franklin
Forum Replies Created
It was never more true than it is in this case that all federal 'crimes' are commercial. Just look at the booty the feds stole on pages 12 and 13 of the indictment.
I predict if the 'defendants' get a lawyer they will be sentencing themselves to a long time in prison before the trial even begins. No lawyer would be able to deprive the feds of all of that gold, silver and cash and get away with it unscathed. No judge will be able to do it either and any prospective judge in an Article IV court has already committed, before being assigned to the case, to making sure these defendants don't walk away with all that booty.
Also, the defendants will probably argue in a way that has nothing to do with the law of the case stated by the sovereign plaintiff, which are the code and statutes cited in the indictment.
Phrases in the post like
Quote:This is a test of individual rights, as protected by the Tenth Amendment. It is the deciding moment that a private voluntary barter currency (PVBC) is legal in the great United States of America. This is a test that the Liberty Dollar must and will pass, for that I have no doubt.It is no such thing.
It is a test of whether or not they violated the sovereign plaintiff's statutes.
Already the defendants suggest that they are going to prove something that has nothing to do with the sovereign's determination of what the law is (plainly stated statute by statute in the indictment). They are already taking the burden of proof off the shoulders of the prosecutor. The validity of the liberty dollar is not the issue before the court. The issue before the court is that the defendants violated a list of statutes presented by the sovereign plaintiff as the law of this case. Did they violate those statutes or not is the only issue before the court.
It seems that if they want to prove something they must be the plaintiff. The plaintiff always bears the burden of proof. The only way I know of to do that is to file a counter claim and become a sovereign plaintiff who states what the law of the case is. Then they can prove whatever they want including such issues that the president Truman only signed one version of the proposed law, that the warehouse receipts for liberty dollar in no way resemble the size or colors of the former “greenback”. That liberty dollar operates on non-federal territory where us gov has no jurisdiction, that there are no federal regs for the statutes cited…whatever…
The point is…as defendants…they are not sovereign and cannot state the law of the case…they have no sovereign authority to prove (prosecute) anything. When CH dealt with the feds…CH became a sovereign plaintiff and defined terms…made the prosecutor subject to the law of CH's case which, in part, was becoming a member by downloading materials… and thereby dictated the law of the case in the court he, not the feds created. Check and checkmate.
I'm fairly new to thinking legalistically but I'm struck by how many good people lose by trying to prosecute a case of their own that is not properly before the court.
Here are the statutes that define the law of the case (so far)…
§ 485. Coins or bars
Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.
this title:
No corresponding parts in CFR
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 485 provides authority.
§ 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
No corresponding parts in CFR
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 486 provides authority.
§ 1341. Frauds and swindles
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
No corresponding parts in CFR
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 1341 provides authority.
§ 1342. Fictitious name or address
Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 1342 provides authority.
§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor
No corresponding parts in CFR
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 371 provides authority.
§ 485. Coins or bars
Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.
There are no CFR parts for which 18 USC 485 provides authority
§ 982. Criminal forfeiture
(a)
(1) The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title, shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—
(A) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1341, 1343, or 1344 of this title, affecting a financial institution, or
It's difficult to help people who adopt a losing strategy before a trial begins because they believe in it passionately. Because their passion overrules their reason and ability to read what the issues before the court are actually.
Quote:The battle for a value based currency has began! (sic)I'm not hopeful that the defendants are going to win the battle they seem so enthusiastic about.
JWK wrote:
Quote:And people ask why Obama continues to make economic decisions which are known from the outset will further destroy America?The answer to the question you say people ask is that Obama does not make any decisions. He simply reads from a teleprompter what he has been told to say.
As long as people think the president makes decisions, the longer it will take to turn the spotlight on those that actually do make the decisions while hiding behind the president. You don't see the ventriloguist's lips moving, you only see the puppet's lips moving. That way the puppet can say outrageous things and the ventriloquist is never blamed.
BTW the senate judiciary committee will not ask sonia sotomayer the big question. It ain't gonna happen. The decision will be based on whether her politics won't be too outrageous. She has already said that her latina-ness and her woman-ness will lead her to proper judicial opinions that a white male could never arrive at not having lived the kind of life she has. Now…
Consider the sheer stupidity of that statement — the low IQness of it…
How many latinas have lived the life of sonia sotomayer…and to what extent did sotomayer live the life of the average latina? How many have climbed through the system (or clawed their way) to become a lawyer, a federal judge, and now a shoe-in supreme court “Justice”. Did she move back to the bario after she succeeded? No. Does she live in an upscale white neighborhood or a poor hispanic neighborhood? Probably an upscale white neighborhood. Does she do pro bono work for poor latinas? Doubtful. She is no more representative of latinas than an Irish tenor is.
Moreover, she has given no indication that she is even aware of the Constitution. So for her to say she will arrive at ethnic based opinions that no white male could arrive at, not having lived her life, is sexist arrogance of course…but it also reflects her stupidity and lack of education.
She is signalling that as a “justice” she will decide her opinions from the vantage point of political issues such as race and gender relations. When the only decisions she has to arrive at are those consistent with the Constitution as written. It ain't gonna happen. She's just another puppet in the trashing of the separation of powers and the corruption of the judiciary.
But, the big reason the senate judiciary committe will not ask sonia the big question is…there is no money and few perks in a constitutionally constrained congress, judiciary or executive branch. Government by corporation is big, bigger and…with every passing day…even bigger business.
If they did ask the big question and sonia said she was going to decide her opinions on cases in strict conformity to the Constitution as written, she would be dumped by the committee on some pretext or other, like not having paid some fine when her dog pooped on the street 12 years ago.
If we waste time and energy hoping the government will reform itself and do the right thing, we are wasting time and energy.
The big question is when are the People going to reform themselves and reinstate their collective and individual personal authority over their servants? When are the people going to ask the other big question: “Who made the rule that only attorney's can become judges?” (it's a rhetorical question). Under equal protection of the law…anyone who can qualify or become qualified as a constitutional scholar would be eligible. If anyone, as I was told as a youngster, can become president, then it follows that anyone can become a judge.
There are a few people in these forums that would qualify hands down to be state and federal judges (but only in Article III courts 🙂 ) they're completely unqualilfied and unsuitable to sit in a franchise court 😀
Very informative podcast. Makes the point indirectly that the only conspiracies and conspiracy theories come from the federal government. They quote Rahm Emmanuel as saying of the present economic crisis — Never let a crisis go to waste because it allows the government to do things to enhance itself that it couldn't do otherwise.
Without crises the rule of law prevails…with crises…manufactured or otherwise…Rahm et al can make up the rules as they go along.
These people are doing everything out in the open now because they are well aware that the dumbed-down people have no intellectual way of evaluating what soetoro et al are doing…which is institutionalizing facism (the marriage of government and big business — taking over banks, firing executives in the private sector, etc.). soetoro supporters think the messiah has come…but they could only believe this out of an abysmal ignorance of history…which is now repeating itself (think mussolini and franco).
Franklin
Hmmm <_<
Has anyone ever sued a judge…prosecutor…or attorney for false commercial speech so they would have to either shape up or shut down?
Hmmm <_<
It would be both ironic and just if David and Jay (D-W.Va) Rockefeller, the Rothschild family and other Bilderbergers (queen elizabeth, queen beatrix, prince phillip, barry soetoro, henry kissinger [a useless eater], hilbilly clinton, etc.) went down with the ship they are trying to steer.
It is difficult to understand how the Rockefeller family wants to destroy the country that offered them such lavish prosperity in a free market system. Or how queen elizabeth…who reportedly owns 1/6th of the non-ocean land on the planet could want more.
Hosea's prophecy was never more true than it is for today's Americans: “My people perish for want of knowledge.”
Unfortunately, many simply don't want the knowledge they need. 😡 It is not being hidden from them. It is widely available. That makes their demise a choice.
It is beyond difficult…it is impossible to bend a rational mind around the fact that so many American people would volunteer for slavery (which is a contradiction in terms) and extermination at the hands of useless people who state their evil goals openly who are not hiding in caves but who have names and faces and known addresses .
Humans are supposedly rational…but clearly rationality is not their default state of mind. 🙁
Stija,
You wrote…
Quote:My argument was that the human being employed for the USG (US Government) is the actual transferee because the property of USG is transferred to him in the form of pay. By virtue of his contract with the USG he agreed to return a portion of his pay back to its original owner (the USG) in the form of a 'tax'. This in reality is not a tax. By contracting with USG the human (or any fictional entity) makes himself subject to all the contract agreement and rules dictated by USC Title 26.I now understand this better because of your lead on Kowalik's book, which I had not read. However, with the help of a friend I have gotten a copy of the book and now understand the above this way…
An applicant for federal employment signs an employment contract with the USG in which it is stipulated that the new employee (working at a trade or business by exercising the functions of a public office) will return a certain portion of his compensation to his employer…USG. At this point, the percentage to be returned becomes government property excluded from the rest of the compensation which is the employee's private property.
The new tradesman/businessman can file a 1040 form to take advantage of benefits that may lawfully reduce the amount he has to return to his employer (USG)
There is no direct unapportioned tax on the amount the new employee retains because he agreed by contract to separate it out from what he agreed to give back to his employer USG because that portion, by contractual agreement, is government property from the get go.
So the employee's net income is not gross income…only the portion that must be returned is gross income. And it is only gross income (what must be returned to USG) that goes on a 1040 to reduce the amount via allowable deductions to get the taxable income (the net amount after deductions) that must be returned.
By receiving government property and returning it (minus any deductions his CPA could think up)…the government employee (as you pointed out) becomes the transferee (I was thinking the transferee was a private employer/withholding agent on Main St. somewhere).
The government has no right to have the employee's private property from his second moonlighting job on Main St. returned because that was not part of the employment contract with the USG and is not government property to be returned to its owner. (Though the employee may have agreed by contract with his second employer to give ten dollars every paycheck to the company for the annual Christmas party…so that ten bucks must be returned to that employer).
I've arrived at the same conclusion in my original post (no standing in tax court) only this time from the set of facts you presented…
If the IRS makes a fraudulent claim via the NOD that there is a tax debt, (as opposed to an agreed upon tax return), over and above gross income, (the amount agreed to be returned to USG by contract), and the recipient of the NOD is told to petition the tax court…the recipient would have no standing to do so because he is not the transferee of government property in a private employment situation…[/b]the tax debt is bogus. The property at issue in a tax debt (as opposed to a tax return or return of tax) is private property not government property.
How'm I doin' Stij?
Franklin
Poldon
I think you were very wise to post your recent experience and ask for feedback. And the feedback was really wise. Take judicial notice of it and act accordingly. 🙂
Stija
Thanks for your considered reply. However, it creates two problems for me that neither confirm nor deny whether my reasoning is correct.
1. You say “BUT for the sake of argument…”
2. I do not have the benefit of having read Richard Kowalik's book “IRS Humbug”.
Addressing #1 above…I don't want to argue “for the sake of argument”. Argument in that sense is opinion and belief which often becomes contentious, does nothing to promote learning and understanding, and goes nowhere because it arrives at no necessary conclusion. Often the best outcome of that kind of 'argument' is “we can agree to disagree.”
I'm only interested in argument in its logical sense of reaching a necessary conclusion from a series of interrelated premises. and those premises have to be based on facts (e.g. what is written in a statute).
Addressing #2 above…you lost me in the second half of your sentence…
Quote:What if the transferee is the human being that is the actual 'employee' and the property of 'taxpayer' (USG) being transferred is the actual 'tax/salary'.I have no idea what the term 'taxpayer (USG)' means…and the taxpayer and transferee are distinguished in 6902(a).
However, you attempt to clarify the first sentence…
Quote:So in other words, it is the actual 'employer' who is the taxpayer since it is their property that is subject to the 'tax' and not the transferees because the transferee agreed to 'salary – tax' upon accepting 'employment' with the 'employer' and therefore his rightful property is just that – his compensation minus the 'tax' he agreed to transfer back to his 'employer' (USG).But the clarification fails when directed to me because I have no idea what the term 'employer' (USG) means and how it differs from 'taxpayer' (USG).
The only reference to statutory data occurs where you agree that your 'argument' is supported by 26 USC 6902(a). In all honesty, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion…which does not mean you are not correct. However, if you presented that argument to me as a juror…I'd have to give you the chair…only on the basis that I have no idea what your terms mean.
Staying close to the statutes…
26 USC § 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Quote:Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.One such person is a withholding agent per 26 USC 7701(a)(16) “(a)(16) Withholding agent
Quote:The term ''withholding agent'' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.Deducting and withholding money from a taxpayer's wages, permitted by a w4 contract, appears to make the withholding agent a transferee by virtue of legally receiving the taxpayer's property as a donation from the taxpayer. Then 26 USC 1461 notices the withholding agent that he must pay that money to the IRS because it is now a tax, government property, for which the agent is liable. The withholding agent then becomes a transferor…by relaying the money to IRS.
With respect to the tax court…it seems the only one who could have a deficiency, and receive a notice of deficiency, is the one liable for the tax…the transferee who received the donation from the taxpayer…aka the withholding agent.
It may not be correct but the conclusion seems to follow necessarily from the data…no “what ifs” involved.
Even if not correct…it seems to hang together logically to support a reasonable belief and a statement to the tax court that only the transferee, the withholding agent, has standing to petition the court.
Franklin
Sharpinla wrote….
Quote:There is nothing in (7) that says one can't privately practice their religion. They are referring to leadership, instruction, organization and proselytization roles.The distinction you make between private practice of religion and public practice of religion is specious.
If you read the Ten Commandments (the way to heaven for Christians per Matthew 19:16-17) you will see that they are all relational. They put us in the right relation to God, to our families, to our neighbors.
You might have private prayer…but you cannot torture, terrorize and kill prisoners of war because some higher up military brass told you to…and then go to church or into your room “and practice your religion”…because God said “You shall not murder”.
You cannot steal benefits to support your lifestyle via social security and tax breaks that your neighbor and future generations will have to pay for…because God said you shall not steal.
You cannot sit as an administrative judge and rig a tax trial and then go to synogogue on Friday or mass on Saturday and “practice your religion in private”…because God said “You shall not covet your neighbor's goods”.
Etc.
There is private devotion, but there is no such thing as private religion for Jew or Christian. The Ten Commandments are public laws which inform the conscience of what is right and what is wrong as long as you live among other human beings.
Nice try though.
Franklin
Benson's error is clear, he made guarantees to his customers that he could not possibly uphold. His guarantee that the IRS could not win against his Reliance package is snake oil. He also takes the burden of proof on himself and so do his customers…that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. The court's characterization of this idea as “nutty” is an equally “valid” opinion as Benson's idea that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. The court and Benson are each entitled to their opinion.
Benson under the doctrine of equal protection could do what the government does, he could just rename his stuff with a moniker that has nothing to do with the content (e.g. the Patriot Act) and sell it as research findings without any guarantees with respect to applying the research in individual cases, or without any guarantees that the research is entire in its fact finding. No false commercial promises there.
The thing that disturbs me about the court's ruling is this statement….
Quote:Producing a customer list does not offend the First Amendment because commercial transactions do not entail thePage 19
same rights of association as political meetings.”
Says who??? <_< Where does the constitution and the ninth amendment say that associating by contracting in commerce is more limited than political association to swoon over the latest congresscritter.
And the IRS is not in the business of protecting those it thinks are taxpayers. 😆 Quite the contrary.
So the disingenuous idea that they should have customer lists to protect the poor stupid consumer from fraud (except for their own) is laughable.
Even so, I think the case against Benson is pretty clear. He was making promises in commerce that he could not possibly deliver.
😆 😆 😆
All of this is fascinating and even impressive. However, I'm not sure how useful it will be…but that may only be the result of my lack of knowledge.
Quote:I also deposed Janice Wiedemann who had occupied her current office for a month before being introduced to the name Lindsey Springer. Ms. Wiedemann testified that Revenue Officers must go through Kentucky for Liens and Levies. She testified there was no law that requires an IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien to be signed. I thought it interesting here that the official position of the IRS is that if there is no specific words in any specific law that said “Notice of Federal Tax Liens” must be signed, that I had heard that same type theory before coming from tax protestors. Only the issue being protested was what law required the taxpayer to sign their name under penalty of perjury and waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.Arguing statutes and regulations as if the IRS was a government entity breaking the law is something they have heard many times…and routinely ignore. Springer might use his golden opportunity to approach the issue from the commercial side as well as the statutory side and establish that the IRS is acting in a private corporate capacity in commerce. Then the questions that have to be asked and answered under oath are whether the IRS is in fact a private company operating as a commercial enterprise. Someone needs to be cornered into admitting that in a deposition (I know about the case that says IRS is not an agency of the federal gov…but that is not enough) And, if so, the next question is by what authority can a private company attach property to satisfy an undemonstrated debt when they have not presented a valid contract between them and the parties whose property they are encumbering in satisfaction of default on the contract. If the answer is Idk…the next question is “Is ignorance of the law merchant (or federal) a defense in the possibly unlawful (or uncodeful) conversion of property? And so forth.
With the abolishment of Districts and District Directors per RRA…the chain of delegated authority is broken and there is no authority for what they are doing from a statutory perspective.
So what needs to be established under oath, is that they are merely a commercial enterprise, and what part of the UCC gives them authority to create a “debt” or “deficiency” and then proceed to encumber and confiscate property on hearsay and whim? Then the question becomes where on the notices of dishonor and the chance to cure. etc.
If these IRS, Inc. people were interrogated fully under oath it would seem to be useful strategy to approach it from two directions… 1. They are not operating under statutory law private or public…and 2. They are operating under UCC as a commercial enterprise and are they in violation of that Code? If it could be established that they are violating federal code and commercial code that would create a double bind with little if any wiggle room.
Trying to hold these people accountable to laws under which they are not operating, as they demonstrate over and over, may be futile for Springer's purposes.
We'll have to wait and see.
Thanks for this post.
Franklin
😆 😆 😆
😆 😆
After the covenant with Noah and through the prophet Jeremiah God has shown himself to be unwilling to destroy the earth for sin…and works with his people to bring them to repentance.
However, I often wonder why he doesn't repent of his creation for the sheer stupidity his…supposedly rational…people often display as they seek ignorance as if it were truth and shun truth as if it were ignorance.
God certainly does work in mysterious ways. <_<
Franklin
