<;

Government & Politics: General

Recent

• Music, Ambience, and the Best Fish Thali in Calangute
  6 comments, 5 hours ago
• Drive yourself to an adventure beyond imagination
  8 comments, 5 hours ago
• South Goa Villa with Private Pool and Colonial Architecture
  8 comments, 5 hours ago
• Beautiful escort services in Calangute Goa
  8 comments, 5 hours ago
• Best caretaker services in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar
  8 comments, 7 hours ago
• Where can I find Exam Helper Online in the UK?
  40 comments, 7 hours ago
• +91(+::+)8426924404 Vashikaran Mantra to Get EX Boyfriend Back After Breakup
  0 comments, 12 hours ago
• +91-8426924404 lost love spell caster in USA || UK || Canada
  0 comments, 12 hours ago
• Black Magic Break Up Spells Free of Cost Solutions To Build or Break A Love Rela
  0 comments, 12 hours ago
• ¯⍣✩ +91- 8426924404 ✩⍣¯· How Can I Remove Black Magic
  0 comments, 12 hours ago

Filter By Topic

• Cops & Courts

• General
• Civil Liberties
• Dealing with Cops
• Drugs
• Prison Nation
• Surviving Lawsuits

• Entertainment & Culture

• General
• Art & Design
• Dressing for Success
• Drinking, Smoking, & Leisure
• Food
• Literature & Fiction
• Movies & TV
• Music
• Social Media
• Sports
• Video Games

• Philosophy & Economics

• General
• Anarchism
• Austrian Economics
• Environment
• Ethics
• Interventionism
• Keynesianism & Monetarism
• Libertarianism, Agorism, & Voluntaryism
• Political Philosophy
• Religion & Atheism
• Socialism, Marxism, & Communism

• 

  Frank Maruschak December 12, 2015 at 7:07 pm

  Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?  Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?  Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?  Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.  Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.  So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction?  How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• 

  Rick Rule December 12, 2015 at 11:54 pm

  Frank

  Speaking of study, you should study Franklyn Sanders and Irwin Schiff. The IRS, and supporting enforcement agents are not so enamored with semantics.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Brian Farmer December 13, 2015 at 12:22 am

  >Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?

   

  Sure.  Right off the top of my head, Section 7701(a)(26).

   

  >Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?

   

  Your question is unclear.  Are you referring to a nation (State) or one of the 50 (States)?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

  >Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?

   

  The IRS does not have jurisdiction over ANY territory.  The IRS has jurisdiction over taxable ACTIVITIES, ANYWHERE in the world those activities occur.

   

  >Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.

   

  It is well established that laws are presumed to be constitutional and enforceable until such time that courts nullify such laws.

   

  >Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.

   

  If, and until someone challenges that law in court, it will be presumes to be valid.  If you plead guilty, you will be sent to jail if you are found guilty. (and the offense carries jail time.)  Before you can challenge the validity of the law, you must have standing to challenge it.  (which usually means you have to be charged)

   

  >So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction? How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

   

  Yes, I have.  Have you ever studied law?  (Not what lawyers practice. Lawyers know procedure, not law.)

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 7:53 am

  The answer to your last question is YES, but the study of Law means nothing unless one has knowledge of the Language of the Law.  The Kentucky Constitution has an inviolate clause which applies to the “right” to own a “gun”.  Inviolate means that “gun control” can’t even be a “subject” for the Kentucky Legislature In other words The Kentucky Legislature does NOT have Legislative jurisdiction to make gun control laws.  Some anti gun control advocates claim that the comity clause of the United States Constitution means the all states with the equivalent of the 2nd amendment must honor the inviolate clause of Kentucky.  The Supreme Court also stated the when a “Law” is found Unconstitutional it means the Law never never had any authority back to the moment the words were placed on the paper.  So if “Congress” “Passes” a “Law” on s subject which exceeds it’s Legislative-Jurisdiction, YOU claim that it is still Law?  How about “Obama” Care?  Didn’t some States simply decline to “enforce” all of it’s provisions?  Do YOU really thing that your “Health” is a legitimate subject for “federal Legislation?  Just because Congress makes something that they call a Law, or some “Federal” Agent exceeds jurisdiction and/or authority and “gets” away with it doesn’t mean that the Law or the activity is Lawful.  This Country has more Lawyers and Attorneys than any other Country in the world, and unless you are a BAR member you are not welcome to play in their sand box.  With 80% or more of Congress are/were Attorneys and the same can be said for most of the Judges sitting in the Courts, what chance would any of us have at getting anything “ruled” unconstitutional?

  Right, Shift is a good guy to study if you want to know what NOT to do.  What does Section 7701(a)(26) have to do with “issuing” or regulating passports.?  Section 7701(a)(26) is JUST A NUMBER, I said show me the Law not a Number.  This is also what the Supreme Court said: If you are going to accuse me of something you must show ME the something in plain English Language not in vague numbers or “code” sections.   HOW or WHY should an Foreign IRS agent have anything to say concerning my getting on an airplane to get from one City in California to another City in California?  The “Federal” government has NEVER been in a position to GIVE anything to we the People through the Constitution or Laws of the United States, it only takes, restricts, and tries to control.  If an IRS :enforcement” agent had no territorial Jurisdiction It would mean that they could not even leave their office  If you were to look up the Study on Jurisdiction you would see that even the FBI lacks jurisdiction in any of the States of the Union except on “Federal Land” unless “invited”  If you want to learn something about jurisdiction look up the history of Congress trying to “pass” a flag desecration law.  You didn’t say anything about Executive Orders, because if Executive Orders have effect over we the people we might just as well declare Obama a Dictator and dispense with Congress all together.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Brian Farmer December 13, 2015 at 8:53 am

  >So if “Congress” “Passes” a “Law” on s subject which exceeds it’s Legislative-Jurisdiction, YOU claim that it is still Law?

   

  Until that law is found to be UnConstitutional, it is accepted as being a valid law.  This is the way it is, and does not matter if you like it or not.

   

  >The Kentucky Constitution has an inviolate clause which applies to the “right” to own a “gun”. Inviolate means that “gun control” can’t even be a “subject” for the Kentucky Legislature In other words The Kentucky Legislature does NOT have Legislative jurisdiction to make gun control laws.

   

  1891 Kentucky Constitution, Section 1.

  Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

   

  The Kentucky Constitution clearly shows that the state legislature DOES have the AUTHORITY to make gun control laws.

   

  It appears that you do not understand what JURISDICTION is, with your allegation that the Kentucky Legislature doesn’t have jurisdiction over gun control laws.  Authority and jurisdiction are two different things.  I encourage you to educate yourself as to the difference.  It will save you many frustrations on down the road when you begin your legal challenges in court.

   

  >This Country has more Lawyers and Attorneys than any other Country in the world, and unless you are a BAR member you are not welcome to play in their sand box.

   

  Once again you post flat out lies and non-sense.  EVERYONE is allowed to represent themselves in court, pro se.  Notaries are officers of the court, and notarized statements are accepted as fact in court and must be admitted as evidence, but notaries are not members of the bar.

   

  >With 80% or more of Congress are/were Attorneys and the same can be said for most of the Judges sitting in the Courts, what chance would any of us have at getting anything “ruled” unconstitutional?

   

  That’s a defeatist attitude.  What chance did the Revolutionary War rebels have against a trained British military?

  Uneducated idiots have no chance of getting anything ruled unconstitutional.  ANYONE who educated themself, and has legal standing, can challenge the Constitutionality of laws.  You don’t need to be an attorney to do this.  This is where people with the defeatist attitude fail before they start.  They believe it is necessary to be a lawyer in order to challenge the Constitutionality of a law.  Wrong.  Lawyers know legal procedure (Adjective law), not law (Substantive law).  As long as you know and understand the law, it is not that difficult to educate yourself as to the necessary procedures and hoops you need to jump through to challenge the Constitutionality of laws.  Put your money where your mouth is, and buy ISBN: 1-4133-0710-8.  Represent Yourself In Court. How To Prepare & Try A Winning Case by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman-Barrett.

   

  >Right, Shift is a good guy to study if you want to know what NOT to do. What does Section 7701(a)(26) have to do with “issuing” or regulating passports.?

   

  You didn’t ask about issuing or regulating passports, and the issuance and regulation of passports is IRRELEVANT.  You asked what law allowed the IRS to interfere with the BUSINESS of the State Department.  I showed you the law which allows the IRS to deal with BUSINESS.  You stipulated (go look up the legal meaning of stipulate) the word BUSINESS, which means that you agreed that the ONLY meaning of the word “business” would be business as defined by the IRC.  Simply by using the word “business” you agreed that the IRS has jurisdiction over the State Department.

   

  >Section 7701(a)(26) is JUST A NUMBER, I said show me the Law not a Number. This is also what the Supreme Court said: If you are going to accuse me of something you must show ME the something in plain English Language not in vague numbers or “code” sections.

   

  I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.  Like the Good Book says, those that have eyes, let them see, and those that have ears, let them hear.  If you are too stupid/lazy to do any work yourself, and want me to spoonfeed you, then I believe I need to exercise Rick Rule advice and be brutal in culling unsuitable people who want mentoring.  You would be well served to accept that you were born with 2 ears and one mouth for a reason – that you should listen twice as much as you talk.  Unfortunately, it appears you are trying to talk twice as much as you listen.  You already have your mind made up, and I don’t want to confuse you with facts.  Goodbye.

   

   

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 10:01 am

  “I can explain it to you”  That is something that would like to SEE, because I doubt that even the staff members that write it could do that.  There are over 15,000 pages of “CODE” that say NOTHING.  You wouldn’t know a fact if one hit you in the head.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 1:06 pm

  Brian has so much time vested in the “study” of something so twisted and convoluted that he dare not entertain any thoughts or ideas outside of the safety of a little box.  When you run out of “argument” pound the table and call the opponent names.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Brian Farmer December 13, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Frank, I’d recommend you start your education on the IRS by studying http://www.losthorizons.com

    If you want to waste your time on wild goose chases, go ahead.  You base your arguments on here with speculation and ignorance.  I’ve tried to offer some facts and knowledge.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

    It’s no skin off my back if you choose to be an uneducated idiot who makes frivolous arguments.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 4:25 am

  Assumptions, presumptions, opinions, and conclusions before the presentation of the facts are the violations of the due of the process.  Some one discloses some ideas that challenge your knowledge and the best that you can do is rattle off a bunch of insults.  I have Pete’s book and have read it.  He uncovered a fraud within the FRAUD.  So what does that mean.  The Chief Federal Judge for the United States would syntax the first sentence of the IRC and disqualify the whole thing as fraud by the fictitious-conveyance of the Language.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 14, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Frank

     

    The facts are that if you have the courage of your interpretation of language and law, and they have the force of the state, it won’t have a happy ending for you, semantics notwithstanding. If I understand the point you are trying to make, it is fruitless to contest a debate when your opponents control the process, through among other things, control of the language in the discussion. In truth, in the world we all inhabit, people whose interests and ends are different than ours control the process, the political establishment, the courts, the whole force of the state. From a real world point of view, arguing against compliance, because of semantics, ignores the world we inhabit.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm

  Rick

  You seem to be basing your view of the point that I am trying to make on semantics, however there are two things that effect the “meaning” of  word.  First, however, all words are “nouns” because a word is a thing.  The Semantic-case is the relation a word has with the object and the mental-picture it invokes when we see or hear the word,  and the syntax is how a word is USED in a sentence.  Take the word “the”:  the is USED as an article, adjective,or adverb.  The only correct-way for the determination of the use of a word is by the use of the rules of the syntax.  I will keep it simple:  Some phrases: a book, a pen, the Law. Now for the syntax of the phrases a = adverb, book =verb, a = adverb, pen = verb, the = adverb, Law = verb.  NOW you could “claim” that the “a” and the “the” are articles which are followed by nouns, BUT it is not what you know or think that you know that counts IT is what you can PROVE.  So I write: for a pen, with the pen by the Law = prepositional-phrases = preposition, article, noun  When you have this sequence the third-word is always a noun/fact.  In the Law only nouns are facts.  With two or more nouns in a sequence in a string of words, the first is used as an adjective modifying the next which becomes a pronoun (modified noun).  Adjectives color the facts, so you can be a colorful-speaker, but can I believe you if you alter the evidence by the coloring of the facts.  What almost every individual on this forum has missed is THAT LANGUAGE is the platform for the expression of the thinking of the individual.  The way words are put together makes the difference between FACT or FICTION, OPINION, ILLUSION.  Why is it that there is time to criticize a Language-Technology, but no time to take a look and find out if there may be some value in the QUANTUM-LANGUAGE.  There are seminars on YouTube.  If you watch and still don’t “agree” or even believe what the Man says you won’t find me calling anyone on this forum an “uneducated idiot”

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Brian Farmer December 15, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Frank,

    If I started lecturing @rrule or Benjamin Graham on investing, and trying to tell them that they were wrong and I had the absolute truth because someone on YouTube told me their theory was the truth, and I refused to listen to any practical information they gave me….it would be correct and proper for them to inform me that I was being an uneducated idiot.

     

    One of the kindest things others can do is to disabuse us of our erroneous beliefs.  Some folks can take a hint, and some need cracked between the eyes with a 2X4 before it registers.

     

    It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble.  It’s what you think you know, that just ain’t so.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Frank

    I think you should start a Quantum- Language discussion, and see who cares to participate. The topic is clearly of interest to you.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 5:38 pm

  Rick,  That would be like telling a hair raising story to a bald headed man.  I have asked Lobo Tiggre for help with this, but when you have a closed minded heavy hitter like Brian you have a lot of armor to penetrate before you could even get someone to even consider that language needs some help in the precision department.  I am not asking people to give up their favorite fiction Language, I am saying that if the Language of a Law is going to to be a thing that causes someone to loose life, liberty, or property that Language should be true, correct, and certain.  That is so clear and precise that anyone who reads it at any time would ALWAYS get the same “meaning”  That means no assumptions, presumptions, interpretations, guesses, or opinions.  Quantum can do that but the initial shock of the medicine is worse than caster oil so you one doesn’t find many willing customers.  People that get caught on the Tort Retort Tort Retort merry go round find it hard to get off the merry go round

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    If you mean that the only way you can generate interest in your point of view is by inserting it in other conversations, I’m inclined to agree.It would appear from my review of responses to your posts on numerous threads here, that most folks are interested in the topics related to the threads, rather than what appears to us to be your digressions. If you believe someone could benefit from, or be interested in your discussion, by all means propose it.

    And yes, I’m balding, but I still enjoy hair raising stories.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 7:08 pm

  That’s the trouble with language it’s everywhere.  In this particular case I started this thread.  I think that Pete Hendrickson proved that construction of Language even Fiction Language makes a difference in the way one gleans a meaning from the writing.   If the IRS is a Federal-Agency that only has jurisdiction on Federal-Land then it means that when a Local Sheriff that understands jurisdiction tells the Fed to get out of town the Fed has to leave.  A “story” like this was reported and I wasn’t there as a witness, but the organization of our government states that the Sheriff is the highest Law enforcement Officer in a County.  If there is no Federal-Land in that particular County Federal-Agents have no Jurisdiction unless “invited”  There is always the possibility that this is just a story, but my brother-in-law is a retired Highway Patrol Officer and his statements confirm that there are jurisdictional limits at city, county, and State lines.  We know there are limits at State lines because one doesn’t see Ohio Police chasing people into Kentucky.  The IRS and there goons have probably Unlawfully hurt more people in this Country than any other part of Government.  When one can prove that what they are doing is FRAUD it is hard to keep silent.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Ned Netterville May 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm

  @ “When one can prove that what they are doing is FRAUD it is hard to keep silent.” Agreed! However, it seems to me the root problem is that many Americans have been seduced by the government’s social welfare programs and other putative benefits of government spending of OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for Other People’s Money–forcibly extorted) that they refuse to see the disastrous long-term consequences to the nation and themselves from such benefits, and will do everything in their power to keep the benefits coming to them until the inevitable disaster is upon them. In other words, they will oppose abolishing those direct, employment (income, SS, etc.) taxes on the theory that those taxes are needed to pay for their benefits. The futility of trying to end the fraud by the democratic process is currently being demonstrated by the inability of congress to repeal those parts of Obama Care that are clearly welfare benefits, such as subsidies for the poor and mandatory coverage of “preexisting conditions.” As for the IRS’ fraudulent collection of the income tax, it is only one of many frauds perpetrated by the federal government with the tacit–if not explicit–approval of most Americans.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak May 11, 2017 at 5:46 pm

  Someone “gets it”.  this from Pepe’s site Lost Horizons: “THE FIFTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS has issued a stunning ruling admitting that the United States and the federal courts have been systematically misapplying the income tax as a non-apportioned direct tax for decades.”  If you tell a LIE long enough with what seems to be an actual authority, prosecute “public figures”, and corrupt the media so that it is almost impossible to “find” a true, correct, and certain statement concerning the “income tax” you will get a lot of INVOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  john doe May 12, 2017 at 9:05 pm

  Part of the social contract is to support the society of which you are a member of. Basic society stuff here.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak May 14, 2017 at 2:39 pm

  Show me the “social contract” that I knowingly, willingly and voluntarily signed.  Also show me that you can prove that I had knowledge of the consequences of any agreement with the terms of such contract.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  john doe May 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm

  Social contracts are quasi contracts and need no signature, it is also no one else’s fault but your own if you implied to be a part of society without understanding your obligations to it.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak May 15, 2017 at 11:14 am

  If you had “knowledge” of the qualifications for the contracting you would have found it hard to make such a statement:  One must be competent to contract.  There must be a “meeting of the minds”.  Social contracts are crazy contracts, just part of Adjective Law.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    john doe May 15, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    social contracts are quasi contracts, perhaps checking out what a quasi contract is will help you understand.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak May 15, 2017 at 4:03 pm

  Where is it that you get your information?  The teacher that I have went back 8500 years to get to the bottom of where the lies began.  I have been where you are and studied all of the fiction and lies.   My teacher would say that you are reading and writing at a 3rd grade level because you don’t even know what it is that you don’t know.  NOTHING that you have tried to tell me explains any of the inconsistencies exhibited by the fiction-Courts.   Once you learn the rules of syntax you will find why a correct-sentence-structure can explain what is wrong with everything written up till the discovery of the Quantum-Language.  “social contracts are quasi contracts” = fiction-contracts.  You are using Adjective-Language which makes your claim nothing more than an opinion.  Do you know what the meaning if is is?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.