Sunday, February 25, 2007

Joseph S. Haas Thanks Dr. Mann



MrTideman said...

Thanks Dr. Mann [of N.J. too?, the dentist and attempted "puppet"-master (;-) and for socialized medicine for the masses? in a wanna-be Democracy over a Republic!?] and yes: to taunt the system is O.K. when it turns topsy-turvey in an unlawful superiority as then it, or at least the bad apples withIN it, deserve scorn and disdain, as being in contempt of the constitution. To jeer or speak out derisively by abusing vocally is the "sacred" right of Free Speech that is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The U.S. Marshal knows that if the judge is sick, he can be cured by the doctor of words: the morphologist, and furthermore knows that the 2nd stage of the proceedings is the sentencing hearing, where by Rule 32 more evidence can be exhibited there to prove such lack of respect might look disrespectful as it should be for the bench warrant against procedural due process since how can one gather or collect Exhibit #__ for such a hearing when locked up!? The teacher is Ed whose pupils were the jury who failed too, but not during the final exam.

2:08 PM

From the reader comments here.

Also see Letter To The Editor, Letter to Richard W. Mann and Jonathan Kovar Is Confused.

Also...

MrTideman said...

There is a Doctor "Richard W. Mann" who is a dentist at #___ __________ (Street) in Morristown, N.J. 07960 with phone # 973-984-3000 that I just called and left a voice recording to visit here +/or call me back on Monday. He might have a room at a ski lodge in Northfield, N.H.?

2:57 PM

From reader comments here.

18 Comments:

Blogger TrueLogic said...

Mr. Mann is as much a Non-Patriot as Joey Smith, only more active in dealing Disinformation to the Public.

Richard Mann Has no knowledge of Ed's Trial Transcripts... or doeas He? Has He seen them? If He Has... Then it's easy to see he is just as corrupt as the IRS... Or just as un-educated as JoeySmith.

10:14 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

KOSMIC said...

If we didn't have to slave our lives away to support our children and dumb ass punks like Joey we would all be their with our guns and camaras.

I would shoot you myself you communist.

After making this comment I received the following e-mail.

Do you want to Die, I have your address and I know who you are.
Just give me a reason.

Anonymous, forwarded from an address in the UK

---------------

This is no Joke so I want to apologize to Joey and anyone who took offense. I am not a violent person, and sometimes the analogies of frustration may appear in the written word as violence. However, I want to make it clear; my intended words in the above statement.When I said "I would shoot you myself you Communist" was NOT ment for anyone specific and that line had nothing to do with the line before it. My thoughts were of those communistic types who would destroy and be little us no
matter what our beliefs or convictions and no matter what evidence or how strong that evidence was. I was giving the
impression that I would stand up to terrorists and communists alike, I would put my life on the line if I were in a situation as Ed Brown, and I would protect my family, My friends and even those too stupid to understand. I have heard many
comments about how nobody is at Ed's house to protect him. I would if need be, or if possible. If anything does happen to him
you will see people like me coming out of the woodwork. But Ed does not need us to protect him. He is protecting us. He wants
our support understanding and assistance if need be and we all pray for his family. There is more going on than just a blog on the internet. No one person can change it all, but as I hope for peace and non violent solutions to all these concerns, I feel it is clear we have been marked as the enemy of the evil communist state of the government and it is they who insight violence on us at any cost. It is the ruthlessness of a very powerful government system that has American citizens in it's cross hairs. simply for asking for a debate on the merits of a tax system every founding father said would never happen.

The communists are here, the government is corrupt in more ways than one and we need to wake up as many as we can. It's not time for violence yet, but if that is where the government is taking us then I pray to my God that enough Americans will wake in time to take what is rightfully ours. By all the force needed.

Bob

12:30 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

It's very hard to weed out the Uninformed Americans, from the Spreaders of Disinformation... Because they think so intimately alike.

The only difference between them really, is this:

The uninformed American Citizen has the overwhelming urge to Discover the Facts... He will Always Entertain The Truth. (or evidence against what he has been taught to be TRUTH)

The IRS Disinformation Campaigne Specialist, or anyone who is corrupt, (some Judges, Lawyers, Tax Specialists, CPA's, Federal Agents, Prosecutors, Congressmen, etc. etc.) already know that you owe them nothing, they already know that there is no Law, they already know that Ed's Case was a HOLLYWOOD CONVICTION of an Innocent Man and His Wife... They already know that MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INCOME TAX! They know this because all these years, even as brazen as the corrupt have become, none has been so brazen, as to CLEARLY WRITE A LAW AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSING TAX UPON AMERICAN's WAGES!

If it's so easy to do, why has noone written a law that CLEARLY shows the American People their LEGAL OBLIGATION?
Sure, they Point to a code in the IRC... But that's NOT THE LAW! It is merely a CODE... pertaining to: A LAW, STATUTE or REGULATION.

No One in history... no matter how Corrupt... No Matter How Ballsy... No Matter how Clever... Ever went so far as to simply put the law in writing.
Why?

2 reasons I can think of as follows:

First:

Because the Constitution itself forbids it, and always has upheld, (Along with the Superior Court) that Taxation of the peoples Labor is against the Constitutional Rights of Most American Citizens, and it was Public knowledge as such.

Second:

They knew full well that the Constitution Specifically Forbids such Activity against NATIVE BORN or OTHERWISE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WORKING SPECIFICALLY "WITHIN" THE UNITED STATES, and were therefore "UNTAXABLE BY LAW"
Knowing themselves that this was Public Knowledge, Merely CHANGING or ADDING a LAW was not an option... For doing this, would surely put into the Public Eye what they were trying to accomplish... And Surely it would Ruin them, and Land them Straight out of Office and into JAIL!
These People devised that, if done Secretly, and over Time, they could add to the Statutes and the Regulations... They could also, through the IRS (A Recently formed Agency),
Confuse People with a New Code. (The Internal Revenue Code) Which has been added to soo much, as to confuse the American People... and has been Pointed to by Courts as THE LAW THAT OBLIGATES YOU, WHEN IN FACT IT, THE IRC... IS NOT THE LAW. In years past the IRC itself has been cited as not being the LAW.

Social Security was the way IN to your Paycheck, SS itself was the Deduction FROM your paycheck... And it was VOLUNTARY! Okay, so what about FICA. I know I'm not obligated to PAY FICA... I'm an American Citizen... What they did was to CONVINCE YOU TO VOLUNTEER, AND FORGOT TO TELL YOU THAT YOU WERE NEVER OBLIGATED TO BEGIN WITH OH. FOR SAY ABOUT 80-90 YEARS NOW!


Of coarse, that was then... when Most of our Citizens WERE American, because they Fought to MAKE THIS AMERICA.

Now, I care not about Race, Creed or religion. But look around you today. Out of the entire National Population right now...

how many American CITIZENS derive FOREIGN as well as DOMESTIC income? How About Living in the US and making ONLY FOREIGN INCOME? Living in a FOREIGN COUNTRY WHILE DERIVING U.S. INCOME? How many NON CITIZENS living in their OWN COUNTRY, derive U.S. income? Now... How many Amreican CITIZENS derive ONLY A DOMESTIC income? Work and Make their Wages only Within the U.S.?

Think of all the Legal means to collect Taxes in this Country. Look at all that foreign income. Look at the excessive user taxes we pay.

If you're smart, You'll have guessed that Most or at least half of American Citizens Today in the U.S. DO have FOREIGN INCOME... And therefor ARE Taxable by way OF Income.

For the rest of You who derive your income Solely from DOMESTIC SOURCES Within the U.S., and in the PRIVATE SECTOR... That's right... YOU ARE "NOT TAXABLE UNDER
THE LAW" of the Constitution of the United States.

But they continue to berrate you with Lies, and They continue Playing Stupid, Responding with ignorance or enforcement simply So that they Won't have to admit to knowing the truth already, and in so doing, expose themselves as Slave Drivers and theives of Labor... Embezzelers of an entire Nation, and probably JFK Killers, (Guilty after the fact)

Statutes have been Re-Written... and the Internal Revenue Code implemented and Expanded, All In order to Conceal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND AUTHORITY Specifically Prohibiting Taxation of Labor upon Citizens who are "NOT TAXABLE UNDER LAW".

Who exactly "IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER LAW"?

Any U.S. Citizen who derives their INCOME "Solely from within the United States" and is "NOT A BENEFICIARY OF ANY FEDERAL HOLDING SUCH AS PUERTO RICO OR OTHERS" In essence, this means if You have no Foreign Income, and work within the Private sector... also, Specifically not A Federal Employee, and in the U.S. Then the only Income that is in FACT Taxable... is Foreign Earned Income or Gain and Profit. The Average American Citizen's U.S. LABOR AND PAYMENT FOR SAID LABOR... Are NOT Taxable "BY THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!"

and that is EXACTLY WHY it is not Taxable by any other LAW consequently, to this very Day!...

and is EXACTLY WHY "THEY"... Will Not "SHOW YOU, A LAW"!
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS NOT THE LAW PEOPLE…

Are you Getting this?

Why the hell is this so hard for people to understand? The Facts are out there for Everyone to see, and the LAW EVERYONE'S LOOKING FOR... Is right in the World's Face, And it IS WRITTEN LAW...

For all you non-believers, and Critics of "TAX HONESTY ADVOCATES"...

Why do think the Government WONT FACE THE LAW in our own Courts?

Why do you think the Courts Themselves, and the Government, Refuse to Even Allow the LAW to be Presented, By Ed and Elain Brown? Or anyone else, when they are Obligated to hear your arguments?

If there is proof and/or evidence of an allegation, especially against the Constitution, and if a Valid argument can be made in Court, then the COURT IS OBLIGATED to hear the Arguments.

1:14 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

KOSMIC... There's communists everywhere bro... even in the UK. You know what I say.

Kill em All, and let GOD sort em out.

It's about People anyways... and just LAWS... Not corruption of the LAW.

And even under Communist Law there would be Corruption.

There will be Corruption in all FORMS of Government...

And in all FORMS of Government, there will be Corruption of the LAW.

Communists care nothing for Human Rights, or Humanity in General... They are about Personal Gain and Power to Rule over others... They are about Greed, and Deception. And they are about the NWO.

Kill em All, and let GOD sort em out.

1:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets put wireless mikes in as many courts as we can and stream the audio to the internet. This technology is cheap and I know some courts ban audio or video recordings, but we need to get this info out in public.

3:04 AM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

TrueLogic said...
Communists care nothing for Human Rights, or Humanity in General...
Kill em All, and let GOD sort em out.

With that kind of double speak, I don't know who's more of a threat, you or the communists. I think the comments are getting somewhat out of hand given the reason this blog was created. If you truly believe in God you might want to rethink your statement. I know that joey has been causing a lot of stress to some people, but then I think that's because you've ignored the suggestion to ignore him. In any case I think you need to remember that there are probably a lot of people reading what's being said in these comments. It's statements like those that take away from the credibility of any movement. You're just feeding in to the hands of those that would like nothing more than to portray supporters here as paranoid crazies. Think about it.

3:42 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Boy, I surely didn't understand that lead post.

6:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here2daygonetomorrow said...

You're just feeding in to the hands of those that would like nothing more than to portray supporters here as paranoid crazies. Think about it.

Thank You here2day, I feel the same way. I would like to see the language and statements cleaned up here in the comments section. We have an opportunity to educate those who normally would not be interested in learning about the Truth.

Here are some cases you may find interesting.

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."

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 “And in the same connection the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, in speaking of the words 'duties,' 'imposts,' and 'excises,' said:
'We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.'

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.

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.

If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 “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.”

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. "...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97
S.Ct. 310 (1976) "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code
[1] The opinion is set forth in a footnote at page 160 et seq., of 3 Cranch.
[2] Printed in 157 U.S. at page 701.

15 U.S.C.A. Chapter 1, Section 17
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.

Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1972) "Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 "The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws."

7:09 AM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

Way to go! Nothing like harrassing somebody who may not have anything to do with Ed and Elaine Brown. Thank you for helping to show what most Americans known already, which is that "tax protestors are nuts".

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Elaine Brown is being taxed on her labor as a Dentist. The Code itself as well as the Supreme Court says that labor may not be taxed.

15 U.S.C.A. Chapter 1, Section 17
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.

Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1972) "Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 "The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws."

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."

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 “And in the same connection the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, in speaking of the words 'duties,' 'imposts,' and 'excises,' said:
'We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.'

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.

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.

If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.

Although many Americans are aware of it, all written authorities (except Acts of Congress) that purport to have “general applicability” upon any person or group of persons, must have corresponding “regulations”, and these regulations must be published in the Federal Register. There are however a few exceptions.



Section 7621 does not require regulations for two reasons. First, the statute is so short and clear that no regulations are required; additionally it has no impact on the public generally because it simply “authorizes” the President to do something and does not lay any duty upon the public.



However, once the President delegated that authority to the Secretary, the Secretary needed to create regulations to let the public know exactly what he was doing and how it would (or might) affect the public. Accordingly, the Secretary created regulations associated with the authority delegated to him by the President in Executive Order 10289.



The regulations the Secretary created for EO 10289 are found in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 101. We know this because the nice folks at the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) have very kindly provided us with a cross- reference index that shows which regulations correspond to which statues or Executive Orders (EO). This index is known as the “Parallel Table of Authority and Rules”. Here is the entry for EO 10289:



E.O. 10289 ............................................19 Part 101



So, what does 19 CFR, Part 101, say? Here is the opening statement that defines the scope of the Part 101:



“Scope. This part sets forth general regulations governing the authority of Customs officers, and the location of Customs ports of entry, service ports and of Customs stations. It further sets forth regulations concerning the entry and clearance of vessels at Customs stations and a listing of Customs pre-clearance offices in foreign countries. In addition, this part contains provisions concerning the hours of business of Customs offices, the Customs seal, and the identification cards issued to Customs officers and employees.” [emphasis added]



As you can see, the Secretary has not chosen to create internal revenue districts for general tax purposes, but has created said districts only for certain matters pertaining to the customs laws of the United States – including the collection of customs duties (taxes).



This dovetails perfectly with the CFR’s Parallel Table of Authority and Rules entries for “canvassing” and “examinations”. According to the National Archive and Records Administration (the nice folks who compile and publish the CFR and the Federal Register) the only “implementing regulations” for 26 USC 7601 and 7602 are for issues pertaining to alcohol importation:



7601—7606 ......................................27 Part 70

7602 ......................................27 Parts 170, 296

8:53 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Looks as though the QuestForFairTrialinConcordNH is dying. I have been unable to penetrate the maze to get logged in, and I suspect others encounter the same problem. I'd love to respond to HGuy, but can't get to a comment screen.

9:46 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

I'm sorry, it's the EdBrown.org blog to which I should have referred.

9:49 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Out of a clear blue, I was able to get back into the comment section of EdBrown.org and post my replies to HGuy. I have no clue what happened to keep me out in the first place.

10:42 AM  
Blogger MrTideman said...

Uptate:
(1) The Dr. Mann with the same first name and middle initial in N.J. is NOT the one who Mr. Kovar wrote about in this re-print of his letter to The MONITOR, according to Bonnie who I just talked with who said that the Dr. listened to my voice recording earlier this morning to confirm that it is not him; + (2) Jonathan Kovar is a "contributing" writer and the only way to contact him is by e-mailing the news@cmonitor.com with Attn: him, that they can forward for a possible reply. Yours truly. - -

11:51 AM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

LOL! You dimwits can't even find the right person to harass.

12:55 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Attention EVERYONE, who's a supporter of the Browns' plight:

I propose a show of solidarity, by suggesting that NO one replies to joey smith OR anyone else, who is either so ignorant (that they don't even want to learn the TRUTH) OR a government agent.

These individuals are EASY to spot because they are either FOR or against the cause of justice... i.e., the Constitution!!!

1:26 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

truepatriot... I agree to the above.


Anonymous said...

Lets put wireless mikes in as many courts as we can and stream the audio to the internet. This technology is cheap and I know some courts ban audio or video recordings, but we need to get this info out in public. END


To which I also agree... "SPY" devices can be found all over the WEB at great prices. I Believe it would be easy as pie to slip in a number of WIRELESS DEVICES. If there were people outside the CourtRoom with recievers and a Recording Device, This would be very simple to accomplish Today.

Someone with some Money order the Hardware, and Head on down to Florida!

4:10 PM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

truepatriot said...

Attention EVERYONE, who's a supporter of the Browns' plight:

I propose a show of solidarity, by suggesting that NO one replies to joey smith...

***

Thank you very much! You've restored my faith in common sense. I also agree as I've pleaded with posters to ignore joey. I think you'll find it will either neutralize him, or at the very least he'll have a nice discussion with himself. I hope more people agree and can stick to it.

There is power in numbers.

10:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER