BOBT12
Forum Replies Created
-
Yeah, it looks like Bob and the WTP are one of the governments punching bags for this tax season. What a shame. 🙁
Quote:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASETAX
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ROBERT L. SCHULZ AND ?WE THE PEOPLE? TO STOP ALLEGED TAX SCAM
Queensbury, N.Y., Man?s Scheme Allegedly Cost U.S. Treasury $21 Million
WASHINGTON ? The United States announced that it has sued to block Robert L. Schulz, of Queensbury, N.Y., from selling an alleged tax fraud scheme said to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than $21 million, the Justice Department announced today. Also named in the suit are two corporations, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress Inc.
The government?s complaint, filed in Syracuse with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleges that Schulz has used the two We the People entities to market a nationwide tax fraud scheme, called the Tax Termination Package, to employers and employees. According to the complaint, the Tax Termination Package includes We the People forms, which the defendants falsely tell customers can be used to replace forms the IRS requires employers and employees must use in connection with federal tax withholding from wages.
The suit says that Schulz and the We the People entities falsely state that use of the replacement forms will allow customers to legally stop tax withholding. According to the complaint, the defendants base the scheme on incorrect arguments about federal tax laws that federal courts have repeatedly rejected. These schemes are on the IRS?s 2007 list of the Dirty Dozen tax scams. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=167983,00.html
?People who sell tax scams are asking for trouble for themselves and their customers who participate in them,? said Eileen J. O?Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department?s Tax Division. ?They and their customers temporarily enrich themselves at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers. The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are determined to stamp out these scams.?
Since 2001 the Justice Department has obtained more than 230 injunctions to stop the promotion of tax fraud schemes and the preparation of fraudulent returns. More information about the Justice Department?s efforts against tax-scam promoters can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress20076.htm . Information about the Justice Department?s Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax .
-
Bing wrote on Mar 7 2007, 09:48 AM:Pray for President Bush because he is confused and stupid, having surrounded himself with GOP sycophants.
If you google the phrase, “Constitution just a damn piece of paper”, you will get 1,050,000 articles that indicate that President Bush is every bit the _______ many Americans suspected that he is.
What a disgrace Bush is.
email the url links to all your friends so that more Americans, especially women and elderly, so they will learn the Truth that President Bush hates the USA Constituion even though he swore an oath to protect and defend it.
Shameful, shameful, shameful.
Bing
[post=”3688″][/post]Amen Bing.
I just want to add, if this is true, and it clearly appears true, then it is OUTRIGHT TREASON!
“DOUG THOMPSON” wrote:I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?It is certainly more than hearsay! These are direct witnesses of the event in question.
Quote:It's pretty damned clear THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN A “GOD-DAMMED PIECE OF PAPER!”TO CONSPIRE TO DO AWAY WITH “THAT GOD-DAMNED PIECE OF PAPER” which secures the Rights, Blessings of Liberties and Freedoms of the WE, the People of the 10th Amendment Government..is a BREACH OF CONTRACT and OUTRIGHT TREASON!
The Constitution of the united States of America “forbids” the Unconstitutional Patriot Act, and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UK forbids it also.
http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/PieceOfPaper.htm
Quote:So as our lives continue on holiday for another few days, please do not lose focus from what is still going on in this country. Do not lose sight of our children dying in a desert while people quibble about an artificial ?war.? Remember that the people who founded this country did so; based on certain principles that should not be undone by any one man, regardless of what party they are from. Remember the mighty rule of law that binds us. Remember the man who said he would usher in a new era of responsibility. The same man who gave us Abu Ghraib, torture as national policy, secret rendition flights, Sibel Edmonds, debt enslavement, WMD, 20,000 liters of anthrax, botulism toxin, sarin, mustard gas, mushroom cloud threats, uranium from the Niger, the Valerie Plame treason, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, John Bolton, enemy combatants to avoid giving US citizens their day in court, ignoring FOIA requests, Enron, soaring gas prices as oil companies gouge consumers and do not have to swear in before Congress, Cheney?s secret energy task force, ?free speech zones?, propaganda planted in Iraq media, Michael Brown and the Arabian Horse Association, empty promises for Katrina victims, magenta terrorism alert and the color coded fear chart, Armstrong Williams and whatever happened to the No Child Left Behind Act?(hint: it was left behind), spying on the UN, 2.6 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon, billions missing from Iraq, at least 2,100 dead American soldiers, at least 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians, the Downing Street Memos, we will be greeted as liberators, Iraq?s oil profits will pay for the war as we are now down over 200 billion dollars, we will only be in Iraq for six months-now it is looking like decades, Harriet Miers, the Patriot Act, bin Laden (remember him!), Jeff Gannon, Ken Blackwell and the election theft in Ohio, Terri Schiavo, Sun Hudson and the Texas Death Law, Freedom is on the march!, Mission Accomplished!, Bring em on!, no connection between Iraq and 911, protection for mega corporations, protection for vaccine producers who cause autism in our kids, Diebold…Emphasis added.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_an…ur_lives_on.htm
Quote:“Our Constitutional Republic was never created to be a leveler of men.? It was created to be a lifter, a developer of men.? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic was created to let the gifted, the energetic, and the creative rise to new heights of achievement, and to let each man find his own level on the stairway of existence.
? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic was created to encourage men to meet their personal responsibilities and to shirk no public duties.? That is why our people have always been concerned about the honest needs of their fellow citizens, the chief of these needs being liberty, justice, and opportunity.
? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic demands that the nation be governed by the capable, the honorable, the far-seeing, the clear-seeing, and not by mediocre men. In the beginning it was so.? Mayit be so again!
? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic demands more from men than any other system in the realm of self-discipline, dependability, cooperativeness, industry, thrift, and honor. For anyone to foster class consciousness, class conflict, misrepresentation, covetousness, violence, theft, and an open defiance of established law ? even when done ?legally? ? is to breed anarchy and tyranny.
? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic was not designed to interfere with the unalienable right of its people to be masters of their own destinies.
? ? ? ? ? ? Our Constitutional Republic was established to make men free!”
? ? ? ? ? ? (Author unknown)
Emphasis added.
Quote:Rep. McKinney's floor statement on the impeachment of George W. BushDownload a PDF of the Articles of Impeachment (H.R. 1106) here.
December 8, 2006
Mr. Speaker:
I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Throughout my tenure, I?ve always tried to speak the truth. It?s that commitment that brings me here today.
We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.
No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable?what does that say about our commitment to the truth?
Let the trial begin.
-
I agree!
And to think, thanks to a link from this forum, I recently gave them a donation. 🙁
-
Bing wrote on Mar 6 2007, 10:02 AM:I have no idea if there is any case law, this theory/idea only occurred to me on March 5, 2007.
The point I am trying to make here, is if on the one hand one insisists they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal territorial court, but yet at the same time, one also seeks to benefit from one or more of the federal rules of civil procedure or criminal procedure, well, I think most here can see what I am getting at.
Criticisms most welcome.
Bing
[post=”3674″][/post]I believe that the rules of the court apply to the court, and not necessarily to those who raise them in court. Therefore, no, I do not believe that raising the court's rules do anything more than to tell the court that it must abide by their rules. Especially, since many, if not all, of the rules say that jurisdiction must be proven. In addition, those who are unrepresented by an attorney, are to be given some leniency in the application of the rules, so that they do not lose essential rights. Of course, that's the written theory, practice may vary greatly. :ph34r:
-
Bing wrote on Mar 2 2007, 01:06 PM:Kudos to Chuck for holding his ground and not letting the corrupt and lying DOJ and federal judge pressure him.
The THM needs more men like him. I will keep him and his Family in my prayers.
Bing
[post=”3632″][/post]I totally agree! 😡
-
Here is a little good news,
Quote:Maine rejects Real ID ActState's legislature overwhelmingly opposes act requiring national digital ID cards, putting Bush administration in a pickle.
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 25, 2007, 2:33 PM PST
Last modified: January 25, 2007, 6:10 PM PST
TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
update Maine overwhelmingly rejected federal requirements for national identification cards on Thursday, marking the first formal state opposition to controversial legislation scheduled to go in effect for Americans next year.
Both chambers of the Maine legislature approved a resolution saying the state flatly “refuses” to force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It asks the U.S. Congress to repeal the law.
The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued that nationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight against terrorists.
“I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many states and will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months,” House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview after the vote. “It's not only a huge federal mandate, but it's a huge mandate from the federal government asking us to do something we don't have any interest in doing.”
The Real ID Act says that, starting around May 2008, Americans will need a federally approved ID card–a U.S. passport will also qualify–to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checks of their citizens' identification papers, and driver's licenses likely will be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements.
In addition, the national ID cards must be “machine-readable,” with details left up to Homeland Security, which hasn't yet released final regulations. That could end up being a magnetic strip, an enhanced bar code or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.
The votes in Maine on the resolution were nonpartisan. It was approved by a 34-to-0 vote in the state Senate and by a 137-to-4 vote in the House of Representatives.
Other states are debating similar measures. Bills pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana and Washington state express varying degrees of opposition to the Real ID Act.
Montana's is one of the strongest. The legislature held a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that says “The state of Montana will not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005” and directs the state motor vehicle department “not to implement the provisions.”
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project, said he thinks Maine's vote will “break the logjam, and other states are going to follow.” (The American Civil Liberties Union has set up an anti-Real ID Web site called Real Nightmare).
Pingree, Maine's House majority leader, said the Real ID Act would have cost the state $185 million over five years and required every state resident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms of identification–including an original copy of the birth certificate and a Social Security card–would be uploaded into a federal database.
Now on News.com:
Is Windows getting more expensive?
Photos: Tinkerers treasure tiny motherboards
Newsmaker: Intel eyes future of Itanium
Extra: iPod goes to school
Video: Partying with ILM Oscar winners
Growing opposition to the law in the states could create a political pickle for the Bush administration. The White House has enthusiastically embraced the Real ID Act, saying it (click for PDF) “facilitates the strengthening by the states of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers' licenses.”
But if a sufficient number of states follow Maine's lead, pressure would increase on a Democratic Congress to relax the Real ID rules–or even rescind them entirely.
A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)
“Real ID is needed to protect the American people from terrorists who use drivers licenses to board planes, get jobs and move around the country as the 9/11 terrorists did,” Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mailed statement. “It makes sense to have drivers licenses that ensure a person is who they say they are. It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover.”
Let us do what we can to get other states to follow this fine example.
-
Kola wrote on Feb 11 2007, 09:09 AM:I am seriously considering not paying any of my credit cards. I no longer care about my “credit rating” because I have no interest in borrowing money from Banks. I am looking for information that would indicate what the credit card companies could do to me once I refuse to pay. Could they take my house or properties? Could someone point me in the right direction?
btw are there any pro-active associations in Eastern Colorado (Denver/Colorado Springs region).
movin' on and breaking free,
Kola Patriot Warrior
[post=”3582″][/post]Yes, they can take your house, bank accounts, garnish your wages, etc.
Riverway is correct, clear up your debts.
-
Just what the doctor ordered, well, in this case the professor. It seems that this is certainly an area worth exploring. Maybe we can push to actually get a jury of our peers.
Of course, I have had a recent experience of being told, by the court, not to show up for jury duty. Apparently, this was due to me claiming to be a national.
Thank you Bing.
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Jan 24 2007, 07:25 PM:Alright professor – how about this….
I am wrong and you are right. That'll make you happy… okay?
We will leave it at that… I am not going to sit here and explain my actions… In fact – I am retract what I posted above…
From now on – no sharing nothing on this board!
[post=”3482″][/post]Dear Sonik,
It is not about he's right and you are wrong. Bing is not trying to just get the last word, in my view, he cares about you. Also, he is addressing your situation with a great deal of prudence.
Please continue to post. However, ideas should be posted to be reviewed and analyzed. Hopefully, weak ideas can be made strong. Let's work together to continue to build strong concepts, that we can expose to the world.
Your buddy,
BOBT
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Jan 22 2007, 09:56 PM:Anyone that is well-versed in jurisdictional law at the advanced level would understand.[post=”3459″][/post]
Just be aware that if you do not raise the issue, you may be waiving the matter.
-
Sonik Speed wrote on Jan 22 2007, 07:31 PM:BOBT:Quote:I am not sure it is wise to provoke an incident on the road in order to do an experiment. Roadside encounters with armed government agents carry some risk of physical danger regardless of intent.
Are you afraid of your government sir? I am not… it's easy for possibly you and possibly others to talk about these issues and theories. EXPERIENCE IS BETTER THAN 1000 THEORIES! So I do not care about the “physical” nonsense and I do not think you should care either. To even mention about such matters, is a matter of cowardice. I think it is about time for people in this movement to practice what they preach and fight. I am not a fan of hypocritcs and cowards as I suspect that many people are in this movement:
Quote:Nevertheless, being that no ticket was written, how was the jurisdictional issue raised, or challenged?I did not even bring it up. I reserved that issue should the matter have escalated. It did not. He went to his automobile and came back and said he would “let me off” with a warning. In other words I was waiting for his to reveal his poker cards to me first, before I did.
[post=”3457″][/post]If this is what floats your boat, then go for it.
Sonik Speed wrote:Are you afraid of your government sir? I am not…I am afraid of doing 55 mph in a 35 mph zone (there may be a common sense reason for the speed limit!) for the sake of an experiment, which may risk life and limb for no good purpose. It may risk the life of others, too, such as children in the area. And, yes, some officer/agent may feel you are on drugs, crazy, terrorist, a fill in the ____, and there may be an unfavorable result, based on a poorly thought out test!
All that I am suggesting is that it may be prudent to choose your battles carefully.
If the above battle was worth engaging with government agents, then why not bring the matter to a clear conclusion?
Sonik Speed wrote:That decision being, was to TEST the jurisdictional boundaries with this Federal officer and I, in state territory WHICH I KNOW FOR A FACT, was not ceded as per Title 44 and Article 1, Section 8. So I took a deep breath and went for it… It was now or never, since I seeing a Federal police car was not something I have seen before…How was this jurisdictional issue(s) tested in your encounter? What were you trying to prove? Perhaps, your theory indicates you have the right to travel at any speed you desire on state land? The officer did not give you a ticket, what does that mean based on the theory you are attempting to test? Perhaps, he could not give you a ticket, even though he seem to think that he could? What would it mean if he gave you a ticket?
Moreover, what did you actually prove with your experiment? That federal officers can pull you over? They may, or may not, write a ticket? So, what eles? How many more experiments will you need to get an answer?
I fail to see the point of you experiment. Please help me to see where you are trying to go with this issue.
Happy trails,
BOBT
P.S. I have been battling the Department of Justice, and other government agencies, over issues that I find important, for the past several years. I simply don't happen to feel the need to spin my wheels in order to get the attention of some officer/agent on the street. Of course your answers may change all of this.
-
Sonik Speed wrote:That decision being, was to TEST the jurisdictional boundaries with this Federal officer and I, in state territory WHICH I KNOW FOR A FACT, was not ceded as per Title 44 and Article 1, Section 8. So I took a deep breath and went for it… It was now or never, since I seeing a Federal police car was not something I have seen before…
We came to a red light and he was at all times on my left. There were two lanes. I pretended as if he were not there. I did nothing to threaten his vehicle, nor would I ever do such thing. I just minded my own business and proceded accordingly. The light turned green. The speed limit was 35. After going a good 100-yards head to head with the officer, I chose to accelerate to 45 miles per hour. This did not raise an eyebrow, so I accelerated to 55. Once the officer saw me accelerate, he shifted towards the right lane, behind me. He followed me for about another 100 yards and this time he closed in at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour for a short few seconds. Lo and behold – the lights went on…
Emphasis added.
I am not sure it is wise to provoke an incident on the road in order to do an experiment. Roadside encounters with armed government agents carry some risk of physical danger regardless of intent.
Nevertheless, being that no ticket was written, how was the jurisdictional issue raised, or challenged?
Best wishes,
BOBT
-
Rivera found guilty of criminal contempt
Quote:On April 7, 2005 the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service tried but failed to have me indicted by a grand jury for violating a so called permanent injunction the Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service obtained by default in 2003. They next tried to have United States district court judge George H. King find me in contempt of the injunction. He refused to do that, but he gave them 30 days to seek another indictment or information. On the 30th day an Assistant United States Attorney signed a document entitled”INFORMATION” that alleged but did not swear or affirm that I had violated any law. At the arraignment, the magistrate would confirm that no sworn information or affidavit supporting the information is required in district court. I was being subjected to a court martial, but without the benefit of the sworn charge required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.At the trial on November 28, 2006, the Department of Justice put on its case through a Virginia attorney named Jay Nanavati. I objected to the judge's lack of any Article III authority and the fact that the United States district court is not an Article III court. I told the judge that no oath of office or affidavit of appointment exists for him and no similar authority has been presented by the Department of Justice. At the conclusion of closing arguments, Mr. King said he would make his decision on December 19th. Those interested can attend at the Roybal Federal Center 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles courtroom 650 of George H. King.
No matter what the outcome on Tuesday, I want to use this case to expose to the world what the government of the United States has become. Right now I am the Establishment's biggest threat to its continued existence. The government of the United States has been built on the absence of a real judicial branch. The making and filing of judicial misconduct complaints can put the issue before every federal judge in every state. The filing of judicial misconduct complaints against every federal district court judge for the various crimes they are all guilty of is your best protection against any adverse government action.
The Freedom of Information Act response to Lynda Wall's request shows what the result will be to any request for an oath of office or affidavit of appointment. Federal judge only have the same authority they have always had: federal territorial administrative power over federal territory or other property belonging to the United States. The other attachment contains the oaths and affidavits that have been obtained. These show that the judges are not judicial officers. Their oaths and affidavits clearly show them to be territorial officers.
The United States Congress has created a federal government that is exclusive to the federal territory in the states of the Union, but that government acts as if it is Caesar's. A few judicial misconduct complaints from just a few people will chase Caesar back to where he came from: federal territory.
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Sad news:
This is what I found at another site.
Quote:Rivera found guilty of criminal contempt?
Sentencing set for 3/26/07 at 11:00 a.m. Written findings were filed today, but are not yet available on the ECF system (Case No. 06-624).
-
PeterFreedom wrote on Dec 7 2006, 09:32 PM:JWR wrote on Dec 5 2006, 10:31 AM:Seems they can listen to your conversations even if you aren't even using your cell phone. Here's the link to the story.
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
Oh, but it's ok because according to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan “the “roving bug” was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.”
And it doesn't seem to matter if it is on or off either.
Remember, Big Brother Is Watching…. and listening.
JWR
[post=”3356″][/post]Yeah, well … huge difference is that the technology was utilized for crime bosses, i.e. lawbreakers, evildoers. Are we who petition for redress of grievance in that same class? I think not. Does/would the FBI think so? I think doubly not. [IMHO]
[post=”3365″][/post]Have you ever heard of the FBI's COINTELPRO program?
Quote:In the Final Report of the Select Committee COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms:“Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that…the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”[2]
The Church Committee documented a history of the FBI being used for purposes of political repression as far back as World War I [In other words, since the begining of the FBI], through the 1920s, when they were charged with rounding up “anarchists and revolutionaries” for deportation, and then building from 1936 through 1976.
The FBI claims that it no longer undertakes COINTELPRO or COINTELPRO-like operations. However, critics claim that agency programs in the spirit of COINTELPRO target groups like the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Earth First! and the Anti-Globalization Movement.
[…]
4. “Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks?including political assassinations?were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official 'terrorism.'” [think 9-11]. [5]
The FBI also conducted “black bag jobs”, warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[6]
Emphasis added.
So much for the FBI.
-
JWR wrote on Dec 5 2006, 09:31 AM:Seems they can listen to your conversations even if you aren't even using your cell phone. Here's the link to the story.
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
Oh, but it's ok because according to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan “the “roving bug” was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.”
And it doesn't seem to matter if it is on or off either.
Remember, Big Brother Is Watching…. and listening.
JWR
[post=”3356″][/post]Thank for this information.
This is really a concern, especially since president Bush is on record stating that he can spy on the american people, using the NSA, with or without, a warrant. Brrr, chills run down my spine.