| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 This is a bag of Jezebel Root. Used for spells and castings for money and achievement. IS THE IRS A RELIGIOUS CULT?by Paul RevereIRS = vox populi; A belief or sentiment shared by most people; SYNONYMOUS WITH; opinion, popular opinion, public opinion- In 2000 I happened upon the word "BELIEF", as used by IRS correspondence which basically parrots what the Internal Revevnue Manual states: "Our system of taxation "depends" upon the taxpayers "belief" that the internal revenue laws apply to everyone."
I find it more than interesting that the American People seemingly don't have even the most basic academic grasp of what the definitions of "common" everyday words mean. Never mind when it comes to "legal" definitions. Which, by the way, are in some cases completely opposite from the "common" usage meanings. Why wouldn't they? We've allowed a bunch of "federally trained" attorneys to write this crap!
Apparently, not even the "employees" at the IRS or the "state employees" at the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance have sufficient knowledge to differentiate between the two. One can only wonder HOW these people even qualified for their jobs! Even worse, the incompetent boobs that actually hired them.
I have more than enough material to bash these idiots ALL day long using their own arcane views of what is supposedly required "by law"? Uhuh. But, That is not the intent of this document. The intent is to establish a working framework to establish a "non-religious" belief that the Internal Revenue Service as well as the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance are in reality, nothing more than some sort of sick, twisted, cult that somehow, miraculously, through the years brought within their flock practically everybody in the state and the Country, to the "BELIEF" that they have become masters over OUR "life, liberty, and property". Well guess again! Anybody, I mean ANYBODY that tries to take something from ME without any PROOF that they have a VALID LEGAL claim to it will be looking down a barrel! GOT IT?? What is the definition of "BELIEF"? Well, it's common, everyday meaning should suffice since it can't be a "legal" term. Who would ever believe the Law if they used the word "belief" in it? Are we beginning to get the picture?
If the Law were to say;
Every individual, person, resident, non-resident, creature with two (or four legs), natural or un-natural thing or it; WHO BELIEVES IN ANY EVENT, IF YOU SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO "BELIEVE" WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO ASSURE PROPER THAT WOULD SOUND SO SILLY THAT MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE WOULD LAUGH AT IT. ARE YOU A BELIEVER?
What are "Words"? Language that is spoken or written, A unit of language that native speakers can identify, word: A secret word or phrase known only to a restricted group, Word: The divine word of God; the second person in the Trinity (incarnate in Jesus), (synonym); Holy Writ, passwords.
What are "Beliefs"? ? ? Noun, - Any cognitive content held as true, A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof, A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
Synonym: - dogma, feeling, impression, notion,
tenet Noun; A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Type of: - church doctrine, cognitive content, content, creed, gospel, idea, mental object, religious doctrine, thought
What is a "CULT"? ?
CULT: Noun -Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, An interest followed with exaggerated zeal, A system of religious beliefs and rituals.
Synonyms; craze, fad, furor, furore, rage, religious cult
Type of; - faith, fashion, religion, religious belief
Types; - hoodooism, macumba, obeah, obi, Rastafarianism, vodoun, voodoo, voodooism
According to the Internal Revenue Manual:
Part 5, Collection Activity
105.4.1.2 (07/27/98)
Introduction
(1) Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers' belief that the tax laws they follow apply to everyone and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are fundamental principles of voluntary compliance.
Click Here for another example of this "belief" CULT
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy
to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to
fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he
didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply
by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
- Catch-22, Joseph Heller There are those in power who choose to violate the law for their own personal gain. They get away with it because of the apathy of the majority.
Apathy: noun An absence of emotion or enthusiasm, The trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally. Synonomous with: indifference, spiritlessness Let's touch on another minor difference in the use of words. Query: Is an "officer" and an "official" the same person? Let's see. officer: noun Any person in the armed services who holds a position of authority or command, Someone who is appointed or elected to an office and who holds a position of trust, A member of a police force, A person authorized to serve in a position of authority on a vessel. Synonymous with: military officer, officeholder, police officer, policeman, ship's officer. official: noun A worker who holds or is invested with an office, Administers rules of a game or sport. adjective Having official authority or sanction, Of or relating to an office, Verified officially. Obviously, an official and an officer (as in a "public officer") are two different animals. But how does one become an "officer"? Good question.
According to the law ... in section 64.6 of the Iowa Code it states:
State officers--blanket bonds.
State officials are not required to obtain bonds, but may be covered under a blanket bond for state employees. The blanket bond purchases shall be made in an amount and with the level of assumption of risk by the state that is determined by the department of general services. The state shall pay the reasonable cost of bonds under this section. [emphasis added]
The FIRST thing one should notice is the Title says "State officers", however the text of the Code itself contradicts the "Title". It says "State officials". This is not unusual when they write Code. One may ask what is a Code? Code: noun A set of rules or principles or laws especially written ones Type of: coding system. Codified: verb Organize into a code or system, such as a body of law. [emphasis added]
Eh Hemmmmm..., Excuse me Mr. Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance, GERALD BAIR, but YOU'RE a "state officer". NOT a "state official". So the million dollar question is; WHERE'S YOUR "BOND", AND WHERE'S YOU'RE "COMMISSION FOR APPOINTMENT"?????
It should be "noticed" that there is an indication at this point that a "blanket bond" is nothing more than an "employee dishonesty bond" protecting the State from their own employees.
Prior to the section above is section 64.4 Conditions of other bonds.
It says: "All other bonds required by law, when not otherwise specially provided, shall be conditioned as the bonds of public officers.
So now we have; "State officials", State officers", and "public officers" Obviously, if there are different "bond" requirements for these "different" people they cannot be the same.
At 64.2 Conditions of bond of public officers.
All other public officers, except as otherwise specially provided, shall give bond with the conditions, in substance, as follows:
That as . . . . . . . . (naming the office), in . . . . . . . . (city, township, county, or state of Iowa), the officer will render a true account of the office and of the officer's doings therein to the proper authority, when required thereby or by law; that the officer will promptly pay over to the officer or person entitled thereto all moneys which may come into the officer's hands by virtue of the office; that the officer will promptly account for all balances of money remaining in the officer's hands at the termination of the office; that the officer will exercise all reasonable diligence and care in the preservation and lawful disposal of all money, books, papers, securities, or other property appertaining to that office, and deliver them to the officer's successor, or to any other person authorized to receive the same; and that the officer will faithfully and impartially, without fear, favor, fraud, or oppression, discharge all duties now or hereafter required of the office by law.
The attachment of a renewal certificate to an existing bond shall not constitute compliance with this section. Internal References
Referred to in § 64.13, 336.10
Footnotes
Construction of public bonds, § 666.1
SO LET'S SEE WHAT TRIPLE SIX POINT ONE SAYS, SHALL WE?
666.1 Official bonds construed.
The official bond of a public officer is to be construed as a security to the body politic or civil corporation of which the person is an officer, and to all the members thereof, severally, who are intended to be secured thereby. [emphasis added]
construed: verb Make sense of; assign a meaning to
RESTATED; THE OFFICIAL BOND OF A PUBLIC OFFICER IS TO, "MAKE SENSE AND ASSIGN A MEANING", AS A SECURITY TO THE BODY POLITIC OR CIVIL CORPORATION OF WHICH THE PERSON IS AN OFFICER,... SEVERALLY ... TO BE SECURED...
What is a "Bond"? n. One of the definitions that would certainly apply is: properly complete construction or other contract terms (b>"performance bond"), that the bonded party will not steal or mismanage funds, that a purchased article is the real thing, or that title is good. If there is a failure then the bonding company will make good up to the amount of the bond.
How about "Surety"? n. a guarantor of payment or performance if another fails to pay or perform, such as a bonding company which posts a bond for a guardian, an administrator or a building contractor. Most surety agreements require that a person looking to the surety (asking for payment) must first attempt to collect or obtain performance from the responsible person or entity.
So what do you call it when one who is "bonded" (or is suppose to be bonded because he was appointed to a position of "public trust") ignores questions, ignores all correspondence, and basically acts like he's out of the office ALL the time? Leaving his peons to do the dirty little deeds like- mail fraud, extortion, forgery, swindle, send out notices of assessments and tax liens with a forged signature, etc,... etc...?
Sounds like his "performance bond" is in need of a serious tune-up, doesn't it?
So, who are "public officers"? eh. Section 64.1 answers at least part of the question.
64.1 Bond not required.
Bonds shall not be required of the following public officers:
1. Governor.
2. Lieutenant governor.
3. Members of the general assembly.
4. Judges of the supreme and district courts and district associate judges.
5. Township trustees.
6. City council members, including city commissioners and aldermen, other than mayors.
(a democracy is two foxes and a chicken voting on what’s for dinner. )
If you ask a group of Americans if they believe the law should be used to plunder life, liberty, and property they will invariably say, "no." Most Americans do not know the extent of the loss of their rights, including the right of private property.
TO MAKE A MISTAKE IS HUMAN; TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE IS CHARACTER-
On June 26, 1788, Virginia's elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, "The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will."
When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."
On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document: "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."
Here's a couple questions for you: Has the United States Congress usurped powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution? From their ratification statements, isn't it clear that the nation's Founders assumed that States and the people have a right to take back powers they granted Congress in the Constitution? All but your highly trained legal scholars, politicians and bureaucrats - and others having contempt for the founding principles - will agree: Yes, Congress has exceeded its delegated powers. And, yes, states have a right to take back (resume) powers delegated to the federal government - in a word the right to secede from the Union.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.
References: |
