Chuck Conces: Correction and update

Mary, Chuck’s wife, talked to her husband yesterday evening. He is in Newago White Cloud, MI. From what Mary said Chuck is in good spirits. She will be able to visit him later this week. If you want to write Chuck his address is P.O. Box 845, White Cloud MI 49349. Chuck is allowed mail and visitors, if he puts you on his list, so you can ask about that when you write.

Chuck knows that I am keeping people informed with as much factual information as I can. Since he is depending on me, at least for the time being, I must ask everyone not to act as a spokesperson in an official capacity for the Lawman, unless you run it by your group leader and they confer with me.

The Lawmen have an agenda, which requires members to study the law in order to become informed citizens. Those that claim only lawyers should study the law have made substantial contributions to the dumb-ing down of America. Chuck, along with all of you, is very concerned about the abuses in our legal system and decided to take action.

A writ of Habeas Corpus will be filed on Chuck’s behalf either today or tomorrow. I will keep you updated on that.

There has already been some improvising of the material I have released. We have a public image. It is a mistake to let misrepresentations go, so I’m going to set the record straight. I sent an e-mail out that was edited by someone, who I assume had good intentions, but gave a false impression of what we are about and stand for as members of the Lawmen. I am including what was cut out of my previous message, only because it is imperative that we not be misunderstood. We are not antigovernment; and do not advocate behavior that uses ridicule or subversive speech. This is what I had stated a couple of days ago regarding Chuck’s incarceration:

Chuck Conces had a meeting scheduled for Thursday morning at the U.S. Marshal’s office in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The session was ordered by U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist, and was to take place with a couple of U.S. attorneys. All of this was apparently being done under FRCP 26, for discovery. Conces was notified by mail on Monday of that week. I accompanied Chuck along with another friend that also went as a witness. When we arrived the marshals informed us that no witnesses would be allowed in the session. Most of the marshal’s were courteous (just following orders) and one in particular was kind enough to give us an occasional update on Chuck’s status. Don’t lose sight of the fact that many of these ordinary government employees are not too happy with the current state of affairs either.

“I would like to point out that the attorneys for the government have consistently refused to answer Mr. Conces’s questions or provide any documentation regarding their authorities for filing the civil lawsuit. Conces has been denied his right to discovery under FRCP 26. Although Conces has several times requested/demanded a copy of the documentation necessary (per IRC 7401) that was allegedly used to begin the civil lawsuit, he has received nothing. U. S. Attorney Michael Rahm (not sure of the spelling) lied in the government’s complaint against Conces by stating that he had obtained authorization to bring the civil suit. There is no delegation order to commence the government’s lawsuit against Conces. I’ll tell ya folks that’s actually the end of it right there, fraud…fraud, and more fraud.

IRC Sec.7401; AUTHORIZATION. “No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the secretary (of the Treasury) authorizes the proceedings and the attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced”

Whoever took the initiative to edit my message and add that antigovernment rant, owes everyone an apology. We have an excellent form of government. Our system has been hijacked by corrupt officials and this is what we are all fighting against. I would like to offer the following brief illustration for the sake of clarity. Our interest and pursuit in the law depends on having a correct understanding of our form of government:

A Democracy or a Republic
Which form of government do we have?
Which do you want?

The question of which is best, a Democracy or a Republic, can be easily answered by way of simple illustration. For example, if forced sterilization for mentally or physically impaired people became an issue here in America, the Democratic solution would be determined by a simple majority, 50+%. That is how Democracies operate. Further action or debate would be futile. The new “democratically” passed law would determine the fate of all those who are “impaired”. In a Republic such as our own, elected representatives only have the power specifically granted to them by the constitution. Winning an election confers no power until such winner has taken an oath to uphold the constitution. Our elected officials have no authority to reduce a citizens guaranteed rights, even the physically or mentally impaired citizen. The unalienable rights of all the people are enumerated in our constitution, and we exist within the framework of its fundamental law. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican form of government…”, Article 4 § 4. We elect officials by majorities in political contests (a democratic feature used in a Republic). But, our unalienable rights and liberties cannot be altered through a “democratic process”. The Republic to which we belong is “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

Too much confusion exists today about the nature of our government. Ben Franklin’s famous response in 1787 to a question by Mrs. Powell in Philadelphia is a warning to all:

“Well doctor what have we got...a Republic or a Monarchy?”

He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Can we keep it? Our freedom depends on it. Remember, only the majority has rights in a Democracy.

Bill Price