An interesting case was brought to court concerning a certain gentleman and ZUS, the social insurance institution operating the social security system in The Republic of Poland. The gentleman in question, sort to recover the not to insignificant sum of contributory payments towards social insurance he had made to ZUS over the years, and also presumably to stop contributions altogether.
Przestał wierzyć w ZUS, chce się całkiem wypisać. Precedensowa sprawa w sądzie Cały tekst
(Note.- The Polish pronunciation of ZUS has a similarity to the American English pronunciation for the greek god ‘Zeus’. Surely a coincidence !)
Pierwsze zwycięstwo tego, który chce wyjść z ZUS
Had the gentleman known the principles of ‘what forms the basis of our relationships to each other’, no doubt he and others would quickly have recognised the hilarity of the pronouncements made in the case by ZUS, and the subsequent judgements in support of them.
Once it could be established that the court in which the case was to be brought, was one in which cases could be heard from different jurisdictions, and further more, entering the jurisdiction and territory of The Republic of Poland was to be avoided at all times with regards to ZUS and especially during the proceedings – with the court filings bringing the action against ZUS reflecting this – then the case against ZUS could be brought on the basis of misrepresentation of jurisdictional authority and unfairness in the failure of ZUS to present, full, proper, clear and open ‘disclosure’ that, that there is no duty or obligation to make contributory payments to ZUS, with which knowledge, the ‘mistake’ of making contributory payments to ZUS would never have happened.
From this vantage point, the ‘remedy’ in the filing of the action brought against ZUS, would include a ‘motion’ of full reimbursement and compensation, ‘ordered by the plaintiff’ on the courts announcement.
A not to dissimilar cause, one of wanting to break-away from the shackles and restraints of so-called authority, sort elsewhere by an organisation calling itself The Association of Free Traders, goes to further demonstrate that to be able to ‘break-away’, an appreciation of the principles of ‘what forms the basis of our relationships to each other’ needs to be acquired as an absolute necessity.
The first challenge to the association, would be to understand ‘the nature of how relationships are formed’, and then to ‘obtain evidence’ that it, the association, had not been formed in the jurisdiction of The Republic of Poland. After which, the association and its members would need to translate their ambitions into the difficult task of ‘action’, in-order to demonstrate and express that – ‘to know you are free is to act freely’.
Here, the difficulty would not lie with the principles upon which their ‘actions’ were based, once they understood them with regards to ‘what forms the basis of our relationships to each other’, but with the so-called authorities reluctance to relinquish their ‘control’ inculcated in the ‘minds’ of men over countless generations.
Given the shared interest that many have with The Association of Free Traders ideals, a communication was dispatched to the association within which it was alleged, in a manner intended to be positive, that had the gentleman who had brought his action against ZUS been also a member, they and he would have a common interest – to explore and pursue a more ‘accurate’ approach in the fulfillment of that common interest – namely, to be able to ‘act’ freely. The communication is presented here as a vehicle to stimulate others into thinking about the real and personal efforts they would have to make to be able to act freely from the constraints of so-called authority.
It must be borne in mind that any individual who was to pursue its suggestion would clearly and understandable do so no farther then the limit of what would be tolerable in their particular set of circumstances. Nevertheless, it indicates as part of a strategy, the considerations to be borne in mind when dealing with something that ought not to be fought over – acting freely according to ones conscience and above all to ones freewill, insofar as no harm or injury is caused to others, and insofar as no damage is caused to the property of others, as well as avoiding reckless behaviour that could endanger or disrupt the well-being of others.
In place of the hurriedly drawn original communication to the association, a replacement with that of a similar text, has been provided to improve readability without altering the facts underlying the key principle issues or distracting from the principle issues themselves.
You will never achieve economic freedom or be able to conduct business freely without understanding the principle issues.
The failure of one of your members in court with regards to ZUS demonstrates this.
To conduct business freely requires that you should not ask permission.
Asking for permission demonstrates that you have relinquished your ‘freedom’ to someone else to decide issues on your behalf.
THE PRINCIPAL STEPS AND APPROACH REQUIRED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS FREELY
(Information in brackets must not be presented)
1. Do not file tax return forms or any government issued documentation that is not appropriate to your wishes or to your circumstances
2. Do not deposit money in a bank account or leave money deposited in a bank account
3. Wait for a written response from ‘the authorities’
4. Ask them whether you can ask questions to be able to help you understand what is going on. Tell them you are confused about the whole situation and you would like to be able to understand by asking questions to clarify everything with them concerning the situation. (You must get an affirmative response)
5. Ask them if they will be ‘responsive’ to your questions. (You must get an affirmative response. Responsiveness requires that they provide an answer which only deals with the question being asked and that they cannot refer to anything else or not respond directly to that question with opinions, for example, legislation, court rulings, or policy; otherwise they will be seen as argumentative and trying to create a ‘controversy’, suggesting they are being ‘frivolous’. Both serious charges.)
6. Now ask the following questions:
(Do not deviate from the substance of these questions by adding information to them or subtracting information from them. Do not cite legislation – legislation is none of your business. Do not engage a lawyer. Obtain an answer that is responsive for each question. If it is insisted that a ‘responsive’ answer will not be provided or that there is a repeated failure to give a ‘responsive’ answer, tell them that their non-responsiveness will be taken to mean an affirmative response in favour of your question.)
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I am a tax-payer with taxable income?
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I am a ZUS contributor or social security contributor with contributory income?
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I was and am in The Republic of Poland?
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I do not absolutely own my business without condition?
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I was and am doing business in The Republic of Poland?
Are you a witness or can you provide any witnesses with personal first hand knowledge that can say or show that I was ‘using’ the title (in my possession) of Polish Citizen or National at the time for which any claims are being made?
The Principle Issues That Form The Basis Of Our Relationships To Each Other –
The Real Danger
Statutory Instruments 1997 No. 1778 SOCIAL SECURITY – The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997