IF Social Security is a tax and Medicare/caid is also a tax and O blah blah care is also a tax then how can the government tax itself? Doesn't that violate some kind of cardinal rule? Kind of like how they don't tax municipal bonds as it would be one sector of government taxing another sector?Originally Posted by David Merrill
Guys, you want solutions? No Problemo! For starters, just sign everything with
All rights reserved
All benefits accepted under protest
Without prejudice
And you can add that verbage to all your past applications, agreements and contracts with the US, by amendment.
If you're an SSN-carrying State resident/citizen of the District of Columbia, AKA the United States, then even demanding lawful money won't help you much, since as a corporate US citizen you're subject to their corporate gov't definitions, including defining their funny-money FRNs as lawful money.
So you gotta first kill or cripple the SSN and maybe the BC also. And it's easy to cripple the SSN. Just send them a note that you only use it under protest and under duress. In which case it no longer can be considered a benefit, tying you into their corporate matrix and its legaleze, and if it's not a benefit, using it can't create any liability.
So you've crippled the SSN, and can keep using it without any liability. And if the money-changers don't like that, they can CANCEL it. In which case you can apply for a 98-series EIN, to operate in their corporate Matrix as a foreigner (non-resident alien), who's not subject to taxation. So you WIN either way :-)
Last edited by Jaro; 08-30-13 at 06:15 AM.
Oh, and let's not forget that Congress' legislative authority doesn't extend past District of Columbia and territories. So if you're not their 14th Am. corporate citizen (federal benefit recipient), and are domiciled in a state of the Union, Congress' legislation doesn't apply to you, and neither should IRS's jurisdiction.
BTW, there's no such thing as a United States citizen, other than the 14th Am. citizen, since 1868. After that year, you're either a US (federal) citizen or a sovereign state Citizen, when INSIDE USA. State Citizens are only considered to be US citizens, OUTSIDE of USA.
So if you're inside of USA, and admit to be a US citizen, you're admitting to be a 14th Amendment (federal) citizen of a Democracy, and certainly NOT a state Citizen of the Union/Republic. In other words, in order to claim protection of the ORGANIC United States Constitution, you gotta be either a state Citizen or state Inhabitant.
That agrees with PADELFORD.
Looking at the Constitution sure enough, it was ratified by States. The representatives of the States were elected or appointed by the state citizens sure enough.No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it.
Good point!
David, you as a state Citizen may not be party to the constitution, but you're still protected by it. That court cite just means that you can't sue the US civilly for damages. It doesn't mean that you're not protected by the organic US Constitution, or that you can't assert its protection, or that violation of your constitutional rights by public officials, isn't a crime.
Last edited by Jaro; 08-31-13 at 07:42 AM.
Interesting suggestion, Jaro.
Have you tried this out yourself?
What has been your experience with this action?
Thank you.
Treefarmer
There is power in the blood of Jesus
Interesting suggestion, Jaro.
Have you tried this out yourself?
What has been your experience with this action?
Thank you.
This relates heavily to The Atmosphere of Our Thinking by Ernest Shurtleff - NOT Ernest HOLMES. There stems the psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania that throws off the entire concept of Spiritual Mind Treatment. I call this a fundamental internal communications error - bad math.
In other words Paul claimed METRO jurisdiction, not state citizenship. Remember how he testified he was from Tarsus - no mean City?
Paul got eligibility for his Roman citizenship because his father was part of Cilicia (the province/state) helped to quash a people's rebellion against Rome a generation earlier. Paul was not entitled to Roman Citizenship - he had to pay for it.Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
See there? The chief captain was a countryman of Celicia who had bought Roman citizenship like Paul did in Cyprus on his way back to Israel from the mission fields in Turkey - Asia Minor. This one verse is loaded with Masonic keys:Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Act 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
A mason, by whatever name, an esoteric school or Lodge lied on the stand that the ship passed by Cyprus, yet Mnason (not his name as in One Mason) was a Cypriot Jew! So look at the first page of this 1995 METRO Article.Act 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Article VI of this charter states, "They (the Patroons) shall forever possess and enjoy all lands lying
within the aforesaid limits..." One of the possessions the Patroons were granted to "forever possess" is
Manhattan Island, the financial center of the world.
Especially one fine estate of Teunis Jansen Laenan VAN PELT who built a large stone wall around it... Wall Street. The original BoE was served on Richard GRASSO at the top of the Proof of Service.
All this is peppered around the Internet and especially this website. My point is that METRO began a simultaneous decay and rise to prominence in 1958 or so. It would seem as though the falsity eats the heart of METRO organization as quickly as the Internet and world travel and communications propagates it. Damascus (Syria) is the world's oldest capital City. My novel point is that once one gets hold of true Keys they lead to other keys and it is no surprise that the first manifestation of a government fully turning on the people who created it in a sustained warfare would be out of Damascus?
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-02-13 at 01:35 PM.
It's always baffled me how on planet Merrill Acts 22:27-28 can have the exact opposite meaning of what it clearly states, namely that Paul did NOT have to buy Roman citizenship like the chief captain, whose place of origin is nowhere mentioned in the Bible AFAIK, because Paul was "free born".
Either Paul was free born or he had to buy "freedom", i.e. Roman citizenship, it cannot be both, and the scriptures do say that he was "free born".
This does not appear to be a translation error either, because other English versions as well as the German Martin Luther translation that I have checked all agree that Paul was born a Roman citizen. No Bible I've ever read stated that Paul bought Roman citizenship at any time or place in his life.
Acts 22:28 in other translations reads:
NKJV---The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”
NLT---“I am, too,” the commander muttered, “and it cost me plenty!” Paul answered, “But I am a citizen by birth!”
NIV---Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.” “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.
NASB---The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”
RSV---The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen."
ASV---And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am a Roman born.
YLT---and the chief captain answered, 'I, with a great sum, did obtain this citizenship;' but Paul said, 'But I have been even born so.'
HNV---The commanding officer answered, "I bought my citizenship for a great price." Sha'ul said, "But I was born a Roman."
Treefarmer
There is power in the blood of Jesus
Regarding that citizenship, there are two kinds;
A natural-born, which in USA is state Citizenship, and STATUTORY, which in USA is 14th Amendment US citizenship. Which is why in this country we have sovereign state Citizens, who used to be called US Citizens before 1868, and District of Columbia (AKA the United States) citizens, who are gov't subjects. And of course the statutory citizenship can be bought.
Paul was not born in Rome. He was born in Tarsus, Cilicia. The political situation formed a generation earlier when a small rebellion against Roman rule was quashed by offering free Roman citizenship and its benefits to anybody who would fight for Rome. Paul's father apparently did so. This citizenship did not extend entitlement to Paul, but granted eligibility. For Paul as the original grantee's child to become a Roman citizen it cost a pretty penny, as indicated by the Roman soldier in identical political circumstances. This is only fact according to a reputable historian.
One day while short on change I read about all this in an old history book about Paul. Two days later I returned extremely disappointed to discover the shop owner had sold my book to somebody else! So I cannot show you why I have this interpretation.
It is however my interpretation and it fits well with a bad light upon Paul's integrity and motivations. Partially this radical view stems from The Nazarene Gospel Restored but any of these sources only contributes to my perspective and perceptions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote