Chris Hansen Under The Gun

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

You see, if you can choose a citizenship type you can choose which government laws apply to you.

No, you can't choose which laws apply to you.

Could you go to Canada and claim that because you're not a Canadian citizen the laws don't apply to you? Would you be free to murder in Canada because you're not a citizen?!!

Don't think so.

Could you go to England and claim that because you're not a British subject the laws don't apply to you?

Don't think so either.

I guess we can't prosecute terrorists who come to this country either ... they're not citizens either.

The laws apply to noncitizens who are present in the territory and commit acts here.

Furthermore, you can choose to no longer be a citizen of the U.S. ... but that means you have to leave the United States. You have to follow the rules for expatriating. But you can't choose to be a citizen at whim and decide you're going to stay here ... it doesn't work like that.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

No, you can't choose which laws apply to you.

Could you go to Canada and claim that because you're not a Canadian citizen the laws don't apply to you? Would you be free to murder in Canada because you're not a citizen?!!

Don't think so.

Could you go to England and claim that because you're not a British subject the laws don't apply to you?

Don't think so either.

I guess we can't prosecute terrorists who come to this country either ... they're not citizens either.

The laws apply to noncitizens who are present in the territory and commit acts here.

Furthermore, you can choose to no longer be a citizen of the U.S. ... but that means you have to leave the United States. You have to follow the rules for expatriating. But you can't choose to be a citizen at whim and decide you're going to stay here ... it doesn't work like that.

I don't think so, Brian, taxes have nothing to do with murder, terrorism, etc. Unless the govenment uses these tactics to extract taxes. Otherwise, this is a silly notion, repeated too often!

If one doesn't trespass against another, than one can choose his/her citizenship.

""[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of the revenue laws]." Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)

Freedom from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of expression. Indeed, freedom from compelled association illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy model of the First Amendment. As a general constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the state to choose one's associations and to define the persona which he holds out to the world.
[First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]

Emphasis added.

"The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the general government is one of the plainest facts which emerges from the history of their deliberations. And adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the states. State powers can neither be appropriated on the one hand nor abdicated on the other. As this court said in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 'The preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers, or-what may amount to the same thing-so [298 U.S. 238, 296] relieved of the responsibilities which possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain. It is safe to say that if, when the Constitution was under consideration, it had been thought that any such danger lurked behind its plain words, it would never have been ratified. "
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

Emphasis added.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index....t=0&#entry1693

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Furthermore, you can choose to no longer be a citizen of the U.S. ... but that means you have to leave the United States. You have to follow the rules for expatriating. But you can't choose to be a citizen at whim and decide you're going to stay here ... it doesn't work like that.

• 8 USC 1481
  (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a
  
  
  diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign
  
  
  state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of
  
  
  State; or

So is your position that any one of the 50 Union States is NOT a foreign state to DC, the STATE of the UNION?

You aren't reading the domicile article you were already directed to:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...orTaxation.htm

That article says that those who don't have a domicile in a country are ONLY subject to the criminal laws and not the civil laws. Civil law is contract law. Taxation is contract law. The Supreme Court admitted as much:

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “ [Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

The "contract" is your choice of domicile, which amounts to consent to support government in its job of providing the protection YOU ASKED FOR in writing by signing a government form declaring your domicile. Criminal law, on the other hand, applies no matter your choice of domicile, because its simply WRONG to hurt people. Yes, murder and terrorism are injurious, and so the government has jurisdiction over aliens even as visitors with no domicile. You have completely missed the point.

Once again, read the domicile article and it will become clear to you.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

You aren't reading the domicile article you were already directed to:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...orTaxation.htm

That article says that those who don't have a domicile in a country are ONLY subject to the criminal laws and not the civil laws. Civil law is contract law. Taxation is contract law.

"Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract."

Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 146

***********************************************

A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer and there is no express or implied contract to pay taxes. Taxes are not contracts between party and party, either express or implied; but they are the positive acts of the government, through its various agents, binding upon the inhabitants, and to the making and enforcing of which their personal consent individually is not required.

Cooley, Law of Taxation, 4th Ed., pgs 88-89

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

The Supreme Court admitted as much:

No they didn't.

But you have no idea why you're wrong about that.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

"Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract."

Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 146

***********************************************

A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer and there is no express or implied contract to pay taxes. Taxes are not contracts between party and party, either express or implied; but they are the positive acts of the government, through its various agents, binding upon the inhabitants, and to the making and enforcing of which their personal consent individually is not required.

Cooley, Law of Taxation, 4th Ed., pgs 88-89





No they didn't.

But you have no idea why you're wrong about that.

This sounds like more BS, Brian. Why does anyone need to sign a tax bill (Form/contract), under penalty of perjury? Could it be because it is voluntary contract?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

This sounds like more BS, Brian. Why does anyone need to sign a tax bill (Form/contract), under penaly of perjury? Could it be because it is voluntary contract?

Did you not under the Supreme Court cite?

If you think it's BS ... take it up with the Supreme Court.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by B.Rookard

No, you can't choose which laws apply to you.

Could you go to Canada and claim that because you're not a Canadian citizen the laws don't apply to you? Would you be free to murder in Canada because you're not a citizen?!!

Don't think so.

Could you go to England and claim that because you're not a British subject the laws don't apply to you?

Don't think so either.

I guess we can't prosecute terrorists who come to this country either ... they're not citizens either.

The laws apply to noncitizens who are present in the territory and commit acts here.

Furthermore, you can choose to no longer be a citizen of the U.S. ... but that means you have to leave the United States. You have to follow the rules for expatriating. But you can't choose to be a citizen at whim and decide you're going to stay here ... it doesn't work like that.

Brian,

With all due respect, This argument you presented is an apples/oranges comparison. In Commonwealth nations such as Canada and Great Britian, sovereignty is retained by her Majesty, the Queen. Therefore there is no real recourse for those inhabitants. Chisholm v Georgia states clearly that in united states of America, sovereignty devolved upon THE PEOPLE. It is then clear that those in public office SERVE only as we suffer them to.

Criminal law and civil infractions are completely different. Free people incur criminal liability when there is a corpus delecti. This is harmony with God's law, and for those who are bondservants of Him, there is also a diplomatic immunity, barring an injured party, seeing that we are ambassadors for the Kingdom of Heaven. Virtually all systems of law acknowledge that Kingdom. Codes and statutes only apply to those who contract with the system. No wonder the Book warns us to avoid being ensnared by this world! Codes and statutes ARE NOT LAW!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Did you not under the Supreme Court cite?

If you think it's BS ... take it up with the Supreme Court.

Yes, Brian, some taxes, mostly indirect taxes (see the Constitution for details) are Constitutional. However, there is an assesment of such taxes.

Yet, taxes based on "voluntary compliance", such as Subtitle A taxes, are just that, based on voluntary compliance and self-assessment (with a large portion of fraud, threats, duress, and corecion thrown in). Otherwise they are unConstitutional, see the Constitution for details.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Yes, Brian, some taxes, mostly indirect taxes (see the Constitution for details) are Constitutional. However, there is an assesment of such taxes.

Yet, taxes based on "voluntary compliance", such as Subtitle A taxes, are just that, based on voluntary compliance and self-assessment (with a large portion of fraud, threats, duress, and corecion thrown in). Otherwise they are unConstitutional, see the Constitution for details.

Tax protestor reasoning ...

We can choose which laws we want to obey.

Law is contract ... we can choose to be bound.

Law is voluntary.

Statutes aren't laws.

Taxes are voluntary.

There are no laws anyway!!!

We can choose not to be citizens.

We are "ambassadors of God" and enjoy diplomatic immunity!!!!! So your laws can't apply to us!!!!!

The lesson learned: tax protestors just don't want to pay taxes period, and by golly, they're going to keep trying any and every excuse to say they just don't have to follow the law ... no matter how ridiculous the argument is.

Hell, they'll even claim that their domicile is in heaven (although how they can do that when they're not dead yet ... well, you should know better than to ask that).