|
he following is supposed to be a 'rebuttal' to my post
"Income Tax - A Term Of A Slave Contract"
I will post my comments (C) within his text:
Abbot
Newsgroups: can.taxes, us.taxes, misc.taxes, us.legal
Subject: Re: Income Tax - A Term Of A Slave Contract
Vicegerent) As George W,. Bush says: 'It's just a goddamned piece of
paper' And, he is correct. It was never ratified by the intended
Sovereign of the American Republic - the people of America. It is only
a 'proposed' Constitution. And, no original copy of the proposed
Constitution exists. The British destroyed those when it burned the
White House in 1814
..
Abbot) The constitution doesn't have to exist in its original format
to be law, so the question of whether or not the original was burned
is pointless.
And the "rule" that the U.S. Constitution must be ratified by direct
vote is one you made up so you'd have an excuse to ignore the law.
C) If the people of America are 'sovereign' as was the obvious intent
of those who fought the Revolutionary War against England's Monarchy,
then, how can the Constitution be law if it is not enacted by the
Sovereign?
Vicegerent) [The way it is] The income tax is administered as a term
of a contract of servitude. It is the extraction of the labour of an
owned slave. Contract law is superior to legislated law. . .
Abbot) Wrong again, Eldon. The question at hand is that of
constitutional law. And the U.S. Constitution is supreme law in the
U.S.
C) How can it be the 'supreme law' if it was not enacted by the
Sovereign of America - ratification by the people?
Vicegerent). . .in that it derives from the unalienable property right
- the part that says owned property can be exchanged, sold, given away
or bequeathed. Law cannot interfere with the lawful exercise of a
right.
Abbot) Unfortunately for you there is no right, even in contract law,
to dismiss the Constitution and the binding law that springs from it.
C) Ah, but the Constitution, if it were a valid constitution, says in
Amendment 5: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
PROPERTY,
without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken
for public use, without just compensation.
And 'due process' means a proper court hearing where there is
an damaged party making a claim.
Vicegerent ) Human slavery is forbidden in any human compacts,
because it vilolates the unalienable rights of life, free will,
freedom to
travel, enjoyment and use of one's primary property - labour, and due
process of law. However, that applies only to 'involuntary servitude'.
The feudal system of the Middle Ages was supposedly 'voluntary
servitude', but even that was limited by Queen Elizabeth I to
something like 5 years. If continuation was desired, the contract of
servitude had to be renewed, and voluntarily.
Abbot) Since the authority of the Constitution is not based on
contract law we must rely on the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery once
and for all.
C) The false 13th Amendment says:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
"Involuntary" is the key word here. And, in the name
game, where the State owned birth certificate NAME is
the slave property owned by the State, any human who
envelops themself in that name does so in a supposedly
voluntary fashion.
Your long ago failed gambit is to pretend that the authority to tax
springs from a contract and having skated past that failed premise you
go on to make an erroneous conclusion.
C) an 'opinion' by a damage control goon who defends the
income tax EXTORTION RACKET.
Vicegerent) . . . . .The scheme of the birth certificate was to create
a 'legal identity' name that the child would accept as his own name
upon reaching the age of majority. The family name was changed to a
'surname', meaning the primary name, and the given names then became
referential. This is the reverse to reality. By making that change,
the corporation replacing the Monarch, the Crown, (or State in the
USA) claimed the new name as intellectual property, and anyone using
it would have the status of 'plantation slave'. The education system,
run directly or indirectly by the Romanized church, insured that
people used the Crown or State owned birth certificate name.
Abbot) U.S. state and federal governments do no rely on birth
certificates for their authority. That is why these governments had
authority and jurisdiction long before birth certificates were ever
issued.
Consequently, you have never been able to explain how it is an
individual born in the U.S. in the early 1800's with nothing more than
a birth noted in the family Bible fell under the jurisdiction of the
government.
C) The changing of the family name to a primary name (surname)
was going on in England in the 1300s AD. The family name being
a primary name is fiction.
According to the IRC, an individual is a person, and a person
when applied to a human means a slave status.
Vicegerent) So, how does the 'voluntary servitude' come into play?
By 'voluntarily', albeit ignorantly, enveloping oneself in the Crown
or
State owned name, one becomes an accessory to the principal,
the Crown or State owned name. The legal maxim, accessio cedit
principali, is then applied - an accessory attached to a principal
becomes the property of the owner of the principal.
Abbot) In your case even your failed argument doesn't makes sense
since you annually use your name to pay your property tax . . .and try
to explain away the hypocrisy by saying you merely "play a role" when
you do so.
C) One uses the birth certificate name as an 'agent in commerce'
and 'trustee in trust' in dealing with the counterfeit fiat currency,
and with the fictional entity called government. You should read
Eldon's webpage: http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingt1.htm
Vicegerent) The income tax is then just the extraction of the labour
from the slave, as has always been done since antiquity. A slave who
protests or 'cheats' the slave owner of his property (your labour and
life) becomes a disobedient slave', and corporate administrative
courts, (the only kind of court now existing) then invoke Roman rules
in dealing with 'disobedient slaves', as all humans are slaves
regardless of status in the Roman system. The first thing these
courts do is revoke the rights to 'due process of law' in any cases
dealing with disobedience to the slave master.
Abbot) Since slavery is outlawed in both the U.S. and Canada your
conclusion is erroneous.
C) Only 'involuntary servitude' is outlawed.
You have confused an individual's observance of the law the
government's authority to make binding law with slavery for the simple
reason that you can't function in a lawful society and need an excuse
for being mentally ill.
In your warped mind it is better to hide behind a laughable
contractual slavery theory than to come to grips with your insanity
and the lives you have ruined.
C) Typical gibberish from a lying damage control goon who
defends collectivist murder, theft and extortion practises.
I wonder how many victims of the income tax EXTORTION
RACKET you have convinced with your childish prattle?
Vicegerent) Now you know why the courts do as they do in any case
dealing with disobedience to the Crown's (State's) Acts, statutes,
laws, rules or regulations.
Abbot) Eldon, your problem is that you can't accept grade
|
| |
| |
Abbot) Unfortunately for you there is no right, even in contract law,
to dismiss the Constitution and the binding law that springs from it.
C) Ah, but the Constitution, if it were a valid constitution, says in
Amendment 5: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE
PROPERTY be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And 'due process' means a proper court hearing where there is
an damaged party making a claim.
Also, the 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law
abridging the Freedom or the Right of the People...... "
Jack, what is there that you missed in reading class that
caused you to say that "the people's freedom and rights"
are not protected by the Constitution?
Where in that do you find that even forcing to use their time
and labor to keep records and complete an income tax return,
let alone requiring the giving up of the money (wages) acquired
by the exchange of one's labor ? What is there about
"Congress shall make no law " that is confusing to you?
Vicegerent
Vicegerent ) Human slavery is forbidden in any human compacts,
because it vilolates the unalienable rights of life, free will,
freedom to
travel, enjoyment and use of one's primary property - labour, and due
process of law. However, that applies only to 'involuntary servitude'.
The feudal system of the Middle Ages was supposedly 'voluntary
servitude', but even that was limited by Queen Elizabeth I to
something like 5 years. If continuation was desired, the contract of
servitude had to be renewed, and voluntarily.
Abbot) Since the authority of the Constitution is not based on
contract law we must rely on the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery once
and for all.
C) The false 13th Amendment says:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
"Involuntary" is the key word here. And, in the name
game, where the State owned birth certificate NAME is
the slave property owned by the State, any human who
envelops themself in that name does so in a supposedly
voluntary fashion.
Your long ago failed gambit is to pretend that the authority to tax
springs from a contract and having skated past that failed premise you
go on to make an erroneous conclusion.
C) an 'opinion' by a damage control goon who defends the
income tax EXTORTION RACKET.
Vicegerent) . . . . .The scheme of the birth certificate was to create
a 'legal identity' name that the child would accept as his own name
upon reaching the age of majority. The family name was changed to a
'surname', meaning the primary name, and the given names then became
referential. This is the reverse to reality. By making that change,
the corporation replacing the Monarch, the Crown, (or State in the
USA) claimed the new name as intellectual property, and anyone using
it would have the status of 'plantation slave'. The education system,
run directly or indirectly by the Romanized church, insured that
people used the Crown or State owned birth certificate name.
Abbot) U.S. state and federal governments do no rely on birth
certificates for their authority. That is why these governments had
authority and jurisdiction long before birth certificates were ever
issued.
Consequently, you have never been able to explain how it is an
individual born in the U.S. in the early 1800's with nothing more than
a birth noted in the family Bible fell under the jurisdiction of the
government.
C) The changing of the family name to a primary name (surname)
was going on in England in the 1300s AD. The family name being
a primary name is fiction.
According to the IRC, an individual is a person, and a person
when applied to a human means a slave status.
Vicegerent) So, how does the 'voluntary servitude' come into play?
By 'voluntarily', albeit ignorantly, enveloping oneself in the Crown
or
State owned name, one becomes an accessory to the principal,
the Crown or State owned name. The legal maxim, accessio cedit
principali, is then applied - an accessory attached to a principal
becomes the property of the owner of the principal.
Abbot) In your case even your failed argument doesn't makes sense
since you annually use your name to pay your property tax . . .and try
to explain away the hypocrisy by saying you merely "play a role" when
you do so.
C) One uses the birth certificate name as an 'agent in commerce'
and 'trustee in trust' in dealing with the counterfeit fiat currency,
and with the fictional entity called government. You should read
Eldon's webpage:http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingt1.htm
Vicegerent) The income tax is then just the extraction of the labour
from the slave, as has always been done since antiquity. A slave who
protests or 'cheats' the slave owner of his property (your labour and
life) becomes a disobedient slave', and corporate administrative
courts, (the only kind of court now existing) then invoke Roman rules
in dealing with 'disobedient slaves', as all humans are slaves
regardless of status in the Roman system. The first thing these
courts do is revoke the rights to 'due process of law' in any cases
dealing with disobedience to the slave master.
Abbot) Since slavery is outlawed in both the U.S. and Canada your
conclusion is erroneous.
C) Only 'involuntary servitude' is outlawed.
You have confused an individual's observance of the law the
government's authority to make binding law with slavery for the simple
reason that you can't function in a lawful society and need an excuse
for being mentally ill.
In your warped mind it is better to hide behind a laughable
contractual slavery theory than to come to grips with your insanity
and the lives you have ruined.
C) Typical gibberish from a lying damage control goon who
defends collectivist murder, theft and extortion practises.
I wonder how many victims of the income tax EXTORTION
RACKET you have convinced with your childish prattle?
Vicegerent) Now you know why the courts do as they do in any case
dealing with disobedience to the Crown's (State's) Acts, statutes,
laws, rules or regulations.
Abbot) Eldon, your problem is that you can't accept grade school
civics as reality.
C) Grade school is where the 'dumbing down' and 'screwing of
the people' by the Jesuit goons begins. This is where they
are taught to accept the State owned 'slave name' and then
become subject to the EXTORTION practises of the State
slavemaster over them. And, the Vatican owns the corporations
called States or Provinces.
Vicegerent
|
| |
| |
Also, the 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law
abridging the Freedom or the Right of the People...... "
Jack, what is there that you missed in reading class that
caused you to say that "the people's freedom and rights"
are not protected by the Constitution?
Where in that do you find that even forcing to use their time
and labor to keep records and complete an income tax return,
let alone requiring the giving up of the money (wages) acquired
by the exchange of one's labor ? What is there about
"Congress shall make no law " that is confusing to you?
If you are going to quote something Eldon, quote the entire text
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now it makes sense, now where does it say Congress will not collect income
tax in the first amendment?
Post the proof Eldon, post the proof
PV
|
| |
| |
icegerent) As George W,. Bush says: 'It's just a goddamned piece of
paper' And, he is correct. It was never ratified by the intended
Sovereign of the American Republic - the people of America. It is only
a 'proposed' Constitution. And, no original copy of the proposed
Constitution exists. The British destroyed those when it burned the
White House in 1814.
Abbot) The constitution doesn't have to exist in its original format
to be law, so the question of whether or not the original was burned
is pointless.
And the "rule" that the U.S. Constitution must be ratified by direct
vote is one you made up so you'd have an excuse to ignore the law.
C) If the people of America are 'sovereign' as was the obvious intent
of those who fought the Revolutionary War against England's Monarchy,
then, how can the Constitution be law if it is not enacted by the
Sovereign?
Abbot 2) According to you and your minions the people are a body
politic, quite capable of constructing a representative democracy to
ratify a federal constitution.
But that really isn't your point, Eldon. You claim the only authority
the government can have over an individual is through contract. Now
you seem to say a direct vote of the people is sufficient to ratify a
constitution.
Please let us know when you have settled on a point of view.
Vicegerent) [The way it is] The income tax is administered as a term
of a contract of servitude. It is the extraction of the labour of an
owned slave. Contract law is superior to legislated law. . .
Abbot) Wrong again, Eldon. The question at hand is that of
constitutional law. And the U.S. Constitution is supreme law in the
U.S.
C) How can it be the 'supreme law' if it was not enacted by the
Sovereign of America - ratification by the people?
Abbot 2) How can you ask this question until you have settle on
whether the federal government's authority is contractual or
constitutional?
Please let us know when you have settled on a point of view.
Vicegerent). . .in that it derives from the unalienable property right
- the part that says owned property can be exchanged, sold, given away
or bequeathed. Law cannot interfere with the lawful exercise of a
right.
Abbot) Unfortunately for you there is no right, even in contract law,
to dismiss the Constitution and the binding law that springs from it.
C) Ah, but the Constitution, if it were a valid constitution, says in
Amendment 5: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be
taken for public use, without just compensation. And 'due process'
means a proper court hearing where there is an damaged party making a
claim.
Abbot 2) Oh, how quaint, your disseise argument again. Just as once
told us that Article 39 of the Magna Charta forbade taxation (that
nonsense was shot down) you now want to claim that the Constitution
contradicts itself by allowing taxation and then forbidding it.
You have already lost this point, Eldon.
Vicegerent ) Human slavery is forbidden in any human compacts, because
it vilolates the unalienable rights of life, free will, freedom to
travel, enjoyment and use of one's primary property - labour, and due
process of law. However, that applies only to 'involuntary servitude'.
The feudal system of the Middle Ages was supposedly 'voluntary
servitude', but even that was limited by Queen Elizabeth I to
something like 5 years. If continuation was desired, the contract of
servitude had to be renewed, and voluntarily.
Abbot) Since the authority of the Constitution is not based on
contract law we must rely on the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery once
and for all.
C) The false 13th Amendment says: Section 1. Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, "Involuntary" is the key word here. And, in the
name game, where the State owned birth certificate NAME is the slave
property owned by the State, any human who envelops themself in that
name does so in a supposedly voluntary fashion.
Abbot 2) You are again mistaken in your claim that the mere lawful
governance is the same as slavery. I can understand your cognitive
dissonance since there is not a one of society's basic rules you seem
willing to follow.
Abbot) Your long ago failed gambit is to pretend that the authority to
tax springs from a contract and having skated past that failed premise
you go on to make an erroneous conclusion.
C) an 'opinion' by a damage control goon who defends the income tax
EXTORTION RACKET.
Abbot 2) The fact remains you have yet to establish your basic
premise. Need I state it for you again, old son?
Vicegerent) . . . . .The scheme of the birth certificate was to create
a 'legal identity' name that the child would accept as his own name
upon reaching the age of majority. The family name was changed to a
'surname', meaning the primary name, and the given names then became
referential. This is the reverse to reality. By making that change,
the corporation replacing the Monarch, the Crown, (or State in the
USA) claimed the new name as intellectual property, and anyone using
it would have the status of 'plantation slave'. The education system,
run directly or indirectly by the Romanized church, insured that
people used the Crown or State owned birth certificate name.
Abbot) U.S. state and federal governments do no rely on birth
certificates for their authority. That is why these governments had
authority and jurisdiction long before birth certificates were ever
issued.
Consequently, you have never been able to explain how it is an
individual born in the U.S. in the early 1800's with nothing more than
a birth noted in the family Bible fell under the jurisdiction of the
government.
C) The changing of the family name to a primary name (surname) was
going on in England in the 1300s AD. The family name being a primary
name is fiction. According to the IRC, an individual is a person, and
a person when applied to a human means a slave status.
Abbot 2) Eldon, you didn't answer the question. You said that
recognizing your family name on a government document establishes the
government's authority .
I asked how is the U.S. government of the 19th century had authority
over individuals who had their names placed only in their family
Bibles.
If you can't answer, why are you posting, old son?
Vicegerent) So, how does the 'voluntary servitude' come into play? By
'voluntarily', albeit ignorantly, enveloping oneself in the Crown or
State owned name, one becomes an accessory to the principal, the Crown
or State owned name. The legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, is
then applied - an accessory attached to a principal becomes the
property of the owner of the principal.
Abbot) In your case even your failed argument doesn't makes sense
since you annually use your name to pay your property tax . . .and try
to explain away the hypocrisy by saying you merely "play a role" when
you do so.
C) One uses the birth certificate name as an 'agent in commerce' and
'trustee in trust' in dealing with the counterfeit fiat currency, and
with the fictional entity called government. You should read Eldon's
webpage: http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingt1.htm
Abbot 2) So, your "agent in commerce" ran for parliament using your
name? Who was to attend the parliament if you had won? Your agent in
commerce?
No, Eldon, it was you all along
|
| |
| |
|
