ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Taxes

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
doer Posted - 16 Apr 2003 : 07:58:32

Irwin Schiff is the most visible of many "tax protesters" as defined by the "government." He really is not a "protester" because he advises all people to follow the statutes, and in so doing, is the leading seller of the "Internal Revenue Code" -- which is the IRS rule book. I have been listening to the court record regarding Irwin Schiff's TRO (temporary restraining order) concerning his book sales and seminar activities. Go to
http://www.paynoincometax.com/

The government's argument, totally accepted by Judge George (he even "speaks for the government"!), asserts no protection for "commercial speech" nor for "inciting illegal action." Schiff is accused of "promoting abusive tax shelters," but no evidence was ever presented to support this accusation. The "government" would not allow itself to be put on the witness stand (the judge consenting), even after Schiff was sworn in an testified under oath himself. So Schiff was not allowed to cross-examine their "testimony" that they presented in the form of affidavits. At that point, his loss was just a foregone conclusion.

Of course, we know the REAL REASON that Schiff lost his appeal to reject the TRO, and why he will probably lose the whole wagon: When the judge called him to answer, Schiff said, "Here!" He also had a LAWYER to represent him. Since he answered as his StrawMan, and since he was not speaking for himself as a Sovereign, HIS GOOSE IS COOKED.

By acceding to the court's jurisdiction, he abandoned any hope of a superior position. The question now is NOT "IF" he is guilty. The only question that remains is, "how big is his fine and sentence?"

The COMPLETELY BLATANT PREJUDICE of the "judge" is serious WARNING: DO NOT EVER ABANDON YOUR SOVEREIGNTY when entering Caesar's "territory" -- such as courts, bureaucracies, police stations, recording offices, etc. -- and even "traffic stops." We CANNOT BEAT CAESAR by using Caesar's "law" against him! He can change the rules anytime that he pleases. Only GOD'S LAW will defeat him, and we must endeavor to learn its application TO THE LETTER.

Be Well,
George
20   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
kingsfamily Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 01:23:57
Hi everyone! I'm a newbie here and I'm looking forward to learning much from all of you. Someone mentioned Randy Lee's approach.....can someone possibly tell me a bit more about it please?

Thanks and blessings,
Virginia
David Merrill Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 12:23:12
Dear Yousef:


You are right. And you are are wrong.

I have an advantage:

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/IntelligenceID.jpg
Intelligence ID Card
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FederalRepositoryBasement.wmv
federal repository

So I can get the truth first-hand.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. When will I start seeing you there?


Listen, that is a little acute. So follow Manuel's inquiry. He has imposed upon me a factoid list. Ouch! That means trips downtown. Please define and ask for specifics.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=441
yousef Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 10:41:12
Someone posted here that you cannot beat them (the system) by using ceasars laws. I agree completely, I have even written a book on this very thing. There is no way you can defeat the monster as it is today with the monsters rules and weapons. they are far to big and strong in their own arena.

BUT THERE IS A WAY TO DEFEAT THIS MONSTER. IF WE STOP FEEDING THE MONSTER OUR FLESH WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO THIS MONSTER?
IT WILL SURELY DIE OF STARVATION.

This book can be found either here http://www.discharge-debt.com/ Look for book page at front page or go directly to book page here
http://www.discharge-debt.com/id70.htm

Manuel Posted - 16 Mar 2004 : 00:07:49
I think most here would enjoy the following flash presentation:

PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY
Bondservant Posted - 15 Mar 2004 : 16:39:48
LIKE THIS

Randy Posted - 15 Mar 2004 : 08:57:14
Originally posted by DerekR
Reading the Federal Reserve Act, it clearly distincts the difference between FRN and lawful money. I have read a few places where it is said that FRN are now lawful money, but the Act says otherwise.

From http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.html#q2

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

Monopoly money, right?

Randy
God is Love Posted - 10 Mar 2004 : 12:50:46
Good afternoon, everyone!

I am wondering if anyone here has signed w-4's "without prejudice" and exempt. If so, can you please share your experiences in this regard?

Love and peace!


"We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps even earlier) leads an active emotional life."----The Secret Life of the Unborn Child
God is Love Posted - 10 Mar 2004 : 11:31:04
quote:
Originally posted by True North


Cain wasn't killed by God when he chose the path of coercion. Therefore, it is almost a given that the cities he built were based on coercion, and we get our government and present day cities ready made with that same coercion. All governments are ruled with a rod of iron by the King. Psalms 2:9, Revelation 2:27, Revelation 12:5 and Revelation 19:15. He offers an alternative government not based on coercion but serving one another.



Greetings True North,

I'd like to mention (add in for clarity's sake) that Psalms chapter 2 was speaking about the kings of the earth rising up against YHWH and how He will break and dash them in pieces. Revelation chapter 2 verse 27, YHWH's son was speaking to Christians in Thyatira. YHWH's son speaks about the authority that those who were anointed would have when resurrected, over the nations rebelling against YHWH. They share with YHWH's son in wielding that iron rod of destruction against YHWH's son's enemies in the end.

Note Luke chapter 21 verse 24. The time mentioned in this prophecy has passed.

In Revelation chapter 12 verse 5 we hear John mention "a son, a male" which John states in that fashion in order to show how completely competent YHWH's son is to rule the nations. YHWH's son has all the power he needs at his disposal. This birth mentioned is a huge deal. It is a big part of YHWH's sacred secret being fulfilled (birth of His kingdom). As is mentioned at Psalms chapter 2 verse 9, where YHWH prophesied that His son would break his enemies with an iron scepter and dash them to pieces as if made of pottery. We see another prophecy in Psalm chapter 110 verse 2 regarding the same.

The King who rules with an iron rod is the son of YHWH. Revelation chapter 19 verse 15, John is speaking of YHWH's sons' authority. The sharp sword of length is the authority given by YHWH to his son to bring about the execution of those not supporting the kingdom of YHWH. Note chapter 1 verse 16 and chapter 2 verse 16 of Revelation.
Note also the parallel at Isaiah chapter 49 verse 2. At this Scripture, Isaiah was foreshadowing YHWHs' son proclaiming and executing YHWHs' judgments without fail.

Note 2 Thessolonians chapter 2 verses 1 through 3 and verse 8. When this judgment time arrives, the words of Paul will have already been fulfilled. The word "presence" comes from the Greek word pa-rou-si'a. So YHWH's son's presence has been indicated by the revealing of the true nature of Christendom and its' clergy. When the government turns on Christendom it will be sealing the very end of this system of things. Destruction of religions, I believe, is one of the primary goals of installing a socialistic government (someone please point out if they disagree with anything I am typing here), and we can see this beginning to take place in modern times.

As is mentioned in Isaiah chapter 11 verse 4, the prophecy says that YHWH's son will then turn his attention to what is left of the evil system Satan has put in place here on earth. YHWH's son, appointed, of course, by YHWH, will choose who lives through this time and who dies. Please note the following Scriptures: Psalm chapter 2 verse 9 and verse 12; chapter 83 verses 17 and 18; chapter 110 verses 1 and 2 and 5 and 6; and Jeremiah chapter 25 verse 34. The Scripture in Jeremiah is where he (Jeremiah) addresses similar corrupt government leaders and their followers. At least that is the way I have understood it.

I, personally, look forward to this time!

Love and peace to you and yours!
Livefree Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 19:27:33
Derek wrote:
quote:
Why do we just post to these boards with our points and such.



We post to share information, and maybe what you are frustrated about is that the information you read isn't as helpful as you want it to be. Well, keep searching, because the answers you seek are out there. There's a price though. I have spent a ton of money educating myself about the fraud, and I'll tell you, I am no freer than I was when I started--although I do feel I'm getting closer all the time.

Maybe there is a community of likeminded people you can meet with where you live. That is what I am looking into now. We can't do this alone. The Internet helps, but there's only so much you can do for your country on the Internet.

DerekR Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 21:04:17
Reading the Federal Reserve Act, it clearly distincts the difference between FRN and lawful money. I have read a few places where it is said that FRN are now lawful money, but the Act says otherwise.

Once again I feel frustrated. Living the way the Bible says, and how Jesus demonstrated, is not supposed to be a frustrating life.

There are a lot of people on this board, and more on other boards. I would guess thousands and thousands of people. Why do we just post to these boards with our points and such. Why are me not banding together as brothers, and fighting this system. There are many people who have gone alone. But I have yet to see a class-action backed by thousands of people.

I seriously doubt they will incarcerate thousands of people at once for such an act. Maybe that is what the Supreme Court is waiting for, not just for an individual to make a stand, but a community.

The people need to wake up, but they wont unless someone shakes them. I say each and every one of us makes a stand.

We all know this is wrong, are we not directed to God to make it known to everyone that it is, and to work to against the wrong.
Lewish Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 18:28:32
Alisa,

Better yet, ask him why he would want payment in a fraudulent instrument. An instrument that has been shown in court and upheld by judicial review to be a fraudulent instrument, i.e. the FRN, and I am referring to the Credit River decision.

Lewis
Livefree Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 12:04:57
A dollar bill has 'One Dollar' written on it. If an agent for the government requests payment in dollars ($) ask him to redeem the FRN for value (gold) so you can 'pay' him. Tell him that, as an agent for the government, it is his duty to redeem the note; otherwise, it is impossible for you to make 'payment'.

Agents for the government are persons that work for the two signatures on the note: Judges, clerks of court, police, IRS, etc.
DerekR Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 10:57:18
Well I found the Coinage Act of 1792. And it pretty much lays out everything for the mint.

One of the sections, I think 19, says that if the value of a dollar is changed for the profit of one of the officers, then they are charged with treason and penalty of death.

Now I read Title 31 of the USC. And it has the value of the dollar changed. And this is for what reason? Just to profit them.

Death to them all.
Robert-James Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 16:57:59
Greetings All,
many believers and even some non-believers feel guilty for using Federal Reserve notes. "THEIR" statue law even states:
Federal Reserve notes are legal tender in the absence of objections thereto. MacLeod V. Hoover {1925 159 La. 244, 105 So. 305.}
One can abate their presumptious guilt asociations by stating, "I use Federal Reserve notes under protest". Just incase one finds himself in their COURTS, in chains. The NEW DEAL closed the gold window and made gold ownership by citizens illegal under the force of arms...which is a big no-no at Law and within international law.
Livefree Posted - 05 Feb 2004 : 22:46:06
Hi Lewis,

Actually, I forgot all about bullion until Daniel mentioned it. The word 'bullion' sounds like something fake to me, so I don't consider it when I buy gold. But, we do need to know about bullion, just in case someone thinks it is more valuable, just because it's prettier. :-)
Lewish Posted - 05 Feb 2004 : 19:37:32
Alisa,

Daniel is saying that the coins being minted are not currency. They do contain approx. one ounce of either silver or gold, as the case may be, but, they are not "lawful" money. Congress has not authorized any lawful currency, read money, since 1933. But, you knew that already and were just testing us. Right?

Lewis
Livefree Posted - 05 Feb 2004 : 18:44:16
So are you saying that bullion contains less gold or silver than the pre 1964 coins, or is bullion fake silver or gold?
DanielJacob Posted - 05 Feb 2004 : 18:09:50
Ahh, just one point on the last post, there is no longer any lawful money minted by the U.S. Mint. That ended in 1964. The coins that are minted today are bullion coins containing 1 oz of silver or gold; not the same thing.
Livefree Posted - 05 Feb 2004 : 16:59:15
quote:
Originally posted by DerekR

Daniel - If as you say, according to the US Mint, that the 1oz Silver Proof is considered $1, then how can it cost 24 FRN. I have 1 FRN sitting in front of me, and it is clearly printed on the bottom ONE DOLLAR (not being rude, its in all caps).


An FRN is not a lawful dollar. They call FRNs "dollars" because at one time FRNs were lawful dollar silver certificates. You could go to any Federal Reserve Bank and redeem that one dollar silver certificate for a one dollar silver or gold coin. They were of equal value about 30 years ago. The Paper money today is worthless; silver and gold is the real McCoy.

The value of silver and gold is set by Congress. What forumla they used to come up with 24 FRNs for a lawful silver Dollar is a mystery to me.


quote:
I am trying to narrow down the contradiction of terms and such. If the definition by the Constitution of a dollar is so much silver, then I as the debtor have the right to request the form of payment from the "person" who owes the debt. But by our laws I have the obligation to accept any legal tender in the US that the US deems acceptable. But if the Consitution states that the only legal tender in the US is to be printed by a US mint, and the FRN's are printed by a privately owned (FED) bank. Then by contradiction to the Constitution, FRN are not legal tender, and I can request those proofs printed by the Mint.


I'm going to be learning how to make payment to the tax agencies in lawful money (gold) in the next week or so. I don't know how to do this right now, but if the debt gets discharged because of my lawful payment, I'll let you know.


quote:
Question, who mints our coins, i.e. quarters and nickels and such?


U.S. Mint does as far as I know.


quote:
And is paying with those instead of FRN, paying the debt instead of discharging?


Quarters, dimes, pennies, nickels are as worthless as FRNs. The only lawful money there is is silver and gold, which are also made at the U.S. Mint.
DerekR Posted - 04 Feb 2004 : 23:37:05
Yes Lewis, I could read the Constitution. And I have a few times. But as I have seen here, and elsewhere, what the Constitution says, doesnt always hold water.

Here is my confusing, and where terms are being contradicted.

Daniel - If as you say, according to the US Mint, that the 1oz Silver Proof is considered $1, then how can it cost 24 FRN. I have 1 FRN sitting in front of me, and it is clearly printed on the bottom ONE DOLLAR (not being rude, its in all caps).

I am trying to narrow down the contradiction of terms and such. If the definition by the Constitution of a dollar is so much silver, then I as the debtor have the right to request the form of payment from the "person" who owes the debt. But by our laws I have the obligation to accept any legal tender in the US that the US deems acceptable. But if the Consitution states that the only legal tender in the US is to be printed by a US mint, and the FRN's are printed by a privately owned (FED) bank. Then by contradiction to the Constitution, FRN are not legal tender, and I can request those proofs printed by the Mint.

Question, who mints our coins, i.e. quarters and nickels and such?

And is paying with those instead of FRN, paying the debt instead of discharging?

ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXIX Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.08 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000