Peymon explains it pretty clearly here in 26 minutes...answers all the "deep" questions, arising from fearful programming.....which is what prevents 95% of people from taking back their power and benefiting from their own hard-earned money.
In short, you only need to pay "income taxes" if you live in the geographical boundaries of the District of Columbia and/or are employed by the Federal government. That's the "law" (rules written by the rule-makers) and what the Founding Fathers originally intended, and has always been true to this very day.
Well, you could play sovereign citizen and refuse to recognize agential entities and the word games called law and so forth, and create your own reality. That's beside the point of OP, because real sovereigns recognize noblesse oblige and they deign to deal with those backward, underinformed people who think they work for "governments" and enforce "laws" and so on, because it's better for sovereigns to have good relations with such poorly informed people, especially when they have lots of guns too. And that goes right back to understanding what they admit the law is to them.
I can converse on that level. Yet, on a more accurate level, Jesus Christ and I have a two-way covenant, called the Constitution for the United States of the year of our Lord 1787 as amended; and under that covenant I've authorized my state to authorize the federal government to authorize a "Congress" to promulgate American "statutes at large", and I deign to accept the process while reserving the right to take exceptions. The SAL and I are not at odds on this point, though, so I counsel people to be at peace and at one with the SAL as I am, which is not much different from the mainstream approach to law. Oh, and that's totally offtrack of OP.
Have you read 1 USC 8?
Correct, and totally offtrack. Income tax is "voluntary".
There were sketchy events that whole century, 1865 was mostly noted for the unseating of Confederate legislators, but these are historical shifts that do not exempt anyone from legal duties. (I already referred to PCD; if a person doesn't acknowledge the current government, he's free to fight it, but that's unwise given the firepower ratio and given that the law as written in the SAL is not your enemy.) So that's another strawman that gets people in trouble sooner or later. The person who thinks the whole government is illegitimate has bigger problems than petitioning that same government.
You make a valid point about fear but it doesn't apply because you return to the strawmen:
Agreeing to be a legal fiction doesn't make you a legal fiction, Abraham Lincoln said about dogs (one of the few things he got mostly right). All the words you cited are mistaken buzzwords that don't actually convey a nexus upon you like you imply they do. A couple of them relate to other nexuses but usually not ones you can use with "income" tax. However, it being an "income" tax you'd think the word "income" might be a buzzword, mightn't it?
So as a path forward I propose: (1) Let's agree that we're both sovereigns unswayed by fear (except fear of the LORD) and that any discussion we have on this point should start with that reality. (2) I further submit the proposition that as sovereigns we are free to deign to get along with those folks who play word games by playing the same game with them flawlessly (the king is free to go about as a peasant), and not arbitrarily but in sovereign recognition of what other sovereigns do via generally accepted principles (e.g. statutory construction). (3) I further submit that we agree that exchanging labor for pay is a natural right as such, and that taxes in the nature of excise are defined as not being able to reach natural rights as such; that might help you start to remove the strawmen (the loose-sounding statements that don't hold up to the scrutiny of generally accepted construction). If those are fair enough to start, you might then interact with the questions I asked of the person who simply requested the scheme be explained straightforwardly.
A painfully obvious oxymoron created by our malevolent overlords. Why do you invoke their nonsense?
-> You are also BELIEVING what this same group of controlling entities calls "Jesus Christ". You do not understand who/what "Jesus Christ" is though, if you BELIEVE their fraudulent story about a man living 2000 years ago. "He" was not "Jesus Christ". "He" was one of the tiny few who REALIZED who he was (who we all are).
A "constitutor" is -> "one who agrees to pay the debts of another". The Constitutions was a CONTRACT between the cooperative indepdent nation states and the service bureau entity they CREATED -> The "American government". The Constitution does not "grant rights to man", it merely outlined a tiny few of our NATURAL, if you like "God-given" rights that ALREADY EXISTED and always will exist. Invoking the Constitution in our conversation is of no value. You get yourself all wound up in a handful of clauses that the cabal loves to debate. A debate which is several miles downstream, obfuscated by dozens of cascading ASSUMPTIONS.
Swim upstream. Did "God" give any man (or fictional entity) the "Right" to FORCE another man to hand over the fruits of his labor? Of course not. Thus, the "debate" is expunged.
It's true, you can CHOOSE TO BELIEVE you "authorized" the DE FACTO OVERLORS and there's nothing I can do to stop you from it. That's your CHOICE. I don't remember anybody giving me a choice. Were you ever offered the opportunity to not authorize them? If not, you've been unwittingly suckered (forced) in an ADHESION CONTRACT, which you should be aware of. That's all it is. If there wasn't a choice given to "not authorize", you've allowed yourself to be bamboozled.
I have no idea what "the SAL" is, and I am the OP, so nothing I've wrtten is "offtrack".
Why would I? I'm a man. Does it say anything about men?
Is it now? Why do 99.99% of Americans BELIEVE otherwise? Could it be it's because our overlords and all their institutions are perhaps, just maybe, perchance DELIBERATELY LYING TO US? Not to mention, using threat of force, violence and imprisonment to keep everyone fearful?
You believe the history books do you? Do you really believe the Civil War was over "slavery"? A ludicrous proposition by every measure of common sense.
I, A MAN, am exempt from all things "LEGAL". You haven't seen through this deception yet either apparently. The LEGAL (Liege lord) SYSTEM is a fictional fraud. Let's not invoke admiralty/maritime talking points. That's just swimming miles downstream. There are some things that are BOTH legal and lawful (namely, causing wrong, harm or injury to another) - pure common sense. You can toss every "statute" out the window here. A jury can make perfectly reasonable conclusions about a case in controversy. There are many things that are lawful, but illegal. Like not handing another man the fruits of your labor. Or choosing not to "fight an artificial war started by our overlords to satisfy their blood lust. There are also many things that are unlawful, but legal. Like our fake federal reserve monopoly currency, a.k.a. "LEGAL tender" was entirely UNLAWFULLY foisted upon the unsuspecting masses. Thus, the "LEGAL" system does not apply to a man/woman. If you cause wrong or harm to another man/woman, then it's your obligation to compensate. How simple is that?
A FICTION cannot be "harmed", a.k.a. "crimes against the fictional state". Fictions have no "rights" because they don't exist in reality. Now, the LEGAL SYSTEM will continue to be needed when a fictional entity is involved, as this is what has defined the "Rights" of fictions. Precisely what they try to do with men and women, by using their fictional, legalese words, a handful of which I mentioned in the previous post.
Who said anything about "fighting"? Not me. I'm in no fights. I use my own God-given free will to ignore it. "It" has nothing to do with "me". How simple is that?
You keep using the term "strawman" incorrectly which leads me to believe you don't know what it is..... The LEGAL SYSTEM is the creator of all the strawmen. Are you unable to see this?
Hahaha, you did it again! I POINTED OUT THE STRAWMAN and you are now bizarrely suggesting I'm inventing one? You're not making any sense now...
What? It sure does WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. You will be treated as such! Your arguments are fading into incomprehensibility as you try to REBUT my points unsuccessfully. You're not making any sense.
While we agree "Honest Abe" was anything but most of his life, this sentence made absolutely no sense either. You're fading fast my friend!
"All the words you cited are mistaken buzzwords that don't actually convey a nexus upon you like you imply they do."
Okay, now you've "jumped the shark". Buzzwords? Really? Those are the very words you unwittingly allow yourself to become ENTRAPPED within the fictional legal system. You give them CONSENT to ruling over you when you agree to them. You have a lot more studying to do if you don't understand this most basic point.
No, not a "buzzword". It's a LEGALLY defined word -> Corporate Profits. Irwin Schiff had this right 40-odd years ago. The reason he got tossed in the can and died there is that he didn't realize his STRAWMAN ->> ALL CAPS "IRWIN SCHIFF" is a "corporation" (a trust in truth but minor point).
I'll gladly agree with the front half of your olive branch. We are indeed sovereigns and the de facto regime has NOTHING to do with us. But on the other point, no, you've allowed the cabal tricksters to fool you again. The correct word in scripture is not FEAR the Lord, it is to REVERE, to be IN AWE & WONDER to this amazing experience we're having.
It seems most people on this board, willing to accept the fact that every instiuttion is infiltrated and run by the cabal, but not modern, popular, literal Christian institutions. For the life of me, I don't understand why this isn't abundantly clear, but it's not. If everybody shifted the meaning, interpretation and definition of just a couple dozen words in Scripture, back to what they ORIGINALLY MEANT and were INTENDED TO MEAN, this world would be a very different place.
I am perfectly in resonance with allowing everybody their own free will, as universal law demands. So if you want to "Play their game", by all means, knock yourself out. My post was for the people that are ready to "break free" and take their power back. I see comments all the time on this board implying so. I would NOT make the same post on an uber-liberal forum of course.
This sentence makes ZERO sense. You need to go look up the meaning of strawman and make sure you understand how and why it is used. The cabal, the government, the legal system are the ones who BUILT ALL THE STRAWMEN!!!!. I'm just showing you how to see them, and transcend them.
Peymon "explained straightforwardly" in the video I, the OP, created this post about. You jumped straight to ATTACK DOG mode in your comment you posted within my post.
You've got yourself all bound up in at least a dozen misunderstandings, probably more. I pointed out a few here, but you have more to go. You do not understand the distinction between lawful and legal. You clearly do not understand what a "strawman" is. And you are operating with extensive misunderstandings about what Scripture says. I can help you unwind all three. But I suspect you don't want them unwound.
"It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know that just ain't so" - Mark Twain.
You are a free and sovereign soul in ALL RESPECTS. No man/woman has the RIGHT to tell you what you can or can't do, as long as you aren't harming other men or women. Your FREE WILL cannot be violated without karmic consequence (as you sow, so shall you reap). This is a BIG subject almost nobody understands. Suffice it to say, those who run the "government", at the highest levels, know this universal law, and agreed to take on the burden long ago.
Do you know who you are (Not "John Doe")? Do you know why you're here (discharging karma)? Do you know where you are (a floating globe in infinite space)? Do you understand what your purpose is (adherence to a BELIEF SYSTEM)?
Almost nobody can accurately answer these questions. The reason why? Humanity is just now exiting over 12,000 years of deep brainwashing. Most of which occurred in the past 150 years or so. Never in the history of humankind have the people been so thoroughly lost.
But the good news is, that's all about to change. We're right in the middle of it. The name of this board points to it. But "The Great Awakening" has nothing to do with Q, Trump, Jesus, etc. Humanity is almost entirely FAST ASLEEP. If you are BELIEVING the ideas from our "experts and authorities", you're caught up within the blind leading the blind - for many millennia now.
You are FREE and you CREATE YOUR OWN REALITY. And yes, I grant you the complete autonomy to BELIEVE you're not and that other men can tell you what to do. Your choice and I fully honor it.
But the two of us converse because we share a reality in words and in experiences, so there should be hope that we can communicate on these points.
This is more important than the OP so perhaps I can bat away the other questions quickly and get back to Who We Are. Perhaps we can both resist the temptation to say too much on the side points and keep to the TLDR points that I'll put at the end.
I define sovereign and citizen for myself, not they.
I already said no.
I de-authorize them every time I re-instruct them, at time and place of my choosing.
It appears in quotes just before I abbreviated it. Peymon shoulda told you.
It does, but if you reject its application to you then it's irrelevant. But you shouldn't advocate, in OP, for people to petition the government and then act as if there's no government, that's just doubleminded. Which I'll get to.
People believe it "involuntary" because the system suppresses exactly what I advocated, people reading the laws for themselves.
They are misleading to the point of deliberateness in some cases; but in order to maintain their system under God they cannot exceed certain boundaries of deception or their scheme collapses, and that fact is to my advantage. Threats ditto.
I said nothing of the sort, and I alluded to the unseating event that is not typically in history books and that you invoked by its date. I was trying to empathize with you.
Sounds just like what I call divine law and human law.
My point is that ignoring the state and its sycophants has led to much suffering by the ignorers, and the schemers have predictable patterns such that these usually kick in around the 6th year of getting on their radar, give or take (nota bene).
I'm not talking about fictional strawmen entities allegedly created by an alleged government. I'm talking about a logical strawman argument, a short word for the following complex concept: evildoer schemes complexly, evildoer also circulates poisonous narratives (strawmen) about scheming simplistically, such narratives are partly true partly false, welldoers believe such narratives and suffer worse accordingly. Only an accurate and pointed statement of the actual complex scheme will suffice, which is why I make such statements where they apply (and to those who listen). I direct people to read their W-2's.
We both know the two frames of reference so neither should use their confusability against the other. As humans we are not fictions. Under law we are treated similarly to fictions. We're not in disagreement there.
He said calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and was (as rarely) mostly right.
Whatever you call them ("term of art"), the words you've listed don't have a nexus of entrapment or consent the way the word "income" does. But I've spoken to that sufficiently for now.
See, people who listen to Peymon listen to Irwin. There is no legal definition of income as corporate profits or as anything else, nor is that the legal definition of gross income or taxable income. Another "faulty argument that allows IRS to continue and exacerbate processes designed to result in assessment and collection" (i.e. logical strawman argument).
And that's what I meant, as Humpty Dumpty says about mastery.
Good expression of motive. Given that, I reemphasize that bad info is worse than no info. We might well start with agreement on the common recognition that terms of art mislead the people; but that implies that getting the terms of art wrong is just as bad as believing the misleading. So to take power back we cannot err ourselves or create greater risks than we currently face.
I understand you're so used to one (valid) meaning of "strawman" that you're unused to my other (valid) meaning. Trim the sentence to: "Exchanging labor for pay is a natural right as such, and taxes in the nature of excise are defined as not being able to reach natural rights as such." Maybe we're in some agreement after all.
Yes, because lives and livelihood are in danger with rash advice. Your ability to recognize this backstop scheme will in time balance with your ability to recognize the danger inherent in the main scheme.
I believe I'm understanding quite well based on what you've said so far. However, I always want misunderstandings unwound, whether they're my own or your own or joint. I said the most important is Scripture so I'm glad you returned to that.
6,018 years, incidentally.
Yes. 10D space, incidentally.
You get credit for asking if I know after beginning with a guess about what I know. I told you I'm in covenant with a historical Man whom it's convenient to call "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth" because that's pretty unequivocal about which Man I mean. I assert this Man lives and influences life today. I also assert this Man is the embodiment of the Golden Rule that you applaud. I didn't allude to controlling entities or fraudulent stories, you did, but if you believe they affect our ability to judge historical facts then we need to go further back to how we know anything at all (epistemology). I've tested all claims and all powers, and have chosen Jesus. If I'm wrong, Jesus will release me from my error, or something greater than Jesus will if such thing exists.
So, if you affirm the Golden Rule, and you affirm the rights of Man, and if I give the embodiment of the Golden Rule in Man the name "Jesus Christ", we might not be that far apart. But you seem to be hinting that you have bigger errors to disabuse me of than OP, errors about Jesus or Scripture or God or Reality. Please, feel free, a wise man loves rebuke and correction.
TLDR: Tax brainwashing pales compared to millennia of reality brainwashing, so let's talk reality. If we agree on adherence to the Golden Rule and the rights of Man, I propose that in Man such a Rule can be called Jesus Christ. I listen to those disenfranchised by organizational religion, seeking to apprehend truth ever better. They and I both plant seeds, and in good ground they grow. But it's better for us to sort out Jesus and Truth before we sort out Income and Employment.
You're now behaving very disingenuously by trying to sidestep my points. You know full well that YOU meant what they MEAN when you invoked their weaponzed oxymoron. Stop playing games. You were caught red-handed playing THEIR GAME here. You just didn't realize I understood the trick. Or, perhaps you don't understand their trick. This is becoming evident in our little exchange. You're saying "I see some of their tricks but I'm also accepting (not seeing) others. You have one foot out the door but not both yet.
This sentence makes no sense. You're doing neither. You certainly aren't "re-instructing" anybody.
Your side-stepping and dodging is growing tiresome. Produce the verbiage in your "Code/Act" that says anything about man/men/woman/women. I'll wait.
It happens to people who are IGNORANT about who they are and who the controllers are. If you're not clear on this, then you're creating a fearful, adversarial reality for yourself.
Show me one example of "ME" creating a strawman argument.
People believe it "involuntary" because the system suppresses exactly what I advocated, people reading the laws for themselves.
Everything about this sentence is wrong. People don't "believe involuntarity". That literally makes no sense. And you don't need to "Read their RULES" if they don't apply to men and women. Simplify! You're trapping yourself in downstream cascading assumptions and can't see the forest for the trees.
No, we are in fundamental disagreement here. Your sentences indicate you don't understand the basic trick, even now. We have been DECEIVED to AGREE and CONSENT to ACCEPTING FICTIONAL DESIGNATIONS. That's the trick! These are their "strawmen". You still don't see this. You keep "reading their FICTIONAL RULES" thinking they apply to YOU.
Of course they do, that's their ENTIRE PURPOSE!!! You clearly do not understand the basics at all. No wonder you don't understand what Peymon is saying. You need to step back and recognize you're deeply confused about all of this.
Wrong! And here you go again, pontificating in abstraction. You've missed the point at least a dozen times. As a man, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY LEGAL DEFINITIONS because I am not associated with the LEGAL SYSTEM. Why can't you understand this?
Okay, you've made yourself clear now. I suspected as much with your first comment, but now it's a certainty. You do not understand any of this. The danger for you is, you actually BELIEVE you do. What I, and Peymon, and Anna Von Reitz, karl Lentz, BIll Thornton and dozens upon dozens of people are sharing is VERY SIMPLE. The confusion in your mind is mind-numbingly complicated and I'm not sure how else to help you unwind it but to take a step back, realize you're very confused and start over again.
Hahaha, okay, you're beyond confused. Peymon's been running his business for 33 years, never paid taxes, never gone to jail, none of his clients have ever gone to prison (that didn't sign the 1040) but he's giving "RASH ADVICE", now is he? Bwahahahahahahahahaha....okay. If you say so. Have you only read the propaganda about him? Apparently so.
I've done all I can to point out that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND...at all. Like, not really even a little bit yet.
Right. You're telling me yet another idea you BELIEVE.
"Jesus Christ" - is not a "man". it is who YOU are.
I could direct you to dozens of resources. Let's start here. Apostle Paul is credited with effectively writing half the New Testament. And yet, not one time does he say anything about a "Man" named Jesus Christ. Nothing whatsoever. See if you can find otherwise but be careful to note that you surely "interpreted" a verse from Paul to imply he was talking about a "man". But read it again carefully and you will see Paul is talking about an ineffable, non-material "principle", not a man. The greatest "Christian evangelist" of all time, the founder and father of Christianity himself, and he never once invoked all the amazing stories, miracles, activities of "the man" his religions is based upon? You cannot reconcile this.
Why? Because Paul was not talking about a "man".
Are you prepared to have the foundations of your beliefs shaken? If so, I can proceed. If not, just say so. Most people do not like to find out they've been fooled, especially regarding a subject so near and dear to their hearts.
FWIW, what I know and teach about the true meaning of Scripture actually deepens your FAITH, HOPE and LOVE a thousand-fold. That happens through EXPERIENCING. 99.99% of modern Christians never even get close because they are all lost in BELIEVING. The two are like old and water.
Truth is -> Simple. Obvious. Self-Evident
Truth is NOT -> ideas, words, beliefs, concepts, abstractions.
Agree of disagree?
Which would you prefer? BELIEVING you "know" the "truth". Or **LIVING THE TRUTH"?
Thanks for coming eventually to the point. Allow me again to sidestep the less important angles, since you did seemingly allow me to choose which of the three options I want to be disabused of first. And please pardon any flippancy, it's in earnest.
1 USC 8, Googled. And irrelevant.
Any I already identified. And irrelevant.
You may read it again. "Believe" = "believe to be". And irrelevant.
Because Peymon says to associate with (to petition) the legal system. And irrelevant.
Yes. But my view of that is irrelevant to you, and I've stated it.
No. And irrelevant.
Relevant, now we're talking. Now, did I say any differently? And is Christ any single one of us, or all of us together, or both? And who was the first Man to give us this idea?
Do you mean "Christ", or "Jesus"? Because there were lots of men with the names translated "Paul" and "Jesus". How do we know that the man Paul (of Tarsus) or the man Jesus (of Nazareth) existed? If Jesus of Nazareth was the human who taught that you or I are Jesus Christ, wasn't he also Jesus Christ then?
Of course. But this view has circulated from a few other people recently, so I'm all up for it. My questions are relevant.
Good, that's a lot. Yes, truth has those three attributes. Truth is one, not plural. Ideas, words, beliefs, concepts are true, or false, so truth "is not" them because truth "is in" them, or isn't. I'll punt on the word abstraction because I find that one less relevant. So, essentially agreed. We seek Truth, we experience it more or less, and by our experience it allows us to judge concepts true or false.
False dilemma, I do both. I live it, I know it, I believe it, I believe I know it, I know I know it, any combo thereof. You imply I'm not living it, or experiencing it, or having my mind blown like yours is, or missing out, simply because I also can use language of belief. Perhaps you wish to engage some epistemology about statements expressed as fact versus statements expressed as belief?