RSS

Mysterious Ways

20 May

Dr. Kent Hovind [courtesy Google Images]

Dr. Kent Hovind
[courtesy Google Images]

Dr. Kent Hovind may be the single most effective, modern advocate for belief in the Creation concept seen in Genesis 1 of the Bible.  He’s spent most of the past ten years in prison for violations of the Internal Revenue Code.  I can’t prove it, but I have little doubt that Dr. Hovind’s advocacy of Creationism played a big part in causing him to be imprisoned for most of a decade.

I interviewed Dr. Hovind on radio last January and February and also published two articles concerning his trials and tribulations at Kent Hovind’s Spiritual War, and Welcome to the Best Legal System in the World.

Dr. Hovind should’ve already been released, but the government kept him in prison in anticipation of another trial that should’ve happened today.  Today’s trial threatened to cause Dr. Hovind to be sentenced to another 20 years–which would probably have been a death sentence.  Again, I have little doubt that a fundamental reason for trying to keep Kent in prison for another 20 years is found in his advocacy of Creationism.  To great extent, Dr. Hovind has been and remains a “political prisoner” in a spiritual war.

However, yesterday, I heard that three of the remaining four charges against Dr. Hovind had been dismissed and so he only faces criminal contempt of court.  Today’s trial has been canceled.

Dr. Hovind is still in prison, but he’s a lot closer to freedom than he was just a few days ago.  His approaching victory is due to the Good LORD but also to the persistent and even exhausting efforts of scores of people who supported Dr. Hovind.

Among those supporters are Rudy and Erin Davis–whose tireless efforts were nearly astonishing–and others like Julie Borik who sent me the following email today:

 

Hello Al,

Maybe you heard…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmOqccjO7MU

But the big news is world-unrenowned pianist, Julie Borik, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, performed a celebratory introduction to the historic news delivered to world-renowned creation evangelist as he heard the news that his case was dismissed.

Never won the Van Cliburn, never entered the Tchaikovsky Competition, but I got to serenade an angel.

Just had to share.

Julie

 

Her email helped me see something I hadn’t previously recognized:  The people who helped Kent Hovind may have been more greatly blessed by their struggle than even Kent will be, when he’s finally freed.

Here’s my reply to Julie:

 

Hi Julie,

I heard yesterday.  I’m not yet sure that I’ve heard exactly what’s happened, but it appears that, thanks to the Good LORD–and thanks to people like yourself, Rudy & Erin–Kent Hovind’s “trials and tribulations” may be nearing an end.  You’ve all helped to accomplish a victory in spiritual warfare that might be deemed “miraculous”.

You folks have engaged in spiritual warfare–which is certainly intimidating–and  won.  That’s not just a (near) victory for Kent Hovind.  That’s a huge victory for the people who worked hard to support and free Kent Hovind. You’ve all learned that you can engage in spiritual warfare, you can face off against the forces of evil–and win.  That’s a powerful and unforgettable lesson that will help carry all of you through much of the rest of your lives.

Your faith should be hugely enhanced and empowered by the lessons you’re seeing in your own lives.  Think of how much that you and others who supported Kent have gained.  You now know that victory is possible.  You know that resistance is not “futile”.  Through your efforts to support Kent, you’ve been blessed with that knowledge.

In some regards, those who supported Kent Hovind may have gained even more from this struggle than Dr. Hovind will gain when he’s finally set free.

“Mysterious ways,” hmm?

Blessing on y’all.

Al

PS  Nice piano.  I’m impressed.

 
137 Comments

Posted by on May 20, 2015 in "Man or Other Animals", Creationism

 

Tags: , , ,

137 responses to “Mysterious Ways

  1. Erin

    May 20, 2015 at 11:51 AM

    thanks again AL, as always, your support is much appreciated! .. shared..

     
  2. Henry

    May 20, 2015 at 12:32 PM

    Note that Charles Darwin was hatched by the same 18th and 19th century British establishment that gave us the “population bomb” bunk artist Thomas Malthus and other “classical economists” favored by the billionaire-approved and morally bankrupt Austrian School of social Darwinism.

    So it follows that Kent Hovind better not count on the “anarcho-capitalists” for much aid or comfort in his righteous fight (though they might fake it a little to bolster their brand). The twin quackeries of biological Darwinism and the social Darwinism recently expressed as “anarcho-capitalism” emerged from the same nest.

    Fun fact: In parallel with the “classical economists” of the previous two centuries, the big name in “anarcho-capitalism”, Ludwig von Mises, was openly and notoriously sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation.

     
  3. twotrees928

    May 20, 2015 at 12:34 PM

    Saints This is spiritual warfare 101.

     
  4. Richard von Schiltz

    May 20, 2015 at 12:36 PM

    Saints! This is spiritual warfare 101. We battle NOT against flesh and blood… Eph.

     
  5. Toland

    May 20, 2015 at 1:14 PM

    I can’t prove it, but I have little doubt that Dr. Hovind’s advocacy of Creationism played a big part in causing him to be imprisoned for most of a decade.

    Something a bit easier to prove is that Dr. Hovind’s use of nonsensical “patriot” legal theories, which the court called “patently absurd” and “in bad faith”, played a big part in his long imprisonment.

     
    • Greg

      May 20, 2015 at 5:02 PM

      Although i am not familiar with all the details of His case, if He did appear as the “Public Utility” (all caps fictional person), it would be “absurd” and “in bad faith” because he was Not “Ingenuous” Stoically according to his faith.
      ingenuous (adj.)
      1590s, “noble in nature,” from Latin ingenuus “with the virtues of freeborn people, of noble character, frank, upright, candid,” originally “native, freeborn,” from in- “in” (see in- (2)) + gen-, root of gignere “beget, produce” (see genus). Sense of “>>artless<<, innocent" is 1670s, via evolution from "high-minded" to "honorably open, straightforward," to "innocently frank." Related: Ingenuously; ingenuousness.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM

        Greg
        May 20, 2015 at 5:02 PM
        ingenuous (adj.)
        1590s, “noble in nature,” from Latin ingenuus “with the virtues of freeborn people, of noble character, frank, upright, candid,” originally “native, freeborn,” from in- “in” (see in- (2)) + gen-, root of gignere “beget, produce” (see genus). Sense of “>>artless<<, innocent" is 1670s, via evolution from "high-minded" to "honorably open, straightforward," to "innocently frank." Related: Ingenuously; ingenuousness.

        You are describing Colin in your message, Right?

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 24, 2015 at 12:59 PM

      Toland,
      @ …the people, in their collective and national capacity,
      How many people does it take to meet the requirement of being considered,”collective” ?

       
    • Mason Harrison

      July 13, 2015 at 12:43 PM

      @ Something a bit easier to prove is that Dr. Hovind’s use of nonsensical “patriot” legal theories, which the court called “patently absurd” and “in bad faith”, played a big part in his long imprisonment.

      You recently had a S.Ct. ruling where Justice Scalia sad the Majority acted in bad faith too. 10/4

       
  6. Roger

    May 20, 2015 at 6:55 PM

    Wait, did a smart guy like Kent Hovind fall for the all-caps name game foolery? That’s been debunked already – in real world courts, where it counts. For example:

    “Kostich has made the disingenuous argument that the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his ‘Christian name’ is Walter Edward, Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his ‘Christian name,’ he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper.”

    – Rosenheck & Co Inc v. IRS, et al (1997)

    Anyway, the source of the fantasy-based tax advice that’s caused Kent Hovind to be imprisoned for almost a decade is one Glen Stoll.

    This theorist is famous for digging up obsolete or glaringly out-of-context definitions for legal terms, pretending these idiosyncratic definitions have some secret relevance to the law, and then advising clients according to the imaginary world his newly defined terms create.

    He took Hovind for the ride of a lifetime, tragically.

     
    • Papillon

      May 21, 2015 at 11:06 AM

      In response to “Roger” above on the name game:

      It’s not about caps it’s about a proper Christian name. If they use an initial it is NOT you.

      ”Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential.”
      Monroe Cattle Co v. Becker, 147 US 47 (1893) What court issued the decision you cite? If it was a “tax court” then it was issued by the IRS itself. In a “tax court” the only decision is not IF you owe but HOW MUCH.

      Also look at the definition of “taxpayer” or “employee” in the code. You are neither unless you are a tax collector or a federal officer.

      Read former IRS CID agent Joe Bannister’s report that got him fired. There are numerous resources to learn the truth.

      It is not a fantasy. It is the law. The problem is that the criminals running the system don’t care about the law.

       
      • Adask

        May 21, 2015 at 12:07 PM

        @ “Also look at the definition of “taxpayer” or “employee” in the code. You are neither unless you are a tax collector or a federal officer.”

        Can you tell us where in the code you find the definitions of “taxpayer” and “employee”? I’m assuming that you rely on those definitions to reach the conclusion that the government defines the “taxpayer” and “employee” to be tax collectors and/or federal officers. Is that correct?

         
      • palani

        May 21, 2015 at 1:22 PM

        In common law it is the farmer who collects taxes. Just another example that common law has been pushed aside.

        http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=farmer&searchmode=none

        farmer (n.)
        late 14c., “one who collects taxes, etc.,” from Anglo-French fermer, Old French fermier “lease-holder,” from Medieval Latin firmarius, from firma “fixed payment” (see farm (n.)). In the agricultural sense, 1590s, replacing native churl and husbandman.

         
      • Toland

        May 21, 2015 at 1:23 PM

        Al, there are no such definitions in the IRS code, only in the legal theory fantasyland code.

        Therefore don’t hold your breath waiting for any straightforward citations of such definitions, though they would be quick and easy to post verbatim if they existed.

        All you can expect when asking this type of precise question in legal theory fantasyland is a tap dance and lots of smoke.

         
      • Colin

        May 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM

        I looked up Monroe Cattle, because it struck me as beyond bizarre that a court would ever rule that “if they use an initial it is NOT you.” And of course they didn’t. They chided a lower court for impleading a litigant using only his initials, but they did not take any action because of it. In other words, you will never get out of legal trouble by complaining that the court used your initials, unless you are truly not the right person. (Wacky nonsense about “I’m not a person because I’m not a corporation!” don’t work, obviously.)

        And yes, you are a “taxpayer” if you earn money in the United States. And yes, you are an “employee” if you have a job that pays you money. The idea that these terms apply only to “a tax collector or a federal officer” is both wrong and thoroughly disproven. People who try these ridiculous, nonsensical ideas in court lose, always, every time, because they are so obviously and extremely wrong. It’s like filing a motion declaring yourself to be a martian and therefore immune to earthling tax laws: it’s not going to work.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 23, 2015 at 5:12 AM

      Roger,
      @ “Wait, did a smart guy like Kent Hovind fall for the all-caps name game foolery? That’s been debunked already – in real world courts, where it counts.”
      But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.Mark 13:9.
      Those “Councils & Synagogues” of yesterday are the same thing we have today, just different names. Have ya ever noticed the almost identical similarity that “Courtrooms” look like the inside of Church Buildings, e.g., the Pulpit area in a church building is what is called the Bench, the place where the Judge sits. We have the Jury/Choir seats. I have been “literally dragged” before the councils, then escorted to the extension, aka jail, & beaten to within an inch of my life on several occasions. I don’t know how I have survived. Sad to say, others did not survive. Honest injun.

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 23, 2015 at 7:06 PM

      Roger,
      @”Who was the adversary at that moment? Who “stood up against Israel”, according to this verse? God was the adversary, as we also read in the 2 Samuel version of the event: “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel”. God was Israel’s adversary, because Israel chose to make itself God’s adversary.”
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      2nd Samuel 24:1 He moved.The pronoun here stands for “the Lord,” yet in 1st Chronicles 21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil, and not simply of “an adversary.”

       
    • Cody

      May 31, 2015 at 12:11 PM

      In “Civil” law it’s all fiction, all the time. The system will make sure that it’s fictions are maintained, no matter what. So, it would make sense for a civil court to “debunk” the ALL CAPS ‘theory.’
      Capitous Diminutio is defined in Black’s.

       
      • Roger

        May 31, 2015 at 2:50 PM

        Capitis deminutio, as defined in Black’s or any other law dictionary, has nothing to do with someone’s name being written in capital letters.

        But the word Latin word “capitis” is clearly related to the English word “capital”. This created an opportunity for charlatan weasels to propagate yet another insidious lie to misdirect and neutralize legitimate research into the law.

         
    • badintense

      September 9, 2015 at 1:20 PM

      my ss card is in a completely different name. i am flesh and blood, the card represents (wow ted nugent just used the word represents 4 times on alex as i was just typing the word now!) a legal person i use for tax purposes. when i was 11 in the 70’s the bank fraudulently said i needed a slave number to get a bank account. so my parents put it in my nickname and use my middle initial only. so i don’t have to rely on capital lettering since it is a completely different legal name.

       
  7. timmy

    May 20, 2015 at 11:59 PM

    What about this logic? It says right on the IRS form instructions “This form takes an estimated X hours to complete…” etc. There is no compensation schedule for my time to do this (the governments work) for it. Is that not indentured servitude (slavery), which is clearly unconstitutional?

    Therefore, filling out the forms to calculate their taxes must be voluntary labor…, no? IE, forcing me to do their work for them is pure slavery. Interestingly, all taxes except income (and some excise, which are constitutional) ARE calculated for me by the government or its agents (retailers, etc.).

    Thoughts?

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM

      @ > There is no compensation schedule for my time to do this (the governments work) for it. Is that not indentured servitude (slavery), which is clearly unconstitutional?
      You are forgetting about the “Appropriate Legislation POWER clause”.

       
    • Papillon

      May 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM

      Title 26 CFR Section 301.6203-1. They are required to provide you with a certified assessment and the supporting record it is based on. When you fill out a return you are claiming to be an assessment officer. You are self-assessing and it is considered “voluntary” because it is a “voluntary compliance” system so they do not consider it “involuntary servitude.”

      Their problem is that there is no law making one “liable” to file a return. Only those liable for the tax must file a return. Ask former IRS CID agent Joe Bannister. He investigated the IRS code and his report to his boss got him fired.

       
      • Colin

        May 22, 2015 at 9:17 PM

        Only those liable for the tax must file a return.

        How do you explain the fact that every single court that has assessed this claim has found it to be false?

         
      • Henry

        May 22, 2015 at 10:27 PM

        “How do you explain the fact that every single court that has assessed this claim has found it to be false?”

        No explanation is likely, or necessary, for the simple reason that, in Legal Theory Fantasyland (to borrow a phrase), facts are irrelevant when giving what amounts to legal advice (presented as “oh, just my opinion, by the by” while knowing damn well that such “opinions” have and will be acted upon as bona fide by the naive and unwary).

         
    • Colin

      May 22, 2015 at 9:22 PM

      Points for creativity! I’m not aware that anyone has ever tried that argument (although I haven’t really looked). I suspect it would run up against the fact that having to fill out a form isn’t “slavery” or “involuntary servitude” any more than the million other things we’re obligated to do are: wearing seatbelts, paying for the support of children, registering for the draft, serving on juries, etc. Not every obligation is “slavery” or “servitude.”

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM

        Colin
        @ > May 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM
        Your message tells it like it is. Most people are not aware of the enFORCEment POWER clauses in the “War Amendments” & on.They read the “Amendments” but the Amendments are only window dressing, i.e., something used to create a deceptively favorable or attractive impression.How many are aware of this so called “appropriate Legislation” that has been put on the books? The “U.S. Constitution” is really all about this “appropriate Legislation”. People see & read the “Amendments” BUT they do not SEE the REAL CONSTITUTION which IS that “Appropriate Legislation”.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 24, 2015 at 12:16 PM

        Colin,
        @ > “I looked up Monroe Cattle, because it struck me as beyond bizarre that a court would ever rule that “if they use an initial it is NOT you.” And of course they didn’t.”

        147 U.S. 47 (1893)
        MONROE CATTLE COMPANY
        v.
        BECKER.

        V. Defendant was impleaded by the name of “A.W. Becker.” Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential. Wilson v. Shannon, 6 Arkansas, 196; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. (Law,) 32; Seely v. Boon, Coxe, N.J. (1 N.J. Law,) 138; Chappell v. Proctor, Harp. S.C. (Law,) 49; Kinnersley v. Knott, 7 C.B. 980; Turner v. Fitt, 3 C.B. 701; Oakley v. Pegler, 46 N.W. Rep. 920; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minnesota, 20; Kenyon v. Semon, 45 N.W. Rep. 10; Beggs v. Wellman, 82 Alabama, 391; Nash v. Collier, 5 Dowl. & L. 341; Fewlass v. Abbott, 28 Michigan, 270. This loose method of pleading is not one to be commended, but as no advantage was taken of it in the court below, it will not be considered here.

        but as no advantage was taken of it in the court below, it will not be considered here. in the court below, in the court below, in the court below !!!

         
      • Ted D.Roofer

        June 1, 2015 at 2:48 AM

        Papillon says, “Only those liable for the tax must file a return.”

        Colin Replies, “How do you explain the fact that every single court that has assessed this claim has found it to be false?”

        OK !! So this means anyone NOT LIABLE, meaning, not required, is mandated to file a return? Really? Boy !! AM I EVER IN Deeeeeeeeep Pooooooooo-pee.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        July 16, 2015 at 5:12 AM

        Colin,
        Who said the power to tax is the power to destroy? The SCOTUS? I think I’m right. Also,to your knowledge, is it true that certain evidence is not allowed to be heard by the Jury because it is deemed the Jury is not competent to hear such evidence? If this is true, how or why is the Jury deemed to be incompetent? Is it possible to have a Competent Jury? I’m confused about this.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        July 17, 2015 at 2:01 AM

        @ Only those liable for the tax must file a return.

        Colin says, How do you explain the fact that every single court that has assessed this claim has found it to be false?
        SOoooooo this means if some of us do not have ANY “income” we are still liable to file a return?
        Could it be possible be that the arguments FROM the alleged taxpayers were not presented correctly to the Courts? WHY THEN did A Court say, In, U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.Supp. 182, Affirmed in,709 F.2d 1496, “unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability”. Are these words meaningless? Colin, YOU say, you SAY, “I see from googlign that the excerpt you cited is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations. Do yourself a favor and read the actual decision if you want to understand it.”
        Ok Colin WHY does a Court SAY anything, and when we read it, & SAY what the Court said,this is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations? In other words, it doesn’t mean what it says? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? > “unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability”. WHAT IS THE REASON & PURPOSE THE COURT SAID THIS?

         
    • Papillon

      July 23, 2015 at 4:43 PM

      Anybody that fills out a return is “self-assessing” under the “voluntary compliance” aspect of the income tax system. If it’s “voluntary” then you are not being forced into “involuntary servitude.”

      Those filling out the return are also claiming to be an “assessment officer” under the code.

      “Sec 301.6203-1: – Method of assessment. – The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer. If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.”

      To Al Adask, I couldn’t respond to your request above on “employee” and “taxpayer” definitions as there is no “reply” option available. Ask Klaus in Iowa for his “Extracts of USC.doc” and you will have the explanation. It has to do with the terms “includes” and “including” in definitions to grasp what is truly being referred to.

       
  8. Toland

    May 21, 2015 at 2:04 PM

    IRS website:

    “A Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) is an identification number used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the administration of tax laws. It is issued either by the Social Security Administration (SSA) or by the IRS. A Social Security number (SSN) is issued by the SSA whereas all other TINs are issued by the IRS.”

    So the IRS is giving you notice that the SSN is a Taxpayer Identification Number.

    Therefore, even if you once were “wild and free on the land” or whatnot, when you applied for and made use of an SSN, you volunteered to be a taxpayer.

     
    • palani

      May 21, 2015 at 2:36 PM

      “So the IRS is giving you notice that the SSN is a Taxpayer Identification Number”

      Only problem is …. whether for social security or for taxes … it is not for identification.

      https://pandodaily.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/elvis-social-security.png?w=940&h=705

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 22, 2015 at 3:57 AM

        palani,
        @ > Farmer (n.)
        late 14c., “one who collects taxes, etc.,” from Anglo-French fermer, Old French fermier “lease-holder,” from Medieval Latin firmarius, from firma “fixed payment” (see farm (n.)). In the agricultural sense, 1590s, replacing native churl and husbandman.
        palani,U ol sweet thang U. I like that jerk-off definition. HAHHAHhahahahahahaHAHHAHhahahah !!

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 22, 2015 at 5:29 PM

        palani,
        @ Only problem is …. whether for social security or for taxes … it is not for identification.
        U ol sweet thang. Have you ever been arrested & taken to the hoosegow? Believe it or not, the probable cause requirement for arrest today is, probably cause I want to for willful failure to KISS IT. I kiddeth thou not. Anyway, you will be asked, “what is your S.S. Number”? You will be advised that unless you “give” him/her “your” S.S Number you will be there until you do because, they say “everybody” HAS a S.S Number. Now, I KNOW this IS the PRIMARY ID the adversaries understand.
        As you know, this S.S.Number is required for EVERY other kind of license.No S.S. Number, No license will be forthcoming. Please don’t misunderstand. I don’t want or need their license. :-) D

         
      • palani

        May 22, 2015 at 9:10 PM

        “they say “everybody” HAS a S.S Number”
        I am hardly concerned about a S.S. number for EVERYBODY. What good would that be? One number for an ENTIRE population?

        Now as to a S.S. number for me? I don’t have one. And this is logically simple to prove for if I had one I would turn it back in. After all, if it is MINE don’t I have a right to do with what is mine as I choose? Now if it is someone elses then right reason and logic would dictate that I shouldn’t use it unless I find it abandoned somewhere and make an appropriate public notice that I found something of value and am looking for the real owner of that thing. If the S.S. number were a Holstein then I might take the milk or calf from the cow. Could I do such a thing as well for an abandoned number?

        No … perhaps it is simpler to pick a name that has never actually HAD a social security number and then I can proclaim that I have never had such a thing and this would then be a true statement because none has ever been issued in that name and everyone can go their own directions quite happily.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 22, 2015 at 4:06 AM

      Toland,
      @ > The diligent scholar of scripture will know how to reconcile these.
      Why did you stop there? You sing me your song, then, I’ll sing you mine.

       
    • Jethro

      May 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM

      “Therefore, even if you once were “wild and free on the land” or whatnot, when you applied for and made use of an SSN, you volunteered to be a taxpayer.”

      There can’t be a valid application for a SSN without it being SIGNED. And who witnessed that application signature? Oh yeah, nobody did. So who is going to claim a particular SSN application is yours and made “use” of it besides you? (hint: nobody)

       
      • Toland

        May 23, 2015 at 3:27 PM

        So who is going to claim a particular SSN application is yours and made “use” of it besides you?

        Your employer. They issued paychecks to someone using that SSN. That someone agreed to be a taxpayer by this voluntary use of an SSN, which is a Taxpayer Identification Number, regardless of who originally applied for it.

         
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM

        Hold on there, tiger! You’re jumping the gun…

        Who said anything about an “employer”, or issuing paychecks to someone using an SSN? The matter is whether a particular application for a SSN is “mine”, and who says it’s “mine”.

        Please stay on point.

         
      • Toland

        May 23, 2015 at 5:27 PM

        Apparently you’re reading a special meaning into “mine” here. I’m not talking about that at all. It is beside the point as far as I’m concerned.

        Regardless of whether or not a given SSN is “yours” (whatever you wish “yours” to mean), your use of this SNN (a Taxpayer Identification Number) in a commercial relationship like employment means you voluntarily assumed the character of “taxpayer” in that context.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 23, 2015 at 7:39 PM

        Who is saying I’m using a SSN? (<– I assume you meant that vs. "SNN").

         
      • Toland

        May 23, 2015 at 9:43 PM

        Who is saying I’m using a SSN?

        I am saying that since virtually every American uses an SSN.

        If you are one of the few who don’t use an SSN, then the above point about opting into “taxpayer” status by using an SSN won’t apply to you.

        Which isn’t to say you’re not a “taxpayer” anyway for different reasons, but that’s another subject.

         
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 10:15 PM

        “I am saying that since virtually every American uses an SSN.”
        1) Virtually ≠ all.
        2) Point of clarification: Americans don’t use SSN’s, U.S. citizens do.

        “Which isn’t to say you’re not a “taxpayer” anyway for different reasons, but that’s another subject.”
        You’re saying I’m a “taxpayer”? Do tell!

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 25, 2015 at 1:50 PM

        Jethro,
        You ask, > Did that “law” write itself? Or did some man write it down on paper?
        Jethro, I am confident that whoever wrote that “law” will agree that he/she IS, an, animal. :-) D
        Jethro YOU are appreciated as much as huma, EXCUSE ME,as much as Manly possible :-) D

         
      • Ted

        June 5, 2015 at 10:20 PM

        Jethro, here is something you will like. In, U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.Supp. 182, Affirmed in,709 F.2d 1496, the Court says, “unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability.”

         
  9. Roger

    May 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM

    From the article linked below:

    “They didn’t mean your social security number couldn’t be used for identification purposes, just that the card itself couldn’t be presented as proof of identity.”

    Read all about it:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/141/why-does-my-old-social-security-card-say-it-cant-be-used-as-id

    And so yet another falsehood from “legal theory fantasyland” gets debunked and goes belly-up.

    Lulz.

     
    • palani

      May 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM

      Perhaps they are referring to the the SIGNATURE not being used for IDENTIFICATION?

      In Auschwitz numbers were used as identification.

       
      • Adask

        May 21, 2015 at 7:20 PM

        Were those numbers used for “identification” of individuals, or “registration” of property?

         
      • palani

        May 22, 2015 at 7:08 AM

        “Were those numbers used for “identification” of individuals, or “registration” of property?”

        A modern use has been defined to be an estate of right,
        which is acquired through the operation of the statute of 27 Hen.
        VIII., c. 10; and which, when it may take effect according to
        the rules of the common law, is called the legal estate; and
        when it may not, is denominated a use, with a term descriptive of
        its modification. Cornish on Uses, 35. (Bouvier on Use,Estates)

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        May 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM

        there is a lot of false information in the Holocaustianity religion…

        and many use incorrect analogies based on substantial misstatements of fact

        which are direct violations of the 9th Commandment

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 23, 2015 at 5:41 AM

        palani,
        @ I am hardly concerned about a S.S. number for EVERYBODY. What good would that be? One number for an ENTIRE population? Now as to a S.S. number for me? I don’t have one.
        palani. I can safely say that you have never been arrested, at least in a “small town federal zone”. This is good & I salute you. BUT, the only way you will understand what I was trying to say IS, you will have to be arrested, & especially on a Friday evening. THEN you will find out what I meant. I like yer werk. I wonder how donmako is doing.

         
      • palani

        May 23, 2015 at 7:27 AM

        “you have never been arrested, at least in a “small town federal zone””
        When traversing a war zone best to have your papers in order lest ye be adjudged a spy and suspended from an oak tree. Living in Kansas is certainly possible but hard to remain in because people keep floating off at the first sign of a legal fiction. You want to be aware that an appearance is the first requisite for arrest to occur. Hence if you don’t appear you can not be arrested. Appearance is by definition engaging in either contractual or tort behavior and not becoming a visible apparition within the visible range of officialdom as otherwise rational people might presume. Either behavior (tort/contract) is within your own control. Legal Land defines you as a non-existent fiction until either you make an appearance or your ‘representative’ makes an appearance at your ‘behest’.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 24, 2015 at 12:42 PM

        palani,
        @> “When traversing a war zone best to have your papers in order……………”

        My “in order ID documents” are out of order to the “emergency stopping “Peace Officer”. My “in order” papers tends to arouse the “suspicion” even more. THEN, they “know” I am hiding something. Backup is called. My in order documents are confiscated. I am failing to co-operate, obstructing the lawful duties of the “Peace Officer” & on & on. Some “Peace Officers seem to get it. Most do not. We do not have these “Courts of no Record” for no reason. Boots on the ground experience is the only way to understand what I am trying to say. I only say what I do to hopefully be of some help to others.
        Justice James Wilson, > I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for 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.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM

      Roger,
      @ In fact, the proper name “Satan” does not appear anywhere in the original texts of Bible. There is no such character.
      1.Was hoping somebody else would chime in re: your message as I do not want to be known as the HOG of this blog but since nobody has responded to your message, I will.

      2. Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth. THREE “names/descriptions here of the “Adversary” of “God”.

      3. And God was displeased with this thing;1st Chronicles 21:7
      And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.2nd Samuel 24:1

      4.Put simply. God said, OK HOTSHOT DO IT !! GO FOR IT!! YOU WANT ME OUT OF THE PICTURE & RELY ON YOUR STRENGTH, GREAT!! YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN !!

      5.HE HE HE moved. The pronoun HE, here, stands for “the Lord,” yet in 1st Chronicles 21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil,that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan. Revelation 12:9. In addition.See Matthew 12:26; Mark 3:23; Luke 11:18; Job 2:2; Zechariah 3:2. There are TEN more references about Satan if needed.

       
      • Allen Curtis

        July 17, 2015 at 2:12 AM

        @ 3. And God was displeased with this thing;1st Chronicles 21:7
        And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.2nd Samuel 24:1

        In other words, DO IT THEN !! GO FOR IT. DON’T PUT ME ON THE BACK BURNER! PUT ME OFF THE STOVE ALTOGETHER!! OBEY & LISTEN TO MY ADVERSARY, NOT ME, YOUR ONLY HOPE.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM

      Roger,
      @”Who was the adversary at that moment? Who “stood up against Israel”, according to this verse? God was the adversary, as we also read in the 2 Samuel version of the event: “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel”. God was Israel’s adversary, because Israel chose to make itself God’s adversary.”
      Roger, my last message to you did not post completely. WHY? I don’t know for sure. Could it be that the “Prince of the Power of the Air” is intervening? Anyway,WHY, IF as, YOU, Roger, say, God WAS the Adversary, WHY was “God” DISPLEASED, IF as YOU, Roger,say, God IS the one that moved David to NUMBER Israel? WHY did David say, And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.1st Chronicles 21:7

       
  10. Anna

    May 21, 2015 at 4:18 PM

    I listened to your interview with James Corbett and was very much moved. What you discovered in your court case was something of an epiphany and I’ve been researching the NWO in depth for a long time.

    While not very familiar with sovereign citizen concepts, I appreciate the inherent danger to the NWO system of technocratic system of control if the masses view themselves as sovereign beings with inherent rights which always supersede all forms of authoritarianism. Now, from your case, I see the NWO targeting of Christianity in a clearer light and this dovetails with something I learned from watching on youtube a California conference of concerned citizens exposing Agenda 21 that took place a couple of years ago. A very articulate young woman gave a presentation in which she described Agenda 21 in detail and included a newer list of Agenda 21 “unsustainable” items to include the usual eye brow raising things such as private property, but also on the list was Christianity. While I know the NWO is doing all it can to stomp out the segment of Christianity that cannot be co-opted, I was stunned to see Christianity specifically named on an official list.

    I learned of this conference from a notice Patrick Wood sent to his followers. Wood was mentored by the late great professor Antony Sutton and together co-wrote the seminal book exposing the Trilateralist Commission.

    BTW, Wood has a website and a new book that thoroughly explores the global Technocracy that’s nearing completion and how it’s destroying what’s left of our freedoms, he absolutely connects the dots – Technocracy is most certainly the end game. Please consider adding Technocracy to your list of categories and perhaps consider inviting Wood for an interview. He recently gave an outstanding interview on John B. Wells Caravan to Midnight program, available on youtube. We need to work together now more than ever.

    Thank you for shining the light and I love your discussions with Corbett.

     
    • Adask

      May 21, 2015 at 7:22 PM

      Thanks for listening.

      Thanks for your compliments.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM

        Re: This “Numbering” system. It began with Satan. Although people will debate & argue that the following scripture does not apply to the “numbering system purpose” we have today, they do not consider that anything can be “improved” upon.
        1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and …
        Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel

         
      • Toland

        May 21, 2015 at 9:12 PM

        On the one hand….

        1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

        On the other hand….

        2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

        The diligent scholar of scripture will know how to reconcile these.

         
      • Roger

        May 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM

        @Toland

        Here’s an answer without the mental gymnastics that are a telltale sign of an incorrect explanation.

        The word for “Satan” in the original text of 1 Chronicles 21:1 is not a proper noun, it is not anyone’s name. The original text of this verse only says that “satan” (a common noun) provoked David to number Israel. The generic term “satan” in Hebrew simply means adversary.

        Who was the adversary at that moment? Who “stood up against Israel”, according to this verse? God was the adversary, as we also read in the 2 Samuel version of the event: “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel”. God was Israel’s adversary, because Israel chose to make itself God’s adversary.

        In fact, the proper name “Satan” does not appear anywhere in the original texts of Bible. There is no such character.

        1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 both say God caused David to number Israel. As always, the Bible is consistent with itself without any need for strained attempts to support untenable translations.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        May 22, 2015 at 4:14 PM

        actually that was a really good show, and the MOOA is important
        almost as important as understanding the History of the
        Children of Israel, {in the Bible}
        and as an aside you might avail yourself
        of.. A History of the Jews in the United States by Lee J. Levinger

        and The Jews in Their Land…by David Ben Gurion…page 136
        where the word sovereignty is used….

        http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/learning/intertestamental.html

        I only mention these as there has been a huge misunderstanding
        in the History of the children of Israel,
        who have never been the “Proselytes” to Talmudic Judaism…

        https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/taking-the-heat-off-israel-why-the-nyt-obsesses-over-campus-debates/

        wherein Identity Thieves now print the currency & Own the Media
        and operate a Crack House called Congress…in America

         
  11. Peg-Powers

    May 21, 2015 at 7:32 PM

    I am age 70 and have not, will not, USE a govco issued & owned soc sec number for any reason. I will not compromise. I will not join the whoredom of the Babylonish Talmud control movement. No licenses. No bank accounts. No credit cards. No Talmud Vision (tv). No food stamps or HUD. No govco tit to suck. And guess what—-God has supplied my needs exceedingly abundantly beyond surprise! Just as HE has promised. IF my choices ultimately take me to the New American Auschwitz, So Be It! Those who control all of this nation called United States or U.S. of America (a fiction) will be dancing in the streets in fictional victory. But the higher JUDGMENT is soon to come….and not by my hand.

     
  12. timmy

    May 21, 2015 at 10:26 PM

    Daniel chapter 12… read it and weep. Then get yourself ready… it’s coming.

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 22, 2015 at 5:19 AM

      timmy,
      @ Daniel chapter 12… read it and weep. Then get yourself ready… it’s coming.
      YES INDEED !!Toland apparently has lost his voice & cannot sing. SOooooo I sing my song.
      And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.1st Chronicles 21:1
      And God was displeased with this thing;1st Chronicles 21:7
      And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people.Samuel 24:10
      And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.2nd Samuel 24:1
      He moved. The pronoun here stands for “the Lord,” yet in 1st Chronicles 21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil, and not simply of “an adversary.”
      “God” DID ALLOW this to happen. He ALLOWS what is happening today TOO. BUT !! The time IS COMING when EVERY MOUNTAIN will move out of its place, when God WILL intervene, AND his ANGER IS “REKINDLED” See Isaiah 40:4; Luke 3:5; Revelation 6:14.
      Every valley will be lifted up, and every mountain and hill will be leveled; the uneven … and every hinderance removed, that we may be ready for his will on earth, and prepared for his heavenly kingdom.Holman Christian Standard Bible
      AMAZING AIN’T IT?! Yes indeed !! READ ALL ABOUT IT!! Seems like I’ve heard that before, ain’t that right,Toland, Henry, Roger? Huh? Ain’t that right? :-) D

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM

        Roger
        May 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM
        @ 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 both say God caused David to number Israel. As always, the Bible is consistent with itself without any need for strained attempts to support untenable translations.
        @ Who was the adversary at that moment? Who “stood up against Israel”, according to this verse? God was the adversary, as we also read in the 2 Samuel version of the event: “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel”. God was Israel’s adversary, because Israel chose to make itself God’s adversary.
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Roger, it is not in the “character” of “God” to command anyone to do something & then severely punish him for obeying the command. You are also cherry-picking scriptures. And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.1st Chronicles 21:1.And God was displeased with this thing;1st Chronicles 21:7, And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. 1st Chronicles 21:7
        Furthermore, it is also written, And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.1st Chronicles 21:8.

         
  13. Colin

    May 22, 2015 at 5:20 PM

    I can’t prove it, but I have little doubt that Dr. Hovind’s advocacy of Creationism played a big part in causing him to be imprisoned for most of a decade.

    Why don’t you doubt it? There’s no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it, so doubting it seems wise to me.

    There are powerful, influential creationists in government. There are rich creationists. There are persuasive creationists. There are widely popular creationists. There are well educated creationists. Kent Hovind isn’t any of those things. He’s a far-fringe voice who’s taken seriously by a minority of a minority, and has very little profile or persuasive power outside his own ideology. There doesn’t seem to be any rational reason why the government would target him with a massive, illegal, bonkers conspiracy. (Not that conspiracy theorists need evidence; it’s been said that the mark of a conspiracy theorist is that they believe the absence of evidence for a conspiracy only proves the conspiracy is powerful.)

    On the other hand, there’s lots of actual facts demonstrating why Hovind was indicted. There is, for example, an indictment, in which the government wrote down the specific things he was being prosecuted for (and for which he was convicted by a jury of his peers, who scrutinized the evidence against him). The indictment doesn’t say “creationism.” It says “structuring.” He was obviously guilty of that; anyone could have, and did, predict that he’d be convicted on the strength of the evidence against him. He professed irrational and highly self-serving beliefs about the tax laws, and eventually paid the price. I’m sorry he went to jail. It’s no one’s fault but Kent Hovind’s.

    I think it’s also worth pointing out that with regard to the latest charges, Hovind didn’t win an acquittal by spouting nonsense about capitalized names or Man or Other Animals or fringed flags or any such gibberish. People who actually know something about the law made a calm, rational and well-reasoned argument, and presented it to the court, which agreed with their logic after hearing out both sides of the case.

     
  14. timmy

    May 22, 2015 at 8:48 PM

    Hi Colin,

    What about this? (all true facts):

    a. IRS requires SS # for individual to file (as indicated on forms and instructions)
    b. SS says the SS program is voluntary (and indeed one must opt-in to get one, i.e. they are not involuntarily assigned to us)
    c. Mine was procured by my mother when I was a minor (12) so there was no informed consent for me

    I suppose some would argue that use indicated later acceptance (after age 18). But could I not have mine voided/rescinded as an unenforceable contract since I was a minor at the time?

    Thoughts and comments welcome. Peanut gallery included. Well, the rational, coherent peanuts, I mean….

     
    • Colin

      May 22, 2015 at 9:50 PM

      First, if I remember right, the SSA says that they don’t require you to get a number, not that there is no obligation whatsoever to get one. If the income tax law requires you to get one, that’s outside purview of the SSA.

      But that’s not relevant to the argument you’re making, since whether or not you need one, you’ve got one. So second, that argument fails because (c) is irrelevant. Your social security number isn’t a contract, and isn’t governed by the law of contracts. There’s no “informed consent” requirement to getting one.

       
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 3:31 PM

        “If the income tax law requires you to get one, that’s outside purview of the SSA.”

        Setting aside for a moment how the inanimate “income tax law” can make a “requirement” upon a man… If one is purportedly “required” to apply for a SSN, who is gonna sign that application?

         
      • Colin

        May 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM

        Jethro,

        The law is the instrument, not the actor. Is a signature or application required for a SSN?

         
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM

        “The law is the instrument, not the actor.”
        Ok, good. So “the law” — a piece of paper — requires nothing of any man. But some man as an actor may come along and try to apply that piece of paper to you. By what right may he do that?

        “Is a signature or application required for a SSN?”
        Have you read the instructions that accompany Form SS-5 regarding line 17? (hint: yes, a signature is required).
        Have you read the SSA’s own policy (RM 10205.180) regarding what to do with a Form SS-5 that has a ‘restricted signature’? (hint: your application gets rejected if you reserve your rights)
        And are you implying one can get a SSN without an application? If so, how is that done, and who assumes liability for it?

         
      • Colin

        May 23, 2015 at 5:54 PM

        So “the law” — a piece of paper — requires nothing of any man. But some man as an actor may come along and try to apply that piece of paper to you. By what right may he do that?

        I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw. The law isn’t “a piece of paper,” it’s written down on paper. It’s created by governmental institutions that draw their legitimacy from the governed, us. The government may apply the law to you because it was created and authorized to do so by the constitution.

        “Is a signature or application required for a SSN?”
        Have you read the instructions that accompany Form SS-5 regarding line 17? (hint: yes, a signature is required).

        That’s the application for a social security card. Are you complaining about having a card, or having a number? And whatever that form requires, unless it’s the only way in which a SSN is generated, its signature requirements don’t answer the question.

        Have you read the SSA’s own policy (RM 10205.180) regarding what to do with a Form SS-5 that has a ‘restricted signature’? (hint: your application gets rejected if you reserve your rights)

        I have now. So what? It’s not surprising that a standardized form gets rejected if someone writes something nonsensical in the signature block—that’s the space for signatures, not diatribes.

        Writing “I reserve my rights” in the signature block is legally meaningless. It does nothing. Your rights are your rights, regardless of what you write there. You aren’t signing a contract when you sign that form.

        And are you implying one can get a SSN without an application? If so, how is that done, and who assumes liability for it?

        Yes, you can get a SSN when you’re born. I suppose your parents are filing an application in that case. I don’t know if employers or the government ever generate SSNs, or what the paperwork would be for that. Why does it matter?

        I don’ understand what you mean by “who assumes liability for it?”. What liability?

         
      • Jethro!

        May 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM

        “I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw. The law isn’t ‘a piece of paper,’ it’s written down on paper.”
        Did that “law” write itself? Or did some man write it down on paper?

        “It’s created by governmental institutions that draw their legitimacy from the governed, us.”
        Is that Mr. or Mrs. “governmental institutions”?

        “The government may apply the law to you because it was created and authorized to do so by the constitution.”
        Is my name in that law? Is my name in that constitution? How do you know it applies to me, a man?

        “That’s the application for a social security card.”
        And… how do you apply for a number without the card?

        “And whatever that form requires, unless it’s the only way in which a SSN is generated, its signature requirements don’t answer the question.”
        Really? You think they’ll process an SS-5 without a signature? Show us one and we’ll believe you.

        “It’s not surprising that a standardized form gets rejected if someone writes something nonsensical in the signature block—that’s the space for signatures, not diatribes.”
        Oh really? “RM 10205.180” cites *specific examples* of language that >>RESERVES RIGHTS<< (which implies a WAIVER OF RIGHTS is otherwise being effected, for you poor folks who went to law school) as grounds to reject the application. Oh, but that's nonsense. But OTOH, you want us to believe that other writing on the signature line like, oh dunno, an UNRESTRICTED SIGNATURE why that's not nonsensical writing at all! So which is it — is an unrestricted signature nonsense or not?

        "Writing 'I reserve my rights' in the signature block is legally meaningless. It does nothing."
        That's a load of crap and you know it (or ought to). If you were correct, "RM 10205.180" sec. "E" wouldn't exist, nor would UCC 1-308, numerous statutes, etc.

        "Yes, you can get a SSN when you’re born. I suppose your parents are filing an application in that case."
        Ah, there you go! The parent(s) applied for it and… SIGNED the form (unrestricted).

        "I don’t know if employers or the government ever generate SSNs, or what the paperwork would be for that. Why does it matter?"
        Oh, I dunno… Maybe because participation in the program is 100% VOLUNTARY.

        "I don’ understand what you mean by 'who assumes liability for it?'. What liability?"
        Title II of the Social Security Act is titled "Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance BENEFITS". Do you think you can get BENEFITS without corresponding legal OBLIGATIONS and DUTIES? Or do you just get them by merely gracing the world with your presence?

         
      • Colin

        May 23, 2015 at 8:54 PM

        “I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw. The law isn’t ‘a piece of paper,’ it’s written down on paper.”
        Did that “law” write itself? Or did some man write it down on paper?

        Is that Mr. or Mrs. “governmental institutions”?

        Is my name in that law? Is my name in that constitution? How do you know it applies to me, a man?

        Rhetorical questions are best saved for when you are communicating clearly. You are not. I don’t understand the underlying point you’re trying to make; why not just write it plainly?

        And… how do you apply for a number without the card?

        I don’t know. Does the SS-5 work for creating new SSNs? What form do parents use to get SSNs for newborns? I have no idea. Nor do I particularly care, as you don’t seem to be making any actual arguments. Are you trying to support Timmy’s contention that contract law applies to the SSN?

        “It’s not surprising that a standardized form gets rejected if someone writes something nonsensical in the signature block—that’s the space for signatures, not diatribes.”
        Oh really? “RM 10205.180″ cites *specific examples* of language that >>RESERVES RIGHTS<< (which implies a WAIVER OF RIGHTS is otherwise being effected, for you poor folks who went to law school) as grounds to reject the application. Oh, but that's nonsense.

        Yes, writing “I reserve my rights” in the signature block of that form is nonsense. It has no legal effect, because you aren’t actually reserving any rights. If Alan and Bob both submitted SS-5s, and Bob wrote “I reserve all my rights” but Alan didn’t, there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s. It’s a legally meaningless statement in this context. It might mean something if you were signing a contract, but an SS-5 isn’t a contract.

        But OTOH, you want us to believe that other writing on the signature line like, oh dunno, an UNRESTRICTED SIGNATURE why that’s not nonsensical writing at all! So which is it — is an unrestricted signature nonsense or not?

        A signature is not nonsense. The distinction you’re trying to draw between “restricted” and “unrestricted” is nonsense, at least in this context, because an SS-5 is not a contract.

        “Writing ‘I reserve my rights’ in the signature block is legally meaningless. It does nothing.”
        That’s a load of crap and you know it (or ought to). If you were correct, “RM 10205.180” sec. “E” wouldn’t exist, nor would UCC 1-308, numerous statutes, etc.

        The rule prohibits you from writing anything other than your name in that box. If you write, “I was born in Texas,” rejected. If you write, “I like eggs,” rejected. If you write, “Albany is the capital of New York,” rejected. Those phrases don’t have any more magical legal power than “I reserve my rights.” I think the reason they call that out as a specific example is that they’ve seen people take bad advice and write nonsense on their form, which creates a pointless headache for the processors. And leads the signatories to believe they’ve uttered magic words to some particular effect, which misleads them. It’s a lot cleaner and easier to just nip the confusion in the bud.

        Oh, I dunno… Maybe because participation in the program is 100% VOLUNTARY.

        No, it isn’t. There’s a detailed explanation of the law here, with detailed and specific citations. I invite readers to compare that careful, diligent analysis to your seat-of-the-pants pontificating.

        Do you think you can get BENEFITS without corresponding legal OBLIGATIONS and DUTIES? Or do you just get them by merely gracing the world with your presence?

        Why don’t you do some research and tell me (a) what liabilities specifically you’re worried about, and (b) why you’re worried about them?

         
      • Toland

        May 23, 2015 at 9:42 PM

        Is my name in that law? Is my name in that constitution? How do you know it applies to me, a man?

        It looks like you’re assuming that being subject to the laws created under the Constitution is something one contracts into as a voluntary matter. The de jure sovereign power in this country says otherwise. That entity, the people of the United States, declares itself to be sovereign which by definition includes the law-making authority, and is willing to use whatever force is necessary to sustain that claim.

        You are free to disagree and act accordingly, if your conscience so moves you. There are of course prices to be paid for morally motivated civil disobedience, sedition, revolution or whatever you want to call your opposition to the sovereignty of the people of the United States.

         
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 10:06 PM

        “Rhetorical questions are best saved for when you are communicating clearly. You are not.”
        I most certainly am, based in part on the comments from others on this blog who do understand. Your purported inability to understand is likely due to a mind clogged with the world of fictions and make-believe.

        “Does the SS-5 work for creating new SSNs?”
        Um, is there any other way?

        “What form do parents use to get SSNs for newborns?”
        SS-5. (Which BTW I consider a form of child abuse.)

        “Yes, writing ‘I reserve my rights’ in the signature block of that form is nonsense.”
        Except the SSA’s own internal manual says otherwise.

        “It has no legal effect, because you aren’t actually reserving any rights. If Alan and Bob both submitted SS-5s, and Bob wrote ‘I reserve all my rights’ but Alan didn’t, there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s.”
        That’s funny. Bob would not have received a SSN.

        “The distinction you’re trying to draw between ‘restricted’ and ‘unrestricted’ is nonsense, at least in this context, because an SS-5 is not a contract.”
        Except the SSA’s own in-house document says otherwise.

        “If you write, ‘I was born in Texas,’ rejected. If you write, ‘I like eggs,’ rejected. If you write, ‘Albany is the capital of New York,’ rejected.”
        Except there are no examples in “RM 10205.180” remotely of that nature. It refers to >>statements that have legal effect<< such as “without prejudice”, “with reservation”, etc.

        “I think the reason they call that out as a specific example is that they’ve seen people take bad advice and write nonsense on their form, which creates a pointless headache for the processors.”
        That’s a nice opinion. But if those words had no effect, they could ignore them and process the application anyway. But they don’t.

        “No, it isn’t. There’s a detailed explanation of the law here, with detailed and specific citations.”
        Funny. We need go no further than the first sentence of this “detailed explanation”: “There is no requirement to apply for (or use) a Social Security number.” Hey, WHO’S GONNA SIGN THAT APPLICATION?

        “Why don’t you do some research and tell me (a) what liabilities specifically you’re worried about, and (b) why you’re worried about them?”
        Are you saying there are no liabilities that come with the SSN? Have you checked e.g. Sect. 801 of the Social Security Act?

         
      • Jethro

        May 23, 2015 at 10:10 PM

        @Toland: “It looks like you’re assuming that being subject to the laws created under the Constitution is something one contracts into as a voluntary matter.”
        Which laws?

        “That entity, the people of the United States, declares itself to be sovereign which by definition includes the law-making authority, and is willing to use whatever force is necessary to sustain that claim.”
        So who is making the claim? Which man? Where is he?

        “There are of course prices to be paid for morally motivated civil disobedience, sedition, revolution or whatever you want to call your opposition to the sovereignty of the people of the United States.”
        Strawman.

         
      • Colin

        May 23, 2015 at 10:34 PM

        Re: SS-5 forms, I’ll take your word that they’re the only way SSNs are created. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make w/r/t to those forms, though. If you can’t simply articulate your point, are you sure it’s a good one? (That was not a rhetorical question.)

        “Yes, writing ‘I reserve my rights’ in the signature block of that form is nonsense.”
        Except the SSA’s own internal manual says otherwise.

        No, it doesn’t. It says that adding any information in the block other than a signature invalidates the form. It uses this particular form of extraneous information as an example.

        “It has no legal effect, because you aren’t actually reserving any rights. If Alan and Bob both submitted SS-5s, and Bob wrote ‘I reserve all my rights’ but Alan didn’t, there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s.”
        That’s funny. Bob would not have received a SSN.

        Fair enough. Then lets modify the hypothetical: if we assume there was no rule against writing extraneous things in the signature block, and both SS-5s were processed, then there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s.

        “The distinction you’re trying to draw between ‘restricted’ and ‘unrestricted’ is nonsense, at least in this context, because an SS-5 is not a contract.”
        Except the SSA’s own in-house document says otherwise.

        What document says that the SS-5 is a contract?

        “If you write, ‘I was born in Texas,’ rejected. If you write, ‘I like eggs,’ rejected. If you write, ‘Albany is the capital of New York,’ rejected.”
        Except there are no examples in “RM 10205.180” remotely of that nature.

        The rule gives examples as examples, not an exhaustive list of disqualifying additions. It even says, explicitly, “Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements that imply the applicant’s refusal to be subject to the penalty clause on the application.” There’s no requirement that it give examples of all disqualifying information.

        It refers to >>statements that have legal effect<< such as “without prejudice”, “with reservation”, etc.

        Those statements can have legal effect in certain contexts. But not in this one. You’re assuming your conclusion, that the SS-5 is a document where such information would have substantive legal effect.

        “I think the reason they call that out as a specific example is that they’ve seen people take bad advice and write nonsense on their form, which creates a pointless headache for the processors.”
        That’s a nice opinion. But if those words had no effect, they could ignore them and process the application anyway. But they don’t.

        They could. But then they’d be letting poorly informed applicants believe, wrongly, that they had submitted special magic language that had some material effect on their rights. It’s better, as I wrote, to nip that in the bud. You see the same thing in many court cases where the judge finally stops permitting irrational litigants from filing, for example, gibberish about the UCC in a criminal case. (I think something similar actually happened to Kent Hovind’s co-defendant, to bring this back around to the original topic.)

        “No, it isn’t. There’s a detailed explanation of the law here, with detailed and specific citations.”
        Funny. We need go no further than the first sentence of this “detailed explanation”: “There is no requirement to apply for (or use) a Social Security number.” Hey, WHO’S GONNA SIGN THAT APPLICATION?

        I think you might find it educational to read more and shout less. The link goes to a FAQ that answers misapprehensions about the law. The sentence you quote is the misapprehension, which is answered in detail by the rest of the material. (That’s why it’s generally not a good idea to stop with the first sentence, or read individual sentences out of context. Understanding comes from learning.)

        “Why don’t you do some research and tell me (a) what liabilities specifically you’re worried about, and (b) why you’re worried about them?”
        Are you saying there are no liabilities that come with the SSN? Have you checked e.g. Sect. 801 of the Social Security Act?

        No. If there’s nothing in particular you’re worried about, I’m not all that interested.

         
      • Toland

        May 23, 2015 at 10:45 PM

        So who is making the claim? Which man? Where is he?

        It is not a “he”. It’s a “they”, a collective entity, claiming sovereignty by means of their elected representatives.

        “…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

        Strawman.

        Have I misunderstood you? Are you not rejecting the claim of sovereignty that underlies the written law in this country?

         
      • Jethro!

        May 24, 2015 at 10:38 AM

        “It says that adding any information in the block other than a signature invalidates the form.”
        No, it doesn’t. It says “Additional information in the signature block *MAY* invalidate the application”, which implies that there is “additional information” that does not invalidate the application. But BY EXAMPLE it lists the KINDS of “information” that does invalidate it; and all of those kinds are of the same type — reservation of rights, and a refusal to assume liability.

        “Then lets modify the hypothetical: if we assume there was no rule against writing extraneous things in the signature block, and both SS-5s were processed, then there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s.”
        No. Bob would have no liabilities attached to the number, which would be a pretty sweet situation.

        “What document says that the SS-5 is a contract?”
        Ever heard of this thing called the “Social Security TRUST Fund”? Aren’t you aware that trusts involve fiduciary obligations and duties that are arrangement or agreement-based?

        “The rule gives examples as examples, not an exhaustive list of disqualifying additions.”
        Perhaps a review of categorical analysis is in order… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FClGhto1vIg

        “Those statements can have legal effect in certain contexts. But not in this one.”
        Sez you, not the writer of “RM 10205.180” .

        “But then they’d be letting poorly informed applicants believe, wrongly, that they had submitted special magic language that had some material effect on their rights.”
        A reservation of rights is “magic language” but the signature is not? Haha, very funny!

        “I think you might find it educational to read more and shout less.”
        I think you might find it educational to write less and think more.

        “The link goes to a FAQ that answers misapprehensions about the law.”
        No, it just goes to some man’s OPINION about what he thinks about “the law”.

        “The sentence you quote is the misapprehension, which is answered in detail by the rest of the material.”
        That sentence identifies a proposition — that there is a “requirement” to APPLY for a SSN. Yet, in all the verbose blah, blah, blah that follows, there’s not a single answer to the simple question, who is gonna SIGN that “required” application? So who is, huh? (hint: nobody, at least nobody with a brain).

        “If there’s nothing in particular you’re worried about, I’m not all that interested.”
        If you’ll not look up a particular citation, I’m not all that interested in helping you.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM

        @Toland — What does any of what you wrote have to do with whether the “laws” you refer to have anything to do with me, a man?

         
      • Toland

        May 24, 2015 at 5:25 PM

        Jethro,

        So you don’t actually reject the People’s claim of sovereignty, you just claim the laws written under this authority don’t apply to men.

        Are there any examples of this theory succeeding in court?

         
      • Jethro!

        May 24, 2015 at 10:52 PM

        “So you don’t actually reject the People’s claim of sovereignty, you just claim the laws written under this authority don’t apply to men.”
        Which laws? Is there any mention of a man therein?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 24, 2015 at 11:03 PM

        Colin,
        @ “I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw.”
        I’m pretty sure Jethro & I, et.al., understand why you say you are not sure you understand.
        @ “I don’t understand what you mean.”
        Naturally.This is because Jethro means what he says & says what he means.This means there is no hidden meaning in what Jethro says. It’s all upfront.
        All of the above applies to all the other times you said you did not understand the question, point,etc.and, to, Palani, &, Alfred, &, timmy, et.al.

         
      • Roger

        May 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM

        Toland > “Are there any examples of this theory succeeding in court?”

        Lol.

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 12:48 PM

        Jethro,

        No, it doesn’t. It says “Additional information in the signature block *MAY* invalidate the application”, which implies that there is “additional information” that does not invalidate the application.

        That’s true. Your assumption that the restriction is limited to “reservation of rights, and a refusal to assume liability” is based on your assumption that the SS-5 is a contract—and it’s also your evidence that the SS-5 is some kind of contract. Your logic is circular; combined with your absolute lack of any factual support whatsoever for your theory, it seems to me that you’re just commenting for the sake of commenting rather than making a serious argument. That’s fine, everyone needs a hobby. I’m only concerned that people read comments like yours online and get mislead into thinking they represent any sort of understanding of the law; your failure to support your wacky ideas should keep that from being a problem.

        If you do want to make a serious argument about whether social security is a contract, I do like having these kinds of conversations. I’d only ask that you make an effort to communicate clearly, perhaps by stating what it is you want to demonstrate and then the evidence or logic that supports that conclusion.

         
      • Jethro

        May 26, 2015 at 9:14 PM

        @Colin: “Your assumption that the restriction is limited to ‘reservation of rights, and a refusal to assume liability’ is based on your assumption that the SS-5 is a contract”
        You keep using the word “contract” — implying a ‘traditional’ 2-party signature contract — as if that’s the only way one may bind himself to legal duties and obligations. But of course that’s not the case, because there are other binding legal relations such as PLEDGES (signed only by one party), trust relationships, etc. There is nothing that limits a reservation of rights to a particular kind of legal relationship, as you’re implying. I can reserve my rights for any kind of legal relationship.

        So I got some bad news for you, Colin. >>My signature is whatever I say it is, not what people like you say it is.<< I may incorporate whatever language and restrictions into my signature as I please. If the other side doesn't want to be subject to the restrictions, THEY CAN WALK AWAY. And that's exactly what the SSA is instructing their flunkies in their “RM 10205.180” manual to do — walk away. (Cuz all benefits and no obligations does not an effective Ponzi scheme make).

        "Your logic is circular; combined with your absolute lack of any factual support whatsoever for your theory, it seems to me that you’re just commenting for the sake of commenting rather than making a serious argument."
        Sez you.

        "I’m only concerned that people read comments like yours online and get mislead into thinking they represent any sort of understanding of the law…"
        Bull. You're not concerned, and your only "understanding of the law" is that of the legal society's, not man's. You just have your opinions, which are usually, from my observations, wielded with little more than an appeal to authority (yourself) fallacy.

         
      • Toland

        May 26, 2015 at 10:03 PM

        it seems to me that you’re just commenting for the sake of commenting rather than making a serious argument

        Sure looks like it, though maybe “commenting for the sake of getting Colin to comment ad absurdum and, finally, ad nauseum” would be closer to the mark.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 22, 2015 at 9:59 PM

      timmy,
      @ Thoughts and comments welcome. Peanut gallery included Well, the rational, coherent peanuts, I mean….
      wow. I almost commented. I didn’t see the, > Well, the rational, coherent peanuts, I mean…. :-)

       
    • Papillon

      July 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM

      Yes, it may be rescinded. They have a form to use (I don’t remember the number) but the best way to get it done is by getting a certified copy of the original application for SS#. Request copies of BOTH sides of the original. Older apps had the voluntary notice language on the back.

      You now have certified evidence that you did not sign a request for a number.

      A proper notice in lieu of the form should get it done. Use of government forms are generally presumed to be consent that the user of the form falls under the jurisdiction of the entity that generated the form.

      Using the certified copy of application as evidence in a suit against the SS administration for fraud to get the # revoked has the added effect of getting reimbursement of all funds taken by the fraud by both the SSA and the IRS. A friend named Ed Shell (from Pennsylvania, now deceased) did it over 30 years ago and the IRS wanted nothing to do with him since. The court sealed his case within minutes to prevent others from getting copies of it.

       
  15. Peg-Powers

    May 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    In Oregon the new babies are assigned SSN and DOT Drivers Numbers also. The Birth Certificates are designed to make it appear that each baby is a bastard, and thus a ward of the state forever. The Birth Certificate declares the mother’s maiden name and the name of the father……never mentioning or declaring them lawfully or legally bound in marriage: holy matrimony. It’s a matter of “omission” of true facts.

     
    • palani

      May 24, 2015 at 1:27 PM

      Peg

      If the record is incorrect then not only do you have a right but also a duty to correct the (birth) record. I doubt if you could get any cleric to do this job properly so a legal notice of the true facts, an opportunity to anyone to rebut these facts, an affidavit from a notary assistant and the publisher followed by posting the findings of the court (of public opinion) on the county record and just like magic there is no further problem.

       
      • Ted

        June 6, 2015 at 5:33 AM

        Re: Your message to the “discrediter” of non trolls
        You are saying “THERE IS NO LAW WORTH A HOOT NOT TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL”. Think about this a bit and it becomes “THERE IS NO LAW WORTH ANYTHING TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL”

        DAT ZACKLEE RAT!! ZACKLEE.

         
    • Colin

      May 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM

      The Birth Certificate declares the mother’s maiden name and the name of the father……never mentioning or declaring them lawfully or legally bound in marriage: holy matrimony. It’s a matter of “omission” of true facts.

      Are those things legally required? The secular government doesn’t care whether matrimony is holy, only whether there was a lawful marriage under civil, secular law. First Amendment and all that. Nor does being a “bastard” make someone a “ward of the state,” for a day or for forever. I think you’re worried about a fantasy, not actual law.

       
      • Ted D.Roofer

        June 1, 2015 at 3:17 AM

        @ “The Birth Certificate declares the mother’s maiden name and the name of the father……never mentioning or declaring them lawfully or legally bound in marriage: holy matrimony. It’s a matter of “omission” of true facts.”
        And The Birth Certificate ISSUES from the Department of COMMERCE, &, I say the word, ISSUE, in this sense means, Government Issue, aka, INVENTORY, like in, G.I. JOE. I was court martialed, once, when I was in the Air Force for getting SUNBURNED. I was suffering from the sunburn. That was bad enough. BUT, as I was INFORMED, I had DAMAGED GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. I WAS THAT PROPERTY.
        The sentence was minimal in that I was restricted to the Base for 30 days. This was also because the Lt. Colonel who pronounced sentence liked me. He came over to the N.C.O. Club to hear me sing, SWEET GEORGIA BROWN. I was LUCKY. I had been advised that others had been discharged “Under honorable conditions” for LESS offences. Under honorable conditions IS NOT, a Honorable Discharge. Anyway the point IS, What & WHO Government Property INCLUDES. Birth Certificates ISSUE from The department of COMMERCE. Now you figure it out.

         
  16. Ted D. Roofer

    May 24, 2015 at 9:56 PM

    Toland,
    @ > “Are you not rejecting the claim of sovereignty that underlies the written law in this country”?

    That “Law” has been underminded & You KNOW IT !!!
    Justice James Wilson, > I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for 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.
    It does not take an Einstein to figure out HOW this has been accomplished, i.e., how we are being OPPRESSED!!! LAWS, they are “called” & LAW enFORCErs.

     
  17. Adask

    May 25, 2015 at 10:38 AM

    One of my readers sent the following to me by email:

    Published on Apr 8, 2015
    When the IRS & United State Government raided Kent Hovind’s church in 2004 they demanded all master copies of CSE #5 teaching “The Dangers of Evolution.” This is one of many “smoking guns” clearly showing that it was the intention of the Government to persecute Kent Hovind and stop his ministry because this video has zero to do with ‘taxes’ or anything related to Kent’s case. They used the vehicle of “structuring” to put him in prison which in 2014 the IRS openly apologized for yet Kent remains locked up. By demanding the video during the raid it shows it was never about anything but stopping Kent’s free speech and ministry.

     
    • Colin

      May 26, 2015 at 2:36 PM

      I’m extremely skeptical. When did the IRS apologize for locking Hovind up, or his structuring conviction? If that’s not true, what does it say about the trustworthiness of this source?

      If this is true, I’d like to see a copy of the demand. Hovind put out some recordings of his rantings about tax law, which would be solid evidence of his intent to violate those laws. And intent is a mjaor part of a structuring charge. So the IRS would naturally be looking for such recordings, in which he discusses his beliefs about taxes. (In other words, if Hovind says on tape, “I don’t have to pay taxes because I’m a Christian,” that would be evidence that his structuring was intended to help him not pay taxes, and the IRS would want that tape as evidence at his trial.) So did they request lots of recordings, looking for any such comments, or did they ask specifically for this one? Curious that the person reaching out to you doesn’t bother to provide any information that would help you understand the truth, just gives you a biased and highly suspect story.

       
      • Jethro

        May 26, 2015 at 10:36 PM

        Here’s the problem with all of this…

        IRS can’t apologize. It has no mouth.
        IRS can’t look for anything. It has no eyes.
        IRS can’t want anything. It has no mind or will.
        Yet, (to my knowledge) not a single man came forward ever to claim Kent caused him harm, injury or loss. So why is this man in jail?

        To the extent IRS locked up Hovind, he is the victim of a gigantic game of make-believe.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        July 17, 2015 at 2:24 AM

        “To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals… is nonetheless robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.”
        – U.S. Supreme Court – Loan Association v. Topeka (1874).

        ALSO, The POWER to TAX, IS THE POWER TO DESTROY. Handing down one of the basic decisions of U.S. constitutional law, the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland, back in 1819, that the Constitution exempts the Federal Government from state taxation. Setting forth his renowned dictum that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the states (and, by inference, local governments) “have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”
        The WAR Amendments, & ENFORCED via “appropriate LEGISLATION took & takes care of this problem. What we have is AN ABUSE OF POWER !!!

         
  18. Ted D.Roofer

    May 27, 2015 at 7:10 PM

    Jethro,
    @ >So I got some bad news for you, Colin. >>My signature is whatever I say it is, not what people like you say it is.
    A Judge asked me, well you signed this didn’t you, is this your signature? I said, that is my handwriting but it is not my signature. we need a signature expert to affirm or deny whether my it is my signature. We do not need a handwriting expert to make the decision.

     
    • Jethro!

      May 27, 2015 at 10:16 PM

      Very true, Ted. Signature ≠ autograph.

       
      • Ted D.Roofer

        May 28, 2015 at 4:30 AM

        Jethro,
        A MAN after my own heart. @ > To the extent IRS locked up Hovind, he is the victim of a gigantic game of make-believe.
        He is a victim of the tyrannical POWER of, FED-GODZILLA, aka, a, totalitarian regime.
        P.S. I love yer werk..

         
      • palani

        May 28, 2015 at 6:06 AM

        “judge asked me, well you signed this didn’t you”
        Perhaps you might have informed him that you would be glad to comment upon the document once it had been entered into evidence. This begs the question ‘who has the authority to enter the document into evidence?’

         
      • Ted

        June 2, 2015 at 10:46 AM

        Jethro,
        @ > “You’re saying I’m a “taxpayer”? Do tell!”
        He,Toland, can, and so can Roger & Henry, & Colin.

         
      • Happy Campbell

        June 26, 2015 at 9:26 PM

        Jethro,
        @ Very true, Ted. Signature ≠ autograph.
        We are not supposed to know or understand very much.This brings on resentment & causes personality clashes.I am amazed as to why you are not classified as a troll and aka, Les Fuches.

         
  19. Ted D.Roofer

    May 27, 2015 at 7:18 PM

    Toland,
    @ > it seems to me that you’re just commenting for the sake of commenting rather than making a serious argument.
    Toland must you make your talking to yourself, public?

     
  20. Colin

    May 28, 2015 at 4:30 PM

    Further to the point that it’s a ridiculous notion that Hovind was prosecuted for being a creationist, Dennis Hastert was just charged with structuring–the same basic offense that Hovind was accused, tried, and convicted of. http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/644023/feds-charge-former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-lying-fbi-illegal-cash-structuring

    Given the best legal help available, I don’t think you’ll see the Hastert team arguing that he’s not the DENNIS HASTERT named in the court documents, or that the flag has the wrong fringe, or that he’s not an animal and therefore immune to laws, or that the court is not a person and does not have a mouth with which to accuse him, or any such goofiness. Why is that? Is he too dumb to advance arguments like that, or too savvy?

     
    • Henry

      May 28, 2015 at 9:24 PM

      Only the poor and ignorant dwell in Legal Theory Fantasyland, it being custom built for them like a Disney theme park by the rich and sophisticated to preempt the organized political renaissance among the masses that was threatening to occur about 25 years ago.

      It’s taken many hands, diverse talents, and long years to build, but now the Legal Theory Fantasyland slaughterhouse works like a charm.

       
  21. Ted D.Roofer

    May 28, 2015 at 4:52 PM

    palani,
    @ Perhaps you might have informed him that you would be glad to comment upon the document once it had been entered into evidence. This begs the question ‘who has the authority to enter the document into evidence?’
    I am not anywhere close to being as sharp as you are & in addition to that, I’m not able to think on my feet after I have been mentally tortured for 3 days & 3 nights & dragged into a Court of “No Record” not knowing if I am coming or going. Sides that, it doesn’t matter what we say or don’t say in a “Court of No Record.” I cannot emphasize this enough. Some people just have to learn the hard way, like I “did”. We ARE in a spiritual WAR. It’s good v. EVIL. “God” SAYS his people WILL be OPPRESSED. E.g., “What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws.They deprive the poor of justice.” Isaiah 10:1 & verse 2. I think at least part of this oppression we suffer through is because “God” also said,”My people are being destroyed because of a lack of knowledge”. Our Parents were not taught right but neither were our Grandparents & this goes back a Lonnnnng way. I love yer werk, palani, & U 2 !!!

     
  22. Peg-Powers

    May 28, 2015 at 5:56 PM

    Historically, legal documents and official forms were crafted openly on a sheet of paper, with a line at bottom for proper signatures. (I’ve gone to the court house and have seen hundreds. My grandmother had a few.) But after the 1930’s, changes were implemented. English rules of grammar and spelling have been trashed. One RULE still holds true (I think). Anything placed inside a BOX removes it from the document. Bingo, you’ve entered a fakery. This also used to be the rule in publishing a newspaper. That’s why they place commercial advertisements in BOXES—–which apparently removed possible LIABILITY in connection with that ad from the newspaper.

    Most legal forms are now Inside The BOX…..and so are the so-called signatures. Boxes within Boxes—–All FICTIONAL make-believe crap. Even the elitist esquires of the Queen of England (attorney) are shadow boxing and unaware of the fraudulent practice.

     
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 28, 2015 at 9:20 PM

      Peg-Powers,
      I hope the following helps me to regain good standing with ya.
      WHY DID GOD MAKE MEN BEFORE WOMEN?
      Why did “God” make a man before he made a woman?
      Any Creator, inventor, etc., worth his/her salt KNOWS
      you need a rough draft before you make a final copy. :-)
      HAHHAHhahahahahahahahahahHAHHAHhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!

       
    • Colin

      May 29, 2015 at 3:02 PM

      English rules of grammar and spelling have been trashed. One RULE still holds true (I think). Anything placed inside a BOX removes it from the document. Bingo, you’ve entered a fakery.

      This is very misleading. “English rules of grammar and spelling” still apply. And putting something in a box does not “remove it from the document.” Anything that’s obviously separate from the document can be excluded from the content of that document. A box can do that; an example would be comments to drafts that are sometimes in little boxes off to the side. But a box does not remove something from the document if it obviously belongs to the document, and signatures obviously belong to the document. A signature block in a box is part of the document, and the signatures there are not “so-called signatures” or “make-believe crap.”

      Come on, guys. At some point this nonsense should start to trip your common-sense meters. You really think that there’s this huge secret rule that makes a vast swath of documents illegitimate, and no one ever bothered to write it down or talk about it? You’d need every lawyer in the country, plus every government official and every paperwork professional (accountants, notaries, paralegals, businessmen, etc.) in on a truly giant conspiracy. Law students train on methods of contract interpretation, this “rule” would be in actual textbooks if it was true. And you’d be able to find court cases where someone prevailed on the theory.

      When someone tosses out a wild, wacky theory that purports to overturn everything you’ve ever heard about law, and offers no support for it whatsoever, do us all a favor and be just a tiny bit skeptical. Peg-Powers, you really should have known better before buying into such nonsense. You’re plainly not stupid, and more than smart enough to not get fooled by such baloney.

       
      • palani

        May 29, 2015 at 9:16 PM

        @ Colin “Law students train on methods of contract interpretation, this “rule” would be in actual textbooks if it was true.”
        You are saying “THERE IS NO LAW WORTH A HOOT NOT TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL”. Think about this a bit and it becomes “THERE IS NO LAW WORTH ANYTHING TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL”. You attend law school to aid in determining things that are not worthy to retain. That is what they teach and they hope you have the intelligence and incentive to actually search out and discover real LAW. Instead you decided to collect worthless FRN’s. Very disappointing. Hope you do better in the future. Take up truck driving or make yourself useful to society in other ways.

         
      • Papillon

        July 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM

        Law schools simply teach how to follow current “court” procedures and how to research a matter. They teach strategy in how to prevent the truth from being entered into evidence if it will harm your “case.”

        Attorneys are whores for the system which is admitted in the definitions section (volume 7) of Corpus Juris Secundum. On attorney-client relationship (CJS Vol. 7, sec. 4), an attorney’s duty is to the court first, then the public, then the client and where these duties conflict the latter (the client) must give way to the former (the court and the public). When hiring an attorney you’ve hired a spy for the other side because his duty is to the court first, including fellow “officers of the court.” If it’s deemed to be in the “public good” for you to lose the case then he must. The “client” is last on the list so when he says he must “re-present” you to the best of his ability he’s not talking about “knowledge and skill.” He’s talking about within the limits of his ability placed on him by his oath.

        When you hire an attorney you’ve declared yourself incompetent in the eyes of the court by saying, “I can’t handle my own affairs so I’ve given control of my affairs (power of attorney) to this officer of the court.”

        A “client” is defined as (also known as) a “ward of the court.” A “Ward of the Court” is defined as “infants and those of unsound mind placed in the custody of the court for their care.”

        You’ve declared yourself incompetent and made yourself a ward of the court when you hire an attorney. You can’t speak in court unless given permission because the court doesn’t want its time wasted by a self-declared incompetent.

         
      • Colin

        July 23, 2015 at 5:55 PM

        Law schools simply teach how to follow current “court” procedures and how to research a matter.

        Could have fooled me. I recall, in three years of law school, exactly two classes on procedure: one civil, and one criminal. The rest was about what the law is (of torts, contracts, property, criminal law, constitutional law, etc.), how to research, how to write, how to argue, how to reason logically, and professional ethics.

        You don’t have to be a lawyer to reason well or have a good argument. You just have to think critically and carefully. See the nonsense above, for example, about how anything inside a box doesn’t count for the contract. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that’s obviously wrong—you just have to be willing to scrutinize an idea to see if it makes sense in light of the real world.

        Attorneys are whores for the system which is admitted in the definitions section (volume 7) of Corpus Juris Secundum. On attorney-client relationship (CJS Vol. 7, sec. 4), an attorney’s duty is to the court first, then the public, then the client and where these duties conflict the latter (the client) must give way to the former (the court and the public).

        In other words, a lawyer can’t break the law for his client. If that makes lawyers “whores,” you have a pretty strange definition of “whore.”

        The same basic rules apply to all professions—lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. all have duties higher than their duty to the client/patient. Your lawyer can’t lawfully burn incriminating evidence for you. Your accountant can’t lawfully lie to the IRS or your business partners. Your doctor can’t lawfully prescribe you heroin. All those professions are bound to their clients and their clients’ best interests, but as you say, can’t break the law to do it. I think that’s a good thing!

        When hiring an attorney you’ve hired a spy for the other side because his duty is to the court first, including fellow “officers of the court.” If it’s deemed to be in the “public good” for you to lose the case then he must.

        This is not true. The standard only means that the lawyer can’t break the law for you or lie for you.

        When you hire an attorney you’ve declared yourself incompetent in the eyes of the court by saying, “I can’t handle my own affairs so I’ve given control of my affairs (power of attorney) to this officer of the court.”

        This is also not true. When you hire an attorney, you hire an advocate. You don’t become incompetent. Which is why there are things like competency hearings—it takes a lot more to lose control over your own affairs than just hiring a lawyer.

        A “client” is defined as (also known as) a “ward of the court.” A “Ward of the Court” is defined as “infants and those of unsound mind placed in the custody of the court for their care.”

        A “client” is also defined as “a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company.” Picking one weird definition doesn’t change what the law is. No one is deemed to be of unsound mind because they hired a lawyer; this is another one of those funny fantasies that just doesn’t measure up to the real world.

        Just like I said above, do us all a favor and use your common sense. You’re smarter than this nonsense.

         
    • Cody

      May 31, 2015 at 5:26 PM

      Forms are for “con form ity.”

       
  23. timmy

    May 29, 2015 at 7:06 PM

    Why is it that Congress passes retroactive tax law routinely (changing rates, etc.) when the Constitution expressly prohibits ex-post facto law changes?? Don’t tell me it’s simply administrative housekeeping or some such; they do it by passing bills. Something is CLEARLY amiss SOMEHOW…

     
  24. Colin

    May 29, 2015 at 7:23 PM

    The Constitution doesn’t prohibit all ex post facto law changes. It prohibits the application of criminal penalties ex post facto. (The text doesn’t say say so explicitly, it just refers to ex post facto laws generally. That’s been understood to refer to criminal penalties, not every law, since the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull.) Sometimes taxes fall into that range, as in Burgess v. Salmon. Here’s a brief explanation of ex post facto (and other, similar factors) as they apply to tax law: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42791.pdf

     
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 29, 2015 at 8:51 PM

      Colin,
      Originally, there were 3 taxes. Head tax, Import tax, & I forget the other one. Anyway, it was fair for all, everybody. It ain’t that way no mo tho.

       
    • timmy

      May 30, 2015 at 10:24 PM

      Read the report… almost makes the opposite case from its conclusion, lol. There’s little doubt in my mind that the Founder’s would find this position absurd and anathema to every principle they founded the country on. But on that basis, 88% of everything going on today would be voided… pathetic. Ex post facto is like a royal privilege… absurd and uncontrollable and so typical of the things that make it impossible for ordinary citizens and business people to plan, control their own property, etc. Little wonder we have totally stagnated. Yuk.

       
      • Colin

        May 31, 2015 at 1:08 PM

        There’s little doubt in my mind that the Founder’s would find this position absurd…

        Why? Have you read contemporary documents about their position on whether ex post facto restrictions should apply to civil laws? Are you familiar with the prior drafts and intent behind that clause in the constitution? It seems to me that you’d have to know an awful lot of background facts to have “little doubt” about the truth here. Doubt is the safest place to rest your head.

        I don’t know any of the things I mentioned above. I don’t know what the founders would have intended. If I had to guess, Calder is consistent with the founders intent. It’s an 18th century case, after all. Likely some of the parties, lawyers, and justices were founders. But I haven’t checked to be sure, so my guess isn’t worth much.

         
  25. Ted D.Roofer

    May 30, 2015 at 9:34 AM

    Roger
    May 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM
    Toland > “Are there any examples of this theory succeeding in court?”

    Lol.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Hmmmmmmmmm. Sounds like you, Roger, &, Toland, are here to “help us TOO”. :-(

     
  26. timmy

    May 30, 2015 at 10:25 PM

    For some reason, this site never posts my replies directly under the post I’m responding to… even though I’m using that exact reply button. Makes for seriously confusing threads, and lots of bruised egos, lol.

     
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 30, 2015 at 11:18 PM

      timmy,
      @ > For some reason, this site never posts my replies directly under the post I’m responding to… even though I’m using that exact reply button. Makes for seriously confusing threads, and lots of bruised egos, lol.
      This is one reason for Satan also having the ID of, The Prince of the Power of the Air. :-(

       
  27. Adask

    May 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM

    I have no control over how the comments are presented. Sorry about the busted threads, but not about the bruised egos.

     
  28. timmy

    May 31, 2015 at 11:40 AM

    And what about the Silk Road guy getting life without parole?? The judge specifically said she was making an example out of him, to dissuade future behavior by others. How is that not an absolute denial of his right to equal treatment (‘protection’) under the law?? IRS does the same thing- giving celebrities much worse punishment than unknowns (Willie Nelson, Wesley Snipes, et al). Justice is supposed to be blind (to who the person IS) and simply apply the law to what was done, same for all.

     
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 31, 2015 at 9:44 PM

      timmy,
      @ > IRS does the same thing- giving celebrities much worse punishment than unknowns (Willie Nelson, Wesley Snipes, et al).
      Willie also said he relied on his licensed attorneys to do what was legally considered RIGHT & PROPER. Willie later said, From now on, I will let H & R BLOCK handle my tax issues. Honest Injun. I heard him SAY this. It’s on a video interview. I ran it back twice to make sure I heard right. So much for LICENSED attorneys. THEY are the ones who did wrong BUT, who SUFFERED? THEY DIDN’T. Fact IS, they PROFITED from the legal “wrongdoing” Ain’t that RIGHT COLIN & Co-hearts?

       
  29. Cody

    May 31, 2015 at 5:23 PM

    Since when the did the IRS become “Just,” or exist for the concept of “equal protection under the law?” You can’t enforce arbitrary laws justly. Further, you can’t have capricious “judges” providing “equal protection” under a vague scheme.

    Moreover, just where on this planet can you find “justice” when your own state will not allow for the presumption of innocence?

    “17. “Knowingly”:

    (a) Only a knowledge that the facts exist that bring the act or omission within the provisions of the statute using such word.

    (b) Does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission.”

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/1/00215.htm&Title=1&DocType=ARS

    As far as I can tell, Kent Hovind is as innocent as a flesh and blood man can be. The laws just don’t allow for it. It would destroy the “fiction.”

     
  30. Ted

    June 2, 2015 at 5:01 PM

    Cody,
    @ > Since when the did the IRS become “Just,” or exist for the concept of “equal protection under the law?”
    They exist for, Just US, themselves, at our expense, &, to our detriment. It makes a BIG difference in knowing this tho doesn’t it.

     
  31. badintense

    September 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM

    i just read the PF&DA of 1906, it includes PROCESSED FOODS!!!! they can put poison in the food/cofectionary since it is only approved for MOOA!!!!

     
  32. Chex

    October 5, 2015 at 12:22 AM

    @ Colin’s quote Yes, writing “I reserve my rights” in the signature block of that form is nonsense. It has no legal effect, because you aren’t actually reserving any rights. If Alan and Bob both submitted SS-5s, and Bob wrote “I reserve all my rights” but Alan didn’t, there would be no difference whatsoever between Alan’s rights and Bob’s. It’s a legally meaningless statement in this context. It might mean something if you were signing a contract, but an SS-5 isn’t a contract.

    There is no real substance or “money of exchange” like gold and silver- only accounting-adjustments and set offs.

    They agreed to do this for you, with the passage of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192 back in 1933.

    So Colin has House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192 back in 1933 been repealed?

    Like all good corporations they offer to their “employees” insurance benefits.

    They offer insurance to us if we would fill out a Form SS-5 also known as an “Application for Social Security Benefits”.

    This all originated from the “Shepard Towners Maternity act” which was to help new mothers with the care of their children if the mother was unwed. (this is why they ask for the maiden name of the mother on the “application for live birth certificate”.

    We are all considered to be “bastard children” with the ‘company’ as our ‘daddy’.)

     

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