[AndyK]

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 significant conflict.

As to the requirement of having an attorney, you are (in the most part) correct. Artificial persons (such as partnerships, trusts, etc) and incompetents (minors, comatose people) are generally required to have an attorney represent them in court. Natural, flesh-and-blood people have the right to represent themselves as long as they are competent to understand the proceedings and effectively participate. These rules are in effect for the protection of the rights of the person — to ensure he gets the best representation possible.

As to the quotation remarks around attorney — usually, this indicates the quoted word has a meaning other than normally associated with it. That's why I asked what you were trying to convey.

Andy

[AndyK]

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 grievances and ask away on whatever is on your mind. 🙂

I don't have a “beef” with anyone here.? I may disagree with the conclusions, the basic premises, and the steps to get to the conclusions; but I'll leave the final evaluation of them to others.

This is why I feel privileged to have Andy K join us. We need to sit down rationally and have intellectual discussions with people who disagree with our conclusions, so both sides can reach some nexus point in mutual understanding. This is called having an 'open mind'. Obviously there is MAJOR disagreement between us and them. My personal conclusion is that Andy K thinks we are a bunch of anarchists and non-law abiding citizens, that promote disregard to the law.

I do NOT think you are anarchists, non-law abiding citizens, or promoters of disregard for the law.? I DO believe that the final results of your analyses of the law are incorrect — but that's just my opinion.? I'm not in any position to make any final ruling.

I get the impression that people at Quatloos think the Family Guardians are a bunch of uneducated fools.

From MY standpoint, I wouldn't say uneducated.? You all might have PhDs, but that's irrelevant to the analysis of the law.? Many, highly educated people have run afoul of the law for many reasons — none of which have anything to do with their education.

They are wrong. This website and most of the members in it, are well-informed educated people.

Moving on…

Andy K your first question is (and I am sure others will answer this question as well):

Quote:

Let's start with the “Federal Zone” concept.? It is true that Congress and the US Courts have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction in certain areas {e.g The District of Columbia and certain lands ceded to the federal government}.? However that does not preclude jurisdiction elsewhere throughout the 50 states and the possessions and territories.? Unfortunately, many people have taken the exclusive jurisdiction concept and enlarged it to LIMIT federal jurisdiction to those areas.

I agree 100% with your statements. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction in Federal areas, such as the District of Columbia and certain other lands ceded in jurisdiction. I agree with your statement that: “… it does not preclude jurisdiction elsewhere throughout the 50 states…” There are other means which Federal jurisdiction would apply. Let me name my TOP 10 to you and you tell me if you agree with it. The list includes (and is certainly not limited to):

1 ) associating or 'assemblying' (under the First Amendment) with the Federal Government through any means.

2 ) Murdering a Federal officer or 'stealing' or 'damaging' Federal property in a 'state'

3 ) Using the United States Postal Service (through any means) in a 'state'

4 ) Commerce clause of the Constitution

5 ) Taxation power of the government extends to things like articles of consumption or any trade or business type activity in a 'state'

6 ) Anything having to do with the Stock Market in a 'state'

7 ) If Bing (who lives in a different state than I) wished to sue Sonik Speed for a breach of contract, Bing would have his remedy in a Federal claims court, through diversity of jurisdiction

8 ) Participating in a goverment granted privilege in a 'state'

9 ) Federal Government would have jurisdiction under your “right to travel” on a Federal Highway ONLY IF you are participating in any type of commercial activity in a 'state'

10) If you are a Federal employee, in a 'state'

Thus begins the disharmony. I disagree with the limited definition of Federal jurisdiction you have expressed. In my opinion, the Federal government has concurrent (with the states and subordinate bodies) jurisdiction over all of the lands within the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, territories, and possessions. This jurisdiction, of course, is constrained by the specific authority granted to the Federal government in the Constitution as written and amended and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Certain of the points you raised above are arbitrarily restrictive and not in agreement with various court decisions. {I don't intend to do legal research and post the relevant cases.} For example — Taxation: The 16th Amendment authorized an income tax and many SC decisions have supported it. It extends well beyond “things like articles of consumption or any trade or business type activity in a state.”

Andy I also agree with your statement when you say: “Unfortunately, many people have taken the exclusive jurisdiction concept and enlarged it to LIMIT federal jurisdiction to those areas.” Clearly the above 10 examples would fall under Federal jurisdiction. Therefore, indeed, the US Government has broad jurisdictional powers in the 50 states.

Moving on…

SONIK: Are you implying or agreeing to the fact that our government is too big, too powerful and difficult to defeat?

ANDY: …. if, by defeat, you mean “can arguments made in court by the government be defeated within the existing legal system” then yes they definitely can be defeated. Just today, the Supreme Court ruled for the appellant against the government that a search of a house — leading to a drug conviction — was illegal because, although the wife gave permission, the husband refused. The husband beat the government and had his conviction reversed.

SONIK NOW SAYS… The legal system is what is really troubling. If we still have the freedom of patting down the government through the Court system, then I would say that we still have some limited amount of “freedom” left. The people can use the Court system to “strip Government of its major power” But, what caught my interest is – what parts of the Constitution do you conclude needs “major revision” and why? Do you not agree with most of the what the Constituion has to offer us now?

How can I not agree with the Constitution? It's the supreme law of the land and I've taken an oath to support and defend it. However, it's not up to me to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land. That responsibility lies with the courts.

Quote:

Becraft. . . . . once he saw exactly where the line was drawn, he made the choice to protect his livelihood AND retain the ability to fight other battles in the future.? He is still the same man he was in the past.? He just chooses his battles more carefully.

Okay fair statement. If he is an “attorney”

Why the quotes? He is an attorney and still eligible to practice law in his state and the federal courts to which he's been admitted.

, then his first allegiance and duty is to the Courts and not the client. Since being an attorney is a “privilege” not enjoyed by all, he definately is subject to penal intervention or reprimand.

I think you need to review the laws regarding the responsibilities and duties of attorneys. Their first allegance is to the LAW. They must adhere to it or face serious sanctions. That doesn't mean they can't challenge it or its enforcement, just that they have to obey it and work within it as established by statute and appropriate, precedential cases. Given that framework, his primary responsibility is to his client. Why else would the attorney-client privilege be so carefully protected throughout the legal system? The attorney's responsibility to the courts is to follow court rules, maintain an appropriate professional demeanor, and zealously represent the interests of his cliend.

Andy K – although being a Quatloosian, you are not so bad with SOME of your reasoning. I appreciate your time here and I hope we can continue with plenty of more discussions on a variety of topics.

Sonik Speed

Sonik:

Discussions are fine and might be interesting, but I think they will end up being a massive waste of electrons. Nothing that I say, cite, or argue will alter the thinking of anyone at Family Guardian. You have all accepted certain basic premises with which I disagree. Unfortunately, these premises lead to certain conclusions which, I believe, are contrary to established law.

Given that these premises are inviolate (such as the Bowdlerizing of the word 'friv**ous') any discussion will merely be an intellectual exercise in setting up windmills for the other party to tilt against.

Andy.

[AndyK]

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 you disagree with, so we may then begin our discussion slowly and intellectually without ELEVATING the adrenaline in this room? Can we just keep it calm and easy?

Let's start with the “Federal Zone” concept.  It is true that Congress and the US Courts have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction in certain areas {e.g The District of Columbia and certain lands ceded to the federal government}.  However that does not preclude jurisdiction elsewhere throughout the 50 states and the possessions and territories.  Unfortunately, many people have taken the exclusive jurisdiction concept and enlarged it to LIMIT federal jurisdiction to those areas.

ANDY: Back to the original topic of the thread, Larry Becraft. He is a respectable adversary in tax litigation battles because he has done all his homework. He understands the laws and the legal system in this country and has litigated several cases where, through his work, his clients avoided jail time. He is also smart enough to realize that it is pointless to keep banging his head against a brick wall.

SONIK: Thanks for sticking to the original discussion. I was sort of getting afraid that we all were skewing off on this thread. Your statement is very interesting Andy. Then based on this statement you make: Are you implying or agreeing to the fact that our government is too big, too powerful and difficult to defeat?

If, by defeat, you mean overturn established laws, precedential cases, and the basic rule of law, then yes I believe the government can not be defeated by anything other than an insurrection, invasion, or major revisions to the Constitution.

On the other hand, if, by defeat, you mean “can arguments made in court by the government be defeated within the existing legal system” then yes they definitely can be defeated.  Just today, the Supreme Court ruled for the appellant against the government that a search of a house — leading to a drug conviction — was illegal because, although the wife gave permission, the husband refused.  The husband beat the government and had his conviction reversed.

ANDY: Although you may disagree with how the legal system works, Becraft has accepted that he is required to follow the rules and precedents that exist. For that reason, he has stopped raising arguments which have been demonstrated to be dead horses in the starting gate.

SONIK: Andy – I agree with you on how there are some NUT CASES within the movement that disagree with how the “legal system” functions (eg Thrown of England, Insurrection, The Hague nonsense). Without a doubt, the Freedom Movement has its own wackos. It has its own smart people as well. Yet it is also true that your side has some wackos, and also smart people. I share half of your conclusion. Becraft has stopped raising arguments you speak of, because of the threat of losing his licence, not because he personally chose to do so.

But why was his license threatened?  Because he was arguing points which had been ruled against many times in the past.  Such is the exact definition of “incorrect”

{Note: the previous word was edited by the forum software.  I typed f*r*i*v*o*l*o*u*s.  It is significantly different from “incorrect”.}

  in a legal sense.  Becraft was aware of that and was just bull-headed enough to see how far he could push the line.  Once he saw exactly where the line was drawn, he made the choice to protect his livelihood AND retain the ability to fight other battles in the future.  He is still the same man he was in the past.  He just chooses his battles more carefully.

ANDY: Finally, as an aside, it's interesting that the alleged virus (actually a Trojan Horse) which I mentioned — even though it never existed — has been removed. Odd.

SONIK: First you said (at Quatloos) that there was a virus going around [SEE ABOVE LINK TO YOUR CHAT], and now you say “it never existed”. Andy – please do not loose your discredit. May I kindly ask that you please be truthful and accurate with your statements. There is no reason why you should loose discredit amongst everyone.

The “never existed” statement was a reference to a preceeding post which stated that.  However, it's gone so it's a moot point

BING: Well hold on there Sparky…

ANDY: The name's not Sparky.  Please be polite.

SONIK: Andy. Bing called you “Sparky” because I know he is just too excited that you are here. I would like to apologize (on his behalf) to you and the readers if he has offended you in any way, though I know he does not mean it. [/b]

Bing has clearly demonstrated, many times, his ability and unfettered willingness to speak for himself.

_______________________________________

Andy – Please respond as you see fit.

Respectfully,

Sonik Speed

[post=”2446″][/post]

I apologize for the interspersed responses to the interspersed comments. However, I don't have the resources with respect to this forum that I do for others.

[AndyK]

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 have common points of view doesn't mean that everyone does.? There's quite a bit of internal discord.

I want to suggest that you take a deep breath and inhale the Truth at http://www.famguardian.org. Doing so will invigorate you and make you feel better.

I disagree that Truth is found here.? As I said above, the basic premises are suspect, thus making the conclusions questionable.

I agree with you Andy, a debate would be meaningless because you guys have no valid, legally supportable and correct replies refuting key, prior US Supreme Court cases.? I mean, how do you debate that?

Which specific Supreme court decisions require rebuttal?

I think Famguardian would win any debate because, well, #1, we have Author #2 on our side.? And, # 2, we have Author #2 on our side.

We would win simply because we can raise more issues and facts for which no one at Q-Land could offer a valid rebuttal.

Again, any statements we were to make here would be overruled since they disagree with the basic premises, which are predefined to stand immune from challenge.

And make no mistake, my experience is that the site admins at quatloos.com are very agressive at daily thread manipulation, deletion, and management. And such a web site practice and policy can hardly be reassuring to anyone genuinely interested in debating and searching out the Truth.

I believe your observation is inaccurate.? The policy is to allow threads to stand until they get too long, at which point they are locked.? The only exceptions are in the Ranting & Raving forum which is automatically deleted after 5 days of inactivity, threads which are off topic and get moved to the appropriate forum, blatant disregard of civility and the basic forum ground rules, and spam.

Which is the exact opposite practice that one will find in the famguardian.org Forums. We still have threads posted that go back to early October 2003.

In fact, I would argue that the quatloos.com web site practices with respect to very quick thread deletions, poor archival practices and organization, all tends to prove that despite what the IRS paid Quatloss backers want the public to believe, in reality they are opposed having honest, candid, and open debates about substantive issues with others who are well informed.

If I may correct you on one point, no one, repeat NO ONE, who posts on quatloos receives any compensation in any from whatsoever from the government for doing so.

My experience has been that when Q-Regulars were so often getting handily beat in several debates spanning various threads, invariably, the thread(s) would disappear sometimes after only a few days of cyber life. How does that Quatloos.com practice promote debating? ANSWER: It doesn't.

AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 01:30 PM:

Finally, as an aside, it's interesting that the alleged virus (actually a Trojan Horse) which I mentioned — even though it never existed — has been removed.? Odd.

[post=”2440″][/post]

DOH!! 😮

Uhhh, Andy, sir, is it correct to say that if the Trojan Horse virus never existed, did its subsequent non-removal include that which is not otheriwse included within the meaning of the word? Please advise, thanks.

The Trojan Horse was attached to the file on the home page of Family Guardian inviting Government visitors to “click here” If you'd like, I'll research the wayback machine to prove it. But, why would I lie about that?

Bing

[post=”2441″][/post]

Family Guardian Fellowship

[AndyK]

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 which I disagree.

Back to the original topic of the thread, Larry Becraft. He is a respectable adversary in tax litigation battles because he has done all his homework. He understands the laws and the legal system in this country and has litigated several cases where, through his work, his clients avoided jail time. He is also smart enough to realize that it is pointless to keep banging his head against a brick wall.

Although you may disagree with how the legal system works, Becraft has accepted that he is required to follow the rules and precedents that exist. For that reason, he has stopped raising arguments which have been demonstrated to be dead horses in the starting gate.

Finally, as an aside, it's interesting that the alleged virus (actually a Trojan Horse) which I mentioned — even though it never existed — has been removed. Odd.