When I first saw the website citizenfront.com, it didn't seem worth mentioning, assuming people wouldn't fall for it. The opposite turned out to be true. I should have warned you earlier, but criticism these days is quickly dismissed as negative.
Presumably the person behind the website, Jeroen Sloendregt, has raked in big money selling his legal packages, which in my view are totally worthless and I will explain why.
I was pointed to the website in response to my sample letters on how to respond to penalties and how to let the IRS know you will no longer file a tax return.
Readers sent me questions like, "How is this different from 'cancellation authorization board' from civicfront.com?" or "How can you possibly advise people to stop paying fines when civicfront meanwhile recommends doing so anyway?"
Well, what is going wrong here is actually quite simple. All you have to do is look at the civilfront.com website and you will see that all this site is doing is selling stickers, bells and whistles based on law books. Even the cancel authorization board assumes that the authorization is already there.
For starters, you have never given any authorization to govern and so you do not have to cancel the authorization. Or do you remember signing an authorization letter? No right?
All laws (including constitutions), are signed by the institution of "the crown," represented by the king. In that law, you can see what that power to sign laws is based on: on the grace of God. On nothing at all, in other words.
So when Civil Front recommends putting stickers on your window full of text like 'prohibited entry article 461 penal code,' you are actually admitting that you accept that penal code. What should have actually been written on those stickers is "prohibited entry" and that's it.
And so when Citizen Front advises people to just pay the fines anyway, because otherwise people will get into trouble, it is because they are doing what everyone else tends to do, which is to accept the legislature as authority and act out of fear.
Of course, you can't stop paying fines without trouble. The CJIB itself announces the problems crystal clear and even snatches the money from your account after the last reminder. So it's helpful if you let them know.
You have been led astray by a party like civic front that may have made big bucks selling stickers and legal packets, lectures and whatnot, but keeps failing to report the crux of the issue and that is that the legislature has no authority over you, because the grace of God has not been proven and thus William Alexander has nothing more to say than you do.
I am not a Kirby vacuum cleaner salesman urging you to buy a useless product with woolly stories. I am freely giving you my opinion on the lack of the authority of the king and with it the entire politics and civil service appointed by that king, including all legislation. "The emperor has no clothes on."
Below is a letter like the one I sent myself in response to an imposed fine. It is important that you do send such letters, because in them you make it crystal clear that you reject the authority of the legislator (and thus the law). You can and you may, and I explained the reason why in this article.
17 Comments
Privately I would dare to do this, but business? How can I stop paying/dediting the VAT?
Speaking of kicking in, I started working on Vincent Zegel's papers last March. Even before he joined Bossmaker. How do you feel about that?
That's what I wrote this article about:
https://www.martinvrijland.nl/nieuws-analyses/hoe-krijg-je-een-fascistische-overheid-down-rechtszaken-aangiftes-de-oplossing/
In business terms, you can stop doing your tax return by drafting a similar letter.
The problem lies mainly in invoicing. Your customers want to see an invoice including VAT.
Keeping that VAT in your pocket is considered theft by the IRS, but why should William be allowed to steal 21% and you not? William doesn't pay taxes himself either.
I say "William" because he is the legislator and therefore also "the supreme boss" over the tax department. By the way, the word service is already false, because I do not see any kind of service in it, other than snatching money from the population.
Please also read this article again:
https://www.martinvrijland.nl/nieuws-analyses/wat-zijn-eigenlijk-de-consequenties-als-je-stopt-met-het-doen-van-je-belastingaangifte/
Yes that VAT bothers me too because my customers are under the assumption that I am remitting it and not pocketing it. To me that feels like theft from my clients. People like Jeroen and Vincent Zegel have helped me to stand up for myself and to ignore the rules.
But I still have children at home and then I am afraid to take the step.
So I'm still in doubt,... the 2020 annual accounts are about to be drawn up. Pretty scary to actually take this step without a partner, accountant or people around me who also take this step.
the 'problem' is that people will say that the grace of God is merely symbolic, otherwise of no value. Then of course it becomes interesting because God does exist (easily demonstrated via logical consistency arguments) and the idea of it, by the way, does not conflict with the simulation 'theory' (not a theory in the scientific sense of course but that aside)
The king signs all laws and appoints all politicians and officials, there is nothing symbolic about that.
The idea is created that the king has only a symbolic position, but in practice he is the supreme boss who signs all the laws, sworn in all the politicians and officials: by the grace of God. That is not symbolic, but a practical fact.
So I disagree with you. It is indeed a belief that the king has the grace of God and that is an unproven fact.
Proving the existence of God, according to you, is easy to prove, but the grace of God is not (other than interpreting some Bible texts).
This is not about denying or proving the existence of God. It is about the false authority.
I don't recognize that authority and I hope more will start speaking out.
Well that will be fun when they call god via logical consistency arguments as a witness for a trial! Logically consistent cup of coffee with an argument you....
Been to a "lecture" a while ago, what a "dick" that guy can be. You would fall for it, were it not for the fact that he made the 6 gesture three times. Not obvious and not in quick succession, but if you pay attention to the symbolism, you know enough. 🤷♀️
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the good work you do incessantly! Last Saturday I went to a lecture on civil rights at Civil Front. I don't quite identify with your article.
Civil Front does not call for paying fines/WOZ/taxes/etc. They do say that if you go against it "they don't just give up" and that sometimes you have to be a long shot. They suggest trying first with an "easy fine," such as not wearing a mouthpiece. Later, you can start challenging more and more cases as you become "better trained.
-
'We never signed up for a mandate,' you are right about that. The government/government does assume you are 'in' with the system. If you are declared by your parents at the civil registry and get a BSN, you automatically participate. To make it explicitly clear that you no longer wish to participate, in my view it is best to send a cancellation authorization board to your mayor/election board.
-
Of course, during the lecture one constantly refers to the Civil Code / Constitution / Universal Human Rights. Jeroen indicates that international law / UDHR always prevail over national law. The UDHR, as well as the Constitution, states that in principle you are already free! On the contrary, Jeroen calls out several times during the lecture that the grace of God has never been demonstrated and therefore a judge / police officer / (high) official / BOA / William - Alexander, (other persons who by virtue of their position serve the Crown) can not make pronouncements / promulgate measures / impose penalties / etc. that are legally valid. However, in defense with a BOA or police officer, besides the trump card "grace of God," you can also refer to prevailing legislation, with which you can knock them around the ears.
-
In my view, the purpose of the meeting is to be better informed about your (civil) rights and thus be stronger towards authorities. The fact that Burgerfront commercially exploits the toolkits available from them does not change this in my experience.
Mvg,
Wouter
In my view, the meeting is meant to make money. No more and no less. That's all right. Nothing wrong with that.
To dance within the framework of the law is to say that accepts the authority of the lawgiver.
So it is actually much simpler: the emperor has no clothes on.
At civic font you are lumped from one paperwork to another, no thanks.
Prince Pils has no authority, get lost!
Notice! The social media army and bots are in many groups to blackball me. They use words like "I have been following him for years, but now he is going too far," "not to be trusted," etc. Unsubstantiated. Don't garden on it. Attempts disable the independent:
https://www.martinvrijland.nl/nieuws-analyses/zijn-de-social-media-reacties-die-u-ziet-van-echte-mensen-of-ai-gegenereerd-antwoord-u-praat-vaak-met-openai-gpt-3/
How many times do you have to say "otherwise you will think I have accomplices in the room" before it starts to look like it?
Hi Martin,
Question, are you assuming that people didn't vote? Because after all, if people did vote, they have given up their vote for four years. Then wouldn't it be convenient to cancel the authorization of board? Curious about your thoughts on this....
This is why I have been advising against voting for years. In all cases, the simple truth still applies, which is that all laws are signed by the crown by the grace of God and that the grace of God is not demonstrated and therefore the law does not apply.
Voting may be a sign that you agreed with the system at the time of voting, but that still does not mean that the system can demonstrate the grace of God. You did not give an authorizing board; you simply fell for the fable sold to you as democracy.
You don't have to say anything that doesn't exist. You may do it hear, but I would just use the sample bills I have prepared. Cost nothing and you can just modify and print them out.
I don't want to pay taxes anymore...oh wait. By the grace of God, I don't have to anymore either. If William will just show me his Grace, I'll show him mine. I mean if we are talking about the same God....
Dear Martin,
I am now (following your sample letter) adding up a letter because I do not want and will not pay my sales tax. Is it more convenient now to also send the letter by registered mail?