Not A Person wrote on Sep 11 2006, 11:28 PM:

Sonik Speed wrote on Sep 15 2005, 05:18 PM:
Using the UCC (with respect to the topic of taxation) is a terrible way of approaching. Furthermore, using the “strawman” or “Redemption Process” or whatever derivative of it, is a worthless and non-meritorous action.

I would stay away from it.

… Read more

Anti-Predator wrote on Sep 13 2006, 10:25 AM:
Sonik –  you would be a lot happier guy, if you came to the realization that not everyone needs to think as you do and stopped the verbal attacks because of it.  Everyone has different paradigms of thought.  Your frustration appears to have manifested into a negative essence.  Basically, I do… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 28 2006, 11:06 PM:

Quote:
“. . . conform the lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts developed in [the] Uniform Commercial Code.”

Now this is prima facie evidence I have here – which is certainly open to rebuttal. Is there a law or case law that says: Federal tax liens are superior to any… Read more

lambskin wrote on Apr 22 2006, 12:10 AM:
Hey All,

Just a reminder, the DOJ can't lawfully prosecute a case for the IRS (or anyone else for that matter) any more than the IRS can lawfully ask them to do so.

G & P,

AC

[post=”2662″][/post]

Interesting theory. Does it have any basis in verifiable fact? I'd love to discuss it once… Read more

lchesson wrote on Apr 19 2006, 08:09 AM:
AndyK wrote:

“It's not worth my time to expend any more effort here. I'm sure my supervisors won't mind if I concentrate on other sites where the participants don't all have blinders on.”

You are allowed to use whatever resources you can manage.  Your supervisors are summoned to appear.  You clearly… Read more

Civil N0.05-0921L

Silence?

Cowardly retreat?

This from someone who refuses to accept plain English Supreme Court decisions?

Sorry, Andy don't play that crap.

Call me a loser, quitter, whatever you wish, but it won't change the facts: you are making the rules up as you go and refusing to accept anything that threatens your world view.

Let's get back… Read more

Well, I guess I'm banned from this topic.

I cited Law and Supreme Court rulings which support “includes” as a term of enlargement of the common language meaning.

Since you refuse to accept this, there's no point in going on.

As I said earlier, you are setting the ground rules, defining what is/isn't acceptable, and acting as judge… Read more

FIRST RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

#1 ADMIT excepting the correct, unannotated wording of the statute:

Quote:
26USC7701 (a)(26) Trade or business
The term ''trade or business'' includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

#2 DENY

First:

Quote:
26USC7701( c ) Includes and including
The terms ''includes''… Read more

lchesson wrote on Apr 15 2006, 04:28 PM:
The witness(IRS)
The witness is not the IRS.  It's an employee of the company that issued the 1099s or the W-2s.
probably did not actually observed those payments, and would not be the most reliable sources of information.
The witness is someone from the department that issues the documents –… Read more

lchesson wrote on Apr 15 2006, 09:32 AM:
Me:
The IRS is now trying to act as if they have first hand knowledge of whether or not Hendrickson received 'wages'.? I'll bet a dollar to a donut that they don't.

AndyK:
You owe me a donut.? The IRS has copies of forms W-2 and 1099, submitted by the 3rd parties under oath, attesting to the payments… Read more

On that basis, I will put together a reply.

It will take longer than a week to assemble all the relevant information, but it is forthcoming.

Mr. Author #2:

I decline your offer or challenge or threat or whatever you choose to call it.

I'm not going to get into an argument over the meaning of “includes”, over the appropriateness of any legal dictionary as a valid source of statutory or case law, the relevance of ?861 to an American citizen, or the definition of of a citizen versus… Read more

lchesson wrote on Apr 14 2006, 01:51 PM:

AndyK wrote on Apr 14 2006, 07:36 AM:

The IRS and DOJ are lying in their complaints and the complaints are full of presumption.
YOUR opinion.? Any facts to back it up?

# 1 – Para 7 of the complaint states that Hendrickson asserts that payment of federal taxes is voluntary.  False.

# 2 – Para… Read more

Bing wrote on Apr 14 2006, 08:43 AM:
The IRS wants the money back.

However, if the IRS is lawfully entitled to any money, than that would mean that the persons who filed the 4852 Forms and requested their $$$ be returned to them, committed perjury. Amazingly, though, the IRS and DOJ are not prosecuting anyone for perjury, mail… Read more

bruce wrote on Apr 14 2006, 12:51 AM:
If the readers of Cracking the Code believed that the information was credible, they in fact had every right under the Constitution to question the Constitutionality of the taxes they had already paid.
They also had every right to do their own research and check with other knowledgable people to… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Apr 13 2006, 12:36 PM:
Lchesson,

Thanks for your feedback.  Both Sonik and AndyK have been rebuked publicly and equally for the same reason.

As far as whether AndyK is an IRS employee, I have in my possession an email forwarded to me by a third party in which he admitted same.  Since he hasn't denied it, then under Federal… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Apr 12 2006, 09:39 PM:
AndyK,

Thank you for admitting that EVERYONE on this planet is? is a LIAR, a COWARD, a SINNER, and unworthy of anything, including God's grace.? Even if they aren't a criminal under man's law, they are still a criminal under God's laws.? It's impossible to get off this miserable excuse of a… Read more

Differences in opinion make for wonderful conversation and exciting horse races.

As long as opinion is expressed as such, it is irrefutable.

I have never, and will never, challenge anyone's opinion here. I may disagree with it and express my reasons for disagreement, but I will never say someone is WRONG.

I may controvert or rebut an… Read more

I read the referenced court case quite some time ago.

I specifically answered the way I did because I don't want to state an opinion in a way that could be construed as my attempting to foist bogus facts on the readers.

IN MY OPINION:

Hendrickson does not deserve to be considered a terrorist, like a suicide bomber.
His act was that of a… Read more

Before going ballistic, it might be a good idea to see what the organization intends to do

Quote:
PURPOSE

To increase communication, collaboration, and the exchange of information among the three countries in the areas of drugs, biologics, medical devices, food safety and nutrition to protect and promote human health.

MISSION
To protect… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 11 2006, 01:58 PM:
Rebuttal Anyone???

Someone please tell me Peter Hendrickson is NOT a terrorist. What happen to the folks that defended Hendrickson in this thread? It has been months!

Hello?

Sonik Speed

[post=”2558″][/post]

Terrorist is a highly subjective definition.

You have to examine the… Read more

Quote:
FindLaw's searchable database of the Supreme Court decisions since 1893 (U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: U.S. Reports 150-, 1893-). Browsable by year and US Reports volume number and searchable by citation, case title and full text. This is a free service that will remain free.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

FindLaw… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 8 2006, 07:46 PM:
AndyK – I've copied a long article on the 5th amendment and interpretation of double jeopardy. I'd like to submit it, but have no idea how to do so.

Sonik Speed says: Just copy and paste it into the forum.
Sonik Speed

[post=”2539″][/post]

It's a 160K+ MS Word document. Isn't that too large… Read more

bruce wrote on Apr 8 2006, 02:50 AM:
Since the time AndyK arrived in the Family Guardian Brotherhood Forum he has attempted to inculcate us with his IRS rhetoric.? Most of which is anti-constitutional by nature.? His understanding of the law is unreliable and flawed, evidenced by his continual opine without legal standing.? For instance… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 7 2006, 11:47 PM:
AndyK – How much did you pay for his trial transcript and from where did you get it?
I bought it, for over $100, from the trial reporter who covered the case.  In addition to not wanting to give away anything which I paid for, the hard copy transcript is the property of the reporting company.  They… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 02:40 PM:
AndyK,

I don't believe that you, as an IRS employee, personally paid for ANYTHING.
Believe what you want.  If I had a work-related requirement for the transcript, I probably could have gotten a copy through work.  I paid for it on my own.
Your employer paid for it.  Are you implying that your employer… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 12:16 PM:
AndyK,

Why don't you enlighten us all by emailing the PDF of the Schiff Transcript so we can post it.  Email to submissions(AT)famguardian.org.  The Website administrator will post it for you if you add a note of explanation.

Author #2

[post=”2531″][/post]

How about because I paid for it and I… Read more

You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to mine.

I disagree with your opinions.

Schiff was not convicted of failure to file and pay income taxes because he made the 10 mistakes you list above. He broke the law and was convicted.

As to your allegations of Judicial abuse, you are incorrect. Schiff decided the rules of… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 12:11 AM:
AndyK,

You are incorrect.  The Supreme Court identified state constitutions as “contracts”.  Therefore, the federal constitution would appear to fit the same description:

Quote:
“A state can no more impair the obligation of a contract by her organic law [constitution] than by legislative enactment;… Read more

In reverse order of latest posts:

Rattler14:

I don't have any problem with the paraphrase except for the reference to contracts. The Constitution is not a contract.

If you really believe that it is, please post the legal definition of a contract and explain how every aspect of that applies to the Constitution.

Sonik:

I've copied a… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 10:47 PM:
I am not defending Schiff. Nor will I attack him ad hominem just because he was in Federal Prison three times. Nonetheless, I refuse to defend him. I do agree with a good deal with some of the material found in his conclusions. I do find some merit in some of his arguments. But oh well. . . it will… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 6 2006, 02:30 AM:
Does anyone know if the IRS is hiring for any JOB vacancy? If so, then where can I get a job description and location information. I am actually willing to consider to work for the IRS. It sounds like an exciting opportunity to work for them. The pay is really good too. They can sure use a young… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 05:50 PM:
AndyK said:

Quote:
For Pete's sake, Schiff was either so stupid or mentally ill that he is now on his THIRD prison term for violating the same law. You'd think he might have learned after his first or second conviction and jail term, but he didn't.

Schiff is neither stupid nor mentally ill. I… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 05:22 PM:
First, I definitely agree 100%, that truck drivers that travel (in commerce) from state jurisdiction to state jurisdiction – are unquestionably engaged in actions that are subject to Federal jurisdiction. However, I want to focus the attention to the TWO ABOVE bold and underlined emphasis. In the… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 30 2006, 08:54 PM:
Let's see if I can find an interesting new color

ANDY K: “Federal Zone” theory states that the federal government has no powers outside certain geographic areas.

SONIK SPEED: Certainly this is not true. Well of course the federal government has powers outside certain geographic areas. However,… Read more

Albert Martin wrote on Apr 4 2006, 05:39 AM:
It was 1981 when I first became aware of the governments tax lies thanks to Irwin. Ever since then I eat ,sleep, bath, dress, work, walk and talk almost nothing but INCOME TAXES. I have been oustracized by many of my extended family. I am very proud of my wife and daughters though. They have… Read more

BOBT12 wrote on Apr 3 2006, 05:59 PM:
Where are you AndyK?

Do you have any more information to share with this forum, or is your lack of response your final answer?

[post=”2504″][/post]

Chill out.

I, too, have a job {which requires travel} and a life, both of which take precedence over time here.

I'll get back to you shortly.

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 29 2006, 08:44 PM:
Anyway… in rebuttal you crtiticize the Lopez case:

Quote:
The case involves a challenge to the use of the Commerce clause to prohibit guns at schools via Federal legislation. It has absolutely no relevance to the ?Federal Zone? issue and I am curious as to why you even bothered citing… Read more

Bing wrote on Mar 29 2006, 04:48 PM:
Overall, that was a nice attempt at rebuttal, even though your conclusions are mostly incorrect and your analysis falls far from the mark.?
What you are presenting as a factual statement is your opinion.? If you believe my conclusions are incorrect, please elaborate.? A blanket statement of error is… Read more

First, please don?t shout, it isn?t necessary.
Next, my analysis of the material you cited.
I apologize for the appearance, but I can't get the

Quote:
function to work the way I want. Give me some help and I'll edit it to make it more readable.

Quote:
U.S v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995): ?Indeed, on this crucial point,… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Mar 27 2006, 09:04 PM:
AndyK,

By “a much more authoritative forum”, do you mean a forum of those whose main goal is to perpetuate the feeding frenzy off the plunder from the illegal enforcement, and do so at the tune of $200 per hour or more?? Ahem…I mean fellow sharks?? I guess all fish hang out in schools, and sharks… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 27 2006, 07:46 PM:
Mr. AndyK – while it is not my duty to defend Family Guardian on issues that they post, it is however my duty to defend truth. I do not see anything wrong with his citations. You seem to find the need to add the phrase:

Quote:
“Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 27 2006, 01:24 PM:
Finally – since the wonderful world of FAMILY-GUARDIA accepts the basic premise that there are certainly other ways of congregating, 'assembling' or  'associating' with the government in which implies jurisdiction (ex: the 10 points above to name a few) then is Sonik Speed to assume that ANDY K… Read more

Bing wrote on Mar 27 2006, 07:42 AM:
Andy, uhhh, sir, if you can be so kind as to answer my question concerning whether or not you agree or disagree that in the past, the US Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term “Liberty?

And if you do disagree, and thereby insist that the US Supreme Court has NOT defined the definition of the… Read more

Sonik:

I apologize. I missed the “and is certainly not limited to” in your post. Obviously, that changes everything.

As to an attorney's allegiance, I'm confused as to any critical differences between (in my words) the law and your citation the courts and the public and the administration of justice. I fail to see any… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 23 2006, 03:44 AM:
RATTLER – Do not worry if Andy has “beef” with FG' material. If Andy has got issues with FG, he certainly should deal it with him, rather than have us defend FG' conclusion. Now you and l conclude that FG' material has excellent conclusions. But we cannot defend FG. Try to ask Andy YOUR OWN… Read more

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 22 2006, 06:30 PM:
ANDY: I disagree that Truth is found here.  As I said above, the basic premises are suspect, thus making the conclusions questionable.

SONIK: I understand. Ok let us take one step at a time. Without showing more than one argument you disagree with, can you just share with us only ONE argument… Read more

Bing wrote on Mar 22 2006, 02:49 PM:
Well, hold on there Sparky.
The name's not Sparky.? Please be polite.

Since when did everyone at Quatloos begin thinking for him or her self?? I could have sworn that at least 3 IRS employees crowd around sometimes when Jimmy Smith authors some of his anti-USA posts.
Just because some of the people… Read more

Since everyone at Quatloos thinks for him or her self, I can't assemble a team to debate you.

Even if I could, such debate would be meaningless. The underlying premises of Family Guardian Fellowship's work are, by self-definition, irrefutable. Thus, any debate would have to be based on premises which automatically lead to a conclsion with… Read more