ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Taxes
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2004 :  00:17:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Just thought i might get a clarification on this phrase. Seesm it says that that any provision in any law that allow the United States or someone with authority under, the right to issue obligations? I know I just rephrased that, hopefully you see what I am asking, it seems this says the United States cant issue an obligation including fiscal, and neither does the IRS with authority under the United States.


You took those words out of context and that's why you don't understand what they are saying. The paragraph you quoted is not a separate paragraph in HR192. Taken out of its context, it doesn't make sense.

If you want to read the entire paragraph, it can be found in the first paragraph (a) of HR 192.


Go to Top of Page

DerekR
Junior Member

USA
20 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  04:41:59  Show Profile  Visit DerekR's Homepage  Send DerekR an AOL message  Send DerekR an ICQ Message  Reply with Quote
Ok here is what I dont understand.
At http://nontaxpayer.info/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax20040118ch03s.pdf page 22, line 15, it supposed says Title 26-861 says only foreign sources are taxable. I couldnt find it, and about personal income tax, I think is covered under personal services.

"Sec. 861. - Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if -
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with -
(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or
(ii)an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.

In addition, except for purposes of sections 79 and 105 and subchapter D, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual's temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States. "

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but cant see where it says I dont have to pay. Everything it says applies to the type of employment most people have.

I did find this site: http://www.reasons2vote.com/interrogatories.html , though its only questions. Wish i had a law degree to decipher the text in the codes. But as of now I dont understand most of it. I am still failing to see how to use Caesar law in my favor.
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  11:14:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
IRS has set up a Dept especially for 861 protestors so you definitely don't want to use that argument.

IRS does not want your silly arguments. They want FRNs.

The only way out is to either have your own business or be an independent contractor.
Go to Top of Page

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  13:30:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree

Maybe if I was out of the system I would think Roger Elvick was the most interesting man in the world, but the fact is, I'm not completely out.
Please describe a scenerio where a man or woman would be considered "completely out" of the system.
quote:
Livefree wrote:
I vacillate back and forth, back and forth, in and out, in and out. :-)
Livefree, we don't mean to put you down or be unkind in any way, but we wonder in examining ourselves: Do the principles in the following passages of Scripture apply to the topic discussed above:

I Kings 18:20.... Then Elijah addressed all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If Yahweh is the Mighty One, then follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him!

Joshua 24:14-15...Now, therefore reverence Yahweh and serve Him in complete honesty and in truth-and put away the gods (elohim) your fathers served on the other side of the River, and also in Egypt and serve Yahweh!....But if it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve-whether the gods (elohim) your fathers served on the other side of the River; or the gods (elohim) of the Amorites, in whose land you now live; But As For Me and My House: We Will Serve Yahweh!

Matthew 6:24...Yahshua said....No man can serve two masters;for either he will hate one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve Yahweh and mammon.

Thank you for considering this and expressing to us your thoughts on how Yahweh's Holy Spirit guides you all in this regard.

Marty
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  16:20:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Marty,

When I made that comment I was speaking of what I do for a living vs. what I'd like to do for a living. Only in that regard do I vacillate back and forth. I consider working for wages working for mammon. How many people do you know, that live by the Holy spirit, work for slave wages?

Do you accept FRNS for pay? If so, then you live by mammon also.

Go to Top of Page

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  16:53:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[quote]Originally posted by Livefree

Marty,

When I made that comment I was speaking of what I do for a living vs. what I'd like to do for a living. Only in that regard do I vacillate back and forth. I consider working for wages working for mammon. How many people do you know, that live by the Holy spirit, work for slave wages?

Marty responded:

I'm not certain how to respond to that question. If we had an answer to the above question (i.e. What constitutes being completely out of the system?) it may help me in responding to the question you have just raised.

Is "living by the Holy Spirit" done by degrees or is it an all or nothing matter?

Livefree wrote:

Do you accept FRNS for pay? If so, then you live by mammon also.

Marty responded:

What is considered pay? Is pay only wages....or is the act of exchanging a product produced by the contribution of the fruit of your labor for Federal Reserve Notes... considered to be "accept(ing) FRNs for pay"?

If we "live by mammon" does it also follow that we "serve mammon" as a master?

Thank you for contemplating these issues and helping us to sort through them.

Marty

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 20 Jan 2004 17:06:14
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  17:11:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dictionary.com defines Mammon as material wealth:

Bible. Riches, avarice, and worldly gain personified as a false god in the New Testament.
often mammon Material wealth regarded as having an evil influence.


I have no material wealth nor do I strive for material wealth. I'd like to have more wealth, and could definitely use more wealth, but who wouldn't?
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  17:39:14  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Derek,

United States is the key. Hooven v Allison stated that there are several different meanings of the term United States. As it applies to the above it means Federal States and Territories over which the United States [Federal Government] has jurisdiction. That does not include the fifty states of the Union.

Peace...
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  20:31:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote


"There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. 1785: "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state". NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

The United States is defined as "A Federal Corporation" in the United States Code, Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Subchapter A - Definitions and general provisions, 3002 - Definitions, at number 15 (a).

"The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

Also, in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, the United States is defined as "the District of Columbia," which is in Washington D.C. This is confirmed in the US Constitution, in Article I, 8; the jurisdiction of the United States is "over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)," and is also over federal territories purchased by the federal government. Washington D.C. is not a state.

"The District of Columbia is not a `state' within the meaning of the constitution." U.S. v. Virginia, 1805


Go to Top of Page

DerekR
Junior Member

USA
20 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  20:59:07  Show Profile  Visit DerekR's Homepage  Send DerekR an AOL message  Send DerekR an ICQ Message  Reply with Quote
To Livefree and Manuel:
How can they defends something that is clearly stated in the USC. Does something in the Constitution contradict the meaning of the United States in USC? Does the definition of the US in the USC or Const. give it Jurisdiction over U.S. Citizens?

To Livefree:
If you can actually live, exactly as the Bible says, then I applaud you. Me, there are things I enjoy partaking in. One of them is living in a domicle. Which I am finding hard to do without FRN's, which seem a bit hard to get without an employment. I also enjoy my job. Its a good job. And does my employer get to choose what form of compensation for personal services, i.e. $$, or can I request gold. And is the $ redefined somewhere to include FRN as $$, or is it still measured in gold and silver? Cause if so, I agreed to a certain wage of $. I want my gold or silver now pls.

Technically I am a private contractor, everyone is. By the documents and contracts that you sign when you are employed, you have a made a private contract with the other "person", nothing but the W4 contracts me to the gov't.
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2004 :  23:31:54  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Derek,

It seems to me that you, like all of us at one time, are letting others define you. Only you know who and what you are. Are you a U.S. citizen? If you are, pay your taxes like it says you are suppose to do and forget about it. If you are not a U.S. citizen, but you want to volunteer to give part of your compensation (can you say no profit) for your labor to the IMFIRS, then by all means, do so. The U.S.C. is law for Federal States and the District of Criminals and a small part of it for the Union that is not in conflict with the Constitution for the United States of America. You are not going to get all the answers that you seek on this forum. You can only get bits and pieces. There are too many questions when you are just trying to understand what is going on. You must study the materials yourself and reach your own conclusion about what you have read. You will need a good Dictionary of Law, Anderson's 1893, Bouvier's 1914, Black's 4th or older, so you can become familiar with the terms of law that are involved in this topic. You cannot read man's law with the simple understanding of those educated in the public fool system. Example: in the terms of law, shall means may. Why do you think they call it code?

You said that you had access to Chris's book, The Great IRS Hoax, well I would suggest that you read the first five chapters, digest the contents, look up the cites and terms of law, and then ask the questions that you are still fuzzy on. Also, you may want to pose your questions on his forum at: http://famguardian.org/forums

Another good source and background document is the Book of the Hundreds available via the link on this site at The Christ's Lawful Assembly. Happy reading.


Peace.

Edited by - DanielJacob on 20 Jan 2004 23:35:57
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  00:13:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Derek,
I greet you In His name, The Messiah, my Father, above all things.

See... Good government obeys the Laws of God. Bad government does not obey the Laws of God, and Ugly government, neither obeys the Laws of God nor their own.

Some of us have seen and heard the tidal wave of what is, what was, and what is to come. Some of us have been "subjected" to the snare and traps of these impostors wearing long robes which seek respect from others, but only for show. The legacy which is upon His Children, then and now, continues to manifest, for there is nothing new under the sun.

As we swam clear of the swallowing rip of that surge, we stay clear of its final crash, If it is His Will.

We should speak/scream out, for by not doing so, the roar of that thunderous flood would reach many unawares.

That is all we can do. Pulling our swords and with much anger severing the ears which cannot hear, will not do. For it is His Light and Sounds which is what is to come.

His Grace be upon you and your love ones,
Manuel

Edited by - Manuel on 21 Jan 2004 00:15:50
Go to Top of Page

DerekR
Junior Member

USA
20 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  03:20:27  Show Profile  Visit DerekR's Homepage  Send DerekR an AOL message  Send DerekR an ICQ Message  Reply with Quote
I dont want to be defined by them. I want to decide who I am, by my actions and words. Unfortunately, I cant just state I am not a US Citizen, and expect that to hold water when they get offended.

I havent read the Bible in a while, but me and my wife just got one. So hopefully most of my answers will be there.

Edited by - DerekR on 21 Jan 2004 03:33:15
Go to Top of Page

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  09:10:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree

[quote]Originally posted by Lewish

No, go back to the Constitution of the united States for the definition of dollar. It is a unit of measure of silver. It cannot be FRNs. The original "dollar sign" as a capital "U" on top of a capital "S".


Livefree responded:

I guess what I don't understand is this: Why did HJR 192 say "dollar for dollar", when the term 'dollar' means a unit of measure of silver? Why didn't they just say, "Federal Reserve Note for Federal Reserve Note"? The term 'dollar', in legal contemplation, has only ONE meaning, and that is a unit measure of silver, but they are using that term ambiguously in HJR 192.

Marty wrote:

We have been told that a "dollar" is a unit of measure just as a "gallon" is a unit of measure. If someone says "I will give you a dollar for that"....You may do well to inquire "A dollar of what? A dollar of gold? A dollar of silver? A dollar of Federal Reserve Notes (debt)? A Canadian dollar?.....Just as if they said "I will trade you a gallon for that"...You might reply "a gallon of what?... a gallon of milk?...a gallon of gasoline?...a gallon of orange juice?...a gallon of water?...a gallon of sewage?

Marty

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 21 Jan 2004 09:26:13
Go to Top of Page

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  09:16:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree

This is what HRJ 192 says:

"Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law
authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It says "shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar.

Doesn't "dollar for dollar" mean frns?

We have been told that a Federal Reserve Note only "discharges" a debt but gold or silver "pays" a debt.

We have also been told that a Postal Money Order "pays" a debt.
Can anyone authoritively confirm or deny that?

Marty

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 21 Jan 2004 09:30:09
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  10:12:38  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Derek,
quote:
I dont want to be defined by them. I want to decide who I am, by my actions and words. Unfortunately, I cant just state I am not a US Citizen, and expect that to hold water when they get offended.

That is the point. You just say it and then stand by it. Pieces of paper do not make anything so. It is what is written on your heart by the Eternal that solidifies your position. Those who have prevailed in these matters are those that know exactly what they are (bondmen of the Christ, bought and paid for) and who they belong to (Again, the Christ). All the so-called numbers and names and everything else that man has created to identify (created sameness) everyone that belong to the world are only fictions that don't exist except in the minds of those that accept them as truth.

Remember, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

May the Peace of our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, be with you.
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  10:47:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation

quote:
Originally posted by Livefree

This is what HRJ 192 says:

"Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law
authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


We have been told that a Federal Reserve Note only "discharges" a debt but gold or silver "pays" a debt.

We have also been told that a Postal Money Order "pays" a debt.
Can anyone authoritively confirm or deny that?

Marty




Eustace Mullins says that debts CANNOT be discharged, only exchanged for other forms of debt:


Until 1913, "lawful money" was based on whatever comprised the reserves of a National Bank, gold, silver, gold or silver certificates, Treasury Notes, and U.S. notes. The Federal Reserve Act allowed banks to count commercial paper as bank reserves, and thereby changed the basis of our monetary system. HJR 192 legitimized the process by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender, and by substituting the language governing payment of detbt. "Payment of Debt" was alterted into a new phrase, "discharge of obligation." Henceforth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged. They could not be legally held to be paid, because they had not; they were merely exchange for other forms of debt. One banker exposed the scheme by stating, "If one bill of exchange goes through and in fact is paid with a cashiers check, the ball game is over the Federal-type banking." Such a payment would put the lenders of credit out of business. A specter is indeed haunting American business, but it is not the famed specter of Communism; it is the specter that someone may someday pay the debt.

Go to Top of Page

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  11:54:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree


This is what HRJ 192 says:

HJR 192 legitimized the process by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender, and by substituting the language governing payment of detbt. "Payment of Debt" was alterted into a new phrase, "discharge of obligation." Henceforth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged. They could not be legally held to be paid, because they had not; they were merely exchange for other forms of debt. One banker exposed the scheme by stating, "If one bill of exchange goes through and in fact is paid with a cashiers check, the ball game is over the Federal-type banking." Such a payment would put the lenders of credit out of business. A specter is indeed haunting American business, but it is not the famed specter of Communism; it is the specter that someone may someday pay the debt.

Livefree:

Did you intend to write "Henceforth debts could be discharged, but they could not be paid."?

Marty
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  12:02:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Read what it says again, Cornerstone.

It says, "Henceforth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged."

Not: "Henceforth debts could be discharged, but they could not be paid."?

Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2004 :  12:06:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And no, it's not a mistake. I had to read that one over and over again myself.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000