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.
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?
Are you who you parents/guardians taught you that you were - "John or Jane Doe"?
Or, is this something you simply BELIEVE?
I am a Swamp Ranger, I decide what that means. In the Scored world it's convenient to ping me as u/SwampRangers; I "am" SwampRangers, I "believe I am" SwampRangers, the platform teaches that I am SwampRangers (by having let me claim that name before anyone else). There's no conflict. Also I can say I "am not" "SwampRangers" and I "believe I am not", if you mean to ask whether I am the name.
At birth my father gave me a name as a human covenant between him and me. The fact that other people know my name doesn't change that covenant any. And that covenant is related to my covenant with the Anointed. As part of that covenant, when I became a grown man I chose for myself who I am and what my name means, so I'm actually free to use any name.
I could cite the prophecy of the name that nobody knows except the giver and the receiver, I have one of those names too.
Now you appear to be indirectly alluding to, for instance, the "SSA" that may have copy of that name in its computer, usually in all caps, but that's a different question. So I'm attempting to answer your ambiguous question in all the most relevant scopes.
If you don't mind my repeating my questions:
To which it would be logical to add:
Are you "Jesus Christ" or is this something you simply believe?