Saturday, January 20, 2007

News From Bob Schulz

Within months, in all probability just before the Easter break, the hot topic of the day in every single law school in America will be the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in our case entitled, We The People v. The U.S. Government.

Given the enormous and far-reaching implications of this decision, either in favor of the People or against them, law school professors everywhere will be anxious to analyze and “mine” the decision, discussing it in their faculty and academic forums and bringing it the attention of the young minds that fill their classrooms. Many will likely rush to further explore the gravity of the ruling and publish articles in Law Review journals.

Read more here.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, I read that Ed's argument is that there is no law that requires him to pay federal income tax.

So federal gov. let's see the law. If you can't produce such a document then you can't charge Ed with tax evasion because Ed did not evade anything because there is no law for him to evade that requires him to pay federal income tax.

Any tax laws that the federal gov. uses against Ed are irrelevent, because of the above. This trial has no credibility and should be stopped because it is based on Americans fear and brainwashing that they have to pay taxes otherwise they will go to jail.

Unless the fed gov. can come up with a law Not a code, they have No case.

11:20 PM  
Anonymous quatloos said...

26 U.S.C. section 1, as the Supreme Court has consistently held in allowing the convictions of tax protestors to stand. No accredited legal scholar disagrees.

Merely repeating over and over the lie "there is no law" will not make it come true.

12:23 AM  
Anonymous quatloos said...

P.S., a Code IS a law. No credible legal scholar disagrees. This is why tax protestors always have to pay the taxes. Once in a blue moon they convince a jury on a Cheek defense, but even then they have to pay their taxes. Just ask Vernice Kuglin who lost her Fed-Ex retirement as part of her settlement agreement.

12:25 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Exclusive footage - NOT what you've seen in the LYING and SLANTED mainstream media - HERE, you'll see and hear the REAL story of how the Ed and Elaine Brown fiasco began. This current action is nothing more than disguised RETRIBUTION for a lawsuit the Browns filed against the government a few years ago.

The government "baited" Ed to his wife's dental office by notifying him there was a water pipe leaking flooding the area (bald-faced lie). When he arrived, he was slammed to the ground by a hoard of federal agents, handcuffed, shackled, and taken into custody where he was strip-searched in the nude, including forcing him to bend over and "spread his cheeks" for a body cavity search.

What he done? He had paid off the mortgage on the house, over time, with Postal Money Orders. The government claims that constitutes "structuring" and "money laundering." Millions pay their bills with money orders (postal, bank, and commercial). Convenience stores sell money orders, banks sell them, and the post office sells them. But for Ed and Elaine Brown, the government has arbitrarily decided they are illegal.

Yet he is portrayed by the government and by its accomplices in the media, as a "scofflaw," a radical tax protestor, and worse. And they call his home a "compound."

Still, they cannot produce any law that requires the Browns to file and pay an income tax (because there is none). The goal is two-fold: (1) they want to silence him and (2) they have chosen the Browns as their annual first-of-the-year high-profile shock-and-awe publicity campaign to scare people into meeting the April 15 tax-filing deadline. The Browns join Willie Nelson, Joe Louis, Leona Helmsley, and countless others in being the selected annual victim.

See Ed Brown tell the story.

Exclusive Footage - 29-minute Video at Ed Brown's Home - A Taxing Issue

Acquittal - Vivian Kellems Tax Trial

To quatloos: The Code IS the law, despite that Title 26 has never been passed into POSITIVE LAW. The parallel tables of AUTHORITIES show the ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY for Title 26 is found ONLY in Title 27, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Taxes on THOSE items ARE mandatory. The key to 26 U.S.C. Title 1 is that a tax is imposed upon "taxable" income. Some incomes certainly ARE taxable and Title 26 is Constitutional AS WRITTEN. But "as written," it EXCLUDES the incomes of most Americans. Period. End of discussion. The truth of that will eventually prevail, simply because it's the truth.

One other thing. Look up the EFFECTIVE DATES of the Subtitles of the Tax Code. You'll see that when taxes are in effect, enforcement authority is not and, when enforcement authority is in effect, taxes are not. See Section 7851.

The federal income tax, as it is wrongfully administered, is a deliberate FRAUD.

6:58 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Perhaps we should push to have the April 15 deadline changed to October 15, so it would be fresh on everyon's mind just before elections. Maybe that would change who we elect.

7:17 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Can someone put this on the main board, and correct the number of comments on this thread from 3 to 6?

Exclusive Footage - 29-minute Video at Ed Brown's Home - A Taxing Issue

7:36 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

For those who don't know, quatloos is the IRS. Quatloos has long maintained a website masquerading as a public service activity, but I've seen stuff posted there that comes out of confidential IRS publications. So, don't be fooled, quatloos is on this blog to keep readers indoctrinated.

Readers should examine DOJ's manuals for prosecuting tax cases. They will curl your toes. Some of the strategies encouraged there leave no doubt that the people are, indeed, enemies of the state. To say they are unethical would be an understatement. Some are downright criminal, in my view.

8:07 AM  
Anonymous quatloos said...

Then why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar agrees with your "positive law" wackiness?

The answer: You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Neither does Ed Brown, which is why he is about to spend the rest of his life in prison.

9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

great info fedmarshall1937

I find it interesting that the federal reserve is privately owned by bankers and yet their name has the word federal in it, when it is not part of the us gov.

How can the irs get away with charging people with tax evasion when so far there seems to be no evidence that Americans should pay federal income tax.

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


what Constitutional scholars disagree, where are they.

what is 'positive law' what are you talking about

are you saying Ed Brown is going to jail because he doesn't have a clue, is there a law that explains this

9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the federal reserve must be dismantled and all the money they stole should be returned to the American people for the past 88 years. Then if the us giv needs money a fair and just law should be agreed upon between the American people and the US Gov.

There should be no more laws, there should be Agreements. Laws are dictatorial, Agreements are cooperative.

9:50 AM  
Anonymous Kenneth H. said...

Well rebelling against the British Empire was illegal too, but I see you are happy being an American.

I for one stand with Ed and many others. And I could really use the readers support in getting up to Ed Browns's place.

If you cannot go let me go for you, donate Click Here

10:49 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

quatloos said... "Then why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar agrees with your "positive law" wackiness?"

The inside front cover of any volume of U.S.C.s 50 Titles lists all 50 titles, with asterisks identifying those which have been passed into positive law. Title 26 has no asterisk. Do your scholars claim those index pages don't exist? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of credentialed legal and Constitutional scholars who acknowledge the truth of my comments.

quatloos said: "The answer: You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Neither does Ed Brown, which is why he is about to spend the rest of his life in prison."

What irresponsible comments! Ed was convicted, in his absence, of only three counts. Elaine was convicted of what, 12 or 14 counts? Why do you presume to know what the sentences will be?

Some years ago, a friend of mine was tried for five counts of willful failure to file. I sat through the four days of trial as a spectator.

While the jury was in deliberation, my friend, his lawyer and I sat on a bench in the courtyard waiting for the verdict. My friend's cell phone rang. It was a newspaper reporter calling to get his reaction to his conviction and two-year prison sentence. Surprised, he told her the jury was still out. She asked that he call her back when he had been notified so she could report his reaction.

Two hours later the jury found him guilty of four of the five counts and the judge sentenced him to two years in a federal prison camp.

So don't presume to think there aren't people out here who know what goes on in federal tax trials. I've sat through three of them myself, and I've heard multiple accounts of Joe Banister's trial, Larken Rose's trial, Dick Simkanin's trial, Irwin Schiff's trial, and others.

The one common thread running through all of them is that they were all railroad jobs in which defendants were denied fair trials and denied due process.

I suppose the individuals employed by the IRS and DOJ are proud of that. Honest people, like John Turner, Joe Banister, Sherry Jackson, and others, have to resign rather than violate their oath. The ones who remain knowingly and willingly earn their livings as crooks.

12:20 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

I'd like to add something else. Quatloos likes to make general claims concerning what "courts have held." What must be understood is that appeals courts typically rule on very narrow issues taken from the evidence presented at trial.

A lot of bad case law often results from that procedure in tax cases, primarily because courts deny defendants the opportunity to present complete defenses. Judges rule as inadmissible much evidence that would, if presented in court, result in entirely different rulings by appeals courts if they had that evidence to consider in reaching their positions.

One prime example has been the 861 evidence. No appeals court, or the Supreme Court, has ruled on a complete presentation of the 861 evidence but, instead, they have addressed only isolated and piecemeal aspects presented in a virtual vacuum.

Yet the IRS and its supporters often say "the courts have ruled against the 861 "argument" and called it frivolous." Anyone who has looked at such rulings knows the truth. Nevertheless, overcoming the bad case law will not be easy and will take time.

12:39 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Another for quatloos:

Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled the IRS Form 1040 to be a "bootleg" form not required by law to be completed and submitted by anybody? APA (Administrative Procedures Act) requires all government forms seeking personal information must prominently display a VALID OMB Control Number AND must tell the applicant whether completing the form is voluntary or mandatory AND, if voluntary, what affects not furnishing the requested information might have on the applicant.

That's why I don't fill them out. I file by letter and let the IRS compute my taxes.

1:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home