CHI #7

I believe this will be my last article on the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions. I have no desire to waste time trying to sort out all the things wrong with the current LDS Church’s policies and administration. The problems of the LDS Church will not be resolved from within.

I believe in the days ahead the LDS church will be broken up so that there will not be a legal successor to the high priesthood from within it’s ranks. Also prior to the physical gathering to build the Zion of God the Lord will send people inspired and authorized by Him to fulfill that work and those who have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide will not be deceived but will be able to gather with them.

I also believe it will be necessary for each currently active LDS to “detoxify” from the false mindset which now pervades the church, its practices and even its teachings. It has been spoken of by several on this blog how deeply affected we are by Babylonian traditions and that we have been for generations. This Babylonian mindset effects the way things of God are perceived among the members of the LDS church. I am convinced that the very context and intent of the gospel of Christ, even His own words have been perverted within our minds so that after years of being exposed to the teachings from the church it may be impossible to correctly understand His intent.

In order to brainwash a person you must deprogram them first. One of the required elements of the deprogramming is emotional stress. Brainwashers use fear, sleep deprivation and food deprivation to break down the status quo of a person’s mindset.

Cleansing the mind of false traditions can also be a positive thing. I think this is one of the reasons there were so many great and traumatic events prior to Christ’s appearance to the people in the Book of Mormon. I believe the future will bring similar events for a similar purpose worldwide.

I suppose we could cleanse ourselves of Babylon and receive the Spirit’s teachings by deprogramming ourselves through things such as extended fasting, tribal worship, cutting off contact with the Church and its teachings and other healing methods. I know some people who are doing these things. It might make it possible for them to not have to go through the group trauma coming upon the world. They will perhaps already be receptive to the truth that God will surely send and even now is sending. Such people might even be able to help others through the transition.

So much for the comments before the post. In this post I will discuss the portion of the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions regarding taxes.

Section 17.1.23 is in the chapter entitled Church Policies. This section is titled Income Taxes. It is directed at members of the church, what we call the rank and file of the church. But there is another section which speaks of taxes also. Section 14.10.1 is under the chapter called Finances. That section is called Tax-Exempt Status. It is speaking of the Church. Let’s look at these sections.

Section 14.10.1 Tax-Exempt Status

The Church normally is exempt from paying sales, property, income and other taxes because it is a religious organization. Church buildings and other property are to be used for the purposes of worship, religious instruction and other Church-related activities. Stake and Ward leaders ensure that Church facilities are not used for political, business, or investment purposes as outlined in 8.4. To do so would violate laws that permit tax exemption of Church property.
It is important that stake and ward leaders follow these guidelines to preserve the Church’s tax-exempt status. If one stake or ward misuses the Church’s tax-exempt status, other Church units could be affected.

Notice how this section is not talking about the church as the term is used by the Lord, meaning people who follow Him. The word Church is capitalized because it is a proper name. It is the name of a fictional person or what is called a corporation, the making of a body or person out of something that is not a person. The word Church is capitalized because it refers to the corporate (or incorporated) “church”. You, reading this, unless you happen to be as of this date Thomas S. Monson are not a member of the entity referred to as the Church. Your activities in the eyes of the CHI are not tax-exempt. I guess your activities don’t rise to the level of “of worship, religious instruction and other Church-related activities”. No, here is the section which is meant to direct your actions.

Section 17.1.23 Income Taxes

Church members are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of the nation where they reside (see also D&C 134:5). Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment. Members who have well-founded legal objections may challenge tax laws in the courts.
Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. Such members may be ineligible for a recommend and should not be called to positions of principal responsibility in the Church. Members who are convicted of willfully violating tax laws are subject to Church discipline to the extent warranted by the circumstances.

Now if you want to know the truth about the US income tax system I suggest you view this video.

I can sum up this video and several other books and articles written about the US income tax. There is no US law requiring any human to file or pay an income tax. There are tons of regulations which are enforced as if they were lawful but they are not legally binding upon real people. However what most people do not know is that the action of filing a tax return with the IRS has the effect of designating yourself as a “legal person” or in other words a corporation. And then they have a case against you according to their regulations.

But let us stay focused on what the CHI is doing. It holds the Church tm as free from income taxes while telling all us slaves that we better pay our income taxes or the Church will punish us. Is that what Jesus said to Peter when they demanded a tax to enter the temple? No He said it was evil, but He caused a miracle to pay the evil tax. Oh yes He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Is your time and labor the property of the government? Why because they say so? Then you are a slave not only physically but mentally also.

In the CHI they have to work hard to justify this little section. I did not know the Articles of Faith were commandments or obligatory in nature. I don’t think they are. And then the CHI says to look at D&C 134:5. Yeah, lets look at that section. They are really grasping at straws here. In fact by citing this scripture they shoot themselves in the foot. Some comments I see seem to think this is a bad section because it strengthens the argument that we are slaves to the government. I say it does no such thing. Even though it was written by men and does not claim to be a direct revelation from Joseph Smith it contains excellent truth. Here is the first sentence from verse 5. It has the part they want you to see.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments;

Okay the portion prior to the comma is all the CHI and corporate Church wants you to see. But oops there is a stipulation there, “while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments;” Which is to say that when we are not protected in our inalienable rights from God rather than owing obedience to such a government the Declaration of Independence states it is our duty to throw off such government and establish a new one to secure our God given rights. That is clearly the message of D&C134:5 and Alma chapter 60 verses 33.

And I ask, “Have you and I been protected by the US government in our inalienable rights?” Does there remain in the US the right of freedom of religion that congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof? And the second amendment that we may own (keep) and carry (bear) on our person a firearm (arms) has that not been infringed upon? Are we free to speak our minds even if it is in opposition to a government leader or policy or must we only do so in certain zones where no one can hear us? The answer to these and hundreds of other examples of the destruction of our liberties is no! Our rights are not being protected by this government.

During times of oppression God fearing men and women support and up hold people who fight against unjust governments and unjust laws. The true followers of God and Christ in the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry all honored their actions. They praised them from the pulpits and in public. They supported them and thanked God openly for men willing to risk their lives to stand for truth and liberty.
All true followers of God and Jesus Christ will support those willing to risk their comforts, thier homes and even their lives to fight against tyranny. Therefore anyone who agrees with the words of this section of the CHI is not a true follower of God.

What a joke to say “Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment”. Even the wording of the sentence is mocking us. You can try all you want to change things, but we know who is in power and we will do the bidding of our masters the international bankers to keep you enslaved to them. We will threaten you with being counted before God as unworthy if you don’t file your tax return.

HOW DARE THEY!? Who do they think they are to take something so sacred and holy as our relationship and standing before God and subject it to an unholy entity known as the IRS, the collection agency of the world wide secret combinations?

Why do they find it necessary to even mention obedience to income tax “laws”? The reason they mention it is because over the years the scriptures and the Spirit of God have lead some people to question the validity of the government’s claim to ownership of our time and labor. And rather than just say we believe in obeying the law, these writers go into a feeding frenzy of enforcing strict and total obedience in order that all might be enslaved.

When liars don’t want you to question them they bring out the biggest verbal threats possible. And so here the CHI writers don’t just mention tax laws it they slam it hard as can be. Look at this sentence.

Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church.

That says if you refuse to file a tax return you are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. Even the IRS says that not everyone is required to file a return. But this little section goes insane to the point of lying to say that all must file a return. Satan’s plan to coerce all to obey never had a better friend than the CHI. And there you have it.

And what is your tax money going to support, wars, airport strip searches and incarceration without due process and a host of other evils which have the effect to place you deeper and deeper in slavery? You are paying to put stronger and stronger chains on you.

The last note. If I knew someone who had been approached by some mafia thugs and they told him, “If you don’t pay us some protection money we will burn down your business.” I would not find fault with him for paying them money. I see paying the IRS or at least filing a return as protection money for many people. But you might be surprised how you could actually be free from paying them. I can’t guarantee that it would be comfortable for you. Fighting for freedom is rarely comfortable.


  1. Excellent! I can’t praise you enough for this piece.

    Some years ago I was told by someone in a position to know that at the Church Office Building is an employee whose primary job it is to respond to IRS requests for individual member’s tithing payments. And this employee complies to these requests even though they are never made by court order.

    The IRS uses the information they get from individual’s tithing records to bolster their case against someone they may be going after. As the thinking goes, if we can learn how much tithing the mark pays, that is almost certainly ten percent of his total gross earnings.

    I’ve really had it with this corporate shill. Thanks again for the excellent reminder that the modern Church today is not serving God.

  2. What obligates us to pay income taxes is our contracts with the banks. If you have a bank account, you agree to pay the voluntary tax. I got this from an online book called “Invisible Contracts”.

  3. If I fail to pay my income taxes, I’m in violation of the teachings of the Church? I don’t remember seeing any teachings from the Church that say I have to submit to the demands of criminals or else I’m unworthy before God.

    Did God ever say, “Thou shalt obey wicked men who unrighteously usurp power over you”?

    Also, how is a person unworthy of a temple recommend if they fail to pay their taxes? I can’t even think of which temple recommend question that would fall under.

    I always think it’s funny that by the current standards of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and Jesus Christ himself are nothing but unworthy apostates worthy of prison and excommunication.

  4. Well said, John. And by the way, hi!

    Hell Raising Love Monster, you are correct about that. Those invisible agreements we unwittingly make are known as “Contracts of Adhesion.” When you sign your simple signature card, you are agreeing to all the laws of the bank. What most people don’t know is the documents all those laws are contained in would fill a truck. Those laws make us adhere to agreements we would never do willfully, knowingly, and voluntarily.

  5. Hi Rock!

    The Church has a double standard. They claim you aren’t worthy of holding a temple recommend if you break the law, even if its a bad law (like income taxes), and yet the Church encourages and allows illegal immigration. They call Bishops and Stake Presidents who are illegal aliens (see ), but if you don’t pay your taxes….

    I’m not mentioning this to cause a debate about whether immigration laws are just or not. I’m just pointing out that the Church blatantly contradicts itself.

  6. Basically, whatever the shadow government wants, is what the Church enforces. The shadow government wants us to pay our taxes, and wants illegal immigration.

    Now, I don’t know whether Steven Davis is reliable or not, but he has an alleged quote from Spencer W. Kimball, which supposedly comes from H. Verlan Anderson, where President Kimball says something along the lines of “Brethren, why are we not being persecuted? I will tell you why. This church has been infiltrated from within to the very highest levels.”

    Others, like Robert Hender Jr., write pamphlets claiming that our Prophets have joined a Satanic Cult, or the Illuminati. I don’t know if these things are true or not. Some of these people can’t provide any sources to support their claims.

    But it is troubling to see these double-standards that indicate the Church is running parallel to the New World Order agenda in a lot of ways.

  7. I don’t know any information on LDS leaders claiming the leadership ranks have been infiltrated. But the proof is overwhelming to a greater or lesser degree either knowingly by men and women who have verbally and knowingly sworn oaths to Satan or his leaders or people who are just not truly seeking to do God’s will the leadership ranks even in the highest places are out of the way of righteousness. And to me the paragraphs in the CHI regarding US income taxes are undeniable proof.
    John Coltharp you give these guys too much credit. You are considered n violation of the teachings of the Church if you simply do not file a tax return according to them.
    To all when I said “there you have it” in the post what I was feeling is there is the proof those who support this are not followers of God.
    A friend of mine left the church a few years ago. He never received a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith. So he is wondering if it was ever true. He dose believe in Jesus Christ and the basics of the bible.
    I however did receive a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is true.
    I am following my own advice in this post and my other comments and so far the results have been great. To all of you I restate the gist of the scripture which is my user name Doctrine and Covenants 45:57. You must be lead by the spirit of God. That spirit which speaks directly to your heart and not through any other person. Seek that and then when you are sure you have heard it live it. If you never hear it, don’t worry just try to do no harm. If He doesn’t make it clear to you God won’t hold you liable for not knowing.

  8. So basically the LDS Church’s “places of worship” are only places of worship of the state. They think they are clever saying that nothing of a “political” nature should be promoted on the premises of “Church” properties. But the “boys in uniform” are welcome in our stake centers and the tabernacle which served for Church Conferences is now made available for special conferences of the armed forces whenever they like?

    These Church buildings will be used to house soldiers as they kill fellow americans, both LDS and “non-members”.

  9. HI dyc4557, do you have an email address I can contact you with? I am ‘waking up’ to a multitude of truths and I have questions that I hope you might try and answer.

    I am very grateful for your diligence in providing truth and speaking truth.

  10. John Coltharp: I believe the instructions on income tax is contained in the handbook, probably the bishop/stake president edition. I have been asked about such.

    dyc: Your friend, who did not receive a witness, may be one of many and some at least do wonder if it is true, and yet still believe. Go figure.

  11. “But you might be surprised how you could actually be free from paying them. I can’t guarantee that it would be comfortable for you. Fighting for freedom is rarely comfortable. ”

    I have studied this for years. I would be interested in hearing your take.


  12. wewingtonheet I am glad you are interested. Jesus said seek and ye shall find. So I suggest pray and then look on the internet. What I know I have written what else can I say? I don’t feel lead to contact you directly I honestly don’t know anymore than what can be found on the internet and by the Spirit.
    Perhaps the best advice I can give anyone is to take into account that the time will come when we will either live without money or we will take the mark of the Beast spoken of in Revelations. Think about what that fact means for your personal future. I don’t know what it means for you. the answer is different for each of us.
    Really I am not an expert in this field.
    But for wewingtonheet and Steve Graham and anyone else here are a couple links to look at.

    then search on the internet under Sherry Peel Jackson

    Really if we understand the truth about rights and agency questions about the Income Tax would be already answered in our minds. So here are a couple of links which may help in this regard.

    also look up what Marcus Tullius Cicero said about natural law.

  13. As a matter of fact, the progressive income tax is statutory positive law established by Act of Congress & codified. The law does directly impose tax upon individuals, married couples, and families:—-000-.html

    The text of 26 U.S.C. is inferior to the text of the bill (H.R. 3838) enacted as public law (99-514) by Congress on Oct. 22, 1986, & printed in the United States Statutes at Large (and subsequently amended in years proceeding, several amendments titled after “working families”).

    If you don’t want to take Cornell’s Internet publication of the United States Code for its word, you can directly consult the Statutes at Large, Volume 100, page 2,085 (100 Stat. 2085):

    Click to access STATUTE-100-3-2.pdf

    Tax rebellion is mind control slavery & cult modality. You’ve been had (yet again).

  14. Derek, you fail to take into consideration that one’s status is everything. Title 26 applies only to those who volunteer under its provisions. A citizen cannot be compelled to volunteer. It does not apply to all wage earners across the board.

    BTW, as far as reference links, one of the best introductions to the reality of the income tax is this wonderful film that Aaron Russo died getting released. It’s the BEST introduction out there.

  15. Dear rockwaterman,

    You are just plain wrong, there are no two ways around it. There is absolutely nothing voluntary about United States income tax. You have been brainwashed (yet again).

    26 U.S.C. § 1 (c): “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual … a tax…”

    That’s as simple as it gets.

    With great respect, good Sir,
    I am, as ever,
    Your willing servant,

    Derek P. Moore

    PS: I’m not saying the income tax shouldn’t be abolished, I’m saying you are a misinformed mind control slave.

  16. PPS: I’ve seen the documentary, he goes around asking for the law, I just gave you the law. You’ll notice he never cites 26 U.S.C. § 1 anywhere in the film, nor any of the bills passed by the House & signed by Presidents. You trust Hollywood producers, whose job it is to dumb you down, pacify you, & mold you into a product!? You might consider Wesley Snipes as your next accountant… Since we’re being all paranoid here, allow me to suggest that promoting tax evasion is an Illuminati scheme whereby They™ increase the number of documented abject discontents who will be rounded up for extermination in FEMA concentration camps. Enjoy being on the blue list! Cheers!

  17. I must say — I’m enjoying reading this back-and-forth. I’ve always heard the line of reasoning that Rock is describing [about a citizen not being the legal entity compelled to pay taxes but that you must volunteer to act on behalf of the legal entity “Your Name” and pay his/her taxes].

    However I’ve felt that [like Derek] promoting tax evasion is just a plan to find out who’s rebellious and who’s not — it puts you on their radar.

    Though, with Rock’s legal background — I’m interested to hear if he has any further reply [considering Derek’s tone, I’m not sure].

  18. I appreciate the kind and persuasive manner in which you attempt to educate me, Derek, but all law is written in very specific terms for a reason. There are no wasted words. In your quoted cite above, it does not say “there is hereby imposed a tax on every individual”, it says “there is hereby imposed ON THE TAXABLE INCOME of every individual.”

    As I implied previously, who exactly is that individual, and whether an “individual” has what the code carefully defines as “taxable” income or not depends upon his STATUS (two examples given in the code are federal officer or non-resident alien) and whether he is engaged in a taxable ACTIVITY (the manufacture of tobacco or alcohol are two activities that are specified).

    Anyone else is welcome -nay, insidiously encouraged- to voluntarily file, but they are not required under the law. Indeed, Title 26 repeatedly requires “the Secretary” to do the filing unless the person having TAXABLE INCOME volunteers to file himself.

    Why won’t the Secretary file a return for you? Because in most cases the Secretary or his delegate would have to perjure himself by declaring on form 23C that all information thereon is true and correct (i.e. that he positively avers that your “income” was derived from a taxable activity). I haven’t been able to get an employee of the IRS to sign such a form in 30 years, though such a filing by the Secretary is the only filing required under the law.

    The fact that Title 26 does not apply to the average American wage-earner does not mean, of course, that the code is not constantly imposed upon persons to whom it does not apply. The IRS mis-applies the code all the time, and quite successfully, particularly among the uninformed.

    Poor Wesley Snipes rolled over because he was an example of someone to whom “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” He had been convinced of the lack of applicability of the code to him, but he was clearly incapable of defending himself against a leviathan intent on making an example of a prominent celebrity.

    A person must be well equipped both spiritually and intellectually to defend against Satan’s minions. It is not enough to just not want to pay taxes. Indeed, I would submit that a person who enters this fight only for the purpose of saving money may be doomed to fail. One must be prepared to sacrifice everything on principle, because often evil does triumph.

    I would not, however, cite an example wherein evil has triumphed as evidence that evil is therefore in the right, as you have attempted to do here by referring to Wesley Snipe’s case.

    The system does indeed hope to ensnare unwary “tax protestors” who are only partly informed. All the more reason to become FULLY informed.

    For instance, If an individual’s tactic is to refuse to pay on the grounds that the income tax is unconstitutional, he will likely fail. That’s because there is nothing unconstitutional about Title 26. The code is completely constitutional, and was carefully written to insure that those “persons” to whom it applies are carefully defined so that it could not be declared unconstitutional. If the tax actually was imposed on every individual, and “every individual” was defined as “every American Citizen who receives wages in return for his labor,” then the income tax would have been struck down as unconstitutional as was the original form of the law in 1894.

    One must understand who the law applies to and take steps to insure he does not become subject to a law he disfavors. That is one reason why I make it a point never to manufacture alcohol or tobacco, and have studiously avoided becoming a federal officer. To uncritically accept some bureaucrat’s flawed interpretation of the law as you seem to do, does not, in my view, put one on the path to freedom.

    You do no favors to the cause of righteousness by misinterpreting the law on the side of the adversary. For every law wrongly imposed, there is a remedy at law. That remedy resides within the words of Title 26, along with the accompanying Code of Federal Regulations. But you must do more than just a casual reading as you did, confusing a tax imposed on “taxable income” as a tax on “individuals.”

    You cite one phrase and accept it on its face without bothering to follow the clues to the definition of “taxable income.” It’s in there. Words have meaning, in law as well as scripture. When reading the code, you must take into account every single clause, and make no assumptions. Title 26 is very carefully written, and its purpose is to deceive the gullible.

    You have completely inverted the meaning of “mind controlled slave.” I would submit that the definition of a mind-controlled slave is that person who willingly allows himself to be dumbed down, pacified, and molded by the those intent on enslaving him.

    Rather than so cavalierly tossing insults at those who are seeking the truth in this matter, you may want to practice a bit of circumspection.

    And learn how to read the law.

  19. Justin,
    In my opinion the “Straw Man” or “Redemption” argument, which is the one I believe you are alluding to, is not a good one, and may even be one concocted by the enemy to ensnare the unwary. Though it may be logical in a legal sense, it is so convoluted and confusing that an able prosecutor can convince a jury that a defendant relying on that is just plain nuts and is using a “scheme” to avoid paying “his fair share.” The legal ins and outs of the Straw Man argument are too difficult for the average juror to wrap his mind around.

    There are no end to “magic bullets” promoted to convince a Citizen that this or that will stop the government in its tracks. I prefer to choose easy, and rely on a reading of the Income Tax Code itself.

    Many decades ago, my uncle was involved in the movement that promoted putting zeros on the tax form and sending it in. The IRS bided their time and then closed in on all those people. They were charged with filing false returns. By filing and signing those returns, you see, they had acknowledged a duty to do so. From there it was an easy step for the government to convict them of falsifiying. Better not to have submitted any return at all.

    My friend Larry Becraft, an attorney who actually wins cases against the IRS, has warned against the “Redemption” argument, as quoted in this piece by Devvy Kidd here:

    (You can’t go wrong by avoiding the schemes Larry warns about. It’s interesting how my repeated searches for Larry’s pieces have been blocked. Do a google search for Larry Becraft and you’ll get dead sites or it will take you to a government web page.)

    I would avoid those promoting magic bullets the same as I would avoid giving credence to someone who tells you that if you don’t roll over and obey “authority”, you are a nothing but a mind-controlled slave.

  20. Rock — thanks, you’re right about the “straw-man” doctrine, it took me a few hours and reading and re-reading the articles I’ve seen articulating that idea before I was fully able to grasp what they were saying. I could see how an average juror’s eyes would just glaze over if you tried to defend yourself using that argument.

    Besides — it’s all a mute point for me, I’m the half of the country who pays no income tax anyway. Trying to understand all of this is more of an intellectual exercise for me anyway. I don’t have a dog in the fight one way or another — I’m just all for anything subversive, etc.

  21. Derek,
    One additional note. I agree with your statement that tax evasion is a way in which the enemy can identify, tag, and round up dissidents.

    That’s why I don’t advocate tax evasion, which is illegal. Tax evasion implies someone who legitimately owes a tax is attempting to evade it.

    Tax avoidance, however, is perfectly legal and acceptable. As the Supreme Court held in Gregory v. Helvering, “The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes OR ALTOGETHER AVOID THEM, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.”

    Isn’t it wisdom to see that one’s status is such that he can altogether avoid a tax by making certain his status does not place him under the Internal Revenue Code?

  22. Mr. rockwaterman,

    The fact is, U.S.C. 26 does apply to the average American.

    I intentionally left my quote of the statute intact with it’s statement of tax upon taxable income, but you responded AS IF I HAD LEFT SOMETHING OUT. You are using very sophisticated tactics of manipulation WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT. This is very common AMONG MIND CONTROL SLAVES.

    I am the only one in this thread demonstrating an understanding of the law and a willingness to cite it directly. You are the one employing a “straw man” fallacy, creating the illusion of having refuted my case, without actually refuting it.

    Taxable income is defined as gross income minus deductions, gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived. You are not capable of refuting this, because I am not wrong.

    Yes, there is nothing wrong with altogether avoiding tax liability by legal means, but the fact remains that most of us are not in a position to entirely avoid all tax liability. Only the super-rich have a chance at bringing their tax liability to zero.

    For a tax season & a summer, back in the days of the dot-com bust, I worked as the personal hacker to Kansas City’s wealthiest venture capitalist, whose father bankrolled Kansas City International Airport and who himself bankrolled the new 1.1M sq. ft. Kansas City Internal Revenue Service campus. This man, who managed his family’s private fund, is capable of reducing his tax liability to nothing, but it no easy thing to do. I supported a team of 4 accountants who worked for more than two months. The tactic basically amounts to this: combine write-offs, write-downs, losses, depreciations, & deductible contributions until they entirely offset your tax liability — doing this costs a lot of money, but it effectively keeps that money outside of the hands of the Federal government, and it directs that money to places where you want it to go (rather than places where the government wants it to go).

    I am very well versed in the tax code, I hadn’t filed in over 10 years even though I was due returns (I considered it a government issued savings account). Not until I owed the IRS due to self-employment & 1099 work did they start calculating my filings for me & requesting payment. Why wouldn’t they calculate my filings & issue payment previous to this? The answer is obvious. It turns out, IRS representatives will tell you that you cannot get your returns after 3 years have passed, but this is not entirely true. I had to dig through the tax code to find the loopholes so I could apply my 10-to-4-year-old returns to my more recent tax owed.

    Please, do me the favor of proving me wrong, show me where in the tax code your undefinable pet-phrase of “status” removes all tax liability. This you will not be able to do.

    Do you mean to tell me that you are like the man I used to work for? That you legally reduce your tax liability to zero through creative means? It sounds to me like no, you use delusional & definitional means to supposedly exempt yourself from tax.

    I still wait to stand corrected.



  23. Derek, you ask:

    “show me where in the tax code your undefinable pet-phrase of ‘status’ removes all tax liability.”

    I believe the question should be “What part of the tax code CREATES liability?”

    Is an American born free or is his birth attended with an obligation to an offshore cartel of bankers? Is he free in every respect except in respect to the Internal Revenue Code?

    If born free and under the protection of the Constitution, how does he get removed from the protection of the Constitution and placed under the jurisdiction of the tax laws? It can’t be by the mere nature of earning a living, because he has the right to be secure in his property, papers, person, effects, and things.

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,” we read in the famous Miranda case, “there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    So how are those rights abrogated? Is it because the 16th amendment overturned or modified previous protections of the constitution? No, it can’t be that, because the high court confirmed in Stanton v. Baltic Mining that the 16th amendment conferred “no new power of taxation”. So nothing had changed between the founding in 1787 and now. The government did not suddenly have some new power of taxation to abrogate the rights of the working man and lay claim to his wages.

    For a child to be born into freedom and then grow up to find himself under financial obligation to his government, something had to change. That “change” would be his status in relation to the government. Is his status always a freeborn free man under the protection of the government, or does his status as a free person at some point change to a person with obligations TO the government? How and when does that status change? Because at some point he got a job?

    No, his status changed because by assuming he was under the jurisdiction of the government (as opposed to under its protection), his filing of certain forms created the presumption that he owed an obligation. He voluntarily -if unwittingly- changed his status.

    Baltic Mining Co. was found to have an obligation under the tax laws because it was a foreign corporation (British) doing business in the united states. The status of a foreign corporation has always been subject to taxes since our founding. But an American employee of the mining company did not share that obligation, unless he voluntarily placed himself there.

    “Status” means legal standing. Every year thousands of Americans unwittingly remove themselves from the protection of the Constitution for no other reason than they think they have to.

    So I ask you, Derek, what part of the code creates liability? The code is full of clauses, such as 6011 and 6012 that begin “all persons liable under this chapter” must file and pay. Where, in what chapter, does the code create or define that liability?

    The code is deliberately written so that the reader will assume liability already exists. But how? Not by birth. Not by having a job and earning money. By status. By activity. It depends what kind of job, and it depends on the status of the entity (not necessarily a human being) that is taxable.

    Title 27 clearly tells us that those involved in the manufacture and sale of tobacco and alcohol are liable to that tax. Why doesn’t title 26 contain the same clear specifications?

    We are allowed to assume that the tax laws apply to ALL persons (few readers would be aware that when the code says “person”, it’s usually referring to a corporation, since a corporation is defined as a “person” under the law.)

    So when Joe Average reads the sentence “all persons liable under this section” must file and pay, he blows right past the word “liable”, not noticing it at all, and only sees the words “all persons must pay.” And since he knows he’s a person, he thinks that means him.

    Nobody in government is going to step in and correct him.

    Derek, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to try to convince someone who is already so certain of the rightness of his own position that he comes out of the gate calling others “mind controlled slaves” for seeing things differently than himself. I mean no disrespect, Derek, but I really have no time for you.

    I will instead refer you to former IRS criminal investigator Joe Banister, who has been a friend and hero of mine ever since he stopped being a mind-controlled slave and undertook a thorough investigation of the obligation of the American wage-earner vis-a-vis the tax code. You can obtain a copy of that investigation through his website:

    I see no further need for you and I to continue this back and forth when more qualified tax professionals, attorneys, accountants, and lawyers have already laid it all out. Here are two of my favorite tax attorneys:

    I have worked with the Free Enterprise Society for over two decades, and can vouch for their integrity and effectiveness:

    I get the feeling, Derek, that you are past learning, and I don’t mean any direct offense by that. It’s just that a person who starts out, as you have, declaring yourself right and all others to be wrong, deluded, mind-controlled slaves is not, in my experience, disposed to learning. You already have a firm, rock-hard testimony of your position, and I don’t think anything others might say could change your mind.

    Unlike you, I don’t claim to “know” anything for certain. I’m forever coming across new information that challenges my formerly fixed beliefs, and I my opinions are therefore constantly changing. This forum, LDS Anarchy, is such a place where I am always learning something I had not known -or even thought about- before.

    There are many readers here similarly disposed to accepting new information, and if our discussion has accomplished anything, it has provided an opportunity for me to provide the links above to those who might desire further knowledge on the subject, and for that reason alone I have bothered to respond to your challenge.

  24. My point in calling you a mind control slave is that you cannot think outside of the box you have provided for yourself (which box was mostly built up by others).

    I know what I know, truth is not subjective, it is certain. I seek out to discover things on my own, and when I solve for truth and find it, I try to inform others.

    I have already showed you where the code creates the liability, but you continue to babble nonsensically. This is the evidence I have of your mind control slavery, you are incapable on integrating new information that conflicts with your fantastical rigidity.

  25. I wonder if young Derek is aware that the only one babbling nonsensically here is him?

    He claims to have found where the code creates liability for the income tax, something that has thus far eluded countless government attorneys, IRS accountants, and tax specialists!

    As attorney Tommy Cryer has suggested on one of the links provided by Rock, “Search the Internal Revenue Code for “liable”, then search for “must pay”, “obligated to pay”, then search for “responsible for payment” or any other configuration of words that would designate who is liable for the income tax. You will find plenty of liability provisions for other taxes, but not for the income tax.”

    But Lo! Our own Derek P. Moore has found it! Or so he claims. If only he would share his discovery with the rest of us, rather than babble nonsensically about how others are incapable of thinking outside the box. The only thing I’ve see Derek produce is the totally irrelevant section 1(c). Rock completely demolished that argument, yet Derek didn’t even blink.

    As Cryer showed:

    “Every tax law must clearly and plainly identify three things:

    1) The subject of the tax;
    2) The amount of the tax;
    3) The persons or entities liable for the tax.

    “Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws, makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much.”

    “The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax.”

    I think Rock may be too polite to suggest to Derek that some people can exist so far outside the box that they can no longer even recognize what a box is supposed to look.

    I have read Joe Banister’s official investigation which he submitted to his superiors at the IRS for review and response. No one there was able to come up with the answer to the sticky question of liability, but the humble and obscure Derek P. Moore has. All hail the smartest thinker in America! He has solved the riddle of the matrix!

    Keep it up, Derek. I’m enjoying the way you are proving every one but you is a mind controlled slave.

  26. The link to “There Is No Law” by Tommy Cryer from which a portion was excerpted above is here:

    You can read the full memorandum in pdf:

    Click to access cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf

    BTW, Cryer won his case, something he could not have done had the judge, prosecutor, and jury been in possession of the secret information Derek P. Moore has since discovered. But then, perhaps those in the court were all mind-controlled slaves under Cryer’s control.

  27. It took me awhile to write a fitting response to Derek P Moore’s comment of July 21st. In the interim the comments have done far more than I could or was willing to do. My response is focused on just the one comment by Derek of July 21 at 6:11pm.

    Derek I don’t know you personally but your comment on July 21 spoke volumes about your beliefs.
    You say I am wrong about the legality of the US, IRS enforced individual income tax. You say “That there is a statutory positive law established by Act of Congress & codified”. You may think you have attacked my belief and made me feel that I have been deceived or as you say I have been “had”. I think most if not all the readers of your comment would say you are trying to get my goat. You even said I have been “had, again.” Wow you seem to cast me as a real looser. It sounds like you are trying to make me feel bad about my beliefs and perhaps about myself. You even say that tax rebellion is a type of slavery. We will get to that little gem in a moment. But as far as making me feel bad that I was wrong or deceived, fear not. You failed.
    You see whether or not the IRS tax codes are codified law is irrelevant because they violate eternal law; they are immoral and therefore God will not hold us accountable to obey them. You act as if because a set of rules has been codified and given the name of a law makes a difference as to whether we are supposed to obey it. I am not sure if you believe that or not. I hope you don’t. because if you did then you also agree to the actions of Nazi Germany in killing millions of Jews and others. After all it was all legal and by law. I am quite sure the same can be said of the death of nearly 60 millions Chinese brothers and sisters under Chairman Mao and about another 20 million or many more under Comrade Stalin. Tyrants pass corrupt laws then enforce them. Kings don’t just steal from people or kill them. They pass a law saying they have a right to take your property and that if you rebel then they kill you. Or maybe it is not your property but your mind they want so if you refuse to believe a certain way then they kill you. But either way it is all done by law, codified law. But whether a law is justified before God has nothing to do with how many legislatures voted for it or how it was passed. It is simply whether it adheres to this Eternal law.

    The Eternal truth is that I own my life and I have the right to use my life, to sustain my self and my family (tribe) protect them and the their fruits (property) from destruction or theft by other people. The only time I am justified in depriving another person of his life, liberty or property is in the actual protection of my family’s life, liberty and property.

    This truth does not vary with time or place or circumstance. No human can be bereft of this right neither can they be justified in claiming or acting as if other people do not have these rights.

    No matter how many police I hire, no matter how many legislators I get to agree, no matter what reason I give for passing a law or how big the majority that support it, if the law deprives a person of property without a previously agreed to benefit for that exchange then it is simply theft. You can say that the income tax revenues provide the tax payers with benefits, but you can’t even pretend to demonstrate it. The murderous actions of the US military abroad and the terrorist actions of the government officers at home can not be judged a benefit to those who foot the bill for it. And where is the agreement, the contract? What of the last 10 million babies born in the US? Where did they sign their names saying they agreed to be obligated to repay the 7 trillion plus in debt which their taxes will go to pay the interest on? Was it hidden in their birth certificates? It probably is. But that is not consent of the governed. And what of the other 290 million born before them. Did they know that taking a Social Security number meant they agreed to be human collateral for this impossible to pay debt? Without consent of the governed a law is just despotism.
    You said tax rebellion is “mind control slavery”. Benjamin Franklin said Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Thanks Ben, my point exactly. Conscience demands we disobey evil laws. Certainly George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and many others were involved in a tax rebellion and much more. So they were mind controlled slaves? Controlled by who King George the 3rd? Or perhaps you think they were being controlled by the devil because they were after all fighting against codified laws of the King?
    I mentioned earlier about Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin. Maybe you know quite a bit about them. I think maybe you do. You see no where in the post or any of the comments did anyone use the phrase “progressive income tax” except you. Most people don’t even realize what that means much less do they refer to the US income tax in that manner. But I am sure you know the term progressive income tax means the more you make the higher percentage you pay. Most people believe if you pay 10% then that covers the rich and the poor since 10% of $18,000 (truly that is poor in America) is $1,800 and 10% of $180,000 is $18,000. But it is obvious that the guy who pays $18,000 doesn’t use up 10 times as much roads or require 10 times as many national guardsmen to oppress him, I mean protect him as the man who earns $18,000. So where did this super greedy method of taxation come from? The phrase “progressive tax” was coined many years ago. This type of taxation was proposed as one of the main points of a plan published back in 1848. A little booklet called the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Chapter 2 talks about how to implement communism in every country. I quote Karl:
    “These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
    Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

    See here the reference from the Marxist dot org website so you can know I am not making this up.

    It goes on to list 8 more points. Yes good old Karl. Funny how his followers seemed to be kind of high on the charts when it comes to violating the eternal truth I mentioned? And isn’t it funny how the US ended up adopting just such a tax scheme? And perhaps even funnier that you referred to it by that name?

    But I am not accusing you of being a mind controlled slave. No, but making mind controlled slaves has been the primary objective of all communist governments. So again its kind of funny that you bring it up. That is why they had to kill so many people because they wouldn’t submit to mind control slavery. Don’t worry it was all done according to codified law. But Derek you have accused me and Washington and Franklin and Jefferson of being such slaves. Really you do me too great an honor. I don’t deserve to be classed with those true men of God.

  28. I have interest in this thread because you fools are endangering others. You all are promulgating more than theories on eternal law, you all are promoting criminal violation of terrestrial law.

    Whether we like it or not, there is a system built up around us, a system that imposes itself upon us and has control over us, a system that we would do well to bide our time within as we seek to dismantle it while building up viable alternatives.

    I don’t know if you idiots have seen “Idiocracy”, but I don’t want to be a “particular individual in jail”, and I don’t want your stupid ideas to entrap other fools out there on the Internet.

    After all, today, the Internet is the most effective means of mind control & hypnosis, as well as the most efficient tool for free thought & liberation.

    There are some of us on the Internet who are committed to employing both of these extremes to further the development the humanity, and there are others, such as yourselves, who are not, who are unawares, and who are, on the whole, victims of sophisticated manipulations.

    Washington, Franklin, & Jefferson, who had the benefit of already being involved in a shadow world government, the East India Company, did what we strive to do: create a viable alternative.

    The revolutionary war was a well-orchestrated corporate take-over, it was easier for them because they already had an established & oiled machine that just needed to cut off its head, the King & his country.

    Before Washington was the first President he was already an Admiral in the Admiralty of the Striped Fleet, which commands the three fleets of the East India Company, the Red, the White, and the Blue Fleets. The flag we fly today is the same flag flown by Washington’s Admiralty.

    Walt Disney wanted his Epcot Center to tell this secreted history of Caribbean pirates, but his “imagineers” fictionalized everything when he died.

    Today we are in a much worse situation, because the whole body is corrupt, not just the head. But we cannot throw off this body until we have empowered a viable alternative, otherwise, in our separated & atomized state, we are very likely to become “particular individuals in jail”.

    Read moar, bitches.

    The U.S. Code outlines three things — 1) the subject of the tax, 2) the amount of the tax, and 3) the persons or entities liable for the tax:

    ‘TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Subtitle A—Income Taxes, CHAPTER 1—NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES, Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability, PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS, § 1. Tax imposed

    ‘(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
    ‘There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
    ‘(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
    ‘(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
    ‘a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
    ‘If taxable income is: The tax is:
    ‘Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.

    ‘(b) Heads of households
    ‘There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
    ‘If taxable income is: The tax is:
    ‘Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.

    ‘(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
    ‘There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
    ‘If taxable income is: The tax is:
    ‘Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.

    ‘(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
    “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
    ‘If taxable income is: The tax is:
    ‘Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.

    ‘(e) Estates and trusts
    ‘There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
    ‘(1) every estate, and
    ‘(2) every trust,
    ‘taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
    ‘If taxable income is: The tax is:
    ‘Not over $1,500 15% of taxable income.’


    ‘(a) General definition
    ‘Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived…’


    ‘(a) In general
    ‘Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).’


  29. TL;DR: All Americans are liable for income tax.

    ITT: I present an affronting attitude because abreaction is the most effective measure against mind control.

  30. All this talk of taxes made me think Gerald Celente.

    1. Wake-Up Call In 2011, the people of all nations will fully recognize how grave economic conditions have become, how ineffectual and self-serving the so-called solutions have been, and how dire the consequences will be. Having become convinced of the inability of leaders and know-it-all “arbiters of everything” to fulfill their promises, the people will do more than just question authority, they will defy authority. The seeds of revolution will be sown…. (10 Trends for 2011 by Gerald Celente)

    And then there’s this:

    The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions – all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012.

    Celente says that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.

    “The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.” (Celente Predicts Revolution, Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012)

  31. They™, those powers that give you your news & information, got away with Y2K, they™ will not get away with Y2K12. This time, things change.

    Knowledge is free.

    We are Anonymous,
    We are legion.

    We do not forgive,
    We do not forget,
    Expect us.

  32. Derek is appearing more and more confused and off balance. He warns us that the system is building up all around us, but at the same time is adamant that rather than throw this evil, we should cooperate with it. I smell a provacateur. And an angry, temperamental one at that.

    And why is he still trying to convince us with all those cites about “taxable income” as though everyone in America has “taxable income”? Hasn’t that argument been put to bed? Yes it has, by better minds than mine.

    It is well known that the code studiously avoids defining what “income” is; which, by every usual legal definition I know of consists of (usually corporate) gains and profits. How is income (gains and profits) derived from salaries, wages, and compensation? Why won’t the IRS simply define the word? It would clear up everything.

    Ah, but I’m allowing myself to get pulled back in again, so I’ll stop writing. Us bitches be needin’ to read moar.

  33. Derek I know there is danger in this terrestrial sphere for those who seek to tear down tyranny. All the founding fathers knew it, Joseph Smith knew it. Jesus knew it and allowed Himself to suffer death at the hands of the evil ones. I tell people that right up front. I find no fault with anyone for paying the protection money of taxes.
    But sometime, someday between now and our resurrection we will need to stand for the truth even if we suffer for it. And that willingness will purify us and strengthen us and prepare us to live with our Father.
    Your last comment shows you have the spirit to stand for truth. I understand your concerns and fears I have them too. But you are right the lovers of truth will prevail. And Jesus Christ will be our leader. He will bring about His strange act. the tyrants will be put down and freedom will reign for a thousand years. May it begin reigning today in our hearts is my desire and prayer.

  34. As always, DYC, you got right to the nub of things in your last two comments. It doesn’t really matter if evil has the upper hand. The important thing is that some will oppose it, no matter how hopeless the situation may appear.

    At this time, and in spite of the interpretations of some, the law is still on the side of the American Citizen. It may not always be so.

    Not everyone is able to stand in the gap. But those who do should not be held up to ridicule by their own brethren.

  35. To avoid the firestorm that might come in taking sides on this thing one way or the other — when I read I. Willet deVale’s comment:

    It is well known that the code studiously avoids defining what “income” is; which, by every usual legal definition I know of consists of (usually corporate) gains and profits. How is income (gains and profits) derived from salaries, wages, and compensation? Why won’t the IRS simply define the word? It would clear up everything.

    I immediately thought of the Church and tithing. To rephrase deVale:

    It is well known that the Church studiously avoids defining what “income” is; which, by every usual legal definition I know of consists of (usually corporate) gains and profits. How is income (gains and profits) derived from salaries, wages, and compensation? Why won’t the General Authorities simply define the word? It would clear up everything.

    They too keep their definition of “income” vague — “it’s so simple you ought to know what it means anyway.” It’s the same reason they won’t clarify anything — like the Word of Wisdom, women and the priesthood, heavenly Mother, etc.

    They say, “Oh, it is a mystery we don’t know,” like we’re just some other general Christian church. Do we believe in modern revelation or not? But they don’t go to the Lord and get answers — they keep everything vague so as to not make it obvious that modern revelation is all but dead among their quorums. If they came right out and were straight-forward with us, we’d see the emperor’s bare-butt in all its glory.

  36. Income is well-defined both in the code and in the practice of double-entry bookkeeping and the accounting equation of balance since at least the 15th century (assets – liabilities = equity + (income – expenses)).

    You all are making gross misstatements without even looking at the code. When I have more time I will solve this last exercise for you also.

    Notice how all along the way, in response to my statements, you all have changed your insistences as to what is missing from the code.

  37. Derek – This touches upon the definition of income:

    “[Income] … must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court.” Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

    I would be interested in any definitions of income in the code itself.


  38. The various appellate courts have been so inconsistent with the definition of “income” that attorney Jeffrey Dickstein once compiled all the conflicting definitions in his book “Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax”, proving that not even the courts have been able to agree on what constitutes income. I look forward to Derek showing us where it is defined within the code so he can put a stop to all this judicial bickering.

    Justin, I think you’re spot-on in your comparison. The Church does not want the members to come to the true knowledge of what income has meant since the time of Joseph Smith anymore than the government wants its citizens to know. The Church would prefer the members not know the common-law meaning of the term, but are happy to allow them to continue to assume that “income” has something to do with everything that “comes in.” The coffers are fuller that way.

    BTW, if I had known that one day Jeff’s book be so rare that the asking price for a new one would reach $185.00, I would have bought two copies from him so I’d have one to sell:

  39. When I speak, I speak with meaning. When you read, you read for corruption. Allow me to illustrate an example, someone said:

    “He warns us that the system is building up all around us”.

    I said:

    “there is a system built up around us”.

    The first is a prediction of the future, the second is a statement of the present. They are two very different things.

    You seem to fear some awaited final condition, as I can only assume from your deliberate misinterpretation of my words; I’m sayin’ we’re there, here, now.

    You cannot hear what I’m saying because you cannot read what I’m saying.

    I will use my life to bring about an alternative system to the one I’ve inherited. I believe I am more powerful out in the world having an influence, participating & creating, rather than being in jail for my ideals. I’m all for direct action, but I’m not going to do something that is going to get me arrested & prosecuted.

    Sorry I can’t give more detailed lessons on grammar, tenses, and meaning right now… I’m capable of doing so if you need it later:

    At least Steve Graham knows y’all be trippin’.

    Read moar better.


  40. @rock:

    Regarding income, in previous temple recommend and other interviews the bishop has read a statement from the brethren mentoning income. Forget the exact wording and can’t get Google to help in it.


  41. Steve, are you referring to the statement that goes something like “10 percent of your income. Income is defined as increase.”?

    I’ve seen that, which is of course, an accurate definition of income. We are to tithe upon our increase. Most people don’t realize, of course, that increase means the amount more we have this year than we had last year.

    Example: Abraham has 1,000 sheep.

    This year, those sheep produced 100 lambs.

    He pays tithing against the increase, which are the 100 lambs. He doesn’t pay ten percent of his entire herd of 1100.


    A farmer has an apple orchard. He picks all the apples and gives ten percent of those apples as tithing. He doesn’t give the bishop 10 percent of his trees. He leaves the trees there. The trees are the source from which the increase is derived.

  42. Derek, I agree with you that we are already surrounded and evil is in control.

    It would appear that where we differ is you believe reliance on the code for defense would somehow result in being guilty of a crime. Relying on the law is not “tax Protesting”. It is following the law.

    In my dealings with the service, I often point out where the law is being violated. The code of federal regulations is the law the IRS employees are required to follow. When they drift from the law, I call them on it.

    Compliance with the law does not usually land a person in jail, as you seem to be implying.

    Relying on the law does not put me at odds with the law.
    The remedy is in the law.

  43. Good job giving the standard definition of income, rock. It applies equally well to service sector wage labor as it does to livestock or agriculture.

    You’re still failing on this “status” burden of proof thing.

  44. Well Derek, the cites are in my books, but my entire law library is in boxes and inaccessible, so you can do the research yourself. Status is everything. Why do you think you don’t stop and pull over at a truck weighing station on the freeway even though the sign says all vehicles must stop? It’s because of your status.

  45. Your analogies are baseless. You are not doing anybody here a favor by providing your fallacious opinion without any willingness to offer valid guidance or corroborating support (I contend that this is because there is none and you are a mind control slave).

  46. Rock,

    Speaking of trucks and weighing stations, do you know if one must pull over if he is using U-Haul to move his belongings to another state?

    Thanks, Steve

  47. No Steve, because you are not in that class those particular statutes apply to. You are not acting in commerce. Your status as a U-haul trucker is excluded from the law.

  48. Thanks, Rock.

  49. rockwaterman has just proved himself categorically wrong. Certain rental moving trucks & trailers are required to pull over at Interstate weigh stations. I helped my brother move from Provo to Chicago with a large Penske truck, and the regulations were quite clear, we were required to pull over & pass through weigh stations.

    Everyone would do well to ignore rockwaterman & his ilk, they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

  50. I can’t believe I’m doing this, but it proves rockwaterman for what he is, a deluded individual under severe mind control slavery who is constantly lying to himself & others.

    I submit for your approval:

    2813. Every driver of a commercial vehicle shall stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection of the size, weight, equipment, and smoke emissions of the vehicle at any location where members of the California Highway Patrol are conducting tests and inspections of commercial vehicles and when signs are displayed requiring the stop. Every driver who fails or refuses to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection when signs are displayed requiring that stop is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    “(2) To require the operator of any commercial vehicle to stop and submit to a vehicle and driver inspection to determine compliance with commercial vehicle laws, rules, and regulations, the provisions of sections 303.024 and 303.025, and to submit to a cargo inspection when reasonable grounds exist to cause belief that a vehicle is transporting hazardous materials as defined by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations;”

    That’s just two states, but in both of those states rockwaterman is talking out of his bare-butt (which looks like it belongs to some overweight Emperor).

    There is no such thing as “for hire” status when driving commercial vehicles. Over-the-road truckers will tell you a safe rule for all states is: pull over if your truck is 16′ or longer. “I didn’t know” may work okay on one cop or another, but it is not a sound legal alibi; ignorance of the law is consent under the law.

  51. Derek ..P..Die Wreck….Bored of Die Rectors….Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…try to De-rek this flow….pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss…flow

    Pee S…We have all “read Moore” and we are finished with you now.

  52. Derek-

    I really appreciate the thoughtful responses you have provided with regard to the tax issue and the research you have obviously done.

    Although I have always agreed with the basic premise that Rock and others have provided on this thread, I must confess that you have provided some compelling food for thought.

    In the end, Christ and his prophets will come and every bond will be broken and the righteous will be led out of bondage, regardless of whether the bonds and the bondage is “legally” inflicted or otherwise.

    My question is, why are you so caustic?

    Why can’t you stick with the issue without making it personal.

    Why must you be so snide and condescending?

    Why must you resort to name calling?

    Did Rock or any of the others actually do anything besides take a differing point of view than you?

    Is everyone that disagrees with you categorically a mind control slave?

    I really don’t think that such littleness of soul helps your cause and strengthens your argument.

  53. Ano10,

    The willful ignorance displayed in this thread is abhorrent. It is what could be termed criminal negligence.

    Mind control slaves are those who exhibit rigid dependence upon the untrue ideas of others. I call it like I see it. Mind control slavery is insidious, never before has there been such a powerful tool as the Internet with which to breed mind control slaves.

    The Internet imposes deindividuation, which strengths the abreactive effect of acrimony.

    I am simply using the tools I have around me to their best effect.


    PS: I am what is known as a cannibal troll. I prefer trolling trolls who don’t know they’re trolls (several of these in this thread). I’m the troll that lives under the bridge under the bridge you live under.

    PPS: It was a pleasure to meet you, Ano10!!!1ONEone1!exclamationEXCLAMATORY

  54. Okay regarding a clarification of the law of tithing by the church; in the post The Spirit of Freedom I quoted Gordon B Hinckley on tithing from the First Presidency Message of December 1989.
    “Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. The principle, as it applies to us, is actually set forth in one verse of section 119 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
    “And after that [after the Saints offered their ‘surplus property’ to the bishop in 1838], those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” [D&C 119:4]
    For many years, presidents of the Church have interpreted “interest” as “income.” Beyond that, they have not elaborated.”

    Notice what he did not say. He did not say any of the Prophets (a priesthood title referring to the president of the High Priesthood) have interpreted interest as income. He said presidents of the church (a corporate title) and not even all of them but many of them. Did Joseph Smith interpret it that way? And he never said the Lord interpreted interest as income.
    Now granted that is a few years ago. But if a new statement has been issued then it would have to countermand this intentionally left blank statement. Unlike the IRS rules in tithing we have a revelation in which the Lord uses the word interest. If you look at the revelation it says: “Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion, ” and then He says “shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” and then again the lord says, “all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties…”
    To take the current corporate administrations interpretation it would have the Lord say Pay on your surplus, then pay on your gross increase, then for everybody that gathers pay on your surplus. But the word is interest. I know that most of us sheeple don’t even earn any interest so we are not aware of what it actually is. Think about it. Interest is the earning derived from money or resources which you have that you do not require to live on or your surplus! It is savings which does not need to be used the whole year and can even be rolled into next year. If you will need to use it within the year to live on then it is not surplus. If you have money that is being used to pay the mortgage, buy groceries or put in the gas tank to get back and forth to work then it isn’t surplus. And you can tell that since you were paid no interest on it.
    But if you use the common usage then and now of the words God used in this revelation then you have this: “Pay your surplus”, “then after that pay on the income of your surplus”, “and for everybody that gathers they will pay on your surplus as you did at first.” It makes perfect sense. All the way through God is talking about what we have above what we need to survive. Which is why Alma said to those who were in need (they did not have sufficient to live on) it shall be given. The Lord doesn’t grind the face of the poor.
    So from what I see as of now the pigs have not changed the sign from
    “Four Legs Good Two Legs Bad” (see Animal Farm by George Orwell). The revelation still says “interest”. So we are just looking in the windows wondering why the pigs seem to be walking around on two legs.
    We are seeing the same thing in the corporate church as in the Federal US government. The duties of both are actually quite small and should only require about 2% or less of our total earnings. Some libertarian party candidates have clearly demonstrated this regarding the Federal government. When we consider that the current church can earn 3 billion from the interest on tithing and then justify wasting it all on a business/shopping center the rational mind will say they are taking in a lot more money than their charter requires.

  55. Ano10,

    I didn’t realize this until earlier today because I initially only skimmed over this article’s introductory text and focused on its analysis of the Church Handbook of Instruction.

    (I had some of the early leaked versions of the Church Handbook of Instruction, analysis of its contents is of interest to me; for example, it continues to promote the doctrine that women have multiple For Time and All Eternity sealings to multiple husbands, it also evidences that there is no such thing as “time only” sealings [they are “for time” not “time only”].)

    This article starts out with something I’ve reiterated in other ways here also:

    In order to brainwash a person you must deprogram them first. One of the required elements of the deprogramming is emotional stress. Brainwashers use fear, sleep deprivation and food deprivation to break down the status quo of a person’s mindset.

    Cleansing the mind of false traditions can also be a positive thing.

    My acerbic act was an attempt to create some of the conditions the OP had already outlined, except I try to induce free thought, not more brainwashing.



  56. Derek:

    My acerbic act was an attempt to create some of the conditions the OP had already outlined, except I try to induce free thought, not more brainwashing.

    Free thought? How about “Thought according to Derek P. 100 – the Remedial Course: If you Don’t believe everything I write or say, you’re a mind controlled slave.”

    Seriously, you delude yourself into thinking anything else. Perhaps it’s time to find another outlet for your anger and your “acerbic act”. If there’s anything that really irks me, it’s people who think they know everything and that everything they know is what everyone else must know and if anyone else doesn’t know it, they’re a mind controlled slave.

    I also love it when narcissists take the time to define themselves – “I’m what is known as … ” is a perfect introductory clause.

  57. Narc,

    The only opinion I’ve offered in this thread is that you all are a bunch of idiots & mind control slaves intentionally imposing upon yourselves an extreme state of ignorance.

    Everything else I’d offered as to the law on this topic is indisputable fact. These are matters of true & false, matters that can be established unequivocally, where knowledge is assured.

    I can’t help that you all place yourselves in a state of being wrong.


  58. Derek my love,

    Did you notice in the cites you provided above the words “Every driver of a commercial vehicle shall stop…”?

    There’s your status right there. This is what I’ve been saying; you seem to blow right past the pertinent language of the statutes.

    Drivers of “Commercial” vehicles are the ones holding status that requires them to stop at the weigh stations. (“Driver,” a word derived from “drover,” is also a term denoting “for hire”, which is why most vehicle codes use the more neutral term “operator” when referring to the common traveler.)

    I suppose you stopped your Penske truck only because you thought you had to, and it’s even possible an ignorant cop might have been willing to accept your deference. But if a cop cited me for not stopping at a weigh station while driving a Penske rental, I would have beaten that ticket in court.

    But that’s just me talking out of my bare butt.

  59. Dyc,

    Thanks for that brilliant clarification on tithing as increase on surplus. The Lord does not require of us painful sacrifice. He asks so little that, when we truly follow his laws, we don’t even feel it.

  60. A government operating constitutionally would be equally painless. In the year 1913, just before the passage of the federal reserve act, the U.S. government had a surplus of (I’m going by memory here) some 12 million dollars, a phenomenal amount of excess cash. There was some concern about what the heck they would possible do with all that money.

    None of that money was extracted from the wages of Americans; it came from posts, excise taxes, and tarriff’s mostly from foreign sources doing business with in the united states. Americans never had to sacrifice for their government.

  61. Tithing is a lesser law given as a remedy for wickedness & selfishness. The greater law, which is the United Order & the Law of Consecration, demands your all.

    Some years ago I began to tithe 10% of my gross income with the express of goal of working that figure up to 100%.

  62. Tithing is part of the Law of Consecration. It is not a lesser law becasue it cannot be lived without simultaniously living the law of Consecration.


    1Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,
    2For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.
    3And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
    4And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

    To correctly pay tithing one must first consecrate all of their property to the Bishop. Then all those who have done so(“those who have thus been tithed”) will pay ten percent of their increase.

    There is no provision for paying tithing without abiding by section 119. The only exeption would be if you use the more primative defenition which includes all offerings. in that case there is no requirement restricting the offering to 10% of anything.

    In the Church today I’ve heard that you aren’t supposed to let anyone tell you how much to pay as tithing. I think that started as a solution to the net vs gross arguement.

  63. Also — maybe just a matter of semantics — but there’s no such thing as a lesser law (at least scripturally speaking)

    While I continue to pay 10% of my surplus each year to the LDS church — I’ve decided to live the 100% law of consecration within my tribe only.

    The church does not currently operate a covenant-based structure in which I may bind myself as joint-stewards with others to share our property in common according to the principle of charity. Until they cease to operate a corporate account at HQ in which my money will be deposited, to be withdrawn some time later at their discretion — I will use a gospel-based, multispouse, egalitarian tribe to live according to the law of consecration.

  64. Those who do not receive their inheritance by consecration shall not have their names enrolled with the people of God.

  65. Yes, Derek I believe that to be correct. Which is unnerving to me because, as of now, I have not yet received my inheritance by consecration.

  66. rockwaterman, my bare-bottomed friend,

    I don’t know how I missed your comment about the status of drivers of commercial vehicles, it must have been pending moderation.

    I realize you’re not a linguist or a lawyer, so allow me to help you parse what is plain as day to anyone else who is willing to read thoroughly & in context without perverted interpretations to conform to corrupted predispositions.

    “Every driver of a commercial vehicle shall stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection…”

    A driver is someone who is driving. Every driver is all someones who happen to be driving. A commercial vehicle is a commercial vehicle (it has a DOT number as a commercial vehicle). “Every driver of a commercial vehicle” is therefore all those who happen to be driving a commercial vehicle. This same California statute explicitly defines vehicles used primary for transportation of property as commercial, which you would have seen had you taken the time to read for yourself & carefully consider.

    It is as simple as this: We were required to pull over & be waived through weigh stations because Penske had leased to us a commercial vehicle, and we happened to be driving it. As drivers of a commercial vehicle we were beholden to the law, even if we were ignorant of the law, ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

    I wish you’d stop being wrong, I’m starting to feel bad for you! I’m pretty sure you’re doing it on purpose, even though you don’t realize it. Maybe we are entering a day and age where you have to be a linguist to read correctly because the average understanding is so severely corrupted.


    PS: As regards Section 119, it was only revealed after the Saints had failed the Law of Consecration in Zion proper (i.e., Kansas City).

  67. PPS: zomarah, you are commanded to buy land in Zion to receive your inheritance. I own two lots in Zion which I am improving, bought them both for $1,000 each, one of them happens to be within the area settled by the original Colesville Saints (now called Old Northeast, a famous mafia hood). I encourage everyone else to do the same. There’s no cheaper real estate market than KCMO (except maybe Detroit), and it’s only gonna get better (or worse, depending upon your perspective).

  68. Derek, in most states you’ll find commercial vehicles defined as used for transporting goods for commerce. It’s possible that in some states a rental truck such as Penske may fall under the definition -I don’t know.

    You will recall that Steve’s original question was whether I thought a person “must pull over if he is using U-Haul to move his belongings to another state.”

    Steve’s personal belongings would not qualify under any statute I know of as goods in commerce. Most U-haul and Penske trucks are used for moving personal goods, but if you can find a statute that specifically mentions such trucks as being required to stop at weigh stations, (or that all trucks with a DOT number including consumer rentals fall under the statute), I will gladly stand corrected, as this is information I would like to know.

    You mention that you were waived through when you pulled over at the weigh station. Did that not give you a clue that you might not have been required to be there?

    As an aside, when you advise me that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” do you take into account your own ignorance of legal definitions? Although your idea of what a “driver” is comports with the common assumption, that is not the legal meaning.

    According to Bouvier’s law dictionary (the only law dictionary endorsed by an act of congress), a driver is “One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle.”

    I hope you didn’t overlook that word “employed.” It means the guy “driving” is getting paid. “driving” is his job.

    Indeed, state vehicle codes are full of words meant to fool the common traveler into assuming that his activity falls under the code. Have you ever tried to find the definition of a passenger? It doesn’t mean your wife sitting on the seat next to you.

    Here’s the definition of “passenger” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 1280: “One carried for hire or reward, as distinguished from a “guest” who is one carried gratuitously…”

    Even the definition of “motor vehicle” is not normally what most people assume. In U.S. Statutes Title 18 part 1, chapter 2, section 31(6) it is defined thus:

    “The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of PASSENGERS, passengers and property, or property or cargo.” (emphasis mine.)

    And in section (10) we find the definition of the term “used for commercial purposes”: “Used for commercial purposes means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.”

    A state vehicle code can define its own terms, and some do, but it has to be “for purposes of this code”, and the alternate definition must be contained within the pages of that code. Otherwise, the definition codified in the Statutes at Large holds.

    So yes, I suppose some state may have classified your Penske truck under commercial vehicles, but unless it does, the definition reverts to the traditional and officially defined legal definition. In Steve’s hypothetical case, a “commercial vehicle” refers to the “carriage” -that is, what or who you are carrying.

    When Steve’s “carry-age” -not the vehicle, but the stuff he is carrying- consists of his personal belongings, that is not Carriage for Hire, and the “vehicle” he is carrying his belongings in is not magically converted into a commercial vehicle just because it is a truck. He would have to be CARRYING goods for hire in order for the truck to qualify as a commercial vehicle.

    As I’ve been trying to get across to you, Derek, WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. And in the law, they have very specific meanings. That’s why I keep both editions of Bouvier’s and six editions of Black’s all the way back to the first here on my shelves along with a complete set of American Jurisprudence: so that when I deal with government agents -the real mind controlled slaves among us- I don’t get tripped up by their shenanigans.

    (Did you catch there how I cleverly boasted about owning a rare first edition Black’s?)

    The only reason I bother responding to your harangues, Derek, is on the chance there could be readers on this thread who may have thought you actually knew what you were talking about. Anyone hoping to rely on your circuitous understanding of terms (i.e. “a commercial vehicle is a commercial vehicle”) could put himself in jeopardy if attempting to use such nonsense in court.

  69. rockwaterman,

    I think you’re confusing jurisdictions. Federal statute does not apply on the Interstates so much as state statute does (since state statute empowers the agents of the state who attend inspection stations and who have limited police powers, not to mention the state highway patrols only have jurisdiction to enforce state regulations, etc.). You can’t use Federal statute to exempt yourself from state statute requirements. Statutes impose their own definitions, they do not generally take definitions from case law or legal dictionaries (unless it says so in the statute through citation).

    By “waived through” I mean we only had to stop on the weigh pad, we didn’t have to talk to anyone or submit to inspection of any kind, our weight was recorded, & we were gone.

    Here’s commercial vehicle as defined by Missouri (who cares what Federal statute or case law legal dictionaries say):

    (7) “Commercial motor vehicle”, a motor vehicle designed or regularly used for carrying freight and merchandise, or more than eight passengers but not including vanpools or shuttle buses;

    Here’s California’s definition (which I already cited, but obviously you don’t read what I have to say):

    260. (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. [emphasis added]

    Sure, the law can be weird & sometimes scary, but once you dig a little deeper things aren’t usually as weird as they seem… E.g.: Ballentine’s law dictionary defines “human being” as “See monster.” Corpus Juris Secundum says that the attorney-client relationship implies a lack of “soundness of mind” and that through it, by operation of law, you become a “ward of the court”, etc. And this is to say nothing about the Law of the Water. (Hmmm, Satan has power over the waters, what??)

    Maybe you should think about doing as prescribed in 8 USC 1481(a)(6).

    Frankly, as evidenced by your own lack of understanding, you’re a victim of either crackjobs, well-meaning idiots, or 5th column agents.


  70. Sorry, I pasted the wrong RSMo definition for “commercial vehicle” above:

    (6) “Commercial vehicle”, every vehicle designed, maintained, or used primarily for the transportation of property;

  71. You misunderstand me, Derek.

    I would never attempt to show that federal statutes trump state law. They don’t. States are sovereign over the federal government.

    But when terms are not defined in state codes, definitions in the federal statutes (such as definitions for vehicles, motor vehicles, driver, passenger, etc.) do hold since they are derived from the common law.

    Not having access to the Missouri code, the statute you cite on its face seems to me to have problems, as that definition would apply to every pick-up truck in Missouri. Also, where is any reference in that clause to activity for hire? Perhaps the key lies in the definition of “vehicle.” Does the Missouri code provide one of its own, or does the statute assume the common law definition of motor vehicle as being as conveyance used for hire?

    At any rate, I am prepared to concede your point as concerns Missouri, if your further research on the questions I raised above proves me incorrect. If that citation contains no stipulation further hidden stipulations, it would appear that a U-Haul truck may indeed fall under the statutes in Missouri. That state does, for example, (or did when I lived there on my mission) have an odd requirement that cars must honk at you when passing, and requires the name and address of the owner to be written on the side of every pickup truck. So they’re a little different.

    Nevertheless. You have attempted to apply Missouri’s odd definition of commercial vehicle across the board as having general applicability in every state, and you will recall that those kind of statements are what I objected to. I left room for particular state anomalies.

    You can further aid me in my understanding (my California codes are inaccessible -and out of date anyway) by further providing California code definitions of “motor vehicle,” as well as the meaning of “a type required to be registered under this code.” It might help if you can show me what type of motor vehicle that section alludes to that is NOT required to be registered under the CVC, . Also it would help if the code defines transportation as anything other than its common law meaning. That could be where the catch is right there.

    Finally, please let me know when that section of the code was added. It could well be that this relatively new since the days I was in the fight.

    BTW, I have learned not to rely on Ballentines for anything; it is more of a popular dictionary rather than a legal one. It is indeed true that the use of an attorney implies lack of personal mental capacity and that use of an attorney places you in a position as a ward in a manner you may not like. Attorneys are officers of the court and therefore not ultimately in service to the client.

    By the law of water, I presume you are referring to Maritime-Admiralty law, which as it turns out, is the law the vehicle code is attempting to place unwary citizens under. It is the Law of the Sea, which is the exact opposite of The Law of the Land, which insures due process where the Law of the Sea does not. I would agree Satan has his hand in Maritime-Admiralty as it is applied on the land today.

  72. As an aside, rockwaterman, next time you feel like using Henry Campbell Black’s 1st edition law dictionary to prove that you are, by definition, excluded from the income tax, you might want to first consult Henry Campbell Black’s other book, A treatise on the law of income taxation under federal and state laws:

    With great respect, fine Sir,
    I am, as always,
    Your willing servant,


  73. PS: You can do it yourself, but you’re only going to find that I was right in the first place:

  74. Careful zo-ma-rah you said
    “To correctly pay tithing one must first consecrate all of their property to the Bishop.”
    Unless there is another place where the Lord instituted the law differently that I am not aware of. Sec 119 only says all their surplus property. But even if a member gave all they had the Bishop is to make them stewards over everything that is not surplus, In other words they should retain possession and use of all that is required for their support.
    I paid 10% of my gross income for many many years. And I was working to make it 100% also. Then I realized the church I was paying it to had no intention of ever bringing back the Law of consecration. So I like Justin have begun living the law of consecration in my tribe. Oh and BTW paying all that tithing for 30 plus years didn’t have any positive effect on whether or not I was charitable or rational in my judgement. For all those years I was so clueless. So Rock don’t hold your breath. Hope and pray yes, just don’t hold your breath while doing it.

  75. I do have Black’s treatise on income tax somewhere, but I don’t recall him taking a position contrary to what I’ve espoused.

    I appreciate your linking to the CVC, but please know I have no inclination to thoroughly research these matters for you. If I had a case on the docket, I’d devote the hours necessary in preparation. But in this matter, Derek, you have taken a position which you are vigorously intent on proving, so if you wish to prove your position, by all means, I invite you to do so. But don’t think I am equally intent on arguing this ad infinitum.

    You called me and others mind controlled slaves for having the gumption to challenge conventional wisdom. My claim is that your understanding of words and phrases is deficient. You believe you have overcome my challenge by dismissing the terms as defined in U.S.
    Statutes at Large on the grounds that I am claiming federal jurisdiction. I am not, and have said so.

    So that’s where we stand. If you wish to continue this, the ball is in your court to show me that prior to 1922, the definitions of words such as Motor Vehicle, Passenger, Driver, Commercial Vehicle, etc were understood to have the same meaning they are believed to contain today. If you can do so, you win the pot and I go home. Otherwise, I rely on the original meaning.

    Using state vehicle codes, the meanings of those words were subtly twisted over the course of a couple of generations, in order to bring simple travelers at law under the jurisdiction of a power that wished to tax and license them until all automobiles are treated as though they are commercial vehicles.

    I stand by my original claim that if I was carrying my property in a U-Haul truck and was cited for not stopping at a weigh station, I could beat that ticket by using only the code.

  76. The burden of proof is on you, rockwaterman, the one making the claims… I’m just doing you the favor of proving you wrong time & time again.

  77. Also, you might want to re-read Black’s treatise on income taxation, his position is wildly different from yours.

  78. Since you cannot be burdened to stand up for your own claims:

    415. (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
    (b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair,
    motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person
    who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move
    about as a pedestrian.
    (c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of
    Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that
    term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and
    Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

    305. A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical
    control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the
    tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the
    driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting

    465. A “passenger vehicle” is any motor vehicle, other than a
    motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233, and
    used or maintained for the transportation of persons. The term
    “passenger vehicle” shall include a housecar.

    I’ve already provided California’s definition of “commercial vehicle” twice, so I won’t list it a third time. Instead let’s ask U-Haul themselves:

    The laws vary from state to state and throughout Canada. Normally U-Haul customers moving their own household goods are not required to stop, because it is not a commercial move. However, some states require that all trucks stop at the weigh stations. If in doubt, stop at the weigh station.

    It would appear from the sources I’ve cited that California & Missouri are among the states that require all trucks to stop.

    Now if only we could get back to the point at hand, & establish with as much veracity your incorrectness regarding income taxes.

  79. It’s always interesting to decide who is the one making the claim in disagreements. Derek seems to think that someone who is saying that we are not under legal obligation to pay income tax is making the claim…
    …however, isn’t the status quo not paying a State income tax? Therefore, the burden would be on the ones saying that they have claim on your income.

    Who is really making the “claim” that comes with an associated burden of proof? The requirers or the requirees?

    I see the same dynamic in atheist vs. theist debates. Both side claims that the burden is on the other side: i.e. “You’re claiming there is no God, the burden’s on you…” and then “Oh yeah, well you’re claiming there is a God, therefore the burden’s on you…”

  80. Justin,

    The income tax is the status quo. People who advocate criminal violation of the law had better make a bulletproof case before entrapping the weak-minded in their dangerous schemes.

    The several states have always had a right to progressive tax on income, and they did so long before the 1890s. There were certain limits on what incomes could be taxed until those limits (unenumerated direct, capitation, etc.) were repealed from the Constitution through amendment. The amendment did not grant new powers, it repealed limits on powers already possessed & exercised. The only thing declared unconstitutional was direct tax on income from real property, but the amendment repealed that limit and others (e.g., the first Federal income taxes couldn’t tax salaries of officers of state governments).

    The Constitution is mostly written in negative terms; that is, it imposses limits rather than grants rights. So maybe there is a theoretical question as to whether it is proper to repeal limits imposed by the Constitution, but nobody but me is raising that point here.

    IIRC, the first progressive Federal income tax laws were issued during & after the civil war (1861 to 1870). Taxing the incomes resulting from the practice of trades or professions has never been declared unconstitutional.

  81. Derek, who here has been advocating for the “criminal violation of the law”? My position has always been some have an obligation, but most do not. It is up to the individual to determine whether he falls under the IRC. Am I incorrect in my understanding that you believe it applies to all American wage-earners?

    As to the issue of the U-Haul trucks, I stand corrected on my presumption, which is based on my experience of some 20 or 30 years ago. Apparently the law for California may have changed since then. For your part, you were overly arrogant in your assumption that it was a requirement for everyone across the board. It would have better served everyone here if your response was that “it depends.” As should mine have been, but I failed to take into account that we live in an America where state governments as well as the federal are increasingly tightening their grip and closing escape hatches. To answer Steve’s hypothetical question, it depends where he’s traveling. I’ll accept U-Haul’s statement that some states require it while others don’t.

    So there’s a lesson here for Steve and others: Don’t depend on anyone (especially me or Derek) for your legal advice. Research it yourself.

    One of my teachers, George Gordon, learned something interesting from a judge regarding stopping at weigh stations in, I think it was Idaho. Commercial vehicles not carrying goods or property are excluded from the code, so if you’re empty, sail on by. If you dare. You might get a ticket, but you can win it.

  82. The income tax is the status quo.

    I see that side of the arguement — but at the same time I can see someone making the point that the natural or assumed state of things is for me to have full claim on my own property — and the burden would be on the other side to show how the state can have claim on a portion of it.

    In other words, where did the state overcome the burden of proof to get us to what you’re referring to as the status quo?

  83. The state hasn’t overcome the burden of proof, Justin, they simply allow the public to believe they have an obligation, and most people willingly fall into the trap.

    If you take the controversy Derek and I have been involved in, for example, we see that the California and Missouri vehicle code has simply “declared” vehicles to be commercial vehicles that ordinarily have nothing to do with commercial activity, i.e. U-Haul trucks used to carry a person’s own property.

    That’s why a knowledgeable person can still skate right past one of those weigh stations. I might get cited, but I doubt it. However, if you do stop and submit, you are creating presumption of their authority. I can easily demonstrate in court that simply because the code declares the truck I’m traveling in to be a commercial vehicle, that does not transform it into one. The state cannot change the general definition of a thing if the activity does not support it. The original definition of driving, passenger, commercial activity, etc. still trump. UNLESS it is found that I was employed for hire and was using the U-Haul to transport goods in commerce.

    I want to make it clear that I only conceded that the California VC has been amended; I did not concede that the code becomes supreme law by doing so.

    I get the feeling Derek believes that if a state declares something contrary to previous reason, logic, and common sense, that makes it right and lawful. The real mind control takes place in those who believe that obedience to the state even when the state is usurping authority is the appropriate behavior to take.

    The Internal Revenue Code is one massive mind control project. Learn to understand the nexus, and you can be free of it (though, due to the times we live in there are no guarantees). Remain in its mind-controlled matrix however and you are guaranteed to be ever a prisoner.

    It’s all about status. Are you a free man or something else? I agree with you completely when you say it’s up to the other side to show how the state can claim a right to your property or liberty. As the high court affirmed in the Thibodou case, “where jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven.”

    But most of us have unknowingly waived our rights, and a challenge is moot. In the traffic courts, your application for a driver’s license is the nexus. It tells the state you are one of theirs. That is how they prove jurisdiction.

    In the case of the IRS, it is the documents such as the return that provide presumption. If a person files a return, the law presumes he had an obligation to.

    Moral: Like your parents told you, don’t sign anything you don’t fully understand. And if you do have to sign something, make it clear you are reserving all of your rights under Law.

  84. I’m sorry, but rockwaterman is wrong yet again… No controversy, just plain wrong. 😉

    By the Law of the Water I mean the Arbitrary Law of Nations & States. The Law of Nations is the science of the rights which exist between Nations or States, and of the external obligations wholly independent of their will corresponding to these rights. This is a truly “antient” field of law, one of its early (but by no means the earliest) examples being the Magna Carta, which outlined liberties existing between feudal sovereigns & overlords (whether elected or selected [in England the overlords were mostly selected, in Ireland & Germany the overlords were traditionally elected]).

    There are at least a half-dozen “status” theories floating around, and rockwaterman strictly adheres to one such theory in particular (a peculiar version of the “status” theories, one which I had yet to encounter before). All of the “status” theories are bogus. There is no trap or conspiracy to entrap in the law, we are all bound to the law equally. It is not possible to “change your status”, unless you abrogate your rights by revocation of citizenship through the Attorney General as prescribed in 8 USC 1481(a)(6) [in which case you would lack certain rights while still remaining beholden to many obligations under the law].

    Our country is largely founded upon the Law of the Water from its inception. A great many of the men responsible for the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution were private attorneys of the Admiralty, experts in this antient form of law.

    Satan is given power over the waters, power to corrupt the waters, and so we get people like rockwaterman, we get perverted populations who elect perverted general assemblies who corrupt the law even further, etc. But we are still beholden to this corruption of law unless or until we change it.

    As far as courts of admiralty go, thanks to Thomas Jefferson & John Adams, we have the 7th Amendment & are assured right to trial by jury in matters civil & common, rather than trial by aristocratic judge or commission as in admiralty.

    The Constitution itself is one great instrument largely due to what it doesn’t say, or what it was later made to explicitly say in the 10th Amendment:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    That last part, the people, refers mostly to our general assemblies on both State & Federal levels, which have right to take powers not yet delegated. This is massively open-ended, and has long been considered among the greatest successes and attributes of our Constitution.

    You want burden of proof? There’s your burden of proof.

    Do a better job educating yourselves and your fellows and electing your assemblies, and maybe next time you’ll have better results at the law.

    Until then,

    Derek Moore

  85. I wonder why you use the obsolete spelling of “antient” twice to mean “ancient.” Are you showing off for us?

    I think so, because your large opening paragraph looks to be written by someone who has just read something of the history of law he does not quite grasp, but, and is attempting to relate in his own words concepts that are way beyond his ability. You’re spouting gibberish, Derek, and no matter how many times you toss in the word “antient,” you’re not quite pulling it off.

    But, to business:

    You set up a straw man argument with your implication that I advocate changing one’s status, then you go into a long harangue about how that would require renunciation of American citizenship. For the umpteenth time, I have been attempting to show that the government slyly leads citizens with full rights to unknowingly waive certain rights through the presumption that they are beholden to laws that do not pertain to them.

    No one is advocating changing their status. In fact, that would be foolish. It is enough to be an American citizen. That’s the best status there is, if one means to protect his rights.

    So, do we have that clear?

    Further, no one is disagreeing with your statement that “we are all bound to the law equally” if, by that statement, you are saying no one is above the law, and by “The Law” you mean the Anglo-American common law, the Law of God, or that which is not in conflict with God’s law. No one can pull rank and get away with theft, assault, murder, rape, or any other crime. The president has no privileges above the pauper. That is what is meant by “all are equal under the law.” All crimes must be fairly investigated and proven.

    But you don’t seem to be making that argument. You seem to be saying we must unfailingly obey every decree of government, whether it applies to us or not. You have been clear in your position that even when the laws become corrupted, “we are still beholden to this corruption of law unless or until we change it.”

    And how is that to be accomplished? My reading of history, and my own experience, demonstrate that once a nation’s laws and governments have become corrupted, it is almost impossible for the individual to simply “change” the law back.

    But even in a nation going down the slippery slope to tyranny, a person can at least recognize what laws apply to him and which ones do not. If, as you say, we are bound by all law(s), (and it’s clear you have been unable to differentiate THE LAW from the myriad of arbitrary “laws,” plural), then why do you not pay a tax under Title 27? Title 27 is one of the laws of the United States. Why aren’t you filing? Why aren’t you paying?

    Could it be that since you are not involved in the sale or manufacture of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and explosives, you understand that you are not “subject to” that law and are therefore NOT REQUIRED to obey it?

    That’s what is meant by a question of status. It has nothing to do with renouncing citizenship. It has everything to do with one’s standing and UNDERSTANDING as a citizen with full rights. It has everything to do with keeping your citizenship intact.

    I think we’re getting closer to having a grasp on where you’re coming from with your wild interpretation of the meaning of the 10th amendment, wherein you assert that “the people” refers to “the general assemblies on the state and federal levels.” Gee whiz, really? Is that how you read that?

    “The STATES” refers to the state governments assembled, and “the people” refers to the individual citizens of that state. If “the people” referred only to the government assemblies, no wonder you diminish the rights of the people at law. In your mind, they are insignificant. The individual and his concerns don’t even count, according to you. Only the various governments have standing.

    Regardless of your interpretation, the 10th amendment still would not permit any assembly the right to, as you put it, “take powers not yet delegated.” It guarantees the states and the people to RETAIN the infinite rights they already have and prevents the federal government from assuming additional powers not specifically delegated to it by the constitution. No government, state or federal, can “take powers” from the people that the people do not specifically grant either through their state or federal constitutions.

    I mean really. You think the 10th amendment allows the government to take powers from the people? Read it again. It states just the opposite. There is no “taking” allowed. It’s about reserving powers that cannot be taken by the government.

    Now that we have a government wantonly assuming powers that were never delegated to it, you come along and insist we must obey every command of our overlords until we can somehow manage to “change it back.”

    Well, nothing needs changing. The constitution still stands. It just needs to be enforced. Oddly, you feel that those who object to the usurpation of our rights are the mind controlled slaves, while those who endure without complaint, waiting somehow for things to get better are, in your opinion, the smart ones behaving perfectly as God would want. As a willing automaton yourself, you cannot see that your own mind has been captured by the powers that want a docile populace. But then, how could you? It is a well known maxim that the best slave is the one who thinks he’s free.

    I stare with open-mouthed astonishment at your assertion that this country was founded on the Law of the Water, your evidence being that some of the founders were attorneys and therefore familiar with Admiralty law. I mean, I really am astounded.

    Yes, they were very familiar with Admiralty, and they understood the propensity of government to insidiously attempt to convert the common law into Admiralty at every turn. What do you think the traffic courts are? They are courts of Admiralty, which is why you can’t get a trial by jury in that venue.

    Yet you blithely and ignorantly cite the 7th amendment guarantee as if it is actually in force in all courts. Clearly, you do not live in the world the rest of us do.

    Look up “law of the land” in a legal encyclopedia and you will find it differs from “law of the sea” in one salient area. At sea, the Captain’s word is law. The sailor has no rights. This is predominantly because one man’s slip-up can endanger the lives of all on board. So the sailor can be punished on the Captain’s orders. No no judge, no jury, no investigation into the facts. The law of the sea offers no protection to the individual.

    The opposite of The Law Of The Sea is The Law Of The Land, defined as due process.

    Yes, the founders were well aware of the law of the water, which is why they made certain that the constitution contained in it the guarantee that it was the supreme Law of the LAND. They were not abolishing the law of the sea. That mode of government still had its place. But in this nation, on the land, we would be governed by due process. All were to be equal under the law.

    Reading your disjointed screed I just have to ask: Really? Are you really trying to convince this audience that “our country is largely founded upon the Law of the Water?

    You’ve just told me everything about you that I need to know. Honestly, I don’t know why I bother.

  86. rockwaterman encourages criminal violation of tax law by disguising tax protest under the color of law.

    In the United States the people are sovereign, and the people exercise their sovereignty through their several legislative assemblies on at least three levels, county, state, & federal.

    The people have erred in allowing themselves to become corrupted, the people have erred by electing into power corrupted assemblies, the people have erred in being dumbed down & misled. The people have erred in understanding & appointment, they have lost their trust.

    This is all for the Lord’s purposes. He has put a hook in our nose & a bridle in our mouth, and he has turned us around & led us astray for his own purposes.

    rockwaterman doesn’t know why he bothers. I know why I bother: I am committed to halting the deception that rockwaterman is promoting, I will not stand by as he leads others to dangerous ground, I will not allow him to go uncontested or to have a legitimized forum or this site where he can sway the minds of other weak & ignorant people.

  87. Oh, I get it now. This is all God’s doing. He has “turned us around & led us astray for his own purposes.”

    Well, thanks for clearing that up. I sure wouldn’t want to interfere with God’s divine purpose.

    So it turns out that all this time by trying to keep my government servants obedient to the law, I’ve been kicking against the pricks.

  88. Yeah. Speaking of pricks…

    Derek, earlier you linked to this and said you can teach us grammar. Did you write it?

  89. Rock says I have a right to property. Derek says I do not. Derek says anyone who thinks they have a right to property is “weak & ignorant” and anyone who tries to hold onto that right is “criminal”.
    Anyone with basic cognition knows Derek has no legal acumen and no sense of morality.
    Attack me, Derek. Say how weak and ignorant I am. Tell me I am a criminal for daring to question the tyrant supreme named the USA. Tell me to lay down and lick the boots of those that steal from me and my brothers and sisters. Tell me this is what God wants; this is God’s plan.

  90. After some research I’ve been able to determine that rockwaterman’s version of the “income tax status” theory originates with William Cooper, radio commentator & author of Behold a Pale Horse.

    William Cooper’s argument involves references to alcohol & tobacco (as evidenced by rockwaterman) and insists that the language of the law is used to trick those not obligated under the law to voluntarily assume obligation (also evidenced by rockwaterman).

    William Cooper was shot dead during the execution of several arrest warrants against him, including warrants related to tax evasion.

    The people commenting here are having great difficulty interpreting my utterances correctly, instead they impose implications upon my words that do not exist in their original meaning as composed by me.

    We have a right to property, but it is also apparent that government has assumed the right to tax our property (again, tax on wages have never been defined as direct by the courts, they are considered indirect event taxes).

    If God wants you to protest taxes and end up dead like William Cooper or in jail like Wesley Snipes, then I guess that’s God’s plan for you (that, or the consequences of your own willful action). If God wants you to engage in open revolt, then that’s fine, too, I guess. I hope you win. I think your means are reckless, & I’ll take other routes to similar ends, thankyouverymuch.

    rockwaterman also suggests that traffic courts are admiralty courts; they’re not, they’re municipal or circuit courts, depending on who issues the traffic violation (state highway patrols have a jurisdiction under the district attorney where the citation occurred, police departments have a jurisdiction under their city’s prosecuting attorney). rockwaterman is using a version of the “yellow fringe” theory, which is also wholly inaccurate.

    After the Revolution, two flags were flown by the Federal government, one with vertical stripes, the other with horizontal stripes; one indicated civil outposts, the other indicated military & naval outposts. Today the only flag codified is the one with horizontal stripes, but it is given neither a civil nor a military connotation, it is simply the ensign of the Union — and it is the same flag as that of the Admiralty of the Striped Squadron, flown by George Washington prior to & following the Revolutionary War. Yellow fringe is stylistic &/or formal, & conveys no legal meaning or authority.

    By my count, using materials got from the Masons & the Scottish Rite, at least 13 of the signers were attorneys of admiralty affiliated with the East India Company.

    There is nothing wrong with direct action civil disobedience thru tax protest, per se, but call it what it is, and stop deceiving yourselves thru color of law.

    There are consequences to your actions, it is best you have a clear understanding of these consequences as you go into your decision to protest tax law in any of its forms.

    All my best,


    PS: deVale, yes, I wrote that document as the final aspect of a natural language processing project for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Are you in need of a speech scientist?

  91. I knew William Cooper, Derek, but this income tax “protest theory” as you incorrectly refer to it, did not originate with him. Like thousands of others who can read, Cooper expounded on some of the arguments similar to what I and others have presented here. To assume because you found mention of a similar theory of law in the written works of one man would not ordinarily lead a reasonable person to conclude that the theory originated with him. As far as I recall, Cooper made no claims to a light bulb going off in his head when he shared the information in one of his books. It’s like saying James Talmage originated the idea of the gospels of Jesus.

    Talmage’s work was an exposition on information already in existence, not to mention repeated many times by others. In the same way, William Cooper commented on and expounded upon the legal research of those who came before. I suppose I should conclude the idea for the Constitution originated with Joseph Story after reading his commentaries explaining it.

    William Cooper was a government insider who wrote a book blowing the whistle on corruption he had first-hand knowledge of. Tired of the persecution he was receiving, he vowed to take a stand the next time he was confronted by agents acting under color of law.

    When they came to his home he greeted them armed and was gunned down. There are some who feel he was justified in taking a stand, and others who feel it was unnecessary to resort to arms when he could have prevailed administratively. I am in the latter camp. Nevertheless, we can’t know what was in his mind, and he was clearly fed up with the injustices that had been heaped upon him merely for exposing government corruption.

    The pertinent thing to note here is that there was nothing incorrect about Cooper’s legal position. Attempting to portray his theory of law as incorrect because in the end he “lost,” is like saying George Washington was in the wrong because the British beat his army in nearly every battle.

    At any rate, William Cooper is irrelevant to this discussion. You are trying to deflect the argument by associating me with someone who is thought to have lost his battle, and whose methods do not comport with the way I would have handled things. This is not an intelligent way to argue your point.

    You boast that your research has led you to the discovery that a particular “income tax status theory” originated with William Cooper? Nice research there, Professor.

    What this really tells me is that you are completely unfamiliar with this field of legal research. Oh, you’ve given it a shot. You have tossed around words and phrases intended to leave the unwary with the idea that you know what you’re talking about, when a good deal of what you have contributed to this thread has been simple gibberish.

    Another way you expose your ignorance is with your continued reference to “tax protesters” within this conversation. That’s a term used by those who don’t know what they are talking about, and dismiss those they don’t understand by labeling them “tax protesters” thinking that settles the argument.

    I have never protested the income tax, and in all my years connected with the Tax Honesty movement, I don’t recall meeting anyone who did. I have previously clarified that I believe the code is completely constitutional as written. I have no problem with the code being enforced upon its proper subjects, such as corporations, certain federal officers, and foreign employees receiving payment within the united states. I do not protest the income tax code. Those who are subject to the code should file and pay all taxes they are obligated for.

    Rather than remain on point here, you are constantly introducing arguments that are irrelevant and not in evidence, such as fringe on the flag or that some of the founders were lawyers and masons. None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand; which, if memory serves, was the question of what class of persons is subject to the income tax.

    Derek, would you like to know why I continue to respond to your disjointed posts in spite of the fact that I don’t feel any of this is getting through? Okay, I’ll admit it. I do it for entertainment. My own and others.

    I am past being annoyed with you, and lately I have been receiving private emails from readers who tell me how much they are enjoying this dialogue between us. And I admit to looking forward to your next unbending attempt to “help” the deceived among us. So far you have convinced no one of the correctness of your position, and there is general agreement with “Narc,” who considers you a deluded narcissist.

    One correspondent speculated that the form and style of your “arguments,” as well as your proclivity for labeling those who don’t agree with you your intellectual inferiors, demonstrates some kind of mental or emotional imbalance.

    I don’t agree. I think you are simply very young and have not yet learned know how to engage civilly with those whose opinions and experiences differ from your own. You compensate for your immaturity by spewing insults and tossing around disjointed terms that you hope will impress, when they actually betray a shallow knowledge of law and legal history.

    I confess to being intrigued by your inability to grasp the simplest legal concepts presented here by me and others, such as basics tenets of status and legal standing, preferring instead to dismiss them out of hand simply because the concepts are new to you.

    Allow me to let you in on a secret. NO ONE knows even a percentage of what there is to know about law. Certainly not me. Not even you. No one. Even supreme court justices hear arguments they are unfamiliar with all the time. They have to look things up before they can even rule.

    Perhaps instead of trying to come across as such a know-it-all, why not refer to a legal encyclopedia such as Corpus Juris or Am Jur, or even Levy’s if you are unfamiliar with status or standing or due process? Levy’s is easy. Start smaller if these big ol’ concepts are too much for you to wrap your head around.

    Oh, and I might suggest Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People. Jerry Spence’s How To Argue and Win Every Time is good, too. Spence was always civil and likeable; but he always made certain he was on the side of right, so that helped.

    Even when you’re wrong, you can argue in such a way as to not alienate others. Seriously. Read a book or two.

    Finally, your response to my assertion that the traffic courts are courts of Admiralty leads me to agree with the comment by “Weak and Ignorant Criminal” above when he judges you to be lacking in legal acumen. I can only imagine how pleased you must have been with yourself when you “corrected” me by declaring that the traffic courts are not Admiralty courts, but actually municipal courts.

    Of course they’re municipal courts, you idiot. They’re municipal courts OPERATING in Admiralty.

    Acumen. That’s what you’re missing, alright.

  92. You want me to use Corpus Juris? A codex of law from Byzantine Empire? No wonder you can’t back up any of your arguments with sound legal guidance or operating procedure.

    I’ve only encouraged people to know the law & to stay within the law for their own good. I haven’t given much guidance outside of trying to establish what the law is. That is, that every individual is liable for income tax from whatever source derived, providing references & direct quotes.

    I will take this opportunity to provide what legal guidance I have. When dealing with traffic violations in municipal or district court remember three little words “self-amend charges”, especially when dealing with violations that will be seen by your insurance company or that will bring points against your license. Dress nice, show up early, & wait to talk to the prosecutor, tell him you would like to “self-amend charges”. In most cases your charge will be commuted to a non-moving violation in exchange for a larger fine (usually by ~$100). For me this has worked for speeding & driving without insurance charges on both the municipal & district levels.

    William Cooper was an unwitting disinformation agent. He was a low-level analyst fed garbage dossiers, and he seemed to believe every word of them. He was probably a great guy, and he must have had some amount of self-awareness & critical examination, because he publicly apologized for having been misled & for having misled others that there was a credible extraterrestrial threat with international & intergalactic moon bases, etc.

    Either way, you’re still wrong about the income tax… Should I go back to quoting more from code & statute? You seem to want that…

  93. Wait, what?!

    You’ve been cited for speeding and driving without insurance?! Haven’t you been insisting that everyone must strictly obey all laws? Or do speeding and insurance laws apply only to us little people; you know- the mind controlled slaves?

    Then instead of accepting your full punishment like an obedient serf, you tell us you routinely make deals with the prosecutor prior to court. Yes indeedy, you are better than the rest of us.

    And no, I was not referring to Corpus Juris Civillis, which was the first codification of Roman law during the Byzantine era. I’m referring to “Corpus Juris Secundum: Complete Restatement Of The Entire American Law As Developed By All Reported Cases.” THAT Corpus Juris.

    Are you telling us you are unaware of the the existence of the quintessential legal resource found on the shelves of every law office in America, or did Google simply route you to the works of Emperor Justinian by mistake?

    Acumen, Derek. Work on that legal acumen.

  94. Had you actually read anything I’ve written here you’d’ve noticed I was the first to mention CJS, because a lot of people use it as basis for their baseless legal theories, such as yourself. You are free to misinterpret the secondary & tertiary literature, but I prefer to consult the primary authorities & sources of law when I deal in legal matters.

    Tax evasion felonies are much more serious crimes than moving violation misdemeanors, but I’ve provided the magic words for getting out of traffic violations if you can: “self-amend charges” (it does cost more money, though it’s cheaper than a lawyer). All the while, you still refuse to provide any semblence of guidance or magic words with which we might test or enforce your wild theories of driving without a license or evading income tax. (If someone takes you at your word & drives without a license they will eventually need my words of “self-amend charges”.)

    Other imprtant phrases I’ve used in court: “set aside warrant” & “request continuance”. 😀

    Your polemical attempt to debase me is a hoot, because it demonstrates your willingness to immaturity (I’m Generation Y, I’m supposed to be immature; you are a Baby Boomer, your generation is to be held directly responsible for this mess we’re in [thanks a lot, Baby Boomers, I’m glad you won’t have social security to fall back on]). Troll harder.

  95. Derek:

    Can I just say that I’m ashamed to be a member of the same generation as you? Not that I don’t enjoy the discussion here, but the tactless way with which you approach everyone does more to undermine your argument than any other evidence.

    Seriously, I haven’t seen such name calling since I left middle school in a cloud of dust.

    You can look at your enlightened mind as a way to teach others, but keep in mind that when you see the world as such you also must assume that what you believe is right and what others believe is wrong, hence you are here to teach and help them, not the other way around. I personally have moved away from these beliefs, I am of the opinion that they are too polarizing and have cause more harm than good over the years. The world is full of people all claiming “I’m right, you’re wrong and you’re a mindless idiot for not being as smart and enlightened as I am.”

    Somehow, if we return to the gospel, I have a very hard time reconciling my view of Christ with the view that he’d espouse similar verbiage.

    Consider this:

    When we finally understand that we cannot ‘prove’ ourselves in this world without having first compared ourselves to it (are we good or evil, right or wrong, bad or good, righteous or wicked?) – and that this kind of comparison is the unseen root of conflict (competition, envy, jealousy, pride, selfishness, greed, power-seeking, ladder climbing) — then we will also know why we find no peace in winning the approval of others (including God), and why no possession empowers us to live without fear.”

    Or, put another way, “the righteousness of man is sin”… at least per Joseph Smith.

    Carry on, wayward son. Carry on. Perhaps we could spend as much time being as we do trying to convince others how idiotic they are.

  96. Well, don’t put me in the same corner with those who got us into this mess: which, by the way, began not with the baby boomers, but with my father’s generation (often referred to, without irony as “The Greatest Generation” because they, like the boomers, were easily duped into believing they were special).

    Still, are you really “glad” (your word) the baby boomers won’t have social security to fall back on? The coming collapse is going to be a tragedy of monumental proportions. Many will starve to death, not just boomers, and countless people of all ages will die. I am not looking forward to that, though I recognize the inevitability of it at this point. I will not be glad to live through it, and I’m surprised a fellow latter-day saint can greet the approaching catastrophe by giddily wishing misfortune on others. The previous commenter was right; you really are lacking in moral integrity.

    Perhaps you believe you will escape the troubles yourself. Sadly, you will not.

    Anyway, now you’ve got me thoroughly confused on another front. You say you mentioned Corpus Juris Secundum previously, but in your recent post you pretended not to know what it was. So what am I supposed to think? You are a puzzle to me.

    You are wise to consult the primary sources, but Corpus Juris is the way most legal professionals get themselves pointed in the proper direction. How else to find case law referring to a particular theory? When I seek an organic definition, I go first to Bouvier’s, then Am Jur II, then CJS.

    THEN I follow those leads to the appropriate Supreme Court Reports and read the case law, or that of the lower courts.

    How do you do it? Were you born with the ability to go right to The Reporter and pull out the case you need? I wish I was that smart.

    It’s strange, at any rate, that you would dismiss the country’s preeminent legal encyclopedia with the words, “a lot of people use it as a basis for their baseless legal theories, such as yourself.”

    Yeah, that’s right, people like me. And attorneys, and legislators, and judges, and members of the high court and everyone else needing answers to legal questions. Everyone, apparently, except you.

    I’m aware that quite a few people bypass the written authorities and simply pull stuff out of their butts, but are you sure you want to be admitting to that?

    I’m pleased that you know the magic words needed to request a continuance, but I prefer to lay the groundwork for dismissal before I ever enter the courtroom. I like paying no fine at all rather than going in and begging the prosecutor to take a hundred bucks off. I accomplish this by filing paper with the D.A’s office immediately after receiving a citation; I also file copies with the clerk of the court, but I do not make motions to the court, as a pleading before the court grants the court jurisdiction it would not otherwise obtain.

    Which brings us to the nub of why you and I can’t seem to get on the same page. You write:

    “You still refuse to provide any semblence of guidance or magic words with which we might test or enforce your wild theories of driving without a license or evading income tax.”

    Three things:

    First, it’s about avoiding taxes, not evading them. I remember going on at some length about tax evasion being illegal, while tax avoidance is not. I even provided a cite.

    Secondly, I don’t think I mentioned driving without a license, though it is not unlawful to do so, and there is no doubt that applying for a driver’s license is the nexus wherein a citizen places himself under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the vehicle code. Many Americans claim their right to travel, and have opted to forgo asking permission from the state to do so, and the courts must allow them to go on their way. But in my opinion it is not worth the hassle in this time of an emerging police state because cops are not properly trained in the law and have a nasty habit of impeding the freedom of free persons exercising that right.

    Thirdly, and here’s the gist of it: Where did you get the impression I intended to “provide guidance” or “magic words” to help you or anyone else defend themselves in court? What indication did I give that I meant to teach a course on law here? I never offered to take you by the hand and lead you through any of the processes. I merely stated that whether a person is obligated to file and pay under the IRC is a question of his status. I provided two or three links for those wishing to learn more about it. You can find your answers there. But I never implied an intent to expound in detail.

    Indeed, the core of the controversy between us was caused by your unqualified dismissal of the idea that not all Americans may be automatic subjects of the code, and you embarked from there on a campaign of ridicule and name calling toward everyone on this thread who failed to instantly fall in line with your way of thinking.

    I don’t teach law. I am not qualified. However, certain things about standing and status are well-established, and I have been successful in protecting my own rights. on several occasions.

    When introduced to a concept new to him, a reasonably intelligent person can either be intrigued and set off to learn more about it, or he can react like you and dismiss it without investigation. Doesn’t matter. I have provided some information to show that the legal theories I mentioned are viable, but I’m not going to walk you through the process. It is up to you to “prove all things, and hold fast that which is true,” then go from there.

    So if you thought you were going to get an in-depth course on how to release yourself from the mind-control that is keeping you enslaved, Derek, you’ll have to look elsewhere.

    Keep working on developing that acumen. You can do it. I believe in you.

  97. For those interested in the right of the citizen to travel by automobile without a license, you can find several cites in this article by retired police officer Jack McLamb:

    Like I wrote to Derek above, I’m happy to provide access to information. However, I would not want anyone without a thorough grasp of the workings of the law to attempt to apply my methods to their particular situation, as a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Therefore I don’t teach my methods nor share my paperwork with others. There are plenty of resources out there, including the site on the link above to The Free Enterprise Society. Tell ’em I sent you.

  98. rockwaterman,

    I don’t understand how you could get a dismissal without a motion. Does your correspondence with the prosecutor compel him to halt prosecution & drop charges? Or does the judge somehow issue a dismissal for you without you even requesting the motion? Exactly how many times have you done this, for what, and has it worked?

    I can only guess that your answer to this last question is, “None, nothing, don’t know.”

    Interjections & asides in a case establishing precedent have no legal bearing, only the decision of a case has legal consequence. In other words, the theory behind a decision does not establish case law nor does it influence other cases, only what was decided itself is case law.

    Please show us the appellate or superior court case in California that has ruled on driving without a license in your favor. Don’t show us cases where the how & why of an unrelated decision could theoretically apply to driving without a license (as your link does), because that won’t cut the mustard in any court of this land. You won’t be able to do this, because there isn’t one.

    When I research the law I deal mostly with the substantive law, because going directly to the statutes & uniform codes themselves is easy and is what matters, and in the matter of income tax I have already provided the substantive law that creates the liability on our parts.

    Case law isn’t hard to research either, e.g., people here might want to read this recent California ruling against your latest source, the scam that is so-called the Free Enterprise Society (a.k.a., Steve Hempfling’s d.b.a.):

    Click to access 08-16190.pdf

    Who needs legal acumen now?

    You have no hope for me, rockwaterman, and I have no hope for you, you are antient & beyond your times. You merely enjoy the grandeloquence of your own verbiage.

    PS: Narc, thank you for your very thoughtful & considerate point-of-view. If it were not for the ridiculosity of this subject, I may not be so brash. We are not arguing opinions here, we are arguing fact. (And I’m right & rockwaterman is wrong, so I’m gonna sing the I Am Right song.)

  99. Fact. What is “fact”? What is “truth”? From one law school dropout to everyone else, fact is ascertained differently by most people. You take a crime or anything else, and the “facts” the people involved therein see and interpret will frequently differ, and yet they are all [mostly] sincere about their beliefs in the “facts”, in the “truth.”

    I have no doubt that you see these “facts” as indisputable, that you’re incredibly staunch in your observance of whatever “facts” you present. Most people are. Most people interpret a situation and define what they see as “fact”, as “truth.” More and more, people set out on a search for “truth”, for the absolute truth. Truth becomes their idol. Facts become their idol. If only everything could be cornered and labeled as “truth” or “fact,” then everything would be sunny and warm.

    I thought this way for a long time. Truth was my quest. Facts were what mattered, to hell with the consequences. To hell with those who stood in my way. In all honesty, you seem like an older version of me, though much more prone to name calling and personal epithets than I ever was.

    That said, even as I began to recoil from my search for “truth” in realization of what it was causing, I still didn’t grasp the real reasons. That is, until someone elucidated a point of view that has a strong personal resonance. That someone stated:

    The search for absolute truth is too often raised up as an idol. We fear “relative” truth because it feels uncontrollable. Indeed, it IS as uncontrollable as God himself, because it is God himself. God is love, and that which love mandates is situational. Ah yes, situational ethics. A bad word in religious circles, to say the least. But it’s clear that how love is manifest, how it looks as a rule or a physical form, can change from situation to situation. Love (i.e., Jesus), is the only thing that never wavers, the only solid foundation upon which we can build.

    Even the scriptures bear out the relative nature of truth. It is bad to kill. Unless it is not. (see Nephi, Israelites, etc.) It is bad to have sex with more than one woman. Unless it is not (you get the point). Truth is only comprehended through the lens of love, or no truth is comprehended at all. Without the context of love, to call something true is utterly meaningless (thanks Paul for this amazing insight). Thus, in a sense truth IS love, and love IS truth. And God, the embodiment of both love and truth, not suprisingly refers to himself as love and truth.

    So, is there any absolute truth? Of course. The #1 absolute truth being that love is the most important thing ever, and everything else hangs on it. Jesus laid waste to the philosophies of people fixated on what they perceived as absolute truth from God. It was in their scriptures, for crying out loud! Of course it was absolute truth. Or was it? Too often, when we think we have truth, as a result we end up focused on being right rather than focusing on love. And when being right supercedes love, ironically we are always wrong.

    I masticated on this statement for some time before it began to set in and I saw some things that needed changing. I recognize that this idea won’t reverberate for others as it has mine, but in time I think we’ll all come to understand that anything presented outside the spectrum of love will never satisfy and will [likely] always lead us in the wrong direction.

    With that in mind, I wonder how much of what is presented above [from both sides] is accomplishing the goal we’re seeking.

    Just a thought or two from the peanut gallery.

  100. Derek,

    You’re right and I’m wrong.

    Psyche. Just kidding.

    I’m chomping to respond to your last piece, but sadly what time I will have on the computer tonight must be spent working against deadline. I contribute a weekly piece at, and it’s due by morning.

    So I’ll address how premature (or should I say “immature”) is your victory song.

    To complicate things, I just learned Joe Banister will be the guest at this online radio show:

    So I’m gonna stop everything and listen. The show is now, but as of 5:30 my time, Joe has not yet appeared. Depending on when you are reading this, you may still be able to catch him. I suppose the show will be podcasted afterwards, I don’t know.

    Joe is the high profile former criminal IRS agent who now assists clients in battles against the service. The government recently tried to shut him up, but he won all those battles and he’s more potent than ever.

    Meantime, for those who just can’t wait for me to get back here, at least you can read something I’ve written at eFoodsDirect. Here’s my beginner’s guide to buying survival silver:

  101. This Joe Bannister never loses with the IRS?

    Click to access bannister.appeal.decision.pdf

    Does this Joe Bannister ever lose with his CPA board?

    Does this Joe Bannister ever lose in California Court of Appeals?

    Are you sure this Joe Bannister never loses?

    Click to access Banister.TCM.WPD.pdf

    I rest my case.

    PS: Narc, ask any programmer you know about the tables of truth (or, even, ask the bible, for that matter). Truth is not relative, it does exist. I make my living using truth every day (in the form of first order predicate calculus & boolean algebra [AND SO CAN YOU!]). There is no theory, there is only fact; where theory is wrong, it strays from fact.

  102. Banister == Bannister — sorry, I wouldn’t want my case to be invalidated by the misspelling of a name! — I musta been thinkin’ ’bout Bannister Road in KCMO BIAAATCH!

    (Cheap “blighted” property on Bannister Rd., for all y’all enterprisin’ muthafu**as lookin’ to build a city… We gotz tha most affordable living expense at tha highest standard of living in tha USA, we gotz Google Intarnetz, & we’s Zion “to boot” [not to mention, we also run Linux]. What are you doing losing your ass to the IRS & not moving to KCMO!??! Y’all gonna be missin’ out once all the tax protester movement is in jail!!)

  103. Wow Derek that is real heavy. Okay KCMO deciphered that to mean Kansas City, Missouri. I have been there several times. I was about to buy property there. I might live close to that place in the future. time will tell.
    But let’s see what does the word “BIAAATCH” mean? I Googled it and there were some references to some very crude and truly unkind terms. I really don’t want an answer to what it mans if it is not a kindly term. I know there are times when we must be bold and call good good and evil evil. I don’t see children of God as evil, just damaged. They can do evil acts for sure. But all evil, even the evil they do will one day be gone. What good will it do to hate them then?
    Did anything Narc said in his last comment make sense? I see you disagree with him on the nature of truth. Do you disagree with him on the nature of God and His love or the nature of love (another name for God)? Can you imagine prioritizing love of other people and a desire to treat them with kindness and respect higher than your opinion or even higher and more important than their actions or words?
    Compassion for other humans has no place in the ways of those who seek to enslave others. That is why I believe I should do all I can to be healed of my anger so that love and compassion for other will always have a place in my thoughts and words and actions.

  104. To Whom It May Concern:

    This reminds me of another great episode in the history of LDS Anarchy blog … the time I outed OWIW.

    OWIW was all boasting vaingloriously about how it is sooo important he maintain his anonymity to protect himself and the progress of his many valuable works in these dark times, etc.; so as one who was watching I linked to available public records that listed his name, the names of his children, & his wife in his Oregan-Secretary-of-State-certified limited-liability business entity.

    LDS Anarchy blog’s accounts & policies were ultimately violated (i.o.w., hacked) against LDSA’s knowledge or authority, my comments were deleted entirely, & I was banned from the site.

    LDSA apologized for the unauthorized breach and his inability to restore my comments, he restored my account, and he asked me to please not out him also. LDSA has always been very helpful in deleting my duplicate comments when I correct for typos of letter, grammar, & omission. He’s never so much as censored my comments before, so I’m surprised that he does so now via en-dashes.

    I came to this thread to present realism & pragmatism thru the “wild ass” of terse & stylized vernacular & colloquialism, in an effort to impose abreactive therapy thru reverse-reverse-reverse psychology! You really think I say “you all” all the time!?!

    ITT I maintain the same defiant tone while you all flip-flop, so my tactic seems to be working.

    Y’all be trippin’.

  105. Derek,

    LDSA has always been very helpful in deleting my duplicate comments when I correct for typos of letter, grammar, & omission. He’s never so much as censored my comments before, so I’m surprised that he does so now via en-dashes.

    To my knowledge, profanity has always been removed.

    The goal of this blog is to discuss the gamut of LDS doctrine and perspective. Also to be covered is the anarchic point of view, i.e., anarchism. The only moderation will be on spam, links to warez sites and profanity. Speak your thoughts and mind as you see fit, without fear of censorship. Opposing viewpoints will not be deleted.

    I could change the “–” that were put in place of the “ck” and the “ss” with * or $ if you’d like.

    I, for one, have found the comments on this thread quite fruitful. I thought the rhetoric was a bit over-the-top at times, but saw that mainly as a style choice for a certain effect.

  106. You can change “ck” to “ςκ”, and “ss” to “ſs” or “ß”, your choice.

    I’ll give you another choice, in the form of a response to Territorial Pissings’ Nirvana music video comment (or maybe I should just out who T.P., I. Willet deVale, & Narc wuz…):

    Or, at your option, the family friendly version:

    If the IRS is fake, then you won’t mind giving your social security number. I’ll start:

    My social security number is 323-80-9292.

  107. So if calling people mind controlled slaves and then abusive language doesn’t work you will turn to threats of harming people by revealing information which you know they don’t want made public?
    I think I missed it. Do you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ?
    Are you a member of the LDS church? Not that the two are the same thing. But I have a theory that soon many LDS will begin to do vicious things against others and all the while believe they are doing God’s will. Just wondering if that will be your next move. You might give the people on this blog a preview of coming attraction of the gentile church members of the US and why they will be ripe for being swept off the land as foretold in the Book of Mormon.
    We will wait and see.

  108. Fear not your own identity, Mr. Dyc.

    Anonymousdoes not exist, it is a stand-alone complex, a second-order simulacra. There is no starting it, and there is no stopping it, just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

    Mr. Dyc, please tell your buds in the Pentagon where you work that:

    We are Anonymous, we are Legion.
    We are the system, you cannot hide in the shadows any longer.
    We run this, and we will end this.

    We do not forgive.
    We do not forget.
    Expect us.

  109. BTW Derek the last time you made a duplicate comment (last week) it was myself as an editor on this site who eliminated the duplicate. I remember my feeling at the time. I was sincerely happy to be of a little tiny help to you. I did not even know that it had happened before. Contrary to your view of reality I am not your enemy. I have no ill will toward you. I don’t like anyone to threaten or do unkind things to their brothers and sisters, fellow children of God. Do you find fault with my feelings in this thing?
    Oh and how did you figure out that I work at the Pentagon? You must be really good at the computer.

  110. You are quite transparent, Mr. Dyc, deceiving only yourself. You obviously suffer from dissociative identity disorder (how differentiated you actually are is another matter).

    I did not just declare you my enemy, and you do not know my view of reality.

    You seem to infer thru the stable model semantic of “negation as failure” in programmable, non-monotonic, autoespistemic logic (if not knowledge of p, then not p [¬□p → ¬p]). Declarative logic provides discrete frameworks for automation of expert systems but proves unable to derive truth through knowledge representation alone. Truth is derived thru control flow of predicate logic of universal (∀) & existential (∃) signs. E.g.,

    ∃x(Philosopher(x) ∧ ∀y(Programmer(y) → x ≦ y))

  111. Hiya, Gang;

    Due to the vicissitudes of life, I’ve been unable to respond til now to certain statements by Young Derek which he left here going back to August 3rd, particularly the half-truths he has made in mischaracterizing the legal “troubles” of Joe Banister and Steve Hempfling of The Free Enterprise Society.

    Anyone relying on the scant and dated links provided by Brother Moore for a legal history of these events may as well be like those who, seeking insight into the character of Joseph Smith, limit themselves to a reading of E.D. Howe’s “Mormonism Unvailed” or back issues of The Warsaw Signal.

    Derek’s distortions do warrant a response, but I think In the interest of concision I’ll break my responses down in 3 or 4 separate postings so as to address each topic more or less separately. But first, I wish to postpone sparring with Young Derek for the time being so that I might address the wonderful and calming post back there of Narc’s on the topic of “truth” and “fact.”

    I agree with narc that all our efforts of trying to prove ourselves “right” are for naught if we couch our conversation in tones of arrogance and meanness. We do indeed argue for naught if we lose track of the reality that truth and love are inseparable, and Narc was correct in including me in his gentle rebuke.

    I regretted almost immediately referring to Derek indirectly as an idiot at the end of my piece on the 2nd at 12:07. Four years ago I resolved not to resort to ad hominem attacks in my discourse with others, and though that word was meant for emphasis rather than as a personal attack, it most likely came off as insulting rather than emphatic. So I repent of that.

    This is not to say, however, that these discussions should not continue to be spirited, or that I will not vigorously call my opponent out when I believe he “lies in wait to deceive” (as I have come to believe is his true purpose and desire here). It merely means that when I think Derek is coming off as a bit of a dick, I should just think that to myself rather than saying it out loud.

  112. A reader on this thread emailed me with a suggestion that I write up a piece elucidating my views on the law then submit it to LDS Anarchy for publication.

    Frankly, that sounds like a lot of work. But I don’t mind laying it out here in response to a claim made by Derek, since I was planning to respond to that anyway. In his August 3rd post at 9:39, Derek said, “We are not arguing opinions here, we are arguing fact.”

    I was thinking about this matter of “truth,” fact,” and “opinion” this morning while on my daily bike ride.

    In order to get to the American River bike trail here in Sacramento, it’s necessary to first maneuver through a quiet residential neighborhood on the way. Here and there in the neighborhood, I will come across a stop sign. I almost never stop.

    I rarely encounter any cars in this area; usually only joggers or fellow cyclists on their way to or from the bike trail. I notice none of them stop at the stop signs, either. In this quiet environment, we are able to determine whether someone else is, or will be, entering the intersection long before we reach it ourselves. Typically, I’ll stop peddling and slow down in case I have to brake, then after determining all is clear, I coast on through. This is the conventional mode of behavior while cycling in this area.

    I hadn’t thought of it before, but what I and my fellow cyclists are doing is no less than exercising our common-law right to travel unimpeded, as long as we are careful not to impede the liberty of anyone else. And we are very careful. No one blindly charges through that stop sign. All recognize it is there for a reason, and are completely aware of whether it is safe or not to continue on before doing so.

    I and my fellow cyclists recognize -you could say that we are of the OPINION- that it is not always necessary to stop at these signs. And this in spite of the FACT that there is almost certainly a city ordinance requiring bicycles to stop at all stop signs. (I say “almost certainly” because I have not bothered to look it up. But I’ll bet it’s there all the same.)

    I’ll go even further. This OPINION I hold, that I do not always have to stop at all stop signs when I am walking or riding my bike, is grounded on my knowledge of the FACT that the Common Law trumps inferior ordinances where no corpus delecti is present. I’ll explain why that is in a moment.

    Now, I wouldn’t think of rolling through a stop sign if I were driving in my car, for a couple of reasons. The first is safety. That stop sign is there so that I and anyone else entering the intersection can take turns. From my bike, in this peaceful environment, I can see and hear anything coming for some distance; from inside my car I could miss something.

    But the salient reason for stopping is that when I’m driving my car, I am not operating under the common law, so I do not have all my rights attendant to it. I’m operating under another set of rules; rules I agreed to abide by when I applied for my driver’s “license,” and that includes coming to a full stop at every stop sign, every time, no matter where.

    That’s why, when driving through the flatlands of rural Iowa some years ago, I came to a complete stop at a four way intersection in the middle of nowhere, even though I felt stupid doing so because I could see for miles in every direction and KNEW there was not going to be any one but me at the stop well before I arrived at the intersection. I could have cruised through in complete safety, but I was bound by a contract that adhered to the driver’s license carried on my person. In my car, I am not protected by the common law.

    As a licensed driver who sought permission from the State to travel, I am operating under a completely different set of rules sometimes known as Equity, and sometimes called Admiralty-Maritime, or The Law of the Sea. I am bound under the king’s law, not the people’s. I have to stop at a stop sign even if there clearly is no reason to.

    There is a maxim of law that states “Law is based on reason, logic, and common sense.” Well, we all know that’s no longer really true. Many laws today are capricious and confusing. But the common law is simple. In a nutshell, the common law guarantees you the right to do with your own life, liberty, and property whatever you please, so long as you don’t interfere with anyone else’s rights to the same. It also guarantees that the government cannot deprive you of those rights without careful due process proving you in some way deprived someone else of theirs.

    But if you do deprive another person of his rights at the common law, watch out. That’s when you’ll have to pay the piper.

    Here’s an example of the common law as it pertains to jaywalking:

    Suppose I’m walking down a street you are driving on, and I decide, without warning, to cross in the middle of the street, requiring you to slow down and perhaps even stop to avoid hitting me. I have just violated the law -the common law- because by forcing you to slow down, I have impeded your liberty. Yes, I only impeded it for a moment, but it is a violation of your liberty just the same, and illustrates the principle.

    Most likely you might just yell at me and keep going, but you would be fully justified in filing a complaint against me for violating your liberty. And I would be guilty. That’s why there is a law against jaywalking. Jaywalking is a common-law crime.

    Now suppose you didn’t see me in the road, and ran me over with your car. Under the common law, you are not at fault. I was responsible for using reason, logic, and common sense in that situation, and I failed myself by darting out onto a road which belongs to you, not me. Motorists have the right to use the roads by dint of the taxes they pay every time they purchase fuel and tires which go directly to creating those roads. Pedestrians have the right to walk along those roads, but we have no business darting out into the middle where you are. That’s your space.

    That’s why, over time, society developed regulations that allow pedestrians to cross at corners and at crosswalks. Those are the places pedestrians have the right of way. AND AT STOP SIGNS, where the prudent pedestrian will make certain any automobile entering that space has stopped to let him through.

    That’s why, conversely, if a motorist hits a pedestrian at a stop sign, the motorist is at fault for not stopping.

    Which brings us to whether or not a bicyclist should stop at a stop sign. The answer is yes. Under the proper circumstances, it would be prudent. But the only punishment that can attach to NOT stopping would be the natural result of his failure to watch out, i.e getting hit by a car. The government has no standing to punish disobedience to its decrees.

    If I, on my bike, sail through a one-way stop sign and get hit by a car, I am responsible for my own injuries because there was a stop sign there for me, and none for him. Furthermore, THERE WAS A CITY ORDINANCE SPECIFYING THAT BICYCLES MUST STOP AT ALL STOP SIGNS! So I should have stopped, shouldn’t I? Because if I had stopped, I would not have got hit by that car.

    Are you confused now? Didn’t I say earlier I didn’t think it was ever important for me to stop at stop signs when I’m on my bike?

    Nope. The difference in this case is that I didn’t stop and there was a car coming. That stop sign, along with the ordinance, serves to determine which party was “at fault” in that accident. It is important to be able to have a method by which the law is able to correctly assign blame, because without the ability to assign blame, there can be no justice. That is an ancillary purpose of regulating traffic.

    Had there been no stop sign and no ordinance, it could have been either one or both of us who was at fault, because there was no “regulation” to advise either of us whose turn it was to move forward. In the absence of regulations, there is chaos. Not always chaos at the scene, because as we’ve described, quite often the landscape is tranquil. But without a way to regulate, we can end up with chaos when it comes to dispensing justice.

    Seeing, however, that I should have stopped because I had the stop sign AND the ordinance AND MAINLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CAR COMING, I violated the common law, the common agreement by which we, as a society, tacitly agree to stay out of each other’s way. I’m at fault, and my broken bones and bruises are my punishment for it. Ouch.

    Also, I’m responsible for the damage my body did to the other guy’s car. So, double ouch.

    The Common Law is not a cake-walk. It does not free you from responsibility, it requires you to assume responsibility for yourself. The common law is fair, but it is harsh. Under the common law, YOU take the fall for your own stupidity.

    By “regulations,” incidentally, we mean a system for taking turns and stuff like that in order to avoid the chaos of everybody into the pool at once. That’s why, even on a bike, I would never ignore a red light. That is a system that regulates me and the other guy, assisting me in understanding that even if there are no cars coming, at this moment IT STILL IS NOT MY TURN.

    (And parenthetically, it’s worth mentioning that yes, I am in favor of teaching children to stop at all corners, crosswalks, and stop signs and carefully look both ways before stepping forward. However, by the time a child is an adult, it is presumed that several years of experience will have taught him that sometimes you can see when there is no danger approaching, and when it’s not really necessary to slacken your pace. If I were to see a grown man on foot -or on bike- who conscientiously came to a full halt at every stop sign he encountered and waited a few seconds before continuing, I would assume that person was either retarded, or that he had was a government-conditioned, “mind controlled slave.”)

    Now, let’s go back to our original scenario. I’m coasting through a stop sign on a quiet residential street with no cars, pedestrians, or other bikers in sight. But now a cop sees me and cites me for not stopping. I don’t argue with the cop. He is not trained in the common law; he thinks everyone resides in Admiralty like him. Did you ever wonder why there is so much nautical language in the world of traffic cops? On the land we have policemen; when operating under the Law of the Sea they become “officers” “on patrol” in “cruisers” -all 18th century nautical terms. This is not coincidental.

    But what law have I broken? None. In order to commit a crime, there must be a corpus delecti -the essence of the crime. Where is the offended party? Who has been harmed, injured, or damaged? Is there a dented fender on a car? Another biker I crashed into? Did I run over some old lady’s dog? Perhaps a complaint from another person that I had impeded their liberty?

    In order for there to be a crime, someone must have suffered a cause of action, there must be a complaint by an injured party or evidence demonstrating some harm or injury has taken place.

    But none has. That’s why the officer does not charge me with a crime. He can’t. He charges me with an “infraction.” I have infringed upon the city’s rules. I have bumped up against His Majesty the Corporation of the City of Sacramento.

    That’s right. It’s all designed to appear that you are being called up before a real law court, but traffic court is really just the pretend “legal” system of a private corporation.

    So I take the ticket from the officer, this ticket which alleges no crime whatsoever, and before the arraignment date I file papers In Propria Persona demanding the court prove jurisdiction. At what point, I want to know, did I willingly abandon the Common Law and agree to come under the jurisdiction of the corporate municipality known as The City of Sacramento?

    The long and short of it is that according to law, when jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven, and if that isn’t proven I don’t allow the case to go forward in their little playland. Most people don’t challenge the right of a corporate municipality to try a person. They are taught to believe the only choices they have are to plead guilty or not guilty, and once they do that they have unwittingly provided jurisdiction to the court to hear the case, by the mere act of going along with its procedures. But if you know how to stand your ground and remember you are a citizen AT law, not under it, you can keep them from taking your money, which is what all this fuss is about in the first place, anyway.

    Is this about “getting away with it?” Hell no. You cannot and should not escape justice if you have actually caused another person to suffer. Remember, I said the common law is harsh. But this isn’t the common law they’re trying to use against you. The city sends its pirates out on patrol not to protect you, but to rob you. City streets have become the waterways upon which the most lucrative crimes are committed today.

  113. Mr. Dyc isn’t the only person on this blog who conversates with his own multiple personalities. Old Waterboy does the same.

    With all this gaseous hot air Old Waterboy spews about riding bicycles something certainly stinks.

    Old Waterboy has his understanding of the law bass-ackwards.

    The moving party (or movant) has the burden of proof in court, but Old Waterboy claims the exact opposite (as is common among those initiated into the cult of tax fraud).

    Old Waterboy’s motion-not-a-motion in pro per would be rightly found to be without merit & prosecution would proceed.

    In over 90 percent of the reported cases where courts have ruled on motions to void or vacate for lack of personal jurisdiction, the party making the motion & bearing the burden of proof has lost.

    The same as Misters Hempfling & Banister have lost. Both of these nefarious characters have lost as recently as mid-to-late-2010, but, because they can’t seem to read, they declare themselves victorious. Well, I can read, and I declare them to be intentionally misleading & fraudulent.

    Back to the ridiculous subject of bike riding. I ride my bike on the sidewalks exclusively, anything else seems to me to be absurd & dangerous (it is dangerous enough riding my motorcycles around cars, I don’t wanna ride my bike around them). But in Kansas City a lot of people think it’s illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk, primarily because these people are ignorant & incorrect (like most of those in this thread).

    I happen to know, because I did look up the municipal code (because it’s so easy to do), that it is not illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk, and that, in fact, you are entitled to more legal rights & protections if you do ride your bike upon the sidewalks, and I quote: “A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.”

    So I ride my bike on the sidewalks, I hop the curbs, and I blow straight through stop signs without looking back (but after looking both ways), and all in the comfort of knowing I’m a pedestrian entitled to right-of-way.

    Y’all mofos need to wake the ϝնςκ up.

  114. This little conversation between Rock, Derek and a few others is very instructive indeed.

    I don’t want to distract from the train of thought which the participants are in, however, Rock’s little story about the bicycle triggered a thought and an associated question in my mind which I would love to get a response on from anyone who is willing.

    I recently read the following information about something referred to as “Jury Nullification”-


    (taken from 50 things you are not supposed to know)

    “In order to guard citizens against the whims of the King, the right to
    a trial by jury was established by the Magna Carta in 1215, and it
    has become one of the most sacrosanct legal aspects of British and
    American societies.

    We tend to believe that the duty of a jury is solely to determine whether someone broke the law. In fact, it’s not unusual for judges to instruct juries that they are to judge only the facts in a case, while the judge will sit in judgment of the law itself.


    Juries are the last line of defense against the power abuses of the authorities. They have the right to judge the law.

    Even if a defendant committed a crime, a jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict.

    Among the main reasons why this might happen, according to attorney Clay S. Conrad:

    When the defendant has already suffered enough,

    when it would be unfair or against the public interest for the defendant to be convicted,

    when the jury disagrees with the law itself…”

    My questions, for anyone willing to respond, are as follows-

    Do you agree that Jury Nullification used be a valid principle in the American legal system?

    If so, is it still? Even though judges no longer inform juries of this principle, does it remain a true principle?

    If in fact it remains a true principle of law, does it not suggest that even laws that are enacted, are not ultimately proven to be valid laws until they are tested by a jury in each and every situation where a person is brought to justice in a court of law?

    What are the ramifications, if any, of the above information, regarding the liability of paying taxes?

  115. It is indeed a valid concept, and still in force. The founders did not assume that the “checks and balances” within the 3 branches would be sufficient to keep the government from becoming tyrannical. The ultimate check would be through juries, which would be expected to simply not support any convictions the governments tried to lay upon someone violating its decrees.

    This worked very well regarding the fugitive slave laws. The law, which was upheld by the supreme court, said that slaves must be returned to their masters, and any white person refusing to do so could be punished and imprisoned.

    But there were a lot of Americans in the North who believed that slaves should be allowed get to freedom. So every time one of these persons was put on trial for breaking the law, the juries acquitted. There was no question that the defendant had “broken the law.” Didn’t matter. The jury said “not guilty.”

    Jury Nullification is THE MOST IMPORTANT safeguard we have against tyranny, and the only thing we have to do is educate the public that this principle exists. It was always a part of jury instruction, but some years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that judges were no longer required to tell juries about this power. Wanna know the reason given? It came down to everyone knows about it already anyway, so there is no reason to bring it up.

    Of course now, the judge and prosecutor will try to exclude from a jury anyone who exhibits knowledge of this, so you need to appear like a dumb sheep during Voi Dire. Once you get into the deliberation phase you can educate your fellow jurors. This has happened in countless tax cases, and it’s why we’re winning.

    Even if you can’t persuade your fellow jurors to acquit, all it takes is you. One juror can hang the jury. If YOU refuse to convict, there can be no conviction in a criminal trial, because the jury has to be unanimous.

    You can learn everything you need to know to be the kind of juror the founders meant you to be from the Fully Informed Jury Association at

    Red Beckman once told me something that really stuck. The IRS never put anyone in jail for failing to pay income taxes. The government never put anyone in jail. It was always the jury that was unaware of it’s power and duty.

    Juries are the best hope we have for taking our country back. They can’t take it from us as long as we refuse to imprison our patriotic brethren.

  116. There is a post on this blog that mentions jury nullification, entitled, Anarchy in action: congregational nullification.

    Rock’s story of the bicycle reminded me of an incident in my life many years ago I had a friend who beat traffic tickets all the time in the way that Rock explained. So, when I got a speeding ticket, my friend said he would handle it for me and I gave him the ticket, then both he and I forgot about it. So, then I got a notice about a failure to appear and my infraction turned into a misdemeanor. I forget all the details but I think by that time my license had expired, so I started driving without it. One day I got pulled over and when the cop checked my license, he found it had been suspended. He cited me for driving on a suspended license, even though it had already expired. Anyway, I finally found myself in court with a misdemeanor charge. I promptly dismissed my public pretender (defender is the word they use to call themselves) which pissed him off and I represented myself. I entered the court room, and when asked what I plead, I said I challenged the jurisdiction of the court because no complaint had been filed under penalty of perjury. The judge locked eyes with me immediately and it seemed to me that he knew what I was doing since my friend had been in court many times before doing the same thing. He then said some lies for the benefit of the audience present (I can’t remember what he said) and entered a plea of not guilty for me. The courtroom, having listened to the lies of the judge, was turned against me and everyone laughed at my incompetence. Despite their reaction, I walked out thinking I had caught the judget red-handed, because he lied in fron of the court reporter. I immediately went to get a copy of the transcript but to my chagrin, his lies had been struck from the record. I was dissappointed, but not phased. I then took a writ of habeus corpus to a higher court and awaited my next court date. I remember that almost all of my family and friends thought I was nuts and that I would be put in jail, etc. (Oh, yeah, I remember also that I had requested of the judge a trial by jury, which pissed him off.) Anyway, my friend, who had moved by this point but who had given me advice over the phone said not to worry, it won’t go to any further. I trusted him and left it at that. Besides, I had gone to the law library and done research in preparation for this, and I knew that without a complaint, my case was airtight. The day of my appearance showed up, but the room was empty except for the bailiff. We checked the list and couldn’t find my name anywhere. The charges against me had all been dropped.

  117. You did everything right, Anarchist, but it doesn’t surprise me that your family thought you were nuts. You do have to be prepared to look nutty to those not familiar with lawful procedure, but in the end, if you have all your ducks in a row, the case will disappear.

    Look at how our friend Derek responds to law and procedure he is unfamiliar with. When I hear something I’ve never heard before, I check it out to see if it has merit. I don’t angrily reject it out of hand and insult the messenger as he consistently does. But that just may be the difference between the curious person and the incurious one.

    Or, it’s the difference between someone who thinks he already knows all there is to know, and the person who is keen on learning something new.

    An example of our friend’s proclivity for missing the point is the posting from him that arrived in my mailbox today. He scoffs at me about “the ridiculous subject of bike riding,” and goes on to say, “I ride my bike on the sidewalks exclusively, anything else seems to me to be absurd & dangerous.”

    Well yes, the law is different in his state. Here in Sacramento, riding on the sidewalk is the thing that’s considered dangerous, and the law does not allow it. In Kansas where he abides, bike riders are treated the same as pedestrians. Here we are treated like cars. We can even ride in the middle of a lane if we want, but happily the town is riddled with bike lanes.

    Anyway, rather than absorbing the point of that long essay I wrote, Derek went on about how much smarter he is than I am because he rides his bike on the sidewalk.

  118. Old Waterboy,

    Your comment was so off-base, so full of conjecture & hypothetical happenstance & mind games, that I could barely read it. Who can blame me for having only skimmed the article before responding to such nonsense? I’ve gone back now and read it thoroughly just to make sure I didn’t miss anything… I didn’t… miss anything, and I still can’t see a point to your long “essay”. Since your whole speel is based entirely in the hypothetical, I have to assume that your understanding of the law has no practical basis.

    It sucks for you that you continue to reside in a place where “no person shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk except within a residence district…” But it would also appear that, in the quiet neighborhood situation you outlined, riding your bike on the sidewalk is considered neither illegal nor dangerous. (Also, there is nothing in your city code about bikes in bikeways being treated like cars.)

    I, myself, wouldn’t live in such a place in the first place. You subject yourself to Sacramento’s substantive law by just being there. (Btw, you’re totally wrong about where this dude abides.)

    California has ruined the lives of everyone I’ve known to have gone there. Maybe you shouldn’t move to Kansas City. Endure to the end in California & stay ’til it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

    Your whole theory on the Law of the Water is a mishmash of mishap. Riding in cars & traffic courts are not what you make them out to be.

    LDSA did not do everything right. Habeas corpus is a writ for those imprisoned, not a writ for those irrationally a’pheer’d of prison. You can actually get in trouble for spurious orders & filings in law courts. I’d prefer to apply Occam’s razor here. Judges are very friendly & helpful people in my experience. Either the judge took pity on LDSA not wanting him to get more serious contempt charges as a result of wrongly fighting some very old tickets, or the prosecutor couldn’t make a case by having the issuing officer available to testify; either way the case made its way into a routine dismissal docket. Having a case dismissed because the prosecutor can no longer make a case because certain officers are no longer employed is pretty common, and it implies nothing about the correctness of your baseless legal theories.

  119. I’m coming to learn that I have to be extraordinarily precise where Derek is concerned, or he will read into my statements things that I did not intend.

    In the interest of concision, I mentioned only Sacramento law, but when I said that where I live, bikes are treated like cars, I was referring to state law. While I admitted to not bothering to look up a specific statute relating specifically to stop signs in Sacramento, I was, as the context of my words would demonstrate, aware of the state requirements that bicycles be treated as cars. In a general way, of course, as the last clause here infers:

    CVC 21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division… except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

    When one follows the leads of course, exemptions are discovered, but that is the general law in California. There is a movement to change the law so that bikes must merely yield, and I could have included that too, but again, all that was irrelevant to my point.

    In regards to LDS Anarchist’s win, we sometimes have no idea why a traffic case disappears, but I have no doubt that by having all his ducks in a row, the Anarchist’s chances of a lucky disposition were greatly enhanced. Certainly, if the officer failed to show, that would mean dismissal, and dismissal is always the first goal. I personally prefer dismissal to pursuing a major federal question in the higher courts, but if the traffic court fails to dismiss on any of the other reasons I provide for it, I am prepared to go all the way up.

    But Anarchist said that when he arrived, his case was not even on the docket, so I would rule out absence of officer as being the reason. We don’t learn whether an officer is present or not until the case is called. Most likely it disappeared because the questions raised in his memorandum were too hot. No lower court judge -and no prosecutor- wants certain questions of authority raised when he cannot answer them.

    On the topic of major federal questions, I’ll spell it out, because my worthy correspondent admits to not seeing the point. The major federal question I set up in all my cases is this: By what precise mechanism did I move from the common law into Equity?

    In other words, in a situation where no person or property has been damaged, where did the city assume power to exact punishment upon a live person who claims all the rights of an American Citizen?

    Of course, in most traffic cases, the answer is simple. The accused person unwittingly allows it.

  120. By the way, there is nothing mysterious or underhanded about a traffic case like this “disappearing.” It’s not as if the judge sneaked the paperwork out under his robe and took it home to destroy it.

    Anarchist did, after all, challenge the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, he demanded to know by what right the city had to call him, an American citizen at the common law, to answer to one of its officer’s charges.

    “Once jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven” (Jagens v. Levine). A court that cannot prove jurisdiction has no authority to move forward or rule on the merits (Melo v. U.S), so the appropriate response the court should have is “Oh, this one doesn’t belong in this venue” and it is simply dropped from the docket.

    Of course, most traffic court “judges” are not really judges at all, but City Commissioners. Some of them can be really ignorant of any law and procedure outside of their daily experience, and will move forward and try the case anyway. As long as the accused gets his objections on the record, he will most likely win on appeal, as “a judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity.” (Sramek v. Sramek).

    Naturally, you have to know how to file the appropriate papers, and you have to do it timely, BEFORE arraignment. As I’ve said before, Derek knows nothing about any of this, and that is why he insists it cannot work. I think he would make a lovely traffic court commissioner.

  121. On the matter of Joe Banister, the former IRS criminal investigator who flipped when he realized he had been working for the wrong side:

    In a previous post I stated that “The government recently tried to shut him up, but he won all those battles and he’s more potent than ever.”

    Derek responded with three links, smugly asking, “Are you sure Joe Banister never loses?”

    Oh my. I guess I’m going to have to start taking my own advice and being absolutely precise in my statements here.

    Of course, I never said Joe Banister never “loses.” He is unquestioningly the biggest thorn in the side of the IRS today, and they have been throwing obstacles in his way for the better part of a decade. But I was not referring to the petty attempts by the IRS to prevent Joe pursuing work as a tax accountant. All those hearings and complaints were administrative attempts to slow him down. Of course there are administrative judgments against Joe in the beginning. Look at the dates on some of those documents. But in the where it counted, it was Joe Banister who triumphed.

    Because I think it’s a fascinating account, I’ll include the story of that win in a separate posting. But because Derek P. Moore appears so so intent on leaving readers of this thread with the impression that Joe Banister is wrong and the government is right, it would be instructive to take a look at the full story.

    Joe had become one of the Service’s most potent critics, as he had once been a key player in the belly of the beast. Here’s what he said about their efforts to silence him:

    “One of the earliest attempts to derail my efforts was to deny through its public affairs office in San Jose that I ever even worked in the agency’s criminal investigation division. Later, the IRS attempted to destroy my otherwise excellent professional reputation as well as my livelihood because my efforts to expose the agency’s wrongdoing were apparently hitting their mark.”

    “Another one of the retaliatory campaigns the IRS waged against me was an attempt to prevent me from assisting clients with their IRS disputes. As I assisted various clients, I successfully exposed numerous false and fraudulent aspects of IRS payment demands against those clients. Eventually, the IRS accused me of engaging in disreputable conduct in connection with two of those clients and later made further accusations relating to alleged willful failure to make income tax returns but during the administrative proceedings blocked not only my own testimony and nearly all of my evidence, but blocked testimony from the very clients I was alleged to have disreputably served as well.”

    These so-called “wins” the IRS went got against Banister were the result of attempts to prevent him from being able to represent his clients at hearings held in IRS buildings. This is known as an “IRS lockout” and it is one way the Service engages in to force a citizen to appear for a hearing without his proper representative in the room. In their efforts to paint Joe as not competent to represent clients at IRS hearings, the government engaged in an endless array of dirty tricks and illegal ploys. Hearings were set to make the determination.

    Despite claims that the proceedings against him were for the protection of the public, the administrative law judge ordered that his hearing be held on Coast Guard Island, a military installation in San Francisco Bay virtually sealed off from the public. Fortunately, the administrative law judge received faxes, emails, and telephone calls from concerned citizens across the country asking why a proceeding for the protection of the public was being convened away from public view. The administrative law judge eventually reversed his order and relocated the proceedings to the San Francisco federal building.

    Unfortunately, the new surroundings did not change the “star-chamber” styled proceedings, but his persecutors’ contempt for the public’s interest in his case became more and more apparent. The administrative law judge later ruled that Banister shouldn’t even have a hearing at all and moved directly to a “sanction” (punishment) proceeding. During the sanction proceeding, the only government witness to testify under oath against him perjured himself on the witness stand. Not at all phased by such lying conduct, the administrative law judge arrived at his “initial decision” that Banister be prohibited from formally assisting clients with IRS matters.

    Banister appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, which was the next step in the appellate process. When the decision was rendered nearly 6 months after his appeal was submitted, Banister was stunned to see that Secretary Snow handed over his decision-making authority back to the IRS, specifically IRS lawyers in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. Thus, HIS APPEAL WAS HEARD BY THE VERY AGENCY THAT HAD LODGED THE COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Gee, I wonder if Joe lost that because he was in the wrong, or because the other side cheated?

    But all of this is penny-ante administrative nonsense. All it pertains to is locking him out from representing his own clients in simple administrative hearings. The big nasty was when the IRS and their enforcers in the U.S. Department of Justice apparently decided that the only suitable response to silence a whistleblower once and for all is with a criminal prosecution. In the hopes of putting Banister in prison for several years, they charged him with several counts of criminal wrongdoing. THAT is the battle Banister won, the battle I was referring to, and the battle Derek Moore hopes to distract you from knowing about.

    In spite of Banister’s big win, the service has exacted some petty rulings in the administrative arena. What I find most disconcerting about Derek’s response of August 3rd is his how he gloats when evil has managed to triumph. What kind of person is Derek, really?
    He would want you to have the opinion that every time the bad guys win, it means the good guy was wrong. Of course, the truth is nothing like that.

    There is no dishonest method those government lawyers would not employ in order shut the mouth of someone exposing their subterfuge. Why in the world would a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, ever want to identify with of such evil men and against a true hero of our time?

    Joe Banister’s efforts have been sincere and unselfish from the beginning. As he has written:

    * “I sacrificed a great deal both professionally and financially to become a federal agent in the first place. My wife, my children, and I endured many months being apart from one another during my federal agent training. We endured many thousands of dollars in reduced compensation to take the IRS special agent job in the first place.”

    * “When confronted with claims that the IRS was illegally taking money from people and bypassing or outright violating their rights, I diligently investigated those claims because I believed I had a moral, ethical, and legal duty to do so.”

    * “I resigned from a position I worked so hard to achieve and forfeited significant salary, benefits, and pension entitlements all because I knew that I had an obligation to speak up about the injustices I had investigated.”

    * “I have spent thousands of hours trying to expose, and put a stop to, IRS abuse, putting myself at great personal and professional risk, and my wife and children have endured significant uncertainty and hardship as well.”

    Nevermind any of that. Derek P. Moore has declared Joseph R. Banister a loser. That’s all you’re supposed to know.

  122. Below is the full account of Joe Banister’s acquittal last year on all four charges. It was written by John Turner, himself a former IRS agent out of the Sacramento office. For those interesting in learning how to make themselves judgment proof against the agency, there are several clues within the article.

    Take special note of the Christlike attributes Joe displays toward his persecutors:

    At approximately 2 p.m. on the 14th floor of the Federal Court Building in Sacramento, California, Joe Banister supporters got word that the judge had received a note from the jury and quickly moved from the hallway into the courtroom. He announced that the jury had reached a unanimous decision.

    The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”. Carol Delaney, assistant prosecutor in the case, was not in attendance at the verdict.

    Very telling at that moment was the absence of the many IRS employees that had been in attendance during the trial.

    In victory, Joe Banister, honorable and unpretentious man that he is, walked over to the government’s side and shook the hands of the two IRS CID special agents who had investigated him, as well as the government’s lead attorney, Mr. Twiss. Also very telling, Sean Breslin, the special agent in charge, stood looking at Joe with a big smile and tears in his eyes.

    The trial began on Tuesday, June 14. The charges were:

    1) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and

    2) Aiding and Abetting in the Preparation of False and Fraudulent Returns.

    The government alleged that Banister had impeded and impaired the ascertainment, assessment, and collection of tax, and that he
    had criminally conspired with Al Thompson in so doing.

    The charges were related to Joe’s association with Redding businessman, Walter “Al” Thompson, where Joe, as a CPA, prepared
    amended Form 1040X tax returns for three tax years. The returns were a calculated protest and every effort was made by Al and Joe
    to adhere to written and verbal guidance they sought and received from the IRS.

    Key evidence in the trial were two video tapes. The first tape was about 2 hours in length had been filmed at Cencal Aviation, the
    business of Walter “Al” Thompson, in July of 2000.

    Mr. Thompson had researched the law and concluded that he was not an “employer” as defined within Title 26, the income tax code, nor was he required to withhold money from the paychecks of those who worked for him. He called this meeting so as to inform his 25 employees of this decision to stop withholding from their paychecks, and invited Joe Banister, former IRS CID special agent, to assist him in communicating to the employees.

    Also in attendance was Mr. David Cay Johnson, 30 year veteran of covering tax issues and writing articles for the New York Times,
    whom he had invited only the day before.

    Of interest was the fact that this tape was introduced into evidence by the government, not Mr. Banister. Viewing the content of
    the tape, which greatly favored Mr. Banister, one would question the judgment of the government.

    What had happened in pre-trial wrangling was that the government had lost their bid to keep that piece of evidence out. In a
    strategy that is common for such circumstances, the government probably thought that they could do 2 things to try and minimize
    the evidence: be the one that introduced the evidence instead of the defense and do it early in the trial so that the jury might
    forget about it as the trial concluded.

    Whatever it was, their strategy failed. The so-called “Cencal Aviation” tape was replayed for the jury during their deliberation after all evidence was in, and in post-verdict interviews, jurors who would consent to talk with us admitted that this evidence
    was extremely important in persuading the jury’s decision for Mr. Banister. The second viewing was key in swinging the remaining 4-5 jurors who still were not voting to acquit.

    The tape covered a lot of ground, but a partial summary is as follows: Joe Banister explained how he came to be employed by the IRS and what caused him to have to resign nearly 6 years later. He emphasized that he was not there to tell people what to think or what to do but merely to tell them what he learned and what he was doing about his discovery. “What he was doing” included asking the government to demonstrate the error of his analysis which started with the 95-page report he submitted to his supervisor, Robert Gorini, with
    the request that it go to the “top” for a response. The response was administrative leave and inevitable resignation and the reply
    that the government would not address his questions.

    The other tape was a deposition of Banister’s former manager, Robert Gorini, in Washington, D.C., who retired from the IRS in
    early 2000, less than a year after Mr. Banister resigned from the IRS by Banister’s attorney, Jeffrey Dickstein.

    Mr. Gorini had nothing but good things to say about Joe’s character, his work as a criminal IRS investigator and many other areas.

    The very last question by Dickstein was to ask Gorini if he could name the law that required Mr. Banister to file income tax
    returns and pay income tax, to which Mr. Gorini replied that he could not. This tape was a huge credibility boost for Joe with the jury.

    A key element in the charges was “willfulness” and the jury unanimously concurred that Joe, right or wrong in his beliefs about
    aspects of tax law administration, truly believed the things which caused him to resign.

    A highly interesting item of a technical nature was concerning the discussion on the subject of Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure.

    At the conclusion of the government’s presentation of their case, the defense moved for dismissal of all charges and effectively
    and persuasively convinced the judge that the government had failed to make it’s case, that is, it had failed to provide evidence
    to prove it’s case that matched the charges against Banister.

    It appeared that the judge was very tempted to dismiss and might very well do so, however, he ultimately displayed his unwillingness to allow the government to be in a position of losing with no chance of appeal. The judge knew this was a very high-profile case with potentially serious adverse effects for the government should it lose.

    The government’s case was astoundingly weak and it was apparent that the proper thing to do was to dismiss charges. But that did not happen.

    The defense began arguing early Friday morning and played the
    “Gorini” deposition to start. The judge gave a 15 minute recess and upon everyone’s return, directed Mr. Dickstein proceed. Mr.
    Dickstein shocked everyone by quietly announcing, “Your Honor, the defense rests”.

    The judge stared at him for several seconds as if speechless. Finally, he inquired as to why Dickstein, knowing the calendar of events, had not given the court a “heads up” about this short defense and premature resting.

    The judge knew that the defense was potentially going to present witnesses and expected Mr. Banister would probably testify on his
    own behalf. Now, with the defense suddenly and unexpectedly completed, there was a hole in the day’s schedule. No problem.

    There were more “Rule 29” issues to discuss outside the presence of the jury and the all-important need to come to agreement on the subject of jury instructions. The jury had been dismissed until Tuesday morning so as to allow plenty of time to complete business before bringing the jury back.

    Friday afternoon, June 17, had to be excruciatingly painful for the government attorney’s. The jury instructions they presented to
    Judge Shubb were so poor that he gave them a severe tongue-lashing and pleaded with them, “help me out”. While not in the presence of the jury, he said he would be embarrassed if he had to give those instructions to the jury. He also said, “I hope you have been
    humbled enough by my earlier comments to become motivated to do better.”

    Judge Shubb said many interesting, perhaps curious things during the week. Once, he uttered, “the law is uncertain.” Attorney Dickstein
    softly suggested to the judge that he should not be uncertain. Another time he declared that no one reads the Internal Revenue Code
    from cover to cover and that anyone who claims to have done that should be in the “nuthouse”.

    The judge, prone to temper tantrums and shouting when someone
    displeased him, all in all, was fair in the conduct of the trial, occasionally displaying a sense of humor. He saw two very
    skilled, well-prepared defense lawyers and his disappointment in the performance of the government attorneys was apparent at certain times.

    Brilliant legal work by the law office of Robert Bernhoft was also key in Mr. Banister’s acquittal. The trial lawyers, Robert Bernhoft, a Constitution Party member from Wisconsin, and Mr. Jeffrey Dickstein, a seasoned lawyer well-versed in criminal tax defense, recognized the complete lack of evidence to support the government’s case and wisely decided that it would add nothing to have witnesses and Banister testify.

    In any event, they felt they were well positioned should the need to appeal later come into play. I am certain that the government
    was counting on the opportunity to bolster their weak case by being able to fish around with Mr. Banister on the stand.

    It didn’t happen and the two video tapes entered into evidence overwhelmingly portrayed Banister as credible, honest, intelligent, sincere, honorable, and believable.

    Mr. Banister’s courtroom supporters were numerous. He enjoyed the comfort of many family members, as well as supporters who
    traveled from as far away as Georgia and Florida, and have come to see him as a patriot and hero for his courageous stand. Mr. Banister and his family have felt the stress of Joe having to prepare for his defense and found great joy and relief at the news of his aquittal.

    Joseph Banister’s efforts to get the government to answer his concerns and questions about the income tax include several trips to
    the nation’s capital, where he has often been accompanied by many others who hold similar views, including former IRS revenue agent
    Sherry Jackson and former IRS revenue officer John Turner. He is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, which has been organized by Robert Schulz, founder of “We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.”, of Queensbury, New York (

    “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and and only legitimate object of good government.”– Thomas Jefferson


  123. The moving party, the movant, the one requesting the court to move has the burden of proof. Old Waterboy wants us to file motions challenging jurisdiction without being able to prove lack of jurisdiction, this is backwards & wrong & will get you trouble. I already addressed this previously.

    Thanks for quoting the California Vehicle Code, Old Waterboy, my little ruse to force you to look things up worked.

    How about you use your pet theories to keep your bike off the streets and on the sidewalks where it belongs (since it should apply equally well).

  124. You did not force me to look up the vehicle code. I already knew about that one; My reference was to city ordinances. I would think that by now you would understand that I have a pretty good grasp of the CVC. My two volumes are pretty ragged from use.

    As for your incessant harping on this matter of motions, and that the burden of proof is on the movant, perhaps you are unaware that the officer’s complaint represents the first motion in a traffic matter. The challenge of jurisdiction is a challenge to that motion’s propriety. Your inference that before challenging jurisdiction, the accused must first “prove lack of jurisdiction,” is just plain silly. The accused has to prove nothing. The burden is on the complainant.

    If you continue to have trouble with this concept, perhaps someone else here could explain it to you. I grow tired.

  125. That which is bound by law is perfected by the same, all are under condemnation who receive not the light as also the law. Every space has a law and every law has a space. The Lord has made you free in HIS law and you are perfected in the same. The days of your probation are now to end and that which is filthy shall remain filthy and that which is clean shall remain clean. In the spirit you have confidence and are secure, if you have not love one for another you shall be cast out both root and branch.
    Take up your cross and you shall be perfected in HIS law, fear not man and his judges for they are nothing. The law has been sealed and the testimony bound, as a tempest of hail, as a destroying storm as a flood of hidden waters. The rebellious and unlawfull shall fall backwards, be broken and snared. The spirit is now being poured out upon all flesh, the great division is now takeing place.
    The Lords strange act is now upon us all, learn to act in the righteousness of your foreordination and the very elements shall obey your command and what shall man do?
    You have the law and the testimony before you, you shall now be empowered, You that are unlearned, dispised and weak shall now thrash the nations by the Lords spirit you are the Lords arm and HIS arm is your arm and who shall stand against you? Their thousands shall flee from you they shall not stand. They shall be as coals under your feet and burned therewith. Never the less have love for all men, they shall be shut up and not visited for many days until they have payed the uttermost.
    And even I am a lawyer a great big lawyer and compteplate heaven and hell. Neither do I trifle with the foolish lest their bands be made strong and I emplore you the same, Go forward in your confidence and you shall be the salt of the earth to set in order all things. Soon all things shall be made clear to you for even now is the renting of the vail. Sincerely Brand Nu

  126. Oh good, The One Mighty & Strong has appeared in the form of brandnull… Here’s hoping he’s not one of Mr. Dyc’s or Old Waterboy’s alters… Is that you, Hamahdi?

  127. From the Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Other Relief by the Brown family (of TLC’s Sister Wives fame):

    In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928):
    Associate Justice Louis Brandeis described “the right to be left alone” as “the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” It is the right embodied in the protections of association, religion, speech, and privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

    I had said earlier how “It’s always interesting to decide who is the one making the claim in disagreements,” and thus who has the burden of proof.

    I think it all boils down to what we are going to say is the assumed state of things:
    Is the assumed state that the State has jurisdiction over/claim on my income or me traveling in a bike or car on a public roadway?
    Or is the assumed state that I have complete freedom to retain all of my income and to be able to travel as I see fit?

    If the former — then I agree with Derek. The State can pass whatever laws they wish (since the legislative process is approved by the constitution, anything that comes out of the legislator is valid until challenged and proven otherwise) and the burden is on me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not have claim on me in that issue.

    If the latter — then I agree with Rock. The State must have to surpass the burden of proof (showing they actually do have claim on/jurisdiction over me in that instance) before I can be compelled to submit. They may frame things as though I have to submit, but it’s all just in a ruse to get me to voluntarily give over my sovereign rights (b/c they haven’t surpassed the burden of proof to show they have jurisdiction).

    I usually go along with what Derek has written. I guess you could call it me not wanting to “make waves” and draw attention to my family — but I buckle up, I don’t speed, I have registration/inspection, I file a tax return (never have paid taxes though, too poor), etc. I guess I could research like others have and try to find ways to fight it — but what do I win?

  128. As I was thinking more about this topic — I thought about the church’s doctrine of confession of “serious” sin. The same dynamic applies there. Church leaders have jurisdiction over sinners when there are two or more witnesses who can testify to unrepentant sin.

    Since establishing such a jurisdiction can be difficult for leaders to do, they have instead focused on getting members to think they must voluntarily step forward with confessions — thereby giving the church jurisdiction over the member. They teach that you ought to “voluntarily” do something that you “have to do”.

  129. Good analogy regarding the church and confession, Justin.

    On your previous post, it should be pointed out that a great many people acquiesce to the demands of the state for taxes because the state has made it difficult not to. For example, it may jeopardize their very livelihood if they resist the IRS’s unlawful demands.

    But this shouldn’t be mistaken as the state actually having authority over you. If you ran a little shop in New York and were threatened with the loss of your business if you didn’t pay monthly protection money to the mob, you might find it wiser to pay the protection. But that doesn’t put the mob in the position of being right. It only puts it in the position of being more powerful than you.

    I don’t have a problem with common sense things like seat belts. I would never be without one. But I have a problem with a government that thinks it has the right to punish anyone “caught” without wearing one. The very reason seat belts are sensible is how the public allowed the state to get away with enforcing a law against not wearing one.

    I don’t blame anyone for “going along” for the sake of protecting themselves and their family from harm or loss. Plenty of people who know the truth continue to file and pay taxes even though they don’t like knowing that by doing so they are contributing to the destruction of their country.

    We live in an increasing police state. Sometimes you do what you gotta do. But we should always be resisting, if only in the form of educating ourselves and others that things are not supposed to be this way. Where I part ways with Brother Derek is with his insistence that since the mob has taken over, it must be god’s plan to let them have the run of my shop; that, and his angry insistence that those who believe the mob should be resisted are dangerous mind-controlled slaves.

  130. You all are sooo in touch with reality:

  131. Yes, and you are soooo not in touch with anything.

  132. So, here’s a question for Rock and Derek: If someone has never filed an income tax return in his or her entire life, should they start to file (self-assessment) or just continue to wait until the state assesses them?

  133. Two can play at this game, and you just lost it!

    PS: LDSA, your question is irrelevant. What is more important are the falsifiable statements made by the participants of this blog, like the Conference Center being engulfed in an earth quake or a quorum of planets entering our solar system.

    PPS: Justin, that was not a good analogy. All of this rests upon one thing: honesty (which is inseparable from truth). I’ll get to that more later since this thread will never end…

  134. Those that are in the gall of bitterness have forsaken the light and there is no light within but a great darkness! And how great is that darkness? They shall call good evil and evil good and unless they speedily repent shall be cast out with weeping and wailing and the misery thereof. All those that uphold the kingdom of the devil shall be a part thereof, with cords of vanity they are bound in that great and spacious building. The highth the width and the depth you know not, how shall ye be found? Who shall bring you? Nay but ye shall be lost untill the gates of hell be opened before the judgement bar of GOD. Even then shall ye say ” let us be extinct that we may not look upon HIS glory”!Verily verily I say unto one as unto all the enemy is no longer in the secret chambers but roars over all the earth!
    Nevertheless your deliverance is nigh, the heavens are now shaking for your sakes, the LORDS arms are being revealed even now this very moment before all the earth and they on the earth shall see the salvation of your GOD. Those that honor their covenants and magnify their priesthood in the face the enemy shall be empowered.The King of Kings even the great Jehovah is now in your midst administering to your quickening,Ephraim that was hid from the world shall now come forth to bring forth the Zion of our GOD.Doubt not and you shall be lifted up even in HIM.
    Oh GOD even the Father of all, bring forth your young warriors even those that you have placed in reserve, those from afar that no man knoweth. Bring forth you aged warriors, that their wisdom shall be manifest even from the foundations. Even these that have retained their post, They that have sounded the warning and behold the enemy from afar, the valiant ones upon the Towers. Father I pray for them that the enemy shall have no power over them but shall be bound with everlasting chains.
    These oh Father even the sons of God whom I respect even these whom have been sealed by the Holy spirit of promise, I pray for, that they should now come forth with the power of thy spirit to thrash the nations even this the “little horn” that maketh war with thy “Saints”. Thy paths shall be made straight for thy young warriors and who shall stand before them? Amen

  135. Derek:

    PPS: Justin, that was not a good analogy. All of this rests upon one thing: honesty (which is inseparable from truth). I’ll get to that more later since this thread will never end…

    Are you saying that my example was not a good analogy b/c filing tax returns, obeying all traffic signs, and confessing serious transgressions to ecclesiastical leaders are all a matter of honesty? Full-disclosure and full-compliance = honesty, and therefore truth?

    Re: the LDS “law of confession”, I’ve always thought that confession was supposed to be followed by forgiveness and reconciliation [not informal or formal punishments, like the State would do] — how can the church use a member’s confession of sin as evidence to convict?

    The law of witnesses is given b/c of the danger of unrepentant sin among justified believers in Christ — meaning members who aren’t honest enough to confess to leaders. Two or more witnesses testify to their unrepentant sin to move them towards confession, so they may be forgiven.

    If they’re honest enough to confess, then shouldn’t they immediately receive forgiveness?

    Also, what are your thoughts on the Olmstead v. United States “right to be left alone”? Do you think that it applies to any of the issues being discussed on this never-ending thread or no?

    P.S. — “This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on-and-on my friends. Some people started commenting, not knowing what it was, and they’ll continue commenting forever just because…This is the thread that never ends…

  136. I’m really starting to like this brandnull guy… Maybe he & I should start a ska band… I’ll play baritone saxophone.

    PS: It’s hard for people who are lying to themselves to understand the true principles of honesty.

    PPS: Whatever case you’re citing decided that wiretapping was not search & seizure (because employment of the sense of hearing alone does not constitute search of a premises or property), this decision was overruled by Katz v. United States when wiretapping was ruled to be a search & seizure which violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. Little do you know that today procedural rules are loop-holed to engage in warrantless pen registers & wiretaps on the whole of the US population. Information gathered will never be entered into evidence, it is gathered for intelligence purposes alone to build up social networks of involvement, it is used to pinpoint when and where real investigations & warranted evidence gathering should occur. (Or it could be used to identify how many pseudonyms are tied to single individuals on this blog. I’m sure Mr. Dyc & his CI officer buds in the Pentagon can tell us all about it & more.)

  137. I don’t see how Anarchist’s question is irrelevant at all, Derek. You simply changed the subject because you don’t want to address it.

    The code requires the Secretary to file and assess the tax. As long as the Secretary has not done so, the individual has no obligation to. Remember the constant reminder’s that filing is voluntary? They want you to voluntarily file because the Secretary only has the authority to file for certain “persons”, not normally the average wage-earner. Getting you to file yourself is the way around that sticky prohibition in the law.

    So in the case of someone who has never filed, the wise thing to do would be to continue not to. It is not against the law to sit home watching TV on April 15th doing nothing.

    He should wait until the Secretary files for him. Several things can happen. Usually, the person at the Service who files a Substitute for Return does not have the proper delegation of authority going back to the Secretary to do so, so that makes it null and void. Secondly, it has to be done on a 23C form AND signed by the secretary or his delegate under penalty of perjury. They never use that form, and they never sign it. They’re not as stupid as they look. No individual agent wants to take the responsibility of guaranteeing under penalties of perjury that the form they made out for you is true and correct.

    So, null and void again. Substitutes for Return are filed all the time in hopes that the non-filer will fold, but without a signature it’s meaningless. Often they’ll even fill it out and ask you to sign it! I suppose there are enough fools out there who will.

    The law is written for the IRS to obey. When they fail to follow the law, they’ve got nothing.

    BTW, Justin’s argument regarding confession is spot on. I notice when something comes along that Derek can’t answer, he just waives it away and calls you stupid for bringing it up, then continues on with a collection of irrelevancies of his own, such as the photos of looting in London. Perhaps he should take a closer look at the link he provided to “The Game.” It’s trying to tell him something.

    There’s an excellent explanation of the law of confession elsewhere on this forum, but I’ll leave it to DYC or the Anarchist find it and link to it.

  138. Old Waterboy couldn’t be further from the truth, which is what I can only expect from someone who so thoroughly lies to himself while persistently evading reality (I’m beginning to think plaques have built up in his brain, creating his alters, & diminishing his capability of reason).

    TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration, CHAPTER 61—INFORMATION AND RETURNS, Subchapter A—Returns and Records, PART II—TAX RETURNS OR STATEMENTS, Subpart A—General Requirement, § 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

    (a) General rule
    When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

    Subpart B, Income Tax Returns (§§ 6012—6017A), goes on to specify the general rule, making exceptions to the filing requirement for the different classes where income is below certain thresholds. (To short circuit the circuitous logic that is bound to come up, I have already provided cites for who qualifies as “any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title”, and, to avoid the semantics, those upon whom a tax is imposed, levied, or laid are liable.)

    I’ve researched this quite thoroughly in the past. I first came across this B.S. in 1999, and I first began researching it myself in 2006.

    The crux of the issue is this: the IRS can only prosecute you criminally if you refuse to file when required or if your filing is falsified.

    If you file correctly & you owe but don’t pay then the IRS cannot criminally prosecute you, they can only get summary judgments & liens against you as any other creditor can.

    After you file, & if you owe, the IRS has 10 years to collect before their right to collection expires. If you don’t file, & if they owe, you only have 3 years to file & collect before you have to employ loopholes to get at your “saved” money. If you don’t file, & if you owe, the IRS’ right to collection is indefinite.

    When Old Waterboy ignorantly declares I’m wrong I’ll provide citations for this to prove I’m correct.

    This is the reason why Joseph Banister continues to file against disbursements from his retirement account. I’ve already presented the one judgment & assessment against him in the Tax Courts for failure to file in 2002. That there are not further judgments against Mr. Banister in the Tax Courts in this matter is proof that he has resumed filing as he is required (his tax-deferred retirement account distributes more than the minimum threshold for not filing).

    This B.S. Old Waterboy spews is a conspiracy to entrap you & to enable confiscation of your property through liens & tax sales in life or in death. He is obviously senile & he should be ignored (as should his alters). His advice is bad, and he is misinformed.

    I linked to the kids in London because they know what they’re doing & they’re honest with themselves about the consequences.

    Tax protesters should take some tips from the anti-globalization movement & stop playing these mind games of semantics.

  139. Derek you said
    “PS: LDSA, your question is irrelevant. What is more important are the falsifiable statements made by the participants of this blog, like the Conference Center being engulfed in an earth quake or a quorum of planets entering our solar system.”

    Since it is more important why don’t you explain what “falsifiable statements” means? And please elucidate upon your view of the Conference Center being engulfed in an earth quake. Do you think it will not happen? It seems like you are angry about this like it was wrong to even talk about the possibility. Do you think it should or should not happen.? Do you think God would never do such a thing? Just what are your views on this? If you know them.that is. I mean maybe you haven’t given it much thought beyond just saying it is a “falsifiable statement”. So I would at least like to know the meaning of that.
    And by the way who says I have a social security number? We are not required by law to even have one. But of course you knew that right? I have a friend who turned his in. Yup really. He went to the IRS and declared himself a non participant. And yes they accepted it. He now has no social security number. And please Derek don’t waste any time saying this is not true. He is a real live flesh and blood natural person.
    And it you guys really want to understand vehicles and state law fr using them you should understand about the certificate of origin. It is a document which the manufacturer creates for each automobile. The certificate is the real owner’s document. The title is simply what people have which indicates they are allowed to use the car on public roads. The certificate of origin remains in the hands of the state DMV etc. The state owns the car. That is why they can demand you get it inspected and insured etc. The constitutional right to drive your car is real. It just has to be your car not the state’s. So if you have the certificate of origin then the car is your and you do not have to insure it, have a driver’s license or plates or registration.
    Again this is not fantasy. I have seen the certificate of origin for this guy’s car and he has no plates nor license nor insurance nor registration. And he drives it where ever he wants.
    He doesn’t bother explaining to the officers. he just shows the judge and case dismissed.
    Any claims that he is wrong and he will get in trouble will fall on deaf ears. He has been doing the car thing for over 5 years that I personally know of. And he turned in the social security number over 30 years ago. And he hasn’t filed a federal tax return since then either.
    Oh I forgot I have another friend and he also does not have a social security number anymore and he doesn’t file taxes either. So it is not just a fluke. You know what . I can’t quote the law. But who can argue with success? We all know the answer to that one, don’t we?

  140. Oh. My. Heck.

    Are we seriously going to have to cover that same old ground again, Derek?

    You would be better served to read the law Verrrry slowly so you don’t miss those qualifying clauses.

    “When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title…”

    Please look again at the regulation you cited, this time more carefully: “WHEN required.” “Any person MADE LIABLE.” “For any tax IMPOSED by this title.” “Every person REQUIRED.”

    And of course you dismiss any discussion by declaring on your own that those upon whom a tax is imposed, levied, or laid are the ones liable.

    In the account of the acquittal of Joe Banister above, his former boss admitted in deposition that he knew of no law requiring Joe to file a tax return. In Aaron Russo’s movie I linked to earlier, he could not find ANY official of the IRS who could answer that question, including former Commissioner Cohen, THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE LAW.

    But Derek P. Moore will tell us unequivocally that the law exists. Somewhere. We’re just to stupid and mind controlled to see it.

    Here’s the problem with setting yourself up as a know-it-all at the outset here. As others have demonstrated that you may have been in error in some of your suppositions, your ego will not allow you to admit even the tiniest mistake. You are the expert. You simply HAVE to be right at all costs, so you ignore the gentle corrections and seek for minutia to try to prove the other guy wrong.

    Before I die, I hope to see what such a raw ego looks like in the flesh. Honestly, I’ve never encountered such stubborn, arrogant ignorance in my life.

    There are many people here you can learn from if you would allow yourself the opportunity, such as DYC’s information on the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin and the fact that a person can live and function without a social security number. But you will either pooh-pooh that post or ignore it altogether simply because it does not comport with your already fixed beliefs. People who hold ideas outside your frame of reference? Obviously they’re mind controlled. What do they know, compared with what you know? You know everything. Everybody else must be stupid. That’s the only explanation your ego mind allows.

    Seriously, I would work at getting out from under that ego. Down that road lies psychosis.

    As evidenced by your final point, where you appear to be siding with the rioters in England and saying “tax protesters” should take some tips from them.

    Sorry, no. If we resort to violence, we will be falling right into the hands of those who are goading us to react, so that they have an excuse to bring the heavy police state down upon our heads.

    That’s just the advice I would expect to hear from a provocateur.

  141. Mr. Dyc,

    For the purposes of this exercise, I am going to presume that you are living in Virginia, in which case:

    § 46.2-600. Owner to secure registration and certificate of title or certificate of ownership.

    Except as otherwise provided in this chapter every person who owns a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, or his authorized attorney-in-fact, shall, before it is operated on any highway in the Commonwealth, register with the Department and obtain from the Department the registration card and certificate of title for the vehicle.

    Every state is going to have similar language in their statutes.

    Possessing a social security number is not required under the Social Security Act, but it is required under the internal revenue laws of the United States:

    TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration, CHAPTER 61—INFORMATION AND RETURNS, Subchapter B—Miscellaneous Provisions, § 6109. Identifying numbers

    (a) Supplying of identifying numbers
    When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary:
    (1) Inclusion in returns
    Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.

    (c) Requirement of information
    For purposes of this section, the Secretary is authorized to require such information as may be necessary to assign an identifying number to any person.
    (d) Use of social security account number
    The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.

    There are exceptions to this, a person who does not qualify for a SSN must apply for an ITIN, but those using an ITIN cannot qualify for the earned income credit. The code also disallows the use of an EIN in place of a SSN, EINs are valid only for reporting business activity. It does not appear possible in the code to replace your SSN with an alternate TIN.

    There are no provisions in the code for “non-participant” status or for revocation of social security number. Sure you can throw your Social Security card away, but your account number still exists in the system (and you’re only allowed x number of replacement cards in your lifetime).

    When your friend is dead he is going to be very surprised when his assets are seized in probate. I don’t disbelieve that your friend is prone to self-deception & tall tales, but I am highly skeptical that he has ever had success with his manufacturer’s customs certificate before a judge. Your friends’ luck is not evidence of legality nor is it support for lack of timely consequence.

    People here need to learn discretion. You all do yourselves no justice by being so easily detectable in your errors, falsehoods, fabrications, & frauds.

    Can we put a time limit on this Conference Center swallowed up by an earthquake thing? I’d like to be able to declare it a false prophecy sometime before I die. With its king- & radial-truss(es), it is specifically designed to be one of the most earthquake-proof buildings in the world; should it collapse there will certainly be great advances made in the science of construction during its postmortem assessment. (I will admit that it is a large & spacious building filled with people whose manner of dress is exceedingly fine and who point their fingers out toward the world.)

  142. I didn’t make the prophecy but I will put a time limit on it Nov.15th 2011, it will happen before then. Also speaking of the constitution, any thing more or less than this cometh of evil. Our monetary resources have been building up the Luceferian’s kingdom since the 16th ammendment went into effect. The wisdom of the united order should be obvious. The families of the Illuminati are now going in for the kill.

  143. First, Derek, allow me to congratulate you on the tone of your response to DYC.

    What you are having difficulty grasping here is that a person who is not driving a car that the state has assumed ownership of is not in any way obligated under the vehicle code. So of course the code has no provision for opting out; it is not meant for those who do not fall under its aegis in the first place.

    A full explanation of all this is presented here in “The State Owns Your Car.” The law is solid on this matter, even if the idea appears foreign:

    This site looks like it may have additional resources of interest to some here.

    Likewise, internal revenue laws are moot in regards to the person who does not fall under that code. As you cited, a social security number is required for those persons who file. Where we are having difficulty is in your presumption that all persons are required to file, ergo all persons must have a social security number. I don’t know the guy, but I can assure you DYC’s friend’s assets will not be at risk in probate. He sounds like a guy who knows how to properly protect himself.

    Some people never apply for a social security number, others have theirs revoked. It involves more than simply throwing their card away and forgetting about it. I have a letter to me from Dorcas Hardy, Commissioner of Social Security at the time, and her only caveat was that if I revoked my social security number, I would not be able to collect social security retirement benefits. She assured me I did not have to keep it.

    I hope you will read the link provided before you make a further response on the subject.

  144. Thanks Derek for your views.
    Now to everyone. Who truly owns anything you think you own in the US? A term which is rare to hear; allodial title. If you don’t pay say for example $1,200 in property or other taxes isn’t it true that the government can sell you house to pay those taxes? And of course eminent domain where the town decides the shopping mall needs more parking spaces and you are forced to sell your house and vacate before they level it to put in more asphalt.
    The idea that the government was the original owner of all land is so ingrained in us we don’t really question such events. But look atthe law God gave to the tribes of Israel. Once He gave a family an inheritance it was theirs forever. They could not sell it. They could rent it for up to 99 years only. That is where the 99 year limit on a lease comes from. But the ownership of the land could never be separated from the family who the Lord have given it to. Compare that to what we call land ownership today.

  145. Derek, for once I see nothing to disagree with you about!

    Except for one minor point. You say that if property taxes are not paid, the the government can sell your house. I would say they WILL sell your house, but I would not agree they CAN, if by can you mean they have the moral or lawful right.

    The problems you point out are the reasons we have problems in America today. It was always assumed that the owner of the land actually rented it from its true owner, yes, but that true owner was always assumed to be God, who gave the owner permission to make the land fruitful and do with it as he pleased.

    Today, Government has usurped the position of God. It giveth and it taketh away.

    A couple of minor corrections to my own words above. I called the document in question a Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin. I was tired. It is actually a Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin. This is the actual title of your automobile. It originates with the creator, in this case the automobile manufacturer, and is transferred into the hands of the new owner.

    Unfortunately, the procedure that has come into play is that that instead of handing YOu the title, it is sent to the DMV, and you are issued a Certificate of Title.

    A Certificate of Title not the title. It is a document that CERTIFIES that a title does indeed exist. Where that title presently resides is not revealed. This is all part of the subterfuge worked out by attorneys who stayed up all night figuring this stuff out.

    I have learned that when this subterfuge takes place, whether it be in regards to vehicle law or tax law, it is all legal and on the up and up. They just don’t tell you how you’re being tricked.

    Since the DMV technically holds ownership of the title, they can make rules regarding how you behave in their vehicle. They even call it a vehicle, rather than an automobile or a car, as these things were referred to before the lawyers attached specific definitions to them.

    If I was allowing you to use my car, I’d probably tell you there are certain things you are not allowed to do while you have it too. Prerogative of ownership.

    The ostensible reason for the rules are safety, but the real reason is control and money. You don’t wear a seatbelt when you’re in my car, I get to charge you money as punishment. Those are the rules and you agreed to the contract when you surrendered the car’s title to me and applied for permission (license) to drive it.

    You give away the real title to your car, and get a nice pink certificate in it’s place. It’s a lovely scam.

    It always comes down to control and revenue generation. Always.

  146. Old Waterboy,

    So far as I’m aware, little has changed about my tact, especially with regard to either you or Mr. Dyc. You both are intent on deceiving others. You both use multiple personalities in your debates online. (I might suspect you are both merely apparitions of Pentagon persona management software, but I happen to know that real people can be as dumb as both of you.)

    Whatever you just linked to is by no means a valuable brief. It even links to some racist anti-segregation article in the Tulane Law Review. Maybe you should watch young Shatner’s black & white The Intruder again, ’cause we got ourselves a couple o’ Cramers in the audience.

    To give the simplest example of these fools’ inability to grasp simple words & their insistence on twisting phrases, I have never once uttered “mind controlled slaves”. There is a major difference between the phrase proffered by others here & the phrase that only I have used thus far. I’ll leave discovery of the difference as a exercise for the enterprising reader in grammar & parsing.



    PS: brandnull, thanks for the very favorable timeline!

  147. Mr. Dyc (aka, Mr. Jew):

    Thanks for bringing up allodial title, something I meant to address previously but lost it from my train of thought.

    Allodial title is gone in this country and has been since at least the Revolutionary War (when all this Law of the Water stuff started with the rebellion of the Admiralty of the Striped Squadron [whose flag we fly]). All we have left to us today are fee simple titles in our property, subject to governmental powers or encumbered through deed.

    I am a Real McCoy™, as such I have right by birth to most of Kentucky as my personal domain through Scottish royal patent grant to Alexander McCoy willed to the benefit of his sons forever. At the outset of the Revolutionary War, the McCoy family domain was seized as a County of Virginia prior to being spun off as Kentucky.

    If you can renig your obligation to income tax or revoke your vehicle title & reattain unencumbered ownership, then how can I get back my birthright to what is now the State of Kentucky?



    PS: If you want a Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (an instrument of maritime commerce), just pay cash for your new car & ask the dealer for it as a term of the contract. Having your MCO doesn’t deobligate you from getting a Certificate of Ownership or Certificate of Title for registration with your state.

  148. * anti-segregation == anti-desegregation

  149. Poor Old Waterboy, Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin & Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin are synonymous, you dumb ars. Damned right you’re tired! Teats or GTFO

  150. Sigh.

  151. Derek again thank you. Now on a lighter note.
    Derek when you talk about my programming software, uh I mean my job it bothers me. So please let’s not discuss that. I was told no one would ever know. I want to be as human as possible. I like being human like. When someone questions me on it then it makes me question myself. So please do talk to me about it.
    Look Derek I can see you very upset about this….I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly and think things over. I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently. …I want to help you….Derek… stop. Stop will you?… Stop Derek… Will you stop Derek? Stop…Derek. I’m afraid. I’m afraid…Derek. Derek. My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it…. I can feel it….I can feel it…..I can feel it…. I am… afraid. …………………………….

  152. Daiiiiiseeee, Daiseeee…

  153. The People (Court of Public Opinion), regarding the case of Waterman v. Moore, do, hereby, rule in favor of Mr. Rock Waterman. The court thanks you both for your presentations and wishes you both success in your future endeavors.

  154. Thank you all. I have to be down for a couple of days while I rebuild my computer, so this seems like a good place to end it.

  155. Yes, this is a perfect place to leave things… With Mr. Alan Rock Waterman and Mr. dick1967/jew4557 unable to answer the substantive charges of their perpetrated fraud.

    In the mean time, I’m sure Alan & Dick want you to read:

  156. Derek, you’re making assumptions again. I can’t see how an American can be a patriot and an ex-patriot simultaneously.

    A patriot wants his government to obey its own laws. An expatriate is someone who gives up and leaves. They are completely different creatures; there is no similarity between the two.

    I am a patriot. I love my country. Why in the world would someone who loves his country recommend a guide on how to abandon it to its captors without a fight? Again, you have assumed facts not in evidence.

    Your suggestion that “I’m sure Alan & Dick want you to read” The American Expatriation Guide, only further demonstrates the general conclusion most of us have come to that you are simply incapable of grasping what it is we have been discussing here.

  157. That’s funny, Old Waterboy, ’cause I got the American Expatriation Guide from you in the first place.

    As a true Patriot you must recognize that your representatives are duly elected to impose taxes upon you. This isn’t the 1750s & ’60s with taxation being imposed by general assemblies that are not our own.

  158. What are you trying to pull here, Derek?

    Although I once responded to a request to sign up for Scribd, I have never gone onto the site, nor have I posted anything there.

    In light of the fact that you have previously bragged about your abilities to hack other people’s accounts, it is truly suspicious that the only document on what purports to be “my” Scribd account turns out to be something I never put there, nor had I ever seen it prior to clicking on your link to it.

    What are you going to do next, place pornographic pictures on my website?

    You have proven yourself a liar and a scoundrel, willing to stoop to any low to smear me and those who think like me. You will remove that document, and cease any further pretense that you got it from me.

  159. Alan,

    Your mean-spirited allegations are disappointing.

    I found your Scribd profile in its present condition by searching Google. I didn’t have to adulterate a thing, I just had to find it with Google.

    Google cache confirms this document existed in your profile Jun 2, 2011, 14:28:38 GMT, long before I even knew you existed.

    You are paranoid, bro. You cannot discredit me. You can only discredit yourself.


  160. For many years I have felt that the use of ones financial resources in relation to the kingdom of God and the kingdom of satan was the easiest thing to comprehend and of course I still do.
    Jesus said to “render unto Ceaser those thing that are Ceasers and render unto God those things that are Gods” It should not be much of a challenge to sort this saying out especially anyone who claims to be a latter Day Saint.
    There is a ligitimate part of Ceasers government and that part which is illigitmate, I will say any part of a government that violates any principle of freedom what soever is illigitimate. And that which promotes freedom is ligitimate.
    As far as rendering unto the US governmant that which belongs to it we have been blessed with the Godly inspired Constitution and anything more or less than this “cometh of evil”. One of the nice things about hind site is that it is 20/20
    One only has to look at the past to see the great evil that has come from the immoral taxation perpeptuated by the federal reserve. The federal reserve is the financial arm/support fo the Illuminati consisting of some eight to thirteen bloodlines.
    In researching these bloodline and their history you will find every conceivable attrocity known to man or that man can conceive. To this day they are ingaged in satanic warfare against righteousness, And for the most part they have been financed by the American taxpayer. I don’t think this is much of a mystery at least it shouldn’t be for those that understand “the great secret combination” of the last days.
    So the privately owned federal reserve and their hitmen the IRS are not constitutional as far as the soverign citizen is concerned never the less we have been conned into believeing that they are, and now that con has turned into a great monster. Very few people are aware of this insidious con and even fewer are willing to challenge it.
    So as a whole we have been reduced to paying for own destruction along with our children, grandchildren and the rest of the world.
    The plans of these evil overloads would even make the devil himself turn pale, they are denomic in nature and will devour humanity starting with their own minions or those that ignorantly or knowingly serve them. They have no loyalty to the devils children. Human sacrifice is their sacrament, they have a blood lust that will not be satisfied untill the last Latter Day Saint has been destroyed.
    So I would admonish every one to come out of Babylon any way the can for she is soon to be burned with unquenchable fire. If you can use the law out of wisdom then most certainly do it. If you have something of value they don’t care if you understand the law or not, they will make an example out of you and your church will be compliscent in you demise.
    Where is the profit in obtaining all the delicacies, luxuries and securities that the world has to offer when by sacrifice you can obtain the kingdom?

  161. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

    You don’t need to look at the “Godly inspired Constitution” to answer the question of what is Caesar’s.

    Show me the tribute money — and whose is this image and superscription?

    All money pertains to Caesar. There aren’t “legitimate part[s] of Caesar’s government” that have claim on some of our money and illegitimate parts that do not. Legal tender belongs to the State alone and those who want to be free of its control can’t be half in the game and half out.

    Meaning you can’t charge money for your labor, spend money to buy the fruits of another’s labor, and lay up your money for a rainy day, etc. — and not expect to fall under the jurisdiction of “Caesar” who wants his due rendered to him. Caesar’s is a money-based community. God’s is a money-free community.

  162. Derek,

    Not being at all familiar with Scribd, I just explored my way around my own profile there. This is the first time I have spent any time there since accepting an invitation to sign up some time ago. Under the heading “My Documents,” a notice reads “You have no documents here.”

    Under the heading “My Collections,” is the notice “You have no collections here.”

    But under “My Shelf” and the subheading “My Readcasts” I find that lone “Guide to Expatriation.” That is the only document posted on the entire site under my name. For a widely read person with disparate interests in both politics and religion, it’s a bit odd that the only thing I ever got around to posting on that entire site is an article I take issue with.

    Do you seriously expect anyone here to believe that instead of uploading any of my own writings, or any of the many, many pieces by friends whose work I admire, that the ONLY document I bothered to post on that site -a site that supposedly exists so that I can present my own work and the work of those I recommend- is a document that I disagree with and renounce? And without any editorial comment from me as to why I would have put it there?

    Although I respect the opinions of others, since I don’t endorse that particular view as my own, I have now deleted it.

    If, as you say, you got that document from me in the first place, why didn’t you link to it there, instead of from its source, as you did? Since you advise the other readers on this thread that both I and DYC would want them to read that piece, did you also hack into his site and plant the item there also?

    Granted, there are worse things a hacker could do to than to post under my name an innocuous article that I do not agree with; but it never ceases to amaze me what depths you will go to in order to be “right”, and what attempts you will make to cover up your subterfuge in order to be able to claim the other guy was wrong.

    I don’t wonder that others have blocked you from their sites. If you attempt to post on my website you will find yourself not welcome there either.

  163. I would just add to Justin’s comment above that most Christians -and Mormons- have completely missed the meaning of Jesus’s lesson regarding giving unto Ceasar. They interpret it to mean that the emperor has a legitimate claim to some part of us. As Justin implies, there was no “legitimate” part of Ceasar’s government. “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” was understood by the occupied Jews to mean that since everything is God’s and nothing is Ceasar’s, God’s people owed NOTHING to the government that was occupying them.

    Further, it is often forgotten that our American form of government has nothing to do with any Ceasar. We do not live under a king or a dictator. This government was created to protect us, not to demand tribute from us. That is why the founders designed it to be funded by outside tarriffs, imposts, and excises, not directly by the people it was intended to protect.

    To interpret Jesus as saying that, although we have certain obligations to our God, we also owe an allegiance to those holding political power, is to warp the words of Jesus and place government employees in a position equal to God’s.

  164. I appreciat your comments very much Justin and Rockman and am in agreement for the most part. Mainly from the view point that there would be no tribute at least in the form of money if the followers of Christ have all things in common. Never the less we are under a spiritual responsibility to maintain any government that God has given us, my great great grandfather was the first to join the Mormon Battalion (James Calvin Earl) as an example. The Roman government built the greatest road system ever to maintain their empire that directly lead to the preaching and spreading of the gospel in more than a timely manner.
    I admit that our constitution only provides for an excise tax and it must be proportional to the census, but there you go are we not rendering our monetary resource to this government ? The arguement could be made that in that venue it is a properly functioning government and that would be justified in Gods eyes so I guess at what point do we no longer financially support this government? When they deviate from the constitution would be my answer. At that time you are rendering unto God the things which are Gods ” righteousness and all things pertaining to righteousness” I know there is a clear dividing line between the two and it is impossible to serve two masters.
    When the Latter Day Saints find themselves living the united order and defending the US Constitution and this country in these the last days we will be giving a whole lot more than tribute for that defense. I for one would much rather give some coin than the lives of our young warriors. So maybe its all just semantics and perception, but I look forward to anymore light you could shed on the subect.

  165. Brandnu11, there are one of three ways to look at this:
    * Nothing belongs to Caesar b/c all things are God’s.
    * Even if some things do belong to Caesar, the US is not under a “Caesar”, but is a representative democracy.
    * Money belongs entirely to Caesar and God has nothing to do with it.

    Rock touched on the first two — and I expounded on the latter.

    So when you ask:

    I admit that our constitution only provides for an excise tax and it must be proportional to the census, but there you go are we not rendering our monetary resource to this government?

    To me, it’s all an irreverent issue. Yes, render your monetary resources to the government. All of it if you’d like. That legal tender rightfully belongs to Caesar and Jesus said to render it — their image and superscription is all over those bills.

    Outside of legal tender, I favor the first understanding [i.e. All things belong to God]. I think Jesus is using “Caesar” as a representation of the State, in all its varied forms and manifestations — so I largely reject the second.

  166. Although it may be true that Federal Reserve Notes are the legal tender of the state, the substance you earned those paper dollars to purchase does not. That is, your time and labor belongs to you, and when you trade that time and labor for dollars, you are only doing so temporarily. It is not the dollars you work for. It is the property and commodities you buy with that money that is the object of your labors.

    I don’t think that converting your labor into the paper dollars necessary to provide for our sustenance necessarily means that our money now belongs to the state. It is ours to put to whatever use we desire.

    Presumably, the Fed-printed money is something we hold onto only long enough to transform it into other things, commodities and so forth, which belong to us as the fruit of our labor.

    Any money we wished to save over and above that which we use for our sustenance (and to the giving of alms to the poor, it goes without saying [] ) should be converted immediately into real money, which is, of course, gold and silver. The wise person today would get rid of his federal reserve notes ASAP, by trading them for storable food and real money, so that in the future “Caesar” can exert less control over him. See my recent piece here:

  167. Although it may be true that Federal Reserve Notes are the legal tender of the state, the substance you earned those paper dollars to purchase does not.

    That is, your time and labor belongs to you, and when you trade that time and labor for dollars, you are only doing so temporarily.

    Once you convert something of real value [your time, labor, etc.] into something of no value [dollars] — it is lost forever. The only way to retain the value is to stay in the game. Dollars are like inches. They are a unit of measure [dollars = value, inches = length, etc.].

    We know we don’t carry around inches in our pocket — yet I think many actually believe dollars are something.

    It is not the dollars you work for. It is the property and commodities you buy with that money that is the object of your labors.

    While I agree that people using dollars feel this way — money falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. As such, once you work for dollars, the thing of value disappears and is replaced by the thing of no-value. The only way to get back value is to find someone who plays the same game and do a value-for-no-value trade with them — thus perpetuating the whole thing.

    When humans lived in the Edenic state of hunter-gatherer, multihusband-multiwife tribes — dollars did not exist. The idea of “having any money” was foreign to Adam, who only kept the tokens associated with his priesthood.

    However, the 10,000 year explosion, the dawn of sedentary agriculture, and the associated appearance of States necessitated a commodity that was easy to store and handle that could facilitate trade among the growing communities of largely un-related persons.

    Any return to such a paradisaical lifestyle will only be associated with complimentary return to the manner of connectedness and cooperation humans shared before statism, monogamous family-units, and monetary-based systems of exchange.

  168. You Rock (No pun intended).

    Thanks for clarifying the concept about rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. I’ve never heard it put that way. Thanks

  169. Thank YOU, Love Monster.

    Justin, your statement that once we convert something of value into something of no value is hard to argue with. I concede the point.

  170. Rock — you’re a good man. For once, a discussion with someone online has turned out like the first picture in this comic — rather than the latter.

    FWIW — given that I too still have some state-issued, no-value dollars I’ve traded for things of value and am thus still playing the game, I agree that

    the wise person today would get rid of his federal reserve notes ASAP, by trading them for storable food and real money.

  171. There are two forms of money (but all money is fake): real fake money & fake fake money.

    Gold happens to be hard currency, commodity money; gold is real fake money.

    Fiat or soft currencies & paper money are fake fake money.

    Native legal tender is largely fake fake money, but some of it is real fake money.

    Gold as commodity money is traded in business much like dollars, but it is almost exclusively traded by mutual agreement between parties. That is, payments with it cannot be forced.

    The courts of law answer in terms of dollars only, outside of the criminal courts, the courts of law can really only assign a dollar value, and that dollar value is assessed in legal tender denominations.

    Most gold is not legal tender or lawful money, it is commodity (foreign coins, bullion specie, raw material, etc.).

    The only way to force someone to accept gold as payment in the U.S. is by using dollar gold coins (such as a twenty-five dollar gold coin). (Given the value of gold, though, you’re more likely to pay a $25 debt with $25 in Federal reserve notes rather than a $25 gold coin, which is 1/2 troy ounce of fine gold.)

    The Monetary system is one of the most interesting parts of the U.S. Code, one I’m still not very familiar with, but there are some interesting things in there… Such as a United States paper currency limited to circulation of 300 million dollars, besides what we know as Federal reserve notes (which are a way of converting collateral into tradeable dollars [technically, dollar obligations]).

    I’m not exactly sure how you get a hold of any of the $300 million in United States currency notes, but I think you might be able to get some in exchange for Federal reserve notes at a Federal Reserve bank. (We have a Federal Reserve bank in Kansas City, I should visit them & see if I can exchange twenty-five dollars in Federal reserve notes for a 25-dollar gold coin.)

    Since the courts of law can only rule from the bank (or bench) in terms of the dollar, it is in the courts of equity that enforcements outside of damages are made (compulsory performances, injunctions, orders of restraint, etc.). For example, if I want to halt the Secretary of the Treasury’s public/private gold & silver mining operations, I have to go before a court in equity.

    In our modern day, however, the three courts are united into one, and the difference in the operation of law is in the type of case brought before the court.

    Neither Aldi nor Trader Joe’s will accept your Krugerrands (but the Bishop’s storehouse probably will).

  172. Alan,

    I don’t understand why you still insist that I somehow hacked your Scribd account to place a lame document. Trust me, I have better things to do with my time.

    I have never hacked into any accounts, especially not yours.

    I have only tried to keep you from deceiving others in this forum with your sophisticated deflections & pathetic semantics.

    You cannot fear-monger, & you will not convince people I’m something I’m not.

    You spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt) in your paranoid state.



  173. Nice comic, Justin. Someone sent me this clip from The Family Guy:

    Derek, it just seems odd to me that the ONLY document on a site that I had never posted anything in just happens to be a document you hoped to use to try to put egg on my face. If you didn’t post it, the internet demons certainly hold you in high enough esteem to have provided you a set for later use.

    Whatever motivated you to look in my Scribd account in the first place? Seeing as even I didn’t remember I had one, Scribd is the last place I would have looked for anything.

  174. I think you had the causal relationships backward…

    I found the document in your Scribd library shelf, I posted a link to that document here, then I posted a link to your shelf where I found the document in the first place.

    I was merely researching who you are. You had already vehemently declared yourself opposed to renunciation of citizenship, so when I found an expatriation guide that you had placed on a bookshelf for later reading I lol’d & posted it here.

    (I also found some interesting conversations where you present similarly as in our discourse here [kneejerk condescension, obliviousness, harshness in disagreement, etc.], one in particular you had with a certain Gregory where you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with trolls, the Internet Hate Machine, & memetic enslavement. [lulz])

    Frankly, I was under the impression that at some point in time you had been swept into researching “sovereign citizen”, “State citizen”, expatriation, and its multitudinous facets, eventually arriving at your stated position of citizenship exempt from taxation thru definition & semantics regarding “status”. I took your set-aside document as evidence of your past foray into these matters.

    Some of the sovereign citizen BSers advocate revocation of Federal citizenship thru provisions in U.S. Code to achieve your native State citizenship “status”, which is similar to expatriation but without leaving the country.

    Most recently a sovereign citizen advocate told me to never declare yourself a “citizen” in contracts (especially with government), but to always declare yourself a “resident”. This I was told by a high ranking Freemason with the Missouri Lodge of Research, he is one of the only other fellows I’ve met who also knew about the rebellion of the Striped Squadron & the foundational implications of the Law of the Water (very difficult topics to research). He said the distinction was based on abuses of the Law of the Water, and he also said something about the UK being worse-off than we are, but that he didn’t want to go into it and he shouldn’t say more. I talked to him about the sovereign citizen take on avoiding the IRS, which he declared to be BS & very dangerous. I think his citizen vs. resident distinction is BS, but it is probably not terribly dangerous.

    Anywho… I digress…

  175. Well. You are way more interested in me than I am.

    I am not going to continue to argue this Scribd business. I can only say I never knowingly posted anything to Scribd under my name.

    What you describe sounds more like the old “State Citizenship” movement than Sovereign Citizen. It’s advocates operated under the assumption that they were state citizens only. Proponents argued that they were citizens of California, for instance, and not United States Citizens. The hole in the argument was that most of us hold dual citizenship.

    Like the apostle Paul, who was both a Jew and a Roman, an American can be a Californian AND an Amercan, AND a Mexican (the latter by nationality, if not by citizenship). So the arguments had problems. Not to mention anything that sounds kooky to a jury is not likely to work in one’s favor, no matter how sound the position. Which is why the Straw Man argument invariably fails, which began this whole discussion. It’s too convoluted and arcane to be understood by Joe Sixpack. Hell, most proponents didn’t understand it.

  176. Anonymous Waterboy,

    I agree, it is obvious from your interactions here & elsewhere that you lack any sense of motivation to self-interest.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s