Top Tweets for #concluding

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Government’s Purpose For Existence –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The government’s whole purpose for existence is to respect and protect the requirement for consent in all human interactions by providing civil and criminal judicial remedies for coercion, force, or unlawful duress of every kind AFTER they occur. It cannot fulfill this requirement if it can impose any kind of “duty” upon the American public beyond compensating those who are hurt by non-consensual harmful behaviors that injure the equal rights of others. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said on this subject: "With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still, one thing more, fellow citizens––a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." [President Thomas Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801] Governments protect private rights and the requirement for consent in all human interactions by the following means: 1. Operating only in a corrective, rather than preventive, mode to provide remedies for injuries. This condition forms the basis of the entire common law. The requirement for providing remedy is: ・There must be a real, flesh and blood party who was injured. ・The remedy should come after but not before the injury occurs. ・There must be evidence to prove the injury. 2. If they enact any civil statute that attempts to act in a preventative mode absent a demonstrated injury, then all such statutes: ・Behave essentially as a civil franchise. ・Require you to expressly consent to the status to which the public right attaches. ・Cannot be enforced against those who have NOT expressly consented. 3. Protecting people’s right to contract or not contract by punishing anyone who compels anyone to enter into or terminate any contractual relationship. See Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, which prohibits any state from impairing the obligation of contracts. Implicit in the phrase “impairing contracts” is any of the following: ・Forcing you to contract with anyone else, including the government. ・Forcing you to acquire or retain any civil status under an existing OTHER contract or franchise. Such statuses include “citizen,” “resident,” “taxpayer,” “spouse,” “driver,” etc. ・Forcing you to accept or assume the duties associated with any contract or franchise. 4. Ensuring that government does not compel people to convert their “private property” to “public use”. In other words, to punish those who compel others to engage in a privileged, excise-taxable activity called a “trade or business” or a “public office.” This usually happens when the government compels you to obtain or use an identifying number in corresponding with you. The 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) regulations say that the number belongs to the government and not you. It is public property, and it is illegal to use public property for private use. Therefore, whatever you attach the number to becomes “private property donated to a public use” to procure the benefits of a government franchise that destroys all of your constitutional rights: “Surely the matters in which the public has the most interest are the supplies of food and clothing; yet can it be that by reason of this interest the state may fix the price at which the butcher must sell his meat, or the vendor of boots and shoes his goods? Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. “ [Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)] 5. Making sure that the court system and legal profession are accessible and affordable to all so that even those who cannot afford an attorney can still defend their rights. This ensures “equal protection” to all, which is the foundation of all free governments: “No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)] 6. Educating people in public schools and universities about their rights and how to defend them without the need for a licensed, censored “officer of the court” called an “attorney”. All such attorneys have a conflict of interest and allegiance that will inevitably lead to the eventual destruction of the rights of the public at large: “His [the attorney’s] first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” [7 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Attorney & Client, §4 (1999)] 7. Punishing unlawful duress instituted by private employers and financial institutions that might compel people to participate in “social insurance” if they do not voluntarily consent. This means: ・Prosecuting companies that threaten to fire, won’t hire, or sanction workers who do not want to fill out a W-4 and instead hand them the more correct W-8BEN form. ・Prosecuting companies who compel the use of Social Security Numbers under 42 U.S.C. §408(a) and state identity theft statutes. ・Prosecuting companies that file false information returns against workers who are not lawfully engaged in public office within the U.S. government. We might add that an absolute refusal by the Department of Justice to do all of the above is the main reason that most people participate unlawfully in the tax system, to begin with. This omission constitutes a criminal conspiracy against rights, makes them an accessory after the fact to deprivation of rights, and makes them guilty of misprision of felony. 8. Helping those who cannot afford to help themselves, meaning helping the most underprivileged members of society to defend themselves from coercion and oppression by the most wealthy and influential members. "Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.' "And all the people shall say, "Amen!' [Deut. 27:19, Bible, NKJV] “The LORD watches over the strangers; He relieves the fatherless and widow; But the way of the wicked He turns upside down.” [Psalm 146:9, Bible, NKJV] “Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.” [Isaiah 1:17, Bible, NKJV] "For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, or walk after other gods to your hurt, then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.” [Jer. 7:5-7, Bible, NKJV] Thus says the LORD: "Execute judgment and righteousness, and deliver the plundered out of the hand of the oppressor. Do no wrong and do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” [Jer. 22:3, Bible, NKJV] “Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, The alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart Against his brother.” [Zech. 7:10, Bible, NKJV] In effecting the above goals of protecting “private rights,” governments who are following God’s biblical mandate for good government must pass laws to regulate the “public conduct” of its own public “employees,” officers, and agents. Most federal laws are laws exclusively for government and not for private persons and are enacted specifically to prevent federal employees from adversely affecting private rights. “The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)] The U.S. Supreme Court is saying above that the government has no authority to tell you how to run your private life. This contradicts the whole idea of the Internal Revenue Code, whose main purpose is to monitor and control every aspect of those subject to it. It has become the chief means for Congress to implement what we call “social engineering.” Just by the deductions they offer, people are incentivized into all kinds of crazy behaviors in pursuit of reductions in a liability they do not even have. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which would “appear” to regulate the private conduct of all individuals in states of the Union, in fact, only applies to federal instrumentalities such as “public offices” in the official conduct of their duties while present in the District of Columbia, which 4 U.S.C. §72 makes the “seat of government.” The Internal Revenue Code, therefore, essentially amounts to a part of the job responsibility and the “employment contract” of “public officers” or “public employees.” This was also confirmed by the House of Representatives, who said that only those who take an oath of “public office” are subject to the personal income tax requirements.