[Bing]

Ummm, uhhhh, okay. 😮

I am confused? Ya think?

Sonik, you wrote to a third party(Devvy), whose name did not appear in the byline of a internet article, and even still, you assumed she wrote it, and you repeatedly demanded that she apologize for something written 2 years ago, even though she did not write it in the first place. And the basis of your repeated demands was a settlement agreement written TWO YEARS AFTER the alleged offending article published by WND in 2004.

Isn't that basically it? Did I miss something?

Man, I still do not understand where you are coming from. And I trust others here don't understand either.

I am not an apologist for Devvy. Or for Bob Schulz. But my nature is that when 2 people get into an argument about job performance, etc, the only two people with an interest in the argument, are the boss and their employee.

So, what I and many others still do not understand, is why you think it was your responsibility to interject yourself into something that happened two+ years ago, and why you took it upon yourself in year 2006, to demand that Devvy apologize for something she did not even write? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Still.

Further, Sonik, do you think that maybe, just maybe, the disagreement between Bob Schulz and Devvy Kidd back in 2004, was and is none of your business in the year 2006? Unless of course, you are employed by WTP, in which case I could possibly understand why you think it is your business? Sonik, are you employed by WTP?

I mean, Bob is a big boy and he is more than capable of defending himself and WTP, don't you agree? Certainly, if you read his missive to Devvy in which he detailed some of her professional and personal weaknesses and other personal info, one gets a clear sense that Bob is more than capable of defending himself and WTP.

Next, as a general rule, journalists tend NOT to apologize to subjects of articles, except in very rare circumstances in which a retraction is required for legal purposes, and a public apology is part and parcel of said retraction.

I dunno man, your reply post makes even less sense to me unless of course, you are trying to ingratiate yourself with Bob and WTP. But here too, if such is the case, I personally think you have shown poor judgemnt by publicly sharing your private emails with Devvy in this Forum. If you are not embarrassed Sonik, well, I think you should be.

I suspect that by your lead post above, you have embarrassed Devvy, and I see no good reason for you to have done that either. And Devvy's wordy replies to you also showed poor judgement on her part, at least that is what I think. You may disagree with me on this, and that is okay too. I am being candid and honest with you.

And one could also argue that by dredging up this crap in this Forum two years after the fact, you have only succeeded in reminding folks that with respect to Bob Schulz's internal management of WTP, he and WTP experienced some growing pains as he sought to build his Team.

Sonik, with all due respect, in the interest of fairness, I hardly think that Devvy deserved to be blind sided by your incessent emails demanding that she apologize. Nor do I think it was right and proper for you to publicly post Devvy's emails in this Forum, without obtaining her prior permission.

So I ask you Sonik, did Devvy give you the okay to share her private communications with the rest of us? And if she didn't give you permission, do you feel that possibly you showed poor judgement by revealing Devvy's private emails? And if you feel you in fact showed good judgement by betraying Devvy, does it follow from this fact that you routinely publicly and privately disclose emails which are written to you in confidence?

Which is it, Sonik?

Sonik, do you think that after the Forum's readers read our exchanges in this thread, that you are more or less likely to receive emails from the Forum's readers in the future? Since you obviously have no reservation about publicly revealing Devvy's emails, don't you think that others here will then conclude that you likewise would feel free to disclose the emails that posters in this Forum may write to you?

Sonik, I think you have erred by publicly posting this stuff about Devvy and Bob, and I also think your initial reply post does very little to explain where you are coming from, what your true motivation really was (you can not hide behind your self-annoited Constable of Truth title), or why you did what you did.

Finally, if you can Sonik, please feel free to answer my questions and contradict and rebut this post. . . . if you can.

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

Hmmm. Sonik, I am curious, what exactly was your goal and intent in revealing the above info?

We have enough issues to overcome in the THM, and divisiveness only undermines our cause.

Personally, when Bob Schulz wrote that long letter to Devvy detailing what he insisted were some of her professional failings and weaknesses, well, I thought that that was an internal matter to WTP and should not have been publicly aired. But I don't know what the facts were or the circumstances, I think Bob was defending himself and WTP because Devvy started speaking badly about both. I dunno.

This soap opera will likely get some play-time over at the IRS sponsored and IRS funded website, quatloos.com, the place where anti-Americans who hate the USA Constitution and who hate America, spend all day posting their lies and other cyber drivel.

I have met Devvy several times. Spoke with her too. I was appalled when she dissed Irwin Schiff and Dave Champion to me and several others. I cann't recall, but I think she said something like, “All they do is sell copies of the Internal Revenue Code.” I think she was referrring to Irwin, but she may have been referring to both. I forget. She did have kind words to say about Hansen, which was good.

I thought it showed poor judgement on Devvy's part to publicly denigrate Schiff and Champion. I have never been a student of Schiff's, but I admire his courage and his accomplishments over the past 35 years. Champion has taught me alot and I am a student of his, as I am a student of Hansen's. 🙂

Sonik, you do realize, I assume, that the article the she denied writing, was written in 2004. And the settlement agreement was in 2006. And you have asked Devvy to apologize for something that was written 2 years ago? I don't understand where you are coming from with this. Why bring this stuff at this late stage and air it publicly?

It is clear that there is personal animus between Kidd and Schulz, but why bring more attention to their rift? In the grand scheme of things, do you really think that what Devvy writes or says is important? Sonik, help us better understand what it is that you are trying to accomplish with your lead post above. I just don't get it.

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

I think it was Voltaire, who, when speaking about litigation and lawsuits, said something like:

“I never lost but twice. Once when I won one, and once when I lost.”

Or something like that.

In other words, the costs of litigation are so great, that often when you “win”, you actually lose.

According to the RAND Corp., about 95% of all civil cases never come to trial. A good portion of these cases are dropped by the parties in advance of trial, or else there is a negotiated settlment.

So, on the one hand we here in the Family Guardian Forum can post or insist that our friend Hansen “won” and he prevailed vis-a-vis the DOJ and IRS, but in civil litigation, genuine victory is often nebulous and not so readily defined. Victory remains elusive for the litigants, despite what one may think otherwise.

Although it is highly unlikely that they will ever openly admit it, I think that in many respects, the manner in which Hansen has comported himself and argued on his own behalf, has no doubt earned the grudging respect of the DOJ and IRS lawyers. How could it not? I mean, the written material produced in his defense over the past year, is truly world class.

3rd year law students at the best law schools in America, could not have crafted the arguments and motions Hansen did.

He fought fair. He fought with Honor. We believe that the DOJ fought less than fair.

I can say this, whereas the DOJ lawyers were all professionally trained, the family guardian fellowship, of which Hansen is merely one member among countless members, are all self-taught in matters of constitutional law and legal procedure. So in this regard, Hansen's defense of himself is even more remarkable.

Looking back at the explosion of knowledge at famguardian and SEDM that has resulted since the DOJ unfairly attacked Hansen in Spring 2005, by any objective measure, one can say that our side “won” by that metric. Non-taxpayers now have easy access to important pamphlets that can help them better understand life in America.

But to be fair and objective, one can use other metrics and thus make the argument that the DOJ “won”.

Therefore, I think that it just makes good practical sense, to put this matter to bed and to reach some type of negotiated settlement, whereby, the DOJ agrees to leave Hansen, famguardian, and SEDM alone, and Hansen agrees to, well, I am not sure what he should agree to, but I imagine that the DOJ and IRS would want Hansen to drop his complaints against the judge, etc, and also drop his appeal.

Pragmatism should serve as the main driver for both sides to enter into settlement talks because their mutual interests are furthered by a negotiated settlement. A settlement means that both sides can more readily exert more control over events downstream that matter to them.

I don't see anything to be gained by embarrassing the other side with pointed questions and such. I really don't. There is probably a score of USG attorneys and support staff who would much prefer to move on to other cases, than to have figure out how to defend against one of the most brilliant legal minds in America. It is a shame and regrettable that the DOJ press releases were so chock-ful of lies and misrepresentations about Hansen, and maybe the DOJ might be willing to set the record straight by retracting some of the falsehoods.

I think the Court Order, as court orders go, was crafted in such a way as to ensure that there is at least the prospect of the Government saving face depending on how it was received by Hansen. I also got the sense that the Court and the DOJ both wish to move on. The Order is disingenuous, and it, along with other actions, makes clear the gaping holes in the DOJ's case.

Now is not the time for us to gloat or boast about any alleged victory lived vicariously through Hansen. We need to remain even tempered, detatched, unemotional, and professional.

I also think that it is in the mutual interests of all parties, to sit down and see if there is some way that Hansen and the DOJ can reach some common ground and come to an understanding of sorts.

One can reach a negotiated settlement without sacrificing one's principles and core beliefs. I know many of you may not agree with me, but I think Hansen should try and reach an amicable resolution of this matter.

They took their best shot. He stood on principle and religious belief. And by most measures, he not only prevailed, but he actually thrived.

Neither side saw things exactly the same way, that was to be expected. Even still, I think that there is enough commonality of interests, and with a little bit of flexibility, and yes, even forgiveness on both sides, hopefully, the DOJ and Hansen will see the merits of an amicable resolution.

I think it is time for the matter to be wrapped up. I also think that the Government may publicly and outwardly, as part of their positioning strategy, denounce the initial notion of settlement talks, and misconstrue any possible proffer from Hansen(assuming one was forthcoming), as a sign of weakness on Hansen's part, but such a calculation by the DOJ would be yet another mistake. Eagerness in settlement talks is properly construed as weakness.

We know that.

Hansen knows that.

But since Hansen is in a position of strength during this post-ruling stage, he can afford to show some compassion and humility to the other side, confident that his God and the Law are on his side.

Hansen has conducted himself honorably and has complied with the Court's Order. And this obviously once again shows his good faith. Even though the Court lacked jurisidiction, I still thought that it was smart to post the Court's Order on the web site and turn the entire judicial inquiry/episode, into a teaching moment for the non-taxpayers who read famguardian.org.

Everyone should resolve to download and study the Hansen case materials ASAP, before they disappear from the web site as part of a possible future settlement with the DOJ. I am not saying they will disappear, but in settlement talks, almost everything is on the table, so ya just never know.

And if Hansen decides to enter into settlement discussions in the future, there is no shame in following such a prudent course of action. I know he knows this, but I think that it would behoove him to not discuss the nature of those settlement talks with anyone, and to not post anything about them, or even admit that such discussions are even going on (if that eventually turns out to be the case). Right now, my hunch is that there is extreme distrust on both sides of this dispute. So establishing some basic trust is important, for the parties to know that their candor during any settlement talks would be held in strictest confidence by all parties concerned.

Just let nature take its natural course and everything will turn out fine.

Good luck with whatever you end up deciding to do. Suing, appealing, etc. I initially thought you should take the fight to the next level, but I have since had a change of heart, and I think you should see if there is any interest on their part, in settling this matter outside the formal judical process.

Just my .02 cents.

Bing

[Bing]

Layed, if you are a taxpayer, you should probably pay what you owe.

However, if you believe that you are a non-taxpayer, then all you need do is explain your status and position to the IRS so that they can see and understand why their presumptions about you, were incorrect.

Read and study the research on the non-resident alien position and the trade or business scam at http://www.famguardian.org

Bing

Family Guardian Fellowship

[Bing]

Sonik, there is a disconnect in your post.

The Washington County case has nothing to do with WTP case that you linked to.

Bing

[Bing]

layed, if you are a nontaxpayer and an American Citizen, I want to suggest that you read and study the free “The Great IRS Hoax” book, available at famguardian.org

Bing

[Bing]

Simply outstanding, sir.

I strongly encourage everyone to read and study the Hansen Case materials, especially the Motions and Affidavits prepared by Hansen. Guys, it is all world class research. And there probably are no more than a handful of People in this entire country who could have did what C. Hansen has accomplished.

Bravo, Hansen!!! Bravo!!!

The DOJ attorneys, especially Marty “Shoe Shine” Shoemaker, acting at the behest of the liars at the IRS, should be ashamed of themselves for the manner in which they comported themselves in Hansen's case. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Such shameful conduct, sadly, is de riguer at the DOJ.

I am hoping that Marty is NOT a Father, because no child should have a parent who is so obviously corrupted as he appears to be. Parents should not lie, it sets a bad example, and Marty “Shoe Shine” Shoemaker certainly appears to be a liar.

Ahhh well, the Court refused to assert that Hansen was helping “taxpayers”, so instead, they lied and said Hansen had “customers”. Shoemaker knows that Hansen does not have customers. It is curious that the DOJ and Marty could not find one of Hansen's alleged “customers” and get them to testify against Hansen.

The Court and the DOJ knew that the case against Hansen was very weak, and the words used in the bogus court Order proves it too.

The Court threw out Hansen's sworn evidence, and then instead of telling him in advance, so he can properly appeal that decision, the Court only informed Hansen in the final Order, announcing its decision. Yet one more dirty trick.

ALL I know is that in the year since Hansen was unlawfully attacked by the DOJ, me and many others in the Family Guardian Fellowship, have learned so much more about the legal process, and how to mount an effective defense, and we owe all of our advanced learning and knowledge to the DOJ lawyers, who, through their sheer corruption and mendacity, forced us to learn how to fight better and smarter.

Man oh man, what a mistake you clowns have made. 😀 😀

Inadvertantly, the DOJ and IRS have helped train legions of us and in effect, have turned us into “legal warriors”. Now, instead of only having to deal with one “Author #2”, they will be running up against scores of the famguardian progeny, who will be placing the IRS attorneys on the defensive by revealing facts via affidavit.

These guys will just never learn. HEY IRS, We are here and we are not going anywhere. Har, har, har. 😛 😛

I strongly encourage all of our Forum readers who are non-taxpayers, to send an affidavit to the IRS's top lawyers in D.C., listing some of the evidence available at famguardian.org, and ask the IRS's attorneys to correct your facts.

Then sit back and wait for them to reply. Don't wait for the IRS to come after you, instead, you should go after them by going on the offensive and filing affidavits with the IRS top lawyers.

Author #2, famguardian, and SEDM are the bomb!! 🙂

Bing

[Bing]

Layed, sir, you have to read and study the free material, especially the Great IRS Hoax book, available on the FG website.

And then make the determination as to whether you are a taxpayer or not.

If you are a taxpayer, then go to http://www.irs.gov, or contact a local IRS official and perhaps they may be able to assist and advise you with any questions you may have.

Finally, if you are not a taxpayer, (see 26 USC 7701 (14) then you must determine the reason why you would even want a CDP in the first place.

Good luck.

Bing

[Bing]

Plus, it is my understanding, that, despite having earned millions of $$ over 30+ years selling his books and tapes and doing seminars, and, I surmise, preparing zero income tax returns for allegedly non-taxpayers, Schiff was still collecting Social Security from the USG!!!!

And then get this, Schiff had the gaul to gripe in one or more Motions, that the IRS apparently seized 100% of Schiff's Social Security checks, when, according to Schiff himself, the IRS was only allowed to take a maximum of 15%.

That was one of the many fatal flaws that Irwin, bless his heart, made in his legal pleadings. He continuouslyt create dincorrect presumptions about himself, and also neglected to refute evry incorrect presumption about him held by the DOJ and the IRS.

I have read through nearly all of his case file that was posted on the web, and Schiff repeatedly and, unwittingly, made arguments against himself. By accepting Social Security checks for many years, Irwin created the nexus between Irwin and the IRS/U.S. Government.

And when Irwin left that opening, it made it far easier for the DOJ to seek an injunction against him because he was in receipt of federal largesse. And naturally, the IRS/DOJ sought and got an indicment from a grand jury.

My view is that a nontaxpayer should not be preparing income tax returns for others, and accepting compensation for same, even if those income tax returns are zero income tax returns, and apparently Irwin was doing that too.

Finally, from what I know about Irwin's trial, Judge Dawson's rulings pushed the envelope and many of them were certainly unethical and unfair, like waiting until the eve of trial to deny 6 of Irwin's Motions that were filed months earlier. Dawson may have in fact violated Irwin's Constitutional Right to Due process of Law by not rreplying in a more timely manner. And some have argued that some, most, all, of Dawson's rulings and Orders were unlawful too.

The obvious disdain and disresepct that the federal judiciary has for Irwin and his decades long fight against injustice, means that Irwin most likely will not get a hearing on appeal. Thus being denied his fundamental Right justice yet again.

Sigh.

Bing

[Bing]

RE: Rights guaranteed by the USA Constitution and due process of law.

“. . .Rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are not to be so lightly treated; they are superior to this supposed necessity. The state is forbidden to deny due process of law or the equal protection of the laws for any purpose whatsoever…”

SCHLESINGER v. STATE OF WISCONSIN, 270 U.S. 230 (1926)

For proof, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc…0&invol=230#240

Bing

[Bing]

Maybe you could not find it on findlaw.com, because the Opinion was issued on May 26, 2006.

Have you noticed that findlaw now makes it impossible to cut and paste from US Supreme Court cases posted on their website. Thanks for nothing, findlaw.

Bing

[Bing]

I read about this case late last week, in several newspapers.

IN repsonse to your request, please see

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/

And here, you can read all the briefs, hear the oral arguements, and also read the 69 page Appeals Court Opinion.

The Opinion is from California Court of Appeals, not the Federal Court of Appeals, as I was led to believe.

Bing

[Bing]

Andy, this entire thread is only supposed to contain U.S. Supreme Court citations. Please remove your ad for Findlaw.com. We hardly need you to preach to us about something so basic as where to find legal info on line. Also, it is curious that you failed to note that one can no longer cut and paste from findlaw.com case citations.

Liberty & Property Rights

. . . The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a “personal” right, . . . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. . .”

Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538 (1972)

Bing

[Bing]

Jazz-man, if you worked on the planet Mars for a Japanese firm, would you still feel compelled to file an IRS Form 2555?

Just curious?

How much does a cantelope cost in Japan these days anyway?

Bing

A happy guy who would file an IRS form 2555, but he is unclear as to why and where he should file it, and with whom. 😎

[Bing]

I just want to add that we should not look to the US Supreme Court “to save us” or to save the WTP lawsuit.

The chances of any federal court, especially a territorial court beholden to the Executive Branch, ruling against the federal government, is next to zero. As we saw in the Simkanin and Schiff trials, federal judges are liars and they are corrupt and they will exert their power to control what gets admitted into evidence and who testifies.

Gosh, given the degree of corruption and sheer arrogance among the federal judiciary, it is hardly surprising that some federal Judges need Federal Marshals to protect them from unsavory types. But when a judge ignores the law, well, you kinda have to almost expect that it is gonna piss off independent-minded Americans whose sense of “justice” may differ from our own. But I guess that is the risk that these less than honorable Judges take when they decide to persecute Americans based upon a law that does not exist. It is remarkable how the Lord works sometimes. I don't advocate violence against anyone, especially civil servants, but there is only so much injustice People can take, before they get desperate and resort to unlawfulness.

I read somewhere on a Blog I think, that Judge Dawson had his life threatened a number of times before and during the Schiff Trial. I don't know if that is really true, but if it was true, well, that just isn't right at all. We are not gonna win on the merits, by resorting to violence or using threats to get our way.

Now, if Judge Dawson's life were threatened, and he ruled in favor of Schiff as a result of his fear, well, that would not have been right either. Such rulings, if they are based upon fear, are not justice.

Judge's are supposed to be impartial and their impartiality is at risk when folks send them death threats and such. The flip side of that, of course, is that if Judge Dawson ruled against Irwin based in part because he was angry at having received one or more death threats, well, that is wrong too and would be proof that the Judge has lost their impartiality. I am left wondering if the alleged death threats can be the basis of an appeal?

The more we educate prospective jurors, the better chance we have that they will decide our cases based upon the Truth.

So far as exercisng one's natural sovereignty, we each have to stand up and be counted as individual American Citizens who have chosen to assert our Constitutional Rights to sell our labor without paying the IRS any money. Yes, I know, for those of you that work for private companies, this can be a challenge to get them to stop withholding a portion of your pay and remitting same to the corrupt IRS, nevertheless, you must continue to press on and to try and educate company payroll dept staff about the Truth.

Ultimately we will win because God is on our side.

Bing