Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The "Lie Free Zone"


According to Cryer, the law, which is carefully drawn to stay inside the Constitution, does not actually tax personal earnings, but the IRS publications, no more law than Time Magazine, say it does and by collecting taxes on personal earnings it has violated several fundamental constitutional restrictions. He says that nearly a trillion dollars is siphoned, illegally, away from families and households every year, although their wages and salaries, including bonuses, are exempt from taxation under the Constitution. "I wish there were some way I could have taken this case on a 1/3 contingency," he joked. Click here to read more.

17 Comments:

Blogger TrueLogic said...

States Outpace Congress in Upgrading Lobbying Laws:

24 states have made disclosure strides since 2003.

By Leah Rush and David Jimenez

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2006 — As Congress struggles to maintain public trust in the midst of the lobbying scandal raging in Washington D.C., members could look to the states for ways to revamp the federal system.

A Center for Public Integrity survey that evaluated the strength of lobbying disclosure laws nationwide found the federal law to be weaker than those of 47 of the 50 states.

Since the original 2003 "Hired Guns" report, lawmakers in almost half the states — sometimes prompted by scandals — have beefed up their disclosure laws, but federal legislators haven't.

"The federal law is pretty terrible," said Robert M. Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies, who helped write California's 1974 political reform law.

"Congress should be looking to the states," Stern said, because "states have had tremendous experience with enforcing and administering these laws. They are not that hard to enforce."

While no state earned an "A" when graded on providing the public with full disclosure on behind-the-scenes lobbying in the 2003 survey, Washington state had the highest score, 87 points out of a possible 100.

The federal law tied with New Hampshire, earning a failing grade of 36 — almost two and a half times lower. Only Pennsylvania and Wyoming received worse marks.

I would like to post this link to:
The Center For Public Integrity
http://www.publicintegrity.org/hiredguns/report.aspx?aid=781
Read More Here.

7:53 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Cracking the Wall, Part 1
Defense Lawyers Lambaste Federal Taxes and Judicial/Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Income Tax and Judicial & Prosecutorial Misconduct Panel delved into the significant and on-going abuses of the federal Judiciary and the Department of Justice in their goal of further sustaining the faltering federal income tax fraud.

The panel consisted primarily of attorneys bringing forth details of the constitutional abuses inside courtroom where the general public, as well as grand and trial juries, are virtually ignorant of the acts of tyranny perpetrated those entrusted to fairly execute our trials and prosecute our criminals with fairness and Due Process.

A central topic to the several hour discussion was the recent criminal tax trial of employer Dick Simkanin who was convicted in January, 2004 on 29 of 31 felony counts stemming from his justifiable decision to stop withholding and filing.

Simkanin Attorney Arch McColl and constitutional attorney Larry Becraft review the Simkanin and other criminal tax cases in detail and go into extensive discussion of the how our government officials systemically violate the public trust and deny Due Process in criminal tax trials and what the People can do to thwart these abuses using education, preparation, and well executed courtroom and legal tactics.

In short - this content of this panel should be required viewing for anyone in the Truth-in-Taxation Movement and should be mandatory for anyone engaged with directly confronting the IRS.

* Clay Conrad, Attorney and Chairman of the Fully Informed Jury Association addressed the conference regarding jury nullification, and jury education. He also prosecuted the Judicial Misconduct case against Texas federal judge John McBryde who presided over employer Dick Simkanin's trial)
* Mark Lane, Attorney talked about his perceptions of the system's problems and potential ways to improve the current judicial process.
* Attorney James Ostrowski, talked further about the abuses and internal conflicts of interest inherent in our current state of judicial process.
* Paul Chappell, former IRS Office of Counsel attorney talked about the Supreme Court's refusal to uphold the Constitution as related to tax law, tax administration or the prosecution of tax crimes.


Credit to:
http://www.bostonteapartyii.org/gml2004/html/links/S2D2over.htm

8:19 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

SECTION FIVE: LIMITATION ON COURT-IMPOSED TAXES

Section Five as introduced inhibits the ability of federal courts to impose tax settlements on states or municipalities which are parties to litigation. More specifically, Section Five forbids any U.S. District court from entering an order or approving a settlement that requires a state or one of its subdivisions to impose, increase, levy or assess any tax for the purpose of enforcing any federal or state common law, statutory, or constitutional right or law.

As amended by the Committee, Section Five contains a narrow, multi-part exception to this general prohibition of judicially-imposed taxation. Specifically, a court may not order a state or political subdivision to impose a tax unless the court first determines by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there are no other means available to remedy the relevant deprivation of rights or laws, and the tax is both narrowly tailored and directly related to the specific constitutional deprivation or harm necessitating redress; (2) the tax will not exacerbate the deprivation intended to be remedied; (3) the tax will not result in a revenue loss for the affected subdivision; (4) the tax will not result in a depreciation of property values for the affected taxpayers; (5) plans submitted by state or local authorities will not effectively redress the relevant deprivation; and (6) the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs is not usurped by the proposed tax, consistent with the Constitution.


Read More Here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp10508bUh&refer=&r_n=hr478.105&db_id=105&item=&sel=TOC_68778&

8:22 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Message From R.J. Tavel, J.D. to His Readers.

Short Ruminations on the Lloyd Long Case:

It is night time in Indianapolis, and I have just finished addressing a seminar gathering on the subject of juries in tax cases. My preparation was to print out the pages of this web site since it says so much about the subject. I will here summarize those remarks:

1. The good Lord gave us a teacher in the person of Lloyd Long and that is why I had to meet the man and interview him and his lovely wife Dana in May of 1994. That story, captured on video and available through me, is a story in courage and faith and family. It details the horrors that their family faced which almost rent asunder what no man could, their loving bond in marriage. Dana prayed for a wise man to appear and help her husband to see the error of his way, and lo and behold the wise man was the spirit of the Lord which imbued her with the courage to stand by her man. Lloyd educated himself on constitutional law and tax law and challenged long held beliefs in coming to the conclusion that he believed in good faith ( Cheek v. U.S.) that he was not required to file. The important thing to remember is that it was a jury which held his fate in their hands. The government tried the case poorly and defense counsels Becraft and Leonard were able to capitalize on that and the judge, to most everyone's surprise, was fair and largely impartial in his rulings and instructions to the jury. In the final analysis, it was the jury and their informed verdict which granted the Longs' their freedom and peace. So always bear in mind that the jury is the fourth and final check on oppressive government.

Read More at this Site:
http://freedomlaw.com/RUMINAT.htm


To know, respect and Enforce the Power of the any Jury... Is to Know, Respect and Enforce Justice.

Thanks to Mr Tavel.

8:32 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

I suspect the "Cracking the Wall Part I" report posted by TrueLogic above is from 2004, since I noticed Irwin Schiff's name as one of the speakers.

8:51 PM  
Blogger bulletinman said...

Let my people go!

8:59 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Source:
http://www.citizensoldier.org/taxtruth.html

The Truth of Taxes in 2000:

General Welfare Clause in Front Page Article!!!


Our Founders understood that there would always be people seeking to obtain special favors from government (See Pr. 29:4, 26) and tried to protect us from this evil by forbidding lawmakers from passing laws to benefit specific individuals or groups. The Founders were so worried about this danger they repeated the prohibition, called the "General Welfare Clause," twice in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and once in the Enumerated Powers Clause.

James Madison reiterated the meaning of the clause in his reports on the Constitutional debates and in a speech in Congress to block a law that would have created a welfare program for certain refugees. Thomas Jefferson also stated the meaning plainly in a letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817.

Now, the Washington Times has put the General Welfare Clause's prohibition on laws that redistribute wealth on the front page. Comparing the federal tax bite in 1902 to that in 1999, reporter John Godfrey notes:

* In 1902 Fed. taxes were 2.4% of GDP, in 1999, 19.7%
* All taxes in 1902 totalled 6.4% of GDP, in 1999, 29.2% - almost 1 out of every 3 dollars you earn is taken by government
* In 1902 the largest share of revenue - 46% - was raised by taxes on alcohol and tobacco
* In 1999 the largest share of revenue - 83% - come from people's work - personal income & payroll taxes
* In 1999 fully 10% of revenue is raised by double taxation - taxes on dividends paid to corporate shareholders
* In 1902 64% of spending went to the military and veterans benefits, in 1999 only 19% does
* In 1999 56% of government spending is pure socialism - wealth redistribution for social security, medicare, welfare, etc.

The Times also described how the meaning of the General Welfare Clause was lost. In 1936, the Supreme Court amended the Constitution without consulting the people by rejecting the Founders' understanding of the meaning of the clause. The case was United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-66. A year later, in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, the Court followed up by refusing to ever again consider whether a particular exercise of the spending power was for special favors to particular groups or for the general welfare.

It is this history that has put us in the position we are in today where Congress regularly sells laws to the highest bidder. Regulation raises costs on small competitors to keep big companies in business. Unions extort unworked for benefits from companies and shareholders. The wealthiest segment of America - the elderly - extort the wages of the poorer segment - young workers. And on and on.

Campaign finance reform will not solve this problem. Our people must again embrace the idea that each man is responsible for his own welfare and that one person may not steal the property of another. Only a people who accept these ideas can live under a Constitution with a General Welfare Clause that judges will enforce. Now do you see what Jeremiah meant when he said "for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given given to covetousness?" Jer. 8:10.
James Madison on the General Welfare Clause

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison

James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530

9:10 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

True Fred... But I doubt many of the earlier Statistics have Improved Much.

I think It's Important That People Look at the Past also, When Considering Ed and Elaine's Present Situation, and what went wrong within the Judicial System to Land Them in their present situation.

It's important that People see that Ed and Elaine aren't the First... and (unfortunately) Probably won't be the last.

This kind of Federal Government abuse has been around for a long time! It is Constitutional Abuse... Constitutional Denial, and Denial of the Right's of the People.

More and More, the Court System, and the People within it, are Denying Accountability for their own Illegal Actions...

Covering up, or denying the Laws, and the Constitution... To which they are Obligated to Uphold.

Forcing upon the American People, the Taxation of their Labors, to which they have No Right, No Authority, and No Power Under the Constitution to Tax! (The exception to this would be ANY Citizen Working for the Federal Government, or deriving in-whole, or in-part, any FOREIGN INCOME.) ie... ((Profits or Gains, Interest, etc. etc. as found in the IRC, the Code of Frederal Regulations,and SubChapter N of the Statutes.)) Statutes, ))

9:41 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Ed and Elaine Brown, Simply ARE NOT TAXABLE under ANY LAW.

Not by any Ammendment to the Constitution in 1913, or by ANY LAW WRITTEN TODAY REGARDING THAT AMMENDMENT or OTHERWISE!

9:48 PM  
Blogger The Greek said...

Check this out.
http://whatistaxed.com/who_would_jesus_tax.htm

9:53 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Check this out!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023



By Larken Rose
1 hr 27 min 51 sec - Apr 8, 2006
Brought to you By Google

11:28 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

I'd like to share a little anecdote with everyone, which materialized today.

I had a dentist appointment & the dentist also happens to be a friend of mine. I asked him if he'd heard of the Mrs. Brown, the dentist from NH, who was holed up in her house with her husband, because of being forced there by a corrupt gov. system. He replied 'no' & asked what their plight was; so I informed him & he was AMAZED by the truth of where all the Federal Income Tax $$$ goes & the history & of course, the ILLegitimacy of the income tax!

Keep in mind that this guy is a millionare (probably multi) & because of indoctrination, from yers in the public school system, he was oblivious to the corruption!

In all fairness, he was rather skeptical of my claims & so I gave him some resources to verify the info. Suffice it to say, it was the most gratifying visit to the denstist, for a crown, ever!

11:37 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._McAuliffe



Steven J. McAuliffe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Steven J. McAuliffe (born 1948, Cambridge, Massachusetts) is an American attorney and judge, currently Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He was the husband of Christa McAuliffe, one of the victims of the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Steven McAuliffe graduated from Virginia Military Institute in 1970 and the Georgetown University Law Center in 1973. He was a Captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps from 1973-77. From 1977-80, he was an assistant attorney general in New Hampshire. He was in private practice in Concord, New Hampshire from 1980 until his appointment to the federal bench in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. He became Chief Judge of the New Hampshire district in 2004 on the expiration of Paul J. Barbadoro's term as Chief Judge.

11:44 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

TruePatriot... That's Awsome!

Give Em a link to AFTF and Theft by Deception... And your next Visit might just be Free!

12:01 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Hey ya Truelogic~
I did better than give him a link to AFTF... I gave him a few copies of the DVD! (hehe)

12:34 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Candy for the MIND, doesn't hurt your Teeth...

4:42 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Put the following notice as an automatic feature at the foot of all your emails:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:
Under the authority of Presidential Executive Orders and the USA Patriot Act, the National Security Agency (NSA), CIA, FBI, IRS, FEMA, BATF, DEA, EPA, HUD, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and any additional agency designated by the President, may read this email or Internet post without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. Whatever you type may be used against you to detain you in a secret prison without right of habeas corpus, right to legal representation, or right to trial by jury, and the contents may be used against you without disclosing to you what you typed, in what way it is incriminating, what law it may have violated, or whether it violated any law at all. Federal Law establishes that the People are "Enemies of the State" (Title 50). You have no recourse or protection. Proceed accordingly and pray you never become a target of the U.S. Government. If you're going to wave your flag, then do something to help restore a free society. If not, then put your flag down and acknowledge that you live in a Police State, because you DO. By all means, vote in the next election to re-elect the people who made it this way.

9:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER