Oh, I do post elite research. But I do like to call out self-unaware meta posts (especially if I can "first" them), as it helps keep others tight. The humor isn't intended to be caustic.
I wasn't asking for proof, because if I was I would've alluded to the regular free exposure "Mr. Pool" has gotten for saying nothing in a breathy voice and getting followers, some of which I've debunked. Since you're pinned, you might as well add your two examples to the OP, and/or beef it up a bit more. Thanks for understanding.
Downvoted: unverified post.
For the most part, claims of sovereignty and alodium are scattershot because sometimes courts don't want to mess with it, not because it has some secret power that all courts are secretly required to honor. There may be some "right" way to do that but near as I can tell it's just to live as forthrightly as possible and to make explicit the commitment one makes from one sovereign to another. There's no secret nexus that gives power over other people, you simply accept that God gave you sovereignty over yourself and your own, and that the sovereign citizens formed the state government that formed the federal governments whose agents forget they are public servants, and then there's no fear coming from paytriot claims that you must engage their secret before being free.
Where most people go wrong as to income tax is not researching the law for themselves and relying on the text of the law. The trillion-dollar tax industry relies on the words of the law, we should too. Research may involve false starts and occasionally bad decisions, but pursuit of truth is always rewarded. I remember one such guy who tried to free his business from federal nexus who started taking action on principle first rather than on a finalized legal position first, and I found the exact place in the court transcript where he went wrong and got entrapped, he believed the judge was offering him a chance to make an admission that would "free" his wife, but it was really the fatal admission needed under the words of the law, which if he'd had a legal position he would've realized wasn't what he believed. I hope he came out all right in the end.
If you want to learn the chinks in the armor of the income tax, I suggest people start with finding the code or statute that requires certain "employers" to calculate a certain category of payment and report it such as in box 1 of Form W-2. Note this is different from boxes 3 and 5, which have different laws and sometimes differ. I do answer questions to help people with this kind of research if they're willing to put in a little time.
Compendia usually aren't the way to go with this material, it requires individual relational training.
As I pointed out in some of your links, the IRS is interested in tricking people into making frivolous arguments. In their view, to say labor capital is not income is potentially frivolous, because it's possible for labor capital to be income. Similarly, making lists of the only things that income tax can tax are usually unhelpful, because Congress can tax all income from whatever source derived. The only safe thing I find to say is that Congress must have an excise nexus to be able to tax, by definition, because if there isn't an excisable activity the tax can't operate as it does in the manner of an excise. Therefore this should be probative. Reliance upon the words of the statutes as written is protective.
The other categories are contributive to the scheme but not definitive and I haven't seen much remedy in them. You've happened to hit upon the correct remedy but it doesn't appear you understand why it works.
I answer questions but not many ask. I share wisdom at the street corners so that the simple can learn. If anyone wants to understand the truth, read and analyze the law for yourself and check your results with others.
So what's Twenty-Five or Six to Four?
Talk.
Title: "They don't want you talking about ..." Ah, but that conditions me to want to talk; the memer does want me talking about. Ah, but I already mostly want to talk about these things, not from influencers but from my own spirit resonating with God's. Who is they? See #2, #4, #15.
-
"The real history of humanity has been hidden from us." Except in the Bible. The great pyramid of Menkaure and the tower of Babel in Etemenanki were abandoned the same year, 2236 BC, and had the same height, 65 meters.
-
"Governments have advanced technology that's been kept secret." Demons promise tech but it's always lame.
-
"The food industry poisons us for profit." They are interested in addiction, not health.
-
"Big pharma doesn't want cures, they want customers." The same people as #3. Protein shakes in the grocery store are the exact same slop by the same people as protein shakes regarded as medicinal in nursing homes.
-
"Weather is being manipulated and controlled." They admit geoengineering. 30 years ago they were admitting helicopters might weaken hurricanes, which means they might strengthen them.
-
"We're being watched and tracked more than we realise." Speak for yourself. I abandoned all claims on privacy decades ago and structured my life as if everything is known. I have no secrets except what's in my head; I have no fear of being doxed.
-
"The education system is designed to keep people obedient, not smart." Calling it "education" is a lie. Autodidacts rule.
-
"There are underground bases and cities existing right now." Backrooms.
-
"The media is not telling us the full story on purpose." Like the kingdom of Media whose name means the same thing, they control rather than mediate. But they fail in time to stronger force: one man's Mede is another man's Persian.
-
"There's a battle between good and evil that most people can't see." Except in the Bible. Oh Lord, open their eyes.
-
"Money is fake. It's just a system to keep us working and in debt." FRNs are debt instruments. Gold and silver are still real money. The original bitcoin is almost keeping up because its math is sound but it is much more easily lost than gold and silver. Nowadays, copper, nickel, and even zinc are real money!
-
"Vaccines aren't as safe as we've been led to believe." Understatement of the whole session. I started asking if the cure was worse than the disease 25 years ago.
-
"Ancient civilisations were far more advanced than we're told." Demons promise tech but it's always lame. The same people as #2.
-
"There are beings here that aren't from this planet." Technically, they've lived here long enough to be "from" here, but they have no jurisdiction or power other than what we who have the dominion give them. Their jurisdiction is among the stars (distant and tangential) but they crave the world to be other than it is.
-
"The elite meet in secret to decide our future." Psalm 2. Laugh at them. Jesus applies this to us in Revelation, we his people will meet openly to decide the elites' future, we will dash them to pieces.
-
"Nothing is done by accident." Psalm 2. It's a plan, but it's also laughable because Jesus's team has better plans, which work out at just the right time.
-
"They can control what we see, what we know, and what we think." Not really. They can pummel your eyes and brain and heart but you have majority control by shutting your eyes and focusing your brain and renewing your heart. You also have great power over your environment. Touch grass.
-
"Natural health cures are hidden because they can't be patented." The same people as #3. Buy ivermectin. "Pharmakeia" means the mixing of secret (nominally "patent") potions.
-
"Population control is very real." Guidestones. See #8 link. But not everyone agrees, as the Guidestones were vandalized.
-
"Truth is stranger than fiction." Because fiction is our imagination but Truth is God's imagination. Plus, we have limited power to bring our imagination into the history of Truth, and it works better by knowing Truth than by rejecting it.
Welcome to the cult of Sofia Hoekema. Details at c/Christianity.
IT'S DECLARATION DAY!
TODAY, America has been free and independent for 250 years.
(It took two more days to publish what we voted on today.)
My wrap on OP and the vote to advance from committee. Takeaway: A miracle happened the night of July 1.
And that's why New York abstained from the vote for independence on July 2. The legislature had failed to authorize them and then it got attacked by the British. The vote was 12-0. New York approved the declaration proforma about 10 days later so they'd get to sign it in August.
Today's vote, July 1, was whether the declaration could advance from committee, and was only 9-2. The overnight miracle was that John Dickinson and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania changed their no votes to abstentions after hearing an earful from John Adams; AND Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who had voted no, persuaded the 4-man delegation to vote yes due to unanimity; AND Caesar Rodney showed up overnight to break the Delaware tie.
individual labor performed within the boundaries of a sovereign state and the proceeds thereof are outside the jurisdiction of the IRS CORP
Frankly, that's a frivolous position even if you remove the last word, and my tax comments on Scored are designed to discourage people from frivolous positions and encourage them to study the tax law for themselves. "Individual labor performed within the boundaries of a sovereign state and the proceeds thereof" is indeed subject to IRS jurisdiction under many nexuses, such as noncitizen status, federal employer, excisable activity, etc. When one makes a sweeping claim about what is outside jurisdiction, one is usually wrong. Work for pay is within jurisdiction for the purpose of considering nexus, and only if no nexus is demonstrated would it be shown to be work for pay as by natural right. The filing process involves declaration of nexus, and that's why I demand people know the law so that they don't declare nexus inaccurately.
It's not a matter of "consent" to be taxed, and W-4 and failure to request refund are not "consent" to be taxed, and silo theory is totally unneeded. Taxes apply, or don't, by objective rules based on whether there was a federal nexus; with or without W-4, with or without refund request, they might apply and they might not. It all depends on the events documented by the filings. If the report of the events demonstrated nexus, tax is assumed, even if the report is incorrect. A correct report of events demonstrates a correct assessment that cannot be gainsaid indefinitely. So all filers should be circumspect about reporting all events correctly as per the Code definitions.
I appreciate your letting me comment this boldly. You seem confident in your approach and not very interested in what I might say if I chose. However, for the sake of third parties, I'd be interested if you wanted to work through a line of questioning. I start by asking people something I said to you yesterday. Where in 26 USC does the government require a workplace to report to the IRS, such as via W-2, a Box 1 amount of "wages" paid to workers in certain circumstances? What are "wages" in Box 1 and what are the circumstances as defined by the Code? Why do Boxes 3 and 5 sometimes differ from Box 1, and where in the Code are these explained? One would think that if one is correcting a W-2, one would want to have these facts down cold.
Note that the IRS is a fraudulent organized criminal operation and they will fabricate whatever they need to if they want to go after you. They do not follow the LAW nor the Constitution because that is their mission. They may claim they follow the LAW, but nearly everything they claim is LAW is just an IRS rule they made up
Eh, parts of it operate that way, but when they do they can be caught if they go after people with enough resources and information to catch them. For the ordinary person earning pay for work, they have no interest in fabrication as it would backfire on them if caught.
which has now been invalidated as of 28JUN2024 with Chevron Doctrine strikedown along with 27JUN2024 invalidation of "administrative Article II courts" (SEC, EPA, IRS, etc) to declaratively impose fines and penalties without jurisdiction or due process.
Even if this were true, treating the IRS as a corporation gives one no advantage and can be ruled frivolous. The IRS is an agency authorized first as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and when it behaves Constitutionally, which it often does, it has the people's authority. That's why correct filing takes advantage of the fact that it often does behave Constitutionally (e.g. by refunding you, I presume).
I don't have direct comment on the mechanics of lawsuits. Generally, I think speaking of a 200-fold return is premature seeing the current legal climate, as government has clearly put steps in place to prevent some rogue judge from establishing a precedent that would tempt a hundred million lawsuits. I also don't think goading, or encouraging partial payment, is effective. Permitting withholding in the event of tax liability is not admission of status, but filing with additional partial payment is admission of status by self-assessment.
If your filing of correct self-assessments and correcting of errors in older information returns is working for you, then keep doing that. If it's not, then it's probably time to dialogue with others about why it might not be. Since you say "for some reason" they honor correct filings by agreeing with the self-assessment, it'd be good to learn why they do, wouldn't it?
Thanks for linking me here. I give important provisos in your other post. Your goals are worthwhile, and you've probably learned more since posting this, but there is still more ground to cover at that link.
This doesn't prove that "labor capital" isn't "income", it proves that "income" being a Constitutional term remains undefined. The Courts have ruled that income tax is in the nature of an excise and therefore cannot be direct, and there are also rulings about pay for work being an essential right not reachable by direct tax, but that's why the scheme doesn't tax pay for work but only an excise right when it is established to attach to the pay according to credibly filed information.
IRS can legally collect tax ONLY on labor from 1. Federal employees, 2. Labor performed on Federal lands, and 3. Labor performed in job on Federal excise tax list.
If your legal theory is that only three categories are taxed, the IRS will laugh at you for missing the point, and will consider penalizing for frivolous correspondence. It's important to limit statements to facts and minimize reliance on legal theories. I do answer questions about determining the actual nexus.
LostHorizons has its own issues but at least it doesn't put forward a legal theory that claims to limit jurisdiction in a way that can easily be ruled frivolous.
Thanks for linking me here. I give important provisos in your other post. Your goals are worthwhile, and you've probably learned more since posting this, but there is still more ground to cover at that link.
Federal taxation of capital earned in exchange for labor (i.e. labor capital) is unconstitutional per Constitutional structure of state and Federal gov't of the United States. When earned 1. not on Federal lands, 2. not from Federal job, and 3. not from job on Excise tax list
If your legal theory is that only three categories are taxed, the IRS will laugh at you for missing the point, and will consider penalizing for frivolous correspondence. It's important to limit statements to facts and minimize reliance on legal theories. I do answer questions about determining the actual nexus.
What's definitely true is that filing a W-4 consents to let a workplace withhold money that can be returned if greater than tax liability; and one should submit Form 4852 and not form W-2 if one has received an incorrect W-2 (it's a courtesy if you also inform your workplace); and one should submit Form 1040X if one has determined that one's original filing is incorrect.
Thanks for linking me here. I give important provisos in your other post. Your goals are worthwhile, and you've probably learned more since posting this, but there is still more ground to cover at that link.
the IRS appears to be able to collect a tax on labor from 1. Federal employee labor, 2. labor performed on Federal lands, and 3. labor performed via jobs listed on the Federal excise tax list. I hereby claim that my labor is NONE of these.
First, this sentence is logically invalid because it needs an "only"; without an "only" the conclusion doesn't follow that pay for your labor is untaxable. But even so, if your legal theory is that only three categories are taxed, the IRS will laugh at you for missing the point, and will consider penalizing for frivolous correspondence. It's important to limit statements to facts and minimize reliance on legal theories. I do answer questions about determining the actual nexus.
your letter to me declaring a "penalty and payment due"
They only do this if (1) payment is due by self-assessment, (2) payment is due because lack of self-assessment triggers their right to assess over time, or (3) penalties are due for violations like frivolous correspondence. Self-assess correctly and nonfrivolously to avoid these.
Suing in District Court is not likely to be your best remedy, it too gets laughed at.
I humbly request IRS assistance in resolution of the tax dispute you have presented to me.
For them to assist, you need to testify to the facts and demonstrate the invalidity of any prior mistaken testimony including your own. Testifying to the facts by correct self-assessment is a request for their assistance in processing your assessment forthwith.
Asking for private investigator fees is also laughable and, while possibly not frivolous, not worth taking the risk.
I'm glad you received refunds. This is not always proof of understanding everything correctly and so one must be extra cautious. Sorry I missed your earlier posts. I appreciate your hard work, but a little more is needed to protect yourself from getting slapped harder later. I give general principles and wait for people to ask questions to give them more guided direction.
What's definitely true is that filing a W-4 consents to let a workplace withhold money that can be returned if greater than tax liability; and one should submit Form 4852 and not form W-2 if one has received an incorrect W-2 (it's a courtesy if you also inform your workplace); and one should submit Form 1040X if one has determined that one's original filing is incorrect.
If doing so then ensure your logic is correct. Read the applicable law. I do answer questions about it.
Please DO NOT get hung up on "occupation" as that is not the nexus by which liability is established. It is NOT checked against some excise tax list. Do NOT say the employer isn't liable if it's not on an occupation list; the "employer" is generally liable for taxes on the same pay that the "employee" is, and the same determination of nexus is necessary for both.
DO NOT go around saying IRS jurisdiction is limited to some range, as that is regarded as frivolous. Don't say it's "federal land, federal employees, excise occupations" ONLY, as you're likely to be wrong. What is to be said is that IRS has jurisdiction to tax anything whatsoever that is in the form of an excise, which means your research needs to establish why they draw the conclusion that pay for work is in the form of an excise, and if you don't know why then you're likely to say it wrong. DO NOT go around quoting other people's "magic bullets" without looking at the law (SAL and Code) to find the definitions and scope of the things you're talking about. DO NOT put this kind of reasoning on a Form 4852 because it can trigger an attempt to fine you heavily for frivolous filing. To justify a W-2 correction, merely state what entries were wrong on the W-2 and what the correct entries should be. Your testimony as to what you assessed them to be is sufficient testimony to establish the record, though you may be quizzed on how you assessed to see if you understand the law correctly. DO NOT add frivolous categories or reasoning to bare statements of assessment facts.
DO NOT say "labor capital" is misclassified as income, it has nothing to do with labor or capital. Monetary value earned for labor may or may not be income. W-2 boxes 1, 3, and 5 refer to three different Code definitions of "wages" IIRC and can disagree with each other. If your pay for work is "wages", the box is correct to put that pay number there. If it's not "wages" you need to be able to prove that from the Code without making up things that aren't there like "labor capital".
DO NOT confuse terms of art, like "taxable income", with whether something looks like income or like taxable in ordinary human terms. The tax code doesn't use ordinary human terms, which is how the scheme works! It's frivolous to say "taxable income" isn't "taxable income" just because it doesn't agree with what other people might call taxable or income. "Taxable income" is only what the SAL and Code say it is, which IIRC is "gross income" less exemptions.
DO NOT say "income" is defined anywhere. Scotus routinely points out it's deliberately not defined by law because it's a constitutional term. Since the income tax is in the nature of an excise, income can mean anything whatsoever that can be excised (see IRC section 61 for inexhaustive examples).
It goes back very far. A failed attempt was made during War of 1812, a successful income tax during the Civil War. They all have been retconned to rely on excise categorization. SS is just an add-on to the scheme and shouldn't be treated as a jumping-off point. The current scheme IIRC relies on excise taxes on "employee", "employer", "employment", and "unemployment", variously and often contradictorily defined depending on the scope of each. Those terms of art establish jurisdiction, not other unrelated concepts like labor capital, or pay for work, or occupational categories, or SSN.
DO NOT engage theories of state corporations of 1933-10-15, state ownership of people, or other background. That may explain cabal doings but it's not the law and can be treated as frivolous. DO NOT say your W-4 signature makes your labor service an excise, you can't make something into what it isn't by a signature. Either it is or it isn't and that can be determined by law, and determining that is self-assessing.
If you steer clear of theory and quote the SAL or Code terms of art directly instead, you'll be able to avoid danger. Start by looking up what law requires "employers" to fill in Box 1 on the W-2 and what defines what they are required to put there, because if you wish to correct it via 4852 then you'd better know what it should be according to the law!
You have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Doesn't list private voluntary barter currency (PVBC), but that will surely spike too.
48 years! And Rotten, singer of Anarchy in the UK and great Ron Paul fan, is still going strong today.
u/killerspacerobot is completely correct. And the birth hospital changed during the mythmaking period too, it's now Kapiolani but it was previously something else, another oopsie.
This was all vetted in 2008, at which time Thomas said of Leo Donofrio's birth-cert objections that Scotus is kicking that one down the road.
Stanley-Ann was enrolled in classes in Seattle less than two weeks after the alleged birthdate, with a baby in tow. This is why some think he was born in Vancouver. Birthplace and birthdate is irrelevant because the actual issue is whether he had dual citizenship at birth, which his campaign admitted when they said his father was a Kenyan citizen (giving Obama British citizenship at birth). At the time, Stanley-Ann said it's easy to obtain a baby. Of course, she never lived at the address registered to Obama Sr., who was closer with her father (his East-West sponsor) than with her.
And Trump knew. He ran for president in 2012 on one big promise, namely that he would get Obama's longform COLB released. He did. He then retired from the race proclaiming that he had done what he promised. (Perfect backstory for the esca later.)
It's beyond actuarial issues. It's been at patently falsified documents. It's going beyond that nowadays too. Pretty soon you're in Genesis 6.
The Tuskegee Experiment? Spanish flu? The Black Plague? No, a different one?
Apollo (Abaddon) is Lucifer (Helel), but Nimrod (Ninus, Naram-Sin) is the person he possessed for awhile. Baal (Bel, etc.) is a title most often taken by Helel. Osiris (Serapis) usually overlaps Helel too, but Osiris is the "father" and Apollo the "son" when they are compared. Tammuz (Dumuzid) is based on Abel but was then the template for Apollo and Mithras (Mithra); note that Serapis is the merger of different aspects of Osiris and Mithras. It's not healthy to give Helel too much credit by directing all titles to him, all of them are stolen and usually the theft leads to much confusion. The Bible makes distinctions so we should too.
If in one year it was actually going somewhere, I'd be concerned, because this particular one is a cult. Yeah, I guess I'm using Gamaliel's rule. All the planning talk and pretense of uniqueness is standard for the movements, but they have incredible trouble demonstrating it.
If they slaughter the red heifer, I'd be concerned. If the nascent Sanhedrin comes out of their hiding and starts pronouncing everywhere, I'd be concerned.
As a Christian, I accept the Acts 15 binding council, which also defines laws of Noah in a way that is normative for Christianity, which is directly opposed to this rabbi on the point of idolatry. But most Jews don't put their neck out like that.
OTOH there are a few rabbis experimenting with talking nicely about Jesus and Christianity, and those are the ones who could influence the Jews at large to get the comms figured out.
Obviously I don't support laws treating Christianity as idolatry or a capital crime. But that's not a requirement of Noahidism as interpreted authoritatively by Judaism or Christianity. Further, Christianity is already a capital crime in Muslim states, so we have a much more real threat to object to.
There are Gentile movements to set up Noahide laws too, but the Jews take a disproportionate interest in the process because they want to protect themselves in advance (like their disproportionate interests elsewhere). Muslims e.g. don't participate in Noahidism because they think Shariah is good for everyone. Via Noahidism, Jews admit that Mosaic details aren't for everyone, and of course the Christians at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 agreed, so there's a closer tie there than the concept of universal law in Islam.
So everyone favoring Noahide laws should introduce them as being for all. Your article links https://brit-olam.org/congress/ which is introduced as being for all. But your article proposes this analysis:
Hijacking bible verses to justify a new global Noahide courts is a deliberate attempt to trick people into submitting to a Judaic legal system in which christians will be persecuted and eventually beheaded for their faith in Jesus. We are watching a well financed, highly organized global Judaic network go live in real time, complete with its own international finance committee, mandatory fees, and a unified curriculum. Individuals are being pressured to stand before this newly formed Rabbinic Court to receive an official compliance status, completely subordinating themselves to a Jewish group of judges. As this entire infrastructure prepares to launch this November, the convergence of Western political laws, twisted Judaic theology, and international Noahide courts should serve as an urgent wake up call that a dangerous system of Noahide global control is being built right before our eyes under the fake banner of universal moral unity and under the banner of “prophecy fulfillment”.
In theory, any culture or religious org is free to certify, or not, that a universal court meets its specs, and the involvement of the Jews is for the purposes of that certification, namely to state that the court does not conflict with their religion. However, the fact that this is tied to a single leader (Oury Cherki) and organization (Brit Olam) is helpful, as it might not go any further than the last attempt, quoting from my notes:
On 2006-01-10, ten non-Jewish men met with the nascent Sanhedrin and were appointed as the "High Council of Noahides", and pledged "to uphold the Seven Laws of Noah in all their details, according to Oral Law of Moses under the guidance of the developing Sanhedrin." Right now both that Sanhedrin and that Council are little more than mordant wikis, and it appears each council member is pursuing Noahidism in his own way. Notable members include Baptist archaeologist Vendyl Jones (died 2010); Baptist Jack E. Saunders; radio host and Jones protege James D. Long (resigned 2007); and Catholic Roger Grattan.
If this movement didn't go anywhere, perhaps Cherki's won't either.
Important: Now, by digging deep into Cherki's site, I do find this specific (which is not advertised upfront and which does not work well with the universal introduction you describe):
https://noahideworldcenter.org/pages/preliminary-noahide-self-declaration
It's best to read this statement aloud: "I pledge my allegiance to HaShem, God of Israel, Creator and King of the Universe and to God's Torah. I pledge to observe the Seven Laws of Noah, in their details, according to the Oral Law of Moshe under the guidance of the rabbis. Baruch Ata Adonai-Blessed are You God, King of the universe, Who has given me life, supported me, and sustained me till this day."
The Seven Basic Noahide Laws: 1. The Prohibition Against Idolatry* in all Forms .... *The Prohibition Against Idolatry in all forms It is important to note that if you believe that Jesus is god or an incarnation of god, you would not be able to make this declaration sincerely. The Hebrew tradition is clear that God is one and cannot become a human form ever. Please accept our wishes for a blessed life, and may you continue learning the Bible with us.
Well, there you go then. "Brit Olam" is not a Noahide movement after all but a quiet but overt non-Christian movement (and thus a cult). See, my concept is that the Hebrew tradition rightly read does not prohibit Jesus's incarnation, and that Talmudic discussion of Noahide law plus the prevailing Jewish opinion that Christianity is a special case requiring circumspection means that the religion does not as a religion speak against Jesus. If there were a true Noahite movement it would accommodate the Jewish reading that Christianity is not necessarily idolatry, and not the also-Jewish reading by a few rabbis that it certainly is. If your source had taken 5 minutes to dig into the website and find this damning page, then it would've been clear from the start.
So, if you'd like me to join you in affirming that Brit Olam is not a true Noahide movement as it purports, by holding off on this footnote until the very page where it asks people to make their vow with their interpretation, I'm all in with you. But that doesn't mean that a Noahide movement must necessarily involve that interpretation, because it's not proven to be an interpretation of Judaism at large (i.e. by proof that I've challenged people to present for 5 years).
Could you give a simple and an advanced example of what people might want to do with it and what they might get out of it? Thanks Cats5!