| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Aug 2005 : 13:27:55
|
quote:
David said: I say look at it this way; the moment the Ambassador steps off the sovereign soil of the embassy, that is when he is expected to behave in harmony with the common law of the land. Let us call that land of commerce Babylon. [METRO/City of XXXX global unification makes its own argument for the CITY OF BABYLON in the Bible.] There are however certain immunities granted by the State Department, granted to ambassadors.
I agree with much of what you have posted. The core issue between my position and that of brother Robert's is this: brother Robert basically asserts that if one is subject to GOVT STATUTES that means they have broken the first commandment. He has argued that one cannot serve two masters and that by being subject to GOVT STATUTES is to refuse YHWH's statutes. My position is that when one puts that concept into a real life, working model then the very act of allowing one's self to enter into a BUYER/SELLER transaction with a CORP(using GOVT FIAT at that) is a clear breach of his rendering of the first commandment. Especially when that TAX is paid to the GOVT. Sure, Ambassadors are granted favors in USA but one must realize these people are Ambassadors of various FICTIONAL entities. Regardless, they still have to "go by the rules" when entering into BUYER/SELLER relationships. Just like everyone else, including the dog catcher or "moral sentient being", they are subject to the GOVT STATUTES which regulates commerce with the CORP. All of which, BTW, is completely voluntary. One is not obligated to purchase consumer goods, use FRNs, or do business with the CORP.
Again, I am not pointing fingers because I also engage in BUYER/SELLER transactions using FIAT $$.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 12 Aug 2005 15:03:32 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2005 : 13:46:42
|
Dear Batkol;
You have gotten back to the subject matter of this Topic. Also the arguments in the beginning pages between Source and myself. Originally this Topic was titled something like, "Government Statutes do not Apply to Christians".
The State Department as best I know has no recognized embassy of any ecclesiastical nature. There is little chance one could declare a sanctuary under the penumbra of Judaism or Christianity. There really has to be a territorial claim under the ambassador(s).
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2005 : 22:58:53
|
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a young man wandered into a strange land. As he was walking along he found a greenish-colored piece of paper lying on the ground. He picked it up and inspected it more closely, on the front, in the center, was the image of a man, and in each of the four corners was the number 100. On the back of this piece of cloth-like paper was the picture of a building, again, with 100’s in each of the four corners.
As he stood perusing this small piece a paper with the interesting imagery a young woman chanced to come by. The man doffed his hat and said, “Excuse me, but I am a Stranger in this land, I wonder, could you tell me what this is?” And when he showed her the piece of paper he had found, the woman, after only the slightest glance said, “That is a 100-dollar bill, sir; it is what we buy things with in this place.” The man being very hungry after his long walk asked her if he could buy food with this thing and she said, “Why of course; come with me and I will show you where you can get some food.”
So she took him to a rather large building that had a huge sign on its face, which read, Ingle’s Market. After he had accumulated several species of organic vegetables and some clean meat and some drink they proceeded to the part of the market where someone tallied up all that he had chosen. He gave the man at the check-out the “100-dollar bill” that he had recently found and amazingly enough the man took the piece of greenish colored paper and gave him the bag of food.
No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market). As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2005 : 23:06:11
|
To the man or woman the FRN is non-negotiable, being colorable.
quote:
> DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
> OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE
> FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
This endorsement is cropping up all over the country. And the bankers do not wish to be the culpable party, so they are doing the same dodge - "We are not responsible..."
quote:
4. Bank will not be liable for and disregard conditional statements or
"subject to" conditions or any other information written on a check
other than the signature of the drawer, the identification of the drawer
bank and payee, the amount and any other information that appears in the
magnetic ink in the character recognition line.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Aug 2005 23:06:53 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 08:22:45
|
Negotiation. The transfer of an instrument in such form that the transferee becomes the holder. If the instrument is payable to order it is negotiated by delivery with any necessary indorsement; if payable to bearer it is negotiable by delivery. [cite omitted]. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition [Emphasis added]
Federal reserve notes. Form of currency issued by the Federal Reserve Banks in the likeness of non-interest bearing promissory note payable to bearer on demand. The federal reserve note (e.g. one, five, ten, etc. dollar bill) is the most widely used paper currency. Such have replaced silver and gold certificates which were backed by silver and gold. Such reserve notes are direct obligations of the United States. (Ibid.) [Emphasis added] Note: I wouldn’t want to be married to this PERSON Columbia, a.k.a. United States!
Bearer, n. [See Bear.] One who bears, sustains, or carries; a carrier, especially of a corpse to the grave. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
One who...carries. And though this promissory note was no longer backed by silver or gold, but rather, by the good faith of 14th Amendment citizens, in good faith this man at Ingle’s Market exchanged it for goods (food and drink) for our sojourning Stranger.
Stranger(s). As used with reference to the subject of subrogation, one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor. …Those who are in no way parties to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition [Emphasis added]
The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.
Yahuwah preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked He turneth upside down. Yahuwah shall reign for ever, even thy ‘Elohiym, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye Yahuwah.
These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.
Happy Sevening Day Remembrance to all our fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Aug 2005 09:25:26 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 09:23:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a young man wandered into a strange land. As he was walking along he found a greenish-colored piece of paper lying on the ground. He picked it up and inspected it more closely, on the front, in the center, was the image of a man, and in each of the four corners was the number 100. On the back of this piece of cloth-like paper was the picture of a building, again, with 100’s in each of the four corners.
As he stood perusing this small piece a paper with the interesting imagery a young woman chanced to come by. The man doffed his hat and said, “Excuse me, but I am a Stranger in this land, I wonder, could you tell me what this is?” And when he showed her the piece of paper he had found, the woman, after only the slightest glance said, “That is a 100-dollar bill, sir; it is what we buy things with in this place.” The man being very hungry after his long walk asked her if he could buy food with this thing and she said, “Why of course; come with me and I will show you where you can get some food.”
So she took him to a rather large building that had a huge sign on its face, which read, Ingle’s Market. After he had accumulated several species of organic vegetables and some clean meat and some drink they proceeded to the part of the market where someone tallied up all that he had chosen. He gave the man at the check-out the “100-dollar bill” that he had recently found and amazingly enough the man took the piece of greenish colored paper and gave him the bag of food.
No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market). As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Here's another alternate story.... Just yesterday day a man finished his work week. He was happy because he had worked a few extra hours which made a difference on his pay. That extra $100 FRN would go along way if he budgeted his MONEY right. He stopped in at the SHELL STATION and shook his head at the rising gas prices. As he was pumping he took note of the TAX RATE that was displayed on the pump. "That's robbery how they can tack on that much for TAX" he said to himself. He kept pumping anyway. As he went to PAY his BILL at the check out counter he decided to add in a pack of smokes. When he got the pack of smokes he commented to the clerk, "I can't believe the price has risen again on both gas and smokes". The clerk answered back, "Yeah, a large part of the price is tax. They just pass it right on to you, the CONSUMER. You think the gas tax is bad, listen to this. I talked to the cigarette distributor who just got back from California the other day and he told me cigarettes are subject to both the cigarette tax and the cigarette and tobacco products surtax. The tax and surtax are paid by distributors through the use of tax stamps, which are purchased from banks and affixed to each package of cigarettes before distribution. The cost of the stamp includes both the cigarette tax and the surtax. Currently, each stamp costs 87 cents per pack of twenty cigarettes, comprising 12 cents for the cigarette tax and 75 cents for the combined surtax. Can you believe that! That's well over half the price of smokes just in tax! Do you still want the smokes, even after I told you this horrible news?", the clerk asks. The man thinks for a split second and replies, “No. I’ll pay the TAX”. He tenders the amount due for his BILL and heads outside. So, with a full tank and few FRN's lighter, the man makes his way to INGLES. He fills his buggy with his favorite FOOD PRODUCTS and makes his way to the check out counter. Beep, beep, beep sounds emit from the register as each UPC CODE on the PRODUCT is passed across the laser beam which tallies the inventory. The clerk, a conspiracy minded college student working part-time, picks up the tube of toothpaste and says to the man, “Did you know that this here sign is a secret Masonic emblem?” “Yes“, the man replied “but it is cheaper than paying the dentist who is probably a member of the same organization”. They have a quick laugh. “Your total is $43.24. But you might notice that this is a tiny fraction cheaper. The GOVT amended General Statute 105-164.4 (a) (5)…. That’s the Statute that obligates you to pay the SALES TAX. The man pays the BILL with the required FRNs.
Another day in the world of COMMERCE….
A few comments on your comments:
quote:
brother Robert said: No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
You forgot the part where the man pays the PRICE of the GOODS including TAX and enters into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with the CORP. This put the man in the jurisdiction regulated by the laws of COMMERCE.
quote:
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market).
Once again you are ignoring the key feature of the ACT. BUYER/SELLER agreement regulated by STATUTE which requires an obligatory TAX to CAESAR. With the logic you put forth above, one can enter a house of prostitution but only be guilty of sinning while in the house. Say he goes once a week. He is only a sinner for that one hour, each week?
quote:
As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
Who cares what the AGENT says, it's YHWH who sees everything. That's the whole point, no? If one says that it is a breach of the first commandment to be one who is subject to GOVT STATUTE, then the story of the shopper outlines this man putting himself into COMMERCIAL situations which make him SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES as well as being considered a TAX PAYER in the process. GOVT STATUTES do apply to the ecclesia, ice cream man, as well as the shirtless, shoeless man-child
romping in a fresh, green field.
That's the point I am trying to make using your measure of the first commandment.
We can agree to disagree on a such a nice day!
Cheers,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Aug 2005 09:44:31 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 09:29:18
|
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth (from this time) even for ever. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Aug 2005 09:45:06 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 09:45:57
|
| Check the add in's to my last post! |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 11:11:41
|
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs! Had the man at Ingle’s Market asked him for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER before proceeding the Stranger would have been unable to complete the purchase since he is not a TAXPAYER because he does not own, or use, the white stone (benefits number) of that kingdom. He is merely in their kingdom, not of it! He is a Stranger to their covenant(s) and transaction(s)!
“Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security…seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.” – What you didn’t know about taxes and the crown [Emphasis added]
"I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is." - (courtesy of Eugene Pringle)
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Aug 2005 12:30:08 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 11:56:04
|
quote:
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs!
Complete nonsense! Shall we now pull out "THEIR" law and choose from the long menue of definitions of "TAXPAYER"? I am not talking about IRS so let's focus on the dog (CONSUMER TAX) ONLY and not the horse (IRS TAX). I am talking about a COMMERCIAL BUYER/SELLER transaction. The most simplist context of TAXPAYER in this instance is "one who is obligated to pay a TAX". When you/me pony up the TAX we most certainly could be considered TAXPAYERS in that context. The man in BOTH stories is obligated to pay the TAX if he AGREES to buy the merchandise. This is a commercial BUYER/SELLER agreement. This is not IRS TAXPAYER context, this is CONSUMER TAXPAYER context which I have proven to be squarely in the juridiction of GOVT STATUTES. When we pay the CONSUMER TAX we are submiting to the GOVT STATUTES which demand such.
Bottom line is we pay the TAX because we are obligated IF we want to do business with the CORP. You assert that to submit to GOVT STATUTES is a breach of the first commandment. By that simple logic one breaks the first commandmnet when they comply with the STATUTES that demand a TAX be paid on CONSUMER GOODS when entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement.
An act done by your will is your act. Entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with a CORP puts that one under the jurisdiction which governs such transactions. |
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Aug 2005 11:57:26 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 12:15:56
|
.. I wanted to add that both parties, the CORP and the one doing business with it, "belong to" or are "of" the BUYER/SELLER transaction taking place. Actually there are three who are "of" the agreement. The CONSUMER, the RETAILER, and the GOVT. Kinda like an unholy trinity if your rendering of the first commandment is correct.. 
|
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Aug 2005 12:16:50 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 12:31:46
|
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs! Had the man at Ingle’s Market asked him for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER before proceeding the Stranger would have been unable to complete the purchase since he is not a TAXPAYER because he does not own, or use, the white stone (benefits number) of that kingdom. He is merely in their kingdom, not of it! He is a Stranger to their covenant(s) and transaction(s)!
“Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security…seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.” – What you didn’t know about taxes and the crown [Emphasis added]
"I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is." - (courtesy of Eugene Pringle)
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 12:39:45
|
brother Robert, you still trying to make the dog into a horse.
American Heritage Dictionary
tax-pay-er (taks'pa'er) > n. One who pays taxes.
That's us when we pay a TAX when buying CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
Consumer Product. Any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed) 15 U.S.C.A. S 2501
There is no mention anywhere of a SS# in the CONSUMER model we have been discussing. Engaging in commerce with the CORP need not have anything to do with a SS# yet you keep wanting to bring that non-sequitur into this debate. One does not need a SS# to be a TAXPAYER in the willful act of PURCHASING CONSUMER GOODS. A willful act which is absolutely regulated by GOVT STATUTE. |
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Aug 2005 15:07:18 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 06:39:55
|
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." - Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts...” – C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)
Virtually anyone can see by the above decisions that merely paying a sales tax, which, if we are not mistaken, is an excise tax or use tax, does not in and of itself, make one a [U.S.] TAXPAYER. One would have to be a brick shy of a load, as the saying goes, to truly believe this, and we perceive that you are not, so perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate in this discussion?
Next, let us give you the legal definition of a TAXPAYER.
Taxpayer. A person whose income is subject to taxation; one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1017
And, you seem to be insisting that the TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, whether it is the S.S.N., T.I.N., S.I.N. or whatever other acronym they may put upon its variations, is not what its name implies; that it does not identify a PERSON as a TAXPAYER. You wish to leave out the undeniable truth that the PERSON who uses this benefits card must pay for the privilege of using it…
Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
…but more importantly, we fully understand why you must choose to take this stance. Not that we are condemning anyone, when one’s master is a hypocrite and a deceiver, of necessity, that servant may have to lie to and cheat his master, just to survive in some cases.
And lastly, making the font on your posts really large does not negate the erroneous reasoning it contains and some may find it very distracting, though to be truthful, brother Steven, I giggled when I saw it.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Aug 2005 08:17:55 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 09:12:44
|
quote:
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
A good Christian will therefore be a Taxpayer. For all intents and purposes all the time. There is no falling back on secular case law to avoid the commission and benefit of discussion. It is a religious matter - not within the scope of your religion to argue about it.
Otherwise avoid leaving a papertrail that you endorse false balances:
quote:
> DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
> OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE
> FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
And so what if the Bank tries to follow suit or even ignore that you have put the responsibility and culpability of coloring money upon them:
quote:
4. Bank will not be liable for and disregard conditional statements or
"subject to" conditions or any other information written on a check
other than the signature of the drawer, the identification of the drawer
bank and payee, the amount and any other information that appears in the
magnetic ink in the character recognition line (MICR).
Handling a FRN is in my opinion an abomination before the Lord Yehowah. Proverbs 11:1;
quote:
Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
Testimony by comic book from the New York Federal Reserve Bank:
http://www.ny.frb.org/publications/result.cfm?comics=1
quote:
Explains the purposes of money in a modern economy, the characteristics that items used as money have, the way the banking system creates money, and the reasons the Federal Reserve influences the money supply. 2004 Maximum 35 copies. Comic-style Booklet. 24 pp. (emphasis added)
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 14 Aug 2005 09:17:57 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 10:43:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[size=2][font=Book Antiqua]Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Uh.. Thanks. You are not offering peace but I can play your game.
quote:
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse. You keep posting OUT OF CONTEXT cases which have NOTHING to do with the subject matter of BUY/SELL CONSUMER agreements. I posted a general definition of TAXPAYER from the American Heritage Dictionary. One who pays a TAX. You post later in your response the Black's law definition which only proves my point AGAIN once you understand the function of the tricky punctuation being used. You insist on trying to shift this into a different TAX issue which has nothing to do with the nature of the subject matter I am bringing forth. Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel. If that's the tone you want to set here, after I have explained what I mean by TAXPAYER, in the context of our discussion, fine. I can play that way.
I'll address the below:
quote:
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." - Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
First off this is NOT addressing the kind of BUY/SELL agreements we are speaking of. Secondly, there would not have to be a 'judicial review' to find out if one is a TAXPAYER in relation to a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION of the nature we are discussing. You would have already PAID THE TAX! So the point would be moot. In context, you are a TAXPAYER in relation to "this type" of transaction. You are trying to make a dog into a horse. Here's where you are a TAXPAYER in relation to our topic:
26 U.S.C. §1313: Definitions
(b) Taxpayer
Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
You are a TAXPAYER in a CONSUMER transaction because you are subjecting yourself to the applicable revenue law (GOVT STATUTE) which demands that a TAX be paid on all CONSUMER PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding means "despite the fact".
quote:
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts...” – C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)
Once again you are desperately trying to make the dog into a horse. This is not in context to SALES, EXCISE, USE, or which ever applicable TAX in a CONSUMER transaction. BTW, exclusive includes the definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) if that context were applicable.
quote:
Virtually anyone can see by the above decisions that merely paying a sales tax, which, if we are not mistaken, is an excise tax or use tax, does not in and of itself, make one a [U.S.] TAXPAYER. One would have to be a brick shy of a load, as the saying goes, to truly believe this, and we perceive that you are not, so perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate in this discussion?
Why do you insist on bringing out of context cases to the table here? Excise tax, sales tax, use tax, what-ever-tax. Whoever pays one or any of these, DURING THE TRANSACTION, would be considered a TAXPAYER, in that context. What's more, is the word or even status of TAXPAYER, is not the sum total of the argument I am making. The bottom line is if you do business with the CORP your are SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES which regulate such transactions. This includes paying a TAX!
quote:
Next, let us give you the legal definition of a TAXPAYER.
Taxpayer. A person whose income is subject to taxation; one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1017
Amazing! brother Robert take the scales off your eyes. The second part after the semi-colon squarely defines the type of TAXPAYER you would be in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION!!! "one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support." "Pecuniary" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, id., as "monetary; relating to money; financial; consisting of money or that which can be valued as money". Yes. The GOVT demands that you pay SALES TAX which is clearly a contribution toward its support. You can't see this because you are not taking into account the semi-colon. What is the function of a semi-colon in a sentence? It means there are two clauses are in the same sentence.
quote:
And, you seem to be insisting that the TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, whether it is the S.S.N., T.I.N., S.I.N. or whatever other acronym they may put upon its variations, is not what its name implies; that it does not identify a PERSON as a TAXPAYER. You wish to leave out the undeniable truth that the PERSON who uses this benefits card must pay for the privilege of using it…
I am not, have never insisted that the TIN, SSN, or whatever acronym is not what it's name implies. That's you trying to shift the argument from a dog to a horse. None of these acronyms are needed for a COMSUMER BUY/SELL transaction.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 17 Aug 2005 08:37:06 |
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 12:19:45
|
A sales tax is not on the consumer but on the seller in the business of selling consumer products. Calling a sales tax a consumer tax is only a word game that the state plays with
their voters to help control and influence their vote. The State has the power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges and property in which it has a beneficial interest. It is the business that contracts with the State to pay the tax and the obligation is on the business to pay.
They also like to say the seller is just an agent who collects the tax for the government but this is just another word game for saying the seller is passing on another cost of his goods. The sales tax is a part of the cost of the product just like the cost of shipping,
handling, and the price of the merchandise. The business is the one subject to his master who says he must show his sales tax separate on the sales receipt. He is also the one who must file the tax return and the sales tax may be considered part of his gross income.
There are no legislative acts that are binding on a free man (if there is such a thing) unless he has in some way given his consent in some lawful form or contract. A man will not even be recognized as a person who exists unless he can prove what jurisdiction to which he belongs.
It is not making agreements under law or color of law that necessarily makes a man a slave of another master although the consequences of such agreements made in ignorance and foolishness may definitely restrict our use of the blessings provided and entrusted to us. It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.
The intent of the statutes, so the legislature says, is to protect the welfare of their own. This is why the State requires an oath before they hand out privileges and benefits from the corporate goods they hold in trust.
If the Kings servant walks in a jurisdiction under
another kings servant he should respect the laws that bind that servant whether it is getting permission to enter their place of business, their highways, or paying for the use of their things.
But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.
It does seem odd to me that many of the people I talk to that believe they have a duty because of Romans 13 to obey the laws of Caesar think nothing of breaking speed limits
and running stop signs when the cop is not around. Yet they don't turn themselves in or repent for their transgression.
Clarence
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 12:56:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Surveyor
A sales tax is not on the consumer but on the seller in the business of selling consumer products.
Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing.
quote:
Calling a sales tax a consumer tax is only a word game that the state plays with their voters to help control and influence their vote. The State has the power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges and property in which it has a beneficial interest. It is the business that contracts with the State to pay the tax and the obligation is on the business to pay.
Taking what you are saying here at face value the issue is still very clear. The CORP is passing the burden of TAX on to you/us. We accept this burden and this brings us squarely into the loop. Either way, within the CONSUMER/CORP transaction, the one who agrees to pay the TAX is considered a TAXPAYER, in that context.
quote:
They also like to say the seller is just an agent who collects the tax for the government but this is just another word game for saying the seller is passing on another cost of his goods.
I agree 100%. We enter into their word game scheme when we willfuly come to the CORP. Either way, we "perfect" their word game when we agree to the terms. If we don't want to accept the burden of being the TAXPAYER during the consumer transaction with the CORP, we can refuse to enter into that agreement. When we do accept that responsibility as set forth in the terms of the agreement, then we become a TAXPAYER as set out in the STATUTES I listed above. That's the essence of my point.
quote:
The sales tax is a part of the cost of the product just like the cost of shipping, handling, and the price of the merchandise. The business is the one subject to his master who says he must show his sales tax separate on the sales receipt. He is also the one who must file the tax return and the sales tax may be considered part of his gross income.
And the non-negotiable terms set forth by the CORP, if we AGREE to do business with them, requires us to become the TAXPAYER in the transaction. When the CORP pays the GOVT, in their seperate deal outside the particular BUY/SELL agreement at point of consumer purchase, a different terms are honored. Now the GOVT has caused two parties to become TAXPAYERS! The master sets forth the terms of the agreement and when you go to the the CORP the master demands certain duties of the consumer.
quote:
There are no legislative acts that are binding on a free man (if there is such a thing) unless he has in some way given his consent in some lawful form or contract. A man will not even be recognized as a person who exists unless he can prove what jurisdiction to which he belongs.
You nailed it with "consent". The jurisdiction is proven by the nature of the transaction. If one goes to a CORP to buy CONSUMER GOODS, that person, by consent, is entering into a transaction that is governed by specific GOVT STATUTES.
quote:
It is not making agreements under law or color of law that necessarily makes a man a slave of another master although the consequences of such agreements made in ignorance and foolishness may definitely restrict our use of the blessings provided and entrusted to us. It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.
I agree with you here. However some on this thread argue that to go 'under color of law' at all is itself a breach of the first commandment. These same types will agrue that to put one's self under any 'color of law' is "serving two masters". That's what brother Robert and I are debating currently.
quote:
The intent of the statutes, so the legislature says, is to protect the welfare of their own. This is why the State requires an oath before they hand out privileges and benefits from the corporate goods they hold in trust.
In like kind, the CORP requires an agreement that the CONSUMER assumes the burden of becoming the TAXPAYER when they sell GOODS and SERVICES. We perfect this status in the agreement when we accept the terms set forth by the CORP.
quote:
If the Kings servant walks in a jurisdiction under
another kings servant he should respect the laws that bind that servant whether it is getting permission to enter their place of business, their highways, or paying for the use of their things.
Agree 100%. That's just fair, IMO.
quote:
But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.
I would only note, in the context of the position I am arguing, that the jurisdiction of the CONSUMER BUY/SELL transaction is completely regulated by GOVT STATUTE. Hence my claim that GOVT STATUTES do apply to the ecclesia in certain contexts. COMMERCE being one.
quote:
It does seem odd to me that many of the people I talk to that believe they have a duty because of Romans 13 to obey the laws of Caesar think nothing of breaking speed limits and running stop signs when the cop is not around. Yet they don't turn themselves in or repent for their transgression.
Clarence
I would also add that I doubt anyone would be willing to pay "tax, toll or tribute" during a CONSUMER PURCHASE if they could get away with it. However, the GOVT and their licensed CORPS see to it that this is not possible. If you don't agree to be the TAXPAYER in the transaction, then they don't SELL you the GOODS.
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 14 Aug 2005 13:12:13 |
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 13:38:12
|
"Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing."
It is still the law that governs, not what is supposed or what someone thinks. The receipt is made out by the seller for the buyers benefit and is not a contract nor does it create an obligation on the buyer to pay anything to the state unless that is what they believe. On the receipt it is still called a sales tax and the law puts the obligation and duty of the sales tax along with the requirement to break it down on the receipt on the business. The consumer can take the same product and sale it to his neighbor and neither he or his neighbor owes a sales tax on the consumer product although the new sale price may still reflect everything that went into the cost of the product.
Many times to make this point I have pretended that I was not going to pay the tax. A time or two I have refused to pay the addition of the tax on the cost when the seller quoted a price over the phone and didn't include the tax with the price. The seller in order to make the sale let me have it at the quoted price but the seller still paid that amount of tax themselves or changed the ticket to reflect the new sale price. But the state will not, and they have no aughority to do so, come and collect it from the buyer.
Clarence
|
Edited by - Surveyor on 14 Aug 2005 13:43:05 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2005 : 14:08:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
"Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing."
Clarence said: It is still the law that governs, not what is supposed or what someone thinks. The receipt is made out by the seller for the buyers benefit and is not a contract nor does it create an obligation on the buyer to pay anything to the state unless that is what they believe.
I have looked into this and wanted to edit my original response. The VENDOR is considered the AGENT responsible for collecting the TAX from the CONSUMER. There are many examples of this. One such example is worded on a site for Cleveland County as "Vendors must collect sales tax and remit sales tax to the state". Another in Louisana states, "Tax & Sales Rules: All Vendors must collect sales tax of 8.5% (Louisiana State 4%, Terrebonne Parish 4.5%). and remit payment to the state and parish tax". Yet another example: "Vendors/sellers are responsible for remitting sales tax to the California." It is clear that the VENDOR is acting as an AGENT for the STATE and collecting TAX from the CONSUMER who is obligated to pay it. I agree the receipt is not a contract. It is, however, proof of a transaction in COMMERCE and if SALES TAX is reflected, it is proof that the BUYER assumed this obligation. The 'contract' is the actual agreement between the SELLER and BUYER. That contract need not be written... Consider this. I SELL my paitings to a CORP. The CORP is only obligated to pay the retail SALES TAX if the painting is sold not if the art sits unsold. In this way the CORP is the AGENT of collection for the CONSUMER SALES TAX. The CORP is not the consumer, the BUYER is. If the CORP makes deal in which the sales tax is converted to a discount, then the RETAIL tax still gets paid.
quote:
On the receipt it is still called a sales tax and the law puts the obligation and duty of the sales tax along with the requirement to break it down on the receipt on the business.
It is clear that the VENDOR acts as an AGENT for the STATE in collecting and remitting the SALES TAX required at point of purchase.. But the TAX is only due IF the goods are sold. IF a BUYER/SELLER agreement is reached. CONSUMER SALES TAX is not required if there is no sale of the GOODS. .
quote:
The consumer can take the same product and sale it to his neighbor and neither he or his neighbor owes a sales tax on the consumer product although the new sale price may still reflect everything that went into the cost of the product.
That's correct. Sales tax is not required between private parties. They are required when a RETAIL sale is made between a CORP and another party.
quote:
Many times to make this point I have pretended that I was not going to pay the tax. A time or two I have refused to pay the addition of the tax on the cost when the seller quoted a price over the phone and didn't include the tax with the price. The seller in order to make the sale let me have it at the quoted price but the seller still paid that amount of tax themselves or changed the ticket to reflect the new sale price.
That's correct. You negotiated yourself out of paying the sales tax and you did not assume the burden of TAXPAYER in that particular transaction. The SELLER absorbed the charge. Your receipt showing no sales TAX would be proof that you did not accept the role of TAXPAYER. Most of the time, from my experience, the SELLER will just drop the price and still show the sales tax being charged for bookmaking purposes.
However, the very receipt would be proof that you entered into a COMMERCIAL transaction. These transactions, between a RETAIL CORP and another party, are regulated by GOVT STATUTES. That's the gist of my argument.
quote:
But the state will not, and they have no aughority to do so, come and collect it from the buyer.
Actually that is not true. The STATE can in some cases go after the CONSUMER if the VENDOR does not pay the TAX. See Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) mentioned below. Still, itt is the responsibility of the AGENT who collects the TAX at point of sale to send it along to the STATE. The AGENT being the CORP who does not owe any TAX unless a SALE is made to a CONSUMER. In your case you were able to make stipulations in your commercial agreement for purchase of consumer goods which got you out of the position of TAXPAYER. That's completely fair in business. It's also fair if one accepts to pay the CONSUMER SALES TAX. The SELLER is not the CONSUMER but all deals are negotiable in commerce. Commerce itself being regulated by GOVT STATUTES.
Also, consider this fact: If a sale is made out of state there is no SALES TAX required during that transaction. The VENDOR is not obligated because the BUYER is not purchasing in the jurisdiction of the STATE the GOODS are being sold. This shows the SALES TAX is effected by the CONSUMER.
(snip) "Paid by the consumer, sales tax is a percentage of the retail price paid for specific classifications of goods and services within the state. If a purchase is made out-of-state by a Washington resident, where there is no sales tax or the sales tax paid out-of-state is less than the rate levied in the resident's locality, state law requires that a use tax be calculated and paid to make up the difference. In practice, most people do not pay the use tax on purchases made out-of-state, except for vehicles, where a use tax must be paid before licensure is authorized. Otherwise, the use tax is very difficult to administer and enforce."
Here's another point blank item from the Louisiana Dept of Revenue:
Q: I made a purchase of property for my own use from a vendor who did not collect the sales or use tax from me. Is the purchase taxable? If so, which of us will the department expect to remit the tax? Can I as the purchaser ever be held liable for any tax on my purchase?
A: If the property you purchased is tangible personal property and is subject to sales tax as described above, then the purchase is subject to sales tax even though your vendor did not collect it. The vendor acts as an agent on behalf of the state in collecting the sales tax due. In the event the vendor does not collect the sales tax, the department may seek to collect the sales tax from the seller or the purchaser. This issue is addressed in the court case Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) and by the definition of dealer under LAC 61:I.4301.
This from the US treasury:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/state_taxes.shtml
US Department of the Treasury
Consumer Tax
A consumer tax system taxes the retail sale. The vendor at a store collects the tax from the buyer and then sends the tax money to the state. For example, if you bought a record album, you would pay a tax in addition to the record price.
Combination
A combination vendor-consumer system taxes the vendor (the owner of the record store) who then is required to pass the tax on to the consumer (the person who buys the record). From the standpoint of the consumer, a combination vendor-consumer sales tax appears identical to a consumer sales tax. The consumer pays a tax in addition to the sale price.
.
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 14 Aug 2005 23:08:47 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
