The Freeman Movement and England

[leafman91]

Will you do yourself and the USA a favour ? Examine the hundreds, thousands of cases in USA law where judges have failed to find ANY law imposing a Federal Income Tax ?

Let me save you some time.

The 16th Amendment was NEVER ratified by vote in the US Congress.



But you didn't tell us this fact, did you ? You were sleeping on the job ! The 16th Amendment does not have the force of law. It never has.

'Game, Set and Match' to the great people of the USA and its wonderful Constitution !!!!! There is NO lawful basis for a Federal Income Tax. None.


Time to Wake Up !!!

Oh now I wouldn't say that...

Amendment XVI. \8\

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment

[[Page 34]]
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
\8\ The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12,
1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.)
4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id.,
4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed
on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State
(Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being
then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State
Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the
Constitution. 37 Stat. 1785.
The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment
on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8,
1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8,
1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19,
1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington,
January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota,
February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February
11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2,
1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment
at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New
York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware,
February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3,
1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913;
Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected
(and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

42 to 6, sounds like a clear win to me. Here's the link, check it out for yourself. These guys are the United States Government Printing Office, and this is their website:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

Enjoy!

 

[Especially]

Oh now I wouldn't say that...

42 to 6, sounds like a clear win to me. Here's the link, check it out for yourself. These guys are the United States Government Printing Office, and this is their website:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

Enjoy!

The United States Government printing office would never lie to you. They also published the 9/11 Official Report. That's full of lies. How about this -

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, says that the US government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. (Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General).

Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled ''The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11'', and is set to be released this year. The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/arti...ent_agreed.htm

In actual fact, the number of States which ratified the 16th Amendment was only 2.

Check it for yourself.

 

[PB2007]

The United States Government printing office would never lie to you. They also published the 9/11 Official Report. That's full of lies.

In actual fact, the number of states which ratified the 16th Amendment was only 2.

Check it for yourself.

BAM! And that's what i was waiting for....

So which 2 and where's the evidence?

Dodge in 3,2,1....

 

[fitzgibbon]

We, the people of the nation, in whom was and is sovereignty. Since we are the keepers of the law. In England, as in the USA, and in Canada and elsewhere. Get used to it. Because we will prosper and you will not. You are the willing stooges of the New World Order. And we are the law abiding good people of our nation.

There's the rub. If the 'you the people' (as represented by FOTL-types) do not outnumber the 'we the people' as represented by society's majority. then how do you expect that your will will trump ours?

Might makes right's a female dog in heat.

 

[Lothian]

Especially. You referred to the law of the land. You said freemen are law abiding. The freemen in the video broke into a property that did not belong to them without the owners consent.

Do freemen think that that breaking into someone else's property is within the law?

 

[Especially]

Especially. You referred to the law of the land. You said freemen are law abiding. The freemen in the video broke into a property that did not belong to them without the owners consent.

Do freemen think that that breaking into someone else's property is within the law?

Who said this ? Only you.

I repeat that we are discussing Council Tax. Now somebody switches to a video which explains nothing of the case. Does it ? Is it even related to the Council Tax ?

So, let's stop the silly questions. I believe in upholding the law. I have said so since the start, as you know perfectly well. The woman is saying, repeatedly, 'I do not consent'. What is it she does not consent to ? Do you know ? A case of misinformation, perhaps ?

 

[D'rok]

Especially. You referred to the law of the land. You said freemen are law abiding. The freemen in the video broke into a property that did not belong to them without the owners consent.

Do freemen think that that breaking into someone else's property is within the law?

From: The National Trust
To: The Shayler cult squatting on our property
Re: Your continued presence on our property

We're not contracting with you! We're not contracting with you!

(Maybe that would have been an effective eviction technique?)

 

[Lothian]

Who said this ? Only you.

I repeat that we are discussing Council Tax. Now somebody switches to a video which explains nothing of the case. Does it ? Is it even related to the Council Tax ?

So, let's stop the silly questions. I believe in upholding the law. I have said so since the start, as you know perfectly well. The woman is saying, repeatedly, 'I do not consent'. What is it she does not consent to ? Do you know ? A case of misinformation, perhaps ?

Do freemen think that that breaking into someone else's property is within the law?

Easy question. Yes or No answer.

 

[leafman91]

The United States Government printing office would never lie to you. They also published the 9/11 Official Report. That's full of lies. How about this -

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, says that the US government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. (Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General).

Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled ''The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11'', and is set to be released this year. The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/arti...ent_agreed.htm

In actual fact, the number of States which ratified the 16th Amendment was only 2.

Check it for yourself.

Ah. You have made the mistake of posting a url with an ellipsis where there shouldn't be. This means I click on your link, and reach your site, but not your article, and leaves me to search pages upon pages of archives for it. If you could post the full url again please?
I would check the actual number, but I wouldn't know where...

 

[Especially]

From: The National Trust
To: The Shayler cult squatting on our property
Re: Your continued presence on our property

We're not contracting with you! We're not contracting with you!

(Maybe that would have been an effective eviction technique?)

But in that case it would have nothing to do with Council Tax.

Can you guys stay on the subject under discussion or do you want to divert us away from it ?

The Council Tax is a statute having the force of law only with the CONSENT of the person.

But just forget it. You seem unable to stay on the subject. It's your lack of education. And it shows.

 

[D'rok]

But in that case it would have nothing to do with Council Tax.

Can you guys stay on the subject under discussion or do you want to divert us away from it ?

The Council Tax is a statute having the force of law only with the CONSENT of the person.

If I may toot my own horn, I think we have the Council Tax thing figured out:

It's quite simple really. It goes something like this:

1. Freeman withdraws consent to council tax
2. Council initiates legal action
3. Freeman recites magic words and phrases
4. Council escalates legal action
5. Freeman consents to council tax
6. Freeman pays council tax
7. Council ceases legal action
8. Success!

Voila! You are now free to troll the interweb!

Do you have any examples of a freeman not paying Council Tax and getting away with it?

 

[Lothian]

But in that case it would have nothing to do with Council Tax.

Can you guys stay on the subject under discussion or do you want to divert us away from it ?

The Council Tax is a statute having the force of law only with the CONSENT of the person.

But just forget it. You seem unable to stay on the subject. It's your lack of education. And it shows.

The subject is the freedom movement and England. These freedom movement people broke into a property. You called the police fascists for removing them when they did not consent to be removed.

Is is legal to break into other people's property in your opinion. And how do you remove them if they refuse to consent?

 

[Especially]

The subject is the freedom movement and England. These freedom movement people broke into a property. You called the police fascists for removing them when they did not consent to be removed.

Is is legal to break into other people's property in your opinion. And how do you remove them if they refuse to consent?

You know you are changing the specific subject we were discussing. We were specifically discussing the Council Tax, weren't we ? Why are you starting to act so dishonestly ?

Somebody posted images of a woman being taken away by police. But, it seems, it had nothing to do with Council Tax, did it ?

I have also said that I uphold the law. As do those who refuse consent to be billed by the Council Tax.

I have also said that all law of England I support.

Can I be more clear ?

 

[fitzgibbon]

So Especially, you never did answer what the Bobbies are going to do to me should I come over to your home with the intention of shredding your chesterfield (under the understanding that I do not give my consent to them to be bound by any statute forebearing me from shredding your chesterfield).

Is it just thee and me in a cagematch with the Devil taking the hindmost?

Bump again for Especially

 

[D'rok]

You know you are changing the specific subject we were discussing. We were specifically discussing the Council Tax, weren't we ? Why are you starting to act so dishonestly ?

Somebody posted images of a woman being taken away by police. But, it seems, it had nothing to do with Council Tax, did it ?

I have also said that I uphold the law. As do those who refuse consent to be billed by the Council Tax.

I have also said that all law of England I support.

Can I be more clear ?

You could be more clear if you pointed out examples of people who successfully refused to consent to the Council Tax for those of us who missed it the first time around.

The example you gave to me was of a person who unsuccessfully refused consent to the Council Tax.

 

[LibraryLady]

I have moved the last few posts to AAH and am closing this thread pending Administrator attention.

Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[LibraryLady]

Okay, I have moved about 30 posts to AAH and am re-opening the thread with the proviso that it is now a moderated thread.

Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Lothian]

You know you are changing the specific subject we were discussing. We were specifically discussing the Council Tax, weren't we ? Why are you starting to act so dishonestly ?

Somebody posted images of a woman being taken away by police. But, it seems, it had nothing to do with Council Tax, did it ?

I have also said that I uphold the law. As do those who refuse consent to be billed by the Council Tax.

I have also said that all law of England I support.

Can I be more clear ?

Yes you can be clearer. We are discussing the Freedom movement in England. You said the fascist police should not remove the woman in the video who did not consent. You said the freemen do not break the law. The woman in the video had broken into someone else's property.

From your point of view can you answer the following.

(1) Is breaking into someone else's property against the law.

(2) How can someone legally remove people, who broke in uninvited, from their property?

 

[Sledge]

It's not your fault. You are just browsing and are not really interested in your own sovereignty, are you ?

First of all, you do NOT 'refuse' to pay taxes. I've never suggested this, have I ? You make these sweeping assumptions. Why not stop and pay attention to what other people know, for once ? Instead of talking off the top of your head ?

You must consider the offer being given to you. You are fully entitled to accept it (to consent to it) or not. THAT IS YOUR OBLIGATION. If you decline it you can politely reply you not consent. Can't you ? Or are you a jellyfish ? Thanking them for their offer to contract with you, but that you do not require the unquantified goods and services which they are offering. Compare this with your silly idea of 'refusing to pay taxes'. You are declining an offer made in statute/contract law. And if you answer in any other way you are liable to the bill. You may negotiate with them. You may ask them to provide more details of what they are offering. All of this is perfectly normal negotiation. Isn't it ?

You do NOT decline to attend a court hearing. Again, you are plain wrong. You really are not very well informed, are you ? You are given a 'summons'. What is a summons ? Check a law dictionary. It's an invitation given by that commercial court (operating under commercial law) to their place of business. To resolve the issue. Which you do. You attend. So, again, you are wrong.

Nor do the police arrive at your house. This is not a criminal matter. It's a straightforward commercial matter. You are wrong again.

In the court you explain that you are there to resolve the matter. As the representative of the person named on the bill. And you say that you are entitled under the Law of England to decline their offer. Not to consent to it.

But you at no point come under their jurisdiction because you claim, from the outset, that you wish the hearing to be conducted under the Law of England.

Is this simple, or not ?

Thank You

Again, please stop rabbiting on about how you think the legal system is supposed to work and answer my question: when I don't pay the money demanded of me, how do I avoid several large men putting me in a prison cell?

And please, no babbling on about how they aren't "demanding" the money. Focus on the point that if this money isn't paid, I go to prison.

 

[joe911]

I have a quick question for the freeman.
How do you travel abroad?because the name on the passport is capital letters,in freeman land that means that passport belongs to someones legal fiction,and because they refuse to consent to representing thier legal fiction they also cannot use thier passports,right?