honestly think that with more people refusing to cooperate with psychopaths we're fine.

(not the least of which is me) to see that it is indeed doable.

Top notch. Many more are lurking here than we know.

Trying to wake the cows up, man...

Moooo...

I appreciate it. No nibbles on my end tonight. I think I have someone working on Constitution stuff (hopefully)

I'm trying to figure out a quick and clean way to organize my thoughts for something like a crash course into anarchic activism. It sounds utterly ridiculous, but I think it's the right way to go. My thoughts are for decentralization and peace; that's anarchy in a nutshell. Since the biggest problem is fear of attack by bureaucrats I feel like spending time on how to deflect legal attacks is something that is just begging to be done.

SIDE NOTE: my computer just crashed like an hour ago and I just got done setting up my new computer (I've been sitting on a spanking new PC for like seven months). I think it's time to begin doing this. I'll have access to all the computing power I want - I don't know how I'll make this pamphlet thing work, but I'll find a way.

It's odd to think that even though I know my logic is sound the tiny things like a punch to the arm and raise of a glass still mean a lot to me. Cheers and thank you for the encouragement.

I'm trying to figure out a quick and clean way to organize my thoughts for something like a crash course into anarchic activism. It sounds utterly ridiculous, but I think it's the right way to go

Doesn't sound ridiculous at all, sir, and is, as a matter of fact, something that I was actually wondering if/hoping you would do.

Since the biggest problem is fear of attack by bureaucrats I feel like spending time on how to deflect legal attacks is something that is just begging to be done.

Could not agree more.

It's odd to think that even though I know my logic is sound the tiny things like a punch to the arm and raise of a glass still mean a lot to me. Cheers and thank you for the encouragement.

Man, I can't give you enough encouragement.

That being said, I'll also impart the following information:

Are you familiar with the youtube channel StormCloudsGathering? I would imagine you are, as many of the channel's videos have been linked in this very subreddit, and what seems like a lot of very relevant information is imparted regarding the nefarious state of affairs of TPTB that rule over this civilization.

Like I'm sure many have, I've wondered "Who is that guy?" Who is the voice behind Storm Clouds Gathering?

Well, I just recently found this interview right here. I'm listening to it now, and am just a touch over an hour into it.

I very much recommend you listen to it, as he starts talking about some of the very things that we discuss here (in a nebulous way, but still touches upon them). I only recommend your listening to it just so you can get another perspective on another individual's experiences with tptb, and some of the reactions he's had as he works on "pushing the envelope" of the freedom that we should all have anyway.

I still champion and encourage what you're doing, and really DO wish more of us picked up the mantle with you, sir.

I'm not opposed to joining you.

Namaste,

Aaron once said something about how his idea of where civilization is and where it ought to go is too radical for most people to accept. With some thought I think he's into smaller decentralized collectives. I think he's into something closer to tribalism. I've listened to one or two of his interviews and he's incredibly bright. To a large extent I agree with him, however the complexity of modern civilization as it exists seems incompatible with his ideas.

Then again, I'm into anarchy and I'm only a single step away from where he is. Not that I advocate smaller groups so much as I think all people should be allowed their own autonomy to decide with what they associate / participate. If they like large groups then they may join large groups. If they like small group then they may join small groups. The only issue for me is compulsory participation on pain of violence. I have no problems with Commies and Fascists so long as they don't force me into their bullshit. Let them have their petty kingdoms. Just leave me the hell alone.

Anyway, yeah, I'm going to try and find a way to put these ideas out quickly.

I'm going to start writing them down tonight and organizing them. My old computer had a really cool faux anarchist propaganda piece that I edited last week. YouTube didn't like the music and so disallowed the upload. Too bad. Now I kinda want to do something like that again, but with this taxation thing in mind. Maybe I could make something fun to watch instead of boring to watch. Then again, maybe I'll just leave it as text for those who like to read.

Much to contemplate.

Maybe I could make something fun to watch instead of boring to watch.

Well, don't make it too "fun" to watch. Certainly don't choose style over substance - at least not with regard to important information like this. I'd prefer dry truth and information to colorful fluff any day of the week.

Then again, maybe I'll just leave it as text for those who like to read.

Also maybe just read the text aloud for those that don't like to read. Then they could just listen to what is said.

Things to consider...

Godspeed.

I would never make it a fluff piece.

I just know that it's so easy for me to slip into dry academia that I'd feel bad presenting some horrid abstract bullshit conglomeration of information. I don't want to crack jokes, but I don't want it to read like Emmanuel Kant. I'd prefer a nice Voltaire vibe. Serious, but with some sense of bemusement.

I'm thinking about just barreling through it as fast as possible. Just making audio only streaming thoughts and uploading them as the most basic possible introductions. I'd like to do a more formal presentation with graphics, but this seems like something that could benefit a couple people now rather than later.

Maybe I'll just do that and then make something more impressive later on.

I would never make it a fluff piece.

Didn't mean to imply you would. Apologies. I've just seen a lot of videos - as I'm sure may have - where the important message and meaning behind the piece is distracted by too much music or whatever else is all.

I just know that it's so easy for me to slip into dry academia that I'd feel bad presenting some horrid abstract bullshit conglomeration of information.

Well just make sure the info really makes sense to YOU. If you can explain it in such a manner that you hear it and you go "Yeah. Yeah I get that." then I'd imagine that might not be a bad litmus test for whether it might be passable or not to others as well.

I mean I'm sure there will be some that won't like it, but hell...that'll be the case with ANY version of almost anything that ever gets publicly put out. That's just the way things go. I say just make an honest presentation that YOU feel good about, and those that are meant to "get it" will.

I don't want to crack jokes, but I don't want it to read like Emmanuel Kant.

Honestly, I don't think you have too great a deal to worry about regarding the possibility of it reading like Kant. And I don't say that because I don't think you're intelligent. I say that because if you have at least some minimal graphic and audio representation along with whatever you talk about, it should be decent enough to not be "absolutely unbearable".

I mean hell. Think of Bill Still's work. I'd say his stuff could be pretty damn dry here and there...and his video is LOOONG! However, his data is absolutely classic and super well-respected nonetheless.

I'd prefer a nice Voltaire vibe. Serious, but with some sense of bemusement.

Cool.

I think you're on the right track with the initial idea you mentioned here.

You are smart and I see where you are going with this. I foresee the government arguing (with success) that the obligation (to pay income tax) does not need to be explicitly stated or created by any Federal statute; and that the IRS, as an administrative agency created by Congress, is permitted through its code and rulings to take on quasi legislative and Judicial functions. They will then state that the basis for the obligation is grounded in the USC 16th Amendment which gives the government the power to tax, plus IRC Sec. 61 which defines gross income for tax purposes, and IRS Rev. Rul. 2007-19, which states, among the obligation to pay income taxes on income derived from providing services in exchange for pay, the penalties for not doing so.

You have the right to ask them the basis of the purported obligation to pay. Their answer may be shifty from a legal perspective. But it will be upheld.

I foresee the government arguing (with success) that the obligation (to pay income tax) does not need to be explicitly stated or created by any Federal statute; and that the IRS, as an administrative agency created by Congress, is permitted through its code and rulings to take on quasi legislative and Judicial functions. They will then state that the basis for the obligation is grounded in the USC 16th Amendment which gives the government the power to tax, plus IRC Sec. 61 which defines gross income for tax purposes, and IRS Rev. Rul. 2007-19, which states, among the obligation to pay income taxes on income derived from providing services in exchange for pay, the penalties for not doing so.

That entire paragraph boils down to : "the code applies because the code says so." That's not extra-judicial. Evidence means facts presentable to the senses. Opinions written down by the court are not evidence.

Seen another way, Stare Decisis is not Rez Judicata.

I was referring to what they will say when you ask them where your tax obligation stems from. Not evidence they will need to apply in the prosecution. I don't know the latter. Perhaps W-2 forms containing statements of your earnings? Perhaps testimony?

1.) I'm only concerned with facts that can be entered into evidence. If prosecution makes arguments outside of the facts in evidence this counts as misconduct; possibly grounds for a mistrial. Legal citations cannot be entered into evidence. They can be used to interpret facts, but they are not extra-judicial facts [evidence].

All the U.S. Constitution talk in the world is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to me.

What's the factual connection?

2.) The W-2 form I filed out was between myself and my employer. I have no direct communication with the IRS. If my employer has communication with the IRS then that's their business not mine. I would add that the only reason my employer is having communication with the IRS is because of threats. If you do not communicate with the IRS they will make threats about closing you down or taking your business. Duress.

3.) Testimony of what?

I'm not being hostile, mind you. It took me a year to get to this level of understanding. If I come off as haughty or clipped it's only because I've been through these lines many times over with lawyers, paralegals and trolls. No lawyer has ever come back at me with relevant evidence. Only logical fallicies, unbacked assertions and legal citations. I know that my logic is sound and sometimes it comes off as "a bit much" to the uninitiated.

Questions are always welcome.

The W2 will be sufficient evidence. Duress as a defense to its introduction to evidence will be overruled.

1.) Of what is the W2 evidence?

2.) I am not interested in discussing duress within a court-room setting. Should it come up I'll be glad to discuss it. That said, if they have no evidence that their codes and laws apply to me I need not bring up duress.

W2 is evidence of income you received from your employer.

Whether or not I received income is not the question.

The question is: do I legally "owe" them money?

If so, what is the basis?

Asked and aswered

You did not answer.

I don't see how the W2 creates an obligation to pay tribute.

Please explain it. Be specific rather than vague.

The w2 is evidence of your income. The legal obligation to pay taxes on that income that the government will rely on was explained in my previous post. What are you confused about? You seem to misunderstand the law fact distinction.

I'm aware that I have an income.

You did not explain how the obligation to pay them was generated.

How is the obligation to pay their taxes generated?

From the law

What evidence is there that their codes and laws apply to me in the first place?

The law is. It applies to those within its jurisdiction (in this case the USA). It applies to you by virtue of its enactment and your existence within its geographical jurisdiction. Evidence is used to determine whether you have complied or broken the law. Evidence is not needed to prove that the law applies to you. Do you understand how the American legal system works?

The law applies because "because"?

That's not a fact. That's an opinion.

Other than opinions, do you have any facts that you could use to support the opinion that the U.S. codes and laws apply to me or anyone?

Are you serious?

I am completely serious.

Other than opinions, are there any facts [things presentable to the senses] that you would rely on to support the opinion that U.S. codes and laws apply to me or anyone? I'm not asking for the magic word "because" - I'm asking for facts that could be entered into evidence.

The government doesn't need to present evidence that you are subject to the law. Whether you like it or not, you are subject to the laws and codes of our country. You seem to mix up the law - fact distinction in this regard and keep asking for evidence (facts) that demonstrate WHY the law applies to you. Evidence is what the Courts will need to prove HOW the law applies (or doesn't apply) to you. I will entertain your circular inquiries, but a Court won't.

They don't need evidence to support the opinion that their codes and laws apply to people?

Wouldn't that make it arbitrary? Aren't irrefutable opinions a due process error? (Answer: yes)

Opinions and legal conclusions must be supported by facts in evidence. Otherwise they're arbitrary.

C'mon, bro.

Of course it's arbitrary. It is the law! It is not evidence. Your due process argument makes no sense.

If there's no evidence to link me to U.S. law then it's arbitrary to apply it to me absent evidence. I'm not the one who came up with due process. They did. If you don't like due process then I suggest you take it up with them - not me. In order to "play fair" all opinions must be refutable. The declaration that "the law applies" is arbitrary if there's no evidence to back it up.

I'm surprised you're bemoaning a point you don't seem to understand.

As I am surprised that you continue to stand by an argument premised on the foundation that the law is merely an opinion.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/What+is+law

Laws are legal opinions enforced by groups willing to kill for those opinions.

The fact that the opinion was written down doesn't make it any less an opinion.

Ask a lawyer and they'll tell you the exact same thing.

I know this because I've asked lawyers.

1.) They can only imprison me if they determine that I have violated their codes and laws.

You do actually understand that, don't you?

They can determine anything they want, based on anything or based on nothing at all.

Start reading unpublished decisions regarding persons whose crimes are essentially political. You won't find what they have in store for you published.

Prepare for federal prison. Expect 1-3 years in minimum security. Establish a support network now, and find ways to fill your time productively within the restrictions that will be placed on you.

You'll be stronger upon release.

The only defense you have is the public record. If you force them to expose their villainy in writing they're less likely to show themselves for what they are. Yes, you're correct that they're completely and irredeemably corrupt. I know this and you know this. However I do not wish to play their game or fight them. My only option is to halt participation.

In order for their scam to work they must present the facade of fairness. My entire line is based on the idea that you must expose their corruption from the get-go. If you force them to put in writing that they're being unfair then they're less likely to move forward with their arbitrary system. Why? Because others might catch on. The whole point is that it needs to look good in general. Once people catch the feint whiff of corruption the scam is over. Everything I do is about peeling back all of the paperwork. Under all that paperwork is a gun. I'm very happy to talk abut that gun in public and in writing.

Yes, living free means taking a risk.

I risk being threatened by bullies.

It's important to me to take a stand and do the right thing.

It's important to me to take a stand and do the right thing.

Without a doubt.

There will be a cost associated with taking that stand, but it won't be the end of the world.

In addition, if more people took such a stand, the policy would have to change. The last numbers I saw pegged IRS actions at 1200 a year or so. That is not many.

Most American subjects are lawbreakers. What's the beef?

No beef, just trying to understand his position. If he wants to break the law then so be it but I don't understand what he plans to do to deal with the consequences. Is he prepared to go to prison? Is he going to try and take steps to avoid the law? Tax evasion is much more serious business than braking the speed limit or similar crimes that most Americans could be guilty of.

Three Felonies a Day

http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx

When the law is unjust, it stops being law. It's tyranny.

I think what he's trying to say is that he's worried about you.

I pay my taxes. I just like a good debate.

Tyranny, huh?

Breaking their law is meaningful if and only if their law applies to you.

Who's law? German law? Chinese law? American law? Bird law?

If they're going to assert that they have claim over me and my body they must show factually that their codes and laws apply to me. Merely saying that I broke a law is meaningless if that law has nothing to do with me. Watch this: "fuck God and Islam." I just violated a law in Saudi Arabia. I don't see anyone knocking down my door with an AR-15 in hand.

Who's law am I breaking and how is it connected to me?

If there's no connection I'm not breaking it.

There are other things you can do to spite the government. There are literally millions and millions of rules that are perfectly acceptable to break. And it feels good doing it. The people who wrote these rules like to call them "laws" to make them sound more important but they aren't.

You need to be clear with yourself. Assuming you are a resident of the USA are you prepared to be jailed? Beaten?

Because US police forces are randomly arresting people and some charges are made up later.

I no longer pay tribute

This is only possible if you work for cash. All incorporated employers are required to report your earnings and automate withholdings. If you've discovered a way to avoid paying taxes as a W2 earner, that would be interesting.

I have a paycheck and I do not pay tribute [Federal Income Tax].

Ten deductions and zero contact with the IRS.

Then you just wait and see if they start making threats.

Can you elaborate on how you do this?

This is not a joke and it is not for the feint of heart. I have lost some sleep over this because I know very well that if the IRS levels its evil gaze on me I will be going up against one of the most corrupt and pitiless groups of people on the planet. They will not hesitate to destroy anyone and everyone if allowed to do so.

I am doing this on principle alone.

All of that said, once you understand that all legal battles are 1v1 fights it becomes clear. There are multiple stages to the fight (choosing the battleground, the weapons and the fighters). Then there is the fight itself. And then you can dispute the fairness of the fight if you don't like the call. The first thing to know is that whoever is the party initiating the fight has to prove their case. Plaintiff always bears the burden of proof. They thrust and I parry. I never thrust and I never take a hit (allow a baseless assertion to go un-objected).

In court you're basically on the losing end. The judge is supposed to act as a referee in this fight, however, the judge used to be a fighter (prosecutor). The ref will always give his fellow fighter a free pass. All you can realy do is pit the judge against the prosecutor and force the prosecutor to acknowledge he has no case and force the judge to recognize that the prosecutor has no case. If you're deft you just get them to withdraw their attack before it ever gets to trial. In fact the whole game is in pre-trial. Not trial. Sort of like how Sun Tzu said that the master wins without fighting. The best victory is when they merely withdraw without a fight (trial).

The way you do this is by inducing due process errors. Set up enough of these and you have a laundry list that can tie them up for ages with motions and writs. Make it as hard as possible for them to secure anything without violating due process (which is easy once you understand that they have no evidence that their codes and laws apply to you or anyone). All of the due process violations begin with calling them out on their lack of evidence of jurisdiction. After that they'll offer a cascading series of deflections and lies to cover for their lack of evidence. You don't fight them. You just smile, nod and ask them for their evidence. If they proceed absent evidence then they're making an arbitrary determination. If they say they have evidence, but fail to prove their evidence then they're with-holding evidence (misconduct). If the judge allows this then he's allowing misconduct which is, itself, misconduct and grounds for vacating the judge.

There are scores of permutations and I'm still learning them in anticipation of the possibility that I am forced into the disquieting position of having to deflect their attacks. At which time Sun Tzu's wisdom will be one of two books ready-at-hand.

I would say three things:

1.) The real battle is not at trial - it's pre-trial.

2.) Motions are the power-moves. Oral statements are just how to get the necessary admissions to file a motion. What's the motion? A motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. From whom do you need this admission? Prosecution. The first thing you do is request discovery. Then you call the prosecutor - while recording audio and with a witness - ask for the evidence they rely on to support the legal conclusion that their codes and laws apply to you. After they throw sand in your eye ask if their refusal to answer is an indication that they have no such evidence. If they refuse to respond then you can still file a motion to dismiss indicating that they failed to provide discovery and have not presented evidence of jurisdiction. Get it in writing. Motions are how you get it in writing.

3.) Marc Stevens is a good primer. He's silly, disorganized and a bit of a zealot, however I've used his method successfully. The method: just get them to back their assertions with facts. If they fail to provide evidence then file a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence using their own admissions.

Thanks! I was pretty sure it was Marc Stevens inspired, I have watched him quite a bit as well. I love the simplicity of the defense.

His "model" is not well described by him. He knows what to do, but doesn't know how to convey it. It's kind of like a chess master who knows about openings and knows why certain openings work, but hasn't yet organized his thoughts so that he can explain it to others.

I have his second book and it's painful to read. I know exactly where he's going with pretty much every sentence, however he's trying to both preach to the choir and give relevant information at the same time. Which makes it very hard to read. I've dabbled in philosophy and analysis so I know how to read something convoluted. Others without my background will find his text to be little more than prattlings. Frankly I don't recommend his book to anyone other than the most die-hard anarchists.

I'm currently toying with the idea of taking his concepts and formulating them into something digestible to the general audience. I think people should be able to defend themselves against bureaucrats and government officials. The only reason it took me so long to finally halt participation with tribute [Federal Income Tax] is because I didn't know of any good models. I know damned well that I'm not the only one like me. I think it would be good to share this information with those willing to actually stand up for what is good and decent.

Plus nothing gets chicks like esoteric legal jargon.

. . . wait a minute . . .

Yes I had the same feelings about him. He has a system but its not easily reproduced, certainly not where I would feel comfortable in court. I think he has a natural talent bantering and it has served him well. You would be doing us a service by rephrasing some of his work.

I wish you would take that project on. Based on what you've shared here, it would be valuable info.

Plus nothing gets chicks like esoteric legal jargon.

Yeah! And the history of banking houses and their predations! Women love that stuff!

I've been thinking about it for about a month or so. I kept thinking it would be silly and borderline self-indulgent, but you're the second person in this thread to encourage me. As of this moment I'll go ahead and take on the project. I don't know how I'll do it, but I'll find a way to convey the information succinctly so that people can defend themselves without having to hire a two-faced lawyer to make a deal to spend even more money and still somehow go to jail.

You are a gentleman and a scholar. I hope your work is fruitful and you keep us informed.

I also encourage this! Looking forward to seeing more from you.

If you're interested in getting thoughts put together into something digestible for today's audience (anyone under 30, at least IMO), I'd be interested in helping/contributing.

I feel this is a battle of many fronts, and there are many audiences that ate fighting for something but are not united in any common language or direction.

I've been attempting to organize a set of thoughts put together for any given situation to appeal to a number of people, and the Patriot/Liberty guys would benefit so much from seeing the big picture, and how their government from the start was corrupt. Citing their sources (US Gov legal jargon) it's easy to prove.. Much the same as showing people main-stream news sources conflicting with each other to disprove of the media narratives today. Best of luck to you regardless. It's sorely needed.

Yes, a clear statement of the methodology would help. As would a step by step handbook.

The methodology is nothing more than calling them out on their lack of evidence. Literally everything follows from that basic question. In order for them to proceed they must force due process violations. There are a multitude of ways to deal with this only a few of which I know. I'm still in the learning process myself. Being an autodidact is a double edged sword; you learn exactly what you want, but the cost is a lot of lateral drift.

My point is that there is no specific step-by-step approach because you're going to be dealing with a different bureaucrat every time. Like in chess: you must learn openings in general and understand principles in order to play at tournament level. Fortunately most bureaucrats are club players and so anyone with a greater understanding can bet them. They rely on intimidation - not logic. The moment you shift to logic you're already playing above their level.

But, yes, an understanding of what cases are and how they work would be useful.

As soon as I figure out the formal difference between a complaint and a case I'll be getting to work on a quite pamphlet on the subject so that people can defend themselves slightly easier in court. Hopefully I'll understand this within the week.

I hope you can put together some sort of a handbook or pamphlet that boils it down and makes it super-clear. I imagine that I am not the only one who finds the whole thing too complex to understand...

Sometimes this sub instigates a lot of discussion but there is also the ever present fear of repercussion from the establishment if you don't play by their rules, hence not much true action.

I tip my hat to you and your huge set of balls for taking your chess piece off the board and refusing to play.

I've spent about six years wondering what I could do.

I went to the Tea Parties and the Occupy. Nothing. I went to rallies and protests. Nothing. I voted. Nothing. I briefly contemplated some kind of formal violent rebellion, but that seemed like an even worse path. And then, back in late 2010 I accidentally found myself researching psychopathy. Ever since then my model for dealing with government is like dealing with a cult headed by a psychopath. The only option is to avoid all contact and do everything you can you with-hold participation and cooperation. One person starts off a chain reaction. I'm not the first person, so I'm not that special. But I do count myself as one of those who does his part.

I thank you for the tip of the hat.

How ever small it may seem, your recognition is meaningful to me.

Cheers.

Great post mate. I came to the same conclusion a few months ago in regards to dealing with the rampant corruption that is present in most, if not all government today. The best course of action I could come up with was to "opt out" of their system of enslavement. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this way, it's quite reassuring.

Best of luck to you!

My reflexive retort would be, "Luck is for the ill-prepared" - however I understand what you mean. There actually is an element of luck in that you don't know what kind of bureaucrat will attack you. It's possible you get a proto-psychopath rather than a full-blown-from-birth psychopath. If you only get a proto-psychopath then there's the possibility of getting the attack muted or withdrawn immediately. In this sense I accept your blessing.

It's a great boon to hear of someone else coming to the same conclusion through alternate means.

I think we'll be fine.

Beyond the rocky path I can see the summit.

I briefly contemplated some kind of formal violent rebellion, but that seemed like an even worse path.

Violence is the stock and trade of government.

They don't take unlicensed competition lightly, and they are far more prepared for that kind of battle than anyone else is.

Violence also strengthens an otherwise weak claim to legitimacy. Acts of violence are generally common law crimes that create victims who are justified in calling on the power of government for redress.

Anyone who encourages violence is working for the government, with or without the intention of doing so.

Agreed.

This is why I ultimately rejected the idea of a violent resistance.

Dude, if you really don't pay tribute, as I've read you saying for quite some long time now...then you're my damn hero, bro.

Damn I need to follow suit w/you, man...

It would be better if I was self-employed.

There's the outside chance that some idiot might misinterpret my paperwork as evidence of submission to their codes. Obviously this is not the case and I can go through it, but it's a lot cleaner if you're self-employed. Ideally I should find a way to start my own business.

All of that said, I do feel good about taking a stand.

I get a lot of shit, but I also get a lot of support.

It would be better if I was self-employed.

Hey I'm self employed!

...Oh wait a minute...I think it's UNemployed that I actually am. Never mind.

I get a lot of shit, but I also get a lot of support.

Count me in as a biiiig supporter, man.

Its ok to pay in self defense, no one will judge you. We have to do things that go against or beliefs just to stay alive.

They can demand money from me.

They can make threats.

That doesn't mean they're getting anything out of me.

Been there man, I'm telling you from experience its best to just acknowledge that its wrong and educate others. If you try to put your foot down on income tax, you are still paying sales tax, you are still paying tax on every single gallon of gas you buy, property tax, cigarette and alcohol tax, firearm and ammunition tax, do you have a drivers license? that was a tax. renewed the tags on your car? also a tax. Got a speeding ticket or busted for pot? Other forms of taxation. There are many other taxes, all of which we are forced to pay via threat of force from the government and their goons but theres no way to win through force. The best thing to do is keep educating yourself, and educate others. I recommend checking out r/anarcho_capitalism, as people like Spooner are often discussed, as well as the topic of taxation and government coercion, i think you would appreciate it, possibly more than this sub.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Knowing it's wrong is hollow if you do nothing about it.

Live on your feet or live on your knees.

If they want my participation they're going to have to work for it.

[deleted]

Because it's abnormal to be opposed to robbery and servitude?

Brilliant. Understanding monetary policy is paramount in attempting to make sense of the world and the way it (dis) functions.

powerful technology transforming society, 6min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIVAluSL9SU

stopping war, 1 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3TgQqtV8

defining bitcoin ownership, 2 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANjGSo16Uk

[deleted]

listen to this. great Schiff piece on QE infinity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdlMEXMeyKM

I believe there is a documentary called the money masters that many have found to be enlightening. I have read about monetary policy from many different sources, including the federal reserve website. I can't recall which was the best though, in terms of an intro.

https://archive.org/details/NoTreasonTheConstitutionOfNoAuthority

if you prefer audio

Nice! Thanks.

Finally!

I don't get how people think that the Roths power has declined even though thier wealth has grown exponentially.

They basically created thier own army in sense with the ADL, and now with as many companies as they own covering tracks is a breeze.

But would even question them when they own it all?

I don't get how people think that the Roths power has declined even though thier wealth has grown exponentially.

There's no evidence of that. Since the height of their power in the 19th century, there has been the rise of corporate banking, income tax, inheritance tax, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and the Nazi confiscation of all their property in continental Europe (only some of which they got back after the war).

According to Forbes Magazine, none of the top 1000 wealthy people in the world are Rothschilds.

Heh, let me ask you something. If you were the richest man in the world, would you really want it listed on Forbes? Maybe you would because you want to show off, but I would guess 90% of people wouldn't want to flaunt their incredible wealth, especially if it completely dwarfs others.

Further at least $20trillion is kept in 'offshore' bank accounts like Virgin Islands, Monaco, etc. That money can't be accounted for by Forbes as no one knows who owns it.

The Rothschilds are most likely trillionaires, collectively.

The Rothschilds are most likely trillionaires, collectively.

Completely without evidence.

There's more evidence for it than against it. We all know how much Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei, the Walton family and other billionaires are worth but we can't actually ascertain what the Rothschilds are worth.

That alone tells you what they're worth. Privacy is the greatest luxury of all.

How can this argument get even one vote? It makes no sense at all. By this argument, someone you have never even heard of is even richer than the Rothschilds. The fact that you have never heard of Elmo Flossaimer proves that he's a quadrillionaire!!!!

[deleted]

not going to pay your taxes?

In context, that's what the majority of Colonial Americans said circa 1778.

Rothschilds built a country and its government's infrastructure. That takes serious bread and connections, Jack.

The family has been in biz for 200+ years, while other finance empires have come and gone. If it makes you feel better to think they've just puttered and frittered their fortune and influence away until they're just also-rans, have at.

"The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything." -Nelson (or John D.) Rockefeller

The Rockefellers learned this from the Rothschilds.

How does that saying go again?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Would it be reasonable to assume that the Rothschilds know how to cover their tracks, hide their holdings and obscure the "evidence" by now? Since it is very likely they wrote the proverbial book on the subject long before you or I were even a thought.

Brilliant. Understanding monetary policy is paramount in attempting to make sense of the world and the way it (dis) functions.

Very interesting read, thank you.

Some dub him rotshield but more limn him rockeyfellow; shows he's fly to both demisfairs but thries to cover up his tracers.

-finnegans wake

Gotta up vote Joyce.

A corporation does not describe itself as “we,” nor as “people,” nor as “ourselves.”

Wow!

Feel this way about government? Welcome to /r/Anarcho_Capitalism where solutions are found

[deleted]

Hmm, I have quite a different experience with that subreddit TBH, I haven't found as much of a naive futurist vibe as you have. Could you explain where you diverge, ideologically, as an agorist compared to an ancap?

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/NewAmerica] "The Rothschilds...stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved." -Lysander Spooner, 1870

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Their wealth won't save them for the fate that awaits these fucks. This family are at the centre, or close to all of the wars and wealth inequality that exist on this planet. I hope I'm alive the day every single member of that family is tortured and burnt alive.

Spooner is brilliant. I've read No Treason at least a dozen times. The dude was a half a century before his time.

...and this is relevant, how?

/endjoke

u/archonemis sums up the importance of this (and the importance of finding and publicising) most "economically."

I'm starting to think that Americans actually like getting reamed by Mammon. Assuming that makes the giant BDSM bath house that is modern America make more sense.

America has been afforded great luxury, wealth and convenience from Mammon, on credit, in exchange for compliance and a MIC serving as "global constbulary." Even though the wealth gap is the greatest in history, we still have our Playstations and Budweiser, consolation prizes for having our humanity stripped away, but we're still far better off in our financial and cultural poverty than much of the world (and blinded to it). As the reaming becomes increasingly uncomfortable ("comfort" is important here, 'cause we're not living in straw huts, yet), it's more recognizable for what it is. The water's getting cold in the bath house, and there's not enough cash to pay the heating bill.

America: The most well-kept bath house in history.

Americans: The most well-kept bath house attendants in history.

I think bath time is almost over.

This is a great post! Nobody today can write this clearly. The system is too complex to see what is going on. Back then, you could still make out the lines of the system.

I don't know if I don't buy this because rulers in the time before money lenders were able to find the income to conquer and subjugate others, such as the Roman emperors, the first emperor of chin, Genghis Kahn, Mohammed, all managed massive conquests without money lenders.

Usury has always been a problem, in all ages and empires. A small example from history:

When William the Conqueror arrived in England in 1066, he encouraged Jewish merchants and artisans from northern France to move to England. The Jews came mostly from France with some from Germany, Italy and Spain, seeking prosperity and a haven from anti-Semitism. Serving as special representatives of the king, these Jews worked as moneylenders and coin dealers. Over the course of a generation, Jews established communities in London, York, Bristol, Canterbury and other major cities. They generally lived in segregated areas by themselves. However, until 1177 only one Jewish cemetery was allowed to be established in London.

During the Middle Ages, usury, or lending money for interest, was considered a sin by the Catholic Church. Therefore, Christians were forbidden to work as moneylenders and Jews were called to that occupation and were able to set high interest rates. They played a vital role in maintaining the British treasury and, for a time, the Crown watched over the Jewish financiers and their property, though they also taxed them onerously.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/England.html

I wonder how well this would work?

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/4.13StopEmployerWH.htm

Can someone explain this part to me:

When these great lenders of blood-money, like the Rothschilds, have loaned vast sums in this way, for purposes of murder, to an emperor or a king, they sell out the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to anybody, and everybody, who are disposed to buy them at satisfactory prices, to hold as investments. They (the Rothschilds) thus soon get back their money, with great profits.

That part in bold isn't very clear to me.

Does it mean they force the heads of state to sell bonds to the market to be able to pay back the interest for the massive loans?

Jeff Berwick speaks in much the same manner. :)

Anyone with a lick of sense and an understanding of history does. Berwick fits the bill.

Berwick got taken in by a psychopath.

To his credit, he's living by his principles and refusing to go into a state-run court battle over it.

Berwick tried and failed and I wish him all the best.

[deleted]

That's not helpful. The Rothschilds are Jewish like the Bushes are Christians.

They don't give a shit about religion or community. They only care about bloodlines, control and cold, hard cash.

AmericanDreamiscle, great post. Thanks for putting it out there. Mad props to your very expert handling of the replies you got here. I dare say you're a gentleman and a scholar. Keep posting. I like your level head.

Gracias, amigo. You make it worth it.

Thank you.

Fuck Zionists

Word

Are you aware that the power of the Rothschild family largely declined since 1870? What was true in 1870 isn't necessarily true today.

Until about ten years ago, the daily price of gold was set in the offices of N.M. Rothschild in London. The Rothschilds also haven't divested themselves of their shares in the banks that own the Federal Reserve and other central banks of the world.

You're aware that Warren Buffett brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to Lord Jacob Rothschild before Arnie became governor of California? I'll provide proof if you doubt my word.

Rothschild is still kingmaker. They're still the most powerful family in Europe and the US.

The Rothschilds also haven't divested themselves of their shares in the banks that own the Federal Reserve and other central banks of the world.

What makes you think that? I've never seen any reliable they have ever owned a significant number of shares of any of the member banks of the Federal Reserve. If they do, it's through several layers of institutional holdings, the trading of which is private, so there's no way to know whether they have divested themselves of shares or not.

The Rothschilds and their ilk perfected the shell game.

Secret Files Reveal Rothschild’s Offshore Domain

Thanks for the link. Bookmarked for further reference.

And that's just one tiny little part of the Rothschild maze. I can't imagine the larger picture.

It doesn't say anything there about them owning any banks.

Here's some older research:

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Based on that research, I've not seen where the Rothschilds and their agents have divested themselves of their stocks in the banks that own the Fed.

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Can you explain where Chart 1 comes from and what it means?

It's implied on the web page that it comes from Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence, published in 1976.

Well, here is that publication: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/house/197608hr_frdirectors.pdf

That chart is not from it.

If you look closely at the chart, it doesn't even make sense. There are businesses, people, and other things all mixed up. There's no explanation of what the lines mean.

Look at the very top of the chart: "N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England". What? N.M. Rothschild is a large private investment bank. The Bank of England, on the other hand, is part of the British government. It has been since 1946.

Some of the lines appear to mean familial relationships, others directorships, maybe. Still others are mysterious. There are banks on there from different decades--"National Bank of Commerce N.Y." stopped being called that in the 1920s and shareholders who died as long ago as 1920.

Can you explain the chart?

By the way, even if someone convinces all the big banks in New York to collude in their votes for control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they could only elect 2 of the 9 directors of the Bank. And that's only of 1 of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. And most of the power of the Federal Reserve System is in the Board of Governors, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

So, even if some foreign entity controlled all of the big banks in New York (which isn't true), that still wouldn't let them control the Federal Reserve System.

Please provide a reliable source for everything you said in this post, because I don't believe a word of it. And nobody owns the FED.

nobody owns the FED

The Fed is a public utility owned by private interests. American currency is private scrip issued by private interests.

In 1928, the US Supreme Court ruled:

Instrumentalities like the national banks or the federal reserve banks, in which there are private interests, are not departments of the government. They are private corporations in which the government has an interest.

http://openjurist.org/275/us/415

thank you for taking the time to school a skeptard.

Been at it for years. ; )

I was surprised to see that some people don't know the FED is a private institution, I thought that had become relatively common public knowledge in America? Yay/Nay?

i doubt it, the "Federal" in the name is enough for most who have not examined the issue... it is logical for a government to issue its own money, is it not? so why would the public assume an illogical solution...? heh

I didn't learn about the federal reserve until I was in my mid twenties. It was one of the first things that started me on this path. Somehow I made it through the public school system without learning that little tidbit.

indeed, i don't remember when i learned it was not "federal" but it was sometime after my 911 rebirth.

Here's the article:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/is-arnold-the-running-man-1-622561

Here's the pic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=buffett+schwarzenegger+rothschild+waddesdon&biw=1024&bih=672&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=8edwVILvI4SiNtm9gKAB&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

If you're truly interested in learning more about the history of the Federal Reserve, aka money changers, aka Bankers (including the Rothschild's and many other old and new world family names you'll recognize,) watch this eye-opening history of banks fighting for power over the governments and citizens of countries the world round.

• Yes it's from the 90's
• No it's not HD
• Yes it's long (3.5 hours)
• No, it's not a waste of time
• Yes, you'll want to take the pen and shove it up his backside by the time it's over

...if you, or nearly anyone, can watch it without learning anything and uttering the words WTF I would be extremely shocked.

That's a fantastic documentary.

The family in control is irrelevant.

The principle of bowing to an illegitimate group is what's important.

The Rothschilds are one of many such groups.

Yeah. ^{^} this was my thought as well. Let's not get hung up in the details.

Exactly.

Bad behavior is bad behavior no matter the actor.

Yeah. ^{^} this was my thought as well. Let's not get hung up in the details.

There's more evidence for it than against it. We all know how much Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei, the Walton family and other billionaires are worth but we can't actually ascertain what the Rothschilds are worth.

That alone tells you what they're worth. Privacy is the greatest luxury of all.

Were you agreeing with me?

No. You're "bad" for taking advantage of the goods and services this country provides by way of its social contract, but refusing to either put up your share or leave.

I foresee the government arguing (with success) that the obligation (to pay income tax) does not need to be explicitly stated or created by any Federal statute; and that the IRS, as an administrative agency created by Congress, is permitted through its code and rulings to take on quasi legislative and Judicial functions. They will then state that the basis for the obligation is grounded in the USC 16th Amendment which gives the government the power to tax, plus IRC Sec. 61 which defines gross income for tax purposes, and IRS Rev. Rul. 2007-19, which states, among the obligation to pay income taxes on income derived from providing services in exchange for pay, the penalties for not doing so.

That entire paragraph boils down to : "the code applies because the code says so." That's not extra-judicial. Evidence means facts presentable to the senses. Opinions written down by the court are not evidence.

Seen another way, Stare Decisis is not Rez Judicata.

Whether or not I received income is not the question.

The question is: do I legally "owe" them money?

If so, what is the basis?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/What+is+law

Laws are legal opinions enforced by groups willing to kill for those opinions.

The fact that the opinion was written down doesn't make it any less an opinion.

Ask a lawyer and they'll tell you the exact same thing.

I know this because I've asked lawyers.