Freedom to Fascism: Notes from a Lawyer

[Edu]

Let him know about the status issue. There is no "law" because when you own someone, you also own everything they own and anything they make via work.

Since the government doesn't want to dole out toilet paper and food, they let you keep a little bit.

Specifically what I am talking about is being a U.S. Government citizen, or citizen (lower case "c") of (meaning belonging to) the United States (a government entity, not the "geographic" sense as in a map of the states of the union).

It's a status issue, either you are one of theirs or you aren't. Picture it as the same as when you sign up for military service, at that point they own your body.

The movie doesn't talk about this because it's hard to explain.

Just ask yourself who is the United States? United States District Court, who's court? United States District Atty, who's atty? Etc...

Lots more info online if you look.

The government has no duty to tell you what you can contract to do, if you want to give your body to them, who are they to say no?

 

[ItsTime]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.

I'll send him those cases, but as for there being no law...

he would say "prove they didn't show the law because it doesn't exist... ie prove the law doesn't exist." Which means, legaly, nothing has changed.

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

Let him know about the status issue. There is no "law" because when you own someone, you also own everything they own and anything they make via work.

Since the government doesn't want to dole out toilet paper and food, they let you keep a little bit.

Specifically what I am talking about is being a U.S. Government citizen, or citizen (lower case "c") of (meaning belonging to) the United States (a government entity, not the "geographic" sense as in a map of the states of the union).

It's a status issue, either you are one of theirs or you aren't. Picture it as the same as when you sign up for military service, at that point they own your body.

The movie doesn't talk about this because it's hard to explain.

Just ask yourself who is the United States? United States District Court, who's court? United States District Atty, who's atty? Etc...

Lots more info online if you look.

The government has no duty to tell you what you can contract to do, if you want to give your body to them, who are they to say no?

It looks like someone gets it.

 

[Fox McCloud]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.

precisely...

let's not forget that most lawyers are trained to pick technicalities apart (loopholes) and win with them....one of the many reasons I don't like Laywers...*chuckles* Ron Paul is on the record of saying he doesn't like them much either (Hey, do you blame him?).

 

[Rhys]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.

lol tell that to the Federal Prisoners whom agreed with you.

Listen... I'm 100% on your side, but we need to do this with the system. Half of what he gets paid for is introducing doubt and double-think. Wait... no, probably three quarters.

You don't have to prove a negative if you refuse to provide the positive.

confused yet? I am.

 

[Rhys]

precisely...

let's not forget that most lawyers are trained to pick technicalities apart (loopholes) and win with them....one of the many reasons I don't like Laywers...*chuckles* Ron Paul is on the record of saying he doesn't like them much either (Hey, do you blame him?).

Lawmakers are the problem... big government.... lawyers are the only ones who know how to maneuver in the manure the government spits out.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

"For one, the Supreme Court ruling on 'income' doesn't constitute the final word on the meaning on 'income'."

Does that also apply to rulings on abortion, gun rights, segregation, voting rights, etc.?

 

[Rhys]

Does that also apply to rulings on abortion, gun rights, segregation, voting rights, etc.?

lol i dunno. i'm just saying what he said. he always says "if the Supreme Court says the First Amendment is unconstitutional, it is" whenever I challenge him on stuff like this. So there's obviously more to it than what I know.

 

[Deborah K]

New grassroots project... stop paying taxes

I would love nothing more than a tax revolt.

 

[torchbearer]

Ask him how is it constitutional for the IRS to use your own testimony(your signed income returns) against you in a court of law... I was under the impression that the constitution forbids the government from forcing someone to be a witness against themselves.???????

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

lol i dunno. i'm just saying what he said. he always says "if the Supreme Court says the First Amendment is unconstitutional, it is" whenever I challenge him on stuff like this. So there's obviously more to it than what I know.

I know, I just find it funny how so many people have a cafeteria philosophy about judicial activism. "I choose this, and this, and this, but not that..."

 

[Deborah K]

The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.

"History, Mr. W. said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon the luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Roman Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling national politics with their vast and ever-increasing fortunes. By reading the Congressional Record, House and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law journal articles of the time and the writings of the people who were intimately involved in the development of the 16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the net annual income from personal property. Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.

Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax.

Senator Norris Brown from Nebraska, the man who wrote the 16th Amendment, defined clearly what income was and what the income tax was intended to accomplish. Not once did Sen. Brown mention that Congress intended to pass an amendment that would grant the federal government a new power to directly tax the wages or salaries of working people.

 

[Edu]

When you have items in inventory, or even a farm with cattle, you put a serial number on them, so you can keep track of what you own.

You can also borrow against your "assets", or even your cattle, and use them as security for the loans.

When cows produce milk it's yours to sell, because you own the cows. They are resources that produce for you.

So, does this serial number look familiar? XXX-XX-XXXX

Could there be human resources?

Get your original birthright back! Be one of the Citizens (cap "C") of the several States of the Union.

Educate yourself, just for fun:
http://www.usavsus.info/
http://www.abrrp.us/