RSS

A Great (Good?) Debate? II

02 Mar

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Yesterday, I published Part I of this “Great Debate” between Colin and myself at https://adask.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/a-great-good-debate/

Here’s Part II:

 

Adask (original comment)

This distinction may be important since, so far as I know, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative statement. For example, I can’t actually prove that I’m not in Washington DC right now.

So, if I were to base some line of courtroom defense on my claim that I’m [not] in Washington, DC, technically, I may not be able to prove that negative statement. Therefore my claim might be dismissed by the court.

 

Colin’s reply:

Yes you can. If you prove that you’re currently in New York, or Atlanta, or Dallas, or San Francisco, or any place that’s geographically outside of the borders of Washington, DC, then you’ve proven that you aren’t in Washington, DC. Because there’s no secret definition of “Washington DC” that somehow includes the rest of the country.

I assume you meant “not” in DC, based on your previous writing, so I added it—let me know if I’m wrong.

Adask (most recent reply):

First, you are correct; I accidentally neglected to use the word “not” in my original statement.

Second, you are mistaken to suppose that I believe we are all somehow presumed to be “in” Washington DC.  I believe government presumes I am not within a State of the Union, but I’m not convinced that government presumes I am in Washington DC.  I recognize that explanation might be correct—especially if your address includes a Zip Code.

However, my personal preference runs to a governmental presumption that I am in a territory or state “of the United States” rather than within a member-State of the perpetual Union whose proper name is “The United States of America”.

Third, you’ve not only missed my point, you’ve apparently agreed with my point.  As I at least intended to explain, I can’t prove the negative statement that I was not the “man on the grassy knoll who shot Kennedy” back on November 23rd, A.D. 1963, but I can prove the positive statement that I was at the University of Illinois on that date.   I was simply trying to say that while it’s my belief that you can’t logically prove a negative statement, you can prove the same fact by stating it as a positive.

If I’m accused of murder, I might not be able prove the negative statement that I was not at the murder scene at the time of the murder.  If all I can say is the negative statement that “I didn’t do it,” I’m still a suspect.  On the other hand, if I can produce witnesses prepared to testify under oath to the positive statement that I was at some other place at the time of the murder, I have an alibi that should “prove” that I didn’t kill the victim.

Just as you said in your comment, we can prove the positive statement that I was somewhere else when the murder was committed in order to seemingly prove the negative statement that I didn’t commit the murder.  But, as I view it, we don’t directly prove the negative statement (“I didn’t do it.”).  We directly prove the positive statement (“I was somewhere else.”) and thereby indirectly prove that I couldn’t have been in two places and therefore couldn’t have been at the scene of the murder and therefore did not commit the murder.

I think we’re just debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  So far as I can see, we appear to be saying the same thing—even if we disagree about how to say it.

 

Colin:

And if your defense is to whatever charge or complaint is that you weren’t in DC, whether it’s a valid defense depends on the law. For example, if you’re accused of rear-ending someone in DC, then a [positive] defense that you were actually in Akron at the time is perfectly valid. If you’re charged with not paying your federal taxes, and your defense is that you’re not located in DC, then your defense would not only be disregarded, you’d probably be fined for making a frivolous argument that has been shot down over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. The idea that the income tax applies only to DC residents or federal employees is completely wrong, and courts treat it that way.

 

Adask’s recent reply:

I basically agree with you.  That particular defense has been shot down repeatedly.  But so has the insanity defense, and yet defendants continue to try to rely on it.  Just because a particular defense routinely fails, that’s not proof that the particular defense always fails.

As most of the readers of this blog understand, In A.D. 2006 I was added as the seventh defendant to a case prosecuted by the Attorney General of “Texas” since A.D. 2001.  Each defendant was charged civilly with the manufacture and distribution of a “controlled substance” (colloidal silver) and threatened with fines of $25,000 per day ($9 million per year—per defendant).  I read the relevant drug laws, realized that the drug laws presume the people are just animals.  I drafted a freedom of religion defense based on the fact that Genesis 1:26-28 defines man as “made in God’s image” and therefore not animals. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/)

The Texas AG, after spending six years and nearly $500,000 on pre-trial investigations and pre-trial hearings, simply stopped proceeding against us.  The case was officially non-suited in A.D. 2013, but from A.D. 2007 onward, the Texas AG simply dropped the case.

I presume that the Texas AG stopped proceeding because my “man or other animals,” freedom of religion defense was simply too powerful to risk testing in court.  But the Attorney General never actually admitted why he dropped the case.   Maybe he lost the file.  Maybe he got tired of litigating against “crazy people”.

My point is that a lot of “patriot” legal defenses may sound crazy but some of them have occasionally worked.  But when they do work, it’s my experience that they “work” at the pre-trial stage and result in the government simply dropping the case.  There’s no record of the victory, because the case never went to court.  If government can see that a “crazy” defendant knows some issue that the government doesn’t want to face in public and on the record, the case is simply dropped before it gets to court.

Dropping the case is a victory for the defendant, but there’s no official record of that victory in a court decision.  Result?  The defendant (and his “crazy” argument) won—but there’s no court case or official record that anyone can point to and verify the victory and verify that the “crazy” defense actually worked.

I’ve seen a handful of “crazy” defenses that resulted in dropped prosecutions over the years.  The defenses apparently succeeded but there is no official record of their success to inspire others to try the same line of defense.

But just because there’s no official record of our occasional victories, doesn’t mean that once in a while, that little guy named “David” might not kill Goliath, but still manages to scare Goliath into running away.   But if David doesn’t behead Goliath, there’s no record of the victory.

I’ve reached a point where I tend to view all court room battles as evidence that the defendant has already lost.  I won’t say it’s true in all cases, but if you’re going to court, you’re not really going to a “trial” so much as a “sentencing hearing”.  I.e., if you don’t stop the government prosecution administratively, before you get to court, you’re going to be found guilty about 98% of the time.  The fact that a defendant is going to court is, to my thinking, evidence that he’s already screwed up so badly that it’s a virtual certainty that he’ll be found guilty and then sentenced.

Of course, if you do stop a prosecution administratively, before you get to court—there’ll be no official record of your victory.  There’ll be no judge who explains in his decision just why the defendant’s argument was so brilliant and properly presented, that the judge was legally compelled to rule “not guilty”.

Point: The vast majority of “patriots” who go to court lose.  But some “patriots” still manage to win before they go to court, but that pre-trial victory produces no official recognition of the patriot’s success.  Without that record of victory, it’s easy to disparage patriot arguments as crazy.  But some of those arguments are rational, although only a very rare “patriot” has enough knowledge and communication skills to “make the pitch” to the jury.

 

 

Adask Original:

But what if–instead of claiming that I’m “not in Washington DC,” I expressly claimed under oath that I was within the border of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

Colin reply:

You could just say “in Texas.” The extra words don’t do anything, whether in a court of law or a common conversation.

Adask most recent reply:

I’m amazed that you’d make such a statement.  My understanding of law is that it’s all about linguistic precision.  I know that’s not necessarily true in equity, but at law, you must dot all the “i’s” and cross all the “t’s”—and that includes precisely stating the name of the parties to a case.

For example, you suggest that saying or writing “in Texas” is sufficient—there’s no need to all the “extra words” in the term “The State of Texas”.  I don’t believe that’s true—but even if it is true, where’s the harm in writing “The State of Texas—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  According to the congressional Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, the proper name for this State of the Union is “The State of Texas”.  According to the Articles of Confederation, the proper name for that confederation and Union is “The United States of America”.

Is precision in the courts now deemed to be unnecessary or even offensive?

More, “Texas” was not always “The State of Texas,” or even a member-State of “The United States of America”.   There was a time when “Texas” was an independent nation whose proper name was “The Republic of Texas”.  During the Civil War, “Texas” claimed  to be a member of the Confederacy.  I don’t know what the proper name for “Texas” was during the Civil War, but I’ll bet it wasn’t simply “The State of Texas”.  (Perhaps it was “The Confederate State of Texas”.)

In any case, given the history of “Texas,” it’s important to use all those “extra words” to signify whether we’re talking about the independent Republic, the State of the Union, or the confederate State of “Texas”.  And I didn’t even mention the proper name for “Tejas” when it was part of the nation of Mexico.

I’ve just mentioned four different “Texas’s”.  There’s an amusement park down here called “Six Flags over Texas” that’s based on the idea that over the past two centuries “Texas” has existed in six different political manifestations.  So, we need those “extra words” to distinguish which of the various political manifestations of Texas we’re talking about.

But more importantly, if we know there were six manifestations of “Texas” over the past 200 years, what’s to say that there couldn’t have been seven or more of those manifestations?  Could there be a current “administrative territory of Texas”?  How ‘bout a “state of Texas” that’s a “state of the United States” rather than a State of “The United States of America”?

And how can we distinguish between all of these various real or imagined manifestations of “Texas” if we don’t use those “extra words”?  Without that linguistic precision, there is opportunity for much confusion over whichever “Texas” we’re talking about.

 

Adask original comment:

More, if I swear under oath that I’m within the borders of a State of the Union, anyone who wants to prove I’m not will either have to swear that I’m not within the borders of “The State of Texas” or they’ll have make a positive statement that I am in some district, territory or state which is something other than a State of the Union.

Colin’s reply;

The only time this would come up would be if the dispute were about your physical location: was the defendant in Dallas or Akron? (I guess there could be a dispute about whether you were on an Indian reservation, military base or post office, which could affect the jurisdiction of a federal court for certain crimes and torts—but those are clearly defined and well-understood places.) There’s no legal trickery about whether you were in Texas-the-state or Texas-the-territory, because Texas is Texas is Texas. It’s all the state, the state of the union, the State of the Union, etc. It’s really as simple as it sounds.

Adask’s most recent reply:

These “extra words” in the name of “The State of Texas” don’t simply implicate a place or “physical location”.  They also implicate jurisdiction.

For example, the law recognizes the possibility of “concurrent jurisdiction” where two or more “governments” may claim separate jurisdictions over a particular place.  Apparently, it’s possible for both the US and “Texas” to claim jurisdiction over the same place.  How do defendant’s identify those jurisdictions, determine whether only one or both jurisdictions are implicated and then try to challenge each of those jurisdictions—if the prosecutor doesn’t use all those “extra words” to specify whichever jurisdiction is controlling?

I believe that the ambiguous term “Texas” might signify any one of several jurisdictions, while “The State of Texas” can signify only one—that of a State of the Union.

 

Adask’s original comment:

All of this is conjecture based on the unproven “The State” of the Union vs. “this state” “of the United States” hypothesis is roughly correct.

Colin’s reply: 

It is not even roughly correct.

If your hypothesis were at all correct, or close to it, law professors would be all over it. It would be the hugest news in legal scholarship since Lochner.  Law professors would be pounding out articles about it, exploring the ramifications, as fast as they could, competing to be the expert in this weird new trick. Where are all those articles? Where are the cases acknowledging this bizarre hypothetical jurisdictional mumbo jumbo? They don’t exist, because the idea has only the most casual, flirtatious relationship with reality. I’m sorry, Alfred, but this idea is as wrong as wrong can be.

Adask’s most recent reply

How do you know?

How do you know that the “The State” of the Union vs “this state” “of the United States” hypothesis is “wrong as wrong can be”?

Do you know all the law?  Does any living man know every bit of law that’s been squirreled away in every court case or statute that’s ever been written?

You can say that the proposed hypothesis strikes you as improbable, but you cannot claim to “know” that the hypothesis is so wrong as to be impossible because you don’t and can’t know all of the law.

And what if one particularly charismatic defendant persuaded a jury that the hypothesis were true?  What if one particularly rebellious jury decided to agree with some “crazy” defendant that the hypothesis was true?  Would these aberrations prove that the hypothesis was, in fact, true?

Nobody knows what, exactly, the law is.  If an exact knowledge of law was possible, why would we have any need for appellate courts—just to debate facts?

If an exact knowledge of the law were possible, why are the majority of Supreme Court cases decided by 5 to 4 ratios?  Even the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court can’t usually agree on what the law is or should be.

If the Supreme Court can’t agree, it’s apparent that even they don’t know what the law is.  If the Supreme Court doesn’t know what the law is, how can you reasonably claim to know whichever opinions on the law are right and which are “wrong as wrong can be”?

Your argument that no law professor has written about this hypothesis is semi-reasonable, but not convincing.  The fact that there were no articles written about the Grand Canyon in the 1500s did not prove that the Grand Canyon did not exist.  The fact that the law professors had not written any articles about the “man or other animals” defense I drafted in A.D. 2006 does not prove that that defense was “wrong as wrong can be”.

The Supreme Court regularly comes out with new opinions that overturn previous law or recognize legal principles that have previously been unrecognized or even unsuspected.  Even if the Supreme Court hasn’t expressly recognized my hypothesis as valid, who’s to say that the Supremes won’t recognize it as valid tomorrow or next year or even next decade?

Not me.  Not you, either.

The truth is that the law is a form or martial arts.  Every court case is a fight, not a debate.  Anyone can win in a particular court case.  Sometimes the powerful win; sometimes the weak.  Sometimes the good prevail; sometimes the wicked.

In the end, the law isn’t fixed in stone.  Instead, it’s as rowdy and unpredictable as a crapshoot.  Even when the dice are loaded, they sometimes turn up in ways no one—not even professors of law—could predict.

I can’t yet prove that the “this state” vs The State hypothesis is true.  That’s why I typically refer to that idea as an “hypothesis”–to remind readers that the idea is unproven.  But, if I can’t prove it’s true, you still can’t prove it’s false by simply saying it’s “wrong as wrong can be”.

Again, I’m drawn to the seeming oddity that, despite the Article 1.10.1 mandate for using gold and silver within the States of the Union, we haven’t had any gold of silver in domestic circulation for at least 45 years.  I read that dichotomy as evidence that today’s “state governments” are something completely different from those of the States of the Union.  If that’s true, then there are (at least) two kinds of “states” that we might be presumed to be inhabiting:  one within a State of the Union (a State of The United States of America), and the other outside the Union and a “state of the United States”.

 

Tags: , ,

200 responses to “A Great (Good?) Debate? II

  1. palani

    March 2, 2015 at 5:29 PM

    Manwood wrote a Treatise on the Law of the Forest (made law at the same time as the magna carte and in the same document). A clue as to what a territory is found in his treatise:

    this word (Territorie) is most properly a circuit of ground, containing a libertie within it selfe, wherein divers men have land within it, and yet the same Territorie it selfe doth lie open and not inclosed, although perhaps there may be divers inclosures within it, for this worde Territorie, as I take it, is derived from the Latin word Territorium, which is a Territorie, or all the fields and contrey lying within the bounds and libertie of a Citie, which doth extend farre without the walles of the Citie round about, by certain meetes and boundaries, without any other inclosure belonging to the same: And, because a Forrest doth likewise lie open and not inclosed, having onely but meetes and boundaries to know the Ring and uttermost Skirtes of the forrest by, therefore this word Territorie, is used as a meete word for that purpose. The French man doth use this word Territorie in the same sense, for he doth say le Territoire d’vneville, which is, the territorie or whole circuit of land, belonging to a towne or Citie.

    Interesting concept. Territory is a circuit of ground containing a libertie within itself … all the fields and country lying within the bounds and libertie of a citie. The concept of liberty here is not one of freedom but rather of permission. You do something with liberty that is not otherwise illegal or prohibited. And territory is a circuit. It is not the land itself within the metes and bounds description but the circuit or perambulation of the ground.

     
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 9:55 PM

      Treatises written long before the United States even existed are not a good source for understanding American law. Try a treatise written in living memory, or better yet a statute or case.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 3:22 AM

        Colin,
        @ It’s just a significant historical document,
        This is exactly what many Judges say too. Not only the magna Carta, but EVERY other founding Document. They say this is because of the “merger of law & equity & the development of the law”. Yeah right, those founding documents are of historical interest ONLY, due to the merger of law & equity & the DEVELOPMENT of the LAW. Yeah right.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 10:56 PM

        Colin,
        @ > Nah

        Yah, Colin, Yah

         
    • palani

      March 2, 2015 at 10:15 PM

      @ Colin “Treatises written long before the United States even existed are not a good source for understanding American law.”
      If the Magna Carte has any standing in American law then the Law of the Forest has equal standing. But then the only principle I am drawing from the Law of the Forest is how territories are defined. This requires an understanding that the Articles of Confederation were deficient when the topic of territory was considered and the answer (following the NW Ordinance) was the U.S. Constitution. The District of Columbia was required as a MUNICIPALITY to which to attach territory.

      Or is your argument that the Magna Carte has no application to American Law?

       
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 10:53 PM

        If the Magna Carte has any standing in American law then the Law of the Forest has equal standing.

        No, because they aren’t equivalent documents. The magna carta is a foundational document of the system we based ours on; the “Law of the Forest” is a treatise. That’s like saying the Constitution is equivalent to a modern textbook on forestry law. They aren’t even close. But at any rate, the magna carta doesn’t have any standing in American law when it comes to defining terms. It’s just a significant historical document, not a statement of what the law is.

         
      • palani

        March 3, 2015 at 7:00 AM

        @ Colin “No, because they aren’t equivalent documents”
        I would think the creator would have made them equal as he created them both at the same time and in the same manner.

        “the “Law of the Forest” is a treatise”
        Wrong. I cited a treatise but the Law of the Forest is just what it says it is … Law. If the Magna Carta has principles to refer to then so does the Law of the Forest.

        At any rate I just used this treatise as a source of information and it does a good job of describing what a territory actually is. Now is your chance to provide a substantial rebuttal with another concept of territory from whatsoever source you choose. Then I get to tell you why YOUR information comes from a source that is not official. How’s about it, Sport?

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:12 PM

        How’s about it, Sport?

        Nah. The definition of “territory” will depend on context, and should be taken from relevant treatises cited (at least!) in living memory, or better yet from relevant and valid legal precedent. That is, cases from American courts that are on-point. Not my job to figure out what context you want and look up cases. Cite ancient Babylonian fishery law if you want, it neither picks my pocket nor skins my nose. My point is merely that ancient sources are not a good way to gain an understanding of American law.

         
      • Adask

        March 3, 2015 at 7:32 PM

        I agree. The definition of “territory” will depend on context.

        So will the definition of “state”. We might have a “State of The United States of America”; we might have a “state of the United States”; and we might even have a “state of emergency”. It all depends on context.

         
      • palani

        March 4, 2015 at 5:25 AM

        @ Colin “should be taken from relevant treatises cited (at least!) in living memory”
        I am living and I cited the Treatise on the Law of the Forest by Manwood.

        “My point is merely that ancient sources are not a good way to gain an understanding of American law.”
        And just precisely why would I care to understand American law? There has never been a country called America and I would as soon study the law of the Land of Oz while living in Kansas.

         
      • palani

        March 4, 2015 at 5:44 AM

        @Adask “The definition of “territory” will depend on context”
        There is no definition of ‘territory’ that includes People. To find People you might search for a Hundred in your area. The closest Hundred to me is Delaware.

        Context is a weaving. To a critic words are fungible (replaceable) while to an artist these same words are not fungible. Substituting a definition for a word (the act of a critic) destroys the work of the artist. Take for example the following Wisconsin code:

        Wisconsin

        29.011 Title to wild animals.
        (1)The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this
        state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition,
        and conservation of these wild animals.

        Then consider the Washington state code from RCW 82.04.200

        “In this state” or “within this state” includes all federal areas lying within the
        exterior boundaries of the state.

        Substituting (a fungible activity) the Washington definition into the Wisconsin code given results in

        29.011 Title to wild animals.
        (1)The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals (in) all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition, and conservation of these wild animals.

        Now this turns out to be poetic nonsense for there are no wild animals that exist within the EXTERIOR boundaries of Wisconsin. Everything in Wisconsin is Wisconsin.

        If context is everything then poets should be sentenced to death for the murder of the English language.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 7:02 AM

        palani,
        @ I cited a treatise but the Law of the Forest is just what it says it is … Law

        Nope, the LAW is what colin says the LAW IS. He is an ATTORNEY for gosh sakes.

         
  2. Harry

    March 2, 2015 at 6:31 PM

    Has any state made anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts? Federal Reserve Notes are not a legal tender (offer) in payment of debts, they are a legal tender FOR debts. You cannot pay a debt with a Fed Note. You can only discharge you immediate obligation to pay and in the discharge the debt still exists. That is my understanding. I could be mistaken.

    As far as where you are is concerned, physical presents may evidence you present residence but what determines you domicile. One may be a resident of Texas, but where is his technical domicile? Washington D.C.?

    There is a domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. Is it possible to unknowingly change one’s domicile by birth in Texas to a domicile of choice in Washington D.C.? Have we done something that by operation of law has changed our domicile by birth in Texas to Washington D.C?

    Domicile and residence are frequently distinguished, in that domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Only residents of Texas are required to obtain a driver’s license so if one was domiciled in Texas would they be considered to also be a resident? One has to be a resident to be able to apply for and obtain a driver’s license?

    On the money issue, to me the important thing is actually paying one’s bill so they may own what they have purchased. Fed Note may be redeemed for lawful money and fed notes are themselves considered to be lawful money, so how can a legal tender for debts be redeemed into lawful money which I assume would be considered a legal tender in payment of debts? What a mess? More questions than answers..

     
  3. NicksTaxFree

    March 2, 2015 at 9:14 PM

    Harry is right when he brings up “Domicile and Residence”. We have for the most part ALL change our domicile to Washington D.C. unknowingly by signing state and federal applications for various license and permits or certificates. Title 26 Income Tax, section 7701 is the definition code section that we should all read to see if you qualify as a U.S. taxpayer. One subsection I will cut and paste in is worth a look at and comment on for its existence from Adask and Colin. 2nd part of 7701 (a)(10)

    (c) Includes and including
    The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
    Please note { This is the definition of the term defined, so as we can’t exclude things within this definition, be very careful not to include things not mentioned.} Legally Includes means: Limited to, not expanding.
    (30) United States person
    The term “United States person” means—
    (A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
    (9) United States
    The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
    (10) State
    The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

    Where is a Union state within this definition? It is not included, so we can’t exclude some thing not within the definition. But our mind has been trained to include all the other Sates which are not in this Title 26 definition. We make an assumption, we presume just as the Court presumes we are Domiciled in Washington D.C. from all those government forms where you swore to be this U.S. citizen

    Also, why is that last part (qualifier) included in the definition of “State”; “where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title”??? Is it meaningless? Of course not!
    It is included because it is necessary to carry out ALL PROVISIONS, not just some. That is why they left out the word “the” between out and provisions, so we can make yet more presumptions that it is only necessary for some of the code sections
    Look up 26 USC sec. 6331(a), and you will find that LEVY only applies to federal government Officials and employees. The law is written correctly, it is just mis-applied

    Please Colin, explain all this to us. I have time to learn more about the law and be corrected if necessary.

     
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 10:21 PM

      Harry is right when he brings up “Domicile and Residence”. We have for the most part ALL change our domicile to Washington D.C. unknowingly by signing state and federal applications for various license and permits or certificates.

      Wow. No. This is bananas. You absolutely do not gain domicile in DC by getting permits or whatnot. Where on earth did you get this idea? Please give me a citation.

      (c) Includes and including

      That’s not 7701(a)(10). It’s 7701(c). All it says is, “The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” So why do you go on to say, “be very careful not to include things not mentioned”? The provision says explicitly that these definitions are not limited exclusively to the items listed in each definition. You’re completely wrong when you say that “includes” means “limited to, not expanding,” and that “includes” means “limited to, not expanding,” since these definitions explicitly include a provision saying the opposite.

      Where is a Union state within this definition?

      It’s not explicitly defined. Everyone knows that Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. are states, so the law doesn’t bother to define them. It doesn’t need to, since 7701(c) says these definitions “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

      Look up 26 USC sec. 6331(a), and you will find that LEVY only applies to federal government Officials and employees.

      No, you won’t. This is yet another wacky argument that fails, hard, every time someone optimistically trots it out in court. This provision says that the IRS can collect overdue taxes with a levy upon property. So the IRS can seize your boat or your golf clubs or whatever. It then says in addition to that that if the taxes are owed by a federal employee, the IRS can follow a much simpler procedure of just going to the employer (the government) and serving notice of levy. This is easier than the kind of legal process that’s needed to use a levy on someone who’s not a federal employee. In other words, the government in this paragraph is consenting to allow its employees to have their wages levied by means of a simpler process. This paragraph still permits levies to be used in the normal way against everyone else.

      You can read an explanation of this, and see citations to a lot of cases supporting that explanation, at the Tax Protester FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#levysalaries

       
      • NicksTaxFree

        March 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM

        Most people can read this and understand what it means without being trained as an Attorney. This does not mean that the law is not misapplied in our corrupt court (injustice) system. Pro Se can win but it never makes the news, or case dropped just like Adask said earlier. I beat the IRS on a Notice of Levy because they refused to give me a CDP hearing because I had a list of requirements for them to meet.
        Read this and know that as a SS # holder you are presumed by the IRS to be a federal employee unless disputed; the courst follow suit. Here is the missing paragraph from a 668-W notice the IRS illegally drops from their” Notice of Levy”

        The authority to levy is restricted to and contained within Section 6331(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
        IRC 6331 – Levy and distraint.
        (a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

        Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc., and the “limitation” of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their employer, the government.
        So why don’t the courts abide by this clear limitation? Is it because Attonies fail to bring it up in court?
        The other points would take me too much time to refute, but this should make it clear

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:48 PM

        Read this and know that as a SS # holder you are presumed by the IRS to be a federal employee unless disputed;

        No you aren’t. Where did you get this idea?

        Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc., and the “limitation” of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their employer, the government. So why don’t the courts abide by this clear limitation? Is it because Attonies fail to bring it up in court? The other points would take me too much time to refute, but this should make it clear

        This is also completely wrong. Copying myself from elsewhere in the thread, 6331 says that the IRS can collect overdue taxes with a levy upon property. That applies to everyone, not just federal employees. So the IRS can seize your boat or your golf clubs or whatever.

        Then, after setting forth the general levy power, it says that in addition the IRS can follow a much simpler procedure if the debtor is a federal employee–it can just going to the employer, since the employer is the government. In other words, the government in this paragraph is consenting to allow its employees to have their wages levied by means of a simpler process than that which applies to the rest of us. This paragraph still permits levies to be used in the normal way against everyone else.

        You can read an explanation of this, and see citations to a lot of cases supporting that explanation and refuting your interpretation, at the Tax Protester FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#levysalaries

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 12:30 AM

        Colin, By, Man or other animals, what would 2 or 3 of the other animals be, e.g., would a Black Angus cow, Palomino horse, Collie Dog, fit, i.e., be 3 of the “other animals”?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 7:20 AM

        Colin,
        You say, You and Alfred have a right to believe whatever you like about what it means to be human.
        Colin if you are saying in a subtle way, that Alfred is saying or ever did say he is a HUMAN, & a human made in the image of God, & this is what it means to be a human, this is NOT SO. I would bet my life that Alfred has never said he is a HUMAN made in the image of “God”. AND I have NEVER said this either. BUT, I do agree with you when you say we have a right to believe whatever we like about what it means to be human. You, Colin have the right to say we are humans too but this does make it true.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM

        Colin, you say, > “Sovereign citizen” is just a casual label, based on what a lot of sovcits call themselves. It’s not a clear-cut thing, and it doesn’t have anything to do with whether they’re actually sovereign or not.

        Colin, et.al., Actually I don’t like the word Sovereign because Only “God” is Sovereign. BUT, I do believe that “We the people” at least at one time WERE the SUPERIOR Authority over their Representatives AND the Constitutions, BOTH State & THAT 1787 Constitution up to & including the 12th Article in addition WAS the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND & THIS IS what they promised to UPHOLD,etc.

        P.S. I do not like & NEVER DID like the 11th & 12th AMENDMENTS & I SAY THOSE 2 Amendments WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE REVERSAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THINGS ESTABLISHED BY, We the people. BUT, that is just something we had to live with. ANYWAY it don’t matter no more nohow noway, BECAUSE those 2 Amendments were followed up by the appropriate legislation POWER clause WAR AMENDMENTS. AND, this is saying DEAR JOHN so long, goodbye that’s all she wrote dear John, I done sent YO SADDLE HOME SON.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM

      NicksTaxFree,
      What a blessing you are to this blog. I sure hope Colin will explain all this to us.

       
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM

        Yup. Done.

         
  4. Colin

    March 2, 2015 at 9:54 PM

    Third, you’ve not only missed my point, you’ve apparently agreed with my point. As I at least intended to explain, I can’t prove the negative statement that I was not the “man on the grassy knoll who shot Kennedy” back on November 23rd, A.D. 1963, but I can prove the positive statement that I was at the University of Illinois on that date.

    If that’s all you mean, then we don’t disagree. Your bit about zip codes confuses me, though. Are you suggesting that if you use a zip code, you’re in the imaginary territorial jurisdiction?

    That particular defense has been shot down repeatedly. But so has the insanity defense, and yet defendants continue to try to rely on it. Just because a particular defense routinely fails, that’s not proof that the particular defense always fails.

    Those two things are categorically different. The insanity defense sometimes succeeds, and judges write an opinion making it clear the defense has succeeded. It’s a difficult case to make, but it’s possible under the law. The “taxes only apply to DC residents” argument never succeeds in alleviating anyone of tax liability. It’s so obviously wrong that people who make it are fined for making frivolous arguments and wasting everyone’s time. The two defenses are nothing alike: one is a real defense, the other is a pernicious fantasy.

    I presume that the Texas AG stopped proceeding because my “man or other animals,” freedom of religion defense was simply too powerful to risk testing in court.

    Absolutely not true. In theory, anything could be true, but this is about as likely to be true as the suggestion that they stopped prosecuting the case because Vladimir Putin promised to make Greg Abbot tsar of all the Russias if he left you alone. In other words, absolutely not true.

    Your MOOA argument makes no sense, legally. None. Defining man as a kind of animal has absolutely nothing to do with your rights. Man has been defined as part of Kingdom Animalia since before Darwin’s time—since there even was a system of kingdoms and genuses and species. Defining humans as a kind of animal doesn’t do anything at all to deprive humans of our rights. Nothing. Humans, as a kind of animal, have the right to free speech, free press, bear arms, assemble, petition the government, etc. etc. etc. Other animals don’t have those rights because they’re not human, even though we’re all animals.

    No lawyer would ever, in a million years and a month of Sundays, look at the MOOA argument and think it was anything other than a pile of strange ideas of no relevance to the real world or the law. If you want to really discuss it in detail, I’d be happy to.

    But the Attorney General never actually admitted why he dropped the case. Maybe he lost the file. Maybe he got tired of litigating against “crazy people”.

    Either is possible. I think the second is the most likely explanation, plus a realization that the defendants couldn’t afford to pay the fines they were seeking, so the whole thing was a waste of money for the state (especially since colloidal silver doesn’t seem to have really hurt anyone). So maybe the MOOA argument does have a use: it might have signaled to the state that you were going to be a pain in the lawyers’ butt by filing nonsensical motions that would have to be read thoroughly each time. That might have encouraged them to leave you guys alone. But only because the argument is fearsomely nonsensical, not because it actually means anything legally.

    My point is that a lot of “patriot” legal defenses may sound crazy but some of them have occasionally worked. But when they do work, it’s my experience that they “work” at the pre-trial stage and result in the government simply dropping the case.

    This is theoretically possible. But it’s not very good support for those defenses, for several reasons:

    1. The government couldn’t drop the cases to keep the courts from ruling every time. Courts wouldn’t permit it, and actually punish parties who try to nonsuit cases regularly like that. And the “patriot” defenses never, ever work, except in Cheek circumstances.
    2. The “patriot” defenses don’t make sense. There’s a reason no lawyers or law professors take them seriously, despite enormous incentives to do so if they worked. If those defenses worked, lawyers could use them to defend hedge fund billionaires and make a stone cold fortune overnight. Law professors could write about them and become celebrities in their field, with tenure and endowed chairs and gold-encrusted sweater vests. They don’t take those defenses seriously because they obviously can’t work, because they’re based on bizarre legal fictions.
    3. The “patriot” defenses actually result in affirmative losses, not just nonsuited cases. People who argue that taxes only apply to DC residents, or “14th amendment citizens,” or federal employees or whatever don’t get their cases dismissed. They lose. Hard. And every time.

    If you have a wacky idea that might conceivably be a new legal theory that would totally revolutionize the law as it is known, you’ll have to demonstrate it with either (a) a serious legal argument, and/or (b) an actual win in court. You’ve got neither. (A) is your best bet, since going to court has lots of negatives associated with it. I strongly, again, recommend taking one of those free online Coursera classes on law. The experience will really sharpen your understanding of the law and maybe help you refine your argument. I think that (refining the argument, not taking the class) would be a waste of time, but then, people tell me that my writing here is a waste of time! In my opinion, no harm in thinking. If nothing else we can all use the practice, no matter who we are or what our ideas are.

    I’m amazed that you’d make such a statement. My understanding of law is that it’s all about linguistic precision.

    Your understanding of the law is really not very good. Linguistic precision is great, but not always necessary. See, for example, the fact that the law doesn’t care whether or not your name is spelled in all caps.

    There are cases in which precision matters. If you’re trying to sue “Nexus Corp., Inc.” and you actually name “Nexus Co., Inc.” in your complaint, you’re likely to see it dismissed. But because the law isn’t the hyper-literal machine sovcits claim it is, you’re also going to be able to file a motion and get the complaint reinstated against the proper party, as long as they had proper and timely notice.

    where’s the harm in writing “The State of Texas—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

    It’s mostly just unnecessary. But there is some harm: it signals to the outside world that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    In any case, given the history of “Texas,” it’s important to use all those “extra words” to signify whether we’re talking about the independent Republic, the State of the Union, or the confederate State of “Texas”.

    Maybe if you’re a historian, and it’s not clear what period you’re referring to. But if you’re talking about today, then Texas is Texas is Texas. Texas today isn’t an independent republic or a confederate state or Tejas. It’s a state of the union and a State of the Union and a STATE OF THE UNION, capitalization and extra words making no difference at all.

    Could there be a current “administrative territory of Texas”? How ‘bout a “state of Texas” that’s a “state of the United States” rather than a State of “The United States of America”?

    There could be a colony of Martians who claim Texas as the Third Imperial Outpost of Her Royal Highness Princess of Mars. What there could be is very different from what is. If there were a difference such as you suggest, or a colony of martians, we’d expect to see some actual evidence that can only be explained by such a fact. Instead we see assumptions, guesses, hypotheses and fantasies. The closest you’ve come to an actual fact is the 1.10.1 argument, which is based on a misreading of the law (and which itself isn’t based on any actual evidence supporting such a misreading).

    How do defendant’s identify those jurisdictions, determine whether only one or both jurisdictions are implicated and then try to challenge each of those jurisdictions—if the prosecutor doesn’t use all those “extra words” to specify whichever jurisdiction is controlling?

    They look for facts establishing such jurisdiction. The law clearly and unambiguously—not in secret or hidden passages—explains the basis for such jurisdiction as relevant to each kind of case. So for example if you’re talking about criminal law, the courts look to the law to determine who’s got jurisdiction. Was the crime a federal crime, like wiretapping or structuring? Look for the jurisdictional elements, such as whether the communication crossed state lines or targeted an FDIC-insured bank. Was it a crime committed on federal property, like a post office or military base? Look for the jurisdictional elements, like the physical location of the offense. And there are tons of cases and laws and law review articles explaining and exploring these jurisdictional elements. There are tons of nothing supporting the phantom split-jurisdiction you’re hypothesizing.

    Do you know all the law? Does any living man know every bit of law that’s been squirreled away in every court case or statute that’s ever been written?

    Nope! Nor do I need to in order to know that, for example, the United States is not France. Is it possible that there’s a law somewhere saying, “The United States is France!”? Sure. But it’s so unlikely that we’re able to say with perfect confidence that it doesn’t exist. Partly because if it did exist, it would be completely inconsistent with every other relevant law, plus American history, economics, and politics. Your theory is the same. It can’t coexist with a real world in which there’s one set of Texas courts and one set of Federal courts, with clear and well-understood separate jurisdictions.

    If an exact knowledge of the law were possible, why are the majority of Supreme Court cases decided by 5 to 4 ratios? Even the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court can’t usually agree on what the law is or should be.

    They disagree on close cases. This isn’t a close case, any more than the question of whether the United States is France is a close case. The justices would not split on that decision.

    The fact that there were no articles written about the Grand Canyon in the 1500s did not prove that the Grand Canyon did not exist. The fact that the law professors had not written any articles about the “man or other animals” defense I drafted in A.D. 2006 does not prove that that defense was “wrong as wrong can be”.

    Are you suggesting then that no one knows about this other than you? If that’s the case then the idea is false. A shadow jurisdiction can’t exist if no one knows about it. And if the government knows about it but keeps it secret, then it would have the same effect—a secret jurisdiction has no effect in the law, because no one would know where it is or what its elements are. At any rate, since law professors go in and out of government (and on and off the bench), they’d know about it if the government knows about it. What you’re suggesting, in other words, is that there’s a Grand Canyon we still don’t know about it because the government is keeping it secret from geographers and satellites. No more likely than the idea that the United States is France, or your secret shadow jurisdiction.

     
    • Adask

      March 3, 2015 at 1:30 AM

      Colin@ “Your MOOA argument makes no sense, legally. None.”

      How odd. My MOOA argument seemed to make sense to John K. Deitze, the Chief Administrative Judge of The County of Austin and also the Texas Attorney General. I.e., the Texas AG dropped the case against me and six other defendants after considering my “MOOA” defense.

      Which possibility do you think is more likely: 1) that (as you claim) “MOOA makes no sense, legally”; or 2) unlike the Texas AG and Chief Administrative Judge of Austin county–you, so far, lack the imagination to see that “sense”?

      Billions of people have never actually seen the Great Wall of China. The fact that they’ve never seen it is not proof that it doesn’t exist.

      Similarly, the fact that MOOA makes no sense to you, doesn’t prove that MOOA doesn’t make any sense.

       
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM

        I replied at greater length on the other thread, so I’ll just point to that rather than leave what would essentially be a duplicate here, if that’s alright. I’ll just respond briefly to this specific point:

        Which possibility do you think is more likely: 1) that (as you claim) “MOOA makes no sense, legally”; or 2) unlike the Texas AG and Chief Administrative Judge of Austin county–you, so far, lack the imagination to see that “sense”?

        You’re assuming that your MOOA argument is what made a difference, rather than the vastly more likely explanation that the case just wasn’t worth their time and money anymore. In other words, you’re assuming your conclusion.

        I know you don’t want to consider this–it would require going back on a lot of time and effort you’ve sunk into the MOOA thing. But Alfred, it’s nonsense. It really, truly is. Your idiosyncratic reading of a definition doesn’t create a Constitutional problem for the government. You don’t have a right to not be defined as homo sapiens, as neutrally-applicable laws generally don’t create First Amendment violations. So your complaint based on that, even putting aside all the many other problems with it, was never going to make a difference to the court.

        If you don’t believe me, I challenge you to take one of those online law classes. Learn something about the First Amendment from an actual teacher, rather than Google and blogs and such. See if you can rewrite the argument in a more coherent way afterwards. I bet you’d learn a lot from the attempt.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 3:06 PM

        Dear Alfred, I see everything you say in your message exactly as you do except for one thing. You say, “It’s like Russian Roulette. You and I could play where I used a squirt gun and you used a .357 magnum. If I lose, I get a wet head. If you lose, you get your brains blown all over the wall. Given the disproportionate risk, do you want to play?

        I understand this in reverse of what you are saying. Seems to me you meant to say,It’s like Russian Roulette. You and I could play where I, Alfred, used a 357 magnum and you (Colin)used a squirt gun. If I lose, I get a wet head. If you lose, you get your brains blown all over the wall. Given the disproportionate risk, do you want to play?

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 4:10 PM

        I point the squirt gun at my head; my adversary points the .357 magnum at his head. If I pull the trigger on the squirt gun, I might get wet. If my adversary pulls the trigger on the .357 magnum, he might die.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM

        @ I point the squirt gun at my head; my adversary points the .357 magnum at his head. If I pull the trigger on the squirt gun, I might get wet. If my adversary pulls the trigger on the .357 magnum, he might die.
        STUPID ME. How I overlooked the Russian Roulette term is amazing. Anyway, it’s Colin’s fault. See what an attorney can do to some of us? (:< Jus joshin.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 8:31 PM

        I get so sad & yet so mad, not angry when I see what some people say how man is defined by some men’s way of thinking because this is also HOW they define the MOST HIGH Supreme Being Creator & Sustainer of the Universe and this is what GALLS me to the hilt, just to put it mildly.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM

      Colin, what is a, sovcits? Is this what Quatloss calls Sovrun?

      Colin, What does this mean? > “The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
      Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.

      Colin, what does this mean? >”Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts…For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.

      56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 — Def. of “person”:
      “Statutes employing the word “person” are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign.”

       
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM

        Colin, what is a, sovcits? Is this what Quatloss calls Sovrun?

        I guess so–it’s short for “sovereign citizen,” which is a label usually applied to the people who advance frivolous arguments like the gold-fringed flag stuff. I don’t like “sovrun” because it’s derisive, and while I’m sometimes short with people I do try not to make fun.

        “Sovereign citizen” is just a casual label, based on what a lot of sovcits call themselves. It’s not a clear-cut thing, and it doesn’t have anything to do with whether they’re actually sovereign or not.

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 7:28 PM

        Nat,
        @ I get so sad & yet so mad, not angry when I see what some people say how man is defined by some men’s way of thinking because this is also HOW they define the MOST HIGH Supreme Being Creator & Sustainer of the Universe and this is what GALLS me to the hilt, just to put it mildly.
        Do you mean the MOOA issue & some people saying we are animals?This is trivial. Backwoods frontier dark age gibberish AT BEST!! You should be concerned about WHO is saying something & NOT WHAT he/she says. ALSO, knowing where someone LIVES & his/her IP address is important, Trying to emphasize a message using all caps is a NO NO!! WISE UP TROLL!!! GET REAL!! STEP INTO THE REAL WORLD!!!

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 4, 2015 at 2:31 AM

      Colin you say, same as quatloose posters, “Your idiosyncratic reading of a definition doesn’t create a Constitutional problem for the government.”

      Hey Colin, some of us irrational, illogical lamebrains believe there IS a Supreme Being that created the Universe & everything in the Universe, Fact IS, Colin, some of us KNOW this TRUE. We don’t just believe it, we KNOW IT. NOW, This Supreme Being created Man, This Supreme Being created animals. Man IS the ONLY created entity that was/is created in the IMAGE of this Supreme Being. Animals were not, & neither was anything else. Get the picture? Alfred IS saying he is a Man & not an animal BECAUSE ONLY a MAN was created in the image of this Supreme Being, called, God. I do not like this word, God, because it is only a TITLE, nevertheless, this is at least what “Christians” call this Supreme Being. You do not believe what I said because you say you do not believe in a Creator. I am inclined to think you do believe in evolution. I see, if nobody else does, that all we are going to do is just spin our wheels.It’s a dog chasing its tail ordeal.

       
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM

        You and Alfred have a right to believe whatever you like about what it means to be human. No one denies that or has taken it away from you. That’s the point.

        No one is telling Alfred that he isn’t a man made in God’s image. The government has never passed such a law, and if it did, it would be a violation of the separation of church and state–it’s not the civil government’s business to declare who is or isn’t made in God’s image.

        All the government has done is acknowledge what is generally reckoned to be a plain scientific fact: there is a category of organisms we call animals, and homo sapiens belongs in that category. We’re different from all other animals, obviously, because we have rights–and Christians would say also because we’re made in God’s image. But that doesn’t mean we’re not part of the general category of animals, which only means organisms that are multicellular and whose cells have nuclei. That’s it. If a living thing has more than one cell, and a nucleus in those cells, scientists say it’s an animal.

        That’s been the case since loooooong before Darwin was ever born. Linnaeus, who created the science of taxonomy (the division of living things into different scientific categories) was a Christian and a creationist. (Pretty much by default, since there was no theory of evolution at the time.) He put humans into Kingdom Animalia. His analysis was simpler than what we use now–to him, every living thing was either an animal or a plant. Humans, made in God’s image, aren’t plants, so he called us animals. Made in God’s image.

        So when the law acknowledges the common scientific fact that living things that aren’t plants, or living multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms, fall into the category “animal,” it is not saying anything about whether humans are made in God’s image. Alfred is the one who reads “animal” as a category excluding humans in God’s image. He’s virtually alone in that; I’m not aware of any church that says that the Linnaean taxanomic system is religiously wrong.

        There is no Constitutional right to force the government to define you according to your personal reinterpretation of common terms. For example, if the government defines “coal” as “a substance resulting from the application of millions of years of pressure to biological remains,” it’s not a First Amendment violation to people who believe that the world is only six thousand years old. To show a violation of those rights, even under the laxest possible standard (like RFRA), you’d have to show how such a definition actually takes a right or privilege or property away from you. There’s no such deprivation in Alfred’s case, since he doesn’t have a right to force the government to use his idiosyncratic definitions. And the government isn’t denying, and can’t deny, that he’s a man made in God’s image.

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 1:38 PM

        You’re mistaken. First, the word “human being” has been defined by gov-co to mean “animals”. See, my article Human Being = Animal?

        When the government passed the “MOOA” laws to define drugs, food, and medical devices, they implicitly defined all Americans to be “animals”.

        I.e., when government uses the phrase “man or other animals” it means that government deems all men to be a kind of “animal” just as “cows or other animals” defines “cows” to be a kind of “animal”. Use of “man or other animals” reduces man to the political status of just another animal–special in the animal kingdom, primarily because he has firearms. Laws that depend on the phrase man or other animals are therefore intended to apply only to “animals”.

        But Genesis 1:26-28 declares that on the 6th day, God created mankind in His image and gave mankind dominion over the “animals” that are not made in God’s image. That “dominion” separates and distinguishes “man” from “animals”.

        The principle that mankind are not animals is one of the central principles of the Jewish and Christian faith. Those faiths are protected by the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. Insofar as a law presumes me to be an “animal” it violates my freedom of religion.

        It’s very simple.

        Is this argument that I’m a Christian, can’t be an “animal” and therefore I’m not subject to laws that presume me to be an animal guaranteed to win in court? Absolutely not. But it might win.

        Of course, if the MOOA defense was heard by a jury of 12 atheists who were licensed attorneys, that defense would fail.

        But what if the MOOA defense were presented to a jury that included several Christians or even Jews who are known to sometimes be serious about their faith? What if some or all of those jurors said “to hell with the atheist attorneys’ argument that We the People are actually animals”? What if the Christians on the jury (and Texas is known to have a few Christians) decided that the MOOA defense is right? The news would spread across the internet and people all over the country would begin to try to apply the MOOA defense

        Worse (from the government’s perspective), what if the jury ruled that man is an animal and agreed with you, Colin, that the MOOA defense is nonsensical? If I were the defendant, I’d take the case up on appeal. Would I be guaranteed to win? No. I might take the case all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supremes might refuse to even consider my argument.

        But what if the case attracted public interest on its way to the Supreme Court? What if one of the appellate courts ruled in my favor? Then, a whole state or federal circuit might wind up unable to enforce the food, drug and medical device laws that presume man to be an animal. The FDA would become impotent in such state or federal district. The prisons might have to release all of the inmates convicted of drug crimes. The billions of dollars of profits generated each year by “Big Pharma” (which are based on laws that presume the people to be animals) might be lost. The modern police state is built on the foundation of the “War on Drugs”. That drug war is based on the presumption that the people are animals. Remove that presumption and the Drug War dies and the police state tends to wither.

        No matter how unlikely it might be that I might win my MOOA argument in court, there’s a chance that I might run into a jury or appellate court that would rule in my favor. I presume that the Texas Attorney General decided that, no matter how unlikely it is that I might win the MOOA argument in court, there was at least a chance that I might win and the consequences of a MOOA defense victory were too great for government to risk. The government couldn’t afford to win at the trial court level because I’d appeal, and they couldn’t afford to lose at the trial court level because the news might “go viral” on the internet. So they simply dropped the case.

        It’s like Russian Roulette. You and I could play where I used a squirt gun and you used a .357 magnum. If I lose, I get a wet head. If you lose, you get your brains blown all over the wall. Given the disproportionate risk, do you want to play?

        In the MOOA case, the Texas AG declined to take that risk and dropped the case.

        I didn’t “win” that case because I’m some sort of genius litigator. The government could probably have crushed me like a tin can if the case went to court. But there was always a chance, however slim, that a jury populated by Christians would’ve ruled in my favor. If that happened the political and financial consequences might’ve been too great to risk. So they dropped the case.

        I didn’t beat the AG as a litigator. I beat him as a Christian. I beat him spiritually. Or, if you like, I beat him politically. But I doubt that I could ever have out-litigated the Texas AG’s office. But there’s more than one way to skin a prosecution team. I found one of those alternative ways.

        And don’t forget that the state and federal MOOA laws are acts of GENOCIDE committed by the governments of the states and the national government against the People of The United States of America. You can see a copy of my application of the MOOA defense to genocide at https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/.

        Did Harvard teach you enough law to defend our beloved gov-co against accusations that it’s committing genocide against the American people by defining them as “animals”?

        Are you the kind of man who is sufficiently unscrupulous to mount legal justifications for government to commit genocide against the American people? Or will you merely settle for insisting that my “MOOA-as-Genocide” argument is just another one of my fantasies that no rational person would ever believe?

        The truth is that law is always a crapshoot. On any given day, in any given court, any argument–no matter how seemingly bizarre–might win. Even one of mine. In American courts, the guilty are often freed and the innocent are routinely convicted. Your obstinate insistence that my arguments could never win is refuted by those fundamental realities.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM

        When the government passed the “MOOA” laws to define drugs, food, and medical devices, they implicitly defined all Americans to be “animals”.

        Humans have always been defined as a kind of animal, since long before Darwin was born. Classically, any living thing that wasn’t a plant was an animal. Google “Linnaeus” to read the original writing on this. In more modern times, any multi-cellular organism with eukaryotic cells is an animal. It’s a purely biological categorization, with no implications whatsoever for rights or spiritual status. You’re insisting that the definition be read in a very specific way that is neither intended nor necessary under the law; there’s no constitutional right to be free of definitions that can hypothetically, theoretically be read in an unusual way that is offensive to your religious sensitivities. If you disagree, please cite a case or something to support your proposition.

        I.e., when government uses the phrase “man or other animals” it means that government deems all men to be a kind of “animal” just as “cows or other animals” defines “cows” to be a kind of “animal”.

        That doesn’t mean that the definition makes humans and cows equivalent in terms of rights or spiritual status. It only means that both humans and cows are biologically animals: in other words, that both are multicellular organisms with eukaryotic cells. (Or more generally, that both humans and cows are widely considered part of the colloquial category “animal.” As has been the case for many hundreds of years.)

        But Genesis 1:26-28 declares that on the 6th day, God created mankind in His image and gave mankind dominion over the “animals” that are not made in God’s image. That “dominion” separates and distinguishes “man” from “animals”.

        I agree that there is a usage of the word “animal” that means, “animals other than man.” In other words, synonymous with “beasts.” But you’re assuming that the law uses this meaning of the word. What’s your evidence for that? Again, the fact that you can use your imagination to read it that way is irrelevant. What counts in court is whether the reading you assume is the only or natural reading.

        Is this argument that I’m a Christian, can’t be an “animal” and therefore I’m not subject to laws that presume me to be an animal guaranteed to win in court? Absolutely not. But it might win.

        No. It will never win. Because the response would be, “Your honor, Mr. Adask is using a very specific and particular definition of “animal” that has nothing to do with this law. The government categorically does not deny that Mr. Adask is a human created in God’s image; under the First Amendment, it could not do so. The category of “animal” merely refers to any multicellular organism. There is no Constitutional requirement that the government refrain from using words that have synonyms that Mr. Adask doesn’t like.”

        But what if the MOOA defense were presented to a jury that included several Christians or even Jews who are known to sometimes be serious about their faith? What if some or all of those jurors said “to hell with the atheist attorneys’ argument that We the People are actually animals”? What if the Christians on the jury (and Texas is known to have a few Christians) decided that the MOOA defense is right? The news would spread across the internet and people all over the country would begin to try to apply the MOOA defense.

        You understand that motions aren’t heard by juries, right? Also that questions of how to interpret laws aren’t heard by juries? Seriously Alfred, consider taking a class on law. You’d learn so much. It’s worth your time.

        If people all over the country tried the MOOA defense, people all over the country would lose. Even if there were a right at stake—and you still haven’t articulated a right being violated, since “not being called a multicellular organism” is not a right—the remedy would be a judicial opinion stating that the definition may not be construed as denying the spiritual status of human beings. It wouldn’t be to exempt people from the laws, because the laws don’t depend on defining human beings as a kind of animal. In other words, the courts would just say that the definition should be read along the lines of “human beings and also non-human animals.” It would not just say, “Hey, these laws no longer apply to people at all.”

        Worse (from the government’s perspective), what if the jury ruled that man is an animal and agreed with you, Colin, that the MOOA defense is nonsensical? If I were the defendant, I’d take the case up on appeal. Would I be guaranteed to win? No. I might take the case all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supremes might refuse to even consider my argument.

        That’s an accurate assumption, except that a jury wouldn’t be called on to hear your argument in the first place. If you appealed a denial of your argument, you would lose, and the Supreme Court would not grant cert over a question that is legally inarticulate, fails to implicate any actual Constitutional rights being violated, and is not the subject of any legal disagreement among the circuit courts.

        But what if the case attracted public interest on its way to the Supreme Court? What if one of the appellate courts ruled in my favor? Then, a whole state or federal circuit might wind up unable to enforce the food, drug and medical device laws that presume man to be an animal.

        Nope. As I said, all that would happen would be that the courts would say, “It would be a First Amendment violation to read this definition in such a way as to express any opinion on the part of the government as to appellant’s spiritual status or humanity. We hold that no such interpretation is possible.” And the definition would continue to be read exactly as it’s used today, as applying both to humans and to beasts, without implying that humans are mere beasts. You are choosing to read the definition that way, even though it’s completely irrelevant to the law.

        No matter how unlikely it might be that I might win my MOOA argument in court, there’s a chance that I might run into a jury or appellate court that would rule in my favor. I presume that the Texas Attorney General decided that, no matter how unlikely it is that I might win the MOOA argument in court, there was at least a chance that I might win and the consequences of a MOOA defense victory were too great for government to risk.

        The same could be said about a motion declaring yourself President of the United States. You might run into a jury or court that would agree with you! We can imagine a case in which it’s true, and it would be a catastrophic outcome from the court’s perspective. So obviously the AG would surrender rather than hear it out… except no, they wouldn’t care. The motion would have a 0% chance of success. Your MOOA motion had a 0% chance of success for the reasons I’ve explained: it doesn’t articulate how the definition violates any of your rights, since you don’t have a right to insist a word be read in an unusual way that you don’t like, where the government isn’t trying to read it that way.

        Did Harvard teach you enough law to defend our beloved gov-co against accusations that it’s committing genocide against the American people by defining them as “animals”?

        Your genocide argument, if I understand it right, is that the government (what does “gov-co” mean?) is engaged in the first step of genocide, denying the humanity of a population. But this is the same mistake all over again. No one is denying anyone’s humanity. All the government is doing is saying that humans are multicellular organisms of the sort usually characterized as animals. That’s objectively true: we have many cells apiece, and those cells have nuclei. You’re insisting that “animal” be read as a synonym for “beast,” but no one’s trying to use it that way.

        The truth is that law is always a crapshoot. On any given day, in any given court, any argument–no matter how seemingly bizarre–might win. Even one of mine.

        Then next time, file a motion declaring yourself President, giving yourself the votes of all senators and representatives, appointing yourself Chief Justice and firing all the other Justices. You might win, and then you could restructure the law however you like.

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 4:34 PM

        It may well be that “humans” have always been defined as “animals”. The primitive pagan religions may agree that man is only an animal.

        But it’s certain that all people whose religion traces back to Genesis in the Bible are defined by their faith as “men made in God’s image” and therefore are “not animals”. If you want to be an “animal,” maybe that’s your choice. But if I want to be a “man made in God’s image” and not an animal, that’s also my choice–and my choice is protected by the First Amendment.

        Regardless of whether you believe it’s true, as a Christian, I am entitled by my faith to be perceived as a man made in God’s image and therefore not an animal. I am entitled by the First Amendment to demand that the courts respect my status as man made in God’s image and therefore not an animal. I am entitled to be distinguished as someone who is not an animal and therefore I’m arguably entitled to be free from liability under a law that presumes me to be a mere animal and thus not a Christian.

        You’ve previously claimed to be a “pragmatist” concerning the law. How will your pragmatism get around the fact that my religion expressly declares that I’m not an animal, and my freedom of religion that’s protected by the First Amendment?

        Regarding people as men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals is a fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths. To deny that principle is to deny those faiths. My faith and that principle are protected by the First Amendment. What pragmatic legal strategy or argument might defeat that principle, my right to invoke the First Amendment, and/or the First Amendment’s power to protect my “freedom of religion”?

        Insofar as the First Amendment also prevents the “establishment of religion,” isn’t the government’s attempt to define us all as “animals” an attempt to “establish” a pagan religion in this country? Thus, in addition to denying or depriving me of my freedom of religion, aren’t the MOOA definitions also a violation of the “establishment clause”?

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 4:59 PM

        It may well be that “humans” have always been defined as “animals”. The primitive pagan religions may agree that man is only an animal.

        You keep making the same flawed assumption, over and over again. “Animal” is not always synonymous with “beast.” It might help if you think of “animal” as sometimes synonymous with “multicellular organism.” That’s how it’s used scientifically and in common parlance; the law is just saying that humans are multicellular organisms. (Eukaryotic, too, but we don’t have to get in the weeds.) There’s no implication of “only” an animal. Animals include the highest and most glorious multicellular organism, us.

        But it’s certain that all people whose religion traces back to Genesis in the Bible are defined by their faith as “men made in God’s image” and therefore are “not animals”.

        Nothing about the law denies that you are a man made in God’s image. Unless you think that it’s impossible for a multicellular organism to be made in God’s image, in which case, don’t ever look at your own skin under a microscope.

        If you want to be an “animal,” maybe that’s your choice. But if I want to be a “man made in God’s image” and not an animal, that’s also my choice–and my choice is protected by the First Amendment.

        Sure, you have a 1AM right to believe and say so! But no one is disagreeing with you. The only way to read the definition as doing so is to insist that it must mean “animal” in the same very specific way that you do. And there’s literally no evidence that the definition was written with that very specific definition in mind, or applied in such a way. No court is going to say, “Well, this word could theoretically be read in such a way, so therefore we have to read it that way and that means the state is trying to deny that Adask is made in God’s image, even though everyone agrees that they didn’t mean to do that at all.”

        It’s like saying that because “congress” can mean the act of having sex, a law stating that all “members of congress” get an annual salary must mean that everyone who had sex this year must get a check from the government. If you made that motion, even though you say that every motion could win in court, you would lose. The court would say, “No, you’re using a definition that doesn’t apply. The law only means that senators and representatives get an annual salary. There’s no reason to apply your definition when it’s not what the legislature meant when they wrote the law, even if the words are synonyms.” In just the same way, “animal” doesn’t have to mean “less than human,” or “not made in God’s image.” You’re insisting that this particular definition be read into the law, when there’s no reason to believe it was intended and it’s not necessary to the law. Courts don’t care what the word could theoretically be read to mean, they care how it’s actually applied.

        I am entitled by the First Amendment to demand that the courts respect my status as man made in God’s image and therefore not an animal.

        They do, if you mean “animal” as in “beast.” You have no right not to be defined as “animal” in the sense of “Kingdom Animalia,” since that includes men made in God’s image. “Animal” as it’s used by scientists and the law includes human beings, without reducing them to the status of beasts. It just refers to living organisms that are multicellular, or depending on the level of precision that you want, aren’t plants or bacteria.

        I am entitled to be distinguished as someone who is not an animal and therefore I’m arguably entitled to be free from liability under a law that presumes me to be a mere animal and thus not a Christian.

        This is a different mistake altogether. Even if you were right about having a right to make the government use your definition of “animal,” and that gave you a right to strike the definition, it wouldn’t strike the entire law. It would just result in the definition being read as “human beings and also animals.” Resolving the ambiguity doesn’t require striking the entire law, so courts wouldn’t do it.

        You’ve previously claimed to be a “pragmatist” concerning the law. How will your pragmatism get around the fact that my religion expressly declares that I’m not an animal, and my freedom of religion that’s protected by the First Amendment?

        Pragmatically. You have a right to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old; that doesn’t mean you can sue to keep the Department of the Interior from defining coal as “organic matter subjected to pressure over millions of years.” The definition doesn’t keep you from believing whatever you want.

        Regarding people as men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals is a fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths. To deny that principle is to deny those faiths.

        No one is denying you that principle. The law doesn’t say that you aren’t made in God’s image, and it doesn’t say that you aren’t higher than other organisms. It only acknowledges that humans are commonly considered part of the general category of “animals,” which has nothing to do with your faith and everything to do with whether homo sapiens are multicellular organisms.

        Insofar as the First Amendment also prevents the “establishment of religion,” isn’t the government’s attempt to define us all as “animals” an attempt to “establish” a pagan religion in this country? Thus, in addition to denying or depriving me of my freedom of religion, aren’t the MOOA definitions also a violation of the “establishment clause”?

        No, because it’s not making any religious statements at all. You have to read “animal” using your particular religious definition to do that, which the government hasn’t done and can’t do. Have you considered taking that online Constitutional Law case? You would learn a lot about how the Establishment Clause works in real courts.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM

      Colin, you say to Alfred, & what follows is what you say for the most part to 99% of the posters.
      Colin, you say, “You keep making the same flawed assumption, over and over again.”

      Colin, I honestly do TRY to be fair & not show favoritism to ANYONE, but, why is it that you see practically everything the exact opposite from the way most of us see things alike? IF I went to law school & I was being taught what you believe are the facts & the truth, I would drop out. I know I would start out dumb as a post, but some things just have the sound of not sounding right. Is it a matter of conscience? I “paid” a lot of “money” to take a plumbing course. I dropped out the first day, lost my money & it was all for naught. After the Teacher explained a certain thing, he then proceeded to show how to fleece the public so we students could make more money. Like a FOOL I said, ALL OUT & yet I was the ONLY one who walked out. He said that I was going to have a hard way to go in life with an attitude like I have. Well, he was right but, come on, anyway, it is survival of the fittest and I certainly am a misfit, but, I don’t want to FIT in. I see that we do have a predatory society but I cannot be a predator.

       
  5. Toland

    March 2, 2015 at 9:57 PM

    @Harry “Has any state made anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts?”

    No, since Article 1.10.1 came into force, a state has never made anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. In fact, no state has made anything whatever – including gold and silver – a tender in payment of debts. Making a tender has been an exclusively federal function.

    If a state ever did make something besides gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, it would violate the Constitution.

    But isn’t the Constitution often violated, and nothing happens?

    Yes, though in this case, something would happen. And it would happen quickly, because a state making its own paper a tender in payment of debts would challenge powerful political interests in Washington and powerful banking interests internationally (i.e. the owners of the Federal Reserve).

    Therefore, it’s never happened, discounting developments during the Civil War of course.

     
    • Roger

      March 3, 2015 at 1:48 AM

      Yeah, Toland.

      In other words, from Wikipedia on Article 1.10.1…

      Furthermore, no state may make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, which expressly forbids any state government (but not the federal government, as noted previously) from “making a tender” (i.e., authorizing something that may be offered in payment) of any type or form of money to meet any financial obligation, unless that form of money is coins made of gold or silver (or a medium of exchange backed by
      and redeemable in gold or silver coins).

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

      Federal Reserve notes are of course authorized by the federal government. They are then loaned into circulation, at interest, by the privately chartered Federal Reserve banks which retain ownership of the notes.

       
  6. gary

    March 3, 2015 at 12:08 AM

    I’m guessing Colin can explain, somehow, how all the State (federal State) ‘codes’ clearly define “this Stare: and “the State” as the District of Columbia or US territories, AND, how the State (again federal State) ‘codes’ clearly define the “United States” as the District of Columbia”?

    I’m guessing, ‘lawyer’ or not, maybe a bit more reading might clarify things, as Alfred is on the right track ACCORDING TO THOSE VERY CODES……..

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 3:30 AM

      gary
      March 3, 2015 at 12:08 AM
      @ “I’m guessing Colin can explain,……..”
      You don’t have to guess. He can.He is an Attorney.Why is Attorney & lawyer used interchangeably?

       
    • Colin

      March 3, 2015 at 6:04 PM

      I’m guessing Colin can explain, somehow, how all the State (federal State) ‘codes’ clearly define “this Stare: and “the State” as the District of Columbia or US territories, AND, how the State (again federal State) ‘codes’ clearly define the “United States” as the District of Columbia”?

      They don’t. Some definitions say that the definition of “state” includes DC, but that’s not the same thing as saying that “state” just means DC. (Similarly, the category “birds” includes penguins, but that doesn’t mean eagles aren’t birds too.) It’s a matter of convenience, so that the law doesn’t have to say, “And DC too” everywhere “state” is used. So for example, if an element of a crime is crossing a state line with contraband, the law doesn’t have to say, “and/or the border of DC” every time–the definition covers DC as a matter of convenience.

      And even that’s only in some cases. It’s not like I’ve read every state law, but I’m pretty sure it’s not true that even one state, much less all of them, define “this state” as “the District of Columbia.”

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM

        Colin,
        I see what you say in your message on March 3,2015 at 12:08 AM like you do, except for your last paragraph. I see your last two sentences being partially true. This is part of the confusion for those of us really wanting to know the who, why, when, what, & where,etc. This DOC has its Octopus outstrechted tentacles into every State.It is also so fouled up, e.g., I am domiciled outside of the “City Limits”. Why is it that a City Policeman, NOT a Sheriff’s deputy, knocks on my door & asks me questions about my neighbor across the street. I opend my front door & saw Red & Blue light flashing on at least 3 “emergency vehicles”. My point is, this seems to be a jurisdiction problem. Sheriff, yes, City Policeman outside the City Limits? HMmmmmmmm. Things have changed. I guess you do not see it like I do.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 8:49 PM

        Colin,
        Re:@ All the government has done is acknowledge what is generally reckoned to be a plain scientific fact: there is a category of organisms we call animals, and homo sapiens belongs in that category.

        You said previously,”they do not ride a dragon to work”. < My dear Colin, I am persuaded to think you were influenced to say this. BUT, I firmly believe they DO ride a "dragon" to work & these riders are influenced to create statutes, etc. through thought waves traveling through the air as Radio waves travel through the air. Some of these waves through the air are from the Prince of the power of the air, aka, Dragon, aka, Satan, & a few more aka is zizs. I also know that by me saying things like this you now see you were putting me up on a pedestal when you said I was incompetent illogical, irrational, preposterous & a few more high qualities/traits. Don't feel bad about it. We all make mistakes. (:< < that is a smiley.

         
  7. Jim on Oregon

    March 3, 2015 at 12:28 AM

    Ar first, I was genuinely shocked by Colin’s comments. But then I stopped to reflect on the source of his knowledge. He is so totally brainwashed by public (government) indoctrination and “education” that he cannot even grasp the possibilities of an “alternate” TRUTH. I am saddened that he…and almost every other product of the system’s cradle-to-grave propaganda…was taught so well.

    The federal government’s alleged and widely-accepted venue, jurisdiction, and authority is of a scope and nature never contemplated by its constitutional creators. It can exercise its powers OUTSIDE its territorial jurisdiction ONLY through private relations in commerce/contract. PRIVATE RELATIONS. Non-constitutional.

    No Oaths of Office, no “Constitutional” Oaths to protect the rights of the People when engaged in private, commercial relations. These “qualifications” for constitutional, organic office/employment do not exist within private commercial relations.

    The UCC rules all. Why don’t we tell Colin about the TINs and CUSIP numbers and Dun and Bradstreet ratings and the listings of all so-called governmental agencies on Manta.com reported as “privately held companies”???

    Good Lord! I, and your other followers for decades, could go on for pages with other examples of the deceptive duplicity and word-games that this criminal mafia operates under.

    All Colin has to do is take the time to read some of your past Posts in the categories on the right side of your blog, and some of the comments made by your highly-self-educated and gifted readers. Your articles about “Notice”, for example, are so insightful and significant to our understanding of the NONCONSTITUTIONAL “legal system” that poor Colin will have to lament the years he wasted studying under law professors who WILL NOT ADMIT TO THE EXISTENCE OF LAWFUL DUE PROCESS. Their teachings are for procedurally-uniform dealing with legal relations resulting from trusts created by the use of commercial paper in the absence of lawful money. It is all “equity” and admiralty/maritime (insurance) law. Law students are deceived.

    It is no wonder that the “court” systems are so FUBAR. The private (unlicensed by the corporate State) BAR attorney’s first duty is to their private “court” system, and their future success in life depends upon keeping the system closed and secretive and controlled. I have NO USE for BAR attorneys of Administrative “courts”. They have destroyed this country and untold numbers of righteous and lawful men and women. The so-called “Supreme Court” does not constitutionally exist for the purposes the organic “supreme court” was created. It is also a fraud, and operates in treason.

    There is no Judicial Branch in operation anyway. It is all administrative. Ask Colin to tell us where we can access an original-jurisdiction Article 3 court and an Article 3 JUDGE. I’d pay money for that knowledge!

    Your insights on US of A vs. US are dead on. Federal territory and employees are subject to federal regulations, and there is almost NO federal territory within the Several states of the American union. Just don’t fall into the trap of identifying yourself, your property, or your conduct “in this (federal) state”! Stay OUTSIDE.

    I can’t stand to read any more of Colin’s ignorance, even though it is a good teaching tool. But maybe he might be one of the “good ones” who have been mis-educated, and will see the light. I pray that the strength of his character is such that he will seek TRUTH, for he is surely lost if he pridefully closes his mind.

     
    • Adask

      March 3, 2015 at 1:37 AM

      I agree. But, who can say? Maybe, by hanging around this blog Colin may have a sudden epiphany and begin to realize that at least some of the ideas on the blog are valid. It would be fun to watch Colin’s sense of shock and sudden change.

      Even if Colin doesn’t believe any of our ideas now, he’s been sensitized to those ideas and if he has that epiphany five or ten years from now, the resulting conclusions might be easier to accept.

      In the meantime we may have simply try to endure Colin’s obstinate support for a legal system that he apparently believes in and doesn’t yet recognize as a racket.

      Anyway, thanks for your comments.

       
    • Colin

      March 3, 2015 at 6:07 PM

      The UCC rules all.

      And yet, if you pick up the legal briefs for a serious legal case–the kind in which teams of lawyers are throwing every possible argument at each other to save or win millions of dollars–the “UCC is actually the law of the land” stuff doesn’t make the cut. The UCC is treated as what it really is, a commercial code that doesn’t do anything more than what most people think it does. In other words, the people with the greatest resources and the greatest incentives to bring strong arguments don’t touch that nonsense with a ten-foot pole. It lives only in comment sections an pro se briefs that never win at court. Why is that? Is it possible that the theory is wrong?

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM

        Colin
        March 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM
        @ >Yup. Done.

        Yup Done?
        Nope not yet. Once again, Colin explain this then, & in regards to, >”……. know that as a SS # holder you are presumed by the IRS to be a federal employee unless disputed;”

        Since there is no Law, statute or such telling that it (the Law) does not exist, MANY THOUSANDS of people across this land have made written inquiries of the “social security” offices. They have conduct what can only be called a letter writing campaign.

        “Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to get a number”
        (from Penny Payton – Claims Representative, Department of Health & Human Services S. S. A.,
        705 E 41st Street, POB 1710 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117, 01/10/86)
        “A person with no social security number would have no taxable income”
        (from Penny Payton – Claims Representative, Department of Health & Human Services S. S. A.,
        705 E 41st Street, POB 1710 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117 > 01/10/86)

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 10:37 PM

        Nat, those quotes don’t have the slightest thing to do with whether someone is presumed to be a federal employee because they got a social security number.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM

        Colin,
        @ > Nat, those quotes don’t have the slightest thing to do with whether someone is presumed to be a federal employee because they got a social security number.

        And I did not say anything about ANY Federal employee either. The Federal employee statement was made by, Nicks, I think, & it was something you responded to. YES, I did have that federal employee statement in my message, but it was not me who said that. Once again, here is what I am referring to. Your co-heart, Lawernce, & you say, in essence, it is the statute that says we ARE ALL taxpayers. The following is what I wanted to get across, since you & Lawernce say we are ALL taxpayers.

        A person with no social security number would have no taxable income”
        (from Penny Payton – Claims Representative, Department of Health & Human Services S. S. A.,
        705 E 41st Street, POB 1710 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117 > 01/10/86)

        NEXT, you & Lawernce at least IMPLY that we ALL have a S.S.N.

        “Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to get a number”
        (from Penny Payton – Claims Representative, Department of Health & Human Services S. S. A.,
        705 E 41st Street, POB 1710 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117, 01/10/86.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 11:28 AM

        Sorry Nat, because you quoted the original statement about SS numbers making someone a federal employee, I thought you were trying to prove it with your excerpts.

        The statements of a “claims representative” aren’t law. (This is assuming that’s what they actually said; I’m skeptical, and would be interested in seeing a scan of the letter itself.)

        Statutes are law. 42 USC 405 explains that even if the Social Security Act itself doesn’t require people to get SS numbers, other laws might–specifically including the income tax code. It’s required to pay FICA tax, which is required for everyone who has a job (except members of a few specific religious sects). And sure enough, 26 USC 6109 requires taxpayers (again, covering at least every individual with a job) to supply a social security number. Members of those sects who are exempted get an ITIN, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.

        So in other words, maybe a SSA employee said there was no requirement they were aware of that someone have a social security number. But we can look at the actual law and see that in fact, anyone with a job, at least, does have to have one in order to pay required FICA taxes. I have no idea whether there are other requirements making a SS number mandatory for people who have never had a job.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM

        Hi Colin,
        Please, then, you tell me of any law that says I am required to get, obtain, have a S.S.N for any purpose or reason, ANY LAW. There ARE other letters, from Congressmen, U.S. Senators that say the same thing that Penny Payton said, & I HAD access to them at one time. I cannot get some things to come up like they once did. WHY? I have no idea why. I think this is odd too. Anyway, WHY is it that a company called, Taco Bell has this stipulation, on their employment information form where anyone would write in his/her S.S.N, why does the form say, voluntary? In other words, it is not mandatory to put in a S.S,N. to gain employment? Also, If you & I agree on a price for me to mow your grass, using my lawnmower, are you going to require that I have a S.S.N before you allow me to mow your grass? < I am only using this for an example.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 3:32 PM

        Please, then, you tell me of any law that says I am required to get, obtain, have a S.S.N for any purpose or reason, ANY LAW.

        26 USC 6109(a)(1) requires anyone who must file a return, which is basically everyone who makes any money, to supply “such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.” It specifies that for individuals, that number “shall be such individual’s social security account number.”

        There ARE other letters, from Congressmen, U.S. Senators that say the same thing that Penny Payton said, & I HAD access to them at one time.

        If you find them, I’d love to see them.

        Anyway, WHY is it that a company called, Taco Bell has this stipulation, on their employment information form where anyone would write in his/her S.S.N, why does the form say, voluntary?

        Probably because they hire foreigners without SSNs and/or kids who don’t know their numbers.

        Also, If you & I agree on a price for me to mow your grass, using my lawnmower, are you going to require that I have a S.S.N before you allow me to mow your grass? < I am only using this for an example.

        Nope. But if you file a tax return on the income, you’ll need the number.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 12:52 AM

        Dear Colin,
        @ The statements of a “claims representative” aren’t law. (This is assuming that’s what they actually said; I’m skeptical, and would be interested in seeing a scan of the letter itself.)

        The Attorney General forwarded the letter to The Dept. of Health and Human Services. Why do you think this happened. I have, or had a certified true copy of the Penny Payton letter. It was notarized as being a true copy of the original. I cannot bring up a lot of things on the internet anymore, but I’m sure somebody on this blog can. Anyway presuming it is “for real” why would the Attorney General forward the request for the information re: a S.S.N. to Penny Payton for her to answer? Does the Attorney General’s answer carry any weight? Or, maybe the ttornry General did not know how to answer it.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 6:27 PM

        Colin, you say. @ Sorry Nat, because you quoted the original statement about SS numbers making someone a federal employee,
        NO !! I did no such thing. However, I know sometimes it does get confusing as to who said what. I make that mistake very often myself.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 3:31 AM

        Colin,
        @ Sorry Nat, because you quoted the original statement about SS numbers making someone a federal employee.

        Sorry Colin, I absolutely did not make any statement whatsoever originally about SS numbers making someone a federal employee.I may have included it in a message, and if I did, it was a cut & paste I made & I’m presumig from the original poster. HEY. I just found the statement & the original poster. It’s showing below.

        NicksTaxFree

        March 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM

        Read this and know that as a SS # holder you are presumed by the IRS to be a federal employee

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 3:50 AM

        Colin,
        I, the pesky Nat, said, previously, There ARE other letters, from Congressmen, U.S. Senators that say the same thing that Penny Payton said, & I HAD access to them at one time.

        You Colin responded, > If you find them, I’d love to see them.

        Colin,Why dat? You said previously that what the claims Rep. of the of the S.S. Administration Dept., Penny Payton said in her letter is not the law, so why would what Congressmen, & U.S. Senators say in their letters make any difference? Know what? I do remember this. Those letters said the exact same thing the Penny Payton letter said. I remember thinking, they just retyped her letter. Anyway it’s this simple. Anyone, including you, could write your Congressman & ask the same thing. Just ask him/her to send you the law that says anyone, &/or everyone is required to get a S.S.N. I guess, if nobody does,he/she doesn’t want to be thought of as dumb & we can’t have that.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 7:45 AM

        I asked Colin, > Anyway, WHY is it that a company called, Taco Bell has this stipulation, on their employment information form where anyone would write in his/her S.S.N, why does the form say, voluntary?

        Colin, answers by saying,
        Probably because they hire foreigners without SSNs and/or kids who don’t know their numbers.

        So Colin I guess Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc., does not hire foreigners without SSNs and/or kids who don’t know their numbers.

        Ok well how does Taco Bell withhold tax from the employee to send to the I.R.S. without a S.S.N. of the employee? I really don’t know much about income tax anyway.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 4:30 AM

      @ At first, I was genuinely shocked by Colin’s comments.

      Most people with very little or no boots on the ground front line experience will say that too. What we see Colin say, is the way the powers that be see it too. Peace Officers,& especially, all municipal so called, Authorities.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 10, 2015 at 1:53 AM

      Jim on Oregon
      @ All Colin has to do is take the time to read some of your past Posts in the categories on the right side of your blog,

      Huh? No way will Colin see anything other than the way he sees it now, at least until his lifegiver explains a few things to him. His brain & mind are in cement shoes. < I honestly believe that he will say I paid him a compliment by saying this.

       
  8. Nat Stuckey

    March 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM

    Dear Alfred, Your Article should put a harelip on at least some people but I doubt that it will. Anyway, Is it maybe a good idea that you have Colon on your Radio Program?

    @ I presume that the Texas AG stopped proceeding because my “man or other animals,” freedom of religion defense was simply too powerful to risk testing in court.

    I think you are right. They know their position will prevail against 99.999 + on/of every other accused “animal”. So, it’s the best thing to do what they did in your situation & extremely so, for them & their agenda. I say they still injured you, & YOU should be compensated, even though the compensation will not heal the inner scars, the mental strain that you must have been put through at least to some degree.

    @ Maybe he got tired of litigating against “crazy people”.

    I wish this would be the truth because then many if not all of “our” so called “legal” wars would not even begin, especially mine.

    @ If an exact knowledge of law was possible, why would we have any need for appellate courts—just to debate facts?
    Exactly
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    For Colin
    @ Colin, Wow. No. This is bananas

    Colin,That remark is covered in,
    American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. :: 213 U.S. 347 (1909 …
    We are the Bananas v. The Fruits, heee hawww hehawhehaw

    The following, if you bring it up, will clearly show you what we see & do not like but what you approve of & proclam.

    14th Amendment – Fact or Fiction [Body] – Constitution Society
    IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF UTAH. (Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d
    266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968]). THE NON-RATIFICATION OF THE
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ….. last paragraph of the decision the Supreme
    Court said:.

    http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14th_amendment_dyett.pdf-
    Dyett v. Turner — Utah Supreme Court — 1968 – Freedom Formula
    We feel that our decision in this matter should not be subject to reversal by …. In
    regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the …
    http://www.freedomformula.us/articles/dyett-v-turner-utah-supreme-court-1968/

    @ Harry, More questions than answers..

    True & this is how this debate will end. As you know, we cannot pay any debt/bill with a Dollar BILL either.
    As you probably know, these words were deleted from the “Note”, > redeemable in lawful money, and, I still say, legal is not lawful.

     
    • Adask

      March 3, 2015 at 1:43 AM

      I interviewed Colin on my Tuesday night radio show back when we first made contact. Actually, he wanted to interview me for a book he claimed to be writing, so I suggested he interview me on my radio show. He did. That would be about last November.

      But maybe you’re right. Maybe Colin and I should have another 2 hour radio interview. I’ll bring it up one of these days.

       
    • Harry

      March 3, 2015 at 9:14 AM

      The words “redeemable in lawful money” may have been removed from Federal Reserve Notes but the words have not been removed in the code.

      Today Fed Notes are considered “lawful money.” The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System @ http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm in answer to the question: What is lawful money? How is it different from legal tender? states: Up until 1913, the only currency issued by the United States that was legally recognized as [note: it say recognized “as” not recognized “to be”] “lawful money” was various issues of “demand notes” (subsequently known as “old demand notes”) AND “United States notes” authorized by Congress during the Civil War.

      It goes on to say: “In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes “legal tender” FOR all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are ALSO “lawful money.” Millam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes ARE “lawful money.”

      In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in “lawful money.” The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes. asserting that “lawful money” must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Julliard v. Greenman). 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

      If I understand the above, Federal Reserve notes are “legal tender” for all purposes and can be tendered FOR debts or FOR tax contributions. These Fed Note can also be redeemed in “lawful money” according to the US Code. Federal Reserve notes appear to be both a “legal tender FOR debts” and when redeemed will become “lawful money.” Or, are they “lawful money” period? Can you actually paid a debt by tendering Federal Reserve notes which are “lawful money” or can debts still only be paid by a tender of gold and silver coin? I am the question man.

      So what is “lawful money” in the Federal Reserve Act? Who knows, the act did not define the term “lawful money.”

      The question I have is when a $100 Federal Reserve note is submitted to a bank to be redeemed in “lawful money” and the Federal Reserve Bank then tenders back to the one seeking to redeem the $100 note other Federal Reserve notes in the amount of $100 will those note tendered back as “lawful money” now become capable to actually pay a debt rather than just discharge the obligation to pay. In other words would the debt be satisfied or extinguished and the thing paid for actually be owned absolutely – i.e pass both legal and equitable title to the thing paid for in lawful money?

      The Act states that Federal Reserve notes “shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and FOR all taxes, customs, and other public dues [it says “dues” – not receivable for public debts but for “dues” because taxes are not debts but rather contributions aka TRIBUTE tax that those subject to the tax ought to pay to avoid unjust enrichment]. If you owe a tax you are considered to be slothful and under TRIBUTE. All taxes are contributions as I understand it.

      If “Federal Reserve notes” can still be redeemed in “lawful money” and when redeemed the bank tenders the same Federal Reserve notes in the amount redeemed, do these note tendered as “lawful money” now change in any way as to their ability to actually pay a debt? Are redeemed Federal Reserve note different in any way from Federal Reserve note that have not been redeemed? Are Federal Reserve notes considered “lawful money” when issued or only after they have been redeemed?

       
      • palani

        March 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM

        @ Harry “So what is “lawful money” in the Federal Reserve Act? ”

        The nature of money is fungible. If a FRN is not a substitute for specie (aka gold and silver) then a FRN is not fungible because it is not money.

         
      • Harry

        March 3, 2015 at 10:55 AM

        You asked: “What is lawful money in the Federal Reserve Act?”

        According to the answer to the FAQ I mentioned, the term “lawful money” is not defined in the Federal Reserve Act.

        It is the Federal and State courts that have repeatedly HELD that Federal Reserve notes are also “lawful money.” Milam v. U.S.

        To me the issue of importance is not that the courts hold that Federal Reserve notes are “lawful money” but rather can a man pay (not just discharge his obligation to pay) his debts and taxes by a tender of “lawful money Fed Notes?” Are Fed Notes always lawful money or only when redeemed for other Fed Notes? Are redeemed Fed Notes operating as civil war era U.S. Notes whereas unredeemed Fed Notes are not?

        The State courts have held that Fed Notes are “lawful money.” Will Fed Notes which are held to be lawful money qualify to be a lawful tender IN PAYMENT OF debts and taxes?

         
      • Adask

        March 3, 2015 at 12:12 PM

        Depending on the definition for “lawful money,” the question about “lawful money” might hinge on WHERE you describe FRNs as “lawful money”.

        I’m only speculating, but it might be true that FRNs ARE “lawful money” within the districts, territories and “states” “of the United States”. But I doubt that FRNs could ever be “lawful money” within a State of the Union.

        For example, the courts might rule that Zimbabwean dollars are “lawful money,” but they courts couldn’t rule that Zimbabwean dollars are “lawful money” of “The United States of America”.

        Another example: Suppose I went to court arguing that FRNs are not “lawful money” but didn’t bother to specify WHERE the FRNs aren’t “lawful money”. The courts could rule against me if FRNs ARE “lawful money” SOMEWHERE–like within the districts, territories and “states” “of the United States” without bothering to stipulate that FRNs are also NOT “lawful money” the States of the Union/The United States of America”.

        If that were true, then the fault is in the man who goes to court to argue that FRNs are not “lawful money” without expressly distinguishing WHERE FRNs are “unlawful”.

        It’s my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that for a plaintiff to successfully argue that a particular laws is “facially” unconstitutional (unconstitutional in all applications, everywhere), there must not be a single application where the specific law IS constitutional. As a result, it’s almost impossible to have a federal law declared “unconstitutional” since almost every federal law IS constitutional under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution for districts and territories “of the United States”.

        You might be able to successfully argue that a particular law was unconstitutional AS APPLIED to you (and you’d have to specify WHERE that that “application” took place). The court might rule that the particular law was unconstitutional “as applied” to you, but the court is unlikely to rule that ANY law enacted by Congress is unconstitutional at ALL times and places.

        All of this conjecture is based on the presumption that the “The State vs this state” hypothesis is valid. If there were two planes or venues in this country, and not one man in 10,000 suspected the existence of “this state” (which is seemingly lawful under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution), then it would be possible to fool the entire country into believing that the government was talking about The States of the Union when it was actually talking about a the states “of the United States”.

        This hypothesis is certainly hard to believe, but it seems consistent with the 13th and 14 Amendment’s to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment (A.D. 1865) prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude “within the United States, or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.” The world “their” is plural and refers back to the term “United States”. That implies that the “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment is the “several” “United States”–which I suspect may be constitutional “shorthand” for The United States of America.

        But three years later (A.D. 1868), the 14th Amendment was enacted to declare that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “the” is singular and ultimately refers back to the term “United States”. This implies that the “United States” in the 14th Amendment may be a singular “United States” (some sort of “national” “United States”).

        Thus, we can at least speculate that the “United States” referenced in the 13th Amendment is SEVERAL and distinctly different from the “United States” reference in the 14th Amendment, which appears to SINGULAR. For me, this confusion as to the meaning of “United States” lays the cornerstone for the “The State vs this state” hypothesis. In my opinion, “The States of the Union” ( of “The United States of America”) and the SEVERAL “United States” of the 13th Amendment may be synonymous concepts.

        On the other hand, I suspect that the SINGULAR “United States” seen in the 14th Amendment may correspond to the districts, territories, and “states” “of the United States” also referred to as “this state”.

        If that were true, then we’d have a basis for two “planes” of jurisdiction in this country. The first plane would be “The United States of America” which would correspond to the perpetual Union and only the States of the Union. The second plane would be the singular/national “United States” that would include Washington DC, the districts, territories and “states” “of the [singular] United States”.

        All of this hypothesis stands to be be amended, corrected or even abandoned. But, so far as I can currently see, that hypothesis seems to be roughly correct. In essence, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it–at least for now.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM

        Harry,
        @ Harry, @ Today Fed Notes are considered “lawful money.”

        Considered? A Note is not a dollar. The deletions from the Federal Reserve Note,e.g., Redeemable in lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank, or at the United States Treasury, AND, Pay to the Bearer on Demand were deleted only for the purpose of saving on ink & printing costs?? HUH? Do what? This is hard to swallow, ain’t it?

        @ palani says, > If a FRN is not a substitute for specie (aka gold and silver) then a FRN is not fungible because it is not money.

        YES, and there are Circuit Courts of Appeals saying this TOO. However, those decisions may
        have been overturned, due to”Appropriate Legislation” to make those Court renderings no longer true. Seems to me IF something is true, & really true, how does this become false? Liars can figure a way to do it & like the saying goes, figures don’t lie but liars sure can figure.

         
      • Henry

        March 3, 2015 at 3:06 PM

        Here we see Congress referring to the first United States notes, a fiat currency, as “lawful money” in 1862:

        “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, one hundred and fifty millions of dollars of United States notes, not bearing interest, payable to bearer, at the Treasury of the United States… such notes herein authorized shall be receivable in payment of all taxes, internal duties, excises, debts, and demands of every kind due to the United States, except duties on imports, and of all claims and demands against the United States of every kind whatsoever, except for interest upon bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest as aforesaid.”

        – Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 6:11 PM

        If you want to know how the law considers this question, you should research how courts address it. The easiest source I can give you off the top of my head is the TP Faq: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#FRNs

        You might also go to scholar.google.com, click “case law,” and search for “lawful money” to see if you can find any cases supporting your position.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 8:34 PM

        Harry, et.al, one of my heroes, said &, Re: Paper Money President Andrew Johnson said in his,Third Annual Message
        December 3, 1867

        It has been asserted by one of our profound and most gifted statesmen that– Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation–these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way countenanced by government.
        It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war, expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited in strong boxes under bolts and bars,
        I would hope that any “freedom lover” but called Constutionalist’s will read what President Andrew Johnson said about the “Reconstruction Acts”.

        Veto for the first Reconstruction Act March 2 1867 < Andrew …

        http://www.let.rug.nl/…/veto-for-the-first-reconstruction-act-march-2-1867.php – 19k – Cached – Similar pages

        Andrew Johnson. Veto for the first Reconstruction Act March 2, 1867. To the house of Representatives:note. Andrew Johnson I have examined the bill "to provide …

        Andrew Johnson: Third Annual Message – The American Presidency …

        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29508 – 146k – Cached – Similar pages

        The so-called reconstruction acts, though as plainly unconstitutional as any that can be imagined, were not believed to be within the class last mentioned.

         
  9. Nat Stuckey

    March 3, 2015 at 2:00 AM

    To: Alfred Adask,et.al.,
    @ According to the congressional Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, the proper name for this State of the Union is “The State of Texas”.

    But, here is the problem, or one of them.I recall when I went to law libraries,& researching/studying, I recall seeing things like this, An Act remending an Act to amend an act remending an act that remended an act blah blah blah. So what is the latest remending ACT? Maybe something we LIKE has been remended.

     
  10. Adask

    March 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM

    I don’t know. I have an A.D. 1870 law that I can rely on. If the government has a later law to rely on, they’ll have to show it to me. (Let them do my research, hmm?)

    But whatever name they use doesn’t make any difference to me so long as they agree that (new?) name signifies a State of the Union or admit that it does not. Either way, I’m a happy camper. If a new (?) “state” is still a State of the Union, I’m good to go and I have a basis for compelling the government of that State of the Union to recognize and “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights. On the other hand, if they point to a “new” state and admit that it’s not a State of the Union, then I don’t have to consent to be in it and I can refuse to enter into that fiction and insist that I remain within The State of the Union.

    Heads, I win; tails, they lose.

    My only concern is what happens if the coin lands on its edge?

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 3:48 AM

      @ My only concern is what happens if the coin lands on its edge?

      You have a wonderful sense of humor. With my luck, it WILL land on its edge wihch tells me, nobody wins. Glad to see you caught my misspelling of amend. Why I typed remend, beats me.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 7:39 PM

      @ > I don’t know.
      Absolute proof to me that you are not an attorney even if I did not know anything about you. I don’t believe an attorney would say that,i.e., I don’t know. I can see a lawyer saying that, e.g., dejure.

       
  11. Henry

    March 3, 2015 at 2:59 AM

    Al, for further study, something calling itself the “State of Texas” has a web site at Texas.gov.

    The site’s “about” page says this:

    “Texas.gov is the official website for the State of Texas.”

    At the same website, the self-styled “State of Texas” claims to have a “Capital” in “Austin, TX” at the following address:

    State of Texas Capitol
    1100 Congress Ave.
    Austin, TX 78701

    http://www.texas.gov

     
    • palani

      March 3, 2015 at 6:49 AM

      @ Henry “the self-styled “State of Texas” claims to have a “Capital” in “Austin, TX” ”
      All states are in the same condition but on a lower scale than the District of Columbia. Each state is a municipality. A city-state. They call it a capital and they use it to attach territory (just like a sales territory for a vacuum company). The capital is permanent and when you see a change of capital you are also dealing with a different state. All laws are municipal laws. You’ve heard that haven’t you? The head of the executive branch is the chief magistrate. The new and improved constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because there was no provision for territories and the several states were denied the standard means of annexing new territories … aka war. Someone must have figured this out because of the NW Ordinance which came into being several months prior to the adoption of the U.S. constitution.

      The use of a zip code places the capital in a federal zone and the state described is a far cry from the one intended.

       
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 6:13 PM

        [citation needed]

         
      • palani

        March 3, 2015 at 7:36 PM

        “[citation needed]”
        Quote Leviathan, Ch XVI
        Author, Authority
        Of Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the AUTHOR:
        In which case the Actor acteth by Authority. For that which in speaking of goods and possessions, is called an Owner, and in latine Dominus, in Greeke Kurios; speaking of Actions, is called Author. And as the Right of possession, is called Dominion; so the Right of doing any Action, is called AUTHORITY. So that by Authority, is alwayes understood a Right of doing any act: and Done By Authority, done by Commission, or Licence from him whose right it is.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 10:41 PM

        Not one word of which supports the assertion that all laws are municipal laws, that changing a capital changes the state, that states are “on a lower scale than the District of Columbia,” or my personal favorite, that using a zip code puts a city “in a federal zone.” Lots of very imaginative ideas, and not a fact to back them up.

         
      • palani

        March 4, 2015 at 5:56 AM

        @ Colin “Lots of very imaginative ideas, and not a fact to back them up.”
        And your response is called “confession and avoidance” for you have tacitly agreed that the author is the owner of the words and I choose to be the author of my world.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 12:57 AM

        palani,
        @ And your response is called “confession and avoidance” for you have tacitly agreed that the author is the owner of the words and I choose to be the author of my world.

        WOW !!! palani you’re almost as MEAN as me. (:

         
  12. Harry

    March 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM

    I think I pointed the following out a few years back, but I will submit this again for your consideration.

    001 Pa. Code Sec. 13.35 References to the Commonwealth.

    (a) The government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the Statewide level shall be referred to as the Commonwealth EXCEPT when used in connection with a reference to the government of the United States of America, when the term State is used. The following are examples:

    (1) The agency shall consider mutual problems concerning Federal and State programs, activities and services which affect local government. [Note; Federal and State programs NOT Federal and Commonwealth programs]

    (2) The agency shall promote cooperation among Commonwealth and local agencies in order to maximize the interchange of available information. [Note: Commonwealth and local agencies NOT State and local agencies]

    (b) The territory under the jurisdiction of the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall be referred to as “this Commonwealth” EXCEPT that a reference to “this State” or “Pennsylvania” shall be used when required to avoid ambiguity. The following are examples:

    (1) The notice shall be deemed to have been given to all persons residing within this Commonwealth.[i.e. in this territory under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth]

    (2) The heads of departments and agencies of the Commonwealth shall minimize health hazards caused by the facilities and activities of the Commonwealth in this State.{Is “this State” and “Pennsylvania” synonymous terms and different jurisdiction from “this Commonwealth territory?]

    Read the above a few times and notice that “the” Commonwealth is the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and “this” Commonwealth is territory [what territory? Physical territory or political territory?] under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

    If I recall 4 USC Sec. 111 states: The word “territory” is not capitalized as there are no longer any “Territories..” No North West Territory but what about Federal territories? Are they different than the capital “T” Territories?

    The important thing to note is that in order to avoid ambiguity [meaning giving a term a double meaning] there are times when the term “this State” or “Pennsylvania” should be used rather than “this Commonwealth.”. Notice also that when used in CONNECTION with a reference to the government of the United States of America the term State should be substituted for Commonwealth.

    If “the Commonwealth” and “this Commonwealth” and “this State” and “Pennsylvania” are synonymous terms then what is the purpose of this section of the Pa. Code And, why is “commonwealth” changed to “state” there is a connection with the government of the United States of America?

    And, is the government of the United States of America the same as the government of the United States? Is Congress wearing two hats, so to speak?

    More questions.

     
    • Colin

      March 3, 2015 at 6:18 PM

      And, is the government of the United States of America the same as the government of the United States?

      Yes, unless you mean “United States” plural, which refers to the fifty states. Most people don’t use the plural these days, I guess because it sounds antiquated.

      It looks to me like the Penn law you excerpted is just explaining when to refer to the Penn gov’t as a “commonwealth” as opposed to a “state.” It’s just setting terminology, not jurisdictions, and it’s pretty clear: you call it the “commonwealth” unless it’s in the same passage as a reference to the US, in which case you call it a “state” to match the usage of the majority of the states. You also say “state” if it avoids ambiguity given that the area under the commonwealth’s jurisdiction is also called “the commonwealth,” so that you don’t have to say things like, “the commonwealth is under the commonwealth’s jurisdiction.” It’s just prescribing terminology to create a standard.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM

        Colin you say, in response to, Harry, “Yes, unless you mean “United States” plural, which refers to the fifty states. Most people don’t use the plural these days, I guess because it sounds antiquated.”

        Dear Colin, Please say what you think about Roger’s post, re: what the Top Court said about the term, United States,on the next thread to your right, Tonight’s Radio program, 2/3/15

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 4:23 AM

        Colin, you said, Not one word of which supports the assertion that all laws are municipal laws

        Colin, I am presuming you like municipal laws & Municipal authorities. When things really were taking a turn for the worse for people like us, but better for people like you,and in speaking of a certain right a court said,> While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. (Swift v City of Topeka 32 Kan. 671~674 (1890)) < Food for thought here, not YET been questioned or attempted to be abridged, and, by who?

         
  13. Rog

    March 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM

    Alfred,
    These sites may be of interest to you. http://thinkorbebeaten.com/montgomery.html. On the right hand side under “answers to 25 questions” see George Washington-division of states into districts. Peruse the site-lots there. Here is another: 90823063949/http://www.atgpress.com/inform/indexinf.htm. “The informer.” You want research into how things came to be how they are? this is your guy, 40 years of research. Again, lots and lots o stuff contained therein. May shed some light on the this state vs the state thing.

     
  14. Rog

    March 3, 2015 at 5:52 PM

     
  15. timmy

    March 3, 2015 at 10:27 PM

    One one side, I suppose what Colin is basically saying is the practical truth: the people who control the courts, the administration, the jails, the levying are consistent in their practices and principles. So in that sense, I agree with him. Let’s call that “pragmatic reality”. You ain’t gonna beat them at their own game.

    On the other side, what Al is saying (overall) is also valid to me. I see it as “the only way to find the boundaries and edges and flaws in this messed up system” is to test and probe the edges of it with strong and ‘edgy’ arguments. Al consistently says that he’s simply probing, he’s testing, he’s floating hypotheses for consideration. So in that context, I agree with him.

    The thinking is good. The truth might be that the real solution is to change the current (woefully unjust) system, by means to be considered.

    I would say, as an amateur psychologist, that Colin’s continued engagement shows that something is gaining traction in his thinking, at least in some degree. I for one, welcome him and greatly appreciate his civility and sharing attitude. That’s the spirit we need, rather than the too often personal and demeaning and thoughtless comments that too many of the participants here regularly make.

    You may now be seated, haha.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 11:07 PM

      timmy,
      @ > “One one side, I suppose what Colin is basically saying is the practical truth: the people who control the courts, the administration, the jails, the levying are consistent in their practices and principles.”

      You’re right. BUT, this does not make it right. timmy, your entire message makes sense to me.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM

      P.S. timmy I believe Colin & Lawernce KenemoreJr thinks & believes the “system” IS just. I would like for them to say I am wrong because it’s something else I would like to be wrong about.

       
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM

      One one side, I suppose what Colin is basically saying is the practical truth: the people who control the courts, the administration, the jails, the levying are consistent in their practices and principles. So in that sense, I agree with him. Let’s call that “pragmatic reality”. You ain’t gonna beat them at their own game.

      Yeah, this is pretty much my perspective. I would phrase it a lot differently, but you’re seeing my point of view more or less.

      On the other side, what Al is saying (overall) is also valid to me. I see it as “the only way to find the boundaries and edges and flaws in this messed up system” is to test and probe the edges of it with strong and ‘edgy’ arguments. Al consistently says that he’s simply probing, he’s testing, he’s floating hypotheses for consideration. So in that context, I agree with him.

      And I agree here too, more or less! I don’t see any problem with Alfred challenging the law. I think it’s a good thing. I think he’s wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with being wrong. I think his willingness to engage and discuss his ideas is a good thing. I think it’d be better if he entertained the possibility that he’s wrong more seriously, but of course I’d think that, wouldn’t I? He says the same about me. All part of having a robust conversation. (I don’t think the system is all that messed up, but part of having a good system is that it allows people to test it.)

      I would say, as an amateur psychologist, that Colin’s continued engagement shows that something is gaining traction in his thinking, at least in some degree.

      I think of myself as an amateur psychologist too! A lot to agree with. But I disagree that anyone is gaining traction in my thinking. Sorry! Most of the ideas being bandied about here are incredibly wrong, and very few people proposing them are making any real effort to find out whether or not they’re true. From my perspective, it looks like most of the commenters here have a hobby that consists of making up legal principles and debating them as if they’re true. Which is no big deal, as long as people remember that the law is not what you imagine it might be, but what it actually is. People who try these arguments for real lose, get fined for being frivolous litigants, and even wind up in jail for trying legal tactics they should have known wouldn’t work. Like Kent Hovind. So I think it’s ethically and morally good to drop by and say, “Wait a minute, that’s actually baloney.”

      I for one, welcome him and greatly appreciate his civility and sharing attitude. That’s the spirit we need, rather than the too often personal and demeaning and thoughtless comments that too many of the participants here regularly make.

      Thank you, I really appreciate the sentiment. I know some people see some of my comments as demeaning, and I’m genuinely sorry about that. I can be short and curt sometimes, and sometimes the fact that I think I’m funny leads me to make rude comments. I do try not to do that, and I do respect the people I’m talking to here. I think that’s true of most of, including Alfred and Nat, too. Thanks again for the kind words.

       
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM

        I continuously “entertain the possibility that I am wrong”. I believe my capacity for self-doubt is one of my strongest attributes. I am constantly trying to objectively evaluate my notions to discover their flaws and also to learn how to better communicated those “possibilities”.

        Anyone who reads my articles will see that I routinely use the the terms like “may,” “if so,” “roughly correct,” “hypothesis” and warnings to not automatically believe anything I say, to signify that I fully recognize that my notions are at best “evidence” of what the law may be rather than proof of what the law is.

        I admit to having a mediocre formal education. I present my ideas only for consideration–never for absolute, unthinking belief.

        Over the years, I’ve watched various patriot gurus try to sell one “absolute, can’t-lose, absolute truth” after another, and I’ve never seen anyone who is claims to have the “absolute truth” turn out to be a success. When it comes to matters of law, in particular, if you don’t embrace self-doubt, you’re heading for a very big fall.

        I’m not talking about having no confidence. I’m talking about having enough confidence that you don’t “worship” you own ideas. Lots of people, for example, worship the Bible as if it were an idol.

        I don’t. I read the Bible. I use Bible. I worship God, but I don’t worship the Bible.

        From my perspective, many of the people who “worship” the Bible do so because their faith is actually weak and they need something tangible to trust in, rather than trusting in an unseen God.

        Law is much the same. Those who cling to the idea that law is somehow fixed and immutable strike me as inherently weak. They refuse to embrace the inherently unpredictable nature of litigation. Anyone can win. Any idea can lose.

        It’s like Mixed Martial Arts. If you can’t accept the possibility of losing, you probably don’t belong in the ring.

        I can accept the possibility of losing. It doesn’t scare me. From my perspective, my willingness to accept the possibility that I might lose actually strengthens me. Those who insist that they or their arguments are infallible make me smirk. As I’ve said for most of 25 years, nothing is guaranteed to work in court every time–not even brown paper bags full of $100 bills handed to the judge.

        But, I am not disturbed by the possibility that I might lose. I am invigorated by the possibility that my adversary might lose.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 3:40 PM

        Anyone who reads my articles will see that I routinely use the the terms like “may,” “if so,” “roughly correct,” “hypothesis” and warnings to not automatically believe anything I say, to signify that I fully recognize that my notions are at best “evidence” of what the law may be rather than proof of what the law is.

        You say it, and I respect that. But I don’t think you take the possibility seriously. I think you use these phrases as a shield to keep from having to seriously question how likely it is that you’re actually right. With MOOA, the answer is as close to 0% as it is possible to get—but you take refuge in the idea that it’s theoretically, remotely possible. Better, I think, to actually ask, how likely is it? Because it doesn’t articulate how the government is violating your rights, and relies on your insistence that “animal” be read in a particular and unnecessary way, the odds are basically zero. You could theoretically win with it I suppose, in the way that I could theoretically win the lottery jackpot fifty times in a row. What’s theoretically possible and what’s actually going to happen are very, very different things.

        Law is much the same. Those who cling to the idea that law is somehow fixed and immutable strike me as inherently weak. They refuse to embrace the inherently unpredictable nature of litigation. Anyone can win. Any idea can lose.

        Sure. But MOOA is like a motion declaring yourself President. It could theoretically win, but in the real world it won’t. Even if there’s a small chance, it’s way too small to take seriously—like winning the jackpot fifty times in a row.

        It’s like Mixed Martial Arts. If you can’t accept the possibility of losing, you probably don’t belong in the ring. . . . .
        But, I am not disturbed by the possibility that I might lose. I am invigorated by the possibility that my adversary might lose.

        So would you sign up to fight Mike Tyson? After all, you might win! If not, why not?

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 5:31 PM

        Mike is getting old and fat. Who knows, maybe I’d get lucky.

        Still, you’ve got to pick your fights. I see little chance of beating Mike. I see a big chance of winning a MOOA battle.

        But there’s another side to this that you, being an atheist, don’t appreciate. I am spiritually motivated to fight some battles by my faith and likewise “uncalled” to fight others. If I believed the Good LORD wanted me to fight Tyson, I’d do it. I doubt that I’d enjoy it, but I’d do it.

        I never once doubted that the Good LORD had called me to engage in the MOOA case. The other remaining defendant, Ben Taylor, used to bring virgin olive oil to each hearing. That olive oil had been prayed over by his Bible study class and he used it to anoint all four corners of the court house before out hearings began. On one occasion, he was able to anoint the judges chain the courtroom, before the hearing began.

        The only thing that scared me during those hearings was that Ben might forget to anoint the courthouse.

        I assume you (being an atheist) would dismiss my spiritual “motivations” as just one more example of my “wrong-as-wrong-can-be” ideas. I assume you’d find it “unpragmatic” to believe in such “superstitious nonsense”.

        I also assume that Raul Noriega (the man who’d been an Assistant AG for 22 years, drove a Mercedes Benz provided to him by the taxpayers, and who prosecuted in the MOOA case against us) would also disparage our use of olive oil to be “unpragmatic” and “superstitious nonsense.

        But one day, after we’d won another hearing (and most of our “wins” were merely postponements), Ben and I walked into one of the men’s rooms and Mr. Noriega walked in a minute or two later. Seeing us, Mr. Noriega blurted out, “I’ve been an Assistant Attorney General for 22 years and none of my trial motions have ever been defeated. Except you guys have stopped me nine times in a row–and I don’t understand why!” That’s all he said. That story still makes me laugh.

        I knew why. The Good LORD had his hand in that case. We didn’t beat Mr. Noriega. That’s why he couldn’t understand. We didn’t make award-winning motions. Something just happened at hearing after hearing and things went our way. There was one day when we were scheduled to have a hearing where three judge were pulled out of the lineup–one for a heart attack, one for emergency oral surgery, one for some other medical emergency that I can’t remember. Result? Our hearing was cancelled and postponed for another six weeks. That six weeks bought us time to read, study and learn. Several other hearings were likewise scheduled and then, at the last moment, postponed. We didn’t make that happen. It just happened. But the result of those postponements was an extra three or five months to study and “get up to speed”.

        I know it’s probably “unpragmatic” for me to say so, but here’s one of the few statements of absolute truth you’ll ever get out of me: I have no doubt whatsoever that the Good LORD bought us that extra time so we could study, learn and get “up to speed”. Thanks to that extra study, we were able to hold them off. We didn’t “win” that case because we were brilliant litigators. We “won” (the AG dropped the case) because the Good LORD made it happen.

        I know how crazy all that sounds to some people. But that’s what happened. We didn’t “out-litigate” the Assistant Attorney General. But we won, just the same.

        Mr. Noriega was engaged in a kind of secular warfare. We were engaged in spiritual warfare. I haven’t thought about it for a long time, but it all makes me laugh. Noriega never stood a choice.

        There are things that go on in some court cases that are spiritual rather than “pragmatic”. Most people may not see those spiritual forces, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there.

        Colin, I doubt that you believe in any spiritual forces. But your disbelief can’t disprove the existence of those spiritual forces. The difference between your atheism and my faith is probably the key reason that we can’t seem to “communicate”. You’re trying to sell “pragmatism” to a man who knows that our Father, YHWH ha Elohiym, is real. I’m figuratively trying to argue that the color of a chair is red to man who is color-blind and therefore believes that “red” is just some sort of crazy idea or fantasy that I’ve only imagined. It makes it hard for such people to reach an accord.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 3:48 PM

        Colin says, @ > (I don’t think the system is all that messed up, but part of having a good system is that it allows people to test it.)
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        I’m aware of a situation where after a year of browbeating the “alleged defendant” into despair, the Prosecuting Attorney asked for a dismissal of the case in the interest of justice because it was a mess AT BEST. < verbatim. The public Defender objected & said it was not a mess & ranted as to why it was not a mess. NOW IS THIS MESSED UP? Anway,the Magistrate agreed with the Public Defender.

         
      • timmy

        March 6, 2015 at 8:59 PM

        My pleasure. I’m glad you’re here and engaged. I think for myself, it’s about learning and exploring but always with a practical bent…

         
  16. pop de adam

    March 4, 2015 at 2:16 AM

    My two cents Mr Colin:

    How can you denigrate slavery while also lauding income taxation?

    I realize neither may be your thing.

    Wouldn’t free the people, be the safe bet?

    You want the same to prevail.

    You still seem to want to reserve this to yourself.

    What is wrong with you?

     
    • pop de adam

      March 4, 2015 at 2:34 AM

      colin appears as dan evans and this is sad for dan and colin

       
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 12:27 PM

      How can you denigrate slavery while also lauding income taxation?

      I don’t think the two are the same thing, or even very similar. I pay taxes, and don’t see how that makes me a slave. When I wanted to change jobs, I did. If I wanted to quit my current job, I could. When I wanted to move between states, I did. If I wanted to leave the country, I could. When I want to marry, I can. If I wanted to pray, I could, to whomever or whatever I wanted. When I want to write, I do, and I can write about whatever I want. When I want to go shoot my guns, I do. If the government or my boss or my neighbor violates my rights, I can go to court about it. None of that sounds like slavery to me. I realize that we disagree, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

      What is wrong with you?

      Nothing. Wossamotta u?

       
      • Harry

        March 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM

        Colin, would you agree that to tax is to impose a tax or pecuniary contribution that shall be made by the persons liable, for the support of government?. One who is liable to pay a tax is one who is under tribute.

        Tribute is a contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his SUBJECTS to sustain the expenses of the state or government. A tax is a forced contribution and those who are forced to contribute are under tribute. As it is written; The diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute. Those under tribute are slothful.

        Allegiance is an obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. Natural allegiance in the United States is a political obligation depending, not on ownership of land, but on the ENJOYMENT of the protection of government and it binds the citizen to the observance of all laws of his own sovereign.

        The protection of an individual by government is on condition of the individual’s submission to the laws of his sovereign and, such submission, on the other hand, entitles the individual to the protection of the government. Broom, Max 78

        It’s a Quid pro quo – i.e. something for something. Think for a moment, if you do for yourself and others what government is obligated to do have you not lifted that burden from the government? Should you not then get something [tax reduction] for the some thing you gave to the government [doing what they would normally have to do]? Just a thought.

        Protection draws with it subjection, and subjection protection. What if you give up the protection? If we can be forced to accept the protection would that not be considered a protection racket?

        If you like questions, boy do I have a bunch of them.

        Just owning land within the exterior limits of the state does not obligate one to pledge their allegiance to the government because natural allegiance is a political obligation depending on the enjoyment of government protection, not because you own a piece of land in the area. One cannot enjoy the protection without contributing his fair share of the cost to his protector to provide that protection.

        Assumpsit meaning he promised. It is the conduct of the party or the circumstances of the case that implies a promise to pay and creates an obligation to pay. When you accept a service or benefit it is your conduct in doing so that implies a promise to pay your share of the joint community obligation. To enjoy the protection without paying the tribute tax would be evidence of unjust enrichment. Every one is presumed to be enjoying the protection of government, and most of us are. Taxes are voluntary contributions because those liable to pay are under tribute.

        Slavery is not allowed in these united states, but voluntary servitude is. Our servitude may be voluntary, but one who has voluntarily submitted himself into a state of servitude surely cannot consider himself to be any thing but a servant.

        SERVITUDE. The state of a person who is subjected, voluntarily or otherwise, to another person as his servant.

        If we find ourselves in a state of voluntary servitude, then we should be good servants, but if we can, in a lawful way, become free should we not rather choose freedom?

        Please correct any mistakes in my above understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves.

         
  17. pop de adam

    March 4, 2015 at 2:37 AM

    They think they run us

     
  18. henry

    March 4, 2015 at 8:15 AM

    Colin’s response to the “The State” vs. “this state” conjecture is that he doesn’t trust his own thought processes but people who he thinks that are smarter than he is haven’t looked into if because they have deemed the conjecture to be wrong. Those smart people may be using the same logic: it must be wrong because the even smarter people haven’t said that it isn’t. Eventually you get to the decision makers. They have an interest in keeping the whole system stable. If they were to admit how the system really works, then there might be chaos as people use the idea to defend themselves.

    The system is set up ensure that anyone who might make that admission would never get into a position of the ultimate decision maker.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 4, 2015 at 11:19 AM

      henry,
      @ Eventually you get to the decision makers. They have an interest in keeping the whole system stable. If they were to admit how the system really works, then there might be chaos as people use the idea to defend themselves.

      The system is set up ensure that anyone who might make that admission would never get into a position of the ultimate decision maker.
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      henry, I have said this too, i.e., what you say !! Who are these smart people using the same logic as Colin? Thabks

       
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM

      I think I can see your perspective on this, but it’s kind of strange. If no one in “the system” believes that there’s a difference between “the state” and “The State,” and there’s no statute or precedent or authority that says that there is, then what does it really mean to take that position?

      I’m a pragmatist. I draw a line between what the law should be and what it actually is. If there’s no court or statute or regulation or EO or treatise or any kind of authority marking that kind of distinction, then I don’t it’s accurate to say the law actually is that capitalization makes a difference. Law is what the people say that it is, and in America, from the very beginning, that means authorities like judicial interpretations of the Constitution, statutes, treatises, etc.

      If people stand off to the side and say, “We disagree!”, then there’s no problem with that. People can obviously disagree about what the law should say, and should discuss it often and openly. But it’s important to mark a distinction between whether that’s a conversation about what the law is, or what it should be.

      In practice, I think that means being honest. When you say that there’s a difference between “the state” and “The State,” it means acknowledging that no court agrees there’s such a distinction, no statute marks such a distinction, it’s never succeeded in making a legal difference, etc. Even if we think the argument should succeed because it feels true, it’s ethical and right to acknowledge that the consensus state of the law is otherwise.

       
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 12:16 PM

      Here’s another way to make the same point. You say, “If they were to admit how the system really works, then there might be chaos as people use the idea to defend themselves.” But if everyone in “the system” agrees that there’s no difference between “The State” and “this state,” or “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED ADASK,” or “The State of Texas” and “Texas,” then in practice there isn’t such a distinction. We’re a nation of laws, as written down, and if you can’t point to such writing actually acknowledging such a distinction, then I don’t see how you can say the people in “the system” are refusing to acknowledge it. It just doesn’t exist. You can of course point out various reasons why the system should change its consensus, but that’s very different from the (false) claim that the system currently knows such a difference exists.

      Thanks for your comment, it’s helping me understand your perspective. I’m sorry to say that I don’t think you understand mine very well. I trust my own thought processes; I don’t agree with your position on this based on my own reasoning as well as the state of the law.

       
      • henry

        March 4, 2015 at 3:09 PM

        Americans are programmed with the ideas that America is the land of the free and home of the brave; where you can’t fight city hall. There is an obvious conflict here but most people hold both ideas (government is your servant and government is your master) in their heads at the same time without seeing a conflict. A small percentage of the people see the conflict and try to resolve it. Some of those people are reading this debate.

        The question is – have I been endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights and have governments been instituted to secure these rights? or has government given me privileges that they can take away from me?

        These question have been asked of politicians, attorneys, judges, and legal scholars. The response is normally non-responsive. The experts normally use technical legal jargon to cloud the issue. After years of not getting an answer to this simple conflict, people started to research the law themselves. Alfred Adask is one such man.

        There are a number of ways that the conflict can be explained.

        1) Governments are instituted to secure my unalienable rights but I have entered into contracts and the terms of the contract have narrowed my rights. The enforcement of contracts is civil (administrative) and while I may have not broken a law, I might have broken a contract.

        For instance, I have the unalienable right to use my time and talent to create goods and services that other people want more than their money. Exchanging the goods/services for money is not a privilege but if I exchange them with the US government then they may say that is a privilege and that privilege may be taxed. Or, if I use private Federal Reserve Notes in the transaction then I’ve entered a similar contract.

        If this is the case, where is this contract? What are the terms? How can I not enter the contract? What other contracts have I unknowingly entered?

        2) The law is so complicated and the people are so stupid that the government needs to act as the parent as it does for orphans and the insane. If you cannot assert your rights, they are deemed to be waved. Since few can comprehend the law, few can intelligently respond to legal matters. This may be used as evidence that the government must make decisions for us.

        If this is the case, why does the law and procedures get more complicated over time? Why doesn’t the courts use American English instead of legal language where terms have different meanings from English?

        3) The government no longer think it is securing each man’s unalienable rights. The government is not your servant. You will do as they say or you will be killed by a SWAT team or put into a cage where you can be anally raped.

        If this is the case, when did this occur? Why would the government even talk about the first amendment or second or fifth?

        4) The codes and legal procedures are only for juristic entities like corporations and 14th Amendment citizens – who have rights granted by Congress instead of the unalienable rights of citizens of the several states.

        If this is the case, how does someone who has unalienable rights opt out of the corporate adjudication system?

        There are other explanations but I’d like to hear yours.

        I’ve asked acquaintances of mine who are attorneys over the years and they all say that none of these ideas could be correct although they do not have an alternative. They all are “pragmatic”, that is, they fall back on the same response that you have: If there was a conflict, the smart people would have resolved it by now.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 3:50 PM

        I think probably what people have been trying to tell you is that the limited set of options you set forth isn’t comprehensive. All of them are wrong in one way or another. For example, you aren’t part of some secret or mysterious commercial contract with the federal government. And the 14th Amendment doesn’t create a separate category of citizenship.

        This is oversimplifying, and I’m sorry for that but even I can only write so much in a day, but I’d say that the founders came together and agreed that human beings have inherent rights. They couldn’t and didn’t try to enumerate all of those rights, but they spelled some of them out and instituted a limited government to respect them. We struggle today to figure out where the boundary is between rights and privileges; we do it democratically through our elected politicians, and through the courts appointed by those politicians as mediated by the Constitution enacted by our forbears.

         
      • henry

        March 4, 2015 at 6:10 PM

        Colin, Please take your time. As I said in my post, there are other explanations I only listed 4. You have said that all of them are “wrong in one way or another”. OK, I can accept that. What I’m looking for is an explanation that I can comprehend. Since no legal authority has volunteered such an explanation of how the government is my servant and my master at the same time, I must continue my quest. I sincerely hope you can enlighten me.

        The comments of Al and others may be wrong but they are based on the laws, as written, and the founding documents. There doesn’t seem to be an unbroken line from the Declaration of Independence/Constitution to the current laws, as they are understood by the courts. Saying the courts don’t recognize this or that is not an explanation. It is a non-responsive response. If you can explain this, your book might make you a lot of money and/or get you killed.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 6:28 PM

        Sounds like you want a major written response to a very particular set of questions that assume a conclusion. (The government doesn’t have to be “master,” “slave,” either or both.) Unfortunately I’m kind of burned out right now. Basically we’re a constitutional republic, and I have no idea why you think there isn’t a direct line from the Constitution to today’s laws. I’m not wild about writing a long response to everything else you’ve said, but who knows, maybe I will be tomorrow.

        But I’ll tell you what. Why take my word for anything anyway? If you really care, invest some time in learning for yourself. There are several free online law classes you can take right now. One’s about law in general, two are about the Constitution specifically. The guy teaching those classes is one of America’s top legal minds, and the people teaching the other class are grade-A professors too. Why not take one or two of those classes and see if they answer your questions?

        https://class.coursera.org/awc-001
        https://www.coursera.org/course/auc
        https://www.coursera.org/course/americanlaw

        I keep suggesting these to people, and it’s like whistling down a well. I’m starting to think that people would rather make up tall tales about the law than take the time to really learn someting about it.

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM

        Some of us think the same thing about licensed attorneys.

         
      • Henry

        March 4, 2015 at 10:00 PM

        Colin > “I keep suggesting these to people, and it’s like whistling down a well. I’m starting to think that people would rather make up tall tales about the law than take the time to really learn something about it.”

        It’s not so much about making up tall tales as propagating them, ya dig?

        Please follow your own advice and avoid imagination-based models of what “should be” taking the place of seeing what is. In your travels around the internet, things will seem much less baffling and inexplicable – they will settle down into a kind of comprehensible order – when you unburden yourself of the assumption that a pitchman necessarily believes the line he’s using on the pigeons.

        You’re in a fun house hall-of-mirrors, my friend. Pace yourself and avoid bumping into the glass.

         
      • henry

        March 4, 2015 at 10:43 PM

        Until a comprehendable response is offered to the question on servant/master relationship between government and citizen, the courses on law do not look interesting. Many of the people reading this site have more knowledge of law than most attorneys that I know. Law school teach how to use circular logic, double speak, and procedures to win legal arguments.

        I’m surprised that you don’t think it important to be able to draw an unbroken line between the founding documents and the current laws. The Declaration of Independence founded the country. The Articles of Confederation organized it. The Constitution refined that organization. The government is defined by the Constitution. Imagine a corporation that is established to manufacture clocks and sell them to the public but it doesn’t do that. Instead, they sell life insurance. Do do this, they would have to had change the corporate structure. The minutes would note this and one could see when this change occurred. The founding documents created a government that is instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each man but instead the government acts like it gives each person privileges that they can take away if the person doesn’t do what they are told. Who did this? When and how was it done?

        Again, take your time. The specific questions that you are answering of other posts are questions dependent on this central question. If you can answer it, then we can all get on with our lives and not read Al’s ramblings.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 9:51 AM

        Colin, you say, “Basically we’re a constitutional republic”.
        If so, that Basically constitutional republic is in the BASEMENT. Don’tcha think Socialist DEMOCRACY is more accurate?

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 8, 2015 at 6:04 AM

      henry,
      @ If you can answer it, then we can all get on with our lives and not read Al’s ramblings.

      Maybe this is why I am uplifted when I read the Alfred Adask Articles. I am a Ramblin Man. I am uplifted by your responses & timmy & palani. Are we all Ramblers? Looking forward to this. You said, to, Colin, I will address your comments, point by point on Sunday.

       
  19. PLAPE

    March 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM

    I must say that this site is highly entertaining and exercises my brain trying to keep up with each of you. From my reading I have to say I am more in line with Colin and his thought process; that is not say that each blogger did not bring up some good arguments or counter arguments.

    I find the argument that Texas is an improper title based on previous renditions of its name is frivolous. I have worked at several different places in my life but when I claim to be at work it refers to my present place of employment. That fact that I used to be a line cook while attending school has no geographical bearing to my present place of employment. When I tell someone that I am at work, assuming they know me, there is no debate to where I am referring.

    Texas may have been called something vastly different 2000 years ago but that name has no weight when referring to the current geographical boundaries. When one claims to be a resident of Texas it seems illogical to assume they mean a resident of Texas that no longer exists. Texas’ boundaries and flag may have changed over the last 200 years but currently there is one Texas State Flag and legally recognized State line.

     
    • Adask

      March 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM

      I don’t care what name anyone applies to the state commonly referred to as “Texas”. My objective is merely to ascertain that everyone understands and agrees that whenever we refer to “Texas,” “TX,” “this state,” “The State of Texas,” STATE OF TEXAS,” etc., we are referring to a State of the Union. That’s where my best rights are found and enforced. Out of an abundance of caution, I want any courtroom adversary to admit that we are not proceeding in an administrative district, a territory, or a “state of the United States”. Maybe my concerns about the proper name and constitutional nature of “Texas” are unfounded or even unreasonable. That’s OK. I may look silly, but where’s the harm. All I want is for the judge, the prosecutor, the plaintiff, the defendant to admit that all of the evidence occurred within the borders of a State of the Union styled “The United States of America” and that the trial is taking place in that same jurisdiction. Admit that, and I’m good to go.

      All the fuss about names is merely incidental to achieving that objective.

       
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 3:53 PM

        My objective is merely to ascertain that everyone understands and agrees that whenever we refer to “Texas,” “TX,” “this state,” “The State of Texas,” STATE OF TEXAS,” etc., we are referring to a State of the Union. That’s where my best rights are found and enforced. Out of an abundance of caution, I want any courtroom adversary to admit that we are not proceeding in an administrative district, a territory, or a “state of the United States.”

        Assuming for the sake of argument that “a State of the Union” and a “state of the United States” are the same thing, what should they do if you ask them to agree the trial is being held in one but not the other?

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 5:47 PM

        If “this state” is just another manifestation of the State of the Union, then my hypothesis is mistaken, and my error can be quickly rectified by the court, plaintiff of prosecutor simply stipulating that, no matter name we place on the “state,” it is a State of the Union. Once that stipulation is made, I’ll have no need to raise the issue again

        But if the government and/or court won’t expressly stipulate that it is part of a State of the Union, I’ll read that refusal as evidence that my hypothesis is correct and the “government” is running some sort of alternative jurisdiction that is fictional, perhaps based on an emergency, and unconstitutional. I will then object repeatedly and resist their purported authority and jurisdiction at every step.

        Let’s suppose that the The State (of the Union) vs this state (of the United States) hypothesis was valid. The State would have jurisdiction over me, regardless of whether I agreed or not. But “this state” would only have jurisdiction if I consented to that jurisdiction.

        If the government is of The State, it has jurisdiction over me and I have all of my God-given, unalienable Rights to defend against government charges.

        If the government is of “this state,” I don’t have easy access to my God-given, unalienable Rights, but the government of “this state” doesn’t have automatic jurisdiction over me without my consent. I won’t consent.

        I’m content either way. What bothers me is the apparent ambiguity.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 7:36 PM

        To: Alfred,
        @ Incidentally, our “best legal system in the world” is also called as an “adversarial system”. In the Bible, the word “Satan” has sometimes been defined as the “adversary”. Satan has also been described as the “father of all lies”. And here we have an “adversarial” judicial system that couldn’t function if the lawyers and lawyers-become-judges were prohibited from lying. Is it too much of a leap to suggest there might be a spiritual correlation between our “best legal system” and satanic values?

        Looks like the vast majority just don’t get it. I just doesn’t sink in. And, as I have said before, the Devil IS IS in the details.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 8:12 PM

        Re: But if we compare their statements to the oath “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,”
        I doubt that anybody knows the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about anything. So it seems to me, IF we affirm to to do as “requested” we have lied from the git go. I don’t swear or affirm. to tell the truth the whole truth & nothing but the truth. I simply say, “I promise to tell the truth under the penalty of bearing false witness & this affirmation is accepted.It was not always “accepted” & I have been put in jail for contempt of court, but not in my last 3 “visits”. Here is something tricky. We are asked a question, e.g. let’s say we are at Burger King at 3 P.M. today. Sometime later down the road we appear in Court as a witness to whatever. We are asked, Isn’t it true that you were at Burger King at 3 P.M. on March 5th? We answer yes. What we have just done is acknowledged that we were not at Burger King at 3 P.M. on March 5th. Isnn’t it true means, is it not true. So when we say yes, we are saying, it is not true that we were at Burger King at 3 P.M. on March 5th.

         
      • Adask

        March 5, 2015 at 8:38 PM

        That’s my point. Only rarely, if ever, will one man know the “whole truth” about some particular event in the sense that God knows the whole truth. But every man will know the “whole truth” as it rests in his mind. I.e., I will know the “whole” of MY perception/version of the truth.

        The question is, will I tell MY “whole” truth–even if my perception/version of the truth is contrary my interests or the interests of a litigant I favor? The oath is not intended to compel me to do the impossible: tell God’s whole truth about a particular event. The oath is merely intended to compel me to honestly tell whatever I think I saw, heard, experienced.

        The point to this is that when I am compelled by oath to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they’re talking about MY perception/version of the truth–which could be very much different from someone else’s perception/version. When we’re talking about MY perception/version of the truth, we are talking about something that I alone know–at least before I finish explaining my perception/version in others.

        When a lawyer or judge tells me to answer my questions Yes of No, they don’t know what MY truth is. They don’t know and can’t know if either “Yes” or “No” is MY truth. By demanding that I answer “Yes” or “No,” the system is trying to prevent me from telling MY “whole” truth. I see that as suborning perjury.

        Yes, it may be true that on cross-examination, opposing counsel may ask me to tell MY “whole” truth beyond a mere “Yes” or “No”. But maybe the opposing counsel forgets to ask me about MY “whole” truth and so the jury never hears MY “whole” truth. Or maybe, my “Yes” or “No” answers on Day 1 of the trial create false impressions or prejudices in the jurors’ minds that will not be easily overcome when opposing counsel asks me to tell MY “whole” truth on Day 4.

        Why take a chance on that sort of misunderstanding? Why not allow me to tell MY “whole” truth in response to every question? Why try to prevent me from telling MY “whole” truth by demanding I answer only “Yes” or “No”?

        If the system’s interest is in establishing justice, why not allow every witness to tell HIS “whole” truth in response to every question? After all, he’s sworn to tell the “whole” truth–why prevent him from doing so at any point in the proceedings after he’s taken that oath?

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 7:53 PM

        @ If “this state” is just another manifestation of the State of the Union, then my hypothesis is mistaken,
        Just don’t make the mistake of mis-State-TING something. Mistakes,yes, Misstatements, Nope, can’t have that.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 4, 2015 at 4:15 PM

      PLAPE,
      Alfred Adask says, > All I want is for the judge, the prosecutor, the plaintiff, the defendant to admit that all of the evidence occurred within the borders of a State of the Union styled “The United States of America” and that the trial is taking place in that same jurisdiction. Admit that, and I’m good to go.
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      PLAPE, if you were the Judge, I believe I know what you would say re: Alfred’s statement. You will say, as you did in your message, >I find the argument that Texas is an improper title based on previous renditions of its name is frivolous.”

      PLAPE, The question is,what is unreasonable about Alfred’s request? Just to say something is frivolous is not saying why it is frivolous. As for me, I don’t see how any appellate Court Judges will say Alfred’s position is frivolous & explain why with any sensible answers. ALL that’s being asked for is what Alfred requested. Seems to me Alfred’s request will be acknowledged & it may very well be to his detriment, etc. It should not be any problem for any Judge to say, Yes Alfred Adask,all of the evidence occurred within the borders of a State of the Union styled “The United States of America” and this trial is taking place in that same jurisdiction

       
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 10:01 PM

        Seems to me Alfred’s request will be acknowledged

        Not likely. His request will sound so bizarre to anyone trained in the law that they’re likely to ignore it. And they don’t have to consider it; if he’s a defendant, he doesn’t get to require the court or the parties to jump through hoops for his own satisfaction. If he’s the plaintiff, the court will probably just say, “Look, state your case or get going, no one’s going to play games with you.”

        His question sounds like asking whether the judge is an undercover ISIS commando or a wolfman or something. The question sounds so weird and pointless that people are more likely to ignore it than take it seriously.

         
      • Adask

        March 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM

        Although I may talk hypothetically about asking a question in court, I’d actually ask my questions of the plaintiff or prosecution long before I entered the courtroom.

        My understanding of procedural due process is that it consists of 1) Notice; and 2) “Opportunity to be Heard”. That “opportunity to be heard” is usually an administrative hearing where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time. I don’t want that “opportunity”.

        My understanding of Notice is that it need not be complete. I.e., if the government sends you a Notice (and that’s how virtually litigation begins), they don’t have to give actual notice of all relevant facts and law. They need only provide enough Notice to put the recipient “on inquiry”. If the recipient responds by making statements, it is presumed that he has “sufficient notice” and can now proceed to the “opportunity to be heard” where he’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time. If the recipient responds to the notice with silence, it is presumed that he has “sufficient notice” and can proceed to the “opportunity to be heard” where he’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time.

        But if the recipient responds to the notice with questions, it is apparently presumed that he has not yet received sufficient notice and therefore can’t be taken to the “opportunity to be heard” where he’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time. It appears that if the gov-co tries to take the notice recipient to the “opportunity” before they’ve answered all of his questions, they’ll be violating his right to procedural due process. If the recipient’s right to procedural due process if violated, the court loses jurisdiction over the case.

        Point: If they don’t answer all of your questions in response to one of their notices, they can’t legally take you to the “opportunity to be heard”–where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time. If you know some really good questions and they can’t or won’t answer, the proceedings against you might be dropped. I’ve used that strategy with apparent success against the IRS (twice) and the Dallas Bar Association (once). They sent me a notice. I responded with questions. They went away.

        I may have written 40 or 50 articles on this blog that deal with this strategy. You can see my first article at “Notes on Notice“. That article is nearly seven years old, but it contains a lot of my initial research and reasoning. You can find a list of the other articles I’ve written on this theory at Notice.

        While my questions might me sound like an “undercover ISIS commando” or “wolfman,” my understanding of the law indicates that because Notices need not include a list of all relevant facts and law, if the notice recipient has any questions, the notice sender must answer–even if my questions “sound so weird and pointless that people are more likely to ignore it than take it seriously.” They have to take my questions seriously. By refusing to answer, they deny me my right to procedural due process. I’m told that the courts typically frown on such denials.

        Answering my questions isn’t very hard. There may be a lot of questions, but I structure virtually all of them to be answered 1) “Yes” or 2) “No”. Pretty simple. You could see a copy of the questions I sent to the IRS at CP59.

        Again,the strategy is fairly simple. And it’s worked twice for me and once for a friend of mine. That’s not proof it will work for everyone in every instance, but it is proof that it can work sometimes.

        I presume Colin will tell us all why my strategy is crazy and can’t possibly work ever. But doing so would deny a couple of fundamental facts: it’s worked three times for me, and once for a friend.

        Anyone who doubts that the government’s notice creates my right of inquiry need only read whatever notice you’ve received and look for a statement (usually at the bottom of the notice) that reads something like this: “If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-1111”. With statements like that, they admit that you have a right to ask questions about the notice. I just don’t ask my questions over the telephone. The result is a kind of white noise that’s usually admissible as evidence in court. Instead, I ask my questions in writing and by means of Registered Mail which creates evidence that should be admissible in court. It seems to work.

         
  20. Rog

    March 4, 2015 at 5:56 PM

    Colin, you’re not being entirely honest with the good folks here. Is the UNITED STATES a fiction? If not, then what is it? Can I meet the UNITED STATES? Can I face the UNITED STATES in a court of law as an accuser? Can I run over and give the UNITED STATES a pinch on the ass if I think she has a nice one? Can I do the same for the STATE OF TEXAS? For the CITY OF AUSTIN?

    Can a legal fiction claim jurisdiction over the flesh and blood men that created it? Can the created be superior to the creator? If not, then in what way can this fiction interact with flesh and blood men and women? The answer, of course, is through or by way of another fiction. (hint, the NAME on your “driver” license is not you) Now we are in Admiralty because the NAME on your”driver” license is a negotiable instrument. If you have a copy of your birth certificate provided by the state in which you were born-not the certificate of live birth from the hospital, find the numbers in red at the bottom and give your broker a call and have him enter those numbers into a bond search. Go a head, it’s fun!
    Then, http://wayback.archive.org/web/20091207084843/http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs072.htm.
    Then,
    http://wayback.archive.org/web/20090822153144/http://www.atgpress.com/inform/Admiralty/ad001.htm Have a look. Might be a good idea to look through all of the texts (textesess?) cited, it may take a while.

     
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 10:13 PM

      Colin, you’re not being entirely honest with the good folks here.

      I’m sorry that you think so. But in fact I’m not; I’m just saying things that people really don’t want to hear, because it’s contrary to their comfortable fancies and pointing out the lack of actual laws and sources supporting those fancies.

      Is the UNITED STATES a fiction? If not, then what is it?

      No, it’s a country.

      Can I meet the UNITED STATES? Can I face the UNITED STATES in a court of law as an accuser? Can I run over and give the UNITED STATES a pinch on the ass if I think she has a nice one?

      The United States isn’t an individual person. Neither is France, which is also a country. Countries aren’t individuals. But they aren’t fictional, either, unless you mean that every intangible thing is fictional. Writing it in all caps doesn’t have any effect, by the way.

      Can a legal fiction claim jurisdiction over the flesh and blood men that created it?

      A country can, especially when those men take the trouble to write and ratify a constitution.

      Can the created be superior to the creator? If not, then in what way can this fiction interact with flesh and blood men and women?

      By means of the government those people established, and pursuant to the rules they created for that government (and continue to create, with every legislature and many court cases).

      Now we are in Admiralty because the NAME on your”driver” license is a negotiable instrument.

      No, we aren’t, and no, it isn’t. “Admiralty” refers to cases arising from a maritime jurisdiction; it has nothing to do with negotiable instruments. And a name can’t be a negotiable instrument. I know you’re not going to accept that, because you’re having a good time and I’m a party pooper. That’s OK. But if you’re ever inclined to trot such arguments out in court, do bear in mind that they have been tried before, and rejected as frivolous and wrong. They never, ever succeed. Because they are frivolous and wrong. And that’s pretty obvious when you think about it: unless you live on a boat or the case is about something that happened on a boat, you aren’t in admiralty. And if you look up the definition of a negotiable instrument, you’ll see it doesn’t cover names or drivers’ licenses.

      If you have a copy of your birth certificate provided by the state in which you were born-not the certificate of live birth from the hospital, find the numbers in red at the bottom and give your broker a call and have him enter those numbers into a bond search. Go a head, it’s fun!

      There is no bond entered in your name when you’re born, unless your parents bought one for you. There’s a reason that the people who make this claim never seem to actually be able to show you the money, as they say. It’s false. I hope you weren’t suckered into paying some con man to find your so-called bond!

       
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 10:14 PM

        (That’s one of the things I like about Alfred. His ideas are very, very wrong, but all he does is chat about them. He doesn’t use them to run a con on people, like the phony-baloney birth bond guys do.)

         
      • Adask

        March 5, 2015 at 12:48 AM

        That’s not true. My some of my ideas may be mistaken, but some of them cannot be “very, very wrong” because they’ve been shown to work a few times. I’ve never claimed that my ideas are “very, very right”. But I have seen them actually work a few times. I presume they might work a few more times–maybe for me, maybe for others.

        I’m disturbed that your fundamental response to any idea I propose is: It can’t be, can’t be, can’t be–despite the fact that some of these ideas have been shown to have worked. Your persistent choice to deny several bits of facts and evidence that prove “it can be” is one of the reasons I wonder if you’re associated with the government. Your persistent determination to deny fundamental facts (that several of my ideas have worked in very unusual circumstances) suggests that you’re not here to search for truth so much as to sell the audience that it’s absolutely certain, can’t even be denied, that every idea I’ve ever had is wrong, wrong, wrong.

        You act like a man with an agenda other than searching for truth. So, I wonder. What is that agenda? And is it your personal agenda, or that of an employer?

        As for the “birth bond guys,” how does their “con” work any differently from that of most lawyers? Most court cases don’t go to court. The plaintiff’s attorney typically swaps boilerplate letters with the defense attorney. These letters can be spit out of a computer operated by a paralegal with a minimum of time, effort or cost. These boilerplate letters can be charged to clients at exorbitant prices until one side or the other goes broke and then one of the attorneys suggests a “settlement”.

        For example, if I’d had an attorney in the MOOA case, I’d expect him to persuade me that the MOOA defense was “wrong, very wrong”; to bill me into bankruptcy for boilerplate letters swapped with the Attorney General; threaten to quit me when I ran out of money, and then–at the last minute–persuade me to agree to an out-of-court settlement for, say, $500,000 plus my share of the court and prosecution costs (another $70,000?) for a grand total of $570,000–which, he would remind me, is way better than the $9 million per year I was threatened with. The attorney would then pretend by my hero because he “saved” me over $8 million! Such a deal, hmm?

        But I didn’t take a lawyer and the Attorney General didn’t get one dime out of me.

        The entire legal system is a racket. There is a pretext of providing justice, but the real object of our judicial system is to extort fat fees from litigants for lawyers.

        Every lawyer or judge in this country is a trained, professional liar. When a criminal defense attorney is asked how does his client plead, he typically answers “Not guilty”–even though the defense attorney knows the client is guilty. The “Not Guilty” plea is a lie. The criminal defense attorney participates in that lie.

        When the prosecuting attorney claims the defendant is guilty of 1st Degree Murder, that’s also often lie. The defendant may be guilty of manslaughter, but not 1st Degree Murder. The prosecuting attorney charges 1st Degree Murder in order to scare the defendant into a plea bargain rather than a courtroom trial. The defense attorney will argue that his client is completely innocent (even though the defense attorney knows that the client is guilty of manslaughter). That’s another lie.

        In civil suits, where a plaintiff suffered an actual $25,000 in damages due to a car crash, the plaintiff’s attorney will argue that his client is entitled to $150,000–a lie. The defense attorney will argue that the plaintiff is entitled to nothing–and other lie.

        The current legal system could not survive if the judges and attorneys were bound by oath “To tell the truth,the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. The existing legal system would collapse if lawyers and judges were subject to the pains and penalties of perjury whenever they spoke in court.

        Anyone who’s graduated law school has been taught to overlook the system’s foundation in lies based on the “religion” that the America has the “best judicial system in the world”. Best for who? Lawyers? Best for what? Extorting money from productive members of society to pay the lawyers?

        What’s my point?

        My point is that it strikes me as hypocritical for a man who’s been trained to lie at Harvard Law School, and who’s been licensed to steal by some state supreme court and bar association, to criticize the “birth bond guys” of conning people, when his profession also runs a confidence racket every day they’re in business.

        More, my point is that by comparing me to the “birth bond guys,” you imply that I’m also a con-artist. That strikes me as defamatory. I think you might be trying to cast me in a false light. If so, those allegations might be actionable.

        I may be mistaken about some things that I believe to be true, but I’m not a con-artist and you will find no evidence to prove that I am. I’m also not a trained, professional liar–but you, like every other licensed attorney, are. You couldn’t do your job if you refused to lie.

        Given your professional training, should anyone automatically believe anything you say or write?

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 5:56 AM

        I’ll respond to the rest of your comment after work, but to be clear, I wrote that you *aren’t* like the birth-bond guys because you *aren’t* a con artist.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 1:46 AM

        Rog asked, Can the created be superior to the creator? If not, then in what way can this fiction interact with flesh and blood men and women?

        Colin annswered, By means of the government those people established, and pursuant to the rules they created for that government.

        my answer. The RULES were not followed. Anything accomplished at the point of a bayonet is not following the rules.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 2:51 AM

        Colin, it’s a people problem, not the name of a Country problem. Just my unlearned in the law opinion. Btw, I don’t know that all birth certificates say, Dept. of Commerce on them, but I do know everyone I’ve seen says that. The Dept. of Commerce logo is in the center of the page. Any particular reason for that, i.e., Department of Commerce?

         
      • henry

        March 5, 2015 at 7:48 AM

        Al – “Every lawyer or judge in this country is a trained, professional liar.”

        They may be trained liars but many lawyers work in areas that don’t require them to lie. Contract law attorneys try to avoid future court drama by clearly documenting the rights and duties of each party. Patents lawyers document new inventions so that the inventor gets protection for a number of years. There are others that don’t need to lie. The lies come into play when they trick men and women into thinking that they are juristic entities like corporations.

         
      • Adask

        March 5, 2015 at 9:10 AM

        I agree. I doubt that more than 10% of existing lawyers are actual litigators. Most attorneys work as researchers, men who draft contracts, etc.

        But I used the word “trained” in my description “trained, professional liar” to indicate that, so far as I know, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to 1) graduate from law school; and 2) be licensed to practice law, to avoid being “trained” to lie and becoming a professional liar (if need be) by the Bar and legal profession.

        If the attorneys and judges of our legal system were obligated by law “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” every time they spoke in court, we’d have civil plaintiff lawyers admitting that their clients might be entitled to $25,000 in damages, but certainly not $2 million. We’d have prosecutors admitting that the defendant was not guilty of 1st degree murder, but only manslaughter. We’d have criminal defense attorneys who’d have to admit that their client not only killed three people as was currently alleged, but had also buried five more victims behind his mom’s barn.

        The whole idea of lawyers being required to tell the truth in court seems ludicrous. And it is ludicrous. But it illustrates the point that the American judicial system would completely collapse if lawyers and judges were required to only tell the truth when they spoke in court.

        Incidentally, our “best legal system in the world” is also called as an “adversarial system”. In the Bible, the word “Satan” has sometimes been defined as the “adversary”. Satan has also been described as the “father of all lies”. And here we have an “adversarial” judicial system that couldn’t function if the lawyers and lawyers-become-judges were prohibited from lying. Is it too much of a leap to suggest there might be a spiritual correlation between our “best legal system” and satanic values?

        I’m not saying that all attorneys lie. I am saying that they are all trained to do so. More, I’m saying that all attorneys who function as litigators are virtually certain to lie in court–usually without scruple.

        There are exceptions. Perry Mason and Ben Matlock were criminal defense attorneys who never had to lie in court because their clients were always innocent. Unfortunately, because they pigged all the innocent defendants, they left only guilty defendants for the rest of America’s lawyers, forcing American lawyers to exercise their right and even duty to lie in court.

        More, if an attorney refused to lie in court could be disbarred. For example, if an criminal defense attorney stood up in court and admitted that the defendant (accused of raping an 8-year old child) had been habitually raping children for the past 20 years, there might be a mistrial and the system might disbar that defense attorney. Point: attorneys aren’t merely trained to lie, they are duty-bound to lie or deceive on their client’s behalf.

        Some might say that mostly, lawyers don’t tell lies in court. That’s arguably correct. But if we compare their statements to the oath “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” you can see that attorneys routinely fail to the “tell the whole truth”. They leave parts out. Like the fact that his client was stoned on meth when the offense took place. Omitting to tell the “whole” truth is just another form of lying.

        What about when an attorney questions a witness (who is under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) and insists that the witness answer only “Yes or No” to the questions. “Yes or No” is often not the “whole truth”. Demanding that witnesses say only Yes or No in response to an attorney’s questions can be tantamount to that attorney compelling that witness to lie by omission–to not tell the “whole” truth.

        A lawyer who compels a witness to tell only an incomplete truth strikes me as a man suborning perjury.

        If the judge orders the witness to answer only Yes or No to the attorney’s questions, that strikes me a conspiracy between the judge and lawyer to suborn perjury from the witness.

        If the definition of telling the truth is to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” a Yes or No answer to a question can be a lie (perjury) if it is not the “whole” truth.

        And whose “truth” are witnesses obligated to tell? Their own. If I’m a witness, I tell what I heard, what I saw, what understood to be happening. It may well be that my version of the truth does not agree with some other witness’s version of the truth of the same incident. Maybe my version is mistaken. Maybe its the other witness is mistaken. But witnesses are notoriously susceptible to mis-remembering whatever events they are called on to describe under oath. That’s probably why we have juries–to leave it up to the jurors to figure out which of the witness’s version of “the truth” is most accurate.

        In the end, it’s completely possible for one witness to honestly tell the truth at the same that another witness honestly tells the truth that disagrees with the first witness’s version. The first witness can honestly remember whatever happened, his way. The other witness honestly remembers and testifies to a different version of the same “truth”. Witnesses are not called on to “tell the truth” in the sense that that declare God’s own, 100% accurate and absolute “truth”. Witnesses are only required to testify to whatever version of the “truth” they remember.

        A lie is not simply a false statement. It’s not a just mistake. A lie is an intentional deception wherein the witness remembers the facts or truth of a particular event one way, but intentionally recounts that event falsely in order to help win the case for the plaintiff or defendant.

        When a witness is called on to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that witness is being called on to tell his honest recollection of whatever happened. If I’m called to testify, I’m not really called to tell God’s truth–I’m called to tell my truth. I’d like to think I get to God’s truth, but I’m not sufficiently arrogant to suppose I even can know God’s truth in all things. So I try to tell my truth, my honest version of the truth.

        My point is that if you ask me a question under oath, I will accept my obligation to tell the whole truth. And I know a lot of what I think of as “the truth”. It might take several hours for me to “tell the (my) whole truth” in response to a single question. If a judge or attorney tried to restrict me to answering only Yes or No, they would be depriving me of my right and duty to “tell the whole truth”. As I understand it, that would be subornation of perjury.

        That should be a no-no.

        But, so far as I know, the “best legal system in the world” sometimes mandates Yes or No answers and may thereby suborn perjury. All of which is just one more example of the prevalence of lies in that “best system”.

        If the lawyers and lawyers-become-judges could lie in court, the whole system would collapse.

        What can we say about a system that depends on lies to survive?

        What can we say about the honor, ethics, character and morality of people who routinely lie and encourage others to also lie in the operation of that system?

         
      • henry

        March 5, 2015 at 10:33 AM

        Many good points Al. The ability for the judge to start the process for an attorney to be disbarred is pertinent to this thread. If one spends years and gobs of money to become an attorney then he/she is threatened with disbarment if they bring up issues that the judge doesn’t want to hear – like The State vs. this state. If an attorney gets disbarred, then all that time and money would have been lost. This is part of the system to keep it from having to answer questions on the nature of the court.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 6:58 PM

        Colin, you say, @ Not likely. His request will sound so bizarre to anyone trained in the law that they’re likely to ignore it. And they don’t have to consider it; if he’s a defendant, he doesn’t get to require the court or the parties to jump through hoops for his own satisfaction. If he’s the plaintiff, the court will probably just say, “Look, state your case or get going, no one’s going to play games with you.”

        Colin, I’ve heard Judges say bizarre things before so it seems to me the Judge would say, whether it’s true or not, yes (to whoever) or, if it’s Alfred, Yes Alfred Adask,”all of the evidence occurred within the borders of a State of the Union styled “The United States of America” and this trial is taking place in that same jurisdiction.”

        And then proceed to railroad us. We have STATUTORY courts of no record & Courts of Record & even the Statutory Courts OF Record “allow” the tapes & transcripts to be altered. Soooooo I do not see how or why it would be a problem to do anything they want to. ALSO, a court of no record DOES anything “IT” wants to LITERALLY. YES ANYTHING & it should not be too hard to know why.

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:51 PM

        Hi Alfred,

        First, to be clear again, I don’t think you’re a con-man. You have weird ideas about the law, but I’ve never seen you use them to victimize anyone. That distinguishes you, in my mind, from someone like that business someone posted a while back that was taking money from people to file tax court cases, then getting those cases dismissed, then claiming the dismissals were favorable to their clients, the petitioners. That sort of thing is just wicked, either gross incompetence or outright fraud. You talk about your ideas and discuss them, which a world of difference.

        Second, I notice how quickly and easily you flip between two conflicting ideas: first, that you don’t know whether the MOOA argument worked, and second, that the MOOA argument must be valid because it worked. Let’s be clear—you don’t know whether the MOOA argument worked. You assume that it did. If the only evidence that you’ve got that it works is that you assume that it worked, well, that’s circular, isn’t it? Since it has the glaring logical holes I’ve identified earlier, I don’t credit the idea that it worked at all. I realize that you disagree.

        I don’t know anything about your Texas Supreme Court run or UPL charge. For all I know you argued the pants off of those matters. I looked at your CP59 letter, though. It’s 30 pages of nonsense. Courts have routinely held that the IRS need not respond to such questioning, as they aren’t your lawyer. I know you won’t believe me, but no one would be intimidated by the lack of knowledge displayed by such a letter. They might be intimidated by the signal that you’re going to bury them in nonsense paper, but I don’t know how sensitive the IRS is to such things. What’s interesting is that the notice they sent you was apparently a CP59? All that means is that they noticed you didn’t file a return and are reminding you of your obligation to do so. They want you to think that the enforcement action will start immediately if you don’t, but in practice it’s probably going to take years. Especially in a time of budget cuts, as from about 2007-present day. I wouldn’t have bet at the time that you’d get away with it for a decade, but I’m not all that surprised; you don’t respond, your file gets tossed on the enforcement stack, and they’ll get to it when they get to it. Since there are bigger fish to fry, who knows when that will be? In other words, I don’t think your CP59 letter had any effect at all.

        As for myself, I’m not a government agent. I’ve never worked for the government except right out of law school, when I was a clerk for a few years. (Basically I worked for the court.) Nor have I been trained to lie. Lawyers actually take classes in ethics that stress how important it is to be honest, and unlike almost every other job I can think of, we can be penalized and fined for lying to clients. The examples you give aren’t lies; a defense attorney who says “not guilty” even if he thinks his client is probably guilty isn’t telling the court, “I think my client is innocent.” He’s saying, “My client wishes to plead not guilty.” The defense lawyer doesn’t get to pick his client’s plea, he has to enter what the client tells him to enter. It’s a true statement, because he’s just telling the court that the client wants to plead innocent, not that he thinks the client is innocent.

        These days, I teach a lot of negotiation classes. I stress with my students how important honesty is, for ethical and moral reasons and also because a reputation for honesty is hard to build but easy to destroy if you aren’t scrupulously honest. I’m sorry you don’t realize that I’ve been scrupulously honest with you. All I can do is continue to do so, because it’s the right thing to do even if you want to believe otherwise.

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM

        If one spends years and gobs of money to become an attorney then he/she is threatened with disbarment if they bring up issues that the judge doesn’t want to hear – like The State vs. this state

        You can raise anything you want in court, as long as you can make a non-frivolous argument that it’s true. The “state-vs-State” stuff is going to be hard to fit in that category, because there isn’t any serious legal argument behind it. That’s why the people who advocate for the theory keep talking about conspiracy theories rather than citing laws or evidence that proves their theory.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 8:08 AM

        Rog says to Colin,
        “Colin, you’re not being entirely honest with the good folks here.”

        Colin asnwers Rog by saying
        I’m sorry that you think so. But in fact I’m not;

        Colin, I guess I’m not seeing something I should be seeing, but Colin, it seems to me you are agreeing with Rog. It looks like, you, Colin, are saying, Rog, the fact is, I’m not being entirely honest & I ‘m sorry you caught the fact that I’m not being entirely honest. Anyway, I dunno what to think.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 31, 2015 at 10:16 AM

        @ Seems to me Alfred’s request will be acknowledged

        Colin, says, Not likely. His request will sound so bizarre to anyone trained in the law that they’re likely to ignore it.

        I agree, because it’s that TRAINING, what they were TAUGHT. BUT, it would not be thought of as bizarre at one time. The S.Ct said previously what was happening slowly & insidiously about the REVERSAL of the ORIGINAL “order” of things. AND, a lot of people have lived & died in the past 150 years & the new borns were taught the NEW understanding, & on & on. This is another reason why the courts are overturning previous decisions. TRUTH & SENSIBLE UNDERSTANDING YESTERDAY IS SEEN AS BIZARRE BACKWOODS FRONTIER GIBBERISH TODAY.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 1:36 AM

      Rog,
      @ Go a head, it’s fun!
      It ain’t funny tho. <(: Excellent message.

       
  21. Harry

    March 4, 2015 at 6:40 PM

    If I recall Colin said everyone who has a JOB is required to pay FICA Tax. This may be true, but what about a man who offers himself for HIRE? You know, I’ll do this for that. Doesn’t a contract for hire arise from the natural law? As such it would not be a subject of equity. Isn’t there a difference in engaging in employment to do something and to just being hired to do it?.

    Isn’t it true that”a man may sell his services, but not himself? See: Kadis v. Britt, 224, NC. 154, 29 SE2d 543

    To be engaged in employment places the employee in a state of voluntary servitude to the employer who is the employee’s master. To be employed is to convert the use of one’s labor and service to the use or service of another, in the hope of some future benefit and assurance. It is the conversion of a natural right to work by an act of mutual consent to be employed.

    Colin, would you agree that when people have to obey other people’s orders, equality is out of the question in that relationship?..

     
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 10:36 PM

      If I recall Colin said everyone who has a JOB is required to pay FICA Tax. This may be true, but what about a man who offers himself for HIRE? You know, I’ll do this for that.

      That’s called a job, unless you mean an independent contractor (see next paragraph). I think there’s a minimum annual wage before FICA taxes kick in, like a couple of grand. So if you pay a guy $100 a month to mow your lawn, you’re not required to pay or withhold taxes. I think, don’t quote me on that. But if you’re paying him $500 a month, in theory you should be withholding. Realistically probably no one does, and realistically I doubt anyone gets in trouble over little stuff like that. But if you’re paying a nanny $5,000 a month (I have no idea how much nannies cost), then you’re more likely to get dinged. It’s about the annual income, not whether you call it “being for hire” or “a job.”

      If you do mean independent contractors, who don’t have an employer and do jobs on their own for clients, they still pay into social security. They pay a “self employment tax” that isn’t withheld, and is basically the same as FICA.

      Doesn’t a contract for hire arise from the natural law? As such it would not be a subject of equity.

      Those words don’t mean what you think they mean. A contract for hire is going to be subject to the same laws as any other law, including statutes.

      Isn’t there a difference in engaging in employment to do something and to just being hired to do it?

      The closest thing I can think of is the distinction between a regular employee and being an independent contractor. There’s a series of tests to determine which one you are, but the most important one is whether someone can direct your work for you and tell you what to do on the job. If so, you’re almost certainly an employee; if not, you might be an independent contractor. Both pay more or less the same taxes, but in slightly different ways.

      Isn’t it true that “a man may sell his services, but not himself? See: Kadis v. Britt, 224, NC. 154, 29 SE2d 543

      Yes. That case is referring to a principle in law called specific performance. You can google it if you’re curious, but in this context basically it means that forcing someone to work for you is not a remedy in contract law. So if I agree to mow your lawn, take your money, then refuse to do the work, you can sue me and win. But the court won’t force me to mow your lawn, because that would imply that your contract forces me to perform labor. So instead I’ll have to give back your money or pay for someone else to do it. “A man may sell his services, but not himself” means that your contracts promise the value of your services, not you as a slave, so if you break those contracts the plaintiff will only get that value rather than you yourself.

      In the case you cited, two men signed what we’d call today a “covenant not to compete,” or a promise that the employee won’t go work for anyone else. He did anyway, and his old boss sued him to force him to stop that job. The court refused to enforce that contract, not because they’re never enforceable but because under those circumstances they decided it wouldn’t be equitable. That was in 1944; these days there’s a whole body of law that’s grown up around such covenants, so the rules are a little clearer, but it’s complicated. Basically most states enforce such covenants as long as they’re limited in scope—so you might not be able to work for someone else for a year or two, but a contract saying you can’t do it forever isn’t enforceable. That’s overkill in answering your question, but I used to work on invalidating and enforcing such covenants for clients, I think they’re pretty interesting.

      Colin, would you agree that when people have to obey other people’s orders, equality is out of the question in that relationship?

      I guess if you have to obey someone’s orders that means there’s an inequality by definition, but how significant it is depends on the relationship. Technically I have to obey my boss’s orders, but realistically I’m very independent in my job—and if I really didn’t like those orders, I’d just walk away. So in my eyes we’re pretty much equals. But I don’t know what he thinks about it!

       
      • Harry

        March 5, 2015 at 12:02 PM

        Colin, It may be true that you can quit your job (aka employment) if you really didn’t like your “employer’s” orders but while you were employed you are in a state of voluntary servitude during your working hours. “Servant” is synonymous with “employee.” “Master” is synonymous with “employer.”

        Who is the “employer” is the question? If you are engaged in employment with General Motors is General Motors your employer or is the government under which General Motors is incorporated your employer? General Motors has an Employee Identification number just like those employees who have a SS number but General Motors also has an Employer Identification number so does not that imply that General Motors is acting an an agent for a third party for whom it will collect the tribute tax? What has happened here if not a “conversion?” If a General Motors employee quits his job would he legally be unemployed or legally and technically non-employed?

        If begging for a SS number creates a “conversion” then is is legally and lawfully possible to annul the prior constructive conversion and be restored back to one’s original free status? That is the real question we should be asking if my “conversion” idea is valid.

        RECONVERSION. That imaginary process by which a prior constructive conversion is annulled and the property restored in contemplation of equity to its original actual quality. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition.

        To “employ” means to “engage” in one’s service and the term is equivalent to hiring, which implies a “request” and a “contract” for a compensation, and has but this one meaning when used in the ordinary affairs and business of life? To “employ” means to “appoint.”

        What are you doing when you “apply” for a job if not making a “request” for an employment contract. What are you doing when you make a “request?” Are you not begging for the granting of some FAVOR which is within the power or discretion of the one to whom you are making the request or to whom you are begging?

        Should we be applying for and requesting favors?

        What is a favor? It is an act of kindness or generosity, as distinguished from an act that is inspired by regard for justice, duty, or right. To favor one with a contract for employment with the view of future social security is to show partiality or unfair bias towards and is practically synonymous with “support.” The term implies a mental attitude or intent.

        What does support mean? It means to furnish funds or means for maintenance or to provide for. It is said to include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expense, or other proper cognate purposes and includes proper care, nursing, and medical attendance.

        Wow! If this is what an application or request or begging for employment under the term of social security employment provides then one can begin to understand why those entitled to such support ought to contribute their fair share of the overall cost to government to furnish such support. To not pay the tribute tax would be evidence of unjust enrichment at the expense of other who do pay their fair share.

        Would you agree that there is a difference between a man rendering service for an employer UNDER the terms of employment, and a man merely being hired to commence work for another man?

        To engage in something means more than a single act or occasional participation. An engagement is a contract. An OBLIGATION arising from a quasi contract, the terms “obligation” and “engagement” are said to be synonymous, but the Code seems specially to apply the term “engagement” to those OBLIGATIONS which the law IMPOSES on a man without the intervention of any contract, either on the part of the obligor or the obligee. An engagement to do or omit to do something amounts to a promise, and we must keep our promises? Agree?

        The question is: Can a MAN merely commence work for another man who asks him if he would like to do the work without any view of future benefit or profit that would create some kind of quasi contract? It would be a pure voluntary act inspired by regard for justice, duty or right.

        Isn’t the word “use” a synonym for employ? A “use” is a confidence reposed in another. A “use” is described as “a right in a person, called the cestui que use, to TAKE the profits of land of which another has legal title and possession, together with the DUTY of defending the same and of making estates therefore according to the direction of the cestui que use.” It appears to me that a “use” is a “trust.” Does an employee only have a legal title to his wages while another has the equitable or beneficial interest? Sure looks like it. Those who are collecting social security benefits have the letter “A: added to their SS number. What you think this letter “A: stands for? Could it stand for “auxiliary or subordinate beneficiary?” . If so who is the primary or superior beneficiary?

        SUBORDINATE. Placed in a lower order, class, or rank; occupying a lower position; inferior order in classification. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition.

        “Hire” is “a bailment in which compensation is to be given for the use of a thing, or for labor and services about it. This contract arises from the principles of natural law. and by itself is not a subject of equity. Hiring for an immediate and equal exchange should be considered different than hiring for the purpose of profit and gain (SS check) at a future time, for that would imply an interest or usury.

        If I exchange one dollar’s worth of labor and at the end of an hour was paid one dollar there should be no taxable event. If there is then something has taken place, a conversion of some kind and it appears to me that voluntarily applying or begging for a SS employee/employment number is evidence of an act of placing oneself into a state of voluntary servitude; an act that looks forward to security as in social security payments.

        Again, the question is: can a man who wishes to give up this favor of social security that he has requested legally and lawfully return the favor or give up his entitlement to it?

        Most people would not want to give up the favor and many could not survive if they did, but is it possible to be re-converted back to a state of liberty and freedom where it was once true to say:

        “The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands,and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor; is a plain violation of this most sacred personal property.” Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City, 11 U.S. 746 (1884)

        “Labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” Adams Smith

        To me, if wages were once considered a source of income and now are considered income then something has changed in the person working for those wages. The only thing I can think of is there has been a conversion. What do you think?

        .

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 7:04 PM

        Colin, You say, @ I’ll respond to the rest of your comment after work, but to be clear, I wrote that you *aren’t* like the birth-bond guys because you *aren’t* a con artist.

        Colin, I see it as you say, i.e., what you say above I do believe in fair play.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 12:25 AM

        Harry,

        Whoo, a lot to respond to. It’s late here, so I’ll have to be short. Sorry, long day at work.

        “Employer” is defined in the IRS code. Basically it’s whoever you work for who also controls your wages. If there’s any ambiguity in that, you’d basically just use the common-sense definition of “employer,” which will rarely be any different.

        If begging for a SS number creates a “conversion”

        It doesn’t.

        That is the real question we should be asking if my “conversion” idea is valid.

        It’s not. Sorry. If you want to research it, try looking for actual laws that are specific and on-point. The more you have to bend and twist and reinterpret, the less realistic your interpretation is going to be. Look for cases in which someone has accomplished what you’re trying to do specifically, or even anything very much like it, or where they’ve even been taken seriously. I don’t think you’ll find anything.

        To “employ” means to “appoint.”

        So here’s an example of how the sovcit process diverges from actual legal research. “Employ” can mean “appoint,” but it doesn’t always. If you think this definition applies in this context, you’d want to find examples of it being used that way or explain why it should be used that way. Just picking one definition from a list of possible definitions doesn’t get you all the way there, and it can lead you wildly astray, as with Alfred’s MOOA argument (which relies on the government using a very idiosyncratic definition of “animal” that makes no sense in context).

        Are you not begging for the granting of some FAVOR which is within the power or discretion of the one to whom you are making the request or to whom you are begging?

        I don’t think so… employment is the exchange of labor for value, isn’t it? Why can’t that be a fair exchange, rather than the granting of a favor?

        Would you agree that there is a difference between a man rendering service for an employer UNDER the terms of employment, and a man merely being hired to commence work for another man?

        No, unless you mean the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. That distinction definitely exists under the law. (Although both have to pay taxes, unfortunately.)

        An engagement to do or omit to do something amounts to a promise, and we must keep our promises? Agree?

        Yes, that sounds right.

        The question is: Can a MAN merely commence work for another man who asks him if he would like to do the work without any view of future benefit or profit that would create some kind of quasi contract? It would be a pure voluntary act inspired by regard for justice, duty or right.

        Sorry, I don’t fully understand. Do you mean, can a man volunteer to do some work for free? Sure.

        Isn’t the word “use” a synonym for employ? A “use” is a confidence reposed in another. A “use” is described as “a right in a person, called the cestui que use, to TAKE the profits of land of which another has legal title and possession, together with the DUTY of defending the same and of making estates therefore according to the direction of the cestui que use.”

        “Use” can by a synonym for “employ,” but that doesn’t mean that “use” in the second sense you use it is also a synonym for “employ.” “Cool” is synonymous with “calm” (cool down, keep a cool head), and “calm” is synonymous with “still,” but “cool” isn’t synonymous with “still.” If you want to connect that second meaning of “use” with employment, you’d have to do it directly to make a persuasive case.

        It appears to me that a “use” is a “trust.” Does an employee only have a legal title to his wages while another has the equitable or beneficial interest? Sure looks like it.

        I really don’t think so. You’re using these terms in very non-standard ways, which makes it a little hard to tell what you mean, but I don’t see any equitable or beneficial interest to anyone but the owner of the wages, the payee.

        Those who are collecting social security benefits have the letter “A: added to their SS number. What you think this letter “A: stands for? Could it stand for “auxiliary or subordinate beneficiary?” . If so who is the primary or superior beneficiary?

        I’m not 100% sure what you’re talking about, but if it’s this, the “A” is just because it’s the first entry in an alphabetized list. If you think it means “auxiliary” anything, you’d have to find actual evidence of that to make a persuasive case.

        If I exchange one dollar’s worth of labor and at the end of an hour was paid one dollar there should be no taxable event.

        There definitely is, because you received income. The receipt of income is the taxable event, regardless of whether labor was exchanged for it.

        If there is then something has taken place, a conversion of some kind and it appears to me that voluntarily applying or begging for a SS employee/employment number is evidence of an act of placing oneself into a state of voluntary servitude; an act that looks forward to security as in social security payments.

        Nope. There’s no conversion because the wages belong to you. But the receipt of them is a taxable event, and generates an obligation to pay those taxes (assuming the income is above the minimum). Your arguments re: conversion are not convincing at all. It seems like a long chain of assumptions, each resting on the other. But almost all of them are wrong, or nothing more than unevidenced assertions, or both. A for effort, because I enjoy speculative arguments, but not much of a connection to the real world. If you think otherwise, please try to find some case or treatise or legal authority that supports your argument as a whole. If you can’t, by all means keep believing your position, but please also understand no court or lawyer will take you seriously. (Not just because of the lack of authority, but because the argument itself is so tenuous and unsupported.)

        Again, the question is: can a man who wishes to give up this favor of social security that he has requested legally and lawfully return the favor or give up his entitlement to it?

        No. People have tried, and never succeeded. If you disagree, please find a citation to a success story—one we can actually look at, not just an anecdote. (Unless you’re clergy, I think there’s a religious exemption for ministers, but I don’t know how it works.)

        What do you think?

        Like I said, I enjoyed reading it. I like logic puzzles and speculative arguments. But as a legal argument, nothing doing. You’ve got no actual evidence or support for it, just a long chain of supposition, most of which is wrong. If you want to know more about these topics, once again I strongly recommend one of the freely available online law classes.

         
      • Harry

        March 6, 2015 at 12:49 PM

        Colin, thanks for your response to my extra long post. For the sake of saving you time I have posed my questions in a way that you can answer either yes or no. .

        1. If an “employer” in the IRS code is whoever you work for who also CONTROLS your wages, isn’t the one who CONTROLS your wages the master and the one who’s wages are being controlled the servant? Yes or No

        2. Would you agree that the word “employer” is synonymous with the word “master” yes or no

        3. Would you agree that anyone that is in an “employer/employee” relationship is also in a “master/servant” relationship, at least during working hours? yes or no

        You said that applying for a SS number does not create a “conversion.”

        4. Would you agree that the word “employ” is also defined as, “to give occupation to; n. occupation. Syn. Employ, or use? yes or no

        5.Would you agree that to be employed is to CONVERT the USE of one’s labor and service (i.e. the labor and service of the employee) to the USE and service of another (i.e. the use and service of the employer) in the hope of some future benefit and assurance (SS benefits)? yes or no

        6 Would you agree that employment involves a relationship of TRUST and an investment on the part of the employee of his effort and time in managed service in order to be enriched? yes or no

        You do not think applying for a benefit is begging.

        7. Would you agree that the word “apply” means to make a formal request in writing to a company for the granting of some favor (i.e.employment) which is within the power or discretion of the one (i.e.employer) to whom the application or the request is made? Yes or No

        8. Would you agree that the word “request” means to ask for something or for permission or authority to do, see, hear, etc., something; to solicit; and is synonymous with beg and to beg means to solicit alms or charitable aid. yes or no

        9. Would you agree that a “favor” is an act of kindness or generosity, as distinguished from an act that is inspired by regard for justice, duty, or right and is evidence of bias; partiality; and prejudice? yes or no

        You said there is no difference between a man rendering service for an employer and a man merely being hired to commence work.

        10. Would you agree that the term “engaged in employment” means to be rendering service for employer under the terms of employment and is more than being merely hired to commence work? yes or no

        11. Would you agree that the word “engagement” means a contract or the obligation arising from a quasi contract? yes or no

        12. Colin, since you appear to know the IRS code very well, and I do not, is it true that the income tax is considered an excise tax under one condition, but under another condition it is NOT considered an excise tax? yes or no

        Thanks for considering these questions.

         
      • Henry

        March 6, 2015 at 2:17 AM

        Welcome to patriot Babel.

        Here are the ground rules:

        1. Whenever the government uses a word, ALL definitions of that word apply – simultaneously. The intent of the author and the specific meaning implied by the context in which the word appears are unimportant and need not be considered by a theory.

        2. Whenever the government uses a word, the definition that suits YOUR fancy applies. The intent of the author and the specific meaning implied by the context in which the word appears are unimportant and need not be considered by a theory.

        3. Never mind if #1 and #2 appear absurd or mutually inconsistent. Who’s to say what’s logical or true, anyway? If it feels good, believe it.

        ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ – Lewis Carroll

         
      • Roger

        March 6, 2015 at 4:49 AM

        Here’s another for your list, Henry, though this one is used by a more advanced class of inhabitants of Babel, i.e. the Magicians laboring for a New World Order.

        4. The properties of ANY item in a given category belong to EVERY item in that category. This means there is essentially only ONE type of item in each category.

        Thus, whenever you, the whiz kid that you are, catch the gubmint evilly grouping two entities into a single category for any purpose whatever, you should immediately conclude that the gubmint sees no essential difference between the two entities.

        This might explain why the word “includes” always means “includes only” in Babel.

        For example, saying the definition of “state” includes Washington DC means EVERYTHING in the category “state” is essentially no different than Washington DC. All states are DC where the definition of “state” includes only DC.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 4:22 PM

        Colin, thanks for your response to my extra long post. For the sake of saving you time I have posed my questions in a way that you can answer either yes or no.

        Literally my pleasure. I enjoy having arguments like this, and I think it’s morally and ethically good to refute false ideas that could hurt people. So I’m happy to do it. Apologies in advance if we bump elbows along the way. And also if I don’t give you a clean yes/no answer, since that’s only possible if the question makes sense under the circumstances. You know the classic example, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” “Yes” and “no” are both bad answers; the right answer is, “That’s a misleading question.”

        So for example, your first few questions all turn around who’s a “master.” That depends on how you define “master!” If it’s someone or something with authority, then sure, my employer is my “master.” But that’s not how I think of my job! So I guess I’d say, if someone pays you to mow their lawn, does that them your master? If so, then sure, employers and governments can be masters. But I think the word usually means more than that, and I wouldn’t normally call either my boss, my company, my clients or my government my master.

        On the other hand, in the employers are sometimes called “master” in the context of agency law. It’s not uncommon, but in that context, it truly is synonymous with “employer” or sometimes “client.” It wouldn’t apply to governments, unless you’re talking about a literal government employee, like a postal carrier.

        So I’d answer your first three questions “sure, sometimes.”

        4. Would you agree that the word “employ” is also defined as, “to give occupation to; n. occupation. Syn. Employ, or use? yes or no

        Obviously!

        5.Would you agree that to be employed is to CONVERT the USE of one’s labor and service (i.e. the labor and service of the employee) to the USE and service of another (i.e. the use and service of the employer) in the hope of some future benefit and assurance (SS benefits)? yes or no

        Not really. I think I see what you mean, but you’re using these words very strangely. I normally think of conversion as a tort, or wrongful act, that applies to tangible property or fungible sums, not personal labor. I’m not sure about that last part, I suppose it could apply to labor, but it seems odd to me. Normally we’d just call that an exchange. If you have to twist the concept around to force it into another wrapper, like conversion, that’s a sign you’ve got a tenuous argument.

        If you want to make it stronger, you should look up sources like cases, law review articles, or treatises that talk about conversion in the sense that you mean it. In other words, is this concept ever actually applied like this in the law? If not, that doesn’t make your argument impossible, but it’s going to require a lot more work to convince people that the exchange of labor for value is “conversion” in the sense that you mean.

        6 Would you agree that employment involves a relationship of TRUST and an investment on the part of the employee of his effort and time in managed service in order to be enriched? yes or no

        Not necessarily trust. If my neighbor pays me in advance to mow his lawn every month, am I trusting him? He pays me in advance, after all. I do think it entails an investment of time.

        7. Would you agree that the word “apply” means to make a formal request in writing to a company for the granting of some favor (i.e.employment) which is within the power or discretion of the one (i.e.employer) to whom the application or the request is made? Yes or No

        Yes, but it can also mean to make such a request where there is no such discretion. If I request a shall-issue permit I’m “applying” for it even though the grantor has no power to refuse it.

        8. Would you agree that the word “request” means to ask for something or for permission or authority to do, see, hear, etc., something; to solicit; and is synonymous with beg and to beg means to solicit alms or charitable aid. yes or no

        No, and this one made me laugh out loud. Those terms can be synonymous, but not necessarily. I’m staying in a hotel right now; if I call the front desk and say, “I request fresh towels,” I’m not begging for alms or charity. This is an example of finding one definition of a word and connecting it to another not because it’s the contextually appropriate definition, but solely to create a tenuous argument. It’s fun but it’s not at all how law or logic work.

        9. Would you agree that a “favor” is an act of kindness or generosity, as distinguished from an act that is inspired by regard for justice, duty, or right and is evidence of bias; partiality; and prejudice? yes or no

        No way, it’s “a small gift or decorative or festive item, as a noisemaker or paper hat, often distributed to guests at a party.”

        10. Would you agree that the term “engaged in employment” means to be rendering service for employer under the terms of employment and is more than being merely hired to commence work? yes or no

        No, I don’t see the distinction. I think once you’re hired you’re engaged.

        11. Would you agree that the word “engagement” means a contract or the obligation arising from a quasi contract? yes or no

        It can, yes.

        12. Colin, since you appear to know the IRS code very well, and I do not, is it true that the income tax is considered an excise tax under one condition, but under another condition it is NOT considered an excise tax? yes or no

        I really don’t, I just look it up when someone makes a claim about what it says. It’s not that hard to read! You might be beyond my knowledge here. I think of excise taxes as being taxes on the purchase certain physical objects, like gasoline or cigarettes. I’m not 100% sure about that. I don’t think the income tax is an excise tax; if I’m wrong, I’d be interested in seeing a source or argument.

        Thanks for considering these questions.

        Like I said, it’s my pleasure. I’ve got a long, boring week just ending and really enjoy these conversations. Thanks for getting involved.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 4:23 PM

        Welcome to patriot Babel.

        God help me, I love it. Some guys like sports, I like conversations.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 9:16 PM

        Dear beloved Colin, You say you looked at Alfred’s CP59 letter, and It’s 30 pages of nonsense.

        This is one reason the current system is called an adversarial system, right? Ain’t that right?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM

        @ 4. Would you agree that the word “employ” is also defined as, “to give occupation to; n. occupation. Syn. Employ, or use? yes or no

        @ > Obviously!

        Obviously? Obviously yes, or, obviously no?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 11:34 PM

        Colin,
        @ “You have weird ideas about the law.”
        If the law is weird, why say it’s not weird? What is one man’s meat is another man’s poison. The law is meat for you & poison for at least some of us. It’s that simple. Colin, are you aware of any unjust law, just ONE?

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 8:25 PM

      Harry,
      @ See: Kadis v. Britt, 224, NC. 154, 29 SE2d 543
      Colin says State Court decisions have no weight at the federal level or at least this is what I understood he said.

       
  22. Ken Johnson

    March 4, 2015 at 8:57 PM

    The Government doesn’t presume the People or Man are animals. They presume that persons and natural persons are to be disrespected as God commands in the 1611 King James Bible. I am not going to argue with anyone the Bible. Read the KJVB at Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Eph 6:9, James 2:9 Gal 2:6.
    Just read anyone code. A penal code, vehicle code, they always refer to persons, natural persons or individuals, never Man or People.
    If we accept the person, AKA defendant, then the Judge must disrespect a person, defendant in judgment. 1611 AKJVB Deut. 1:17.
    I also don’t care if you don’t like the 1611 KJVB. Why do you think they always refer to persons as defendants, taxpayers, etc. because they don’t have to respect a person.
    Why would a man need to prove anything. That’s silly. If anyone has a claim, they must have 1st hand knowledge, evidence and a 3rd party impartial witness to file a claim or complaint. Other than that, you might just disappear.
    The plaintiff (man) must always appear, and better have evidence and a 3rd party witness.
    The government is not a plaintiff against a man, they have no 1st hand knowledge and are a creation of man and can not hurt man. They can however hurt a defendant as they created a defendant.
    Its your choice, disobey God and wear a mask in court and hide from God and accept the roll and act as a defendant or obey God and be a man and always force the plaintiff to appear.\
    Any Christian who accepts the part as actor called defendant deserves to be railroaded.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 2:33 AM

      Ken Johnson, The most heated debates I’ve seen occur, between those who say they are followers of Yeshua/Jesus & it never fails that these debates very often turn into hatred & bitterness. This tells me some people who say they love “God” do not. Anyway, I may have not gotten your point when you say,”they don’t have to respect a person.” You used the KJV. My understanding of, God is not a respecter od persons means, he does not show favoritism.If I am a rich man & a poor man injures me, God rules in my behalf. If I am a dirt poor man & a rich man injures me, he rules in my behalf. He expects us to do the sams thing. Agreed?

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 2:38 AM

      It’s easy to see typos after the message posts, but not before, at least for me. od, should be, of; sams should be, same.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 7:48 PM

      Ken I did not say this quite right. I said, >If I am a dirt poor man & a rich man injures me, he rules in my behalf. He expects us to do the same thing.

      I meant to say If I am a dirt poor man & I cause damage to a rich man, God rules in the rich man’s behalf/favor. The first thing I said, I said that right, so I will not correct that statement.

       
    • pesky nat

      March 23, 2015 at 2:06 AM

      Colin,
      @ I also don’t care if you don’t like the 1611 KJVB. Why do you think they always refer to persons as defendants, taxpayers, etc. because they don’t have to respect a person.

      WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. ONCE AGAIN, where it is written in the Bible, that, > “God” is no respecter of persons, This SIMPLY MEANS “God” DOES NOT SHOW FAVORITISM TO ANYONE & HE EXPECTS HIS FOLLOWERS TO DO, BE,THINK, & FEEL, THE SAME WAY !!!!

      IF YOU ARE DIRT POOR & I AM A RICH MAN & I CAUSE YOU DAMAGE “God” WILL RULE AGAINST ME & FOR YOU. & VICE VERSA. IF YOU ARE A rich man & injure me, “God” WILL RULE AGAINST YOU & FOR ME. THIS IS REAL LAW. NOT MAN-MADE STATUTORY LAW INSPIRED OF THAT DRAGON YOU FIRST MENTIONED, SAYING NOBODY RIDES TO WORK ON. I DISAGREE.

       
  23. PLAPE

    March 5, 2015 at 10:02 AM

    AL,

    I was a business major so I won’t pretend that I know the law well nor have I had much interaction with the law (beyond being arrested once on falsified witness statements, I guess the accuser didn’t know I had twelve witnesses with me at the time, but I digress). I do agree with you in a sense that the legal system is at times broken but I would not go so far to say that every person (be it Lawyer or Judge) in the legal system is a liar. To say so would be to say that every defendant is guilty and every charge brought against a person is trumped up. Those statements seem to cancel each other out.

    Let’s go back to this state Vs. This State. From my understanding you seem to be questioning jurisdiction, or who has jurisdiction. Wouldn’t that question revolve around the level of the offense? Did the defendant commit a federal offense; like the Boston marathon bomber, the shooter at Ft. Hood, or cases that involve insider trading. From my understanding you seem to be asking the question if the prosecuting entity had jurisdiction to pursue the case. Is that an accurate interpretation or did I miss something?

    I don’t discount your three separate interactions or the ones of your friends but it seems to be testimonial evidence. To truly answer that question on whether your account is testimonial one would have to tally every time someone used your tactics and compare it to the number of times it went to trial. As you mentioned in previous comments this is nearly impossible because if they don’t go to trial they cannot be counted as a win.

    The best way I can relate to what you’re saying is to translate it into business terms, as that is what I am familiar with. Looking at most businesses that sell a quantifiable product or a service that requires a quantifiable bench stock (such as hospitals) there is an economic way to manage inventory. Most companies have a process on how they order and cycle these products (Firs in Last Out, First in First out, Kanban Ordering System, whatever). When we query successful companies, big or small, we will find that a majority of them have a system in place that works for them and cut cost so that they remain competitive. That doesn’t mean every successful business has an economic system in place, these outliers are considered to be exceptions to the business world and are too far between to be accepted as a recognized business practice. Their systems are testimonial evidence as to why getting a MBA is a waste.

    I believe Colin made the point earlier that if your methods where fool proof they would be going mainstream in the legal system. I am more than certain that there is a very high loss percentage when it comes to people who represent themselves. I think your success lies more in your intelligence and drive to succeed more than it revolves around you legal tactics.

     
    • Adask

      March 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM

      I didn’t say that every lawyer was a liar in the sense that they actually lie on a regular basis. I said every licensed attorney is “trained” to lie in law school and often duty-bound to do so if they represent others in litigation.

      As for any legal tactic being “fool proof,” which one works 100% of the time? Any? I don’t think so. Shall we dispense with and disparage every legal tactic or strategy that’s ever failed? I don’t think we can since all have failed from time to time.

      In any typical lawsuit that is litigated in court, one attorney wins and one loses. That means that lawyers who litigate and charge hundreds of dollars per hour, have an average failure rate of 50%. Can you imagine holding a job at McDonald’s at minimum wage if half the hamburgers you flipped, wound up on the floor? Attorneys paid hundreds of dollars per hour aren’t held to standards of success even remotely comparable to those of minimum wage people.

      My point is that it strikes me as unreasonable for attorneys (who will, on average, lose half of their cases; criminal defense attorneys will probably lose about 95% of their cases) to criticize some of the strategies that I’ve advocated and sometimes tested successfully as impossible, preposterous or wrong, wrong, wrong.

      I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree with my strategies, but given that they have sometimes succeeded, I also don’t expect anyone to obstinately dismiss those strategies as “wrong, wrong, wrong,” when there’s evidence that those strategies have, on occasion, worked.

      I’d bet that the probability of my strategies working is at least comparable to the probability that the “insanity defense” will work to excuse violent crimes. I don’t hear any licensed attorneys complaining that the insanity defense is wrong, wrong, wrong. You’ve got to be crazy to defend yourself with the insanity defense. Maybe you’ve also got to be crazy to try some of the strategies I’ve proposed. But in the final analysis, my proposed strategies have been proven to work–at least once in a while. In my opinion, those strategies at least deserve real consideration rather than blanket condemnation.

      The fact that someone who is highly educated doesn’t understand my strategies is not proof that the strategies are wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes, a lack of understanding simply points to my own inability to communicate my strategy clearly. Sometimes, a lack of understand simply points to someone else’s inability or refusal to understand.

      But, once in a while, a judge or prosecutor has seemingly understood my strategies well enough to simply stop proceedings against me. Given that some “highly educated” people do seem to understand my strategies, it’s unreasonable to simply dismiss those strategies as “very wrong”.

      No legal strategy, including my own, is “fool proof”. It’s unreasonable to demand that my strategies be “fool proof” when no other legal strategy meets the same criteria.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 7:27 PM

        @ My point is that it strikes me as unreasonable for attorneys (who will, on average, lose half of their cases; criminal defense attorneys will probably lose about 95% of their cases) to criticize some of the strategies that I’ve advocated and sometimes tested successfully as impossible, preposterous or wrong, wrong, wrong.

        Right right right.

        @ I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree with my strategies, but given that they have sometimes succeeded, I also don’t expect anyone to obstinately dismiss those strategies as “wrong, wrong, wrong,” when there’s evidence that those strategies have, on occasion, worked.

        Right right right. & on your entire message Right on.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 7:19 PM

      PLAPE
      @ I believe Colin made the point earlier that if your methods where fool proof they would be going mainstream in the legal system.

      I see it just the opposite. Alfred’s “methods” may not be “foolproof” but I think his “methods” are to risky for the powers that be to tackle. Short & sour, the legal system IS NOT a lawful system. This LEGAL system would be HURT & HURT BAD if they ALLOWED Alfred’s methods, as you call them to go mainstream. His “methods” may not break the Bank but his “methods” would sure drain it & I believe put them in a strain. You do not read everybody’s comments, do you?

       
      • Adask

        March 5, 2015 at 10:33 PM

        In court, nobody’s methods are foolproof. It’s a crapshoot every single time you litigate in court. That’s true for me and my methods and it’s true for licensed attorneys and their methods. One difference between my methods and those of licensed attorneys is that I make mine available for free, while the licensed attorneys make their methods available for hundreds of dollars per hour.

        Some may argue that when you get something for free, you get what you paid for. They might be right.

        Some say that 70% of the people in this country can’t afford to hire an attorney. What are they supposed to do? Simply accept whatever injustice they’ve suffered in this life because they’re not wealthy enough to hire a licensed attorney? Or should they look for some other strategy that might work but is affordable or even free?

        Or should they just say,

        “To Hell with it. I can’t afford an attorney. I can’t get justice in court. I think I’ll just load my 12 gauge shotgun and go shoot the S.O.B. who subjected me to this injustice”?

        If “the best legal system in the world” provides any justice, it doesn’t provide justice for poor people and even much of the middle class. I saw a report in the Texas Bar Journal back in the 1990s, that a Texas Bar funded survey concluded that 70% of the people of Texas could afford to hire an attorney. How can any “legal system” claim to be the world’s best or even pretty good, when the majority of the people can’t afford to access that system?

        Y’know what this country needs? MORE lawyers.

        Y’know what the Bar wants? LESS lawyers. Why does the Bar want LESS lawyers? Because that means less competition and higher fees for lawyers.

        Why does the Bar insist that you must go through high school, college and then law school before you can “licensed to steal”? All those requirements are imposed to reduce the numbers of lawyers in this country, reduce competition, and support high attorney fees.

        I’ll bet that virtually everyone who frequents this blog knows more about the law than the average American (who typically knows nothing). Why shouldn’t the readers of this blog (and others like it) be able to help someone in court who can’t afford a licensed attorney? The “system” insists that the poor are better off with no assistance of counsel whatsoever,

        Why shouldn’t the poor or middle class who can’t afford to hire a licensed attorney be allowed to hire somebody who’s not licensed but does know a little about defending against traffic tickets? Isn’t some counsel better than none? Just because you can’t afford to hire a licensed attorney, should you be prevented from hiring any “counsel”–even cheap or free counsel–to assist you with your case?

        Let’s suppose that those of you reading this blog (and others) learned enough about law to persuade some of your friends to hire you to provide them with counsel in their trial for a traffic ticket. It might be that you only charged your friends $25/hour for your counsel. (That would probably be less than an average attorney pays his paralegal per hour.) It would be chump change to lawyers who’d want several hundred dollars per hour to represent your friend.

        Would you win the case for your friend? Probably not.

        Would you LEARN a great deal about legal procedure from that case? Probably Yes. You might even learn that some of the ideas and possibilities you learned of on this blog are, as Colin says, nonsensical.

        But, if you really learned from your first defense of your friends for a traffic ticket, maybe you could persuade another friend (or maybe a friend of a friend) to hire you for another traffic ticket case. $25/hour. That’s not much, but it’s an earn-while-you-learn program. How many traffic tickets would you have to defend against before you won a case? How many traffic tickets would you have to defend against before you learned how to win on a regular basis? They’re only traffic tickets–how hard can they be?

        How many traffic tickets would you have to win before people heard that you worked cheap? How long before you could raise your charges from $25 per hour to $50 per hour?

        There are lots of people reading this blog who’d be delighted to make $25 or $50 per hour.

        How long before one of the people you’d won a traffic ticket for, takes a shine to you and asks that you handle his foreclosure case? Yes, you don’t know anything about foreclosure, but he trusts you and he insists, so why not dig into the relevant law and give it a shot?

        But who’d be upset? All of the licensed attorneys wanting to charge several hundred dollars an hour for their advice and representation. They’d be upset that you were taking business away from them. They’d be upset that you were working for $50 an hour and thereby dragging THEIR wages down.

        In theory, law is complex. In practice, it’s fairly simple. It’s like moving cattle into a slaughter-house. It’s a business. The objective is not to dispense justice, but to generate the maximum fees for lawyers in the minimum amount of time. How long do you suppose you’d have to hang around the “slaughter house” before you learn how it really works? Three years? Two years? Six months?

        Once you know how the slaughter-house really works, how hard would it be for you to keep many or even most of your customers from walking into that slaughter-house?

        You shouldn’t need a bar card to practice law in this country. All you should need is a little intelligence, a capacity to educate yourself and enough nerve to stand up and speak in court.

        The bar will insist that the bar card is necessary to keep the incompetent out of the profession. That’s a bunch of sanctimonious crap, of course.

        But if you want to public to have real confidence in their attorneys, why don’t we let the courts keep track of every win or loss by any attorney or law firm, and make that win-loss record available to the public? How long do you suppose that even a graduate of Harvard Law School could keep charging $250/hour if his win/loss record was 1 win out of the last 10 cases? How long could a license attorney stay in business if he promised to take your case to court and fight “like a tiger” for you, if his win/loss record shows that he only went to court in one case out of the past 200, while the other 199 were “settled” out of court with some plea bargain? Isn’t that evidence that you don’t need a $250/hour lawyer and instead need a $50/hour negotiator?

        And what if there was a public record that some kid who’d started out reading blogs like this one wound up winning 9 out of his last 10 traffic ticket cases? Would he attract a lot more business? Do you think that, given the choice between hiring some street kid who wins 90% of his cases and a Harvard graduate who has a bar card, but loses 80% of his cases, the public will go with the bar-card attorney rather than the kid with a strong win/loss record? I don’t.

        The win/loss record would be all we need to judge attorney “competence”.

        Attorneys don’t want their win/loss record known because it averages out to a 50% failure rate in cases that go to litigation. That means that that bar-card attorneys–who charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their advice and services–charge those fees for strategies that only work half the time (at best) and are therefore far from “fool proof”.

        It annoys me that lawyers, who have no “fool proof” strategies of their own, criticize the strategies I explore on this blog for also being less than “fool proof”–especially when these strategies have been seen to work a time or two.

         
      • PLAPE

        March 6, 2015 at 3:51 PM

        I read everyone, I am commenting on the ones where I disagree or need further information for clarification.

         
  24. palani

    March 5, 2015 at 2:28 PM

    “Working” is a highly subjective concept. What works? In EQUITY what is intended is that everyone lose. This works. In LAW what is intended is that the one with the most ‘right’ on his side wins the entire pot and the other side gets stuck with paying the court costs and other fees. EQUITY is female law (isn’t that obvious?) while LAW (aka Common Law) is stricter and patriarchal in nature.

    These days everyone is involved with EQUITY (Why? Because LAW requires substance.) Confusion over what ‘works’ and what doesn’t is confused because the target has shifted in EQUITY. EQUITY involves legal fictions to a much greater extent than LAW. You might be out there shipping 16 inch shells from the lawful equivalent of the Battleship Iowa and these shells absolutely have no effect on the illusion that you are contending with.

    Doubt this? Read Don Quixote again for the reasoning why he was tilting at windmills and the real world outcome.

     
  25. henry

    March 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM

    Colin, Are you still thinking about answering the – is the government your servant or master question? So far, your responses are based on that people that you think are smarter than you have not found a conflict so there must not be a conflict. You have not attempted to actually look at Al’s arguments directly. Let me show the conflict in plain English:

    1) You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law …

    2) You sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury.

    3) The information on a 1040 can be used against you in a court of law because you signed it under penalties of perjury.

    4) If you remain silent (not complete, sign, and file a 1040) you will be charged with willful failing to file.

    In theory, the US government is securing your rights but if you exercise those rights they put you in prison.

    My theory of how this happened is:

    a) You have been endowed with unalienable rights and governments are instituted to secure these rights.

    b) If you don’t assert a right, the courts will deem it that you waived the right.

    c) The laws, regulations, and procedures have been made so complicated that you cannot comprehend them. (Note: even though you have been to a prestigious law school, you have not tried to read and comprehend the law yourself. You call this inability to comprehend the law as being pragmatic.)

    d) You hire experts who specializes in this specialized knowledge.

    e) An attorney is an officer of the court. His first duty is to the court then to the Bar and then to you, the client.

    f) The court will take it that since you have hired an attorney, you are incompetent and should be treated as such.

    g) Your attorney will not represent you as a natural man who has unalienable rights but as a juristic person who has privileges because if he does, the judge will say that argument is frivolous and threaten him disbarment.

    h) Your are processed as a corporation is; that is, as a creation of the state who has no unalienable rights.

    This is how the servant has become the master. Your thoughts?

     
    • Colin

      March 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM

      So far, your responses are based on that people that you think are smarter than you have not found a conflict so there must not be a conflict.

      No, they aren’t. I don’t even understand what you’re saying here; it’s certainly not my belief about anything.

      You have not attempted to actually look at Al’s arguments directly.

      I think I have; Al’s arguments are wrong. They’re like the arguments about a gold fringe on the flag: unsupported by any facts, law, or logic. What is there to say other than to point out that the advocates of such theories are telling fun stories, but not actually performing any research that runs the risk of disconfirming those stories? Alfred has not set out any serious argument for inventing huge new imaginary jurisdictions, or any example of such an argument actually succeeding, or being taken seriously, in any case, court, treatise, statue, regulation, or any other source. His explanation is that it succeeds in secret, because the government doesn’t want to set a precedent. But that fails to take into account all the precedent showing that such arguments actually fail in court, and the fact that he doesn’t actually have evidence of such nonsense succeeding at all.

      It’s sort of like making the claim that English is a dialect of Russian. It’s wrong, there’s no good argument to support it, and you won’t find anyone who knows anything about language to agree with that position. You could create a fun, interesting speculative argument to support that statement, but it wouldn’t be true, or anywhere close to being true. And if you didn’t know anything about languages and were trying to find out whether the statement is true, you’d probably look to see if the statement is consistent with the facts you can find out for yourself. It isn’t, which is a very strong clue even to laypeople that the statement is bizarrely wrong. If someone refused to do such research, it would be an equally strong clue that whatever motivates them, they aren’t a good source for information about the subject.

      As for your numbered points, I think you’re taking broad points that sound like general legal principles and building an argument out of them, without addressing what the law actually says. You do not have the right to remain silent no matter what; for example, if you’re called to testify under subpoena, you will be subject to penalties if you don’t testify. You have a right not to incriminate yourself. Your tax return doesn’t do that, unless you write down that you made $500k smuggling cocaine or something. (And I think you actually CAN invoke your 5th Amendment right not to confess to a specific crime on your returns, although it’s obviously not common.) Simply reporting that you had income is not self-incriminating, because making money is neither illegal nor evidence of a crime unless it comes from criminal activity.

      a) You have been endowed with unalienable rights and governments are instituted to secure these rights.

      Sounds about right.

      b) If you don’t assert a right, the courts will deem it that you waived the right.

      Not necessarily. You can waive a right under certain circumstances; if you don’t vote, for example, I suppose you’ve waived it. But that doesn’t apply all the time, or to all rights. If you want to see when and how rights are waived, go to scholar.google.com and search legal cases for “waiver” and “5th Amendment” or similar search terms. Or search legal journals, which will give you scholarship summarizing the precedent.

      c) The laws, regulations, and procedures have been made so complicated that you cannot comprehend them.

      Some laws are hard to comprehend, including the tax law. But not all law, and I don’t think intentionally. It would be very easy to make the law more complicated. What I see here is people who actively resist trying to comprehend the law. People who stick their fingers in their ears when you say, “The definition of ‘person’ obviously includes human beings,” or “the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of race,” or “you aren’t in admiralty court just because the flag has a gold fringe.” What’s particularly interesting is how little interest people here have in taking free, online law classes from world-renowned legal experts. I think actual knowledge of what the law says would be very threatening to some cherished, but nonsensical, ideas in these parts.

      (Note: even though you have been to a prestigious law school, you have not tried to read and comprehend the law yourself. You call this inability to comprehend the law as being pragmatic.)

      I’m surprised that you would say so; I think I’ve cited specific legal sources much more thoroughly and readily than anyone else writing here. Can you identify anything I’ve not tried to read and comprehend? Because I notice you weren’t specific, which may be because this is something you want to be true, but can’t actually support.

      d) You hire experts who specializes in this specialized knowledge.

      Which is a good idea. If your breaker keeps blowing and you can’t figure out why, you hire an expert who specializes in this specialized knowledge, an electrician. It’s not because the secret conspiracy of wiring companies has secretly made electricity too complicated for people to understand, it’s because the subject is complicated and it’s too important to get wrong. A nation of hundreds of millions of people generates complicated laws, and most people would like an expert’s help in navigating those laws. I am nevertheless a big fan of efforts to make such knowledge and assistance more widely available, and more freely available. That’s why I support groups like the Access to Justice Foundation, and it’s why I keep recommending those free online law classes. You’d learn more actual facts from twenty minutes of those lectures than from a day full of reading the sort of fantasies bandied about here. (Which will result in mashing the big red “CONSPIRACY!” button, calling those lecturers government agents or gov-co conspirators or something. Actual knowledge is very threatening to people who have built their self-image on a counterfeit version of the same.)

      e) An attorney is an officer of the court. His first duty is to the court then to the Bar and then to you, the client.

      Hmmmmm. I think that’s mostly backwards, although there are definitely things you can’t do for clients, and lying to the court is one of them. So maybe that’s a higher duty to the court? I’d have to think about it. The bar association isn’t even in the list. Also it’s not usually capitalized, it’s just “the bar” or “the bar association.” (Even if you mean the abstract “bar,” as opposed to the association named after it.)

      f) The court will take it that since you have hired an attorney, you are incompetent and should be treated as such.

      Nope. But they’ll communicate with you through your attorney, since it would be manipulative to do otherwise. It would be unethical to bypass your attorney, since that would effectively be depriving you of counsel. For example, if the government wants to offer you a plea deal, and doesn’t want you to have a lawyer’s help in understanding it, they might want to go around that lawyer and talk to you directly. That would put you at a big disadvantage, so they can’t do it.

      g) Your attorney will not represent you as a natural man who has unalienable rights but as a juristic person who has privileges because if he does, the judge will say that argument is frivolous and threaten him disbarment.

      The judge would call that a frivolous argument because that is a frivolous argument. Individual human beings aren’t “juristic persons.” They’re just persons. And the court does deal with you, and every human being, as a “natural man who has unalienable rights.” Think the argument isn’t frivolous? Great, you’re entitled to your opinion. Please find an example of that argument succeeding in court. And if you can’t, what does that tell you? It tells you that no one’s afraid of such an argument, for one, because it doesn’t ever succeed (and there are lots of examples of it failing, which you can find at the TP FAQ). Which should tell you that it’s not a conspiracy to suppress the argument, the argument’s just wrong. And therefore, the people who are telling you it’s a brilliant ploy probably don’t know what they’re talking about.

      h) Your are processed as a corporation is; that is, as a creation of the state who has no unalienable rights.

      100% wrong. You are not processed as a corporation, or as a creation of the state, or as anyone or thing without unalienable rights. See answer above.

      This is how the servant has become the master. Your thoughts?

      Respectfully, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I appreciate that you’re in the process of learning. I hope that you’ll keep an open mind and go looking to see what happens when people try such arguments in court. If you want to actually learn how the law works, I suggest taking one of those online law classes. If not, why not?

       
      • henry

        March 6, 2015 at 6:22 PM

        Perhaps I missed some of your points in this debate. I will review it again over the weekend and respond.

        You seem to be knowledgeable and you communicate well but I think you are using sophistry to avoid difficult ideas. Others in this debate have posited detailed legal passages and have tried to create meaning out of the text. To this, you have tried to bend over backwards to avoid analyzing the passages yourself. You non-responsive response is that the smart people in the legal system have determined that the arguments are wrong but have not refuted the ideas, point for point. I have, for the most part, avoided the technical details and have tried to distill an obvious contradiction in words that an average person can comprehend. To this, you say that I am “taking broad points that sound like general legal principles and building an argument out of them, without addressing what the law actually says.” Most of the detailed arguments that others have made are built upon this contradiction. They are trying to determine the meaning because the experts refuse to do so.

        It appears to me that the legal profession is using the KICK ME principle (Keeping It Complicated Keeps Me Employed) to remove access to the law from the people. I’m not certain of this and your points on the electrical profession are well made. But still, the founding principle of the country is that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each man but, in the common experience of most people, the government acts like the people have privileges and some of those privileges have been revoked. The actual terms that they use is double speak.

        Accepting the ideas from institutions that avoid telling the truth (on-line law schools) as truth is problematic. The best that one can hope for is that they can learn how to lie better.

        I will address your comments, point by point on Sunday.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 11:33 PM

        Thanks for your preliminary response. I don’t understand it. If you think I’m committing acts of sophistry, please show me where. What I see is a constant failure of anyone to defend the fantasies they promote here; they recite them and sulk when I point out that there’s no evidentiary or logical support, then call me a secret agent. Or a sophist. Or a liar. But they never actually explain why they’re right, when their arguments are neither logical nor consistent with the facts. If you don’t want to let go of your ideas, go and study them—you don’t understand these issues well enough right now to put together a cogent argument. I don’t mean that to be dismissive, but rather an invitation to learn more. Conversations like this are one way that people learn more, so I also don’t mean for you to stop arguing with me. On the contrary, I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts.

        I’m also confused by your approach to education, though. You’re unhappy that the law is complicated, but you won’t take a free class from the country’s best universities because they teach lies? How on earth do you know what they teach? And how do you expect to put together a persuasive argument about legal matters if you can’t be bothered to learn anything about law? These conversations aren’t nothing, but you’ll never really understand how law works if you don’t study some mainstream sources. You’re going to have a hard time filtering out the wild nonsense from the merely unusual if you don’t have a baseline. You don’t need to agree with the mainstream perspective, but how serious can you possibly be about understanding these issues if you can’t be bothered to engage with the world outside these little crevices of the internet?

        Others in this debate have posited detailed legal passages and have tried to create meaning out of the text.

        Right. They try to create meaning, rather than trying to understand the meaning that is there. Which is fun, but pointless; someone can talk all you want about how gold-fringed flags mean the court is an admiralty court, but if the idea is wrong, then they’re wasting their time. And we can tell whether these ideas are wrong by looking at the evidence and the consensus of courts and legal scholars. If an argument doesn’t make logical sense, like Alfred’s MOOA idea, has a 100% failure rate in court like the gold-fringed flag idea, and/or relies on ignoring the plain text of the law like the argument that 14th Amendment only applies to black people, then that’s a strong clue that the meaning people are creating doesn’t actually come from the text. It comes from their desire for their conclusion to be true, not a careful analysis of whether it actually is true.

        To this, you have tried to bend over backwards to avoid analyzing the passages yourself.

        I don’t think so; I think I’ve had quite extensive conversations here in the last couple of threads alone about the meaning of tax laws, definitions, Constitutional amendments, and other passages. Did you have something specific in mind?

        You non-responsive response is that the smart people in the legal system have determined that the arguments are wrong but have not refuted the ideas, point for point.

        No, not “smart people.” I think the argument you’re referring to is that these weird notions fail, empirically, in court, and aren’t taken seriously by anyone who understands law. (And we can test who understands law by looking to see, inter alia, whether they can actually navigate the law effectively, by winning cases.) The point of that is not that smart people can’t be wrong. It’s that when someone says that a gold-fringed flag creates an admiralty court, we know he’s wrong. Unless we want to go all post-modern and say that law is whatever any one person wants to say it is, on some level law is what the consensus of the people say it is, through their political representatives and courts. People here aren’t just claiming that it would be interesting if the 14th Amendment were held to only apply to black people, they’re arguing that it does only apply to black people, and that a court could conceivably agree with them. But those arguments are almost all so bizarrely off-base that in fact it’s not conceivable, which we can test by looking to see how consistently they fail when courts consider them.
        It’s fair to say that a statement about the law that has no support among courts or legislators or historians or scholars or experts is wrong. It’s also perfectly understandable that some people will disagree with that consensus, as is their right; people love to believe strange and unusual things. What they want to be the law is a totally subjective question. What the law is is more objective, if not entirely all the way there, because those arguments will either succeed or fail. If the argument is guaranteed to fail, we can say confidently that it’s wrong. And if the argument has never succeeded in court, and/or is so logically flawed that no rational judge could find merit in it, we can confidently say it’s guaranteed to fail. (Alfred likes to say that every motion could succeed, but this isn’t actually true in practice; try filing a motion declaring yourself President of the United States of America, and see how often it succeeds.)

        I have, for the most part, avoided the technical details and have tried to distill an obvious contradiction in words that an average person can comprehend.

        OK, but an “obvious contradiction” is not the same thing as an actual contradiction, or even an actual argument. Take your idea that people are “processed as a corporation,” for example. What? Where’s the evidence for that, or even the argument for it? Or the master/servant thing. Why is it impossible for the government to be both “master” and “servant”? If all that means is that sometimes we have to obey the government and sometimes the government has to obey us, that’s obviously the case. The government has to step down when we vote them out of office; we have to pay taxes when they’re imposed. That’s been the case since the Constitution was first drafted, granting powers to the government that apply to the people the government serves.

        It appears to me that the legal profession is using the KICK ME principle (Keeping It Complicated Keeps Me Employed) to remove access to the law from the people.

        If we are, we’re doing a terrible job of it. Law is more accessible to non-lawyers than it has been in generations. You can, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, take free classes at home from the top legal scholars of our day. And there is an embarrassment of riches in the form of access to books about law, documentaries about law, legal assistance apps, foundations paying for legal advice, podcasts, blogs, all kinds of good stuff. If you want a basic primer, jump on Amazon and look up a “hornbook” or basic summary of a field of law. If you want something really complex and cutting-edge, you can read articles from the top law reviews and legal journals for free online. If you aren’t taking advantage of this material, whose fault is it? How are lawyers keeping you from taking classes to learn what lawyers know?

        Accepting the ideas from institutions that avoid telling the truth (on-line law schools) as truth is problematic.

        You’re the only person keeping you ignorant, by creating excuses not to learn. If you talk yourself into believing that all the world’s lawyers and scholars and experts must be lying in order not to see what you see, you’ll never be able to come to grips with whether your ideas are actually true. Because you’re not testing them, you’re assuming they’re true and constructing excuses not to broaden your horizons. You’re obviously a smart guy, you can do a lot better than this. But you’re going to have to put your preconceptions on the table, sooner or later.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 8:56 AM

        henry says
        @ This is how the servant has become the master. Your thoughts?

        Colin replies,
        Respectfully, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Justice James Wilson says,
        I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.

        In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of Government. In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in the affairs of men: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded.

        Like, we are not men, but animals? Could this be an example of what Justice Wilson meant? Well it looks to me like he did know what he was talking about,

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 12, 2015 at 10:31 AM

      henry
      @ Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law …

      Seems like some folks don’t see what is really said. ANYTHING ! So there is not ANYTHING we can say to help us. I believe what is truly meant IS, Anything you say will be used against you in any lawless court.

       
  26. PLAPE

    March 6, 2015 at 3:54 PM

    @Nat Stuckey I tried to reply direct to your question, but it went under Al’s. Operator error I guess. Anyways I do read each reply and respond when I disagree or would like more information on an point I failed to grasp.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 9:28 PM

      PLAPE,
      Thank you for your reply.
      Re: @ Nat Stuckey I tried to reply direct to your question, but it went under Al’s. Operator error

      I do not know what this means & there’s not any need to explain, but, I would like to know, if you have the answer, why do you think this happened??

       
  27. timmy

    March 6, 2015 at 10:03 PM

    Al, let’s keep in mind in the system you must have a LICENSE to serve as legal counsel. Of course, that’s a privilege, not a right. Perhaps in this case, a very limited privilege granted to the chosen few so they can profit from it. I’ve seen up close and personal, it’s a very “good ol’boys” system, where the judges and attorneys and cops and bureaucrats are all quite cozy and friendly with each other, while defendants come and go, just like in your ‘slaughterhouse’ analogy. It’s a little disconcerting to see your defense counsel laughing and joking with the DA in the hall.

    I’d love to hear Colin’s thoughts on a couple of things:

    1 when Johnny Cochran (who I met once) posed the question to the court at the start of the OJ trial “What is the nature of the person you are seeking?” or something similar. Why would he do that? And OJ ended up getting off, when he was clearly guilty. Although we all know verdicts are wrong, going both ways, quite often.

    2 Why did the gold fringed flag proliferate, now even down to cop and military uniforms, if it doesn’t mean anything at all? Who would push that change and why? I’m not saying I buy the argument; it just smells funny as a thing…

    3 Can give any tips to help me break a non-compete (limited, but no consideration included in it)?? A former client (which is to say asshole) is screwing me out of monies well earned and owed me. I want to do some business that could be limited by the non com; it would only be similar and NOT use any of his proprietary info, etc.

     
    • Colin

      March 7, 2015 at 12:17 AM

      Perhaps in this case, a very limited privilege granted to the chosen few so they can profit from it.

      Not so limited; law schools are cranking out so many lawyers these days that the labor market is melting down. Those lucky enough to go to top firms can still make a ton of money, although the oversupply of eager replacements tends to make their lives miserable. Those who don’t get lucky hardly profit; lots of schools are producing large classes of lawyers every year who can’t get jobs in the law.

      I’ve seen up close and personal, it’s a very “good ol’boys” system, where the judges and attorneys and cops and bureaucrats are all quite cozy and friendly with each other, while defendants come and go, just like in your ‘slaughterhouse’ analogy. It’s a little disconcerting to see your defense counsel laughing and joking with the DA in the hall.

      I can absolutely understand how that would make you feel. If I were a defendant, I would want that defense attorney, though (assuming they were otherwise competent and aggressive). I’d want someone who knows the DA, could negotiate a good plea if I chose to make one, and could better predict the prosecution’s moves. I’ve seen the system from the inside too, and never seen attorneys opposite each other cut secret deals against their clients’ interests. I’m sure it happens from time to time, but it’s not common—it would be a huge scandal, and no one wants to sacrifice their career for the sake of chumminess. But given the rather paranoid atmosphere here, and the questionable optics, like I said, I can easily understand how that would make you feel.

      1 when Johnny Cochran (who I met once) posed the question to the court at the start of the OJ trial “What is the nature of the person you are seeking?” or something similar. Why would he do that? And OJ ended up getting off, when he was clearly guilty. Although we all know verdicts are wrong, going both ways, quite often.

      Can you give me a direct quote, and some context? Without that, how can I answer your question? Yes, I think OJ was probably guilty. Juries do sometimes make bad decisions.

      2 Why did the gold fringed flag proliferate, now even down to cop and military uniforms, if it doesn’t mean anything at all? Who would push that change and why? I’m not saying I buy the argument; it just smells funny as a thing…

      I don’t know. As far as I know, there’s no strict requirement for it. My best guess is that borders are useful on a flag that isn’t actually flying, to help it stand out from the background (and from itself, when it’s hanging in an indoor environment where there’s no wind to make it unfurl, so it’s draped against itself). Without it, a flag patch wouldn’t jump out as easily on a uniform, and a flag on a pole would look more like a jumble of stripes and stars folded up against each other. A gold border sets off the edges, looks snazzy and respectful, and has become pretty traditional. Just my guess.

      3 Can give any tips to help me break a non-compete (limited, but no consideration included in it)?? A former client (which is to say asshole) is screwing me out of monies well earned and owed me. I want to do some business that could be limited by the non com; it would only be similar and NOT use any of his proprietary info, etc.

      Nope. Sorry. Put my licenses on hold when I changed jobs, and it’d be unethical to give legal advice like this without them. Reactivating them would cost a fee and I’d have to sign up for a bunch of CLE classes (inactive license don’t have the same continuing ed requirements). Sorry. In any event, to be of any help I’d need to ask a bunch of personal questions like where you live, what you do, your work history, etc., that you shouldn’t answer publicly. See if there’s an attorney in your area who will do a free consult. The local bar association can help you find one, or there are search tools online. Bring a copy of the agreement to show them if there is one, and if it’s oral let them know that as well. Do mention that there was no consideration, although they might disagree with you depending on the facts. (Sometimes consideration isn’t obvious.)

      Another option would be a legal clinic, run out of law schools. Sort of like getting your hair cut by a barber college I guess, but the clinical professors review their students’ work, and those guys and gals tend to be very experienced and good. I’d go to a clinic myself if I had a similar problem and there was an appropriate clinic in my area. Check the local law schools to find out.

      If you can’t find or afford an attorney, there are probably some decent online self-help guides for non-competes. Just make sure you find one for your state, because the rules are different in different states. Remember these things don’t go to court all that often, so negotiation can be the best strategy. You’d want to go into the negotiation knowing your rights, but not threatening the other side with them if you want an amicable deal. Good luck with it!

       
      • timmy

        March 7, 2015 at 9:13 AM

        Thanks Colin. For some reason this thing doesn’t seem to put the responses right under the relevant comment, even though it seems like it will.

         
  28. Harry

    March 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM

    Colin, in regard to my question #5 you answered no. You wrote: “It is going to require a lot more work to convince people that an EXCHANGE of labor for value [money] is conversion, in the sense that you mean.” Employment is more than a simple exchange of labor for money because eligibility for many benefits is included under the term of employment.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines an exchange to be a contract by terms of which specific property is given in consideration of the receipt of property, other than money.

    To “employ” you under the terms of employment (the terms are employer/employee – master/servant) to mow my yard is to make USE of you and to make USE of you is to CONVERT you to my service as a human resource for the time you are mowing my yard.

    As I said, laboring under the terms of employment is not an equal exchange of labor for money because under the terms of employment you are being favored with eligibility for many other benefits besides your wages – schools for you children, unemployment compensation, credit cards, workman’s compensation, banking, social security, medical aid, government loans, grants, driver’s license, deducting your children on your taxes and on and on. These benefits are the favors I am talking about, not the favors you mentioned.

    You can’t just enjoy all these benefits without paying your fair share of the cost of government to provide them and so you are obligated and bound to contribute (pay the tribute tax). It will come out of your wages before you ever see it. You have to contribute in order to avoid unjust enrichment which is not allowed. When you pay your taxes you are “returning” something that is not your. You can’t return something to someone that is your, can you?

    When you undertake to be employed under the terms of employment you become eligible for benefits and by your action of applying for and accepting a SS number in order to be employed and eligible for the benefits, you have an implied promise to pay what in good conscience you are bound to pay. If you do not pay you are guilty of unjust enrichment. Think Assumpsit.

    Did we make a mistake by applying for a social security number? Perhaps. What should one do when they realize they made a mistake?
    .

     
    • Colin

      March 6, 2015 at 11:54 PM

      Black’s Law Dictionary defines an exchange to be a contract by terms of which specific property is given in consideration of the receipt of property, other than money.

      It also defines exchange as “to barter or swap,” which would include an exchange of labor for money. If you were using the 6th ed., you had to go about five definitions down to find one that excludes money. So why pick one particular definition that doesn’t fit the context or common usage? That’s my point about what another poster called “patriot Babel.” If you want to define a word in a very particular way, especially one that doesn’t match how it was used, explain why that one very particular reading is the right one.

      To “employ” you under the terms of employment (the terms are employer/employee – master/servant) to mow my yard is to make USE of you and to make USE of you is to CONVERT you to my service as a human resource for the time you are mowing my yard.

      OK. That’s a very strange way to put it, and I don’t see the point of constructing such a careful and unnatural phrasing, but you can use words however you like.

      You can’t just enjoy all these benefits without paying your fair share of the cost of government to provide them and so you are obligated and bound to contribute (pay the tribute tax). It will come out of your wages before you ever see it. You have to contribute in order to avoid unjust enrichment which is not allowed.

      I guess I can see this as a philosophical argument, but as a statement of the law it’s wrong. Your obligation to pay taxes arises from the statutes imposing a tax, not from a theory of unjust enrichment. If you lived in a bubble and never consumed any public service whatsoever, you’d still owe tax on any significant income.

      When you pay your taxes you are “returning” something that is not your. You can’t return something to someone that is your, can you?

      Do you mean tax returns? The “return” is the information you send back, not the taxes themselves. I always assumed it was called a “return” because originally the government had to send you the forms, and you’d fill them in and return them. Not so?

      When you undertake to be employed under the terms of employment you become eligible for benefits and by your action of applying for and accepting a SS number in order to be employed and eligible for the benefits, you have an implied promise to pay what in good conscience you are bound to pay.

      I guess maybe as a matter of philosophy, but I’m no philosopher. As I’ve said, I’m a pragmatist. The obligation to pay taxes arises from statutes authorized by the Constitution and passed by Congress, not a general obligation to repay a benefit in the form of public services. And the obligation to have a SS number comes from the statutory requirement to use it as an identifying number when paying those taxes, not some symbolic act of agreement to repay anything. I can point you to the specific statutes if you like, although I think I’ve also cited them above or in the other thread.

      If you do not pay you are guilty of unjust enrichment. Think Assumpsit.

      No, if you do not pay you are guilty of tax evasion. Can you find any case where a defendant was accused or convicted of “unjust enrichment” for failing to file or pay taxes? If not, where’s your evidence for this very odd assumption?

      Did we make a mistake by applying for a social security number?

      No, because if you have a job you have taxes to pay, and by law you have to have a SS number to pay them. To do otherwise would be to evade a lawful obligation, which (at least in my mind) would be unethical and immoral. I realize that a lot of people here disagree, perhaps conveniently if it lets them feel good about not paying taxes.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 8, 2015 at 12:35 AM

        My dear Colin,
        One of many reasons some people do not want to be associated with & called a,”Taxpayer” is simply because of what the I.R.S. does with the “Tax Dollars”. They do not want to contribute to crap like the following.

        By, Johnny Paycheck,
        You want to know why? Cause they just blow it. Hell you could take what they spend studying the sex habits of the South American Swamp Rat and keep us all in beer for the next hundred years. They are blood suckers. Did you ever see Dracula in a grey flannel suit? Look up, you will.

         
  29. timmy

    March 7, 2015 at 9:18 AM

    Btw, I can afford to hire an attorney. As a matter of fact, I have one on retainer now for another matter. But I always hate to, lol. Just sayin’.

    A friend is a young partner at Gibson, Dunn out of LA. He does corporate litigation defense. Makes over a million a year…

     
  30. Harry

    March 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Colin, a tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt, it is a contribution owed by individuals who are employees working for an employer…

    A contribution is the sharing of a loss or payment among several. Agree?

    I go out any purchase a pizza and bring it your hotel room and we eat that pizza. If you give me half of the cost of the pizza that is a contribution. Of course I did not expect you to contribute because I like you and my intention was to give you half of the pizza as a gift or act of absolute charity. The government does not give gifts, it offers benefits for which those who apply for and accept them are obligated to contribute to the cost to provide them. To not pay would be unjust enrichment. at the expense of those who do contribute.

    A gift is a voluntary transfer of something without consideration. It is a parting by the owner with something without pecuniary consideration . A tax is a pecuniary contribution. Ther is no such thing as a “free mean” when it come to the government.

    Protection and service/benefits cost money and each one of the whole of the persons enjoying the protection and benefits is bound to contribute his assessed fair share of the joint tax liability. What I am suggesting is that the basis or foundation on which the statute stands is the Maxim of law that prohibits anyone to be unjustly enriched at the expense of others.

    To contribute is to discharge one persons share of a joint obligation.

    The individual working under the terms of employment with a social security number is favored by iligibility to enjoy future benefits and he ought to pay his fair share of the cost to government to provide these future and present benefits he is and will be enjoying.

    The individual taxpayer is bound to contribute his fair share of the joint social security employee taxpayer contribution obligation. As I said, a “tax” is a pecuniary contribution and shall be made by the persons LIABLE for the support of government that provides the SS benefits. The question is: Who are these persons liable and how did they become liable?

    The laws that you appeal to are not universal. Most laws differentiate in some fashion between classes of persons. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not forbid classifications. It simply keeps governmental decision makers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike. Only persons who are social security taxpayer are bound to pay the tax and I am suggesting that begging for a SS number is the voluntary act that makes you an individual in the class of individuals that are liable to return your portion of class of individuals’ joint tax obligation. You obligation is implied at law and that is what the statute is based on, in my opinion. if not what is it based on?

    Your idea that the word “return” on the 1040 tax forms means to return the information, not the taxes themselves is a bit silly and it may me smile. It is a TAX return, not an information return.

    Yes, if you do not pay (contribute your fair share) of the taxes, if convicted you will be guilty of tax evasion, but on what grounds is tax evasion based? Why is tax evasion a crime? Answer: because not contributing is evidence of unjust enrichment i.e. enjoying employment and benefits of employment without contributing your fair share of the cost to provide the benefits of employment.

    You are only looking at the surface (tax evasion) without looking below the surface at the basis or foundation on which tax evasion being a crime stands or falls.

    You said, … if you have a job you have taxes to pay, and by law you have to have a SS number to pay them.

    To say that you have to have a SS number in order to file a tax return and pay taxes might be true but that is not saying that every body has to have a SS number in order to work. You need one in order to be employed under the terms of employment and to file a return and pay the tax, but no body is required by law to apply for and obtain a SS number in order to commence work for some one. Do we not have the inherent right to work?

    If I recall, Title VIII Taxes are impose with respect to EMPLOYMENT, income tax on EMPLOYEES not on men or women who meerly commence to work. Every body has a indefeasible right to work to support his family. I believe sec. 811 states that when used in this title the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an EMPLOYEE for his EMPLOYER ….” That is fairly specific.

    In the C.F.R. sec. 422.1(ii) it reads: Any person who WISHES to file an APPLICATION for an account number MAY (not must) do so by filing Form SS-5.

    In 20 C.F.R. sec. 422.103 (b) APPLYING for a number – (1) Form SS-5. An individual NEEDING a social security number MAY APPLY for one by filing a signed form SS-5 APPLICATION for a Social Security Number Card, at any social security office and submitting the required evidence.

    The EVIDENCE is required but the applying for the number is not. At least that is how I read it.

    Who NEEDS a social security number? Those men and women who want to work under the terms of EMPLOYMENT and the terms of employment are “employee” and “employer.”

    Do you need a SS-number to open a bank account? If you think you do then please produce the so called law make such requirement. I am not saying that such a lawdoes not exist but I am suggesting that you need to do what you are asking everyone else to do – bring forth the evidence to support you idea that every body needs a SS-number to open a bank account, if you believe a SS number is required by law to do so.

    On one hand you say that unjust enrichment has nothing to do with tax evasion. Then, on the other hand you say that evading taxes would be evading a lawful OBLIGATION which would be unethical and immoral. By saying this you are agreeing with me that the basis of a conviction of tax evasion is based on unjust enrichment at the expense of others who pay their fair share of the joint OBLITATION. An employee/person ought to make his contribution because he voluntarily bond himseld to do so.

    My position is not a matter of philosophy. I agree that the OBLIGATION to pay taxes arises from statutes passed by Congress and I am suggesting the statute’s obligation to pay is based on a promise or contract IMPLIED by law and it is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the taxpayer to pay what, in good conscience, he is BOUND to pay. The employee binds himself by applying for SS benefits under the terms of employment.

    What type of action is filed to recover unpaid taxes? I do not know. I am asking you.

    The code is only prima facie or legal evidence of the law which as such acquires the force and effect of the law on the class of persons on which the law relates or applies. Universal language like all persons must file a tax return is to be taken as a matter of course to mean only all persons in the “class of persons” liable to the act or law, not all that the legislature can catch.

    By the way it is my understanding that the action of assumpsit differs form trespass and trover, which are founded on a tort, not upon a contract implied or express. To me the bases of the tax is a contract or promise that is implied by law If I recall you mentioned something about assumpsit relating to torts.

    I have to get to work. Have fun with this Colin. I too enjoy our friendly conversation.

    I stand to be corrected, but is seem to me that you are just passing your opinion for the most part, which you are entitled to do. But, we need to see some evidence on which you base your opinion.

    I agree that that some persons are obligatied to pay taxes and that there are statutes imposing those taxes. What I am asking you to produce is the basis in law on which those taxes are imposed in these statutes. I am suggesting these statutes are based on a contract or promise to pay implied at law that creates an obligation to pay and binds the employee to do so, or else. I could be mistaken about this, but what do you suggest to be the basis on which such taxes are imposed in such statutes?

    I must go, sunny day and snow melting.

     
    • Colin

      March 8, 2015 at 8:19 PM

      Hi Harry,

      Can you help me understand your position? It’s not clear whether you mean that nonpayment of taxes would be “unjust enrichment” as a general philosophical or political matter, or whether you mean that literally people who don’t pay their taxes are charged with unjust enrichment. I disagree with them both, but for different reasons, and I’d like to understand your perspective better.

      As a general matter, I don’t think that “unjust enrichment” is the appropriate term because, as you’ve suggested, it entails a relatively explicit quid pro quo has been violated. If that were the logic behind taxation, people who don’t consume public goods (or consume less of them) would not be or would be less liable for taxes. That’s not the case, and has never been the case at any point in history to my knowledge. It’s a pretty subjective question, though.

      If you mean that people who don’t pay their taxes are guilty of “unjust enrichment,” that’s a more objective question. It depends a bit on the circumstances, but generally nonpayment of taxes falls under 26 USC 7203. That section spells out the crime and its elements pretty clearly, and they aren’t the elements of an “unjust enrichment” claim. Which is no surprise, as UE is a tort, not a criminal offense—you don’t go to jail for torts. (Although the same conduct can generate both a tort claim and a criminal indictment.) If you do mean that tax evasion is a matter of unjust enrichment, then that’s demonstrably incorrect both because the criminal count isn’t a tort claim and because its elements don’t match those of unjust enrichment. It doesn’t matter how carefully you string along definitions, the law spells out the offense in a way that’s incompatible with an unjust enrichment theory.

      Yes, if you do not pay (contribute your fair share) of the taxes, if convicted you will be guilty of tax evasion, but on what grounds is tax evasion based? Why is tax evasion a crime? Answer: because not contributing is evidence of unjust enrichment i.e. enjoying employment and benefits of employment without contributing your fair share of the cost to provide the benefits of employment.

      No, this is incorrect. If the basis of the criminality was unjust enrichment, the crime would reflect the elements of a UE claim. It doesn’t. The offense is statutory in nature, and the basis of the statute is simply the government’s police powers to enforce the tax. So it doesn’t matter whether or not you consume the public services paid for with taxes—the government has the power to impose a tax, and therefore the power to punish those who unlawfully refuse to pay it. If you disagree, I’d love to see some support for your position.

      To say that you have to have a SS number in order to file a tax return and pay taxes might be true but that is not saying that every body has to have a SS number in order to work.

      I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I think it’s a moot point, since if you’re working you’re going to have taxes, and there is a law saying you have to have a SS number to file & pay your taxes.

      If I recall, Title VIII Taxes are impose with respect to EMPLOYMENT, income tax on EMPLOYEES not on men or women who meerly commence to work.

      If you’re receiving income, you’re subject to the income tax. If you’re receiving income in exchange for your labor, you’re subject to employment taxes. Unless you’re an independent contractor or otherwise self-employed, in which case you pay basically the same taxes in a slightly different form.

      As I said, a “tax” is a pecuniary contribution and shall be made by the persons LIABLE for the support of government that provides the SS benefits. The question is: Who are these persons liable and how did they become liable?

      They earned wages, defined as “all remuneration … for services performed by an employee for his employer.” “Employee” is read broadly in the usual sense of the word—if you work for someone else, you’re an employee (citation to the TP FAQ, which collects cases explaining how broad the definition is).

      The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not forbid classifications.

      True—there’s a huge body of caselaw setting forth the various tests for whether such classifications are permissible, from strict scrutiny down to rational basis. But I don’t see the relevance.

      Only persons who are social security taxpayer are bound to pay the tax and I am suggesting that begging for a SS number is the voluntary act that makes you an individual in the class of individuals that are liable to return your portion of class of individuals’ joint tax obligation.

      Factually incorrect. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve ever asked for a SS number. If you received money in exchange for work, you are a SS taxpayer. See 26 USC 3101, which imposes the tax on every employee, and cases like Turner that show how broad the definition of “employee” is: “the term employee refers to every individual who performs services at the direction or control of another.” 86 AFTR2d 2000. Or Latham, 754 F.2d 747: “Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

      Your idea that the word “return” on the 1040 tax forms means to return the information, not the taxes themselves is a bit silly and it may me smile. It is a TAX return, not an information return.

      This is also obviously factually wrong. The tax payment itself isn’t called a “tax return.” The “tax return” is the form you send to the government, probably called a “return” because you used to get it from, then return it to the IRS. You can look the definition up for yourself; I found plenty of sources identifying the return as the document or the information on it, and not one identifying it as the tax payment itself: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxreturn.asp Do you check your ideas to see whether they’re true, or just declare them and shut your ears to any contrary information?

      Do you need a SS-number to open a bank account?

      I don’t know.

      Then, on the other hand you say that evading taxes would be evading a lawful OBLIGATION which would be unethical and immoral. By saying this you are agreeing with me that the basis of a conviction of tax evasion is based on unjust enrichment at the expense of others who pay their fair share of the joint OBLITATION.

      Here’s where I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean as a general philosophical matter it’s unethical not to pay taxes when you use public roads, etc., then sure, we agree. But if you mean that’s actually the doctrinal basis for the crime of tax evasion, that’s wrong—the statute is down in the books for everyone to see, and it’s got nothing to do with the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. It’s just an exercise of the police power.

      An employee/person ought to make his contribution because he voluntarily bond himseld to do so.

      Only if by “voluntarily bound” you mean “had a job, or otherwise received money.”

      I am suggesting the statute’s obligation to pay is based on a promise or contract IMPLIED by law and it is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the taxpayer to pay what, in good conscience, he is BOUND to pay.

      I don’t think this is right—the statute isn’t based on any such reciprocity as far as I can tell. It’s not in the law, at least. If this were the basis of the crime, then to prove the crime the government would have to prove they abided by such a contract. They don’t, because there’s no contractual element (or pseudocontractual element) to the crime at all.

      The employee binds himself by applying for SS benefits under the terms of employment.

      No. There’s no law or case or treatise or any other source supporting this notion, and plenty—as I’ve cited above and elsewhere—completely contradicting it.

      What type of action is filed to recover unpaid taxes? I do not know. I am asking you.

      I think a civil action under 26 USC 6321, imposing a lien in the amount of tax owed (plus penalties under other provisions). I’ve never handled such a case so I’m not positive, but after browsing the code I think this is the right provision.

      Universal language like all persons must file a tax return is to be taken as a matter of course to mean only all persons in the “class of persons” liable to the act or law, not all that the legislature can catch.

      Great, but in this case that “class of persons” has been determined to be pretty large, including everyone who receives money.

      I stand to be corrected, but is seem to me that you are just passing your opinion for the most part, which you are entitled to do. But, we need to see some evidence on which you base your opinion.

      See the code provisions and cases cited above. If you disagree, I’d like to see similar citations supporting your arguments.

      I am suggesting these statutes are based on a contract or promise to pay implied at law that creates an obligation to pay and binds the employee to do so, or else. I could be mistaken about this, but what do you suggest to be the basis on which such taxes are imposed in such statutes?

      You are mistaken. The statutes are based on the government’s power to impose taxes, not an explicit contract. See the code provisions I cited above, plus cases showing how broad the definition of “employee” is. There is a reason no one has ever won a court case with the theory that the tax statutes are based on a contract…

      I must go, sunny day and snow melting.

      Same here! It was a lovely warmish day, I hope for both of us.

       
      • Harry

        March 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM

        Colin, again thanks for the conversation.

        You wrote: “If that (quid pro quo) were the logic behind taxation, people who don’t consume public goods (or consume less of them) would not be or would be less liable for taxes. That’s not the case, and has never been the case at any point in history to my knowledge”

        I do not think it is a matter of whether one enjoys the benefits or not but rather that he could enjoy them – i.e.he is illegible to enjoy them,

        When you check in to a hotel you rate is based on all the services that are available to you. You know a pool, exercise equipment, free breakfast etc. The cost of your room reflects the cost to the management to make all these perks available to you. When you check out you can’t deduct a portion of your bill because you did not use the pool or other extras available to you. You have to pay the full rate because you could have use the pool and the rule is that everyone is presumed to ASSENT to what is useful to him..

        It is the employee’s conduct (in applying for the benefit of social security employment) that raises the assumption that he will do what is in point of law just and right; for 1st, it is to be PRESUMED that no one desires to enrich himself at the expense of another; and 2nd, it is a RULE that he who desires the antecedent, must abide by the consequent; as, if you receive a newspaper sent to your house daily without orders, and you use it without objection, you are presumed to have accepted the terms upon which the person sending it had in contemplation, that you should pay a fair price for it; and 3rd, it is also a RULE that every one is PRESUMED to ASSENT to what is useful to him. See: assent.

        Assumpsit is not a matter of contract or tort but rather quasi-contract or restitution. The gist of an action in assumpsit, if it can be called an action, is the promise, and it must be averred.

        You wrote that “unjust enrichment is a tort, not a criminal offense — you don’t go to jail for torts.”

        You don’t go to jail for not paying your debts either, do you? Do we have debtors prison? You can go to prison for not paying your taxes though. This is because taxes are NOT debts, but rather contributions that taxpayers have promised to pay.

        You wrote, “If the basis of the criminality was unjust enrichment, the crime would reflect the elements of a UE claim. It doesn’t.

        What are the elements of a UE claim?.

        The offense is satutory in nature, and the basis of the statute is simply the government’s police powers to enforce the tax. So it doesn’t matter whether or not you consume the public services paid for with taxes –the government has the power to impose a tax and therefore the power to punish those who unlawfully refuse to pay it. If you disagree, I’d love to see some support for your position.

        If the government has the power to enforce the tax then what is the basis of the police power to enforce the tax? The basis is:

        (1) the presumption that no one wishes to enrich himself at the expense of another

        (2) the rule that he who desires the benefits must abide by the consequences

        (3) and finally, the rule that every one is presumed to assent to what is useful to him.

        You say if it is true that not everybody must have a SS number it is a MOOT point because you think that “if you are working you’re going to have taxes, and there is a law saying you have to have a SS number to file and pay your taxes.”

        Well, if it is true that applying for and securing a SS number and card is not mandatory and IF it also is true that there is a law that says you have to have a SS number to file and pay your taxes then that certainly is not a MOOT point.

        No SS number no tax. If there was still a tax and if no one can pay the tax without a SS number then everyone would be required to apply for and secure a SS number and that just is not the case. If you think every one must apply for and secure a SS number then please point that out to me, because I have never seen it.

        My mother’s uncle was refused to apply for a social security number. He operated a feed mill and never paid any FICA tax. He was a wealthy man and owned many properties. When he was failing in health his children found out he did not have a SS account and could not apply for benefits. However, they allowed him to apply for a number so he could get medicare. I do not know if he ever got a SS check. I doubt is because he never paid the tax. I will try to find out.

        You wrote: “It doesn’t matter whether you’ve ever asked for a SS number. If you received money in exchange for work, you are a SS taxpayer.

        How can that be? How can a man who has no SS number be a SS taxpayer? How could he pay such tax when you said he can’t pay the tax without a SS account number?

        You said, “See 26 USC 3101, which imposes the tax on every EMPLOYEE, and cases like Turner that show how broad the definition of “employee” is.: “the term employee refers to every individual who performs services at the direction or control of another.” And just what would you call the “another” who directs and controls “employee?” How about “employer.”

        An individual who performs services at the direction or control of another is an “employee” who has a SS number. and the one who controls him is his “employer.”

        What about a man who merely commences to work for another man? What is the legal test that proves an individual is under the control of another? The test would be: IS the individual in an employee/employer relationship? If I just commence to mow your yard for you, I am not under your direction or control. You cannot direct me and control me as I commence to mow your yard as an employer could direct and control his employees..

        If one is by definition an “employee” then he is engaged in employment and that is MORE than just “being hired to commence work.” See: ENGAGED IN EMPLOYMENT in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, pg 622.

        What is the definition of “Federal personnel?” Isn’t an SS employee considered to federal personnel? See: 5 USC 552A (a)(13)

        .

         
      • Colin

        March 9, 2015 at 7:40 PM

        It is the employee’s conduct (in applying for the benefit of social security employment) that raises the assumption…

        None of this is relevant to whether someone is liable to pay tax. I get that you’re working through some ideas about how law works, but you’re creating castles in the air. The statute imposes a tax, and sets out criteria under which that tax applies. None of it has to do with anything you’re discussing. In fact, you don’t have to have applied for a SS number to be liable under the tax. You need a number to pay it, but you owe it even if you’ve never requested a number.

        Do you have any cases, statutes, or any other sort of authority that support your idea that applying for a social security number is a prerequisite for being liable under the tax? I’m not aware of any, and the statutes don’t set out any such requirement. You’re describing what you think the law might theoretically be, not what it actually is. And your theories aren’t based in any actual facts.

        Assumpsit is not a matter of contract or tort but rather quasi-contract or restitution. The gist of an action in assumpsit, if it can be called an action, is the promise, and it must be averred.

        Assumpsit is not a crime, and you don’t go to jail for violating a quasi-contract. These words have nothing to do with tax liability, which is why you haven’t been able to find any actual cases connecting these concepts.

        You don’t go to jail for not paying your debts either, do you?

        You can, if nonpayment of the specific debt is a crime. You can go to jail for not paying child support, or fines you’ve been sentenced to pay, or indeed, your taxes.

        You wrote, “If the basis of the criminality was unjust enrichment, the crime would reflect the elements of a UE claim. It doesn’t.

        What are the elements of a UE claim?.

        They’re here. You won’t find them in any indictments for tax evasion, because it isn’t a crime based in unjust enrichment. Because UE isn’t a crime, and can’t be the basis of a criminal charge.

        If the government has the power to enforce the tax then what is the basis of the police power to enforce the tax? The basis is…

        No. The government’s police powers are inherent in the grant of authority to impose a tax in the first place. When the constitution vests a power in the government, it also provides the power to enforce it (so long as the enforcement doesn’t violate other constitutional rights). Unjust enrichment is not the basis of the power to enforce the tax. Neither is quasi-contract, or assumpsit, or anything like that.

        No SS number no tax. If there was still a tax and if no one can pay the tax without a SS number then everyone would be required to apply for and secure a SS number and that just is not the case. If you think every one must apply for and secure a SS number then please point that out to me, because I have never seen it.

        The tax code does not have any provision whatsoever limiting taxes to those who have or have applied for SS numbers. Everyone who is employed is liable for FICA, whether or not they have a SS number. Then, under 26 USC 6109, they must have or get a SS number to pay those taxes. (Because it requires taxpayers to supply an identifying number, and stipulates that the proper ID number for individuals is a SS number.) You must by law pay the tax whether or not you have an SS number, and you must get an SS number to pay the tax. If you decline to get an SS number, and don’t qualify for an alternative like an ITIN, you are guilty of tax evasion. If you disagree, please start citing some actual laws.

        My mother’s uncle was refused to apply for a social security number. He operated a feed mill and never paid any FICA tax. He was a wealthy man and owned many properties. When he was failing in health his children found out he did not have a SS account and could not apply for benefits. However, they allowed him to apply for a number so he could get medicare. I do not know if he ever got a SS check. I doubt is because he never paid the tax. I will try to find out.

        Whether he was liable for the tax would depend on when this was; I have no idea when these requirements became law. Or whether there is any grandfathering provision.

        How can that be? How can a man who has no SS number be a SS taxpayer?

        Because the requirement to pay the tax is not dependent on whether you have such a number. There is no such requirement in the code or cases interpreting the code. If you disagree, please start citing some law. If you can’t, you might consider the possibility that your notions are just wrong.

        How could he pay such tax when you said he can’t pay the tax without a SS account number?

        He has a legal obligation to get one, I think. I don’t see any other reading of 26 USC 6109.

        What about a man who merely commences to work for another man? What is the legal test that proves an individual is under the control of another? The test would be: IS the individual in an employee/employer relationship? If I just commence to mow your yard for you, I am not under your direction or control. You cannot direct me and control me as I commence to mow your yard as an employer could direct and control his employees.

        If you’re volunteering for no money, then I guess you’re not an employee. If you’re acting with the expectation of getting paid, I don’t think any court would be fooled. The man with the yard could tell you to stop at any time, and still controls your wages. Even if that were somehow not the case, then you’d still fall under the self-employment provisions if you’re making any money at all, and would still be liable for these taxes.

        If one is by definition an “employee” then he is engaged in employment and that is MORE than just “being hired to commence work.” See: ENGAGED IN EMPLOYMENT in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, pg 622.

        BLD is a reference book. The statutes and cases are the law. If you can find some cases where someone like that isn’t considered an employee, please cite them. But under cases like Turner, it’s quite clear that if you’re working and receiving money for that work, you are an employee, an independent contractor, or self-employed. Each category pays these taxes, in slightly different ways.

        What is the definition of “Federal personnel?” Isn’t an SS employee considered to federal personnel? See: 5 USC 552A (a)(13)

        I don’t know if SS recipients fall under that definition or not. It’s in an administrative procedures code section, and doesn’t define terms for tax purposes. You can see that (a) starts, “For purposes of this section.” So those definitions only apply to sec. 552a. I don’t think it’s relevant.

         
      • Harry

        March 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM

        Colin, would you agree that taxes are forced contributions levied by authority of law, by some rule of proportion which is intended to insure uniformity of contribution, and a just apportionment of the burdens of government?

        To me the tax is returned to the government for services and protection already paid for by the government that were rendered generally to the public as a whole. The taxes due by an individual is his apportioned fair share of the joint tax obligation that individuals who have enjoyed the services and protection, or who were entitled to enjoy them must discharge. I see the tax as a forced contribution of an individual’s share of the joint obligation to reimburse the government for services and protection rendered.

        To not pay for one’s apportioned share of the joint tax obligation to pay for services and protection rendered would be inequitable and unfair.

        To contribute is to discharge a portion of a joint obligation.

        A contribution is a sharing of a loss or payment among several and as such is an act of anyone or several of a number of con-debtors, co-sureties, etc., REIMBURSING one of their number, or in this case the government, who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share.

        A tax is a forced contribution and is the right of one who has discharged a common liability to RECOVER of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear.

        It seem logical to me that IF, while enjoying the services and protection rendered by government, an individual refuses to bear his fair of the joint obligation to reimburse the government for rendering such services that such individual would be unjustly enrichment at the expense of the government and those individuals who did discharge their portion of the obligation. If you don’t see it that way then that is fine with me. Let’s move on to other issues.

        I can tell you for sure that Pennsylvania courts have held that “each taxing district shall have power to collect unpaid taxes from the persons owning such taxes by suit in assumpsit or other appropriate remedy.” Musselman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

        Clearly, the General Assembly has classified a local government action to collect unpaid taxes as an action in assumpsit. Also, in regard to actions by local government agencies for fines and penalties, the legislature in its note to Pa.R.C. P.D.J. (district Justice Rules) no. 301 provides: A civil action for a municipal penalty, except when such an action is prohibited by statute, would be governed by these rules, for such an action is merely a form of action in assumpsit.

        I do not know if collection of the federal income tax is considered a form of action in assumpsit but the recovery of most taxes are a matter of assumpsit, at least in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

        To me social security is a federal benefit program and according to 5 USC 552A (a)(13) the term “federal personnel” includes “individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States.” If this definition is specific to Title 5 as does not relate to the social security retirement program then I would be surprised.

        I must commence to work. More later.

         
      • Colin

        March 9, 2015 at 7:41 PM

        Oh yikes, sorry for not closing my tag!

         
      • Colin

        March 10, 2015 at 6:29 PM

        Colin, would you agree that taxes are forced contributions levied by authority of law, by some rule of proportion which is intended to insure uniformity of contribution, and a just apportionment of the burdens of government?

        That sounds about right to me, although it depends a little bit on what you mean. “Uniformity of contribution,” for example, could be read as incompatible with a progressive tax, unless you mean the scale is uniform or uniformly applied given income disparities. But that’s just me needing to quibble with everything, I think it’s pretty much right.

        I see the tax as a forced contribution of an individual’s share of the joint obligation to reimburse the government for services and protection rendered.

        I think I understand your perspective, and I don’t think it’s wrong so much as incomplete and casual. It doesn’t take into account the constitutional or statutory basis of the taxing power, which don’t require such provision of such services and protection to justify a tax, although realistically if we were taxed without a good justification we’d vote out the government anyway so it’s a medium-moot point. But consider, for example, what would happen if we lost a war and had to pay big reparations. We’d impose a tax to raise the money, presumably; that wouldn’t fall under this quasi-contractual model, so would the tax be illegitimate? You could make the argument as a matter of politics or philosophy, but not under the law.

        In other words, I think you’ve articulated a political or philosophical justification for taxation, and one that makes sense. I think it’s incomplete, but of course it’s going to be—you wrote a blog comment, not a book. I just want to make the point again that as a philosophical or political argument, it’s not a legal argument, and doesn’t really engage with what the law says.

        It seem logical to me that IF, while enjoying the services and protection rendered by government, an individual refuses to bear his fair of the joint obligation to reimburse the government for rendering such services that such individual would be unjustly enrichment at the expense of the government and those individuals who did discharge their portion of the obligation. If you don’t see it that way then that is fine with me. Let’s move on to other issues.

        Oh, I agree! I think you’ve set forth a very logical and persuasive case for why it’s immoral and unethical to dodge taxes. My argument is not that you’re wrong as a matter of principle, only that the tax enforcement provisions aren’t quite based on this logic. And as you’ve pointed out in the next para, I was wrong about that in civil cases. So really our only disagreement now (I think) is whether this logic applies to criminal tax avoidance cases. I know more about that than the civil side, and I’m confident that this articulation, while good as a matter of politics and philosophy, doesn’t capture the legal basis of criminal tax charges.

        I can tell you for sure that Pennsylvania courts have held that “each taxing district shall have power to collect unpaid taxes from the persons owning such taxes by suit in assumpsit or other appropriate remedy.” Musselman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

        Thanks for this! I was pretty confident that assumpsit was not a relevant concept, and obviously I was wrong. This, by the way, is a much more persuasive style of legal argument (and much more familiar to lawyers) than stringing together definitions of selective synonyms—using precedent to show that your idea is consistent with actual practice.

        I was skeptical that assumpsit was relevant partly because it’s an antique concept. Technically assumpsit was a “form of action,” an ancient idea that isn’t used in modern practice. I don’t think forms of practice have really been used before the Civil War, although legal history is not my bag so I’m not sure. Obviously I was wrong! I’m not sure how Pennsylvania uses the term, or how widespread it is; I’ve never really run across it used in practice before.

        Assumpsit is a civil claim, and that’s what Musselman seems to be about. Bear in mind that criminal charges for nonpayment of tax are different. There’s no criminal federal common law, so all crimes are statutory in nature.

        I do not know if collection of the federal income tax is considered a form of action in assumpsit but the recovery of most taxes are a matter of assumpsit, at least in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

        I still don’t think that federal civil collection cases would be considered actions at assumpsit, but I’m not as sure as I was!

        To me social security is a federal benefit program and according to 5 USC 552A (a)(13) the term “federal personnel” includes “individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States.” If this definition is specific to Title 5 as does not relate to the social security retirement program then I would be surprised.

        Get ready for a surprise. :) The statute is explicit, and it states that its definitions apply only to “this section.” It’s not even all of Title 5, they apply only to section 552A. Other sections may have similar definitions, but you should start with the tax code definitions and cases defining terms in tax courts and tax matters.

         
      • Harry

        March 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM

        Colin, you wrote:that taxes are based on a constitutional or statutory basis of the taxing power, which do not require such provision of such services and protection to justify a tax ….”

        I am not a trained attorney like yourself but in regard to above statement I truly believe you are absolutely mistaken.

        A “tax” must always be for some purpose. The Congress cannot simply by statute impose a tax for no good reason. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes … to pay the debts and PROVIDE for the common defense and general welfare of the the United States.” Do you have evidence of any tax that was not imposed to compensate government for services and protection rendered?

        The power to tax referred to in the constitution has to be based on something and the very nature of a tax is that it is “compensation” paid to government for annual protection and for current support of government.”

        The fact that the tax is “compensation” to government for services and protection rendered is what gives the government the authority to exercise the police power to force every one enjoying those services and protection to contribute their assessed fair share of the joint compensation or remuneration obligation tribute tax.

        Protection of an individual draws subjection of that individual to the laws (including tax laws) of his protector.

        The power to tax is based on the assumpsit idea that one who enjoys a benefit must COMPENSATE government (i.e.reimburse or return or pay back to government his fair share of the cost to government to provide that benefit).

        Assumpsit is a common law remedy I believe and if there is no federal common law then I suppose the action to collect unpaid taxes would not be a form of action in assumpsit, but the principle on which the collection action is based has to be the idea of compensation for services and protection rendered, and those who get away with not contribution their share of the joint tax obligation would surely be considered unjustly enriched as a result of their failure to contribute.

        Government protection is a benefit for which it must be compensated. The government has no constitutional or statutory police power to impose and collect a tax at the barrel of a gun just because they have the power to do so. To be lawful the tax collector must have the delegated authority to exercise the police power to collect. The lawfully delegated power to collect a tax is justified by the lawfully delegated authority to collect the compensation that is lawfully due the government.

        If the government could simply force an individual to pay a tax while never having provided anything to the individual, it would be an “exaction.” An “exaction” would be compelling payment under color of official authority, where no payment is due. Authority to collect the tax precedes the exercise of the police power in the collection thereof.

        To enact a tax to pay war reparations would not be illegitimate because it would be considered compensation to government for paying debts incurred while supposedly providing protection of the people. I think this tax and the discharge thereof would also be quasi-contractural because the debt was incurred in supposedly providing protection for the people. It looks like a matter of law to me.

        If those individuals who are entitled to receive social security retirement benefits are federal personnel” in this section of 5 USc 552A then on what basis are they considered thus? And, if they are considered federal personnel in this section, then what are they otherwise considered status wise?

        We mostly hear of those who have a social security account referred to an “beneficiaries.” However, according to 26 CFR 301.7701 – Social security number – “the term “social security number” does not include a number with a letter as a suffix, which is used to identify an AUXILIARY beneficiary under the social security program.”

        If the individual collecting a monthly social security benefit check is an auxiliary beneficiary then one might ask: who is the PRIMARY beneficiary? Any ideas?

         
  31. henry

    March 8, 2015 at 6:43 PM

    Colin,

    After reading the debate again I have realized the conflict of visions between you and Al: Al sees the current legal system as corrupt and you don’t. While I don’t think you are purposely lying, I believe that you are lying to yourself.

    Earlier in this debate, you have agreed that I have been endowed with certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted to secure these rights, but you have a different understanding of what these ideas mean. If I have unalienable rights, I can do anything that I want that does not infringe upon the rights of other people. I have the rights to self-medicate with heroin, enter into a marriage contract with another man, kill myself, not plan for my old age, consume alcohol, get fat, gamble, paint my house a horrible color, or anything else. The fact that I have made different choices does not mean that I recognize that the government has the role in “helping” me to live my life and protecting me from bad decisions by limiting what I can peacefully do.

    Before the Declaration of Independence, the Europeans in North America saw themselves as “colonists” and after they saw themselves as “Americans”. If you believe that each man has absolute unalienable rights and that government’s sole purpose is to secure these rights then you are American. If you don’t, you’re not.

    Correct me if I am wrong but I think you disagree that my rights are unalienable. Legislators and judges have clouded this simple idea with a maze of words. The purpose of the maze is to get the people to consent to having their unalienable rights converted into privileges that can be revoked when the leaders finds it in the interest of the group. The maze is very complex. Al has identified a number of the sections of the maze (Man or other animals, The State vs. this state, Notice & right of inquiry, legal fictions …). Other people have identified other sections of the maze (military flags, gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts …). When examples are documented, you cannot accept that the words mean what they say. You have two responses: 1) no court has accepted that is the meaning of those words and 2) that is a conspiracy theory. In both cases, you do not try to parse the meaning of the words yourself. You rely on people you trust to do the actual parsing of terms.

    If government can tax a right, they could put the tax at 100% and thereby remove the right. But, this would conflict with the American principle. The Complicated maze of words that legislators have built has caused Americans to get lost. You don’t see the conflict because you have been inculcated into thinking that slavery is freedom, vice is virtue, ignorance is strength.

    It is not difficult to see how you think the vice of intellectual laziness is the virtue of pragmatism. You were a smart kid, and you might have bought into television’s propaganda of the law profession. You think you can make a good living and help your neighbors resolve conflicts with each other. You go to law school and the professors, tell you how the world works and you, like your classmates, accept it without critically examining what they are saying. You graduate and you hear non-attorneys saying things that directly conflicts with the body of knowledge that the experts have taught you. You must assume that they are con-men or idiots to resist the help that you offer. You cannot conceive that you are helping your neighbors like a pimp helps his prostitutes. You seem mystified that your suggestion (If you close your eyes to the corruption, you could learn to participate in the system by going to on-line law schools and maybe profit from it) are not celebrated.

    Although I’m using legal terms in this post, this is not a legal argument. It is a political and/or philosophical argument. I think that all of theories that people have generated as to how the legal system works, are genuine attempts to resolve this conflict since the legal profession refuses to do so. The argument may have merit but until one can string a series of ideas together in such a form that there is no wiggle room for the court to assume that you have consented to give up their unalienable rights, they will lose. If there was an on-line law school that resolved this conflict, I would visit every day.

     
    • Roger

      March 8, 2015 at 7:11 PM

      > “If I have unalienable rights, I can do anything that I want that does not infringe upon the rights of other people.”

      This sentence makes no sense to me. Having inalienable rights means certain of your right are permanent or inherent. These rights cannot be taken from you. Having inalienable rights does not mean “I can do whatever I want” except infringe the rights of others or whatnot.

      Under the law, specifically, the only entity that can “do whatever it wants” is the sovereign – which is, by definition, the law making entity, or the authority under which laws are made – and that ain’t you.

      Everyone else is limited by the requirement to both not transgress the rights of others and obey the laws of the sovereign. In the United States of America, that sovereign is “We the People” whose fiduciary agents, or representatives, wrote the Constitution.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 10:55 PM

        Roger you go from saying “IF I have unalienable rights” to saying, “HAVING INalienable rights. Roger,there really is a difference in the meaning of, UNalienable v. INalienable. I believe INalienable rights simply means privileges at least for the most part. E.g.,We still have the unalienable right to breathe. We are not required to get a license from gov-co to do this, at least not yet anyway. This should help clear up some of the confusion. Let’s say for the sake of a point we only have the Constitution for the U.S.o.A with the 12th Amendment as it was originally, & that’s it, no 13th & on. NOW IF that Constitution had a provision that said, This Constitution shall be enforced through appropriate legislation, THEN this is ALSO SAYING Legislation IS, WILL BE the Supreme Law of the land because the Constitution itself IS the Supreme Law. Anyway it was not originally like this, i.e., this Constitution shall be enforced via Appropriate Legislation.
        That up to & including the 12th Amendment Constitution WAS the Supreme Law of the Land AND any legislation passed in CONFLICT with it was TRUMPED by the Constitution itself. This IS the way it WAS, > for starters, in the Case of State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 page 152, the Court said:
        (a). “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man (King George) to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subiect of the king is now a citizen of the state” and,
        (b). “The People(not peoples), THAT ENTIRE BODY CALLED, the state.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
        (c). “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20,and,
        (d). Citizen, in American Law. “One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.

        NEXT, you, Roger, say, “Under the law, specifically, the only entity that can “do whatever it wants” is the sovereign – which is, by definition, the law making entity, or the authority under which laws are made – and that ain’t you.

        Roger you are 100% RIGHT. BUT, do you know WHY?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 11:17 PM

        P.S., Roger, In the introduction of the Original Constitution, it is written in pertinent part : “We the People … in order to.. . establish Justice, . . .. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution the for the United States of America.”

        I believe established therein (The Preamble, above ) is the precept that each .Citizen is a Sovereign in International Law of equal Character (Status) with any other Sovereign, e.g., ANY KING, and “his laws,” are in this Constitution , and in each State Constitution, in their proper sphere, and not in conflict with each other. That which is created, e.g. government and its structure, is not superior to the Creator. Since all the People cannot spend their time maintaining order, they must choose a few of their number to act as a govern­ing body . The men who govern are appointed by the People to carry out the People’s orders, aka the constitutions, both federal and state. The government is merely the agent of the People who control it at all times. At least this is how it was originally, and meant to remain as such. “Unalienable rights” are rights which cannot be taken away from the People, lawfully,—by any government, not even by the People themselves. However, these rights can be “lost, waived, etc.” and mostly through the subtle deceit and fraud on the part of certain government agents.

         
    • Colin

      March 8, 2015 at 8:34 PM

      After reading the debate again I have realized the conflict of visions between you and Al: Al sees the current legal system as corrupt and you don’t. While I don’t think you are purposely lying, I believe that you are lying to yourself.

      Thanks, I guess? I don’t see any evidence of such corruption.

      If I have unalienable rights, I can do anything that I want that does not infringe upon the rights of other people. I have the rights to self-medicate with heroin, enter into a marriage contract with another man, kill myself, not plan for my old age, consume alcohol, get fat, gamble, paint my house a horrible color, or anything else.

      A lot of people agree with you that the only power the government should have is to protect you from your neighbor, and vice versa. But the founders didn’t, and the system they set up doesn’t. You’ll have to persuade politicians to amend that system if you want a legal system based on those principles. For what it’s worth, I’m sympathetic to your position here. And the system has moved in that direction over the past few decades! It’s slow progress, but it’s progress.

      Correct me if I am wrong but I think you disagree that my rights are unalienable.

      I don’t think that I do, but it probably depends on your definition of “unalienable.”

      Legislators and judges have clouded this simple idea with a maze of words. The purpose of the maze is to get the people to consent to having their unalienable rights converted into privileges that can be revoked when the leaders finds it in the interest of the group.

      I don’t agree with this conspiracy theory at all. You know, we can watch laws being made—I’m not aware of any attempt, ever, to make a law more complex for the reasons you suggest.

      Al has identified a number of the sections of the maze (Man or other animals, The State vs. this state, Notice & right of inquiry, legal fictions …). Other people have identified other sections of the maze (military flags, gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts …).

      These things are mostly fictional, so I don’t see how the government bears responsibility for them. For example, it’s not the government’s fault that people just refuse to accept that a gold-fringed flag doesn’t make a court an admiralty or military court—there’s no law saying so, and lots of court cases saying it’s not true, but some people just cannot accept that their gurus are incompetent.

      When examples are documented, you cannot accept that the words mean what they say. You have two responses: 1) no court has accepted that is the meaning of those words and 2) that is a conspiracy theory. In both cases, you do not try to parse the meaning of the words yourself. You rely on people you trust to do the actual parsing of terms.

      I disagree again. For (1), it’s important when someone tells you what the law is to see whether courts agree. We have a precedential legal system, so if you can’t find cases that agree with your position, but there are cases rejecting it, your position is not the law. So when someone tells you that, for example, a gold-fringed flag makes a military court, you should be looking at cases as well as statutes to see if it’s true. If you disagree with what the cases say, then you have an opinion about what the law should be but are not accurately describing what it is. For (2), I don’t think I’ve ever accused anyone here of conspiring! You seem to have that one completely backwards.

      Is there something I should be parsing that I’m not?

      If government can tax a right, they could put the tax at 100% and thereby remove the right. But, this would conflict with the American principle.

      That’s not logical; just because the government can set a tax doesn’t mean that they can set a 100% tax. Nor can they destroy a right through taxation. Your hypothetical 100% tax would be a due process violation.

      Although I’m using legal terms in this post, this is not a legal argument. It is a political and/or philosophical argument.

      I’ll say. And kind of pointless. If you can’t make a legal argument to support the nonsense being bandied about, such as gold-fringed flags, then what’s the basis of your complaint? That my annoying requests for citations and serious arguments has pooped the party?

      I think that all of theories that people have generated as to how the legal system works, are genuine attempts to resolve this conflict since the legal profession refuses to do so.

      The legal system does this all day, every day. Read a book. Read a law review article. Take one of the multiple free online law classes from Ivy League universities. If you refuse to attempt to learn, your ignorance is not anyone’s fault but your own.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 2:14 AM

        Colin per your response to henry, &, Stealthy Encroachments

        Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and ‘it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.’ Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635, 6 S. Ct. 524, 535 (29 L. Ed. 746); Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. page 304, 41 S. Ct. 261, BYARS v. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28 (47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520)

        Unfortunately the courts, for the most part have failed to do what the probably DICTA message says.

        Re: Robert Bork
        Bork built on the influential critiques of the Warren Court authored by Alexander Bickel, who criticized the Supreme Court under Earl Warren for shoddy and inconsistent reasoning, undue activism, and misuse of historical materials. Bork’s critique was harder-edged than Bickel’s, however, and he has written, “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” Bork’s writings have influenced the opinions of conservative judges such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, and sparked a vigorous debate within legal academia about how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

        Colin, I believe you & your co-heart KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR, will agree on the following DICTUM from A NIKE REPROBATE, excuse me, I mean Representative says.

        In an ongoing public relations campaign, Nike said it did not use exploitative labor practices, and it actually protected workers’ rights abroad. Based on proof that contradicted the PR blitz, a California man sued the company in 1998 for false advertising . The company challenged the issue, saying that as an artificial person, it was allowed to lie. Lying, after all, is protected by the freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment.

         
  32. Toland

    March 8, 2015 at 11:04 PM

    @Roger > “In the United States of America, that sovereign is “We the People” whose fiduciary agents, or representatives, wrote the Constitution.”

    Yeah buddy, as the Supreme Court confirms…

    “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution…”

    – Chisholm v. Georgia (John Jay, Chief Justice, in the majority), 1793

    “The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by ‘the people of the United States’…. The constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States.”

    – Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1816

    “The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State Governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation and bound the State sovereignties.”

    – McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 2:34 AM

      Hi Toland,
      Ya know. We had a Father killing his Son. We had a Son killing his Father.We had a Brother killing his Brother & over, you just don’t get it. You do not get the point. This really happened in what is called, The Civil WAR. Father against Son. Son against Father and Brother against Brother. Ohhhh look at how powerful the influence of Satan is., and the beat goes on.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s