LDS Freedom Forum

TonyOlsen wrote: I'll answer this question: Yes.

Please note how short I was able to answer your question. I challenge you do to likewise, if you can.

In return will you answer my following question:

Are there any federal or local laws that you know of that you do not abide-with, comply, obey, (or any other word intending to communicate what you understand that I'm asking)?

Answer: None.

Justification and explanation. First of all it is impossible to know all the law. It is too voluminous. If there is a federal law against breathing free air I am violating it and hopefully will continue to do so. But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional. I know of only a few alleged laws that I openly fight. One is currently being considered at the United States Supreme Court concerning gun laws. I WOULD absolutely REFUSE to register any pistol I WOULD buy in Clark County, Nevada even though the Clark County ordinance says "residents" must register any pistol they buy "in Clark County" within 3 days. Drivers license laws are a law that some people would claim I am violating and I claim the law (statute) does not apply to me. As an example you are not required to license your car in Nevada even if you drive through Nevada. Also if YOU purchased a pistol in Clark County, Nevada, you would not be required to register that pistol since you are not a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

As you can see, violating laws is a tricky judgment. If you were to hunt in Nevada there are laws that restrict you. You WOULD need a Nevada license to hunt but not a Nevada drivers license to drive to where you would hunt in Nevada.

As Joseph Smith stated: The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!

I agree with the Prophet that I would be a fool to follow unconstitutional laws and obviously the Courts say that such laws are void so I cannot violate them as they impose no duty AND I am conscience bound to disobey them:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” –Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

“All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void... We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)

My Question to you:

What is the law of the State in which you dwell or claim residency or citizenship, defining perjury?

TonyOlsen wrote:I think your true beliefs are seeping out.

I suspect you believe that Christians should NOT obey evil laws, but that they shouldn't openly do so (which I believe is the reason you've been attempting to cleverly dodge my direct questions on the issue).

I would respect you more if you simply said that you didn't want to answer something than to dance around a subject in an attempt to derail it. Such actions I consider dishonest.

You accepted the challenge concerning the debate so I will withhold any comments here and answer them in the format you have agreed to.

Mark wrote:Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

I am reporting this as a violation of the rules of this forum.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Mark wrote:Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

I am reporting this as a violation of the rules of this forum.

You would.

Mark wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:

Mark wrote:Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

I am reporting this as a violation of the rules of this forum.

You would.

Typically, violations of board rules are picked up by the moderators without anyone having to inform them.

Wiikwajio wrote:I now know that you CLAIM that you do not like separating people by their own proclamations and political statements about themselves.

I do not understand why you would claim that but that is what I must currently believe.

I do not like categorizing people in any way whatsoever for any reason. I regularly categorize behavior, principles, comments, theories, paradigms, belief systems, and other "things", but I avoid categorizing people. I consider categorizing people to be an application of unrighteous judgement, firmly in the realm of that which will lead me to hell.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:I now know that you CLAIM that you do not like separating people by their own proclamations and political statements about themselves.

I do not understand why you would claim that but that is what I must currently believe.

I do not like categorizing people in any way whatsoever for any reason. I regularly categorize behavior, principles, comments, theories, paradigms, belief systems, and other "things", but I avoid categorizing people. I consider categorizing people to be an application of unrighteous judgement, firmly in the realm of that which will lead me to hell.

So when you vote you do not categorize the people you vote for as people you would vote for? Are you passing an unrighteous judgment by categorizing the candidates a worthy or unworthy of your vote?

Do you look to see if they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents since they placed them selves into those categories? Do you use their political choices as and declarations to categorize their behavior, principles, comments, theories, paradigms, belief systems, and other "things", so you don't have categorize THOSE people.

Do you allow just anyone to work on your car? Babysit your children? Teach your children? Be your bishop?

By the way when you categorize behavior, principles, comments, theories, paradigms, belief systems, and other "things", that people do you do not avoid categorizing people. That is exactly what you did but you just do not call it that.

Did you categorize your wife as the person you would marry excluding all others? She is your wife, is she not. Is WIFE not a category?

category definition
cat·ego·ry (kat′ə gôr′ē)
noun pl. categories -·ries
1. a class or division in a scheme of classification

Why didn't you marry my daughter? Wasn't she good enough for you? Did you judge her by not choosing her?

Are you honestly claiming that married, single and divorced are not categories? Is the Church passing unrighteous judgments by having Single Wards? How about categorizing people as Less Active? How about Christian and nonChristian? Bishops and people that are not bishops. Car mechanics and Brick Masons.

When you look in the Yellow pages or on line for a cabinet maker do you look under the TV repair section to avoid categorizing people?

You do not call Dr. Steven Jones Dr. Jones do you? Would that not be categorizing him as a person that obtained a Doctorate?

How about male and female? Is that allowed n your nonjudgmental world?

My sister-in-law had a sex change? What should I do? Should I just refuse to categorize her/him? Would "it" be allowed?

Did you categorize your friends as people you would hang out with while excluding people you do not even know?

Thanks for letting me know to put you in my: "Could be a hypocrite but still unsure category."

We all judge people. Some people just try to claim they do not.

Your statement above, judged me. Now this kind of judgment is not a righteous judgment or and unrighteous judgment any more that deciding if you want steak or chicken for dinner or if you want to own a dog or not own a dog or if you will make a friend or an enemy.

But your comment is what I call a veiled insult. You see you categorize yourself as a person that does not pass unrighteous judgments on others while I obviously am not in that same category because I obviously do. You do not write it you just imply it. I call these George W. Bush insults because they are softer and gentler insults. I hate them. I find them more insulting than if you were to call me a scum sucking apostate maggot. Naturally I don't believe it was with evil intent you did this. You just do not like the way I do things. It is your right to judge me and decide if I am a person worth your time. And if you continue or do not continue to write back and forth to discuss this issue or other issues you will have made a judgment and placed me in a category.

1. I will communicate with him.

2. I will not communicate with him.

Pick your poison and pass your judgment. I can take it. Really I can.

Col. Flagg wrote:

Mark wrote:
You would.

Typically, violations of board rules are picked up by the moderators without anyone having to inform them.

I guess I did not understand what Brian wrote to me. Sorry.

From Brian to Wiikwaji'o

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

Quote:
Wiikwajio,

... (and if you feel others are personal attacking you, feel free to report it and I'll warn them as well. I apply the rules equally.)

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=1&p=132183#p132183 .

Another message to Wiikwaji'o from Brian:

Wiikwajio,

Thank you for taking me up on my offer. Seriously! I just sent a warning to KaleIsbell and Henmasher asking them to stop the personal attacks.

I hope everyone will consider being nicer to each other, and when we disagree we can "attack the message and not the messenger". Unfortunately some people, when their message is attacked, resort to attacking the messenger.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Okay,

I have decided to take you up on your offer.

Post subject: Re: Are you a Terrorist because you are a LDS member? MaybePosted: Wed May 19, 2010 6:35 am

KalelIsbell

you forgot one
>Blah Blah Blah
Wiik is completely insane...

Wiikwajio wrote:… But your comment is what I call a veiled insult. …

It was not intended as such. I was only referring to my own point of view, not yours, thus the use of the words "I" and "me" instead of "you." You said do not understand my point of view, so I told you my point of view. If you take my point of view as an insult, after having expressed a lack of understanding of my point of view, I recommend more objectivity - especially when I did not refer to you personally directly or indirectly.

Did you want me to answer every one of those questions? That is quite a lot to answer - I counted twenty-two questions. Is there any way you can consolidate all those questions into one or two so I can respond coherently and concisely?

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:… But your comment is what I call a veiled insult. …

It was not intended as such. I was only referring to my own point of view, not yours, thus the use of the words "I" and "me" instead of "you." You said do not understand my point of view, so I told you my point of view. If you take my point of view as an insult, after having expressed a lack of understanding of my point of view, I recommend more objectivity - especially when I did not refer to you personally directly or indirectly.

Did you want me to answer every one of those questions? That is quite a lot to answer - I counted twenty-two questions. Is there any way you can consolidate all those questions into one or two so I can respond coherently and concisely?

I believe that people that want to feel superior to others believe they are not intending to insult others which is why I personally find it so offensive. Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly.

I believe that such insults are used to attack and hurt people while maintaining a caveat to protect the individual making the criticism from personal responsibility. Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly.

These veiled insults are a way for people to deal with people they think are less than themselves especially on a spiritual level. It is their way of "helping the less fortunate." Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly.

To make recommendations is to make judgments that the person receiving the recommendation is in the category of a person that needs the recommendations to improve their spirituality. Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly.

You need not respond to my questions. If you want to do so then let us make the questions and answers one to one. Please note that I did refer to you personally and not indirectly.

My single question would be: Can you be legitimately classified by a neutral observer as belong to the definable category known as "Christian"?

Wiikwajio wrote:Can you be legitimately classified by a neutral observer as belong to the definable category known as "Christian"?

Yes, that possibility most definitely exists. However, an important attribute of such an observer is neutrality or objectivity. Neutrality is rare, as you have adequately demonstrated, which is exactly why I avoid attempting to classify or categorize individuals - I am never as neutral as I think I am, and therefore the classifications I might make are never as legitimate as I think they are.

Incidentally, why did you feel it necessary to repeat the phrase "Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly" five times in your last response?

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote: I'll answer this question: Yes.

Please note how short I was able to answer your question. I challenge you do to likewise, if you can.

In return will you answer my following question:

Are there any federal or local laws that you know of that you do not abide-with, comply, obey, (or any other word intending to communicate what you understand that I'm asking)?

Answer: None.

Justification and explanation. First of all it is impossible to know all the law. It is too voluminous. If there is a federal law against breathing free air I am violating it and hopefully will continue to do so. But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional.

"But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional."

...that's basically what I figured.

...and since most of our federal laws today are Socialistic and not Constitutional... that really blurs the lines of Federal Law.

So... you violate (like all Americans) one or more current Federal Laws (since all Federal Laws - the many hundreds of thousands of pages of them - are not known by anyone which means there's some laws that everyone is breaking and some laws that conflict with other laws ... meaning that no-one can abide/keep them). In addition (like some conservatives) you don't abide by Federal Laws that you understand to be unconstitutional.

Your stance is a good stance, but a dangerous one.

Wiikwajio wrote:...

My Question to you:

What is the law of the State in which you dwell or claim residency or citizenship, defining perjury?

My answer:

I don't know.

Wiikwajio wrote: In general I believe that but some people are 100% liable as far as I can tell. If you are a federal employee then you are liable for the Income tax because it is a return of money received from the Federal Government as per my current understanding. US Corporate officers are, to the best of my knowledge, also liable. But people that volunteer to pay a Socialist tax that are not persons made liable are IMHO not faithful members.

There you go. Although that's more tame than you're previous statements on this, it still is the subject I'm addressing.

Ok... so let me try a more specific question:

My Question to you:

"Do you believe that all non-liable apostles don't pay taxes?"

Or, in other words... according to your own terminology...

"Do you believe that any apostles are "not faithful members"?"

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:Can you be legitimately classified by a neutral observer as belong to the definable category known as "Christian"?

Yes, that possibility most definitely exists. However, an important attribute of such an observer is neutrality or objectivity. Neutrality is rare, as you have adequately demonstrated, which is exactly why I avoid attempting to classify or categorize individuals - I am never as neutral as I think I am, and therefore the classifications I might make are never as legitimate as I think they are.

Incidentally, why did you feel it necessary to repeat the phrase "Please note that I did not refer to you personally or indirectly" five times in your last response?

Because I felt that each statement was its own statement and needed I qualifier for each statement. When people try to avoid common language or common definitions, I often use individual qualifiers so that there is no error about what is meant.

I got in trouble from the moderators in another post for failing to qualify a single statement where I paraphrased Joseph Smith. I had used his statement many times on this board and wrongly thought that the statement on disobeying unconstitutional laws was only done by people that were not fools was well known. So I am on probation and have to be careful to make sure that I do not refer to anyone personally. I am, therefore, forced, if I want to post, to use forms of language I despise.

My question to you is:

Is "married" an identifiable category?

TonyOlsen wrote: "But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional."

...that's basically what I figured.

...and since most of our federal laws today are Socialistic and not Constitutional... that really blurs the lines of Federal Law.

So... you violate (like all Americans) one or more current Federal Laws (since all Federal Laws - the many hundreds of thousands of pages of them - are not known by anyone which means there's some laws that everyone is breaking and some laws that conflict with other laws ... meaning that no-one can abide/keep them). In addition (like some conservatives) you don't abide by Federal Laws that you understand to be unconstitutional.

Your stance is a good stance, but a dangerous one.

You make presumptions about my answer. You claim I violate one or more Federal laws. "[Y]ou violate... one or more current Federal Laws."

I have no evidence that I violate any Federal law. Your presumption that I do is not a fact or even based on any solid foundation.No law is mentioned that I am allegedly violating. It is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, an incorrect presumption that I am violating ANY law. If you are alleging that I am violating a law then quote that law. If not then withdraw your claim.

I also have no reason to believe that my stance is dangerous and have never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, ever been charged with any federal crime.

Wiikwajio wrote:...
My Question to you:

What is the law of the State in which you dwell or claim residency or citizenship, defining perjury?

TonyOlsen wrote:My answer:

I don't know.

That is not an excuse for failing to answer my question because it is a specific question of law.

The maxims of the common law are clear.

Ignorantia excusatur, non juris sed facti. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3828.

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. 1 Co. 177; 4 Bouv. Inst. n

When you answer the question I asked I will answer your next question. Until you answer my question I will not answer any other questions except with the same answer you gave to me. You have access to the information. Get it and answer my question or expect no other answers from me of any greater detail than you gave.

Remember: Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.

Wiikwajio wrote:Is "married" an identifiable category?

Yes. To be and stay married (as defined by God) is a commitment that an individual makes and, having made the commitment, that an individual should keep. I categorize marriage to be a righteous action, and I categorize the actions that I take to enrich my marriage to bring me closer to God.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:Is "married" an identifiable category?

Yes. To be and stay married (as defined by God) is a commitment that an individual makes and, having made the commitment, that an individual should keep. I categorize marriage to be a righteous action, and I categorize the actions that I take to enrich my marriage to bring me closer to God.

So is it an evil judgment to categorize you as being married?

And if that is not evil then where is the line drawn on placing people in a category and who has the authority to draw that line?

Wiikwajio wrote:So is it an evil judgment to categorize you as being married?

Not categorically, no.

Wiikwajio wrote:And if that is not evil then where is the line drawn on placing people in a category and who has the authority to draw that line?

As I have stated - I have the authority to draw the line for myself and I do not presume to draw the line for anyone else. I avoid placing people into categories, because doing so easily leads to unrighteous judgement - even such categories as married or not-married. If I was to attempt to categorize multiple individuals into the buckets of married and not-married it wouldn't make much sense either because every individual has a different idea of what marriage is and what marriage should be.

To label individuals according to political categories are even more erroneous. A friend of mine said, "Labeling someone politically is like two people playing two different games on the same board with two sets of rules while thinking they are playing the same game."

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:So is it an evil judgment to categorize you as being married?

Not categorically, no.

Wiikwajio wrote:And if that is not evil then where is the line drawn on placing people in a category and who has the authority to draw that line?

As I have stated - I have the authority to draw the line for myself and I do not presume to draw the line for anyone else. I avoid placing people into categories, because doing so easily leads to unrighteous judgement - even such categories as married or not-married. If I was to attempt to categorize multiple individuals into the buckets of married and not-married it wouldn't make much sense either because every individual has a different idea of what marriage is and what marriage should be.

To label individuals according to political categories are even more erroneous. A friend of mine said, "Labeling someone politically is like two people playing two different games on the same board with two sets of rules while thinking they are playing the same game."

How can classifying a person as married lead to an unrighteous judgment?

The Church has single wards. In fact they have a a LOT of single wards. They have Spanish speaking wards and Tongan wards. Are they in danger of unrighteous judgments?

I ask people questions to categorize the game they are playing. To categorize acts is to categorize the person. By their fruit we can know them.

I you have joined the Republican Party I know something about you. Same thing with Democrat or Independent American or Libertarian of Green.

Wiikwajio wrote:How can classifying a person as married lead to an unrighteous judgment?

If I associate "non-married" with certain other attributes (such as anti-social, childless, etc.) and categorize an individual as "non-married" I am associating attributes with that individual that might not apply. If I assume that the category of the individual implies other attributes I might be making a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions about individuals are almost always unrighteous judgement, especially as the assumptions apply to judging someone's character.

Wiikwajio wrote:Are they in danger of unrighteous judgments?

Are you asking me to place someone into a category? I don't have the authority to know whether "they" are making unrighteous judgements, I only know what leads to unrighteous judgements for myself.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote: "But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional."

...that's basically what I figured.

...and since most of our federal laws today are Socialistic and not Constitutional... that really blurs the lines of Federal Law.

So... you violate (like all Americans) one or more current Federal Laws (since all Federal Laws - the many hundreds of thousands of pages of them - are not known by anyone which means there's some laws that everyone is breaking and some laws that conflict with other laws ... meaning that no-one can abide/keep them). In addition (like some conservatives) you don't abide by Federal Laws that you understand to be unconstitutional.

Your stance is a good stance, but a dangerous one.

You make presumptions about my answer. You claim I violate one or more Federal laws. "[Y]ou violate... one or more current Federal Laws."

I have no evidence that I violate any Federal law. Your presumption that I do is not a fact or even based on any solid foundation.No law is mentioned that I am allegedly violating. It is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, an incorrect presumption that I am violating ANY law. If you are alleging that I am violating a law then quote that law. If not then withdraw your claim.

I also have no reason to believe that my stance is dangerous and have never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, ever been charged with any federal crime.

My logic is based on the fact that you added "...that I believe is Constitutional."

"But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional"

If you don't believe a law is valid unless its constitutional, then you can make the claim you made above.

...it's all a fancy play on words with you, isn't it?

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:...
My Question to you:

What is the law of the State in which you dwell or claim residency or citizenship, defining perjury?

TonyOlsen wrote:My answer:

I don't know.

That is not an excuse for failing to answer my question because it is a specific question of law.

The maxims of the common law are clear.

Ignorantia excusatur, non juris sed facti. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3828.

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. 1 Co. 177; 4 Bouv. Inst. n

When you answer the question I asked I will answer your next question. Until you answer my question I will not answer any other questions except with the same answer you gave to me. You have access to the information. Get it and answer my question or expect no other answers from me of any greater detail than you gave.

Remember: Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.[/quote]

You not liking my answer does not mean that I fail to answer your question.

I answer one question for each question you answer. ...it is not a book report. It is not an assignment to research something... it's picking individual pieces of information out of your brain.

I do not accept assignments from you, nor do I ask you to carry out assignments for me. If you're trying to take the question-exchange to an assignment-exchange, then we're talking about something different.

...but I can see that perhaps I've uncovered more than you're comfortable with acknowledging in the open, so it would make sense if you're trying to find a way to bow out of the question-exchange.

...I would accept open communication to that affect more honorably than sly manipulation.

TonyOlsen wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Wiikwajio: "But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional."

...that's basically what I figured.

...and since most of our federal laws today are Socialistic and not Constitutional... that really blurs the lines of Federal Law.

So... you violate (like all Americans) one or more current Federal Laws (since all Federal Laws - the many hundreds of thousands of pages of them - are not known by anyone which means there's some laws that everyone is breaking and some laws that conflict with other laws ... meaning that no-one can abide/keep them). In addition (like some conservatives) you don't abide by Federal Laws that you understand to be unconstitutional.

...

Wiikwajio wrote:
You make presumptions about my answer. You claim I violate one or more Federal laws. "[Y]ou violate... one or more current Federal Laws."

I have no evidence that I violate any Federal law. Your presumption that I do is not a fact or even based on any solid foundation.No law is mentioned that I am allegedly violating. It is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, an incorrect presumption that I am violating ANY law. If you are alleging that I am violating a law then quote that law. If not then withdraw your claim.

I also have no reason to believe that my stance is dangerous and have never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, ever been charged with any federal crime.

My logic is based on the fact that you added "...that I believe is Constitutional."

"But I do not know of any law I am knowingly violating that I believe is Constitutional"

If you don't believe a law is valid unless its constitutional, then you can make the claim you made above.

...it's all a fancy play on words with you, isn't it?

It looks like I hit the nail on the head.

TonyOlsen wrote:
It looks like I hit the nail on the head.

It looks like you do not know the difference between a nail, a screw, a hammer or a rock.

A rock can hit a nail on the head but it will never be a hammer no matter how often you call the rock a hammer.

I am sorry but you really have no grasp of the difficulties faced by legal requirements. Generalities don't cut it in the law. You apparently LOVE generalities. They are at the very heart of your political beliefs. They are Republican Big Tent type justifications. That is how you can justify calling yourself a Libertarian. You are "close enough" and that is apparently good enough for you.

It is not good enough for me because law is specific.

An unconstitutional law is not a law. It creates no office. It creates no duty or responsibility. It is as ineffective as if it had never been passed. There is no law. It is a fiction. So I cannot violate and unconstitutional law because it is not a law.

Then there are the limits upon enforcement of laws. The janitor at the IRS cannot legally call you on the phone and tell you to come in to his office for an interview even though he works for the IRS. If the IRS, BAFT, BLM, OSHA, etc. do not meet the requirements and restrictions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act then the law is unenforceable. If they are outside their jurisdiction then they have no authority.

An FBI agent cannot arrest you under the authority of being an FBI agent for theft even if it happens right in front of him unless he is on Federal property or their jurisdiction.

If you are a resident of Nevada then certain laws apply to you. If you are a Citizen of Nevada those same laws do not apply to you.

If you are an immigrant you are required by law to obtain a Social Security Number to earn wages. Everyone else volunteers.

If you are a person made liable for the Income tax then you are liable. If you are not a person made liable then you are not liable. You and you alone are responsible for determining if you are a person liable for the federal income tax and interestingly enough if you are not liable for the Federal Income tax then you are not liable for the Iowa, New York, California, Utah etc. Income tax.

So the problem is you did not hit the nail on the head. You still do not know what the nail is IMHO. You continue to communicate in generalities. You want specific answers to general questions. You want to know how to get from Iowa to Hawai'i but will not tell me if you want to go east or west to get there.

Obviously you have no interest in asking or answering specific questions. I believe you should stay in the Republican Party and file and pay and keep your Social Security Number close to your heart and you will be happy in obedience to all federal and state and local laws.

My very best to you and hope you will be happy.