Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by RedPill » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:12 pm

El Jefe' wrote:I took a meditation class at BPI about 15 years ago. They seemed like your normal everyday new-age guys. They are organized as a church which I did not like at all. You see, any moron can do the paper work, make up some mumbo jumbo and say that they are a church. Instead of a Grand Poohbha you have The Reverand Doctor Grand Poobha who no longer has to pay taxes.
I apologize for getting a bit off point here, but this just has to be said ... my blood gets up as we approach the Day of Infamy, which in my book is April 15th. BPI simply wouldn't be liable for any income tax even without any mumbo jumbo or paperwork, because none of what they are doing is inherently a privileged activity that is taxable for revenue purposes. The IRS would like you to believe that the tax is universally applicable, but that is simply not the case at all or it never would have passed muster with the US Supreme Court. According to the court, the tax is an excise on government granted privilege, and it is only measured by the income derived FROM the privilege. This is a legal reality that the govt./IRS has done a fantastic job in concealing from the public, but it is true nevertheless. If you want to see some real mumbo jumbo, generally suitable only as an insomnia remedy, try reading Title 26, the internal revenue codes.

Most folk incur liability by engaging in "employment" which is a specifically defined term in the infernal revenue codes as well as Title 42, Socialistic Insecurity. "Employment" as defined within the codes IS a privilege and IS taxable ... howerver, working for a living need not meet the definition of "employment" or incur liability for any tax.

This group, the Berkley Psychic Institute ... for what they do, like it or not, has every right to call itself a church in this country. You might not like their doctrine, but better to suffer them calling themselves a church then to allow govt. to make the determination as to what is or is not a legitimate "church".

Pete

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10240
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Wieber » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:52 pm

You walk in the door, someone makes contact with you and as you get involved conversing with them you might wonder, 'When does the mind control start?'

It already has started. As soon as someone from a cult contacts you they are immediately using their recruitment methods on you. Most likely it will be love bombing. As soon as you walk in the door of their place you are outnumbered.

A small low pressure cult is still a cult, can still do a number on you, your personality and your bank account. If you're really that curious read Cults in our Midst, Combatting Cult Mind Control and Captive Hearts Captive Minds.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

Healthyskeptic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Healthyskeptic » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:54 pm

Redpill:
I apologize for getting a bit off point here, but this just has to be said ... my blood gets up as we approach the Day of Infamy, which in my book is April 15th. BPI simply wouldn't be liable for any income tax even without any mumbo jumbo or paperwork, because none of what they are doing is inherently a privileged activity that is taxable for revenue purposes. The IRS would like you to believe that the tax is universally applicable, but that is simply not the case at all or it never would have passed muster with the US Supreme Court. According to the court, the tax is an excise on government granted privilege, and it is only measured by the income derived FROM the privilege. This is a legal reality that the govt./IRS has done a fantastic job in concealing from the public, but it is true nevertheless. If you want to see some real mumbo jumbo, generally suitable only as an insomnia remedy, try reading Title 26, the internal revenue codes.

Most folk incur liability by engaging in "employment" which is a specifically defined term in the infernal revenue codes as well as Title 42, Socialistic Insecurity. "Employment" as defined within the codes IS a privilege and IS taxable ... howerver, working for a living need not meet the definition of "employment" or incur liability for any tax.
NOT SO. Tax protester "excise on privilege" arguments and their ilk have been thoroughly discredited by SCOTUS and lower courts in: Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); and James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961); and Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954); and Hamzik v. Commissioner, 25 Fed. Appx. 911, KTC 2001-589 (9th Cir. 2001); and Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985); and United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); and Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998); and In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000); etc, etc. If you want more citations to ACTUAL LAW, let me know. Just because some tax fraud guru's latest scheme hasn't bee exposed yet doesn't mean it has any merit. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Sorry for hijack.

HS
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by RedPill » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:13 am

Healthyskeptic wrote:" arguments and their ilk have been thoroughly discredited by SCOTUS and lower courts in: Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); and James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961); and Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954); and Hamzik v. Commissioner, 25 Fed. Appx. 911, KTC 2001-589 (9th Cir. 2001); and Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985); and United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); and Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998); and In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000); etc, etc. If you want more citations to ACTUAL LAW, let me know. Just because some tax fraud guru's latest scheme hasn't bee exposed yet doesn't mean it has any merit. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Sorry for hijack.

HS
Roadapples. The applicable case is Brushaber going back to 1916. The IRS has zip zilch nada to do with anything in the several states, now 50, unless INVITED IN. You invite them in with a socialist slavestate number. If it were otherwise, it would be illegal to hire someone to mow your lawn without filling out federal paperwork. The federal govt. doesn't get to bully its way into every single private contract, they get invited in by the great brainwashed masses. It is the IRS that serves up the Kool-Aid, along with asteroid orifices like the hoople that runs Quatloos dot com. Bottom line, plain and simple ... use a slave number, incur the liability, don't use a slave number, no liability incurred, with very few exceptions such as non resident aliens deriving US sourced income who would incur liability regardless. BTW, the govt. used to ADMIT TO THIS in the standard letter sent out by the socialistic, insecurity administration, aka the slave enumeration bureau, when people would inquire as to weather or not SSN use was required by law. It is not. It is 100% VOLUNTARY according to the folks at ssa dot gov, write them and ask.

Pete

Healthyskeptic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Healthyskeptic » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:18 pm

the Brushaber case upheld the validity of the income tax. If you think it means something else, you are mistaken. Tax protesters often cite Brushaber for the proposition that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation on the government. What Brushaber actually says is that Congress already had the power to tax incomes, by virtue of Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution, and the amendment relieved Congress of the apportionment requirement. A relevant quote from the Brushaber Court is:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.
Emphasis mine.

Show me one subsequent Supreme Court case that cites Brushaber for any of your tax avoidance propositions. Just one. If you PM me I will also explain why your social security number theory is flawed. The bottom line is the income tax is constitutional, tax avoiders aren't "patriots", they are simply ignoring, willfully or mistakenly, their responsibility under the law.

If you choose, all credible evidence to the contrary, to believe otherwise that is up to you. As we see on this board every day, beliefs do not require facts to support them. On that point my favorite judicial quote applicable to these tax avoidance arguments is:

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].


I repeat Don't Drink the Kool-Aid.

HS
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by RedPill » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:08 pm

Healthyskeptic wrote:the Brushaber case upheld the validity of the income tax. If you think it means something else, you are mistaken. Tax protesters often cite Brushaber for the proposition that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation on the government. What Brushaber actually says is that Congress already had the power to tax incomes, by virtue of Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution, and the amendment relieved Congress of the apportionment requirement. A relevant quote from the Brushaber Court is:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.
Emphasis mine.

Show me one subsequent Supreme Court case that cites Brushaber for any of your tax avoidance propositions. Just one. If you PM me I will also explain why your social security number theory is flawed. The bottom line is the income tax is constitutional, tax avoiders aren't "patriots", they are simply ignoring, willfully or mistakenly, their responsibility under the law.

If you choose, all credible evidence to the contrary, to believe otherwise that is up to you. As we see on this board every day, beliefs do not require facts to support them. On that point my favorite judicial quote applicable to these tax avoidance arguments is:

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].


I repeat Don't Drink the Kool-Aid.

HS



Pay the income tax, pay for your own enslavement. Those who resist most certainly are patriots. Check this out this little tune. Ooorah!
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/Love-and-War.MP3

According to the slave enumeration bureau, having and using a socialist slavestate number is totally voluntary and not required to live or work in the US. They will still admit that IN WRITING. THEY USED TO ADMIT IN WRITING that without an SSN it would be impossible to have taxable income. That was circa 1988 or thereabouts. I have a copy of one such letter as a .gif file, will send to you attached in an email, PM me an email address. If you like you can setup a special email via yahoo or whatever.

Brushaber, if you read the entire case, clarifies the income tax as an indirect tax or excise tax on privilege, it is only MEASURED by the income derived FROM use of the privilege. In the case of your average American, the privilege that is used that incurs liability is EMPLOYMENT. You can be hired WITHOUT being EMPLOYED. If you are hired to do some drywall, mow a lawn, paint a fence, etc. and contract with your next door neighbor to do the work, that is hire without employment. It is a contract between two parties. If a form W-4 is filled out, that the IRS admits IN WRITING is a "voluntary withholding agreement" you sign and use a socialist slavestate number. The govt. is brought in as a third party to the contract, a third party senior to the other two parties. You are then an "employee" and the guy who hired you is an "employer" in the legal sense of the word. The govt. dictates terms such as minimum wage, OSHA regs, maternity leave, etc. For all of its "services" the govt. gets a cut, i.e., taxes. It is as if the govt. is a temp agency that is your primary employer and you are then farmed out to the guy you think you are working for.

In your way of thinking, the income tax is an unaportioned direct tax authorized by the 16th ammendment, which did nothing but clarify that an income tax could be collected as long as it was done so as an indirect or excise tax. If your way is correct, then 1) any right to private property would have been abrogated 2) there would be no standing Constitutional limit to taxation 3) the federal govt. by law could muscle its way into any contract between private parties 4) nobody here, not even citizens who were born here, would have a right to exchange their labor for remuneration to feed themselves, it would all have been converted to privilege 5) taxpayer ID numbers would not have to be applied for, they would be assigned weather you wanted one or not 6) by virtue of that, birth registration with the state would be required by law ... it is NOT, that is voluntary and admitted to be so.

As a so-called "skeptic" if you are like the others I have met on the web you are skeptical about everything except the govt. version of things, which for some reason you are willing to swallow hole when they are the biggest liars/kool-aid vendors around.

Pete

Healthyskeptic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Healthyskeptic » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:52 pm

We'll have to agree to disagree, Pete. I will await that later supreme court case that cites Brushaber for the propositions you enumerate.

I don't take the governments word for things, I have done my own research. I read the Brushaber case. I have looked at many other judicial decisions concerning tax avoidance schemes. Not one of the arguments you propound has any merit.

For the "excise tax on privilege" argument, read these:
Income tax is "excise" and reciprocal to benefits or privileges used: Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; Parker v. CIR (5th Cir 1984) 724 F2d 469; Lonsdale v. CIR (5th Cir 1981) 661 F2d 71; US v. Ferguson (SD Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 8 aff’d 793 F2d 828 cert.den 479 US 933; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Eccles v. CIR (3/2/95) TC Memo 1995-89; US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; DeWitt v. CIR (10/4/95) TC Memo 1995-476 aff'd (11th Cir 1996) 101 F3d 710(t); Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir unpub 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t); (argument that the IRS can only inquire about "excise" taxes) Russell v. US (WD Mich unpub 11/23/94) 75 AFTR2d 495, 95 USTC para 50029; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Daigle v. US (6th Cir unpub 1/29/96) 76 F2d 378(t); (arguing that "this govt has not helped me in any kind of way, it has done nothing for me. They don’t deserve the money") Walker alia Theonaleth v. CIR (4/5/93) TC Memo 1993-138 aff'd (2d Cir 1994) 19 F3d 9(t); Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98) 82 AFTR2d 6174; Cullinane v. CIR (1/4/99) TC Memo 1999-2; (income tax is an indirect tax authorized by the Constitution, but "the debate over whether the income tax is an excise tax or a direct tax is irrelevant to the obligation of citizens to pay taxes and file returns.") US v. Melton (4th Cir unpub 3/8/96) 86 F3d 1153(t), 77 AFTR2d 2361 cert.den 519 US 820; Ficalora v. CIR (2d Cir 1984) 751 F2d 85 cert.den 471 US 1005; Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471; US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t)
For the "income tax is contractual", and some on your social security number argument, read these:
US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122; US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); (similarly, claim that Social Security is a contract which perp can repudiate) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B (court quoted from Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, 363 US 603, that Soc.Sec is "noncontractual", and said "Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion ... Social Security is not a voluntary system, and he did not become a participant in it by contract. His arguments regarding fraudulent inducement or that the fact that he may have been a minor when he obtained his SSN therefore are not persuasive."); ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); similarly Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; similarly Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; Van Hall v. IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410; tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924.
No tax avoider prevailed in any of these cases. Not one. I've got more where those came from too. That US v. Drefke case, by the way, deals precisely with your argument about the W-4 bringing the govt into a contractual arrangement. Here is what it says about that:
“Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ‘immune’ from the Internal Revenue Service’s jurisdiction as a ‘nontaxpayer.’

“This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.


I have given you dozens of judicial decisions in support of my position. Show me one citation to authority, post-Brushaber (although I still don't think that case means what you think it means) that supports your tax avoidance theories. The song doesn't count :)

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, file your taxes.

HS
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by RedPill » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:46 am

Healthyskeptic wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree, Pete. I will await that later supreme court case that cites Brushaber for the propositions you enumerate.

I don't take the governments word for things, I have done my own research. I read the Brushaber case. I have looked at many other judicial decisions concerning tax avoidance schemes. Not one of the arguments you propound has any merit.

For the "excise tax on privilege" argument, read these:
Income tax is "excise" and reciprocal to benefits or privileges used: Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; Parker v. CIR (5th Cir 1984) 724 F2d 469; Lonsdale v. CIR (5th Cir 1981) 661 F2d 71; US v. Ferguson (SD Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 8 aff’d 793 F2d 828 cert.den 479 US 933; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Eccles v. CIR (3/2/95) TC Memo 1995-89; US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; DeWitt v. CIR (10/4/95) TC Memo 1995-476 aff'd (11th Cir 1996) 101 F3d 710(t); Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir unpub 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t); (argument that the IRS can only inquire about "excise" taxes) Russell v. US (WD Mich unpub 11/23/94) 75 AFTR2d 495, 95 USTC para 50029; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Daigle v. US (6th Cir unpub 1/29/96) 76 F2d 378(t); (arguing that "this govt has not helped me in any kind of way, it has done nothing for me. They don’t deserve the money") Walker alia Theonaleth v. CIR (4/5/93) TC Memo 1993-138 aff'd (2d Cir 1994) 19 F3d 9(t); Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98) 82 AFTR2d 6174; Cullinane v. CIR (1/4/99) TC Memo 1999-2; (income tax is an indirect tax authorized by the Constitution, but "the debate over whether the income tax is an excise tax or a direct tax is irrelevant to the obligation of citizens to pay taxes and file returns.") US v. Melton (4th Cir unpub 3/8/96) 86 F3d 1153(t), 77 AFTR2d 2361 cert.den 519 US 820; Ficalora v. CIR (2d Cir 1984) 751 F2d 85 cert.den 471 US 1005; Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471; US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t)
For the "income tax is contractual", and some on your social security number argument, read these:
US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122; US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); (similarly, claim that Social Security is a contract which perp can repudiate) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B (court quoted from Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, 363 US 603, that Soc.Sec is "noncontractual", and said "Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion ... Social Security is not a voluntary system, and he did not become a participant in it by contract. His arguments regarding fraudulent inducement or that the fact that he may have been a minor when he obtained his SSN therefore are not persuasive."); ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); similarly Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; similarly Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; Van Hall v. IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410; tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924.
No tax avoider prevailed in any of these cases. Not one. I've got more where those came from too. That US v. Drefke case, by the way, deals precisely with your argument about the W-4 bringing the govt into a contractual arrangement. Here is what it says about that:
“Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ‘immune’ from the Internal Revenue Service’s jurisdiction as a ‘nontaxpayer.’

“This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.


I have given you dozens of judicial decisions in support of my position. Show me one citation to authority, post-Brushaber (although I still don't think that case means what you think it means) that supports your tax avoidance theories. The song doesn't count :)

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, file your taxes.

HS
You can come up with a few zillion cites that apply within the federal zone, under article 1 section 8, clause 17. Now present one that is operable within any of the several (now 50) united States. Show me a law that REQUIRES anyone to obtain an SSN with the possible exception of federal employees, and what the penalties are for NOT applying, say, for your newborn. You simply will not find one. Again, if your position is correct, the tax code would have abrogated some of the most fundamental and inalienable rights such as the right to own property and the right to exchange your property (time, labor) in exchange for remuneration. As far as the Kool-Aid, that is dealt by the IRS, H&R CockBlockers, Jackass HewShit, and the tax preparation outfit with the totally Orwellian name "Liberty Income Tax Service." Phug filing and phug the IRS.

Pete

Healthyskeptic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Healthyskeptic » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:58 pm

Redpill:
You can come up with a few zillion cites that apply within the federal zone, under article 1 section 8, clause 17. Now present one that is operable within any of the several (now 50) united States.
Ahhh the "federal zone" argument. The claim that somehow the power to tax applies only in the District of Columbia and the territories. The argument seems to be based on a tortured reading of the word "includes" from 26 USC 3121(e). That one has been debunked too. Here are your cites to real cases, from real courts (there are lots more than these few, btw):
Valldejuli v. US (SD Fla unpub 12/20/96) 78 AFTR2d 7492 (this argument "routinely" rejected);

Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623 (refuting argument that IRS can only tax in Puerto Rico and DC);

US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 (Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations.) cert.den 502 US 1060.

Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860; "All United States citizens, irrespective of where they reside in the US, are subject to the IRC. All individuals are subject to federal income tax on wages."

J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93); ("Nor does the seat of govt clause, US Constitution art.I, sec. 8 clause 17, provide a limitation on the exercise of federal power under the commerce clause. Rather this clause states that the federal govt has the full panoply of sovereign powers over those areas used for federal purposes over which states have ceded their authority. Zubkis appears to argue that federal power can only be exercised in Washington, DC, and other federal areas but not over him in California. This argument is frivolous. The clause gives the federal govt power over certain geographic areas. It does not prevent the federal govt from exercising powers under other provisions of the Constitution, such as the commerce clause, in other other geographic areas.")
So, there you go. Not one but several.
Show me a law that REQUIRES anyone to obtain an SSN with the possible exception of federal employees, and what the penalties are for NOT applying, say, for your newborn. You simply will not find one.
Here you go:
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(a) & (b)(1)(i), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b)(2); Immigration Form I-9; and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 6109(a)(3) & (d); E.E.O.C. v. Allendale Nursing Ctr., 996 F.Supp. 712, 717 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (requirement that employee obtain SSN is requirement imposed by law and is not employment requirement); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (upholding the constitutionality and uniform application of the Social Security Act, which requires employers to withhold social security taxes from employees’ wages, even when such withholding conflicts with an employer’s or employee’s religious or other beliefs) (plaintiff was fired by her employer, State Stores, after refusing to provide a signed Form W-4 with her Social Security number.); Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it).
There's more, if you need it. I have no idea what the penalty might be for not getting your child a SS#. Not sure that's relevant to anything anyway.
Again, if your position is correct, the tax code would have abrogated some of the most fundamental and inalienable rights such as the right to own property and the right to exchange your property (time, labor) in exchange for remuneration
Well, you have the right to own property as do I. Are you saying that the fact that this bad thing (not being able to own property) has NOT happened means that you must be correct in your analysis of the law? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I pray daily that the moon will not fall to the Earth. The moon has not fallen. Therefore it's my prayers that are holding it up?

Even if your labor is property, you are taxed on the income you receive for your labor, not the labor itself. You can work in your backyard all day long and not pay any tax. Congress cannot tax property directly (at least not without apportionment) this is true, but it can tax transactions involving transfers and exchanges of property. The income tax is, then, a tax on the receipt of income arising from a transaction; the sale of your labor. As for the idea that the wages, or remuneration, you receive for your labor is property, see below.

One last court case for you:
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985)("Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.")


The Court also whacked the taxpayer for $2K in sanctions in that case.

Pete, I wish you the best of luck, but I think you're tilting at windmills. I'm done with this debate, it's not on topic for this board anyway. I enjoy your scn related posts greatly, but I reserve the right to correct what I believe are your misconceptions about tax law when you post them. If and when you do have to deal with the IRS, get yourself a real lawyer.

HS
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud

User avatar
sekh
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:02 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by sekh » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:26 pm

:back2topic: pretty please?

We're not all tax-lawyers here.... :wink:
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Sir Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)

Healthyskeptic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Healthyskeptic » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:51 pm

Sekh:
:back2topic: pretty please?

We're not all tax-lawyers here.... :wink:
Sorry. My apologies also to Skeptic2girl for derailing her thread. For the record, I have never heard of the Berkley Psychic Institute. California is almost a foreign country from where I'm at.

HS
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud

daveeeocmb
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:33 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by daveeeocmb » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:08 pm

Thanks for getting back on topic. Are you Berkeley Psychic Institute's version of OSA trolls? :D

Berkeley Psychic Institute was started by Lewis Bostwick after he left Scientology in the 60's. It is on Scientology's list of suppressive groups.

There's no written record of it on the interwebs, but Bostwick was reportedly a "top auditor" in San Francisco and said on many occasions (one of which I heard on a tape recording) that he was friends with LRH. Many people have claimed falsely the same thing, but it's clear he was a scientologist.

It becomes even clearer when you hear the lingo and concepts around Berkeley Psychic institute like "havingness," "emotional tone scale," "report station" (implant station), you are a spiritual being having a human experience, past lives, aliens, etc. Sound familiar? Many of them come straight from Scientology.

The psychic readings they do are very much like auditing sessions without the cans.

You can say it's a benign cult compared with Scientology since it costs a lot less and is relatively easy to get out of. Berkeley Psychic Institute's methods, though, are brainwashing just the same and lead to many lost years before people wake up and start using their rational minds again.

User avatar
skeptic2girl
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by skeptic2girl » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:06 am

daveeeocmb wrote:Thanks for getting back on topic. Are you Berkeley Psychic Institute's version of OSA trolls? :D

Berkeley Psychic Institute was started by Lewis Bostwick after he left Scientology in the 60's. It is on Scientology's list of suppressive groups.

There's no written record of it on the interwebs, but Bostwick was reportedly a "top auditor" in San Francisco and said on many occasions (one of which I heard on a tape recording) that he was friends with LRH. Many people have claimed falsely the same thing, but it's clear he was a scientologist.

It becomes even clearer when you hear the lingo and concepts around Berkeley Psychic institute like "havingness," "emotional tone scale," "report station" (implant station), you are a spiritual being having a human experience, past lives, aliens, etc. Sound familiar? Many of them come straight from Scientology.

The psychic readings they do are very much like auditing sessions without the cans.

You can say it's a benign cult compared with Scientology since it costs a lot less and is relatively easy to get out of. Berkeley Psychic Institute's methods, though, are brainwashing just the same and lead to many lost years before people wake up and start using their rational minds again.
Thank you, daveeeocmb!

I've been away for a while (got a temp gig) - and so let me say belatedly: Welcome!

Now that the BPI is on my radar, I'll be interested to find out how prevalent it is. I was talking with a workmate the other day, and we were discussing different ways to avoid stress.

She mentioned having taken a class at the BPI that included some sort of visualization regarding rose bushes in four corners of the room... something like that.

It occurs to me that a person can start a cult that doesn't aspire to take over the world, and yet still make a good buck off of peoples' search for meaning in life.

***

Meanwhile, we should all ready ourselves for the end of the universe (May 21st: save the date)! According to a cult referring to itself as Family Radio, it's all over for the human race in about 5 weeks. I went to their FAQ page (website is familyradio.com) and apparently some of us will have to languish on earth until approx. mid-October. If I can't log on to OCMB during that time, I'll know why...
"The truth is out there."

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10240
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:18 am

skeptic2girl wrote:Meanwhile, we should all ready ourselves for the end of the universe (May 21st: save the date)! According to a cult referring to itself as Family Radio, it's all over for the human race in about 5 weeks. I went to their FAQ page (website is familyradio.com) and apparently some of us will have to languish on earth until approx. mid-October. If I can't log on to OCMB during that time, I'll know why...
What? Is the world ending again?

That rose bushes in the corners of the room is a variant of a scientology thingy. That's all I'm saying.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

jbkbmz
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Anyone heard of Berkeley Psychic Institute?

Post by jbkbmz » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:58 pm

A leader at the BPI in Santa Rosa Ca says to me, "You're on the hot seat". Lady in the middle of the 'line' doing readings. "I know what he knows. I can't control him." (Holy word, cross church.) 2007 January/February.
Joy of Satan gives the Power Meditation PDF with lots of meditation without paying loads of money. FREE! They also warn us of the judeo/Christian conspiracy. Something I learned of BEFORE I had 'Ms. Lucifer's' confession at the psychic school. And I would do that again. Only Christian institute that gave me anything of value for my money. Chakras, kundalini, etc. Most Christian churches call this stuff and hindus and Buddhists, psychics, etc. ''''The Devil''''. Christians are mostly 'blasphemers of the holy ghost.'
Joy of Satan ebook PDF has the whole information on what they are and think.

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests