SHOW US THE INHERENT LAW: RonPaulExplore.com

Saturday, February 24, 2007

RonPaulExplore.com

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

21 Comments:

Joey Smith said...: Good article on Ron Paul! Even he won't go near Ed and Elaine Brown's case.

Where's the love?; 7:41 PM
bulletinman said...: good question there Joey, where is the love...Why won't RP go see Ed? Why Mr. Paul are you afraid. There a million Ed Brown's out there, that they be with us are more than they that be with them. Joey it was a good question but I have yet to hear you on the radio why? You sir are a punk!; 7:54 PM
TrueLogic said...: Joey doesn't fall within the Punk Class... He's much Lower than that on the Stereo type chain.; 7:58 PM
Joey Smith said...: What radio? Where is it broadcast from? Can I listen to it on AM or FM?; 9:11 PM
TruePatriot said...: It would not behoove Dr. Ron Paul to give overt support to the Browns... @ least not @ this point. Imagine the hayday his competition would have with the news of him publicly supporting the Browns!

The reason should be obvious to anyone wondering why. In case not, he would be attacked by the fascist-run media as an "illegal tax sympathizer" or accused of supporting felonious conduct.

HOWEVER, if he were to be elected, just imagine the good he could do, post inauguration because he KNOWS the fraud, which has been perpetrated upon the U.S. citizens for decades, insofar as the insidious income tax is concerned!; 10:06 PM
TrueLogic said...: THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS

The Premise

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

THE NEW BRIEF- Benson's Reply - Read the Latest!
Jeffrey A Dickstein, counsel for Bill Benson, submits Benson's reply to the government's brief in opposition to his motion to strike. Read the brief by clicking here.

The Brief- Benson's move to strike!
Jeffrey A Dickstein, counsel for Bill Benson, submits a new brief to strike down key government responses. Read the brief by clicking here.

The Brief- Local Rule 56.1
The Goverment responds to Bill Benson's Local Rule 56.1
Statement of Material Facts. Read the brief by clicking here.

The Brief- Local Rule 56
Benson’s points and authorities in support of his
motion to strike and motion to have facts deemed admitted
Read the brief by clicking here.

The Brief- The Goverment Response
Read the brief by clicking here.

The Article- The Judge!
Devvy Kidd writes how the Judge in the Benson case ignores the Seveth Circuit Ruling. Read the news article by clicking here.

The Brief -The Law of Opposition.
Jeffrey A Dickstein, counsel for Bill Benson, submits his memorandum of Law in Opposition to the United States. Read the brief by clicking here.

Click here the read more briefs and Articles.

Would you like to help in this fight for justice? Send a donation to help with the legal fees that fighting the federal government incurs. Click here to learn how.

Bill would like to thank those that have contributed or shown support in the fight against fraudulent taxation.

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

* The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
* The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
* The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
* The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".

Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment

After investigating the history of the 16th Amendment, the following defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths or 36 of which were needed to ratify it:

01 - Not ratified by state legislature, and so reported

02 - Not ratified by state legislature, but reported as ratified

03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified

04 - Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution

05 - Other violation of State Constitution in ratification process

06 - Other procedural irregularity making ratification doubtful

07 - Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version

08 - Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version

09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version

10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version

State

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

Alabama

1

1

1

Arizona

1

1

1

1

Arkansas

1

1

1

1

1

California

1

1

1

1

1

Colorado

1

1

1

1

Connecticut

1

Delaware

1

Florida

1

Georgia

1

1

1

1

1

Idaho

1

1

1

1

1

1

Illinois

1

1

1

Indiana

1

1

1

Iowa

1

1

1

Kansas

1

1

Kentucky

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Louisiana

1

1

1

1

Maine

1

1

Maryland

1

1

1

Massachusetts

1

1

1

1

Michigan

1

1

1

1

1

Minnesota

1

1

Mississippi

1

1

1

1

1

1

Missouri

1

1

1

1

1

Montana

1

1

1

1

Nebraska

1

1

Nevada

1

1

1

New Hampshire
1

New Jersey

1

1

1

New Mexico

1

1
New York

1

1

1

North Carolina

1

1

North Dakota

1

1

Ohio

1

1
Oklahoma

1

1
1
Oregon
1

1
Pennsylvania

1

Rhode Island

1

South Carolina

1

1

1

1

South Dakota

1
1
1
1
1

Tennessee

1

1

1

1

1
Texas
1

1

1

1

1

1

Utah

1

Vermont

1

1

1

1

1

Virginia

1

Washington

1

1

1

1

1

West Virginia

1

1
1

Wisconsin

1

1
1

Wyoming
1

1

1

1

1

1

Total

7

3

9

6

25

29

22

1

31

27

Additional

7

3

7

5

16

6

2

0

2

0

Accumulated

7

10

17

22

38

44

46

46

48

48

In the above table, the line "Additional" are the number of states for which that defect is in addition to previously indicated defects, and "Accumulated" is a running total of states with defects, from Defect 01 through 10.

Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is expost facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII" amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment (It wasn't part of the first 10.).

The authority usually cited for the criticality of ratification without errors of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, is from DOCUMENT NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq., Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal legislative rules is detailed:

...Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. (at 34) (emphasis added).

When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies (either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report) a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken. (at 45) (emphasis added)

It should be noted that in his report on ratifications of the Income Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor of the Department of State, recognized many of the defects of wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, although he seemed ignorant of the constitutional and procedural defects at the state level. He also pointed out similar defects in the ratifications of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Therefore, Knox had plenty of clues to the problems in the ratifications, sufficient to justify that he inquire into the matter further and demand corrective action by the states. Because he failed to do so means that we now have adopted and enforced legislation for more than 80 years that is plainly unconstitutional, requiring not only that it be repealed, but that all the funds collected be refunded.

The states could, of course, re-ratify the Income Tax Amendment, but they could not do so retroactively. That would allow re-enactment of the Internal Revenue Code, and re-issuance of all the supporting regulations, but none of them could apply to the period prior to proper ratification of the amendment and due notices of the regulations.

Readers are invited to independently confirm or refute these results and to similarly investigate the ratifications of other constitutional amendments, both at the federal and state levels, and to issue similar reports on what they find.

The Golden Key

Excerpted from Volume 1 of 'The Law That Never Was' by Bill Benson.

Bill Benson's Golden Key is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process of the 16th Amendment! It is duplicateded from the original, along with other evidence found at the state and federal levels, in 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS'

from 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' by Bill Benson & Red Beckman.

When Bill Benson had finished researching the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in twenty-eight States, the evidence from those States indicated very clearly that a great deal was amiss in the entire process of ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment. Documentation sent from the States to the Secretary of State in Washington, D.C. had to be found in order to try to pinpoint the source of the problems. Bill decided to travel to Washington, D.C. to attempt to locate some of the material referenced in the States.

Poking about in the basement of the National Archives is something like poking about in the Great Pyramids. Bill, as any good archaeologist would, unearthed some astounding documents out of the history of our nation. He is probably the first individual to look at these artifacts in over seventy years. This material contains the evidence of malpractice and fraud by attorneys, judges and politicians. The most damning of this evidence is contained in the memoranda of the Solicitor of the Department of State. The Solicitor of the Department of State was the general counsel of that department. His duty was the provision of legal opinions, which were submitted in the form of memoranda, for the use of the Secretary of State and of the Secretary's staff. Such memoranda were the basis upon which Philander Knox felt that he could be justified in proclaiming the Sixteenth Amendment properly and duly ratified.

Political malpractice has never been so well defined and the evidence so conclusive as in these memoranda. The most significant of which is reproduced heafter from the original. As you read the next sixteen pages, you will be amazed at the lack of due care in their duties and responsibilities by the people who called themselves government. The memorandum should cause the people of this nation to realize that politicians and public servants can never be trusted.

The Solicitor's memorandum is an historical document from which we can all learn. Bill Benson and Red Beckman cannot restore our Constitutional government of laws without the assistance of their fellow Americans. Learning is the beginning of responsibility! If we learn and do nothing, we are irresponsible. Bill has called this particular memorandum the 'Golden Key' and we believe you will agree. It unlocks a Pandora's box of criminal fraud perpetrated by public servants, who betrayed the trust of their masters. Any public servant, who attempts to cover up this crime, these seventy odd years later, will be guilty of the obstruction of justice. As you read this memorandum, remember how the I.R.S. demands absolute accuracy on a 1040 income tax return.; 10:14 PM
TrueLogic said...: Joey Smith said...

Good article on Ron Paul! Even he won't go near Ed and Elaine Brown's case.

Where's the love?

Here's some Love for ya...

Joey wouldn't go near ANYONE'S Case, if it involved fighting for a Single Constitutional Right!!! Except to Prod at them from behind a Curtain, with a 10 foot Pole made up of unsubstantiated Evidence.; 11:02 PM
TruePatriot said...: Okay, here's the reality of it all:

If a survey was taken, in the USA, to determine what % of its citizens were content with the current state of affairs, I'm SURE virtually 100% of the vast populous would express immense discontent!

So, now there remain a few questions for "seemingly" content individuals, such as joey smith:

WHY would he be adamantly defending income tax, even if it were legal??? WHY will he not entertain the possibility that, out of all the opponents of income tax, someone MIGHT just be at least 1/2 correct, in their reasoning?

WHY & HOW could any quasi compassionate human being react so brashly towards the Browns, even if they are not legally correct, in their position? He carrys on as if they are villians.

I think we all know the answer & I also strongly suggest that we pay heed to the suggestion of whoever stated that we ought to ignore the joey smith. He is obviously not conducive to the Browns' cause & is OBVIOUSLY an agent provocateur or a lonely masochist, who enjoys handing ove the fruits of his labour...

What do you all say? I feel better already!!!; 11:27 PM
YankeesPie said...: I say give Joey no play at all ... and with any luck he'd go away.... And as for radio,I sure don't care to listen to his peep squeak voice.; 11:34 PM
TruePatriot said...: I say a lynching is in order... just like in the good ol` days when someone committed treason :-); 12:54 AM
TruePatriot said...: We, the people, need a resolute stratigum.

1)boycott mainstream/fascist media, until they give unbiased coverage to the Browns & other events, which deserve coverage.

2)Revolt, just as our forfathers did under the oppression.

3)Remain vigilant, so as to always prevent this sad state of affairs in this country.

4) Hold accountable, all those who've played a part in corrupting & selling out this nation. That is, all who are still alive.

5)Celebrate the resoration of the Constitution, our liberties & subsequent prosperity!!!; 1:02 AM
Unknown said...: ED BROWN REFUSED TO PARTAKE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL WHEN THE COURTS USURPED THE POWERS OF THE JURY

This is the "Keep It Simple and Smart" (KISS) message that everyone needs to spread far and wide:

The courts, by using these pattern criminal instructions - see below - are violating our 6th Amendment Right of Due Process and a fair trial.

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

Amendment Text | Annotations

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________

Chapter 1.00

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Committee Commentary 1.02

2005 Edition

The Committee made no change in the instruction.

A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).

1991 Edition

The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).

But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.

United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).

They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.

For more information about this Due Process "right" guaranteed under the 6th Ammendment please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association.

http://www.fija.org/; 8:05 AM
Unknown said...: I just received this email this morning:

I wrote to Sen Carl Levin of Michigan asking him if: “The 16th Amendment repealed or otherwise pre-empted the direct tax limitation imposed under Article 1 Sec 9.”

He answered today, no postage paid either, and made it clear that:

“The rule of apportionment with respect to direct taxes still exists within the Constitution."

"The Constitution still requires that a direct tax on property must be apportioned among the states;”

Well, with this in mind I took real close notice of his words:

“a direct tax on property must be apportioned among the states.”

I would like you to help me find more cases like the below in light of the good Senators writings.

“1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. “They are void because they interfere with the liberty of the individual to pursue a lawful trade or employment….and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10."

See also: KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900) Argued December 5, 6, 7, 1899. Decided May 14, 1900. “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”
Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) “The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.”

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931) The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Please send me any other case you have or know of re the same. If you would like a copy of the letter please give me a fax number and I will gladly give you a copy.

Thank you again

XXX; 9:29 AM
My Own God said...: Why would Joey want to go on the radio show after reading the childish nonsense you people spew?
All he’d get is more preschool brain dead remarks.

This is one reason why I left the so called “tax honest movement”.
It’s nothing but bizarre conspiracy theories and outdated cut and paste regulations.

And no one of ANY credibility is on your side.

Get a clue and then get a life!; 11:38 AM
TrueLogic said...: My Own God said...

Why would Joey want to go on the radio show after reading the childish nonsense you people spew?
All he’d get is more preschool brain dead remarks.

This is one reason why I left the so called “tax honest movement”.
It’s nothing but bizarre conspiracy theories and outdated cut and paste regulations.

And no one of ANY credibility is on your side.

Get a clue and then get a life!

Was that supposed to be an argument or something? Joey is entitled Joey's opinion... and to share it with the rest of us... But like anyones opinion, it should be formed from, and based upon facts.

Noone Likes Joey, because He Denies the Facts that People put right in front of His Face, and He Denies the Laws as they are written TODAY... let alone the Laws as they were written 80 Years ago. (Sound Like a certain Judge in the Brown Case?)

The reason Joey gets Dumped on all the time, is because He has nothing Factual to back His arguments or opinions. His entire argument, and His opinions themselves, are based only upon IRS Disinformation... Because that's all Joeys Intelectual Diet consists of.

My Own God should be thinking about their Own Personal Rights, and the Rights of their Children, instead of comming to the Intellectual Defense of a BrainWashed and Corrupt Mental Midget.; 12:21 PM
TruePatriot said...: To the writer, who goes by "my own God,"~
where's your integrity? I'm beginning to think that you are either just another masochistic sheep, who enjoys forking over a SIZABLE portion of your income, which 100% FACTUALLY goes towards lining the pockets of the Federal Rerves (a PRIVATELY-OWNED bank!!!)

OR perhaps you're just another "joey smith"- i.e., government agent. So now I bet here's where you start with the name calling, as you've already done, such as conspiracy nuts & childish.

Again, you're just showing your true colours... or LACT thereof!!!; 12:31 PM
My Own God said...: “He Denies the Laws as they are written TODAY”

Not ONE tax protester argument holds water in court.
And even if the courts are indeed corrupt, why throw your life away?
All I know for sure is if you don’t pay you go to jail.

When I got in trouble with the IRS not ONE of the “tax honesty” people helped me. They all ran! Just like they will run when the Feds come after the Browns.
Loons and cowards.; 12:34 PM
TrueLogic said...: According to what you've just said to us... You never even put up a fight... So who's the real Coward that you so fervently speak of? Take a good look... IN THE MIRROR!

Who wants to help anyone, when all they are concerned with is "the good of the one" instead of "the good of the many.

So... you had a problem with the IRS, You whined for 10 minutes... then you did exactly as You were told.

Did you see the statute they were trying to convict you of breaking? if so, what did it say? Did the Law clearly Define words such as "Income" "Taxable Income" "Gross Income" "Wages" "Earnings"?
Did the Law clearly state what you could deduct for that that year? Did the Law, Obligate you to file a W-4 form, or to include your S.S. # as one of the terms of your Employment?

Did the IRS make you aware of this Supreme Court Ruling?
HARMEN v. FORESSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) the Supreme Court Ruled:
“…constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544.”

This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it’s agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS’s own manual stating:

“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”

Well they Certainly never allowed the above rights to the BROWNS...

Did the IRS of the Judge make you aware of the fact that:

A Court ORDER to report to the doorstep of Club Fed is a mere request that can be DENIED! The Feds also know that they have no RSA Ch. 123:1 operating papers, and can be sued in state court for kidnapping! The Sheriff is supposed to enforce the LAWS OF THE STATE!

In any event... You never even tried to excercise you OWN Constitutional Rights, Before Whining to any TAX HONESTY Advocate. These People are only willing to help those with the Integrity and Fortitude, to try to help themselves... And to Apply their Efforts towards helping OTHER PATRIOTS.; 1:20 PM
My Own God said...: Well Truelogic if I was to use true logic it goes like this:

Once the tax gurus sell you frivolous nonsense and it is held to accountability, it loses and the gurus run like the cockroaches that they are.

With the odds against you and being in what appears to be the wrong, what is to fight for? More stupidity?

You ask if I was shown the law and if “income” and the like were used properly.

You just don’t seem to get it.
The “law” is jail, fines and loss of property.

Frankly, you sound like I used to and it’s all rederic and ranting!

The browns are going down and all you do is talk sh*t!

“In any event... You never even tried to excercise you OWN Constitutional Rights, Before Whining to any TAX HONESTY Advocate. These People are only willing to help those with the Integrity and Fortitude, to try to help themselves... And to Apply their Efforts towards helping OTHER PATRIOTS.”

How do you know? Where you there? Did you see ANY of the letters I sent?

You know the answer to that.

Your statement above is nothing but hot air.
You’re no different than the other tax protesters I knew.
You talk game behind a computer but when push comes to shove in the end that’s all there is-talk!

And one last thing unTruelogic, you don’t know me and what I went through, so don’t talk like you do.; 2:24 PM
TrueLogic said...: I know enough of ewe to know that ewe're no different than Joey Smith... and I know enough to make me wanna Yak!

You're saying that: Once, you believed Taxed on Labor were wrong... You've just stated that once, You had a tax issue, and spoke with, or dealt with TAX ADVOCATES in the past, and that they all RAN, or wanted nothing to do with you or your Problem... But...

You went to them for Help?

You... are talking Sh¤t here... not Me.

If what you "Claim" is true... then I have one question for you?

If you once believed as WE THE PEOPLE believe... That is... If you knew at one time that your Rights were being Abused, and that the IRS was STEALING YOUR LABOR...

What in the hell changed your Mind, or Made you give up your Rights or your Livleyhood. What Forced you to give um your Very Humanity? huh?

I mean... Why do you now all of a sudden Believe that it's Okay they took your Rights... It's okay they took your Money, food off your kid's table to eat, through your very Labor... Food They're entitled to Eat... Food You are in fact Obligated to Provide Them?

What Changed your Mind?

a little Jail time?
A warning from the IRS that Next time it would be worse?
Did they Threaten to take your House like they are threatening to take Ed and Elaine's?

Your Problem is simply that you have not FOUND GOD...

In Fact... you aren't even GOD OF YOURSELF! You only Claim to be.

You Gave those Rights up when you stopped fighting for them, and allowed your very own Heartfelt Beliefs to be Twisted against Your very own Morals!

Good Day; 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: joey smith said,

What is FM? What is AM? I no from nothing; 7:44 PM

SHOW US THE INHERENT LAW

Saturday, February 24, 2007

RonPaulExplore.com

21 Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts