Monday, November 06, 2006

The Tax Freedom Movement - Establishment Controlled?

I think Aaron Russo's film America: Freedom to Fascism is an excellent exposé on the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax system, and the near-future plans of the NWO.

However...

The income tax is legal. It is not constitutional, but it is perfectly legal. How is this possible?? Simple--it's contract law, as is evidenced by George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts".

A contract does not have to be constitutional to be legal. For instance, a non-disclosure agreement violates your first amendment rights to free speech. But regardless, if you break this contract, you are liable to pay damages to the other party involved. The income tax is enforced by a myriad of "invisible" contracts that 99% of all Americans have signed, mostly without their knowledge. When you opened your bank account, did you read all of the fine print and then read all of the fine print on all of the documents referenced in the original fine print? I doubt it. Same thing goes with your driver's license. Your mortgage, etc., etc. These contracts all include language that requires you to pay the Federal Income Tax. It matters not if the tax itself is legal or not, and the lower courts have--on a regular basis--ignored the Supreme Court's decision that the 16th Amendment gave no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government.

So... if a regular dude like me can find and understand this information, how is it that it evaded every single one of the "tax law experts" that Russo interviewed? I actually have had some correspondence with G Edward Griffin on the matter. I told him that based on what I'd read on his web site, I assumed that he was not aware of the information presented in "Invisible Contracts" and I gave him this link to read it. He responded and asked what that I had read led me to believe that he wasn't aware of this. I told him it was the simple omission of said information from his site. He wrote back saying "You had me worried there for a minute." I wrote him back and asked him specifically if he was aware of this information and if he presented it to Aaron Russo when he was interviewed for Freedom to Fascism. And if he did, did Russo edit this part out? I have received no reply from Griffin so far on this matter...

So there are two possibilities here to consider:
1) Aaron Russo was not aware of this information regarding the contracts that make the income tax legal.
2) Aaron Russo was aware of this information, but chose not to use it in his movie for whatever reason.

And here are 2 things that lead me to believe that option number 2 might be closer to the truth:
1) This information is easily available by doing a simple Google search. How is it that his researchers did not find this information?

2) In a talk that I saw Russo give to an audience, he mentions his relationship to Nick Rockefeller. He said that during his campaign for Governor of Nevada, Rockefeller tried to befriend him and bring him over to "the other side," offering him a position on the Council on Foreign Relations and other such things. Russo said he refused. How likely is it that someone could be that close to the Rockefeller family, and simply "refuse" their demands to stop pursuing information that criminalizes them? My guess would be that all those who refuse such demands do not live another day, and all those who accept such demands are not told to "come to the other side," but are told what they will and will not disclose in regards to the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

So it would seem to me, on the basis of the omission of the information presented in George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts", that said information is either false or it has been purposefully left out of the "Tax Freedom Movement" altogether, which would suggest that the "Tax Freedom Movement" itself is an establishment front. They do, afterall, control both sides of the argument...

My next step will be to research "Invisible Contracts" further, to try to get some lawyers that I know to take a look at it, and to obtain copies of the actual contracts that it claims enforce the payment of the Income Tax and verify that they do indeed say what Mercier claims they say. If I can validate the information in "Invisible Contracts," we can assume that the "Tax Freedom Movement" either hasn't found this information (a suggestion which I find to be highly unlikely), or the "Tax Freedom Movement" is itself controlled by the establishment.

If this is the case, why? My premature answer to that is that they are not giving us all of the information but they make the presentation so compelling that they are able to get more and more people riled up about the wrong thing. They get more and more people angry--this time at the right entities but presenting invalid arguments. They keep us fighting in exactly they way they want us to. They keep us thinking we are involved in real opposition to their agenda, but we're only opposing them in exactly the way that they want us to--yet again. They know that people like us are going to oppose them. So they create a story that we can believe but then make sure that our aggression is pointed in ever so slightly the wrong direction...

7 Comments:

Anonymous rochester92 said...

Good analysis. I have wondered about this myself and thought that I misunderstood how this all fits together. Maybe not?

Regardless, the questions need to be asked and people need to look behind the veil.

As you mentioned, the Hegelian principles would dictate creating your opposition, or else you might have to face a real one. It also makes it easier to identify your foes ...

Thanks.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I follow your logic about the hidden contracts but even a freshman course in contract law will drive home the point that illegal contracts are unenforceable as void. If performance of the contractual obligation would itself be illegal, the contract is thus illegal. An illegal contract is a void contract...UCC.

12:24 AM  
Blogger and i said...

Thank you for your comments.

The point is, these contracts are perfectly legal, because they establish you as a corporate entity by identifying you by your TIN rather than by your SSN, and in various other ways. These are corporate contracts... It is legal for the government to tax corporate entities. And if you actually READ Invisible Contracts or www.teamlaw.org, you will see that the government is not doing anything illegal. It's certainly underhanded, but 100% legal. The ignorance of law and government by even intelligent people is what has allowed things to develop in such a way.

7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point wasn't to comment on Mercier's piece. I was merely correcting a statement in your blog. You said "It matters not if the tax itself is legal or not..." My point is that it does indeed matter if the tax itself is legal. The entire discussion rests on it. If the tax is not legal any contract concerning the enforcement of such is void and unenfoceable. That's all.

With that established we're free to discuss the legality of the tax. I'll have to take the time to read through Mr. Mercier's piece before I can comment on his position concerning establishing citizens as corp entities or if that even matters. I'm not convinced that it does...I'll get back to you.

4:42 PM  
Blogger and i said...

it does make a difference. you're right. what i should have said is that it doesn't matter if the tax is constitutional. because we're talking contract law here, not tort law...

the US gov't is empowered to tax corporations. not individuals. check invisible contracts and also www.teamlaw.org.

thanks for reading!

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another great article. The contracts are created on your 'fictional self' that is the capitalised version of you. This is established by the birth certificate which essentially goes to the treasury as an asset or human resource. All bills/contracts are presented to the capitalised self, and the government/claimant get twice the money, once from you if you pay, and once from your fictional/corporate entity. When dead, if you have a gravestone the capitalised you is on the stone. This represents the social contract that most unwittingly enter into. 'Society' being a legal term for a club that you choose to belong to abiding by its rules, and receiving certain benefits. This is not natural law which states you only have the duty(?) not to harm anyone or take anyones property. The only way out of this society is to recognise the difference between your natural self, and your fictional self, and probably become a freeman of the land. Note, bills such as credit cards, and morgage bills by claiming against the assets of your fictional self, which has a value over $1m.

5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Mercier answered many of the questions I had been laboring over for several years regarding the issue of being a unwilling subject in a declared free nation.

Especially pertinent were the ideas of benefits, or "hooks and baits", that he claims are the origin of power the "king" has over you.

The bottom line I got from Mercier is that you must become a Denizen if you have any hope of Freedom. And that means hardship.

It means a written rejection of privileges- all of them, Local, State and Federal- the benefits that are claimed by silent assent or written agreement and provided by the King.

Benefits that are designed to allow one to have the tools to operate in a "funny-money" society are the benefits that bind them in subservience to their masters.

It seems, at least for now, that one can "Wake-up" and reject the US corporate citizenship, the State corporate citizenship, and any other contract that has been unwittingly entered into upon which the principle of exchange of value can be demonstrated to be absent by declaration and practice, or contract that can be proven to have been coerced and therefore void.

And those brave and compelled souls who would extract themselves from the chains that have been placed upon them, may their voices be heard throughout the land:

You can have your benefits (chains),
and I will have my Freedom.
And even though it hampers me,
I know I must, in that I am Free.

2:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home