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.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
10:19 PM
8 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
quatloos
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
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.
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
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home