quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

You're waffling.  That association is not the Fed.

That England/Puerto Rico thing sounds just like this legend about the IRS:

"IRS is a Trust Headquartered in Puerto Rico Not a Federal Agency The IRS is technically not an "agency" of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of "agency" in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).


All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.

They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341"
BTW, you never answered me about the DMV stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

anyway I need to cut back on the time spent here because frankly I am pissing away far to much time that I really should devote elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
anyway I need to cut back on the time spent here because frankly I am pissing away far to much time that I really should devote elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

anyway I need to cut back on the time spent here because frankly I am pissing away far to much time that I really should devote elsewhere.

Thank fuck for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
anyway I need to cut back on the time spent here because frankly I am pissing away far to much time that I really should devote elsewhere.

IOW I'm not getting away with peddling my bullshit so I'm going away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

From the IRS.gov website, they have a local office in Puerto Rico. I took the phone number out. City Street Address Days/Hours of Service Telephone * Guaynabo   7 Tabonuco Street
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968   Monday-Friday - 8:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.

Services Provided

Now, all those arguments stating that the IRS is really in Puerto Rico and sending all the proceeds to the infamous European bankers seem to reside on.... conspiracy sites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

neg treat simply means they are unhappy with the precedent and may rule to the contrary.  It has no effect in negating the original ruling of the cases I cited and that therein is why you continually fail to provide anything in defense of your position, but your opinion and I am very sorry to have to inform you that your opinion has no validity at this point.  Neither does it mean the higher courts have the same position.  Your use of the term is deceptive, but I presume that is why you used it is it not?  Just saying the constitution is old and outdated and courts look negatively on the absolute right to bear arms for instance does nothing what so ever to change anything except prove the courts are operating OUTSIDE their jurisdiction and your support for the same thereof.

oh and do not send me a bill for your secretarial services because you will not be paid as I have no contract with your for said services. :)

quote:


So your claim then is that a publicly traded "entity" is somehow NOT a corporation?

How else can they be publicly traded or are you saying that they provided false information and are committing securities fraud?

quote:


and what I am trying to tell you UNrealone is that the operative word here is TRADED AS!

Are you unable to make that simple connection?

quote:


What does that have to do with the Federal Reserve System (not Association)? Same with the claim about the IRS being incorporated in Delaware - if you read the actual papers, you can see that it was a tax prep and accounting firm, incorporated in 1933.

quote:


well I dont really want to go to deep into this but if I remember right the fed res was incorporated in in england and is headquartered in juan carlos puerto rico. I mean if you wan to tgo back to original documents.

quote:


Really thats only the beginning, if I had lots of time to debate every freaking little piece of gnat shit that seems to be the requirement on this board I would post pics of the jewish whorehouse right by the gate, the sign in front of auschwitz that has been reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million, the fat asses cheering when the allies arrived, the statements from the military forensics experts that they found no gassed bodies after thousands of autopsies, the coke shipments to prove they could not have done what certain people claim, and like other great bullshit stories in history a huge list of evidence to the contrary.
But being the nice guy that I am I wont post it because I dont want to rain on your parade.

quote:


The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, "f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court." Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party,"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Ken, I don't know how to exactly put this, but here goes. I respect you, I believe you to be intelligent. Whe I was first introduced to all this I was just as skeptical. In fact I'll go so far as to admit that I respect you more for not beliving me/us. I was the same way.

But I realize that it is going to be quite difficult to prove anything to YOUR SATISFACTION. As said I was the same way. I didn't belive all this at first, and OK, I can probably get some case numbers, but een that won't prove it. Our side won a hundred times, but really out of how many cases ? Even solid evidence is not enough, I agree. Remember the Twinkie defense. That doesn't mean we can all be mass murderers and blame the Convenient Food Mart for over serving us. I mean in some cases no proof is ever enough. I had to witness it with my own eyes. To see certain people walk out of court, not in handcuffs, to their or my my car after court is what did it. How can I prove I was on Ontario St when this happened ?

In life we build what I would term a knowledge lattice. Conceptually this is like a pyramid of knowledge. When we argue about certain things, in a way we are attacking the pyramid at the base, and defenses are drawn quickly, no matter how the case is presented. Those of lower intelligence are swayed easily, actually too easily. They will jump into it not knowing what they are doing and hurt themselves. You are smarter than that, at least as far as I can detect.

However one day someone might convince you, and on that day you will become quite poweful. Everyone I know personally who engages in fighting courts and law was very skeptical at first. They were scared. And rightly so, because the judge can pretty much cut off your legs right at the bench. My Daddy told me that, and despite what I know, it is still true. However if it is done unjustly, I know how to find recourse, most people don't.

We are repressed by the government, mstly in the name of the almighty dollar, and I don't think you have much argument against that. I don't think anyone does. But people find a way. There are ways to buck the system, fuck the system and suck the system. To some it is a game, and buddy, not all of them lose.

So at this point I will disengage you on this proof fulcrum, because in reality, no proof online will ever be enough. I understand and I am just as stubborn as you. And it will remain so as long as you seek what you currently find. When you seek something else, then you will find something else. The idea of law and order is so cemented in your mind that even if I led you to water you might not drink it. It would not disolve the cement anyway.

If my words do not stand on their own, what does ? Links to findlaw and shit like that ? For example, I have electronic copies of the original incorporation papers of the IRS in Delaware. Tax court ? Simple, I am not beholden nor do I have any cantract with any corporation in Delaware, case closed. You think this won't work fine. You think they will tell you about the 100,000 people who beat the fucking pants off the IRS every year ? Hell no. But they all have one thing in common. They do not file. When you file you PUT yourself under their jurisdiction. How fucking hard can that be to understand ?

When you get a driver's license you PUT yourself under their jurisdiction. I know that is harder to comprehend for some. You may have lived a life of law and order, but that is not true of everyone. Working the system and jerking the system is old hat to me, and even so I was still skeptical about all this rights shit and things like that.

Don't get me wrong, ANYONE. I am not a tower of virtue, standing alone for one and all, a hero of Constitutional rights. Not at all. What I am saying is that I will use every trick in the book to win. They do, if I don't I lose, and it happens. But I'll tell you this much, I don't care what they say I have to do. Their constrictions on my freedom mean nothing, but I don't really flaunt it. That would be stupid.

How many people I know who won't smoke cigarettes in their house but when out in the garage for a smoke will draw some lines of crank, or fire up the widowmaker. How many people I knew who worked for the railroad who "found" things, especially if they worked in security. How many politicians are caught on video taking bribes, literally shot with too much money to stuff into their pockets and said "What did I do wrong ?". That video would not exist if they were not a target.

Let me make this clear, you have several inalienable rights in this country, but being stupid is not enumerated among them. I have a loaded gun and the trigger works at any time of the day or night. It is Sunday afternoon. I could go pick off a couple of the neighbors, or maybe white kitty. White kitty can be a pest but he is pretty cool. I wouldn't shoot him. Oh well.

There are times when I would go to court, asserting my rights, fighting them effectively and embarrasing them into deciding in my favor, or dropping the case. Other times I've had to walk inot a lawyer of a certain ethnicity's office and say "I did this and that and they wrote me for this". I hand them the tickets, summons or whatever. I don't want to hear "Well I can can this or that", you know I did it, it's your job to get me off. I don't care what it takes.

So when I get to it and find proof I will provide it. But I can't just argue this all day long. I have no intention of recusing myself from the major points, or even this thread, but I know it is not going to be easy to convince you. Fine. I have no bones about that and I am the same way. And really I don't claim to have more knowledge than anyone, just DIFFERENT knowledge.

I just thought this would be a good time to explain myself, that we stay the course of the thread rather than argue about credibility. That is actually a subject for a whole different thread, and could be interesting. People have read parts of the health car bill and construed it to mean that there will be death panels and such. People read the patriot act and construed it to mean that we are under martial law. Neither is true, nor is either completely false really.

Proof will be forthcoming as it comes. I just moved and it took me over six months to find the breadmaking machine. Now how long do you think it is going to take me to find one cetain piece of paper ? Even then all I can do is scan it. I have electronic copies of the incorproration paper for the IRS from Deaware, I have held them in my hand and felt the notary stamp on them. I can't prove that, how the fuck could I ever ? But I know you can request them so you can see and feel it, anybody can. There is a copying fee but it is nominal.

And anyone can edit a webpage. The quote in this thread to which I referred, how do I know that was the exact wording ? It could have been edited. The only way to be sure is to get a locked PDF file straight from the government, it cannot be changed. Any website, any file is suspect unless it is not editable. So I am even more skeptical than you maybe.

But I respect your position, as indeed at one time, I occupied that position. It took alot to make a believer out of me, but here I am.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

neg treat simply means they are unhappy with the precedent and may rule to the contrary.  It has no effect in negating the original ruling of the cases I cited and that therein is why you continually fail to provide anything in defense of your position, but your opinion and I am very sorry to have to inform you that your opinion has no validity at this point.  Neither does it mean the higher courts have the same position.  Your use of the term is deceptive, but I presume that is why you used it is it not?  Just saying the constitution is old and outdated and courts look negatively on the absolute right to bear arms for instance does nothing what so ever to change anything except prove the courts are operating OUTSIDE their jurisdiction and your support for the same thereof.

oh and do not send me a bill for your secretarial services because you will not be paid as I have no contract with your for said services. :)

I never said that "negative treatment" negates the original ruling. The ruling on the original case stands, but the use of those cases to support future cases becomes invalid.

Yeh thats called stare decis where every time someone farts you set a new precedent or write a new law from the bench......and that is what they teach you all in law school now days LOL.

I have much better things to do with my time than to research CURRENT case law to prove what everyone here already knows...that you are full of shit.

Oh you already have and you know your allegations are dead meat.... you can thank me for giving you an excuse to bail out.

As for the secretarial comment...is that supposed to offend me that you are referring to me as nothing more than a mere secretary? I'm not, it doesn't and it was nothing more than you once again trying to further your point by belittling those that disagree with you.

Oh well I was just returning and thanking your kind gesture of showing off what a great secretary you are by example, but I already have one and I just wanted to be clear that there will be no pay in it for you.

quote:


So your claim then is that a publicly traded "entity" is somehow NOT a corporation?

How else can they be publicly traded or are you saying that they provided false information and are committing securities fraud?

"Publicly Traded" would be listed in the stock market. So where are they listed?

If I did correct it to traded in the public.

quote:


and what I am trying to tell you UNrealone is that the operative word here is TRADED AS!

Are you unable to make that simple connection?

"Trading as" means nothing more than the name that is commonly used. Same as "Doing Business As." It is not even restricted to "publicly traded" entities. It is nothing more than a "notification" of sorts. As in you could have ABC Company which has a store called ABC Painting. You would be ABC Company "trading as" or "doing business as" ABC Painting.

That's YOUR grade school education for today.

Oh thank you very much for making my point and agreeing that the judicial is a "for profit BUSINESS"

quote:


What does that have to do with the Federal Reserve System (not Association)? Same with the claim about the IRS being incorporated in Delaware - if you read the actual papers, you can see that it was a tax prep and accounting firm, incorporated in 1933.

quote:


well I dont really want to go to deep into this but if I remember right the fed res was incorporated in in england and is headquartered in juan carlos puerto rico. I mean if you wan to tgo back to original documents.

You do understand the difference between "A" Federal Reserve ASSOCIATIOM and "THE" Federal Reserve, right? Funny how you want to selectively ignore that, since it proves you wrong (again).

Sure its the trust situs for the federal reserve system.

This is why I dont have time to do this. You people cant do anything for yourselves.

quote:


Really thats only the beginning, if I had lots of time to debate every freaking little piece of gnat shit that seems to be the requirement on this board I would post pics of the jewish whorehouse right by the gate, the sign in front of auschwitz that has been reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million, the fat asses cheering when the allies arrived, the statements from the military forensics experts that they found no gassed bodies after thousands of autopsies, the coke shipments to prove they could not have done what certain people claim, and like other great bullshit stories in history a huge list of evidence to the contrary.
But being the nice guy that I am I wont post it because I dont want to rain on your parade.

THIS proves what an actual idiot you truly are. Perhaps you would like to tell us all about the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers next, and how the government actually knew in advance and planned for it to happen?

Spare me, take it to aneriens conspiracy thread, its a nonargument today.

Or maybe you want to talk about the other gunman when Kennedy was shot? How about who killed Marilyn Monroe? Do Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison come to visit you too?

I suppose you will be the one crying AGAIN if I respond to you in the same condescending manner in which you respond eh.....

quote:


The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, "f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court." Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party,"

The level with which you are unable to read and comprehend this is actually humorous. It isn't a private attorney "general." The "general" goes with the "principle," NOT the "attorney. The whole thing was written in regards to pro se litigants.

Thank you so much for your invaluable enlightenment.

quote:


Private Attorney General Act

The California Legislature has enacted a law which allows private citizens to sue for civil fines and penalties for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions. Previously, this could only be done by a State agency such as the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General. Under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, private citizens can sue for these violations. If they are successful, the fines imposed under the law are split with 75% of the amount going to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% going to the injured employees. This 25% is in addition to any other monies owed the employees such as unpaid overtime, unpaid meal premiums, bounced check fees, etc.

This website will go over what is involved in a Private Attorney General Action, what Labor Code sections you can sue for, and provide some additional information for attorneys who practice in this area. This website is maintained by the Law Offices of Michael Tracy.

Now you find it necesary to dive all the way down to foolishness.

As for me, I'm with Ken on this thread. You are going to continue to spout your bullshit, and Termy is going to support you. We could put you in a court room and even when you couldn't win based on your "supporting evidence," you would come up with some other reason.

What with you people anyway? 

Always leading the issue with your bullshit presumptive "opinions" while claiming its the guy who with arguments supported by citation is making the presumption.

That works about as well as pulling clean window glass over peoples eyes to blind them from the truth.  

Its getting more difficult to not laugh at you with every post you make when every response you put is YOUR ASSUMPTIONS while I put up citations and who do you think is going to believe you?

You and Ken should choose your arguments more carefully so its not so easy to shoot you down in flames.

If the laws of this country bug you so much, why don't you move the fuck out of the country and go live somewhere else? Perhaps your own private island so you could rule over all you see and be king? Because the bullshit you are spouting here is nothing more than a bunch of crap.

Puff the majic dragon!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"That's YOUR grade school education for today."

Real, we agree on alot of things. As we know the subject is multifaceted. Even our viewpoints will differ from one another when it comes to certain details. But that was condescending.

Who started it doesn't matter, it is still up to YOU to keep YOUR cool. To do otherwise alienates the reader. Sure they might give you a snarky response, but at that point, no matter how right you are, you have seriously inhibited your ability to EVER convince them.

What is the purpose of an argument ?

So what is more important ? Amking one's point and enlightenining another perhaps, or is it that childish desire to show superiority ?

Tell you what Real, I would suggect that when you try to make the points here, act like you are in court. Be very careful what you say and be ready to back it up. I know you can because I know what you know. But you and others like us have this propensity to try to shove it down the thoats of others. They are not all ready, some of them do not want to know. Others actually depend on the status quo for their livelyhood. What's more you are in an international forum here, nobody's going a agree on fucking everything, there is no way.

Even when someone is stupid, I try to attack their words or actions, not they themselves. This is important. If you get the reader's mind into an adversarial state, you will not convince them of anything. You could say the sky is blue and they will be looking for a weather report to shoot you down, rather than reading your words. If that's what you want you might as well cut all your fingers off.

We must always be couteous, careful and polite. Nobody is forcing these people to come to our "school". They can walk out the door at any time and then you just waste your energy. Sure those who know will stay, but the idea is to create more of those who know. You tell me what is productive to that end and what is not.

A few more hearts and minds must be won. From there the word speads exponentially and eventually critical mass is attained. This is the goal, no other. You can't do it at gunpoint, you can't apply duress, you simply can't force someone to believe something. I have been studying psy chology for thirty fucking years and I KNOW this. And to those who want proof, fuck you, prove I am wrong first. That'll keep them busy enough to not bother me. Of course someone may come up with some shit like the Stockholm Syndrome, but in five second I can make that support my case.

Realize that you are, in most cases, fighting decades of indoctrination. That is not easy. I am no smarter than anyone else really, I was just not indoctrinated. My whole family, even the fine upstanding taxpaying ones, never gave a fuck about what is legal or not. I come from a different background, perhaps rich in knowledge, perhaps not so much. But I do not think like other people. There are people out there who think that is they lower a speed limit from 35 to 30 it is now a crime to go over 30 all the sudden. In other words they think legislation makes a crime out of something that was previously not a crime.

You are fighting that, and don't think it will be easy. Meet you ? Lets. We could have a good discussion but we agree so what's the point ?

I don't know what to sat other than that. They twist the law their way and we, unfortunately for them, know how to twist it our way. The unenlightened can learn, and the ignorant can just pay the fines all the time. Sometimes even we pay the fines, if we choose not to engage the PTB. I did and it cost me over two grand. I had my reasons, the deal was just so sweet. No conviction, no jail, no nothing. Sometimes you do just STFU and pay, your call.

That's all that fits in this nutshell.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll keep asking for proof as long as you keep trying to make this claim and we both know you can't produce it because we both know you're lying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Well Real, you may notice that I didn't bring this up. I don't anymore. I used to try to talk to my Father about empty carbs, his weight. He's dead now. Likewise, when they put those "law" abiding citizens in jail for something they forgot to mention was against the "law" I'm quite sure I won't get the call for bail money. However, as a Law abiding Citizen, they will find it much more difficult to extract my wealth.

T