bruce
Forum Replies Created
Keep the faith Bing, but I am sorry that the more I learn, and the more I research, only more corruption do I find; and the more faith and confidence I loose for the hope of our already lost 'Liberties'.
Short of a revolution to free ourselves from the de-facto government we created, I see no other solution. But, history has already taught us by the failed (war of rebellion) that we would only fight another hopless fight, and at a greater price I expect.
Do you think that these ignorant pathetic citizens, or should I say sheeple in America who are addicted to the Socialistic privileges, enforced by Mobocracy really want freedom, eh?
How many constitutionallly astute leaders have already caved along the way to produce such a travesty of our freedoms?
We were sold out from day 1! Look at the loop holes in our flawed Constitution that weakened its power to protect the people, you think this was by chance? These men that framed it left exploitable loopholes knowing full well that they would be used to gain control over the “people”. Of course this is only my own opinion, but what other reason could there be?
I guess you might say that this American experiment (of freedom) has eluded us completely from the very begining! “We the people” may have already passed the “point of no return”.
But like you, I will never give in to these traitors.
Check this link out, it pretty much says it all:
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
P.S. Read the book, that is, if you accept it as reliable, that God has always allowed tyrants to oppress his people. It perfects their faith in him, not on their own selves.
Food for thought, its still free 🙂
- Sonik Speed wrote on May 22 2006, 12:17 AM:There is substantial evidence that the majority of the supreme Court Justices are all aware of the movement.
Here is evidence of an congressional institution [SJI] grant, designed to educate our in-justice system on the above subject, the anti-government handbook is a bastard child of this Gov. sponsored grant:
No wonder we (Constitutionalists) can not obtain justice within the courts!
Quote:Any comments about the briefs from any others? I am 99.99% certain that the case will be killed.Agreed, it would certainly create a National Security issue; the Supreme's will fix that pronto!
With Governmental created agencies like SJI , the deck is certainly stacked against THM.
Also, here is what the ADL alleges about the (patriot movement, tax protestors, etc.).
Great commentary, my fellow Guardians!
K,
A little poem, for K and his kind:
You obviously have stumbled into the realm of the ?Guardian Brotherhood?,…
peradventure that by way of a contention you may seek,….
We only welcome you, as a pure seeker you see,…
but otherwise,… if the contrary you seek is not of pure motive,…
well then,?.go back to your handlers and sharpen your swords,?
for there will come a day,? when the s h e e p l e won?t play,?
N o t h i n g?. you say is anything new,?
we already know what you want to do,?
so sharpen your swords,?
and prepare for you may,?
But make no mistake,?
there will come that day,…
when the sheeple won?t sleep….
THE END IS NEAR,
Author,
Thanks for the research link, I am truly impressed by this researcher. It does in deed look like more credible evidence for us to consider when engaged with the enemy of our freedom, and possibly to use against the Beast that seeks to enslave us.
😡 Just another example of IRS, DOJ conspiring to tighten the noose of compliance!
I strongly object to ANY police state actions perpetrated by any and all agencies which violate “we the people's” constitutional rights. The following examples being the right to privacy, right to contract, just to name a few that this action violates.
In my opinion, this is a GIANT step in the progressive forward movement for the illegal taxing of private citizens on the internet, and using the PayPal accounts as a snooping tool to broaden police state powers against “we the people”. Not to mention their buying habits, etcetera. It is absolutely wrong, and unlawful to say the least.
All regulations are designed to empower government. We do not need more government regulations! And we certainly do not need more taxes. Do we?
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.
Perhaps it would have been wiser to file suit against the tyrants; but who can ever win in ?tax court? playing by their rules?
If the IRS disagreed with the requests for refunds, they should have refused them. Instead, they agreed with the refunds because they in fact paid them. Now, because they returned the already extorted money without questioning the validity of the amended forms that the Citizens submitted, it is my understanding that there might be an issue of ?entrapment? which facilitated the implication that the Citizens were participating in an alleged ?tax-fraud scheme?. I think the Citizens acted in 'good faith', assuming that they played by the rules when they made the amended filings.
The DOJ release reads in part as follows:
Quote:?WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Justice Department announced today that, in a nationwide crackdown against a tax-fraud scheme promoted by Peter Eric Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., it has brought suit against nine people this week?.emphasis added
The honest question is this, why did the IRS not just simply refuse to make the refund, especially if they thought it was illegal to ask for it? The obvious answer is that they wanted to crack down on Hendrickson, and to make an example of him to others who would dare to question whether or not the ?income tax regulations? are lawful.
Just holding my place here for now, I got to run. I will play your anti-constitutional tit for tat game with you later. 😛
AndyK wrote on Apr 12 2006, 07:56 AM:Before going ballistic, it might be a good idea to see what the organization intends to doQuote:PURPOSETo 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 and promote public health through a trilateral forum that shares information and works collaboratively on issues of mutual interest.
…..
C. Working Groups
The Trilateral Cooperation undertakes its work through Working Groups. Three Co-chairs representing each country head each Working Group. The Co-chairs are responsible for identifying issues for discussion and for seeking the Steering Committee's support. Current Working Groups include the following:
Canada-US-Mexico Compliance Information Group (CUMCIG): Its purpose is to increase the exchange of emergency preparedness and response, compliance and enforcement information between the three countries. The Group coordinates related enforcement activities with counterpart agencies in appropriate cases. Lead Country: United States of America.
Mexico-US-Canada Health Fraud Group (MUCH): Its purpose is to maintain a formal framework for cooperation in combating health fraud and to identify appropriate lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities among the three countries. Lead Country: Mexico.
Laboratory Cooperation Working Group: Its purpose is to establish and maintain cooperation in the area of regulatory laboratory operations. Through continual discussions, this group is expected to share information with a view to building confidence in our respective analytical results. Lead Country: Canada.
Canada-US-Mexico Training Working Group: Its purpose is to share existing training information, establish a communication strategy between the Training Working Group and the other Working Groups, and to assist in identifying training needs of staff who will be engaged in Trilateral work. Lead Country: United States of America.
Somehow, that doesn't sound lilke a vast NWO conspiracy to subvert the will of The People, but I guess I'm not reading deeply enough betweeen the lines.
[post=”2563″][/post]***Delegated Authority***
Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1 (1947):
“Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority,” 332 U.S., at 384. emphasis added
=====================================================
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955): A doctor was cleared twice of loyalty charges, but the Board on its own reconsidered those charges and debarred him from federal service for such; in reversing, the Court held:
“Agencies, whether created by statute or Executive Order, must of course be free to give reasonable scope to the terms conferring their authority. But they are not free to ignore plain limitations on that authority,” 349 U.S., at 345. emphasis added
=====================================================
Regents of University System of Georgia v. Carroll, 338 U.S. 586, 597, 598, 70 S.Ct. 370 (1950): “As an administrative body, the Commission must find its powers within the compass of the authority given it by Congress“; emphasis added
=====================================================
F.T.C. v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 428, 77 S.Ct. 502 (1957): “the Commission may exercise only the powers granted it by the Act”; emphasis added
=====================================================
Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316, 322, 81 S.Ct. 1611 (1961): “the fact is that the Board is entirely a creature of Congress and the determinative question is not what the Board thinks it should do but what Congress has said it can do“. emphasis added
=====================================================
/////////under construction\\\\\
***Delegated Authority***
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882): Arlington, Lee's estate, subject of litigation, the United States claiming ownership via tax sale some years earlier. In holding for Lee's heirs, the Court stated:
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” 106 U.S., at 220. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights,” 106 U.S., at 220, 221. emphasis added
=====================================================
United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 533, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888): appointment of collector by head of agency. Agent indicted for embezzlement and issue was whether he was officer:
“The constitution … declares that 'the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.' There must be, therefore, a law authorizing the head of a department to appoint clerks of the collector before his approbation of their appointment can be required. No such law is in existence. Our conclusion, therefore, is that … clerks of the collector …. are not appointed by the head of any department within the meaning of the constitutional provision.”
emphasis added
=====================================================
Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 51 S.Ct. 587 (1931): Battle over advertising of “obesity cure”.
“Official powers cannot be extended beyond the terms and necessary implications of the grant. If broader powers be desirable, they must be conferred by Congress. They cannot be merely assumed by administrative officers; nor can
they be created by the courts in the proper exercise of their judicial functions,” 283 U.S., at 649. emphasis added
=====================================================
Utah Power and Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 37 S.Ct. 387 (1917): Power company built structures upon federal lands and claimed right through prior approval of government agents; held:
“Of this it is enough to say that the United States is neither bound nor estopped by acts of its officers or agents in entering into an arrangement or agreement to do or cause to be done what the law does not sanction or permit,” 243 U.S., at 409. emphasis added
=====================================================
Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 49 S.Ct. 129 (1929): The mills and subordinate revenue agent entered into informal compromise agreement regarding tax liability, the validity of which was at issue here. That agreement was held invalid:
“We think that Congress intended by the statute to prescribe the exclusive method by which tax cases could be compromised, requiring therefor the concurrence of the Commissioner and the Secretary, and prescribing the formality with which, as a matter of public concern, it should be attested in the files of the Commissioner's office; and did not intend to intrust the final settlement of such matters to the informal action of subordinate officials of the Bureau. When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode,” 278 U.S., at 288, 289. “It is plain that no compromise is authorized by this statute which is not assented to by the Secretary of the Treasury… For this reason, if for no other, the informal agreement made in this case did not constitute a settlement which in itself was binding upon the Government or the Mills,” 278 U.S., at 289. emphasis added
=====================================================
/////////under construction\\\\\
- rattler14 wrote on Apr 20 2005, 08:06 PM:I just saw this on one of the yahoo groups. VERY useful stuff. You can get copies of things like black's law 1st and 2nd edition for $25… and based on how hard it can be to track down such things, I highly recommend people to add them to your legal collection!
http://republicvsdemocracy.com/store/
I have yet to recieve my copies, so I do not know if they are in jpeg or in searchable pdf…Â though if you have OCR software, one can get around that quite easily.
There are plenty of other books and documents that you may find interesting as well.
cheers
[post=”1352″][/post]Thanks for the link. It looks like inflation has taken its toll already though.
Were you able to obtain any of the CD's, and if so what is your evaluation, i.e. file format, searchable, adobe, .doc, jpeg etc.
Thanks in advance for your input.
bruce
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 he contends, again without merit, that because Schiff was convicted of a crime, that this somehow legally proves that the IRS system is valid. BS! We are to presume [Schiffs conviction] this was lawful, otherwise [logically] why would he have lost the case against him? This is flawed reasoning and just plain mob rule by way of example. Almost every post, at least the ones I have read are riddled with this type of misquided logic.
I agree with the Author2, that adaquate comprehension of the 'original intent' and the 'spirit of the law' conveyed by the framers of the Constitution, would in fact cure the disease that has engulfed AndyK's way of thinking. A simple cure for the anti-constitutionalist AndyK, is the understanding, that the Constitution was written in fact to protect “we the people” and their rights.
Furthermore, AndyK quotes, in part extractions:
Quote: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.emphasis added
Quote:Instead of just making allegations, post something of substance, as you did regarding the contract/constitution issue.emphasis added
If you read the above statements from AndyK's post, you will find that AndyK violates his own reasoning and though processes. In order for AndyK's quote to be “something of substance” he would have to include for our reference: what “law” Schiff broke., and what law requires anyone to file, or what law in the IRC defines “income”, or what type of “taxes” is lawful. Just because Schiff was convicted doesn't prove to me that he broke the law. Andy's credibility would be better served if he would stick to the facts; because the only opinions that matter in our legal system is that of the Supreme Court Rulers.
Next, in the following rebuttal against the Author, andy continues to spout conjecture and unsubstanciated allegations without proof, even while demanding proof.LOL
Quote:Today, 12:26 AM Post#11To Schiff's credit, there was also SEVERE malicious abuse by the judge and the jail of due process and fair play, and they cast EQUAL dispersion on the motives and conduct of our “public servants”. For instance:
1. He wasn't allowed to call his witnesses.
He was attempting to call witnesses whose testimony was not relevant to the case at issue.
andy:? b]More of Andy?s unsubstantiated allegations[/b
He was trying to have other people teatify that HIS interpretation of the law was correct.? That is not how the court system works.? A person is not allowed to argue the meaning of the specific law.? He can challenge the VALIDITY of the law — which usually leads to a Constitunality interpretation and ruling.? Schiff didn't do that.? He wanted to argue that his view was right and the government's was wrong.
2. When they threw him in club fed, he was abused by the guards. They made him sleep on a cold hard concrete floor without a mattress in an unheated cell for days, until someone outside complained to a Congressman about the abuse.
andy:
Prove it.
3. The judge, who had a conflict of interest and was subject to IRS extortion in violation of 28 USC 455,
andy:
Prove it.
would not allow him to talk about the law during the trial. He received an additional year of sentence relating to contempts for bringing up the law during the trial.
andy: b]More of Andy?s unsubstantiated allegations[/b
That is not why he was found in contempt multiple times.? Read the trial record and get the facts.
This abuse by the judge is described and denounced as EVIL in Great IRS Hoax, section 5.4.4.4. A judge who refuses to discuss what amounts to Private Law is interfering with the right to contract of the parties, because Private Law essentially is a contract. How can you enforce a contract that you refuse to read and discuss? The purpose of this tactic is, of course, to politicize the trial and thereby abuse the evils of democracy to trample on people's rights and it amounts to treason by the judge.
Interesting comment by Andy:
Quote:Apr 5 2006, 08:46 PMBut to get back to your/my original issue — stupidity versus insanity: Just because someone is (as you cited) “very well educated” does not mean he can't, at the same time, be as dumb as a door post. I'm sure you, like everyone else does, know a fair number of well-educated but stupid people.
You speak from an authoritative view [having possesion of the transcripts]; that is like telling the judge you have evidence but you are going to have to buy it yourself if you want proof.LOL So far, you only speak from hearsay, again without, in your own words “something of substance”.
Hey, come on Andy, be a sport, you brought up the transcript, or the knowledge of it that refutes the Author,… the monkey is on your back, post the unlawful arguments that Schiff made. If not, pick up your toys and go home!
Borrowing Bing's favorite saying: “you have been hoisted on your own petard”
(((((((((((((BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM))))))))))))))))
Hey Andy, are you really the Lambskin? 😆
😀 Late update, but good news!
The prosecution against the Juror, Carol Asher is over. The court decided that the State did not show the elements necessary to proceed with a perjury case against her.That is the good news.
The bad news is that the premise of the judge being the ruler of law and the jury being the ruler of facts does not get a public challenge in the light of day.
UPDATE 03-08-06
by Francis Steffan
for more info:
- lchesson wrote on Mar 21 2006, 05:34 PM:Bird flu scam – out of a Doctor's mouth. Dr. Day has an amazing testimony.
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/birdflu.htm
[post=”2438″][/post]Ichesson,
Thanks,…. my friend, for the GREAT information!
Thanks, not only for the flu headsup, but for introducing me to Dr. Day!
WOW, what a reservoir of intelligence! 😉
Sonik, 😛
Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 10 2006, 12:57 PM:Mr. Bruce – are you asking me to stop calling you “Mr. Bruce” or are you okay with that name?Sonik Speed
[post=”2361″][/post]WHY?
😀 Well seriously now, my dear brother it's alright by me, especially since my own mom used to call me by that same name, but only when I was in trouble though, heck,… we could even go by by first names if you felt like sharing. (((ROFL)))
Even [if] you wanted to call me Sir Bruce, or Buddy Boy, or anything else, I wouldn't object either. 😉 Hey, I know what, I could even get me one of those secret identity names just like you. 😎 Hey, all kidding aside though, I do appreciate you asking. And now, goodness gracious, don't even worry about it anymore, just feel free.
By the way, you know what? Since you asked all those bible questions, I almost can't put that bible down long enough to get anything done, in fact, just cuz of you I've been chattin all over the net now, sorta like a aol John the Baptist or somethin. Now,… see what you caused? Hey I know, I just thought of it just now too,…you could even call me deacon or somethin like that!! lol…I can tell you one thing though, God is not done with you yet, nope…..not by a long shot!! 😆
anyways,
((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))) my dear brother!!!!!
JWR,
Are you kidding me, are these cops feeling so guilty so as to act that defensive? I came away from those videos with real concern. After watching most of those guys, if not all of them, I think a psychiatric evaluation would be in order. I think these cops were only masquerading as public servants sworn to protect. Sort of reminds me of that Stalone movie where Rambo gets harassed by the Big bad wantabe Cop.
However, it does kind of prove by the cops? overreactions that they do fear proper confrontation, and that is good. I just hope I don?t meet that one that unsnapped his gun while stalking the poor undercover guy. Heck, I think if he would have took a step closer like the cop enticed him to he might have got shot.
I wish I could say that we don?t need people with guns keeping the peace, but the fact is we do. Mankind is corrupt by nature and getting worse and worse all the time. Some of those thugs sure seemed anxious to meet out their own kind of street justice, and that is scary. Makes a good case for why us defenseless civilians should be able to pack with those kinds of wackos running around with guns. Just glad I don’t live in So. Florida.
