reb
Forum Replies Created
-
I am in agreement that the Constitution has full force and effect within non-state land. Believing otherwise is proof of a deficiency in constitutional theory.
Author – Your reliance on Carter is unpersuasive, because you seem to overlook the concept of cooperative federalism. Each state, as I trust you know, is its own separate sovereignty. Sovereignties like a state, have a right to engage in cooperative understandings with other sovereignties. This theory is completely harmonious to the 9th Amendment.
Case law can be provided if you are not persuaded with the statements I have made above.
[post=”3988″][/post][/quote]
-
Rattler,
I might also mention there are several links to articles involving the CIA snooping on computer usage.
Reb
-
Rattler,
If the CIA is of interest (as distinguished from the IRS), there is a comprehensive list of books, websites, and press releases on numerous improper CIA actions that have been alleged over the past 55 years at :
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle427-20070722-03.html
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blo…07/08/21/p18996 and other locations.
If the links are eliminated upon posting, use a search engine for CIA: ROGUE AGENCY RUN AMUCK.
Reb.
-
May the Great Spirit bless the troops that are compelled to go.
DAMN the politicians that lie to send them.
-
For the mathematical calculation on how the system is a Ponzi scheme, use INHERENT NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY in a search engine. It was written two years ago.
You cannot pay back the principle and the interest on an economic system that creates only the principle as an item of interest bearing debt.
-
The problem with the lambskin post of— 10:48 AM– is that somebody might think it has some sort of rational thought behind it.
The writer of it has relied in prior forum posts on the Teamlaw website as supporting his viewpoints–I conclude it is his alter ego. I have had exposure to that website by correspondence to my personal email with the same theories as written in this forum.
You will notice in the above posting that there is an ABSOLUTE void of authoritive citation. The District of Columbia Act that has been mentioned can refer to multitude of legislative emissions. There is NO statement that has any reliance upon documented law.
The SSN has been theorized as being the instigation of some sort of “contract” that has altered the status of the U.S. civilian people. My repeated inquiries to Teamlaw, and the ?guest? who corresponded with me, for any documentation or citation of how, when, or where this occurred resulted in my being told to “go find it.” It does not exist.
The mention of Roman Civil law as being in our court systems is a confusing play on reality. The Roman Civil law has been established as “administrative law” as practiced by tax court, zoning commissions, OSHA hearings, and other executive agencies. Corruption and deception in the Article III courts ??? Yes !!! Condoning of administrative law in Article III courts ??? Oh Yes !!!! But administrative law, or admiralty law as asserted, does not exist in the Article III judicial courts.
The last paragraph is a call for anarchy. It has all the earmarks of a government disinformation source. It is posts like the above that will send earnest seekers of judicial procedure chasing wild rabbits and presenting “patently incorrect” issues to the courts. Such a shame.
Reb
PS My use of the word 'f r i v o l o u s' comes up in the preview as 'incorrect.' Why ?? It did it again.
-
Quote:You must mean Puerto Rico?[post=”3683″][/post]
You are quite correct. Ref. Davila-Perez v Lockheed, 202 F3rd 464 (2000); US v Cardales, 168 F3rd 548 (1999). Hopefully Costa Rica will forgive the sully on their sovereignty.
-
It is so neat to surf through these forums and read the misunderstandings that can be achieved with just one word.
There are two distinct concepts that have been discussed:
1. A right to travel.
2. An alleged right to drive.
If you go back to the newstand article, the headline used the “drive” word. All references in the body of the article use “travel.” There is a big difference.
I insist the state protect my wife and family from incompetent drivers or those who have a history of abuse of safe operation on the road. That is a police power that control the opportunity to drive—as a privilege.
There is no known court case that has declared the occasion to drive is a right.
The right to travel is well established.
Reb
-
Lamby,
If you find TEAMLAW as some sort of credible source of information, it goes a long way to understanding your position regarding a “corporate” constitution of the United States.
Mental illness can be contagious.
Reb
-
The IRS wants to make it an easy case. Would you be surprised to hear Sipes has been talked into a deal to roll on Kahn ??
Reb
-
The entire HC motion has been posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/13755
Reb. 🙄
-
With all due respect for the SEDM ebook you mentioned which I have not read, I believe your position that the U.S. district courts are operating as territorial courts is erroneous. Territorial courts occurred in Kansas, Oklahoma, etc., before they became states.
A recent citation going around the tax movement declared the district court was a territorial court. If the case was analyzed, the district court was in (as I recall) Costa Rica. The U.S. Congress had specifically legislated that the district court established to adjudicate in that nation would apply the laws of that nation. U.S. constitutional rights did not apply in that nation. The nation was a territory of the U.S.
I shall try to locate the SEDM ebook.
Reb
-
Hey, Number 5 !!!
Could I get your opinion on http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=937 ??? It is an attack on an income tax indictment. Unfortunately, the best part was dropped as being too long.
Reb.
-
Allow me to expand on “Should I understand…”
All indictments on behalf of the IRS rely upon 26 USC #7201 through #7215 as identifing an income tax charge. Challenges in court that the provisions are punishment provisions and do not identify an income tax liability have been unsuccessful.
To lift a paragraph from the other famguardian post: “In Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, the court, in adjudicating whether ?7207 was applicable to income tax cases reflected on the 1954 Congressional Record legislation of Part I of Chapter 75. ?Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions (?7201 through ?7217) in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes.? id 348, citations omitted. By the words of the Supreme Court and Congress itself, a citation of Part I of Chapter 75 [(?7201 through ?7217)] does not identify a specific tax the defendant can violate. The citation in the instant indictment therefore cannot identify ?a known legal duty? violated by the defendant.”
The Sansone court, as confirmed by the 100 appellate court cases cited in the other post wherein those statutes were used in non-income tax punishments, should be conclusive evidence that current convictions for income tax violations based upon an alleged violation of #7201 etc. are bogus.
The Sansone Opinion cited the Congressional Record as their authority to declare #7201-7215 did not identify an income tax charge—the provisions apply to all Title 26 taxes. The question in this thread was: Can this writing in the Congressional Record be presented to the court and be declared a judicially noticed fact? You appear to have declared it can be.
If so, it would appear to be a jury instruction that the indictment does not aver an income tax violation.
Reb
PS: As to the other post regarding Habeas Corpus, if 7201 etc. as used in an indictment does not identify a “known legal duty” as required by United States v. Pomponio, there has been no crime averred. If no crime is averred, there is no case before the court. If there is no case before the court, there is nothing before the court to exercise jurisdiction over and all proceeding are void. That is the essence of 20 pages resting upon copious supreme court citation. As mentioned on the other post, #2, the last 10 pages of the HC action with voluminous quotes from SC confirming the lack of jurisdiction and resultant void proceedings exceeded the page limitation for posting.
I hope this assists the understanding.
-
I wish I could be enthusistic about Tommy's MTD. I cannot.
He challenges the validity of the income tax law. We all agree with him. The income tax liability is not found within the statutes. But he attempts to evidence it is invalid. The court will shift the burden of proof to the defendant—to prove there is NO possible way the income tax MIGHT be valid. That burden of proof cannot be overcome.
Due process requires the burden of proof of a valid tax rests with the government and the indictment does not do that. Unless he can keep the burden of proof upon the government to PROVE a valid tax, as required by due process, he will be unsuccessful.
The indictment must be challenged as invalid. He is challenging the income tax.
Reb.