Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
2:07 AM
Sign the Ed and Elaine Petition
(click on image for addresses)
PLEASE WRITE TO Ed & Elaine!
Let them know that we still care!
To contribute to their commissary accounts,
GO TO the links below and click on "Inmate money page"
Click here to contribute to Ed's commissary account
Click here to contribute to Elaine's commissary account
Click here to read the legal pleadings in Ed & Elaine's case
Click here to read about the great "capstone right" of We The People: our "Right To Petition"
Click here to read about the Right-to-Petition “V” Protest
If you have not already done so, please register an account at MakeTheStand.com so that we may alert you to important news alerts regarding the Ed & Elaine stand.
*****************************
Business Speaker
ShowEdTheLaw.com
Aaron Russo RIP
1943 - 2007
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
SITEMETER
49 Comments:
Here is The Law:
http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Quatloos!
Can you prove that there is no law making the average American liable to pay the income tax? If so, take the
$10,000,000 Challenge ! ! !
That is right, a $10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com
It is not a tax, because it is not money!! stupid !!!
Then give all your "worthless" FRNs to me! Daddy could use a new BMW, and BMW still thinks that FRNs are worth something.
Here is the law:
http://www.hereisthelaw.com
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
State ex rel. YOUR NAME HERE, )
Plaintiff-Relator )
) Case # ____________________
v. )
) AFFIDAVIT OF IMPECUNIOSITY
USURPER NAME HERE, )
Defendant )
County of _______________ )
) Affirmed and Subscribed
Oregon state )
I______________________, hereinafter Affiant, Sovereign state Citizen, and specifically not a UNITED STATES citizen and therefore not a naturalized, subject “person”, of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution which was drafted to protect the privileges, and grant Federal citizenship to freed slaves, after the War Between the States circa 1860-1865. George John Malico, a man of flesh and blood, an inhabitant upon the land of the Vermont Republic and specifically not a resident of the corporate STATE OF ___________, being put upon due and solemn affirmation hereby state:
1. Affiant does hereby inform the court that Affiant is indigent i.e. Affiant does not have income, assets, credit, or other means for the payment of court imposed fees the court states are required for submission of documents by Affiant necessary for his complaint in the above matter. Such condition has left Affiant in a state of impecuniosity which is defined in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1965, PS. 864 as: The state of being impecunious or moneyless.
2. Affiant has gone to various “Financial Institutions” (commonly, i.e. mistakenly, called “Banks”) and asked for specie money and has only been offered Debt Notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes.
3. Affiant refers to and accepts as truth the definition of Money Blacks Law 5th edition page [906]
Money: In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, 79, 81.
Affiant requires that these documents be submitted to the court in order to make a
complaint and seek redress of grievances for the suffering Affiant has been
subjected to because of the allegations brought forth in the complaint.
Affiant reminds the court of the constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 10, which states that:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation: grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility”
4. Affiant further reminds the court of the constitution for the United States of America, Article 1 Section 8, which states that:
“ Congress shall have the power to”…. [5] “To coin Money, regulate the
Value Thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standard of Weights and
Measures.”
5. Affiant also refers to the United States Constitution of America, First Amendment that states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
Of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances”.
6. Affiant declares:
To require Affiant to “purchase” the court to make a complaint about the very same court renders the very concept of Due Process and the Constitutional prohibition cited above to be a mockery of all the foundational principles that Free American Citizens hold sacred.
7. Affiant waives no rights whatsoever, such as submitting to the jurisdiction of this court, by submission of this document or any other documents to the court.
Further Affiant says not.
Verification of Party
The Undersigned Affiant, YOUR NAME HERE, does herewith assert and declare with sincere intent, that Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein, that the contents herein are true, correct and materially complete, relevant and not misleading in accordance with Affiant’s knowledge, understanding, and sincerely held spiritual beliefs and convictions and creed so help me YHVH.
Date: June ______, A.D. 2002
____________________________________
YOUR NAME HERE, Affiant
JURAT
Subscribed and sworn before me,_______________________, Notary Public for the State of __________, this ____ day of _____________, A.D. 2002.
_______________________________________
Signature of Notary Public
My Commission Expires___________________
Try that when the f__cks ask you for money!
You went silent sooltaug, just like the courts do.....
Look another shill (Sooltauq )crawls out of the woodwork.
Note - as soon as the WTP update was posted. So predictable.
Go file that affidavit -- and start counting the seconds until it is dismissed.
As far as WTP goes, why should anybody worry about them? They have never, ever been successful at anything they did.
Right to Petition Lawsuit -- Thrown out of court as stupid.
Operation Stop Withholding -- All the employers were prosecuted and all in jail, Al Thompson, Dick Simkanin, etc.
Okay, so 'soostauq' is quatloos' shadow. Of course, this person is going to argue in favour of the Income Tax. He's likely a professional tax preparer. The Quatloos site has perennially aimed to discredit the Tax Honesty movement.
They've yet to explain WHY/HOW Mr. Cryer emerged victorious in his case! Even if he still has a tax liability, who cares?!? He can laugh @ them & be remain free; nevermind the fact that he set precedence for others to follow.
Mr. Cryer is NOT the only proponent of the Tax Honesty Movement who won, as there are many others, with scores more to surly be more to follow suit.
Gee, I wonder why Mr. Cryer doesn't file a lawsuit against the government, for damages... In any case people ARE finally waking up to that rogue thing, which most interpret as the government, when in fact, WE THE PEOPLE are the government.
Lastly, & certainly not least, derailers of the Tax Honesty Movement, such as sooltauquatloos ought to come to grips with the FACT that the vast majority of the Federal Income Tax collected does NOT go to the services, for which most people think it goes. In FACT, most of the revenue goes towards paying the interest on the debt created by the interest, which the Federal Reserve charges, to loan the U.S.A. its money! For any naysayers, do your research & you'll find aforementioned claim confirmed by the Grace Commission (circa `86) under the Reagan administration.
Here's the kicker; the Federal Reserve is NOT a branch of the U.S. government! It's a private entity, owned & controlled by a recondite group of global elites. Any quasi-intelligent person can't help but to then ask the burning trillion dollar question, "WHY wouldn't any UNcorrupt government not simply print its own currency... at zero percent interest?!?
In closing, to sooltauq, who's quoted as stating the following from a previous post, "oh well, she's going to die in prison so who really cares," OBVIOUSLY many of us human beings DO care, ya heartless, social misfit.
One day, good & honest people, true patriots, will be enjoying their day & they'll suddenly experience a surprising little chuckle. The chuckle will come from the knowledge that miserable existence of scum, such as yourself, is no longer...
Sooltauq let me tell you what else I know.. and buy the way an affidavit stands as truth until rebutted and they never do...
The path to freedom for Danny and the other supporters are not in Habeas Corpus. (unless they refused processing, and reserved rights at the common law. UCC 1-308 and 1-103.6 they are now volunteers ) At least it appears that is the direction they are trying. It is in the assistance of effective counsel that can have a grand monkey wrench effect. At this point a plea has been entered by an attorney, so the "Court" can overcome any jurisdictional attacks, along with collateral attacks concerning consent, United States Code 636. This also means no appeal will be "winnable" unless process in some way is found to be "defective". The issues of law have already been decided. At trial the "facts" will be weighed by the jury and a simple question posed. Did they or did they not do some act, done deal.
He can use 636 to prevent the Jurisdiction from being transferred to Maine. the case is transferred to a magistrate only to obtain the required "consent" then a judge assigned. This is why no ruling on dismissal of attorney, his "job" is not finished. He will appear and Consent will be given by power of attorney.
A wild card never used to my knowledge, is the Judge in N. H. has declared an emergency as no judge there can hear the case. If he denies Jurisdiction through lack of Consent at 636 he can then move for dismissal.
If you read the Attorneys Affidavit to withdraw the proper words are there "effective assistance of counsel"
The habeas was rejected because he "volunteered" so he can not demonstrate violation of rights, they did not take tem he waived them....
A revocation of signatures and power of Attorney must also be sent.
They must also not WAIVE the right to speedy trial, below find a very reliant case as to not "finding effective counsel"
http://tammybruce.com/2007/07/alleged_child_molester.php
Buy the way, the Affidavit shown has been put to the Supreme Court Of U.S.A. and never answered. A WIN.. How many wins do you have? If Ed was more reasonable he would not be in jail. He was in receipt of the documents to hold the judges feet to the fire. He chose to be a loud mouth and not listen so there we are.
I hand delivered them...
Hey, I'm going to fill out an affidavit that says that the moon is made out of chocolate. And if nobody rebuts it, then it must be true -- right?
Morons.
That is why you are Morons.
It is also why NOBODY takes you seriously. Now, back to your doublewides . . .
BTW, Danny Riley will probably die in prison too, just like Ed and Elaine.
What an idiot.
Take the $10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com ! ! !
This is the law of commerce and the truth I normally require 5 Twenty dollar gold pieces as a retainer to take out Government schmucks. I will do it for you for free stupid. You do not know the Law or the reason behind it. As most do not. You are the trailer trash or the FEDERAL loser. either way, try to limit your comments to the things you know, like N.A.S. car racing, or how to roast a pig. You know important stuff. If you do not Know that an affidavit is the way to talk to a judge or court, you know nada.....
Danny no doubt lost his last bid for freedom today as he is ignorant of law. No different than Ed and Elaine.
You are ALL ignorant of the law. Your stupid "Affidavit" isn't worth the paper that it is written on, rebutted or unrebutted, and especially since it doesn't have to be rebutted UNTIL there is a trial.
(That is the great fallacy of "unrebutted affidavits" which have never helped any tax protestor, ever, their self-delusions notwithstanding.)
Actually kid it goes to AGENCY, as part of the administrative record. At trial it would become a FACT, But there would not be a trial because no "claim" would exist if not answered, and answered by AFFIDAVIT. You really are a FED.
George,
don't fret with the (dis)likes of the Quatloosooltaug scum. He's merely a crony of the Gestapo or a professional tax preparer. There's no way someone can really be so ignorant & apathetic to their fellow citizen's well being.
Simple fact: 90 percent of criminal cases on tax evasion result in conviction, and 99 percent result in the tax evader having to pay the back taxes in one form or another.
Do as you wish but be prepared to face the consequences when they come. Whiners like Ed and Elaine Brown and the rest of their ilk failed to realize this simple fact. You will loose if you are caught and you will face jail, fines and massive fees.
Do as you want.
Fact remains: The "affidavit" has never helped any tax protestor, ever, rebutted or unrebutted. That is just more tax protestor delusion, of the same sort as why Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, Al Thompson, Ed and Elaine Brown, Dick Simkanin, etc., etc., etc., are still eating prison food.
Take the $10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com ! ! !
Quatloose is a worthless coin from startrek.
federal reserve dollars are very similar to quatloose.
quatloose is very upset cuz he is losing all of his formerly(willing) customers...
People who dont volunteer to have quatloose (prepare our taxes) have multiple supreme court decisions that define Income as corporate profit!
quatloose has absolutely ZERO supreme court decisions that define income otherwise...
and since supreme court decisions are the law of the land...
...and lower courts must abide such decisions...
Quatloose must have nothing of value on his website.
which does not surprise me.
Sixty seven million people as of (8 yrs ago) disagree with you quatloose. (growing fast)
regardless of the law (that may or may not exist)....NOT!!!...
(why dont you list the statute #)???
a lot of people are no longer willing to pay an income tax to a govt that does not answer...
...or to a congress that just keeps on funding...the killing for oil.
(you have blood on your hands Quatloose)...
We the people are non-corporate.
The statute is 26 U.S.C. section 1, see http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Please send me all your "worthless" FRNs as my BMW dealership still accepts them. :)
Take the $10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com ! ! !
There is not a single supreme court ruling in favor of a tax protester argument. Not one. If you think there are "show us the ruling" :).
There are multiple supreme court decisions that define the word Income...
...moneys that come-in (while operating a corporation)
the taxable part of it is what is leftover after subtracting "operational costs"
although I dont own a corporation...I do have some stock in one...and I have Income from that...(then I will look at sec 861 to see if that is taxable)...but!!!!.
wages salaries and tips...
are not income dude...
Income...it means corporate profit.
Supreme court said so...
Brushaber vs. Stanton mining co. I think...
Income.
money that just.....
come-In
Buy some stock...
sit back do nothing...
and the money will just come-IN!
thats what income is dude.
whats in a word?
You are essentially quote mining supreme court case law. Income most assuredly includes wages and tips, and every single person who has attempted to argue otherwise as a way of getting out of paying their taxes has lost.
It's that simple, regardless of how many cases you quote out of context from unrelated decisions the fact is that every single case that has examined these arguments in the context of the income tax has been thrown out as frivolous. You can not win a case by making these arguments. If you attempt it you will loose and be required to pay all of your back taxes, plus fees, plus interest. In addition there is a very high chance you will spend a nice chunk of time in jail. Just like 95 percent of everyone else that as tried these arguments.
They loose.
Again and again and again and again....
By all means, don't pay your taxes but be prepared for serious consequences, and do not expect the rest of us to give a shit as you rot in jail.
The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand. THAT is what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks of the tax protestor nonsense.
Here is The Law: http://www.hereisthelaw.com
It is an undisputable fact that the average American IS liable for the tax on their income!
Here ya go everyone...the following "turd" (laid by Ternt)...
Quote"There is not a single supreme court ruling in favor of a tax protester argument." (Not one)!.
...is the all too typical strawman attack.
I never said anything about the supreme court and "taxpayer arguements!!!
wtf?
the supreme court has not overheard any tax protester arguements to rule in favor of...
although they may have to soon...
So I will repeat... Quatloose has ZERO supreme court decisions that define "Income" as anything other than Corporate profit!
and yes... 26 U.S.C. is a valid law. Corporations should pay taxes for the (many bountiful)priveleges that come with (such incorporation)
...which I (sadly and poorly) do not enjoy because I am a private citizen.
I will have to settle for my freedom in leu of corporate privelege (for now) ...until I get enough money to invest... (in corporations)...to live off of.
one day...
the money will just come-in
but till then...
looks like you H&R Block wannabees
are a dying breed.
Bred wrong in the first place...(If you were to ask me)
So you have no supreme court cases about your arguments. All you have is unrelated cases to quote out of context.
Wow, I am convinced!
Your arguments have been presented to courts many times. They are ruled frivolous at the district and state level and those rulings are upheld by all of the appeals courts that have looked at them. The supreme court has rules on these arguments..they have not heard any of the arguments because they have never gotten that far. They are ruled frivolous and prima facie wrong and rejected out right with no need for a hearing.
The courts are most assuredly not on your side. Any of the tax protester arguments attempted in court will fail that is guaranteed.
Ternt said:
"So you have no supreme court cases about your arguments."
I say: Great mother of god man!
there are about 6or 8 of them!!!
are you gonna make me go find em????
they have been posted her many times!!! (Brushaber vs. stanton mining) is just one of them!
quit playing games (you know em)
The sixteenth amendment says...
...there is hereby imposed...a tax on income from whatever source derived...
therefore I must know the definition to see if this law (26 U.S.C.) applies to me...
...and since I am looking for a definition of Income
and since there is no definition of Income in the internal revenue code... (dunno about you) but I must look to the supreme court.
Ternt also said:
"All you have is unrelated cases to quote out of context."
I say: A case that defines the meaning of income is not an "unrelated" case.
its a simple thing.
the definition of income.
one word
The context of any and every-one of those cases... (all 6 or 8) ...is irrelevant.
people that work for wages gotta go out and get em! (wages) ...they dont just come-in
Quatloose made the following statement:
"It is an undisputable fact that the average American IS liable for the tax on their income!"
I say
OMFG I actually agree with you!!!
Question:
What is...
...Income?
and what section of the I.R.S. code do I go to to see if it (income) is taxable?
What is income? See sections 61 and 63 at http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Tax protestors who have claimed that they received no "income" have lost their challenges to liability 100% of the time.
Just ask Irwin Schiff, who claimed that he had "no income in the constitutional sense". You can ask him on Saturday mornings, between 9:45a and 10:15a through a glass window.
It's plain & simple folks. Any government, which claims any portion of the fruit of one's labour IS subjugating its citizens with a form of slavery!
Trent & sooltaug are butt buddies. They like bending their fellow mankind over... just like the government :-/
Ohhhhhhhh, gay jokes.......wow...out of "facts" I take it?
Interesting...hereisthelaw wants someone to prove a negative. Think about it.
Here's a different tack on this whole issue---
In 2002, HR 2525, entitled, The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "CONGRESS FINDS [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) UNNECESSARILY INTRUDES UPON THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS [emphasis added] of United States citizens; (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."
Regarding point # (8) above, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that we shall be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects unless a proper, lawful warrant is issued to seize something specific. In the 1950s, the outgoing IRS Commissioner, T. Coleman Andrews, made a speech in which he said that enforcement of the Individual Income Tax violates the Fourth Amendment---because the amount of your income is no one's business but yours. In addition, every time you sign a Form 1040, "under penalty of perjury", you are waiving your Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination. No sovereign individual should be forced to waive his/her Rights.
So, sooltauq/quatloos, prove that all of the above is NOT correct. That would be proving a negative.
In addition, in defining "taxable income" the Tax Code describes "gross income" by beginning with these words, "Except as otherwise provided...". Please detail for all of us the exceptions to which the Code is referring---all of them.
We're waiting.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Upon reflection, I can see that my illustration of the problem of proving a negative was not clear.
Allow me to have another go at it.
PROVE to us, sooltauq/quatloos, that there is no such thing as a living unicorn. PROVE the negative.
Make sure what you offer is PROOF.
:)
Burden of proof is on you, but I'll make it easy for you: Prove that Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, Al Thompson, Dick Simkanin, Ed and Elaine Brown, etc., etc., etc., are not in jail.
The facts at http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Take the $10 million challenge ! ! !
Quatloos!
The "negative argument" only applies to getting the ball rolling. Yes we are obligated to produce positive evidence of the law requiring people to pay income tax......and we have done that...........
saying "nu uh butt buddy" is not the proper response......its your turn now to reply to the evidence presented.
To any & all of the proponents of the tax honesty movement. Let's take a mini hiatus from the (un)lawful aspect of the Federal Income Tax & focus on the ethical issue.
God put us on this earth to go forth & procreate, to be good people & help others & prosper. God gave us a mere 10 commandments, to obey, & a rogue government has perverted them into 10,000 laws!
Anytime a government delegates the authority to itself, to impose a tax on the fruits of the people's labour, which it purportedly serves, it's time for government!
Someone earlier contested my claim, as to the findings of the Grace Commission (circa `84), which in FACT revealed that "after all the money collected, from the Federal Income Tax, is spent not a dime goes towards the services, which the people would expect."
So then, where does that money go??? It goes to pay the debt, which is generated from the loan that the Federal Reserve gives to our government. Moreover, WHY would a government allow the Federal Reserve, which is a PRIVATELY-OWNED entity, to print its currency, only to be charged interest... when in fact the Constitution authorizes said printing?!?
The answer is simply because our once just government has been infested with malfeasance & corruption at epic proportions. Now all the pigs feed from the same trough & we are indentured servants. The detracters, such as trent & sooltaug, are sycophants of the system... We The People jeapordize their feed.
The proverbial bubble is on the cusp of bursting & it will be a glorious day. In closing, I'll recount an anecdote of a friend, who inquired about the history & legitimacy of the Federal Income Tax.
I said, "Daryl, let me put it succincly for you. Considering that the Federal Income Tax was roughly 3%, at its inception & was completly optional & now decades later it's about 25%, who or what is to say it won't be 50% down the road?!?"
Suffice it to say, Daryl now knows what a 'direct' tax is, as well as an "unapportioned tax." Of course, he's also watched America: Freedom to Fascism. I was elated to hear that he said everyone in the break room @ Home Depot was talking about the movie before I'd even told him of it!
There is no God so that takes care of most of that.....
The quote of the Grace committee was in 1984 was set up to be negative towards the income tax and is taken completely out of context. The full quote reveals that even the Grace committee recognizes a significant portion of the income tax goes to government programs...they just refer to it as "waste." These are things like health care and welfare which Regan would call waste, but others do not.
Simply looking up the budget numbers in publicly available resources will reveal that only a small chunk (about 20 percent) goes towards debt spending.
To sooltauq:
Apparently you missed the point. The website you referred to, hereisthelaw, is asking someone to PROVE a negative.
That's not logical.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate that it is logical. You can do that by PROVING that there is no live unicorn running around somewhere on Earth. PROVE that negative.
Should you fail to do that, and/or should you simply avoid the challenge (again), then by default you are admitting that the challenge at hereisthelaw is illogical and without merit.
Sorry, no more time for you. Please take a course in Logic.
Sincerely,
Scott
p.s. By all means, have the last word. [By the way, we're still waiting for you to prove that negative.]
:)
Running away, again...thats all you tax "honesty" people do......positive evidence has been presented that you have failed to refute.....both here and in the court of law......your done. Just like Ed Brown.
To Trent:
Try to focus.
I'm still waiting...
The issue I've been addressing is the request to go to hereisthelaw in order to take their "challenge".
I have demonstrated, and you two fellows have confirmed (with your failure to prove a negative), that the "challenge" at hereisthelaw is illogical, without merit, and bogus.
As you cannot focus on what it is I've been addressing, I now have no more time for you either.
Sincerely,
Scott
p.s. You, too, may have the last word. [By the way, I've addressed other issues to you in other comments on this site. I'm still waiting. Don't run away from my challenges to you.]
:)
Scott:
Take my advice and abandon this thread. We are wasting our time with the Q'what-losers. They are sophmoric and in favor of the government being the master. If they were the experts they claim to be, they would know it is supposed to be the other way around.
Some people here have given them too much credit claiming they are tax prepareres; I think they're just a couple of fifteen year olds, like Beavis and Butthead with nothing more to do than make negative comments about anything and everything. The challenge would never be paid anyway, since I'm sure their parents won't fork over the ten million bucks.
They still don't get the point that this is not about taxes, and by their blind support of an oppresive government, they never will. Just let them pay and follow rules and laws without questioning them. Maybe they would feel more comfortable if we were still under British rule, which we would be if everyone thought like them.
to David:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Well put!
Upon reflection, I believe that you are correct.
I'm done with the juveniles.
:)
Do we really have to be subject to the likes of sooltauq and Trent, they are obviously just trouble makers, and taking up valuable space! I for one don't want to be bothered with scrolling threw this crap!
Yes run away, ignore our comments, ban us from the blog! Do whatever you can to keep from having to actually examine the evidence.
If you can't face me then give up now. I am a lot easier going than a court of law will be.
I am also the kind of person who you will have to convince that your ideas have merit if you ever want to move from crackpot fringe to main stream.
Ron Paul '08 right? LMAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home