User talk:Senator6

PROLIFE TAX STRIKE

Government funds abortion and contraception - e.g. through its employees' group health insurance, etc. This article exposes governmental deception of what the legal definition of a burden on the free exercise of religion is which if known would [1] illegalize governmental funding thereof, and [2] make criminally liable those in government who participated in doing so. In conclusion, taxpayers have the only reasonable certainty to overcome this continuous crime by not paying any taxes at all.

HOW ABORTION WILL BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL (in part)
A BURDEN ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION under my definition thereof (copyrigthed in 2004 as TXu1-189-653)yet precisely and accrately pursuant to Sherbert v. Verner [374 U.S. 398 (1963)] by the U. S. Supreme Court is created when a religious adherent is coerced to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle only in order to receive and/or be eligible for benefits and/or employment, both of which are not offensive to religion or else be punished for not doing so by being denied the otherwise available benefits and/or employment in question. The intensity of this temptation is that much stronger when it is always available instead of proposed as above indicated and if always available consequently the religious adherent is entitled the more to the religious freedom in question accordingly. However in both cases the religious freedom is limited only by the government’s showing that the limitation or restriction on religious freedom is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. Nevertheless to the contrary the government is prohibited from doing so whenever the proposed temptation to violate religion is in practice instead of in principle only, regardless whatever the intensity is, as above indicated. Yet currently the judicial branches of the Federal and State governments are hiding what the precise and accurate definition of the burden on the free exercise of religion is under the Federal First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution pursuant to Sherbert v. Verner as above indicated. Moreover this is a crime by all judges and lawyers who follow this lie upon the public under 18 U.S.C. 242 and would become a crime to overcome in the public interest which amounts to a real and continuous emergency which is imminent to continue in the future as well! As conduct by the otherwise taxpayer which has a reasonable certainty to overcome this particular crime in question, the non-payment of one's taxes could be legitimized only however if the taxpayer already has within his knowledge at the time his Prolife Tax Strike began that the governments are illegally either [1] paying for abortion and/or contraception per se [2] granting tax-exempt or tax-free status to entities who lobby for, sponsor, refer as a "health" practice, and/or support in any way whatsoever abortion and/or contraception, and/or [3] allowing employers both governmental and private - to sponsor employees’ group health insurance ["GHI"] which includes mandatory coverage for both abortion and/or contraception. As a practical matter even the smallest town or municipality offers GHI benefits to its employees which include coverage for abortion and/or contraception. As such doing so is a crime. I will explain below a portion of what I fully explained in my book titled "HOW ABORTION WILL BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL" which I copyrighted last year. [Send a $79.00 donation for each copy request plus $6.00 shipping and handling fee to me Lawrence R. Rosano, P. O. Box 579, Franklin Square, New York 11010]. In my book I fully explain the justification defense applicable under New York State Law yet I am not an attorney however I am a legal researcher. Here's the story: Today the U. S. Supreme Court and all lower courts apply the same judicial rules erroneously to resolve a problem for a petitioner who is prohibited to freely exercise his or her religious beliefs in practice by applying those judicial rules adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court correctly designed to resolve a problem for a petitioner who is prohibited to freely exercise his or her religious beliefs in principle only which was the issue in Sherbert. Subjectively speaking, a real and stronger pressure is required to resist a temptation to violate religion in practice, always available no less, than a mere temptation to violate religion in principle only, where the State and/or Federal government or a private employer would otherwise be prohibited to coerce a religious adherent to violate religion in order to become eligible for the employment and/or benefits in question. By keeping hidden from the public two distinctions why doing so is criminal under 18 U.S.C. 242, the U. S. Supreme Court is laughing behind the backs of Prolifers opposed to governmental funding for abortion and/or contraception. In the following in order to make my point for argument sake I do not oppose abortion and/or contraception per se, yet I do prove that under 1963 case law [Sherbert v. Verner] - which is still upheld today by the U. S. Supreme Court - that I am entitled to oppose the alleged "legality" of the funding thereof. Briefly, the first distinction is between a violation of religion and a temptation to violate religion. Even though the government or a private employer allegedly can tempt a religious adherent to violate religion per se nevertheless that does not mean also a coercion to violate religion exists. Nevertheless a violation against the free exercise of religion clause exists under the Federal First Amendment. On this point, the U. S. Supreme Court held this: "A similar argument was made and rejected in Sherbert, however. It is true that, as in Sherbert, the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience. But 'this is only the beginning, not the end, of our inquuiry.' 374 U.S., at 403-404. In a variety of ways we have said that '[a] regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutralaity if it burdens the free exercise of religion'" [at Thomas v. Review Board', 450 U. S. 707, 717 (1981)]. The second distinction is between a temptation to violate religion in practice and a temptation to violate religion in principle only. The former leaves open the possibility of committing sin and possibly be damned into Hell for all eternity while the latter prohibits doing so, although Sherbert v. Verner realized still a religiously offensive conditioning to do so - which moreover I will add weakens the will and darkens the intellect - thereby leaving the religious adherent more susceptible if and when confronted with the former temptation to violate religion in practice. This is also common sense. Now the most common example is this: Group Health Insurance [GHI] coerces the GHI plan member to consent to a temptation to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible to file for and receive GHI benefits which are not offensive to religion. This is unconstitutional, as I will prove below, but important to understand now is that this temptation is not in principle only upon which the Courts' rules-to-resolve are based upon. In Sherbert [at 404, 83 S.Ct., at 1794] the U. S. Supreme Court held this: "For '[i]f the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect [emphasis, added].' Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, at 607." In Braunfeld v. Brown [366 U.S. at 606, 81 S.Ct. at 1147 (1961)], the High Court explained "indirect" as follows: "an indirect burden on the free exercise of religion, i.e., legislation which does not make unlawful the religious practice itself." By extension, "indirect" can also mean likewise legislation which does not make legally obligatory the violation of religion. Yet to the contrary asking the Roman Catholic Church to sponsor GHI with mandatory coverage for contraception not only asks the Church to sponsor a violation of the free exercise of religion indirectly but to do so directly as well. And for Prolifers as well not only can a Prolifer file a claim under the free exercise of religion as explained above, but in addition the Prolifer may file a religious discrimination class action claim for his/her employer's coercing Prolifers to directly fund that portion of his/her GHI premium which goes to pay for both abortion and/or contraception through the coverage it provides. Or else on the other hand if a Prolifer refused to do so on the basis of religion that Prolifer would be punished for not doing so by a denial of any GHI plan altogether (all GHI plans of which include abortion and/or contracpetion coverage) on that basis alone thereby able to now raise a religious discrimination claim. In 2004 the California Supreme Court held that GHI which included contraception coverage sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church was constitutional. Yet that Court relied on Sherbert v. Verner to arrive at that erroneous decision. But to the contrary that court applied the judicial rules designed by the U. S. Supreme Court to resolve a controversy regarding a temptation to violate religion in principle only as raised and correctly decided in Sherbert v. Verner, yet erroneously applied that judicial rule to GHI which as I have stated above involves an entirely different claim based on a temptation to violate religion in practice. See Catholic Charities v. The Superior Court, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 311-312, 32 Cal.4th at 562, 85 P.3d 67. Finally, Congress in 1958 by enacting the Code of Ethics For Government Service (House Concurrent Resolution 175, 2nd Session, 85th Congress) empowered taxpayers to conduct a Prolife Tax Strike by leaving open a possibility under the circumstances to do this: "Every person in government service should put loyalty to his highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or governmental department (e.g. the IRS, added). Uphold the Constitution, … and never be a party to its evasion... Expose corruption wherever detected.. ever conscious that public office is a public trust." Furthermore the Federal Nineth and Tenth Amendments empower taxpayers to take over when their government as here verified above lost its authority to do so. IN CONCLUSION: Based on the above and my book mentioned above consequently, "Why would a Prolifer choose to pay any taxes at all.  == ABOUT ME ==

I’m a non-lawyer, turned legal researcher to vindicate my termination based on religious discrimination by the Federal Government because I opposed the Federal Employees' Group Health Insurance Program [FHB] (i.e., GHI for Federal Employees) including coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization. Fired on a pretext after only 7 months employed, but really for 7 weeks of insubordination due to this FHB issue, all Courts left me in a catch 22 realizing that this issue is a hot potato. When Prolife attorneys told me that I must wait until the law changed, frustrated I represented myself to find out the basis in "the law" that permitted the government or any employer to coerce me to violate my religion in practice or else be punished for not doing so by a denial of GHI benefits (not offensive to my religion) altogether. To the contrary of Prolife attorneys, as I point out in my book, I not only uncovered how to reverse the decline in religious freedom for the past 42 years, thereby specifically answering my FHB question, but also learned how to legally justify a Prolife Tax Strike and found advantages representing myself in court Pro Se better than if a lawyer did so.

Senator6

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Senator6


A tag has been placed on User:Senator6, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)