Frivolous Subject: It is LAWFUL for the government to impose CIVIL obligations without your consent in some form
The following debate with a member highlights the FOLLY of claiming that the government has the right to impose CIVIL obligations without your consent.
You can learn more about CIVIL obligations at:
- Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf - Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofOfClaim.pdf
THEM:
Imposing a duty on a non-governmental person does not violate 13th Amendment.
US:
Criminal duty true. There is even an EXCEPTION for criminal in the Thirteenth Amendment, bro. Civil duty requires consent in CHOOSING a domicile, not having one imposed upon on them involuntarily. Those domiciled have already consented so they can have duties imposed on them. Those who haven’t retain all constitutional protections. Otherwise, WHY THE HELL even HAVE a Bill of Rights if they can impose any arbitrary duty they want? This is all analyzed ad infinitum in:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
Which I don’t think you have read.
Labor and duties are property. Imposing obligations is a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment UNLESS there is consent in some form.
Government is equal to the people. If government can impose duties without consent and thus STEAL property, EVERYONE can do it to anyone else. Any other approach literally makes government a god with supernatural powers above you, who are the natural in violation of the First Amendment.
The people as the sovereign cannot delegate to a government a power they do not have.
What is the purpose and main benefit of the 1787 constitution if it ISN’T “the pursuit of happiness”, which the U.S. supreme court equated with the ownership of property? Rights are property and the Declaration said the main purpose of the government was to secure this property.
There is NO EXCEPTION in the Thirteenth Amendment for CIVIL duties like there are with CRIMINAL duties so they STILL require consent in some form.
Everyone who CAN have CIVIL duties imposed upon them is a governmental person:
“” A public officer is one who has some duty to perform concerning the public; and he is not the less a public officer when his duty is confined to narrow limits, because it is the duty, and the nature of that duty, which makes him a public officer, and not the extent of his authority.’ 7 Bac. Abr. 280; Carth. 479…. Where an employment or duty is a continuing [***65] one, which is defined by rules prescribed by law and not by contract, such a charge or employment is an office, and the person who performs it is an officer….
[Ricker’s Petition, 66 N.H. 207 (1890)]”
Duty=obligation
Are you trying to tell me that if a robber holds a gun in your back and orders you to rob the bank, that YOU robbed the bank instead of the robber? Absurd! The bible says government is a ROBBER. It robs using its AGENTS by imposing obligations on them AFTER it fools them into VOLUNTEERING for an office. Then it DENIES responsibility for the office, even though it CREATED and AUTHORIZED the office legislatively and therefore is the OWNER and the responsible party!
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm
Ownership and responsibility ALWAYS go together. The office is THEIR property. You can’t OWN property without taking RESPONSIBILITY for it. The real actor in the presence of duress is ALWAYS the source of the duress and not the victim of the duress.
THEM:
For example, the customs duty for bringing foreign goods into the USA.
US:
Customs duties are imposed OUTSIDE LAND protected by the constitution, in international waters. So the constitution doesn’t apply there. Remember: “law of the LAND”, not of the sea
Congress has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over international waters. Its a foreign affairs function.
So are packages coming into the country INTERNATIONALLY. That too is a foreign affairs function, and the people doing it are COMPANIES with no constitutional rights. Its therefore a PRIVILEGE
THEM:
Have you ever personally paid a customs duty?
US:
In other countries, not here. Its collected on land NOT protected by the constitution BEFORE you get on the plane.
THEM:
A customs duty is imposed in the act of crossing the border. It is not imposed “only in international waters”.
The power to impose imposts and duties is granted to Congress by the States in the federal constitution.
It’s absurd to argue that customs duties can only be imposed “where the constitution doesn’t apply”.
This is a perfect example of trying to massage the facts to try to make them fit your theory.
US:
But you agree with the previous arguments, since you didn’t deny them. Failure to deny WITH FACTS and LAW is an admission. You can’t abandon the battlefield and not lose the battle. Federal rule of civil procedure 8(b)(6)
Red herring
THEM:
No I don’t
I think your whole theory falls apart with the debunking of your premise that a duty cannot be imposed on non-governmental persons
US:
So STEALING property is ok in your book? I don’t hang around people who advocate THEFT or who defend the thefts of others. They make bad friends. Obligations are property, and imposing them without consent is THEFT. Either everyone can do it or no one can do it since we are all equal. So I guess by that logic I can steal from you as long as I call it an obligation. And if I can’t, then neither can the government.
This logic is exactly the same logic that Judge Napolitano used to describe the government, BTW. Is the good judge WRONG?
THEM:
I don’t see how imposing a customs duty is “stealing”
US:
I’m coming over to your house to inventory. Everything I want to take will be labeled with the word “civil obligation” to make it “perfectly lawful” according to you.
Customs duties fund travel ABROAD. Protected parties are those who CONSENT to the civil statutory status of “citizen” by filing the 1040 instead of the 1040NR. Those who don’t want the protection denounce the status and the obligations attached to it. If you can’t do that, its human trafficking internationally.
That was the implication in Cook v. Tait, written by THIEF president Taft, who was a former IRS agent before he became president and later chief justice of the supreme court.
I don’t argue with customs duties, because they are minimal and a foreign affairs function like jurisdiction over ALIENS, even within the country. So its a red herring anyway.
THEM:
But customs duties disprove your premise that only governmental persons can have a duty imposed upon them
US:
Anyone subject to either duress (by the government) or to CIVIL (not criminal) obligations is a government officer. Customs duties are duress for those PEOPLE who don’t consent. Obligations of STATUTORY CIVIL “citizens” or “residents” or “persons” are also duress for those who don’t want to be one.
If a guy sticks you up at the airport when you land and empties your wallet, was there a crime? What about if he has a uniform on that says “customs”? What’s the DAMN difference? A uniform? ABSURD! NO DOUBLE STANDARDS. Everyone must be treated equally or we are ALL slaves of the GREATER than equal party. God is NO RESPECTOR of “persons”. He doesn’t impute SUPERNATURAL powers to anyone, and least of all governments or people with uniforms.
“I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law.”
[Psalm 119:113, Bible, NKJV]“Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
[James 4:8, Bible, NKJV]
THEM:
You just redefined “government officer” to include anyone upon whom any duty is imposed. That is dishonest.
Where does the Bible say all governments are robbers?
Doesn’t the Bible say to honor and obey a just government?
US:
- You redefined the COURT’S definition. The court said anyone owing a duty to GOVERNMENT is a public officer, not anyone owing a duty AT ALL.
- The bible says to obey government “FOR THE LORD’S sake”, meaning to the extent that they live WITHIN the biblical delegation of authority order as an eleemosynary trust that is NEVER for profit. When the government does something God forbids or fails to do something He commands, they are operating OUTSIDE their biblical delegation of authority and cease to be “government” as GOD defines it. Never mind how we define it. That delegation of authority order is described below:
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf - The proper scope of God’s delegation of authority order and how to keep government WITHIN it is exhaustively described using the bible at:
https://sedm.org/Forms/17-Theology/BookOfRomans13.pdf
https://sedm.org/Forms/17-Theology/TheBookOfRevelation.pdf - The Bible says government is a THIEF at:
4.1 Rev. 18:6 says to render to the HARLOT that is government DOUBLE. The harlot is a metaphor for government, and it is living life of luxury with STOLEN goods.
4.2. Exodus 22:7 and 9 both say THIEVES must pay double what they stole, just like the harlot
4.3 Psalm 89:11 says the entire earth is the Lords. Any attempt to “RENT” it out using property taxes is renting STOLEN property and money laundering.
4.4. 1 Cor. 3:17 says your body is a temple. Can the government tax a church or the fruit of your body without your consent? That’s stealing from God.
4.5 Psalm 50:18-21
4.6. Jeremiah 2:26-28
4.7 Proverbs 1:10-19
The nature of government as nothing but a thief and a competitor to God for the affection, allegiance, and obedience of the Sovereign People is described using the Bible at:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
THEM:
A customs duty is not a duty “concerning the public”
US:
The people collecting customs duties work for the public. A duty to the agent is duty to the PRINCIPAL under the law of agency. Jesus was God’s “agent”. A duty owed to Jesus is a duty owed to His FATHER.
The revenues from customs are paid to the collective “State”, the agent of which is “the government” as a corporation. The collective “State” are, in fact, “the public” as legally defined.
The bible says in Prov. 1:14 NEVER to “share one purse” with socialist robbers. The PUBLIC FISC is, in fact, EXACTLY that purse!
The customs agents are in fact collecting money to FILL that “purse”.
THEM:
You’re attempting to dodge my point. The customs duty itself is paid by a non-governmental person
They don’t become a government officer because they pay it
US:
I’m not dodging your question. If I don’t consent, its duress, in which case I’m a compelled agent of the source of the duress, which is the government.
I become a government officer if I pay it and didn’t CONSENT to pay it, because then it’s paid under duress. When there is duress, the real party in interest is ALWAYS the SOURCE of the duress, not the AGENT or VICTIM of the duress.
THEM:
And if they do, then it’s dishonest for you to declare that only government officers can have any duty, without explaining your circular reasoning, i.e. that having any duty all by itself brings one within your definition of a government officer
Consent is manifested by performing the act from which the duty arises, i.e. bringing the foreign good into the USA.
There is no requirement that paying the duty Be dependent on any personal desire of the person who pays it
US:
If you own yourself, ONLY YOU get to define the circumstances under which you consent to ANYTHING. Allowing anyone else to define a specific act as consent makes you into someone else’s property. Here is the way I describe it elsewhere:
“By physically residing anywhere within the exterior borders of the federal plantation, we acknowledge our consent to this compact. That implied consent is called DOMICILE, which gives the “force of law” to this CIVIL social compact through our ACTIONS rather than our explicit written consent. We hereby authorize any judge to create false evidence of consent to anything they want by selecting any arbitrary action as the evidence of said consent. By doing so, we no longer own ourselves, but are literally owned by judges. We authorize judges to compel domicile and to ensure that no matter where we go, we will be on SOMEONE’S FARM and owned by a specific Farmer and never own ourselves. These concepts are exhaustively described in:
[The REAL Social Compact; https://sedm.org/the-real-social-compact/]
Velcome to gulag Amerika, Comrade! You’re now property of the state MERELY by acquiescing to SOMEONE else’s imposed method of defining consent.
Any attempt to contact me or debate with me is hereby defined as consent to donate all your property to me. When can I come over and pick it all up?
THEM:
You even said that customs duties are so minimal that you don’t argue with them.
Now they are “slavery”.
Make up your mind!
You weren’t elected to represent me
US:
I was ELECTED by you to represent your interests by you asking for the privileges of my services, and given due notice of the obligations attached by the ACT of acceptance of those services and implied consent.
If I’m a nonresident alien, don’t claim any civil benefit, and don’t participate in elections, the corporation that is the object of the elections is foreign and a thief if it treats me like a member of the body politic or enforces the obligations of membership. I didn’t elect them AT ALL, so I never consented.
That THIEF, is called Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation. If we are “citizens of heaven” as the bible declares in Phil 3:22, then we can’t be citizens of earth. Citizen in a statutory sense is always tied to domicile, and our “dwelling” according to the Bible is the Kingdom of Heaven under God’s protection. You can only be domiciled civilly in ONE PLACE at a time. This is because no man can serve two masters from a biblical perspective and domicile implied allegiance and therefore servitude.
The Bible says you aren’t allowed to have a secular king ABOVE you. At best, Governments can be nothing more than EQUAL to a single human in court under God’s delegation order.
THEM:
It’s the people of USA’s border, not yours. You want to bring foreign goods in? Declare it and Pay the duty. Or risk the consequences
US:
Its God’s borders under His delegation order. If the USA manages those borders as God’s steward consistent with their delegation order as His agent, it can’t be ONLY the USA’s borders.
You mean risk being STOLEN from by a criminal mafia with a gun pretending to enforce membership rules against non-members?
That’s called CRIMINAL simulation of legal process. When “sovereign citizens” do it, they are prosecuted. Why isn’t the mafia government THIEF held to the same standard? Because they run the MAFIA courts? Might does not make right.
THEM:
I was actually thinking about messaging you about that. Apparently the civil rights of 1868 (?) or whatever year states that all persons born in the United States AND not subject to a FOREIGN POWER (such as Kingdom of Heaven) are declared to be citizens of the United States.
I’m not sure if or how “United States” is defined in that act.
Read that in a book by Eustace Mullins, making the point that Freemasons are subjects of a foreign power thus they don’t consider themselves citizens of the United States, so nothing they do is actually treason
Your disagreement with their law isn’t a valid defense in their courts
US:
Ditto with God. God is DEFINITELY foreign to the present pagan THIEF government full of transvestites and fornicators and idolaters. And I’m an agent of God, according to the Bible. So I’m foreign and a “citizen of heaven” under Phil. 3:22. You can’t be a citizen or have a domicile within TWO governments at the same time. Conflicting allegiance.
That’s the very ORIGIN of the separation of church and state in the First Amendment, I believe.
THEM:
That’s a myth. The establishment clause of First Amendment does not say anything about a separation of church and state
US:
Who is “we”? Its a first amendment right to live under God’s civil law, the common law, and the SECULAR criminal law but never the secular CIVIL LAW.
THEM:
Anybody reading your materials.
At the end of every argument with you is “I don’t care what any government says! They’re not legitimate!”
How is that supposed to help anyone not get swindled?
US:
Government is legitimate ONLY for criminal and common law purposes, with or WITHOUT my consent. Anything done CIVILLLY without consent is illegitimate, not EVERYTHING the government does. DON’T misrepresent what I said to make me look like an anarchist. I’m NOT. I think you’re just jealous that there are people who can live outside a corrupted system lawfully, and avoid all CIVL privileges. You want people who don’t receive any benefits paying for YOUR benefits, don’t you? Isn’t that socialism?
Even for purportedly LEGITIMATE nonconsensual criminal and common law proceedings, there are many examples of corruption and injustice. For instance, prosecuting someone extraterritorially based on mishandling the predicate civil status that you don’t want to have is an example of an injustice and ILLEGITIMATE use of the justice system.
I can be a productive, responsible, contributing member of society and still take this approach that only the common law and criminal law are legitimate. I can even be supervised by the courts in everything that I do wrong, just like everyone else. Only under a DIFFERENT law system. See:
Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf
The CRIMINAL law and the COMMON law protect people from being swindled. They are legitimate in most cases but can also be mismanaged and abused by corrupt governments.
The fact that I am protected by a different CIVIL law system, the common law, is not a valid basis to discriminate or institute economic sanctions by refusing to do business with me. You’re an elitist to assume that I am somehow inferior because I choose to protect my absolutely owned private property with a different law system than you. Its my right.
You write the law for your own household as a father and a husband and co-owner (if married) of that household. Why do we need YOU? It’s the same concept. Ownership of private property, in fact, is the ONLY reason you have authority to govern ANYTHING, including yourself. Since everyone has it, everyone is a “lawgiver”. The fact that God owns the heaven and the earth, according to His Law, is the only reason he can even BE the “lawgiver” for any of us.
Otherwise he would be interfering with someone ELSE’s property right to institute or enforce His Law.
This article describes this concept:
https://sedm.org/ownership-as-the-origin-of-the-right-to-define/
According to the Declaration, anything done CIVILLLY to you without your consent is unjust. If you don’t care about consent, then you don’t care about justice itself:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
And if you don’t care about justice, then you promote INJUSTICE by your indifference. Why does the world need more proponents of injustice like you? Isn’t there enough injustice already?
THEM:
As you said, you paid customs duties just like everyone else. So you talk a big game but that’s about it from what I’ve seen.
I’m all in favor of any lawful approach to dealing with government pirates that actually WORKS.
US:
But you ignored the original discussion and ran off on a red herring to avoid admitting that the rest of the logic, law, and facts are coherent and sound. So we still haven’t even touched the original issue, which is income tax, not customs duties.
When push comes to shove, its always about who has the guns and might, not right. Velcome to mafia Amerika, Comrade
THEM:
People can disagree with you without it being due to personal issues such as “jealousy”
US:
People can’t misrepresent what you say, refuse to apologize when called on it, and not be malicious to some degree. Friends don’t do that. So the malice has to come from somewhere. I just named a possibility, not a likelihood.
THEM:
I saw a flawed premise, which you have attempted to dismiss. Why would I bother reviewing anything else you wrote?
The consent to pay is not legally required for income tax, either. The obligation to pay is inherent in the liability
US:
Which is? Domicile is still voluntary, and its the basis of the income tax. You didn’t challenge that, so the premise you picked is irrelevant. An easy exit door for the lazy.
THEM:
Taxable income is the basis for the income tax
US:
Taxable income of VOLUNTEER taxpayers, most of whom were FRAUDULENTLY elected into office by a false information return that is a criminal offense. The fruit of a crime is not evidence of a liability.
THEM:
I don’t recall seeing the word “domicile” anywhere in the income tax provisions of the IRC
Nope. Taxable income of ANY individual or ANY corporation, partnership trust or estate
US:
Any individual who is an ALIEN, so far as withholding is concerned. 26 CFR 1.1441-1, or anyone abroad who consents to be treated AS IF they are a “qualified individual” under 911(d) by filing a 1040 instead of a 1040NR, like Cook in Cook v. Tait.
THEM:
Nope. Any individual. Period
Withholding is not imposition of tax
US:
26 USC 1 does not create a liability either. The liability is in the regs, and even then its “liable TO”, not “liable FOR”, so its a kickback for VOLUNTEER public officer taxpayers working in the treasury department as proven by:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
There are LOTS of things that aren’t in the code that pertain:
“The obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50. The Federal Constitution imposes on the states no particular modes of taxation, and apart from the specific grant to the federal government of the exclusive 280*280 power to levy certain limited classes of taxes and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it leaves the states unrestricted in their power to tax those domiciled within them, so long as the tax imposed is upon property within the state or on privileges enjoyed there, and is not so palpably arbitrary or unreasonable as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra.
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]
According to the above DOMICILE is the SOLE BASIS for taxation, and yet it isn’t even mentioned in the code. It’s hidden in the statutory words “citizen”, and “resident”. Nonresident aliens are not in this group, so they aren’t domiciled in the federal zone. They can still exercise an office, but its a “taxpayer” office instead of a STATUTORY “citizen” and “resident” office. That’s why there is no “personal jurisdiction” over them: no CIVIL domicile. They opted out of the “benefits” of group membership (domicile) and abandoned the rules for members called “citizen” and “resident”. Those rules are the CIVIL statutory law as a civil protection franchise.
Those who only look at the code are “pseudo intellectuals” likely to injuriously apply a rule book for members to nonmembers. That’s THEFT. More particularly, its IDENTITY THEFT:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf
THEM:
No one is taxed merely because they have a domicile in the United States. They are still taxed on “taxable income” which IS clearly imposed on individuals at IRC Sec. 1.
US:
What part of “sole basis for taxation” do you NOT understand about domicile?
IMPOSITION does not equal LIABILITY. Liability is not mentioned in section 1. It’s in the regulations, and even then its “Liable TO”, not “Liable FOR”. Are you LIABLE TO go to the bathroom today? And those regulations EXCEED the scope of the statute UNLESS the audience is limited to people working for the Department of the Treasury under the direct VOLUNTARY control of the secretary as VOLUNTEER “employees” or officers. 5 USC 301 forbids the secretary from writing regs to create obligations for people outside his department. That’s what the Part 301 regulations are all about, in fact! See:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
The truth will not go away because you ignore it. Those who willfully ignore it because it threatens their security or credibility are victims of a mental illness called the Dunning-Kruger effect, as this video proves:
https://sedm.org/secular-praise-of-the-main-virtue-of-christianity-humility/
Your friend ____ provided the above video, so I think he would also agree. If you want to continue being mentally ill, further debate is pointless. Minds are like parachutes: They only work when they are OPEN and INFORMED. You have the most closed mind of anyone I know. The distinctly Christian virtue of humility is the only way to open it back up, as the video points out.