fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
SOURCE: http://www.salon.com…bill/singleton/
_________________________
Three myths about the detention bill
The language of the bill President Obama will sign is crystal clear on most key issues — and it is repugnant
President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference in the White House briefing room in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) (Credit: AP)
(updated below)
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, ©:
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section ( 😎 – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.
But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:
Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.
It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
UPDATE: There’s an interview with me in Harper’s today regarding American justice and With Liberty and Justice for Some.
-
SOURCE: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oct/27/federal-judge-sentences-man-money-laundering-charg/
________________________
Federal judge sentences man convicted in money-laundering scheme
Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011 | 7:46 p.m.
CARSON CITY – U.S. District Judge James Mahan has sentenced Samuel Davis, 56, to 57 months in prison on his guilty plea in a money-laundering scheme in Las Vegas in which he was caught by undercover FBI agents.
The judge also ordered Davis to pay $95,782 in restitution and serve three years of supervised released for his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 30 counts of money laundering.
U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden said Davis’ partner Shawn Rice, 48, is still at large.
Court records say Davis, of Council, Idaho, and Rice, of Seligman, Ariz., laundered about $1.3 million for FBI undercover agents who said they got the money from theft and forgery of stolen official bank checks.
The government maintains Davis laundered the money through a nominee trust account and Rice put it through a reported religious organization. Davis got $74,000 and Rice took $22,000 for their work.
Davis and Rice are reportedly members of an anti-government group called “Sovereign Movement,” which tries to disrupt and overthrow governments and other forms of authority by using “paper terrorism” tactics, intimidation, harassment and violence.
Sovereign Movement maintains members do not have to pay taxes and it believes Americans are deceived by the federal government into obtaining Social Security cards, drivers' licenses, car registrations and wedding licenses.
Davis is a national leader and Rice is a lawyer and rabbi, according to the government.
-
SOURCE: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-tax-875.html
________________
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Promoters of Sham Tax Elimination Scheme Sentenced for Tax Fraud in Florida
WASHINGTON – Four of eight promoters of a fraudulent tax- and debt-elimination scheme have been sentenced to length prison terms for their roles in tax fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. The remaining four will be sentenced over the next two months.
On March 31, 2010, a federal jury returned guilty verdicts against eight people, following a month-long trial in Pensacola, Fla., involving the promotion of fraudulent schemes through Pinnacle Quest International, also known as PQI and Quest International.
Arnold Ray Manansala of Renton, Wash., was sentenced to 12 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Dover Eugene Perry, also of Renton, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Michael Guy Leonard of Troy, N.Y., was sentenced to nine years and one month in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mark Daniel Leitner of Fairport, N.Y., was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud.
According to the evidence presented during trial, PQI was an umbrella organization for numerous vendors of tax and credit card debt elimination scams. Some of the PQI vendors, such as Southern Oregon Resource Center for Education (SORCE), sold bogus theories and strategies for tax evasion. For fees starting at $10,000, SORCE assisted its customers in the creation of a series of sham business entities in the United States and Panama. Other tax-related PQI vendors denied the legitimacy of the income tax system on various theories and provided customers with a “reliance defense” that consisted of a paper trail of frivolous correspondence which a client could allegedly use as evidence of good faith if the client were prosecuted.
At trial, the government established that other PQI vendors sold fraudulent schemes for eliminating credit card debt, the most successful of which was called Financial Solutions. Financial Solutions charged its customers thousands of dollars for a series of letters to send to credit card companies disputing the lawfulness of the underlying debt. The product was wholly ineffective, and customers typically were sued by their creditors and often forced into bankruptcy.
According to the evidence, another PQI vendor, MYICIS, operated as a sophisticated, computerized “warehouse bank.” MYICIS was a single bank account in which customers pooled their money. MYICIS was promoted to PQI’s clients as a method to hide their assets from the IRS as a result of the pooled nature of the account. MYICIS had 3,000 clients and approximately $100 million in deposits over a three year period.
Evidence introduced at trial showed that PQI purported to sell only CDs and tickets to offshore conferences. However, PQI acted as a gateway to its fraudulent vendors. PQI clients seeking the tax evasion and debt elimination vendors could only access the product if they joined PQI first. The cost of membership ranged from $1,350 to $18,750, depending on the level of access. In May 2008, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against the promoters of Pinnacle Quest International.
“Today’s sentences send a powerful and unequivocal message to those who seek to evade and help others evade their taxes,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General John A. DiCicco of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “Those who promote tax fraud schemes will be investigated, prosecuted, and convicted, and they also face substantial prison sentences.”
“Today’s sentencings serve as a reminder that IRS is committed to ensuring all taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes,” said Victor S. O. Song, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “There is no secret formula that can eliminate an individual’s tax obligations, and those who create elaborate schemes that have no purpose other than to mislead others and defraud the Internal Revenue Service will be prosecuted.”
Mr. DiCicco thanked Department of Justice Trial Attorneys Michael Watling, Adam Hulbig and Jonathan Marx, as well as paralegal Iris Wright, for their hard work in prosecuting the case. Mr. DiCicco also thanked the team of IRS Special Agents who investigated the case, particularly Stephen Walker and Wendy Kilpatrick, for their efforts.
10-875
Tax Division
-
SOURCE: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-tax-980.html
______________
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August 30, 2010
Four Promoters of Tax Defiance Scheme Sentenced to Prison
One Promoter Previously Sentenced in Connection with Actor Wesley Snipes
WASHINGTON- Four promoters of a Florida-based business that sold illegal tax defiance schemes, American Rights Litigators/Guiding Light of God Ministries (ARL), were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. All four defendants were convicted in May 2010 following a one-month jury trial.
Eddie Ray Kahn, formerly of Sorrento, Fla., was sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud. Stephen C. Hunter, formerly of Candler, Fla., and Danny True, of Deltona, Fla., were sentenced to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of mail fraud. Allan J. Tanguay, of Flagler Beach, Fla., was sentenced to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud.
The evidence at trial showed that Kahn founded and ran ARL from 1996 through 2004. During that time, ARL enrolled more than 4,000 customers from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Defendants Hunter, True and Tanguay worked at ARL with Kahn to develop and sell tax defiance schemes based on deliberate misrepresentations of the legal foundation of the tax system.
The evidence at trial showed that the purpose of the tax defiance schemes promoted by the four men was to thwart the IRS in its attempts to assess and collect taxes by various means. These schemes included manufacturing and selling more than one thousand worthless “bills of exchange” supposedly drawn on the U.S. Treasury for customers to use in purported payment of their taxes, as well as producing false and harassing complaints against IRS employees that were sent to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) in Washington, D.C.
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against ARL which resulted in a December 2003 preliminary injunction ordering ARL to cease selling its schemes. The evidence at trial showed that the defendants continued to prepare fraudulent and obstructive correspondence to the IRS on behalf of ARL customers, even after the entry of that order.
“This is precisely the type of conduct the Tax Division is committed to stopping under the National Tax Defier Initiative,” said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “Those who promote illegal tax defiance face prosecution and lengthy prison terms.”
“Today, justice is served, and these four individuals are being held accountable for their criminal actions. The manufacturing of worthless ‘bills of exchange’ was nothing more than a sham to disguise their intent to evade the payment of taxes,” said Victor S.O. Song, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “IRS special agents work diligently to identify and bring to prosecution both those who evade their taxes, and those who assist others in evading their tax obligations – it’s a matter of maintaining public confidence in our system of taxation.”
Acting Assistant Attorney General DiCicco commended the IRS and TIGTA agents who investigated the case, as well as Tax Division Trial Attorneys Jeffrey McLellan, Tino Lisella, and Melissa Siskind, who prosecuted the case.
Additional information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division and its enforcement efforts is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.
Kahn’s previous sentence in the Wesley Snipes case: http://www.justice.gov/tax/usaopress/2008/txdv08343.htm.
ARL injunction: http://www.justice.gov/tax/prtax/txdv03730.htm.
10-980
Tax Division
-
If you seek guarantees of any kind or being “100 % correct”, you don't have a CLUE what this site is about. The ONLY thing you can count on is God and NOT any vain man, government of men, or law. If you value security more than you value freedom, you are on the wrong site:
http://famguardian.o…ityUniverse.htm
You keep asking if what you are saying is “correct” and expecting someone OTHER than you, the Holy Spirit, and/or your own reading of the law to guarantee it's correctness. With that kind of attitude, you will NEVER be free and will always be a slave to the opinions, dictates, and whims of others. That is a recipe to be UNHAPPY, not HAPPY.
The Sovereign Christian Marriage book explains that it is meant for all states because your right to contract is unlimited and must be protected everywhere The family codes vary in each state, but they don't apply to those who follow our process to PRIVATIZE marriage and contract the state out of your relationship. It is not experimental. From the very beginning and even before there was such a thing as a Family Code, people got married in their family bible and kept their word and trusted ONLY God and the faith of their spouse as their ONLY security. If you need a man with a gun and a courtoom filled with corrupt people who want to make you into a slave to put a gun in the back of your spouse as a guarantee of YOUR financial security, then we would argue that we are no longer talking about “marriage” as God defines it, but legalized prostitution where:
1. The judge is the Pimp.
2. The family lawyer is the tax collector for the pimp.
3. The sex comes during the marriage.
4. The money comes AFTER the marriage. Spousal support and child support is what the prostitution fee is called.
5. You have prostitution on the “lay away” plan. Meaning you get LAID before you actually have to pay the ULTIMATE price, which is give up exclusive control of everything you own to a covetous family court judge.
6. Both spouses are polygamists, because they ALSO marry the state. Licensed marriage is a THREE way contract.
7. The product of the marriage are bastards because they were born into prostitution, not marriage as God defines it.
8. The state owns the fruits of the marriage, including your bastard offspring born to prostitution.
Please see the book. We don't care to repeat it here.
We won't tell you if anything is “correct” or guarantee anything, because based on such questions, you don't want information or education, but insurance. And pursuit of “insurance” or government guarantees or protection is what makes licensed marriage into prostitution. If the insurance has commercial consequences, then you are trying to connect “commerce” to the sexual acts within marriage…hence prostitution. No matter what form the “insurance” takes and no matter what you call it (spousal support, child support), it's still a prostitution fee if it is connected with any sexual act.
-
The recourse is found in your own private marriage contract. That contract is enforceable in court like any other contract in equity.
The Sovereign Christian Marriage book contains such a contract. It functions as a starting point to write your own marriage contract. You are welcome to embellish it if you like. The purpose of the contract is to provide only the SUBSET of functionality provided by the Family Code in your state that you and your prospective spouse mutually agree to. Otherwise, it contracts the state entirely out of your relationship.
The Family Code in your state functions as what we call “The Default Marriage contract” for those who are not experienced or thoughtful enough to write their own contract. The Marriage Contract, in turn, is enforceable in a common law court under equity and not statutory law because it contracts all the state Family Code provisions OUT of the relationship.
For more information, please read:
Sovereign Christian Marriage, Form #06.009
http://sedm.org/Item…ianMarriage.htm
We don't care to rewrite that book in these forums.
-
Federal Corporation of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Zmppr4Qdc
The case cites made in this video are inaccurate and deceptive and you should not use them. We looked some of them up.
-
Treason in the US Senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1O6goo7qE
Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee
-
Lindsey Springer here offering an update on one of several cases caused by the IRS and no internal revenue district for the States of Oklahoma or “District Director” as both are required by United States Code, Title 26, for tax law to be enforceable.
Finally, after 20 years, the 10th Circuit decided I know how to read. This is a stinging endorsement as recently in U.S.A. v. Springer, et al., 11-5018, the 10th Circuit reversed both a position by the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, two United States Magistrates, and a sitting United States District Judge. The same group of attorneys that stole my house from me under the disguise of the tax laws of the United States, and in part, who participated in what led to the conviction which currently dominates my liberty in Federal Prison.
While I was having to endure the full rath of the Devil in a “Grand Jury” inquiry considering tax related charges, along with the theft of $ 2000 while 11 armed agents of the IRS, after an institutional referral was in place, raided my home, and while a valid Certificate of Release of Lien was recorded in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, the former mortgage holder on my home was sued by the United States in the case where the IRS sought to take my home. The claim by the Government was I still owed a minor amount on the mortgage.
The mortgage holder hired an attorney but did not enter their appearance. After deposition authorized by the District Court without my knowledge and agreement, an attorney entered his appearance for the mortgage holder, filed an answer and cross claim. After a year plus, a criminal jury trial, a tax court trial, and while appeals were pending in the theft of $ 2000 case, the District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS and Mortgage holder on March 3, 2010. I was orderd to vacate the house on April 15, 2010 (if that does not show the bias nothing will convince you), and after being sentenced to 15 years in prison for claiming the Paperwork Reduction Act had been violated by the IRS in their promulgating the Form 1040, in August, 2011, the attorney for the purported Mortgage holder filed a claim in Federal Court claiming to collect $ 4,000.00 (which I am appealing) he spent $ 35,000 of his clients money.
I of course objected and the Magistrate Judge, at the Tax Divisions agreement, decided I should only have to pay $ 10,000. I objected to the District Court and true to form he rubber stamped the Magistrate's order. The problem was that like everything else the Government did in this case against me, the Mortgage claim was not supported by the record, and entirely to late. Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow attorney awards within 14 days unless extended by Court order.
I told the Court in my objection the fees were out of time besides the fact they were fraudulently based. 35k to collect 4k? Come one. But the attorney had seen how the Government did the same thing so he just followed suit. After a hearing where I again told the Magistrate the fees were to late, the Magistrate ignored Rule 54's 14 day limitation and granted the 6 month out of time request but limited it to 10k. I timely objected to the District Court and in January, 2011, the District Court overruled my objections, addressed nothing, and upheld the Magistrate's order. Why not, it had worked every time before?
But not this time. I timely appealed and with Attorney Jerold Barringer, filed a brief showing the 6 months out of time request had been ignored by the lower Court and Government. You must ask yourself what kind of Court system at the Federal level do we have when the rule says “must be filed within 14 days” and an attorney files 6 months later and every person incharge of making certain the rules are complied with ignored the rules. You should be shocked, but I am not.
Besides some stinging rebuke from the orders of the $ 35k claim against the attorney, I appealed the issue of district directors, no districts, and the timeliness issue. Initially, the Government entered an appearance though they chose to file no brief. The Mortgage holder likewise decided not to file any opposition.
Last week, the 10th Circuit accepted my words, as represented by Jerold Barringer, reversed the District Court, and dismissed the claims. For the first time I scored a reversal. It only took 20 years. I know the PRA in 2009 case was a great sentence, and the fact recently the Court said ALL DISTRICT DIRECTORS AND INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS NO LONGER EXIST, but it seems convincing the 10th Circuit Court to go by the laws written by Congress, or even their previous interrpretation of the law, is quite difficult.
Although I am pursuing appeals to the Supreme Court on District Director, Internal Revenue Districts, and a host of other issues in 5 different appeals, due to the Tenth Amendment issue in Bond (3rd Circuit) and the recent revelation that the Supreme Court will decide whether the States surrendered to the United States the power to force all of us to sign contracts for insurance, should give way for some closer scrutiny of the issues near and dear to us who forever seek to rid our great nation of the IRS and all it has stood for over the last several years.
With God's help we can do anything in Jesus name. I thank you for your prayers and other support. Every penny has been needed as this has been my most difficult challenge yet. Please consider continuing to support my efforts as at least now we know I know how to read better than a United States Judge, Magistrate, three attorneys, and a Mortgage holder. I am certain my reading is correct in all other aspects as well.
You can still use paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or send blank instruments to 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. God bless you and by now you should be able to see exactly what prayer is needed.
Lindsey Springer, 12.6.11
=====================================================
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal: gnutella@mindspring.com
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (NO CHECKS, PLEASE):
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Lindsey & Family
-
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 2001-9-11
-
Great video by Rose. Thanks for sharing that, BobT12. Downloaded it for safekeeping.
-
THE RUSTY, DUSTY, BUT STILL-TRUSTY SHIELD
An honest look at America's real problem and its real solution.
by Peter E. Hendrickson
Part I: The real problem
Part II: The real solution
A. Admitting the truth
B. Feeding the Good Wolf
Part III: Staying Awake
For years I've been warning of the economic, political and legal crisis now unfolding. For years I've also been speaking about the shield against this scourge prepared 224 years ago by the Founders.
That a real crisis is upon us can no longer be denied. Isn't it time to pay attention to the solution long-since made ready against this day by our far-seeing ancestors?
The shield of which I speak was understood, respected and deployed by our grandfathers, and their fathers and grandfathers before them. For more than 140 years it provided Americans with liberty and prosperity to a degree unprecedented in human history.
Sadly, about 75 years ago, most Americans set aside the Founders' defense against the very harms with which we are menaced today. The shield had worked SO well and for so long that it had become possible to forget what it's for and why it's so important.
Given those 75 years in which to do so unhindered, the hazards against which the shield had defended us have grown furiously. They have now become existential threats to this great country.
Still, as much as we teeter on the brink of disaster, the Founders' shield remains the reliable solution to our troubles. Simple in use but broad and deep in its effects, the shield offers protection against looting by “wall street”, banksters and corrupt politicians. It offers protection against hyper-inflation and the destruction of our savings.
It offers protection against chaos and collapsed markets, and against martial law and the police state. It offers protection to the wise and prudent against being forcibly dragged over a cliff-edge by a mindless, fear-driven pack of lemmings.
This marvelous shield awaits our hand, ready to resume its good service. All that is needed is our bold acknowledgement of the true nature of the problem we face– both WHAT that problem is and WHY that problem is.
***
To see the rest of this important commentary, please navigate to losthorizons.com/TheShield.pdf.
-
EDITORIAL: Constitutional attorney Larry Becraft's opinion on Obamacare.
__________________
*The current challenges to ObamaCare are very specific and raise an issue that has never been addressed before: can Congress compel an American living inside this country to buy insurance? These cases that attack ObamaCare were carefully planned and have thus far resulted in several courts holding the act unconstitutional. The Supremes usually take cases where there is a split in the circuits, and recently, the DC circuit upheld that federal healthcare program. This issue is going before the Supremes. But, there are friends of this type of legislation on the court: Sotomayor and Kagan would fit in nicely with Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
But, countrywide health care plans have proven to be dismal failures in other countries. Complaints that compulsory health care programs really deny health care and have criminal, genocidal consequences appear clearly justified. Is there only one issue to attack this plan to liquidate segments of the American population, committing genocide in the process, or are there others?
When addressing and attempting to remedy a social problem with legislation, a legislature like Congress cannot use overbroad, Draconian measures. For example, in the last 15 years, American society has confronted the “dead-beat dads” problem. Presume for purposes of argument that this problem affects 10% of the American populace. To solve this problem, can a legislature impose duties on 100% of the populace? As another example, suppose that the illegal alien problem
involves 15% of the humans living in this country. Could any legislature require that all citizens must be marked in their foreheads with a microchip so that aliens without such mark will stand-out and be obvious? The constitutional problem that condemns these dictatorial schemes is that they violate principles of equal protection.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component. See Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693 (1954); and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). Equal protection principles are related to legislative classifications. See Mahone v. Addicks Utility District of Harris County, 836 F.2d 921, 933 (5th Cir. 1988). There are two principle types of legislative classifications: overinclusive and underinclusive. See Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 815 fn. 8 (2nd Cir. 1973)(“grossly overinclusive or underinclusive classifications should not be readily tolerated.”); District of Columbia v. E.M., 467 A.2d 457, 466 (D.C.App.1983) (welfare statute of limitations was void because the classes were both “underinclusive and overinclusive”); News America Publishing, Inc. v. F.C.C., 844 F.2d 800, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988)(FCC law preventing certain conduct was “astonishingly underinclusive”); Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 69 (Fla. 1990)(“Equal protection analysis requires that classifications be neither too narrow nor too broad to achieve the desired end. Such underinclusive or overinclusive classifications fail to meet even the minimal standards of the rational basis test.”); Beach Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., 965 F.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C.Cir. 1992)(distinction in Cable Act between “external, quasi-private” and “wholly private” cable systems was “overinclusive * * * in that this burden does not serve the Act’s purpose.”); and Ruggiero v. F.C.C., 278 F.3d 1323 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (FCC low power law preventing former micro-radio pirates from getting licenses was both overinclusive and underinclusive).
Returning to the “dead-beat dads” problem mentioned above, equal protection is violated when those who are not a cause of the problem are included in the solution to it. It would violate constitutional equal protection to impose obligations on 100% of the populace to simply catch the smaller “dead-beat dads” group. Similarly, citizens in this country are not illegal aliens and they alone are not creating this problem. Mandating “marks of the beast” on the foreheads of all citizens to catch the illegals would violate due process and equal protection because burdens are imposed on people who are not the cause of the problem.
What about ObamaCare? Allegedly, a minority of Americans lack medical insurance, but that is not everybody. The vast majority of Americans do have medical insurance and are not causing the problem. But to solve this problem, Congress has enacted a program to take over the entire medical delivery system and impose duties on everyone to allegedly solve a problem caused by a minority. However, legislation of this nature violates both due process and equal protection.
Larry Becraft
-
SOURCE: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=3279
________________
Federal Reserve audit forfeits franchise for securities fraud and embezzlement of $16 trillion.
Posted by PAUL W KINCAIDCorruption, World newsThursday, November 17th, 2011
Fed until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.
An audit of the Federal Reserve has revealed in the Sanders Report that the privately owned Federal Reserve secretly and unlawfully doled out more than $16 trillion in zero interest loans and concealed electronic funds transfers to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress determined that the Federal Reserve acted illegally. In fact, according to the report, the Federal Reserve knew their financial transactions were illegal and provided conflict of interest waivers to its employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans. The report is evidence that reveals major securities fraud in the embezzlement of $16 trillion by the Federal Reserve. Securities fraud and embezzlement are both felony criminal offenses. Any criminal offense committed by the Federal Reserve forfeits the Federal Reserve franchise – U.S. Code TITLE 12 CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER IX § 341. Second
Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted. Embezzlement is performed in a manner that is premeditated, systematic and/or methodical, with the explicit intent to conceal the activities from other individuals, usually because it is being done without their knowledge or consent. U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 – EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT § 644. Banker receiving unauthorized deposit of public money
Whoever, not being an authorized depositary of public moneys, knowingly receives from any disbursing officer, or collector of internal revenue, or other agent of the United States, any public money on deposit, or by way of loan or accommodation, with or without interest, or otherwise than in payment of a debt against the United States, or uses, transfers, converts, appropriates, or applies any portion of the public money for any purpose not prescribed by law is guilty of embezzlement and shall be fined under this title or not more than the amount so embezzled, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the amount embezzled does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
$16 trillion is 10 times more than what the U.S. Congress authorized and Bush ($700 billion) and Obama ( $787 billion) signed off on. The Federal Reserve was only authorized by Congress to disburse $1.487 trillion in federal tax dollars in bailouts. The Federal Reserve embezzled another $14.5 trillion.
The Congressional report determined that the Fed secretly hide most of the embezzled money into their own banks. The rest the Fed unilaterally transfered trillions of dollars to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland. Foreign banks and corporations which the Federal Reserve bankers had a personal financial interest or stake in.
The report reveals that the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in federal money from the Fed – conflict of interest. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks (money laundering banks) for the Fed’s emergency loans programs (aka – embezzlement schemes).
In another disturbing finding, the Government Accountability Office said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given federal funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it would have exposed the Fed’s conflict of interest and major securities fraud in the embezzlement of $16 trillion.
The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its embezzling to private contractors, many of which were rewarded with extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.
The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their $16 trillion embezzlement scheme to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. For their part the same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Morgan Stanley helped the Federal Reserve banker launder embezzled $trillions into AIG.
A more detailed Government Accountability Office investigation into corruption charges, securities fraud, embezzlement, money-laundering and conflicts of interest at the Fed was due on Oct. 18. The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve
Did you know that the $14.5 trillion the Federal Reserve embezzled (US Congress only authorized $1.487 trillion) could pay the entire U.S. national debt – $14.346 trillion. To avert default the U.S. government need only to seize the assets of the Federal Reserve banks (the big six U.S. banks collectively hold about $9.399 trillion in assets) and get back the $trillions that the Federal Reserve illegally embezzled and money laundered to their foreign banks and corporations.
The U.S. government can recover $trillions from the Federal Reserve and their banks through asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is confiscation, by the State, of assets which are either (a) the alleged proceeds of crime or ( 😎 the alleged instrumentalities of crime, and more recently, alleged terrorism. Proceeds of crime means any economic advantage derived from or obtained directly or indirectly from a criminal offense or criminal offenses. Crimes committed by the Federal Reserve banks against the United States and its people include; conflict of interest, securities fraud, embezzlement, fraud, money laundering, hoarding, profiteering, larceny, racketeering . . .
In 1982, a criminal forfeiture provision was enacted as part of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, which provided for the forfeiture of all property over which the RICO organization exercised an influence.
The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 added new felony provisions at 18 U.S.C. § 1956 for the laundering of the proceeds of certain defined “specified unlawful activity,” as well as prohibiting structuring transactions under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (with the intent to evade certain reporting requirements). The law also added civil and criminal forfeiture provisions at 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 982 for confiscating the property involved in money laundering.
According to the Legislative Guide to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto, “Criminalizing the conduct from which substantial illicit profits are made does not adequately punish or deter organized criminal groups. Even if arrested and convicted, some of these offenders will be able to enjoy their illegal gains for their personal use and for maintaining the operations of their criminal enterprises. Despite some sanctions, the perception would still remain that crime pays. . . . Practical measures to keep offenders from profiting from their crimes are necessary. One of the most important ways to do this is to ensure that States have strong confiscation regimes”
Top 10 Banks in the United StatesInstitution Headquarters Assets 1. Bank of America Corp. Charlotte, N.C. $2,340,667,014,000 2. J. P. Morgan Chase & Company New York, N.Y. 2,135,796,000,000 3. Citigroup New York, N.Y 2,002,213,000,000 4. Wells Fargo & Company San Francisco, C.A. 1,223,630,000,000 5. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. New York, N.Y. 880,677,000,000 6. Morgan Stanley New York, N.Y. 819,719,000,000 7. Metlife, Inc. New York, N.Y. 565,566,452,000 8. Barclays Group US, Inc. Wilmington, Del. 427,837,000,000 9. Taunus Corporation New York, N.Y. 364,079,000,000 10. HSBC North America Inc. New York, N.Y 345,382,871,000
As of Mar. 31, 2010.
Source: Federal Reserve System, National Information Center.
According to United States Code, TITLE 12 CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER IX § 341. Second. states that the U.S. Federal Reserve Banks are to be dissolved today by “forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.” Securities fraud and embezzlement by the Federal Reserve Bank is cause for immediate forfeiture and imprisonment of the Federal Reserve and its bankers.
List of banks involved in the $16 trillion + securities fraud and embezzlement
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York provides an up to date list of “Primary Dealers” obligated to implement the Federal Reserve fraud and embezzlement scheme.http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html
“Primary dealers serve as trading counterparties of the New York Fed in its implementation of (Fed) monetary policy. This role includes the obligations to: (i) participate consistently in open market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy pursuant to the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC); and (ii) provide the New York Fed‘s trading desk with market information and analysis (non-public stock market information – aka insider trading) helpful in the formulation and implementation of monetary policy (so that the Fed can profit from this insider information). Primary dealers are also required to participate in all auctions of U.S. government debt (acquiring wealth generated from the transactions of the illicit funds – aka money laundering for the Fed) and to make reasonable markets for the New York Fed when it transacts on behalf of its foreign official account-holders. (the New York Fed is stating who they are working for – on behalf of its foreign official account- holders)”
List of Primary Dealers (Fed’s money laundering banks. Listed in alphabetical order only.)
Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency (the third largest bank in Canada. Opened New York Agency in 1907)
BMO Capital Markets Corp. (the fourth largest Canadian bank)
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. (Paris, France)
Barclays Capital Inc. (London, United Kingdom)
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (United States)
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CIA drug money laundering bank, United States)
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Zurich, Switzerland)
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (Frankfurt, Germany.)
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (United States)
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (founded in Hong Kong, headquarters London, United Kingdom)
Jefferies & Company, Inc. (United States)
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (United States)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (United States)
Mizuho Securities USA Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (United States)
Nomura Securities International, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)
RBC Capital Markets, LLC (a Canadian investment bank, part of Royal Bank of Canada)
RBS Securities Inc. (Royal Bank of Scotland Group)
SG Americas Securities, LLC (United States)
UBS Securities LLC. (Zürich & Basel, Switzerland. Rothschild controlled. The Rothschild family hold the popes purse strings from this bank – the keys of the Vatican is a predominate part of their logo.)
All of the above named banks (includes both U.S. and foreign banks) money launder the over $16 trillion (U.S) that the Federal Reserve embezzled. These banks money launder the Fed embezzled U.S. Tax Dollars in three steps:
1) the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system by “placement”,
2) the “Primary Dealers” carrying out complex financial transactions in order to camouflage the illicit funds (“layering”), and
3) they acquire wealth generated from the transactions (loans, mortgages, stock market trading) of the illicit funds (“integration”).
All listed banks are controlled by the European Central Bank (Rothschild family) which controls it all for the Vatican, which is headed by the Nazi German Pope. All are working to enslave the World under a New World Order, aka Fourth Reich, aka Fourth unHoly Roman Empire.
-
Lindsey Springer here updating you on both my civil case to the Supreme Court regarding the taking of my home in the State of Oklahoma and the current disposition by the 10th Circuit in my criminal appeal. In my civil case the Supreme Court recently directed me to remove the mandamus portion of the Writ which sought direction to the 10th Circuit to stop relying upon Internal Revenue Districts and District Directors as if they exist when the did not and do not. They simply wish the writ be divided into two separate petitions. I can do that. However, what I will show next changes that some what. I need your continued help.
The Certiorari part sought whether the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the tax laws outside D.C. without district directors and internal revenue districts, and while an institutional referral was evident. At the same time the Tenth issued its per curiam, unsigned, unpublished decision in the criminal case. It is in that case where they said:
Quote:“Internal Revenue Districts are 'now defunct.'” Pg. 7 of the orderThis is significant in that since they were abolished by 2000 the 10th Circuit has continued to dismiss cases filed by taxpayers where they find the taxpayer failed to deliver or file his claim to the relevant district director office in the correct internal revenue district.
Question:
How does the Court lose jurisdiction when the taxpayer files with the wrong “district director” but when the taxpayer calims there is no “district director” to file with the Court labels that claim tax protestor jurisdictional challenges and deems it meritless?
Another issue you should take notice of is:
Quote:“there is no substantive obligation or crime arising out of Form 1040”Such a finding defies 100 years of Form 1040 jurisprudence. Many people have been imprisoned for either not delivering timely Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns or filing false information on Form 1040. The only reason information can be seen as “false” is if you look at the question being answered on Form 1040. Nothing in the tax law provides the questions you are to anser in “making a return.”
Even though the 10th Circuit said in U.S. v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 2007) that the Public Protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) applied to failing to file Form 1040s, it held the PRA DID NOT apply to filing information that is false. In the Court's recent order in my criminal case, the 10th Circuit said:
Quote:“Defendants' might have invoked the PRA to avoid any penalties assessed for submitting faulty information on a non compliant IRS Form.”The Form 1040 is a “non compliant IRS Form” to be sure. Just so you see this issue clearly, in U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (n.12-13)(10th Cir. 1990) it was held:
Quote:“But because the provision of information in 1040 is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes and defendant failed to file such forms, the Paperwork Reduction Act was applicable to such conduct.”The Court in my case said:
Quote:“defendants' obligation [Stilley's requirements were not at issue] to file a return, and the crime associated with their efforts to circumvent that obligation, are prescribed by statute, e.g. 6012…7203; there is no substantive obligation or crime arising out of Form 1040.”In Collins the 10th Circuit:
Quote:“included Federal Income Tax Returns within the category of information collection requests under the ACt. 920 F.2d at 630 (n.12)The 10th Circuit explained this to the public in great detail using terms like “superceded” to discussion the Dole v. United Steelworkers decision (494 U.S. 26, 33, in 1990) citing to U.S. v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542-42 (10th Cir. 1986) See Collins, 920 F.2d 630 (n.12).
It is very clear the 10th Circuit has simply decided to ignore their previously very public words on the subject in effort to render the public rights not only meaningless but an actual trap. I will have my civil case refiled without the mandamus within the time the Supreme Court gave me which is not much. I anticipate the criminal decision will be heard en banc as the cases ignored by that decision are numerous. That Petition for Rehearing En Banc was filed dated 11.6.2011 and docketed 11.9.2011.
I continue to need your help financially as from prison you would think things are cheaper but they are not. Copies alone coasts 15 cents when the copier is not broken. I do appreciate those who have helped support my efforts in the last several years and who have not given up on changing this system for the better of our future and our children. I am in your corner.
I have a need to raise $ 2500.00 by December 1, 2011, and with your help it will happen. I pray in Jesus name God inspires you who have read this far to help me and please do if you are so led. I know it seems live very little attempting to accomplish so much but that is the way our father in heaven works in my life. For those of you interested in reading my Petition to the 10th Circuit for Rehearing En Banc, send a request to the email below and when it is fully typed in an email format it will be sent to you.
Thank you again and I pray this finds you hopeful as I am and remain, Lindsey Springer
=====================================================
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal:
gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com.
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries:
Landon Springer (I can't cash checks made out to Lindsey)
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Landon Springer
