[tooratrack]

Okay, this is the final piece of the puzzle for me.

I know you guys got some info, so let's see it. Hopefully we can get this broken down clear and coherently.

I came across this link (haven't really looked through it much), hopefully it will get the ball rolling - http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony.html

[exettybele]

Canadia is a owned by the Queen, start looking into the Queen bro.

[XYTommy]

An International Colony

The sales began in 1796 and ended in 1802. With the proceeds from the sales of stock, the government repaid the Bank

Complaints about the Bank

The opponents charged that because three-fourths of the ownership of the stock was held by foreigners, that the Bank was under their direct influence. The charge was false, as foreigners were prohibited from electing directors. The opposition also charged that the Bank was concealing profits, operating in a mysterious fashion, unconstitutional, and simply a tool for loaning money to the Government. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/c....first_bank.us

[hablyShappY]

Canadia is a owned by the Queen, start looking into the Queen bro.

Yea crown land is a big hint but lots still don't get it.

You out west like me Cebu_4_2?

[Adimos]

As I understand it, to unravel this gnarly ball o'twine, you should start with the imprisonment of Ben Franklin who went to King George to claim our independence after winning the revolutionary war.

KG jailed BF for over 2 years, denied the legitimacy of the colonial win, and demanded in the neighborhood of 25% perpetual taxation based upon some metric related to GDP from that day forward by the Americans.

After caving in, then BF was released from prison and sent back with the horrid news to the colonies.

Our (IRS) income tax has been paid to the British Crown ever since. The US Govt doesn't keep 1 thin dime. Never has.

Why did KG do this? Because BF was still a British Subject and had no choice if he wished to live...as he lived or died based upon the King's pleasure. It is Ben's Wax Seal on his signing of the Declaration of Independence that shows BF's true life allegiance.

Hope this helps.


beefsteak

[margoaroyo]

As I understand it, to unravel this gnarly ball o'twine, you should start with the imprisonment of Ben Franklin who went to King George to claim our independence
after winning the revolutionary war. KG jailed him for over 2 years, denied the legitimacy of the win, and demanded in the neighborhood of 25% perpetual taxation from that day forward. Then BF was released from prison and sent back with the horrid news to the colonies.

Our Income Tax has been paid to the British Crown ever since.

Why did the king do this? Because BF was still a British Subject and had no choice if he wished to live...as he lived or died based upon the King's pleasure.

Hope this helps.

So no subject can cast off his chains either by law or by force?

What about John Adams, who was the first American Ambassador to England, who had multipled discussion with King George as well as other heads of state in the 1780's, when we were still under the Articles of Confederation. Why was he NOT thrown in prison? Wouldnt he too be an english subject? Was it just a game they played with him while Ben Franklin was being jailed and told the truth?

Can you show me where the income tax is being paid to the british crown?

[margoaroyo]

Oh Bloody Hell, fuck those Limey Cunts!

[Snweyuag]

I read this info extensively years ago and I find it quite plausible and realistic. I haven't looked into the site where the info was posted in years though. One thing that always sat funny with me was the fact that the British burned Washington in 1812 and shortly thereafter left our shores and we've been amicable ever since. Just so long as the Rothchild bank has it's charter.

[tramadolwithall]

Well, that sucks.

[Adimos]

Can you show me where the income tax is being paid to the british crown?

I can refer you to the IRS publication wherein this precept is "accounted for." Will that do?

A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209--400 pages worth)

Here's one website will take you down this extropolated "garden path...."

See APFN web page http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm



All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code.

By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid.

Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.

The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.


These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form.

IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims.

A 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.

Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements.

This is just one of the little buried nuggets in our history since Franklin returned stateside post his little King George incarceration episode.

Have fun. I didn't say I could explain it, nor defend it. I just said it was my understanding...haven't seen anything that refutes it, but I'm sure if refutation exists, GS'ers will have it. LOL


beefsteak

[XYTommy]

Well that beefsteak, along with the obvious "state of the obvious" is all the proof I need.

[Kokomoxcvcv]

Didn't income tax take effect in 1913?

[Adimos]

It is my understanding that the codification of the earlier King George/Ben F. coerced "agreement" based upon 25% of GDP of this fledgling nation in perpetuity is indeed currently residing in the 1913 startup "tax law." Makes sense to me that it flows through from the 1776 actions agreed to by elderstatesman and still lifer subject of the King of England, Ben F.

Doesn't negate as best I understand it, the prior agreement nor the amount of GDP due and owing. The 1913 action simply formalized what was already occurring since 1776.

Again, this is my understanding. Didn't say I could explain it good.

Thanks, Horn and goldleaf for the followup dialogue.


beefsteak