Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
TAXES ????? OUT OF HAND AGAIN
RE;
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
it cost money to make money.it is ah pleasant my friend, HAPPY EASTER TO ALL.
re;
RE: Florida Poll Following passage of a $2 trillion aid package last month,
Congress is considering a new bill to provide extra money for small
businesses, hospitals, states and low-income households. Do you support
additional spending to deal with the coronavirus?
Yes, why not, the cost is papers and printing -
ex....
To pay it back and taxes goes all to Fed. Res. owned
by Rothschild NWO family banks and as long as
ex...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154947187
you love them and thee be happy to get free money
of you the lover want keeping thee happy -
RE: Florida Poll Following passage of a $2 trillion aid package last month,
Congress is considering a new bill to provide extra money for small
businesses, hospitals, states and low-income households. Do you support
additional spending to deal with the coronavirus?
Yes, why not, the cost is papers and printing -
ex....
IT WAS AH WAR TAX, IT IS ILLEGAL TAX
Never Pay U.S. Income Tax Again - ? -
According to the IRS, 5,411 regular Americans legally
escaped the U.S. income tax in 2017.
Until midnight Saturday, March 10, 2018 -
https://pro.internationalliving.com/p/NT-AG/MILVU3A1/?a=4&o=2974&s=5590&u=940480&l=18571&r=MC2&vid=xe7GK7&g=0&h=true#
God Bless America
this is true/ illegal collection/
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
this should be brought up to house of reps and senate
re;
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
Published on Oct 3, 2014
How did the world’s richest family obtain their wealth?
They STOLE it from every U.S. citizen and family members who ever
had a job (INCLUDING THE MILITARY & POLICE) for the last 100 years!!!
How did they do it? By creating a “FAKE” law in 1913 that we have to pay income taxes!!!
There is LITERALLY NO RATIFIED LAW!!!
The IRS is their ILLEGAL PRIVATE POLICE FORCE and The Federal Reserve
is their ILLEGAL PRIVATE BANK which is NOT part of the The United States...
All of your/our income taxes goes straight over to Europe!!!
Schools, roads military and other services here are paid for out
of local and corporate taxes NOT income taxes...
Guess who tried to stop it? (BANG) (BANG) (BANG) “John Fitzgerald Kennedy.”
Discover SICK TO YOUR STOMACH proof of the TRUE EVIL,
all your questions WILL BE ANSWERED AFTER YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THIS VIDEO:
Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism... SHARE SHARE SHARE...
Steven Tracy1 year ago
Americans owe no tax to the federal gouvernment.
The #IRS is illegal extorsion. read on :
http://grandcaystrategies.com/fatca.html?
Steven Tracy1 year ago
Former lawyer of the IMF reveals it all :
The Network of Global Corporate Control May 12&26 :
Carlton Williams1 year ago (edited)
I wish I could have met Aaron Russo before he passed from this earth.
He was a freedom fighter and truth seeker. Too bad there are not more people like him.
Here's my article on the Beast System and where we are at today.
All who wish to escape God's judgment must resist the Beast System and bow the knee to Jesus Christ.
The same sex marriage and other such perversions of justice and redefinitions of marriage are only a reflection of the fact that
the local 501c3 churches (the false prophet)
and the State (the Beast) are in bed together and at war against God's people.
Things will get worse before the Lord returns in judgment upon this cursed New World Order. Flee to Jesus.
Repent and pray for the faith that will save your soul.
Jesus is Lord and His Kingdom is forever. Glory be to Jehovah! http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=169885?
THE GOLD IS IN A VAULT OUT OF HIDING...BELONGS TO HUMANITY AND IS WAITING TO BE CLAMED...
- God Bless -
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
this tax was ah war tax/ to be forgiven ?????
re;
RE: ron really tells a good a story about congress and da feds -
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
RE: ron really tells a good a story about congress and da feds -
America: There's "NO INCOME TAX LAW." -
Constitutional Income: Do you have any?
http://www.nohoax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&catid=1
God Bless
Does anyone know how I can get a Tax Identification Number without a Social Security Number? I really need an ITIN but I don't have an SSN and can't get one. There has to be some way of doing this. Any help is much appreciated. Thank you.
please pass around >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The IRS spin isn't working. There are now reports that a key BS osama
campaign official met with IRS leaders, just as the IRS started
targeting conservative groups – singling them out for abuse and
harassment simply because of their beliefs.
Yet this week, some on the Left in Congress attacked the very
victims of this atrocious government abuse.
One listed the conservative views of the targeted groups and said,
"Let's stop the charade of pretending that these are social welfare
organizations."
Another said, "If [conservative groups] didn't come in and ask for
this tax break, you would have never had a question asked of you."
At the ACLJ, we don't blame the victim, we sue the IRS.
We're in federal court defending the constitutional rights of more
than two dozen groups.
In a few days, we'll be amending our lawsuit to add even more
clients.
We will hold the Obama Administration accountable. Stand with us.
Sign the petition to end IRS abuse.
http://aclj.org
Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel
FW: proof the bank engages in fraud?
== Bank Securitisation ==
FW: proof the bank engages in fraud?
== Bank Securitisation ==
Taxes Are Voluntary
The Truth Comes Out: Former IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary
May 24, 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_aQbr6d_Js
Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by
the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing
last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that
“America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”.
When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a
“voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”
House Representative Xavier Becerra commented that the ruse of the
IRS is kept as a public confidence in the system scheme to keep
Americans paying money to the IRS.
Miller confirmed this is so.
The shuffle at the IRS has landed Danny Werfel as
the new acting director.
More:
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/the-truth-comes-out-former-irs-director-admits-taxes-are-voluntary/
No Bank Account is Safe Today (Not Just The Ones in Cyprus)
Cyprus Disaster is Worse Than You Think!
http://demcad.blogspot.ca/2013/03/cyprus-disaster-is-worse-than-you-think.html
BUDDIEE18 thanks the super red ussr copycats use 'Tax, Taxes & the
IRS' to send People to prison and
make People criminal but their big banksters hitler/rothschild
cult can continue to rob and plunder the People -
like ussr gulags did with great Russia and
eastern Europe People they murdered in 100 million -
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85821402
Hillary Clinton - attempts 660 Trillion Dollar Robbery =
Rothschild 666 pawn -
http://www.dailypaul.com/278648/hillary-clinton-attempts-660-trillion-dollar-robbery
http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.ca/2013/03/tom-heneghan-report-always-fun-to-read.html
Rand Paul to Hillary Clinton: "I WOULD HAVE FIRED YOU!"
FW: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE IRS WILL SEND YOU TO PRISON LIKE LEONA HELMSLY, WILLY NELSON & WESLEY SNIPES!!!!
From Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@live.com> or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com> or <selfhelplegalnetwork@yahoogroups.com> or call me on SKYPE at <luisewing>
To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (347) 215-9477 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . BLOG TALK RADIO . . . and Search for . . . “Pro-se Winners” . . . or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners
Blog Talk Chat Board:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashchat/chat.aspx?HostUserURL=pro-se-winners
Pro-se Winners Chat Board: http://www.prosewinners.net/
Free Flyers: http://www.prosewinners.net/flyers.html
Pro-se Winners is now on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pro-se-Winners/482394011791575?ref=hl
Pro-se Winners is now on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/prosewinners
Self Help Legal Network: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selfhelplegalnetwork
Web Sites under construction: http://www.StoptheIRS.net or http://www.rcwcodebuster.com or http://www.IRSbuster.com or http://www.IRSslayer.com or http://www.luisewing.com or http://www.ultimateusers.com
GODS LAW as written in the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at http://www.americanvision.com says:
“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6
“And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4
“Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, We ought rather to obey God than men.” Acts, 5:29
“Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purge your hearts, ye double minded.” James 5:8
“No servant can serve two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and love the other: or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and riches.” Luke 16:13
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God.” Romans 13:1
“Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation.” Romans 13:2
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions?” Colossians 2:20
“As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.” Colossians 2:21
“Which all perish with the using, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men.” Colossians 2:22
“And putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the cross, . . .” Colossians 2: 14.
“That we henceforth be no more children, wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and with crafttiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive.” Ephesians, 4:14
“And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Timothy, 1:8
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.” Mathews 5:17
“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man – brave – hated – scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” Mark Twain
Those who expect to reap the blessing of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
SUBJECT: SHORT STUDY LIST:
Below, you will see “some” of the statutes that I use in “some” of my FOIA’s to make the IRS provide proof that they have the necessary and required foundational documents to move against you legally!
GO TO . . . “GOOGLE” AND TYPE IN . . . “UNITED STATES CODE.”
THEN TYPE IN THE FOLLOWING TITLE 26 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS AND PRINT OUT EACH STATUTE AND READ THEM:
26 U.S.C. 6201
26 U.S.C. 6311
26 U.S.C. 6203
26 U.S.C. 6303
26 U.S.C. 6020
26 U.S.C. 7401
26 U.S.C. 6330
26 U.S.C. 6331
26 U.S.C. 6320
26 U.S.C. 6212
26 U.S.C. 6751 (a)
28 U.S.C. 1733 (b)
18 U.S.C. 4001
18 U.S.C. 4083
18 U.S.C. 4086
1 U.S.C. 204 (a)
1 U.S.C. 112
NOTE: ON THE TITLE 26 STATUTES, GO PULL THE EQUIVALENT SECTION(S) OF . . . “THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.”
THAT IS JUST THE BEGINNING!!!!
THERE ARE OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF TITLE 26 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND THERE IS OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 . . . AND THERE IS OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF THE NEW INTERNAL REVENUE CODE . . . AND MANY OTHER RELATED STATUTES, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, ACTS OF CONGRESS, OMB NUMBERS, EXPIRATION DATES, IRS POLICY STATEMENTS, FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS, FEDERAL COURT RULES, TAX COURT DECISIONS, TREASURY RULINGS, DISTRICT COURT RULINGS, APPEALS COURT RULINGS AND U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW DECISIONS THAT THE IRS IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH . . . AND I USE THE FOIA DISCOVERY METHODS TO MAKE THEM PRODUCE . . . CERTIFIED COPIES OF . . . THE EVIDENCE . . . WHICH ARE THE ORIGINAL AND FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS . . . THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PROOF THAT THEY SERVED YOU COPIES OF EITHER BY PERSONAL SERVICE OR CERTIFIED REGISTERED RECEIPT MAIL IN THEIR POSSESSION . . . BEFORE THEY CAN LAWFULLY PLACE A LIEN, LEVY OR NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY OR GARNISH YOUR PAYCHECKS!!!!
I do NOT want to hear you tell me that . . . “it’s all the same” . . . when you are just trying to . . . “JEW DOWN THE PRICE” . . . of what I would charge to review each additional count or year for . . . “the same statute” . . . violation!
IT’S NOT ALL THE SAME!!!!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE STATUTES . . . every year!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE REGULATIONS . . . every year!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE CFR’S . . . every year!
NO WAY YOU SAY?
REALLY, YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT?
Here take a look and see what some of the annotated case law interpreting 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) has to say about the original Session Laws which are the Acts of Congress which are contained in the Statutes at Large as opposed to the “prima-facie” compilation which is the private copyrighted code sections which are not positive law contained in the UNITED STATES CODE here:
“But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the Code were not empowered by Congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so ...” Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 161, 79 L. Ed. 254, 55 S. Ct. 46. ...The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc.” PAROSA v. TACOMA, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960). See also In re Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn.(2d) 261-266 (January 17, 1963). And;
“As pointed out by Mr. Justice Thompson v. U.S., 12 Pet. 524, 625, 9 L.Ed. 1181, and referred to with approval in the case of In re Heath, 144 U.S. 92, 12 S.Ct. 615, 36 L.Ed. 358, it is permissible and not an uncommon practice for a legislative body to adopt by reference other legislative acts; but “such adoption has always been considered as referring to the law existing at the time of adoption; and no subsequent legislation has ever been supposed to affect it. And such must necessarily be the effect and operation of such adoption; no other rule would furnish any certainty as to what was the law; and would be adopting prospectively, all changes that might be made in the law.” [2] The fact that part of section 5438 of the Revised Statutes which contains the amendment of October 23, 1918, appears in the United States Code as section 80 of title 18, and that the same compilation contains sections 3490 and 3491 of the Revised Statutes as sections 231 and 232 of title 31, does not change the situation. The inclusion of these sections in the Code did not have the effect of re-enacting them. The act providing for the codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States expressly declares that the act shall not be construed as repealing or amending any law, or as enacting as new law any matter contained in the Code (see 1 U.S.C.A. p. 3).” United States v. McMurtry, 5 F.Supp. 515, at 517 (August 11, 1933). And;
“[2-4] Whether an act is amendatory of existing law is determined not by title alone, or by declaration in the new act that it purports to amend existing law. On the contrary, it is determined by an examination and comparison of its provisions with existing law. If its aim is to clarify or correct uncertainties which arose from the enforcement of the existing law, or to reach situations which were not covered by the original statute, the act is amendatory, even though in its wording it does not purport to amend the language of the prior act. United States ex rel. Palmers v. Lapp, 6 Cir., 1917, 244 F. 377, 383. “The character of the act must be determined not by the title alone nor whether it professes to be an amendment of existing laws, but by an examination and comparison of its provisions with prior laws which are left in force.” People ex rel. Larson v. Thomson, 1942, 381 Ill. 48, 44 N.E.2d 809, 900. (Emphasis added.). Whatever supplements existing legislation, in order to achieve more successfully the societal object sought to be obtained may be said to amend it. It is evident that the codifiers so considered the particular change.” Ballian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 94 F.Supp. 796, at 798 to 799 (December 26, 1950). And;
“[1] The United States Code was not enacted as a statute, nor can it be construed as a statute, nor can it be construed as such. It is only a prima facie statement of the statute law. The statutes collected in it did not change their meaning nor acquire any new force by their inclusion. If construction is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves. Section 2(a) of the Act of June 30, 1926, 44 Stats. Part 1, page1.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F.2d 787, at 788 (April 11, 1947). And;
“The Code establishes prima facie what the laws of the United States are. It is so provided in section 204, title 1, of the Code. Section 112, title 1, of the Code provides, however, that the United States Statutes at Large, “shall be legal, evidence of laws * * * in all the courts of the United States * * *.” The Supreme Court stated the rule, in cases of apparent inconsistency between the language of the statute and of the Code, as follows, in Stephans v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, at page 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, at page 1137, 87 L.Ed. 1490:
“* * * The fact that the words of 18 U.S.C. § 681 have lingered on in the successive editions of the United States Code is immaterial. By 1 U.S.C. § 54 (a), 1 U.S.C.A. § 54(a) the Code establishes ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States. But the meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.”
To the extent that provisions of the Code, cited to us by defendant, are inconsistent with the Statutes at Large, the latter will prevail. To obviate confusion, we have cited the appropriate sections of the Statutes at Large, rather than sections of the Code. However, it is relevant to note that the provisions of the Code which are pertinent to our decision also support our opinion.” Best Foods v. United States, 147 F.Supp. 749, at 752 to 753 (June 26, 1956). And;
“The Act authorizing the preparation and publication of this Code declares that the Code shall “establish prima facie the laws” then in force. Act of may 29, 1928, c 910 § 4, 45 Stat. 1007, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1929, c. 586, § 3, 45 Stat. 1541. See 1 U.S.C. § 204 (b). 1951).” Fisher v. Capital Transit Company, 246 F.2d 666, at 668 (May 16, 1957). And;
\
“[5] We do not know what source of United States laws is used in the Commissioner’s office but we would be surprised if they were not the same as that commonly used by a judge, namely, United States Code or United States Code Annotated. The mistake, therefore, is perfectly natural. But no one denies that the official source to find United States laws is the Statutes at Large and that the Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) (1952). See Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 7 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 86, 89, affirmed 1958, 355 U.S. 373, 379, 380, 78 S.Ct. 352, 2 L.Ed.2d 340; Vance Safeway Stores, Inc., 10 Cir. 1956, 239 F.2d 144, 145, reversed on other grounds, 1958, 355 U.S. 389, 78 S.Ct. 358, 2 L.Ed.2d 350. A check of the United Code of 1946 and the Statutes at Large shows the statement of the taxpayer to be correct on this matter. Now the regulation which came in 1948 was enacted following the 1946 edition. Again, we cannot be sure whether the Commissioner’s lawyer who drew the regulation had the Statutes at Large or the Code before him. But if he works as the rest of us do, he had the Code. If he had the Code he undoubtedly though that thought that last paragraph was still the law and there was no reason why he should not think so. [6] The Government meets the taxpayer’s arguments by ignoring it. But we cannot. It seems quite clear to us that the regulation when looked at in the light of the statute, as the statute stands after the 1942 amendment, does as the taxpayer says, add an additional requirement which Congress did not put there. The regulation is, therefore necessarily invalid. The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Royer’s Inc. v. United States, 265 F.2d 615, 618 to 619 (April 7, 1959). And;
“[1] It is well settled that “the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large, when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1137, 80 L.Ed. 1490; Royer’s Inc. v. United States, 3 Cir., 265 F.2d 615. The provisions of the Code are merely prima facie evidence of the law. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a).” American Export Lines Inc. v. United States, 290 F.2d 925, at 929 (July 19, 1961). And;
“. . . n. 4. This Act as codified, appears at 15 U.S.C. 32. The codification, which has not been enacted into positive law, eliminates the appropriation provision of the Act which by its terms was of no effect after June 30, 1904. The codification makes no other change. 61 Stat. 638, 1 U.S.C. 204 (a), declares that the United States Code establishes “prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature . . . Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts . . .” This Court, in construing that statute has said that “the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426. Even where Congress has enacted a codification into positive, Court has said that the . . . “change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.” Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227, quoting Anderson v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 198-199. Certainly where, as here, the “change of arrangement” was made by a codifier without the approval by Congress, it should be given no weight. “If construction [of a section of the United States Code which has not been enacted into positive law] is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F.2d 787, 788.” United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, at 98-99 (April 20, 1964). And;
“The Code is only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a). Where an inconsistency between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large appears, the Statutes at Large prevail over the Code. Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943).” Peart v. Motor Vessell Bering Explorer, 373 F.Supp. 927, at 928 (April 12, 1974). And;
“[11] Unless Congress affirmatively enacts a title of the United States Code into law, that title is only “prima facie” evidence of the law, see 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a) (1982); “the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1136, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943) (per curiam); see American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County, ____ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3369, 3375 n. 8, 77 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1983); United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98-99, n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 1085 n. 4 (1964).” Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359, 1367 (June 7, 1984).
“Title 1, United States Code. –The matters set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the united States, general and permanent in their nature . . . provided however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law, the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States. . . . Id. (Emphasis in original). If construction of a section of the United States Code which has not been enacted into positive law is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves. United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). Under § 204, the United States Code cannot prevail over the statutes at large if the two are inconsistent. Stephans v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943).” United States v. Wodtke, 627 F.Supp. 1034, at 1040-1041 (December 26, 1985). And;
“Though the appearance of a provision in the current edition of the United States Code is “prima facie” evidence that the provision has the force of law, 1 U.S.C. § 204(a), it is the Statutes at Large that provides the “legal evidence of laws, “ § 112, and despite its omission from the Code section 92 remains on the books if the Statutes at Large so dictates. When Congress has enacted a title of the Code as positive law (as it has done, for instance, with Title 11, the Bankruptcy Code, see § 101, 92 Stat. 2549), the text of the Code provides “legal evidence of the laws.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a). But Congress has not enacted as positive law Title 12, in which section 92 for a time appeared. Cf. United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98, n. 4 (1964); Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 (1943) (per curiam).” UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON v. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL., 508 U.S. 439, 448 (June 7, 1993). And;
“The district court apparently believed that public laws have less “weight” as laws than laws which have been codified. The reverse is true: “the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 1085 n. 4, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964).” Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 1285, 1288 (April 11, 2003). And;
“Rather, plaintiff simply assumed that § 7(b) controls while the City focused on the codified statute ratther than upon the public law. That being the case, we start with basic principles. First, it is the Statutes at large that “shall be legal evidence of laws.” 1 U.S.C. § 112. By contrast, the United States Code shall “establish prima facie the laws of the United States.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a). Thus, even if a portion of Pub.L. 96-579, which appears in the Statutes at Large at 80 Stat. 1896, were omitted from the United States Code, it would retain the force of law. United States Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 448, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993); see generally Abner J. Mikva & Eric Lane, Legislative Process, 89-92 (Aspen Law & Business 2nd ed (2002). However, that general principle gives way when a title of the United States Code has been enacted into positive law by Congress; when that happens, “the text thereof shall be legal of the laws therein contained.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a); National Bank of Oregon, 508 U.S. at 448 n. 3, 113 S.Ct. 2173. Congress enacted Title 5 as positive law in 1966. Pub.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378. Given that Title 5 has the force of positive law, the viability of § 7(b) is premised upon whether it was codified. It was albeit as a note to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a. (Congressional Findings and Statement of Purpose). We are therefore confronted by two provisions of the Privacy Act that contradict one another to some degree: the statutory definition, which unambiguously contemplates that the Privacy Act applies exclusively to federal agencies, and § 7(b), which by its terms includes state and local agencies within its ambit. [3] When faced with statutory sections that are inherently inconsistent, our first duty is to reconcile the competing provisions so that they can both remain in effect. See Daniel v. Cantrell, 375 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir.2004); cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 874, ____ L.Ed.2d _____ (Jan. 10, 2004) (No. 04-6822); Anderson v. Yungkau, 153 F.2d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 1946) (dissent); see generally Singer, Norman J. Statutes and Statutory Construction § 28:12 (West Group 6th ed. 2002).” Scmitt v. City of Detroit, 395 F.3d 327 (Jan. 14, 2005). And;
AND SEE WHAT THE CURRENT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7806 - CONSTRUCTION OF TITLE . . . SAYS:
“26 USC § 7806 - Construction of title
(a) Cross references
The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.”
Well yeah, if Title 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) shows us that Title 26 has NEVER been passed into positive law, it just makes sense that 26 U.S.C. 7806 would say . . . No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.”
ARE YOUR EYES GLAZING OVER YET????
IS THIS TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO READ????
IF IT IS . . . THEN GIVE IT UP . . . YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEAT THE TAX MAN . . . AND . . . DO IT YOURSELF . . . BY JOINING A FEW YAHOO GROUPS AND TALK SHOES ON THE WEEKENDS !!!!
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE . . . PAY THE TAX MAN . . . OR . . . HIRE AN ATTORNEY . . . AND SEE WHERE THAT GETS YOU . . . OR . . . HIRE ME TO HELP YOU . . . THOSE ARE REALISTICALLY . . . YOUR ONLY OPTIONS PERIOD!!!!
DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE NAMES OF WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES AND THE REFERENCING CODE SECTIONS AT LEAST FIVE (5) TIMES IN WASHINGTON????
IN WASHINGTON WE WENT FROM:
1.) THE TERRITORIAL CODE OF 1881
2.) PIERCE’S PERPETUAL CODE
3.) HILLS CODE
4.) BALLENGER’S CODE
5.) REMINGTON REVISED STATUTES
6.) THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE NAME OF THE STATE STATUTE BOOKS AND THE REFERENCING CODE SECTIONS AT LEAST 2 OR 3 TIMES IN EVERY OTHER STATE AS WELL????
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL CURRENT STATE STATUTES ARE THE LAW????
See Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. T. 131 (1887), which states in part:
“An act to amend section 3050 of chapter 380 of the Code of Washington.”
We have a book which is marked on the fly-leaf, “The Code of Washington.” I have examined it, and find that upon its face does not purport to contain any authenticated act of the legislative assembly of the territory of Washington. It purports to have been edited and compiled by a private party. It contains no titles to acts, no enacting clauses, no signature of president of council, speaker of the house, or governor. It is not certified by the secretary to be or contain a true copy of any legislative act. The chapters, divisions, and sections all purport to be the act of a private party. His sections run up to 3327, and in the book is an unauthenticated provision that a certain private party shall publish parts of a certain class of laws which he shall deem to be general, and leave out certain parts of all acts, and leave out entirely others. He certifies that he has examined all the laws embraced in the volume (the Code), etc., and put redundant matter in parentheses, and matters ommitted from enrolled laws but supplied by him are enclosed in brackets. Now, it is clear that this book contains no act passed by the legislative assembly, and cannot be known officially what it does or does not contain. We suppose that it is this private book that the act of 1883 purports to amend. Acts of a legislature may amend other acts of its own. An act cannot amend the statutes of the United States or of another state, or the works of a private author. Such an attempt is simply void, and beyond the legislative power. The organic law of the territory provides that “every act of the legislature shall contain but one object, and that shall be expressed in its title.” ...The act is then void because it has no title expressing its object.” Harland v. Territory of Washington, 3 Wash. T. 131 (1887).
And see also State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 307, 310, 314 (March 1896), which states in part:
“By section 2 of article 27 of the constitution, it was provided that all laws then in force in the Territory of Washington, which were not repugnant to the constitution, should remain in force until they should expire by their own limitation, or be repealed by the legislature. If, therefore, the act in question was not in force at the time of the adoption of the state constitution, it necessarily follows that it never became the law of this state, and that the section which it attempted to amend is still the law. Was it then in force? The highest judicial tribunal of the territory said it was not, and for this reason, no doubt, it was omitted from the compilation of “existing laws;” and, under the circumstances, we do not think we ought to overrule its decisions.” State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 307, 310, 314 (March 1896).
And see also Spokane, P. & S. R. Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 2126, 31 (March 4, 1919), which states in part:
“STATUTES (75)–CODES–CONSTRUCTION. A compiler’s codification of several independent acts, without official sanction, does not control construction, and any superceded matter must be disregarded and omitted matter searched out and given effect. ...the compiler’s idea of what now remains as law of the many enactments of the legislature. But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts. If it includes matter superseded, the matter must be rejected, and if there are matters not superseded and not contained therein, they must be searched out and given effect.” Spokane, P. & S. R. CO. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 212 (March 4. 1919). And;
And see also State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. at 324 (1902), which states in part:
“It is very properly suggested by counsel that Judge Ballinger has prepared a Code which is of great convenience to the bench and bar of the state, but that Code cannot be said to be clothed with authority equal to that of the Code of 1881. The later is purely a legislative product, while the former is a private compilation, which has simply received the approval of the legislature as an official compilation of existing statutes, but of no greater authority than all other existing official compilations of session laws of the state. See Session Laws 1899, P.109, section 1 Ballinger’s Code was not enacted by the legislature, as was the Code of 1881, but was approved as a compilation of laws for the purpose of reference, as provided in section 2 of the act of 1899, above cited. ...such mere reference to the sections of a private compilation, allthough ably and carefully prepared, and even recognized by the legislature as an official compilation, cannot take the place of the constitutional requirement that the title of an act shall contain some statement indicating the actual thing of which the law treats. In State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306 (44 Pac. 538), it was held that an act of 1885-86, attempting to amend a section of the Code of 1881 by mere reference to its number in the title of the amending act, was void.” State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. at 324 (1902). And;
See also In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 396,398 (July 1899), which states in part:
“This act was entitled, “An act to amend Section 812 of the Code of Washington Territory”; and this court in the cases of State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306 (44 Pac. 538), and State v. Dillon, 14 Wash. 703 (46 Pac. 1119), it held the amendatory act void, for the reason that its object was not expressed in its title.” In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 396,398 (July 1899). And;
See also Naccarato v. Sullivan, 46 Wn.(2d) 67, 74,77 (January 6, 1955) which states in part:
“We stated the tests to be applied in determining whether an act is complete:
“They are: Can a person of ordinary intelligence mistake its meaning? Can we know what the legislature intended, without referring to any other act or statute?” Naccarato v. Sullivan, 46 Wn.(2d) 67, 74,77 (January 6, 1955).
See also Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960), which reads:
“The original code committee, created by Laws of 1941 chapter 149, p. 418, consisted of the State Law Librarian, the law librarian of the University of Washington, and the executive secretary of the judicial council. By section 2 of that , the committee was directed to adopt a complete re-compilation of the statute law of the state, but was not endowed with power to change the law. Two mimeographed volumes, containing the work product of the committee’s employed staff, were deposited in the office of the secretary of state, but the text thereof was never presented to the legislature. The committee never approved it. One member alone recommended the adoption of the compilation as a prima facia code. A majority of the committee, in a report to the legislature dated January 13, 1949 strongly opposed adoption even as a prima facia code primarily because of the failure of its employed staff to observe its admonition not to tinker with the meaning of the statutes. Nevertheless, the two volumes then resting in the offices of the secretary of state were adopted by reference only as a prima facie compilation of the state’s statute law. Laws of 1950, Ex Ses., chapter 16, p.33. But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the Code were not empowered by Congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so ...” Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 161, 79 L. Ed. 254, 55 S. Ct. 46. The text of section 2 of the act (Laws of 1950, Ex. Ses., chapter 16, p.33) is as follows: “The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1, 1949, but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws. In case of any omissions or any inconsistency between any of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding this enactment, the previously existing laws shall control.” Such is but a statement of the law relative to the standing of a compilation of statutes. In the event of a discrepancy between the law enacted by the legislature and a compilation, the legislative acts control.” Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960). See also In re Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn.(2d) 261-266 (January 17, 1963); And;
The rule was stated by this court in Spokane, Portland & Seattle R.Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 Pac. 113 (March 4, 1919), as follows:
“...But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts. If it includes matter superseded, the matter must be rejected, and if there are matters not superseded and not contained therein, they must be searched out and given effect. It is believed by the undersigned Committee members that the code, if it is passed in its present form, will lead to much confusion and mistake, and will vastly increase the amount of work involved in the examination of any legal problem, because the changes in language are so numerous that no section in the new code can be accepted as correctly stating the law as enacted. ...In this respect, the 1951 legislature was following its own unconstitutional device for amending a section of an act in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate. The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc.” Spokane, Portland & Seattle R.Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 Pac. 113 (March 4, 1919). And;
“. . . the controlling statute which was a territorial enactment and antedates the constitution itself. Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have. Art. XXVII, section 2, of the state constitution provides: “All laws now in force in the Territory of Washington, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or are altered or repealed by the legislature: Provided, That this section shall not be construed as to validate any act of the legislature of Washington Territory granting shore or tide lands to any person, company or any municipal or private corporation.” For a territorial statute to be invalid upon the ground that it is “repugnant to this Constitution,” it is necessary that there be some provision of the constitution which can be said to conflict with it. Thus, as an example, the territorial act providing for the extra judicial settlement of claims arising out of the relocation of roads became invalid by necessary implication in the light of Art. 1, section 16, of the constitution which vested eminent domain proceedings exclusively in the courts. State statutes are continuously subject to scrutiny as to the propriety of their titles or the number of their subjects and are invalidated when the courts are not satisfied with them in this regard. Not so territorial acts. They are validated by the constitution itself. Thus, the territorial legislative technique of enactment is put beyond the reach of the court upon such grounds. Our constitutional forefathers were aware of the contempt statutes. They put no provision in the constitution “repugnant” to them. Under the validating provision in the constitution, the act of adopting it constituted a formal validation of the territorial acts in question. I think the courts are neither above the constitution nor the constitutionally validated territorial contempt statutes.” State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582 [Nos. 33729, 33730. En Banc. February 4, 1960.] And;
“This then existing qualification was recognized by the Washington Constitution upon its adoption in 1889 via art. XXVII, section 2, which recognized and retained all territorial laws then in effect. See Wash. CONST. art. XXVII, section 2; In re Bartz, 47 Wn.2d 161, 167, 287 P.2d 119 (1955); State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582, 349 P.2d 210, 89 A.L.R.3D 1251 (1960) (Mallery, J., concurring) (noting the provisions of WASH. CONST. art. XXVII, section 2, and stating: “Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have.”).” Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn.2d 188, 208, 209 949 P.2d 1366 [No. 65059-4. En Banc.] (January 8, 1998). And;
It is undisputed that the current Washington State Supreme Court has twice recognized the Validity and Supremacy of the 1878 Walla Walla Constitution upon which the Territorial Code of 1881 was enacted in pursuance to, by specifically stating that:
“Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have.” State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582 [Nos. 33729, 33730. En Banc. February 4, 1960.] and Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn.2d 188, 208, 209 949 P.2d 1366 [No. 65059-4. En Banc.] (January 8, 1998). And;
Two times, the Washington State Supreme Court has also made it clear that all subsequent state statutes specifically referring to the current Revised Code of Washington do NOT have a specific constitutional sanction or approval, because they already knew the Volume 0 Revised Code of Washington was a fraud on the people.
Because the Territorial Code of 1881 was based upon the 1878 Walla Walla Constitution and a “legitimate legislature” in a three (3) branch government system that NO longer exists, and due to the fact the the STATE OF WASHINGTON government is made of a two (2) branch government that now exist, it can never be changed for the reasons stated in Parosa v. Tacoma, supra, that: “...no section in the new code can be accepted as correctly stating the law as enacted.”
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU KNOW . . . WHAT THE LAW IS . . . OR ISN’T TODAY IN 2012????
* * *
NOTE OF MAJOR CHANGE IN THE TAX LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES:
(The IRC of 1986 was changed in 2005 to 2006 to include by Sections) (Prior to 2005, the IRC Code of 1986 was divided into Chapters and Sub-Chapters only.).
* * *
See Title 1 U.S.C. 204
“Department of International Chapter
1 USCS § 204N 2
Chapt. 3 Codes & Supplements 1 USCS 204 note 3
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by Act Aug. 16, 1954 c 736, 68A Stat. 1, The sections of Title 26 are identical to the Chapters and sub chapters of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Then later, in 2005 to 2006, they moved the above statement from Title 1 U.S.C. 204 at GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 3 CODES AND SUPPLEMENTS at page 74, in the current law book that is on the books shelves today in 2012 to show the following changes:
“TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by Act August 16, 1954, c. 736, 68A Stat. 1, Pub.L. 99-514, § 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aug. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986". The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”
There you have it, Title 1 of the United States Code at section 204 clearly stated that . . . “The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of . . . “A SEPARATE CODE” . . . by Act August 16, 1954 C. 736, 68A Stat 1, Pub.L. 99-514, § 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.
Title 1 of the United States Code at section 204 clearly stated that the sections of Title 26 are identical to the Chapters and subchapters of the Internal Revenue Code.
Prior to 2005, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . . . used to have . . . CHAPTERS . . . and . . . SUB-CHAPTERS . . . and . . . CODE SECTIONS.
Title 26 of the United States Code . . . did NOT have . . . CHAPTERS . . . and . . . SUB-CHAPTERS!
Title 26 of the . . . United States Code . . . only had . . . SECTIONS . . . and . . . SUBSECTIONS.
NOW WHEN YOU READ . . . TITLE 26 . . . OF . . .THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 . . . AND THE NEW SUBSEQUENT INTERNAL REVENUE CODES, THEY ARE ALL DESIGNATED BY SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS!
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODES ARE NO LONGER MARKED BY CHAPTERS AND SUB-CHAPTERS!
TITLE 26 . . . OF . . .THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE . . . NOW READ THE SAME WHEN YOU READ THEM SO THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER TELL THE DIFFERENCES!
NOW IF YOU GO TO THE LAW LIBRARY TO TRY TO FIND THOSE STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE BEEN . . . “OMITTED” . . . FROM THE POCKET PART OF TITLE 1, SECTION 204, THOSE STATEMENTS, HAVE . . . DISAPPEARED . . . AND THAT OMISSION INDICATES THAT THE MAY NOT REPUBLISH THE REFERENCES TO . . . THE TWO SEPARATE . . . BUT IDENTICAL CODES . . . IN THE NEXT PUBLICATION!!!!
THE LAZY PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE EASY WAY OUT WILL SAY . . . “YOU CAN’T THE PUBLIC THIS, THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON.”
OKAY, MY ANSWER TO THOSE PEOPLE IS . . . “OKAY, YOU KEEP PAYING TAXES LIKE THE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE.”
THESE LAZY PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE EASY WAY OUT ARE TELLING YOU THE ANSWER IS TO . . . DONATE TO THEIR WEB SITE . . . SO THAT THEY CAN GO . . . TAKE A VACATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. . . . TO PETITION CONGRESS . . . BLAH, BLAH, BLAH . . . WHERE HAVEN’T I HEARD THAT BEFORE . . . EVERY OTHER PATRIOT GROUP IN THE COUNTRY . . . HAS SAID THE SAME THING . . . FOR THE LAST TWENTY (20) TO TWENTY FIVE (25) YEARS OR MORE . . . AND WHAT HAVE THEY ACCOMPLISHED?????
ANSWER: NOTHING!!!!
EVERY YEAR, NEW GARBAGE TRUCKS SHOW UP AT THE LOADING DOCK AT THE LAW LIBRARIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO PICK UP ALL THE OLD LAW BOOKS SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE ROOM FOR THE NEW LAW BOOKS THAT HAVE OMITTED ALL REFERENCES TO THE PRIOR LAW SO THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF IN COURT!!!!
YES, THEY ARE HIDING THE LAW!!!!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . and the . . . “Internal Revenue Code” . . . read as . . . “identical laws.”
But they are NOT . . . “identical laws.”
1 is law and the other is NOT the law!
1 is an Act of Congress and the other is NOT an Act of Congress!
You can go to prison for violating 1 of these 2 so called . . . “identical law’s” . . . but NOT the other!
See 18 U.S.C. 4001
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4001
See 18 U.S.C. 4083
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4083
See 18 U.S.C. 4086
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4086
See Title 42 sections 1981 and 1982 which says that citizens of the United States have . . . “same and like rights” . . . as white citizens thereof.
But . . . “same and like rights” . . . do NOT mean . . . “identical rights.”
This has nothing to with so called “white supremacy,” I am not white, I am just telling you what the law books say!
Title 1 section 204 says there are two codes that have identical wording. – (Note: They have changed the wording of this section over the years because they are trying to hide the fact that these are 2 different codes or statutes.)
Title 1 section 204 is now the only place that tells you which code or statute was passed into positive law by Congress.
TITLE 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED AT SECTION 204 WHICH IS AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH HAS BEEN ENACTED INTO POSITIVE LAW . . . clearly shows at pages 73 to 74 all the following titles of the United States Code which have been enacted into positive law by the following Acts of Congress and reads:
“UNITED STATES CODE TITLES AS POSITIVE LAW
The following titles of the United States Code have been enacted into positive law by the acts enumerated below:
Title 1, General Provisions–Act July 30, 1947, c. 388, § 1, 61 Stat. 633.
Title 3, The President–Act June 25, 1948, c. 644, § 1, 62 Stat. 672.
Title 4, Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States–Act July 30, 1947, c 389, § 1, 61 Stat. 641.
Title 5, Government Organizations and Employees–Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, § 1, 80 Stat. 378.
Title 6, Surety Bonds–Act July 30, 1947, c 390, 390, § 1, 61 Stat 646, as amended June 6, 1972, Pub.L. 92-310, Title II, § 203 (4), 86 Stat. 202, and repealed Sept. 13, 1982, Pub.L. 97-258, § 5(b), 96 Stat. 1068. See, now, Title 31, Money and Finance.
Title 9, Arbitration–Act July 30, 1947, c. 392, § 1, 61 Stat. 669.
Title 10, Armed Forces–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 1, 70A Stat. 1.
Title 11, Bankruptcy–Pub.L. 95-598, Title 1, § 101, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2549.
Title 13, Census–Act Aug. 31, 1954, c. 1158, 68 Stat. 1012.
Title 14, Coast Guard–Act. Aug. 4, 1949, c. 393, § 1, 63 Stat. 495.
Title 17, Copyrights–Act July 30, 1947, c. 391, § 1, 61 Stat. 652, as amended in its entirety by Pub.L. 94-533, Title I, § 101m, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541.
Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure–Act June 25, 1948, c. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 683.
Title 23, Highways–Pub.L. 85-767, § 1, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 885.
Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial procedure–Act June 25, 1948, c. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 869.
Title 31, Money and Finance–Pub.L. 97-258, § 1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.
Title 32, National Guard–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 2, 70A Stat. 596.
Title 35, Patents–Act July 19, 1952, c. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 792.
Title 36, Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations–Pub.L. 105-225, § 1, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1253.
Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services–Pub.L. 87-649, § 1, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 451.
Title 38, Veterans’s Benefits–Pub.L. 85-857, § 1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1105.
Title 39, Postal Service–Pub.L. 86-682, § 1, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 578, as revised Pub.L. 91-375, § 2, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 719.
Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works–Pub.L. 107-217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
Title 44, Public Printing and Documents–Pub.L. 90-620, § 1, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1238.
Title 46, Shipping–Pub.L. 98-89, § 1, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 500; Pub.L. 99-509, Title V, Subtitle B, § 5101, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1913; Pub.L. 100-710, Title I, § 102, Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4739.
Title 49, Transportation–Pub.L. 95-473, § 1, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1337; Pub.L. 97-449, § 1, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413; Pub.L. 103-272, § 1, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 745.”
Title 1 U.S.C. § 204 clearly shows that . . . “Title 5 . . . was passed into positive law by Congress and 1 U.S.C. § 204, also clearly shows that . . . TITLE 24 . . . and . . . TITLE 25 . . . and . . . TITLE 26 . . . and . . . TITLE 27 . . . WERE NOT PASSED INTO POSITIVE LAW BY CONGRESS.
WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD ON, WHERE IS THE HOMESTEAD LAWS????
SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT ALL THE HOMESTEAD LAWS WERE REPEALED????
THE LAZY . . . “INTERNET RESEARCHERS” . . . WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THE INSIDE OF A LAW LIBRARY . . . WILL TELL YOU THAT LUIS EWING IS WRONG . . . THE HOMESTEAD LAWS HAVE BEEN REPEALED!!!!
WHO DO YOU BELIEVE . . . THE LAZY F UCKS . . .WHO LOSE ALL THEIR CASES BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO LAZY AND TOO CHEAP TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON GAS AND PARKING AND PHOTO-COPIES WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT . . . “EVERYTHING’S ON THE INTERNET” . . . OR . . . LUIS EWING WHO WINS MOST OF HIS CASES????
GOOGLE . . . up the following United States Code Sections:
1.) 43 U.S.C. 161
2.) 43 U.S.C. 302
IT ONLY SAID THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE UNITED STATES CODE SECTION!!!!
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE ACTS OF CONGRESS!!!!!
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE STATUTES AT LARGE!!!!
YES, THAT’S RIGHT, THIS PHONY PRETEND GOVERNMENT IS . . . HIDING THE LAWS FROM US!!!!
NO, IT CAN’T BE TRUE!!!!
YES, OUR PHONY PRETEND GOVERNMENT HAS LIED TO US AGAIN!!!!
OH BUT YOU CAN’T TELL THE PUBLIC THIS, THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON!!!!
“And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Timothy, 1:8
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.” Mathews 5:17.
Title 26 and Title 27 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . have NOT been passed into positive law by Congress!
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH CODE OR STATUTE YOU ARE DEALING WITH????
ASK FOR THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION FOR THE STATUTE OR CODE SECTION CALLED . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (IRC) OF 1986!
ASK FOR THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION FOR THE STATUTE OR CODE SECTION CALLED . . . TITLE 26 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE!
Title is 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . NOT a Statute because it is NOT an ACT OF CONGRESS because it has NOT been enacted into law by Congress and is NOT published in THE STATUTES OF LARGE and does NOT requires an IMPLEMENTING REGULATION, but does REQUIRE an OMB NUMBER and EXPIRATION DATE because it is promulgated by the IRS without authority.
The IRC of 1986 . . . is a Statute because it is an ACT OF CONGRESS located in THE STATUTES AT LARGE and must have an IMPLEMENTING REGULATION, but is NOT REQUIRED to have an OMB NUMBER or EXPIRATION DATE.
NOTE: IF YOU OWE A TAX, THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC LIEN AGAINST YOU WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT AND IN THE GOVERNMENT’S MIND YOUR RIGHTS ARE SUBROGATED TO THE UNITED STATES WHETHER YOU THINK YOU OWE THE TAX OR NOT!
I KNOW HOW TO UNDO THE SUBROGATION WITH MY FOIA’S!
I CAN UNDO THE SUBROGATION WITH MY FOIA’S!
Every year the IRS goes in and amends the amendment of the amendment of the previous to change the wording of all the statutes and the cfr’s.
There are 3 different sets of the CFR’s.
One is for implementing the statutes.
The second is administrative telling the IRS what to do or how to administer the law.
The third is interpretative and administrative also.
They change the 3 CFR’s every year too!!!!
There is new case law for all of this crap that comes out every year!
SO DO NOT TELL ME THAT IT’S ALL THE SAME!!!!
The affirmative defenses that worked one year might not work for the previous or the subsequent year.
Further, you might NOT even know this yet, but which code or statute are they using against you?
Are they using Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . against you?
Or are they using the . . . “Internal Revenue Code of 1986" . . . against you?
Or are they using a newer subsequent . . . IRC against you?
What you didn’t know that the . . . “Internal Revenue Code of 1986" . . . has been repealed?
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
What you didn’t know that they have passed a new Internal Revenue Code?
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
How can you defend yourself if you don’t even know which codes or statutes they are using against you?
How can your . . . “IRS GURU” . . . or . . . “TAX RETURN TEAM” . . . even try to help you when they don’t even know which codes or statutes they are using against you????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Have you been used and burned by . . . Mr. Pete Hendrickson’s Cracking the Code method of a form 1040 and a form 4852????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Is you paycheck being pirated after using . . . PAYCHECK PIRACY . . . & . . . PREFERRED SERVICES . . . STOP WITHHOLDING FORMS????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Which Code or Statute are they using against you, do you know????
Is it Title 26 U.S.C.????
Is it Title 26 IRC????
1 is an Act of Congress and the other isn’t!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . is NOT an Act of Congress, it is NOT positive law.
You can only go to jail for violating an Act of Congress or a court’s martial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4001, 18 U.S.C. 4083 and 18 U.S.C. 4086!
However, many ill prepared patriots went to prison trying to make some of these argument with half cocked and half assed research and didn’t know what to do next!
I know what to do next!
The . . . “Internal Revenue Code” . . . and Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . are NOT the same thing!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . is NOT the same thing as . . . “The Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”
Title 26 U.S.C. is NOT the same thing as the . . . “Internal Revenue Code.”
The affirmative defenses are 100% completely different depending on whether they are using the Internal Revenue Code or Title 26 of the United States Code against you?
But, how can you possibly even defend yourself if you, your 1040 tax return team or your tax dishonesty guru does NOT even know which code or statute they are using against you?
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Stop answer shopping, stop guru shopping, you will not find anyone who is getting any kind of positive results in stopping the IRS who is working cheaper than me period.
Forget what you know about IRS TAX LAWS!!!!
Forget what you think you know about IRS TAX LAWS!!!!
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
The number 1 main purpose of my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE is to ward off a potential future CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for either WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS and INCOME TAX EVASION.
WITH MY FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE DOCUMENTS IN PLAY, THE IRS AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL BACK OFF!!!!
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE TOO LATE, the secondary purpose of my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE is to help set you up for a PRE-TRIAL DISMISSAL in case you are too far down the pike and the IRS has already decided to indict you.
Under the doctrine of . . . FAILURE TO EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES . . . you could . . . HIRE ME . . . to write the . . . PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS . . . to dismiss the IRS’s CASE on the grounds that they failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before they brought you to the judicial branch and attempted to prosecute you in either a civil or criminal action.
WE WILL BE CREATING . . . “THE EXCLUSIVE RECORD FOR REVIEW.”
Please review . . . 5 U.S.C. 554, 556 and 557 . . . of the UNITED STATES CODE back on GOOGLE!!!!
WE DO NOT CARE WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WILL BE!!!!
WE ONLY CARE THAT WE HAVE PROOF THAT WE REQUESTED THESE DOCUMENTS BY MAKING AND KEEPING COPIES OF ALL THE CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED MAIL RECEIPTS FOR EACH AND EVERY FOIA PACKAGE!
At a very minimum, this FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE will go a long way towards helping keeping you and your wife from going to jail for either willful failure to file income tax returns or income tax evasion, because now you have set up a perfect RELIANCE DEFENSE to WILLFULNESS!
If you do end up getting charged, you must HIRE ME to do the criminal case, because nobody but me knows how to make my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE work or have any effect in the criminal case.
* * *
Another thing, you might only be at . . . “THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY” . . . stage of the proceedings.
Here is what I propose that we do . . . AFTER . . . you purchase 1 of my many FOIA packages:
Look at your “notice of deficiency” letter and you will see that it has a section or box or line where it asks you to provide them with an ANSWER or a REASON . . . WHY YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE NOT LIABLE.
Hint: NOBODY in the entire TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is responding to that question!
After the IRS fails to provide some of the . . . SECRET THINGS . . . I am not going to tell you about yet, I can write that letter telling them . . . “WHY YOU ARE NOT LIABLE
After the IRS fails to provide some of the . . . SECRET THINGS . . . I am not going to tell you about yet, I can write another letter . . . and . . . DEMAND . . . that they CORRECT YOUR MISTAKEN STATUS AS A TAX PAYER!!!!
Yes, I will charge separately to write those two separate letter’s!
Those who expect to reap the blessing of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
* * *
I will NOT teach any attorney what to do or how to use my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE.
If you want to go to prison, hire the attorney!
Did you know that when you hire any attorney to . . . “REPRESENT YOU” . . . that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
Did you know that when you accept any Public Defender who is an attorney to . . . “REPRESENT YOU” . . . that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison, accept the public defender!
Did you know that when you accept or allow a public defender who is an attorney who is a member of the very same State Bar Association as all the U.S. Attorney’s and all the Judges, that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
EVERYBODY WHO ALLOWS AN ATTORNEY TO . . . “REPRESENT THEM” . . . VOLUNTEERS TO GO TO PRISON UNDER ARGERSENGER v. HAMLIN which reads:
““We hold that no person may be deprived of his liberty who has been denied the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This holding is applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. The denial of assistance of counsel will preclude the imposition of a jail sentence. . . . Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, UNLESS THE ACCUSED IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts.” ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (June 12, 1972). And;
Now go read Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975) and then read . . . “THE DISSENTING OPINION” . . . in Farreta, supra, and then go back and read Argersenger v. Hamlin, supra, and then tell me if you can see or figure out where . . . “THEY SWITCHED OUT THE WORDS” . . . “REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL” . . . in place of . . . “ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” . . . in . . . “A DICTA LIKE MANNER” . . . and then tell me where in the Sixth Amendment does it say that any of us has an alleged . . . “RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED.”
YES, I HAVE EXPOSED THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN LEGAL HISTORY!!!!
IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED THAT ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY WHO HIRES AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison try to do it yourself!
If you want to go back to prison for probation violations, try to do it yourself!
If you don’t want to go to prison, HIRE ME . . . to provide you . . . “THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” . . . as envisioned by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, your State Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed on September 24, 1789 and is an Act of Congres
See 1 Stat 73 at section 35 which reads:
“SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. And there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden. And he shall receive as compensation for his services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided..” The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat 73, CHAP. XX, Sec. 35.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides no less than . . . “three different’ . . . ways by which a defendant may appear in court which is clearly worded in . . . the disjunctive . . . “OR’ . . . and clearly states that . . . “the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally” . . . OR . . . “by assistance of such counsel” . . . OR . . . “attorneys at law” . . . as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act was codified at 28 U.S.C. 1654 which provides that:
“TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 111 > § 1654
§ 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
28 U.S.C. 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel like section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1792 is also worded in the disjunctive “or” and it clearly states that . . . “In all courts of the United States . . . “the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally” . . . OR . . . “by counsel” . . . as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, THE ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE UNITED STATES CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT I CAN . . . “PLEAD AND MANAGE MY OWN CASES PERSONALLY” . . . AND DOES NOT STATE THAT I HAVE TO REPRESENT MYSELF OR THAT I HAVE TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN ORDER TO DO MY OWN CASE!!!!
I AM NOT REPRESENTING MY SELF AND I DO NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL!
I hope this is helpful to all those who don’t want to be the fool for a client who hires an attorney to represent him!
Sincerely
Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or call me on SKYPE at <luisewing>
PS – “If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
Note: – To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (347) 215-9477 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . BLOG TALK RADIO . . . and Search for . . . “Pro-se Winners” . . . or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners
Blog Talk Chat Board:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashchat/chat.aspx?HostUserURL=pro-se-winners
THE 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at <http://www.americanvision.com> at 1 TIMOTHY Chapter 5, verse 18 says:
“For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, the laborer is worthy of his wages.” 1 Timothy, 5:18.
“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded, and that they trust no in uncertain riches, but in the living God, (which giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy.) 1 Timothy 6:17
“That they do good, and be rich in good works, and be ready to distribute, and communicate. 1 Timothy 6:18
“That ye may behave yourselves honestly toward them that are without, and that nothing be lacking unto you.” 1 Thessalonians 4:12
“And he answered, and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him part with him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” Luke 3:11
“But woe be to you that are rich: for ye have received your consolation.” Luke 6:24
“Woe be to you that are full: for ye shall hunger. Woe be to you that now laugh: for ye shall wail and weep.” Luke 6:25
“For unto every man that hath, it shall be given, and he shall have abundance, and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away.” Mathew 25:29
“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he being rich, for your sakes became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich.” 2 Corinthians 8:9
“And I show my mind herein: for this is expedient for you, which have begun not to do only, but also to will, a year ago.” 2 Corinthians 8:10
“Now therefore perform to do it also, that as there was a readiness to will, even so ye may perform it of that which ye have.” 2 Corinthians 8:11
“For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” 2 Corinthians 8:12
“Neither is it that other men should be eased and you grieved: But upon like condition, at this time your abundance supplieth their lack:” 2 Corinthians 8:13
“That also their abundance may be for your lack, that there may be equality.” 2 Corinthians 8:14
“As it is written, He that gathered much, had nothing over, and he that gathered little, had not the less.” 2 Corinthian 8:15
“This yet remember, that he which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly, and he that soweth liberally, shall also reap liberally.” 2 Corinthians 9:6
“As every man wisheth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7
“And God is able to make all grace to abound toward you, that ye always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound in every good work,” 2 Corinthians 9:8
“(As it is written, He has sparsed abroad and hath given to the poor: his benevolence remaineth for ever.” 2 Corinthians 9:9
“Also he that findeth seed to the sower, will minister likewise bread for food, and multiply your seed, and increase the fruits of your benevolence.)” 2 Corinthians 9:10
“That on all parts ye made rich unto all liberality, which causeth through us thanksgiving unto God.” 2 Corinthians 9:11
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, and follow me.” Mathew 19:21 and Mark 10:19
“And when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” Mathew 19:22 and Mark 10:22
“Then Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Mathew 19:23 and Mark 10:23 & 10:24
“And I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Mathew 19:24 and Mark 10:25
“And when his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?” Mathew 19:25 and Mark 10:26
“And Jesus beheld hem, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Mathew 19:26 and Mark 10:27
“Then answered Peter, and said to him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee: what therefore shall we have?” Mathew 19:27 and Mark 10:28
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake and the Gospels, . . .:” Mark 10:28
“But he shall receive an hundredfold, now at this present, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.” Mark 10:30
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say to you, that when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his Majesty, ye which followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” Mathew 19:28
“And when the Son of man cometh in his glory and all the holy Angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, . . .” Mathew 25:31
“And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats.” Mathew 25:32
“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on the left.” Mathew 25:33
“Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my father: take the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Mathew 25:34
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me unto you.” Mathew 25:35
“I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Mathew 25:36
“Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or athirst, and gave thee drink.” Mathew 25:37
“And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in unto us? or naked, and clothed thee? Mathew 25:38
“Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?” Mathew 25:39
“And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.” Mathew 25:40
“Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart from my ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.” Mathew 25:41
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me no drink.” Mathew 25:42
“I was a stranger, and ye took me not in unto you: I was naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” Mathew 25:43
“Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?” Mathew 25:44
“Then shall he answer them, and say, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” Mathew 25:45
“And these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal.” Mathew 25:46
PS – Web Sites under construction: [<www.rcwcodebuster.com>] or [<www.luisewing.com>] or [<www.ultimateusers.com>] or [<www.irsbuster.com>] or [<www.irsslayer.com>]
To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (724) 444-7444 . . . & use . . . Call ID: 120418 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . TALKSHOE . . . and Search for . . . "Pro-se Winners" . . . or go to the main board & click the purple LIVE NOW button or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: [<http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/120418>]
DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT . . . lloyd smith . . . or . . . KURT RIGGIN?
You can contact lloyd smith at (360) 289-3429 or E-Mail to <godspastor@gmail.com> or <godspastor (at) gmail (dot) com>
You can contact Kurt Riggin at : <kurtriggin@comcast.net> or <kurtriggin (at) comcast (dot) net>
DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT . . . MICHAEL JAMES ANTHONY . . . or . . . MATT FROM MICHIGAN?
You may contact MICHAEL JAMES ANTHONY at: <michaeljamesanthony@msn.com> or [michaeljamesanthony (at) msn (dot) com] or <michaeljamesanthony@yahoo.com> or [michaeljamesanthony (at) yahoo (dot) com] or <Michael@2auditmortgages.com> or [Michael (at) 2auditmortgages (dot) com]
You may contact MATT FROM MICHIGAN at: <matt.from.michigan@gmail.com> or [matt (dot) from (dot) michigan (at) gmail (dot) com]
AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE LAW . . . “WITHOUT ADMISSION” . . . by the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT: RCW 2.48.190; RCW 38.38.256; 5 U.S.C. 500 (b); RCW 34.05.428 (1)(2); RCW 4.92.100 (1)(b)(ii); RCW 4.96.020; RCW 7.04A.160; RCW 7.68.270; RCW 7.69.030 (14); RCW 7.69.040; RCW 10.14.09; RCW 10.21.060; RCW 11.94.010; RCW 11.94.050 (1); RCW 64.36.035; RCW 26.16.090; RCW 26.25.010; RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a); RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a); RCW 26.26.011 (19); RCW 26.27.021 (16); RCW 26.27.041; RCW 70.48.050; WAC 289-22-200 (4); WAC 242-02-110; 25 U.S.C. 1321; 25 U.S.C. 1322; 18 U.S.C. § 1154; 18 U.S.C. § 1161; 18 U.S.C. § 2265; 25 U.S.C. § 1301; 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4); 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (8); 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a)(b)(c); 25 U.S.C. § 1901 -1963 (“ICWA”); 25 U.S.C. § 3631; 43 U.S.C. 1602; 44 Fed. Reg. 67584 to 67595 (1979); 26 CFR § 305.7871-1 (a); 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(40)(A); 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (b); 25 U.S.C. § 465; RCW 2.48.170; RCW 2.48.180 (7); APR 1.1 (a); GR 24 (b)(8); Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881; 28 U.S.C. § 1333; 28 U.S.C. § 1652; FRCP Rule 64; RCW 4.04.010; RCW 1.12.030; RCW 9A.04.060; RCW 9.81.120; RCW 10.14.020 (1); RCW 10.14.020 (2); RCW 9A.50.060; 31 CFR Subtitle A; 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 CFR 292.1-3; 25 CFR 20; 14 CFR 300.1-6, 302.11; 12 CFR 19.3; 16 CFR 1024.61; 7CFR 273; 7 CFR 50.27; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31-33; 57 CFR 1.34; 5 CFR part 1201; 32 CFR 12.40, 12.45; 45 CFR 205; 21 CFR 1316.50; 20 CFR 802.201 (b), 802.202; 20 CFR 501.11; 45 U.S.C. 3153; 45 U.S.C. § 151; 20 CFR 725.362 (a), 725.365, 725.366 (b); 46 CFR 201.21; 38 CFR 14; 12 CFR 308.04; 18 CFR 385.2101; 29 CFR 2700.3 (b); 31 U.S.C. 731-32; 4 CFR 11, 28, GAO Orders 2713.2, 2752.1 and 2777.1; 13 CFR Part 10; 31 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1103; 49 CFR 1103.3; 12 CFR 747; 29 CFR 1200; 49 CFR 821, 831, 845; 29 CFR 2200.22); 13 CFR 121.11, 134.16; 42 U.S.C 406 (a); 20 CFR 416, subpart O; 29 CFR 1614.605; 40 CFR 124, 164.30, 22.10; Schoonover v. State, 116 Wn.App. 171, 64 P.3d 677 (March 11, 2003); Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 52 N.E.2d 27 (Mass., 1943); U.S. v. Tarlowksi, 69-2 U.S.T.C., DC. E. DIST. N.Y.) 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969); In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995); Oregon State Bar. v. Ortiz, 713 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Or.App. 1986); People By Lefkowitz v. Lawrence Peska Assoc., 393 N.Y.S.2d 650, 652 (1977); Pulse v. North American Land Title Co., 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985); Cain v. National Bank and Trust Co., 268 N.W. 719, 723 (N.D. 1936); Louisiana Bar Ass’n v. Edwin, 519 So.2d 93 (La. 1988); Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997); In re Joseph Children, 470 S.E.2d 539 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996); Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (D. Colo. 1992); Taylor v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 874 P.2d 806, 809 (Okla. 1994); State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 371 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. 1962); State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. Indiana Real Estate Ass’n Inc., 191 N.E.2d 711 (Ind., 1963); Ingham County Bar Ass’n v. Walter Neller & Co., 69 N.W.2d 713 (Mich., 1955); Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.E2d 855 (Mo., 1952); Cowern v. Nelson, 290 N.W. 795 (Minn., 1940); Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows Inc., et al., 377 P.2d 334, 340 (Ore., 1962); LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co., 368 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (1948); Conway-Boque Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957); Lawyers and The Realtors: Arizona’s Experience, 49 ABAJ 139 (Feb. 1963); 32 N.J. 430, 161 A.2d 257, AT 264 (N.J. - 1970); Board of Immigration Appeals; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health and Human Services; Department of Justice; Department of Transportation; Department of Veteran Affairs; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs Service; The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, CHAP. XX Sec. 35, 28 U.S.C. 1654, the Sixth Amendment and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section’s 1, 2, 22, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution, CrR 1.1, CrRLJ 1.1, CrR 1.3 (a) and ARLJ No. 7. See also CR 82.5 (a) & RCW 13.34.240.
CAVEAT WITH REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS HERE: This E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 18 U.S.C. 2521; RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b); RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 and is legally privileged and you do NOT have my “consent” for forward this e-mail to anyone. The information contained in this E-Mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or attorney or agent responsible to deliver it to the Sendee, please destroy the E-Mail after advising by reply that you erroneously received this E-Mail. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does NOT waive the lawyer or “of-counsel client privilege,” nor will it constitute a waiver of the “work-product doctrine.” Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030; RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 is inadmissible in court pursuant to RCW 9.73.050 and further, anyone who forwards this e-mail to anyone else without my express prior “written consent” is liable for civil monetary damages under Washington law pursuant to RCW 9.73.060 and criminal penalties under RCW 9.73.080. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and may be hazardous to your preconceptions. FREE DISTRIBUTION: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed free “only” to those specific recipients listed above who have previously expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes and have made a prior request for said information. If the reader of this message is not the intended addressee, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration, dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b)(C); RCW 9.73.050; RCW 9.73.060 and RCW 9.73.080 This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.417 SECTION101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress. REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message cannot be considered SPAM as long as it includes: 1) contact information, and 2) a way to be removed from future e-mailings. If this e-mail communication has reached you in error, or should you wish to be permanently removed from the mailing list, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL REQUESTING THAT I REMOVE YOU FROM MY E-MAIL LIST AND I WILL REMOVE YOU WITHIN 72 HOURS FROM MY RECEIPT OF YOUR E-MAIL although it may take me 4 to 5 days to catch up to your e-mail because I get so many e-mail request’s for my FREE FLYERS from all over the U.S. or please return to the below listed address asking me to remove you to Luis Ewing, c/o 34218 S.E. 22nd Way, (City of) Washougal, The State of Washington [98671-8793] or call and leave a message with your E-Mail address and request to be removed at (253) 226-3741. Thank you!
Gold Will Rise Above 5000$, Inflation Raises Gold Mine Costs -
Doug Casey interviews Peter Schiff
BUDGET v CAFR
thanks Bob ...have passed it on.
Dr. Fred Bell, who the day before he died of a heart attack,
had flown to Minnesota to tape a whistle-blower segment on
free energy for Ventura's TV show,,,,
2012.07.25-Jesse Ventura interview on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory/
"Corrupted Politics 666 Cult"
Mitt Romney avoids U.S tax by using Offshore bank accounts -
ECB/Fed Put Taxpayers At Risk -
W5: Auditing the taxman
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20120217/w5-auditing-the-taxman-120218/
George Hoff, W5 Producer
Date: Saturday Feb. 18, 2012 6:54 PM ET
Producing stories on the Canada Revenue Agency presents a number of challenges. For the past three years W5 has investigated cases where the CRA has erred in its rulings against Canadian taxpayers. In all the cases we have waited until a court ruled on a particular case.
For example, last year I learned about the case W5 investigates this year involving more than 700 fishermen in Newfoundland and Quebec. However the case was still before Federal Court so we waited until this year to report on this important case where more than 700 fishermen were treated unfairly by the CRA.
Some of our cases have come from you, our audience. After each CRA episode we receive hundreds of e-mails about your cases. We follow up on many but, as I have explained, W5 needs to know that the case has been ruled on by a court. This means that many complaints need to be monitored as it can take years for them to work through the judicial system.
Another avenue for finding cases is to read through the rulings by the Tax Court of Canada and even Federal Court. This involves many, many hours of reading the rulings by judges and then following up with tax payers as well as lawyers and accountants.
The fact is that many of the Canadians W5 contacts want to tell their story about their experiences with the CRA but are afraid. They tell us that they believe there will be some form of retribution from the CRA if they go public with their story.
In many cases the initial reaction we get from a taxpayer who has fought the CRA in court is a desire to tell us all about it. This year one taxpayer we contacted was almost in tears when we first talked. He desperately wanted to tell his story to W5. But then he changed his mind and stopped taking our calls altogether.
For three years now W5 has asked the government for an interview about how the CRA handles disputed cases. Every year we have been turned down. This year the office of the Commissioner of the CRA, Linda Lizotte-MacPherson sent W5 a letter saying; "Regrettably, we must decline the request." We also requested an interview with the Minister of Revenue, Gail Shea. The response from her office was much shorter, an email that provided no reasons stating only "we will be declining your request."
While it is frustrating that the government refuses to talk to W5 we will keep pursuing interview requests.
Another avenue we are pursuing is through Access to Information requests. The CRA will not discuss specific cases with W5. So we have requested all emails, memos and other communications from CRA and the Minister of Revenue about our coverage. This week we learned that there are 2,000 pages that refer to W5. Those documents will be made available to us in the coming weeks. Needless to say we will be pouring through them to see if there is anything relevant to our continuing investigations of the Canada Revenue Agency and how it treats Canadians.
Every year after W5's CRA investigation is broadcast we hear from many taxpayers who are also doing battle with the taxman. They provide a jumping off point for future stories and show that many Canadians feel ill-treated by the tax department and are demanding fairness.
Watch the full report on W5, Saturday at 7 pm (check local listings)
Email W5 directly about this story
Comments are now closed for this story
Concerned Executor
said
7 3
As executor of my mother's estate, the first thing my mother's lawyer advised me was pay the CRA and divulge everything. If there is one error they will start auditing you personally. There is definite fear mongering going on with CRA. Any agency that acts beyond reproach is clearly up to no good.
skydyvr
said
4 3
I'm a senior living on a small fixed income, in the bottom 10% of taxpayers. Several weeks ago I got a call from CRA in Ottawa asking when they could expect remittance of last year's balance owing, $40.32. I was shocked that anyone would bother with small potatoes such as me. My reply was that I would pay them as soon as I had the money; I think I'll be getting a refund this year.
Matt
said
4 5
You can tell your own stories about CRA and you can have your opinion but I've experienced enough to know that CRA does there best to capture enough information to come to a conclusion. If you beat the taxman, it might not be because you were correct, it might be because the auditor made a mistake and Appeals/Courts throw entire cases out for mistakes...small or big.I've been around the block several times, coast to coast and can say one thing, THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IS HUGE! The CRA attempts to keep people honest. I believe most people are simple, honest people who make mistakes but you must pay for your mistakes!
EJ
said
10 3
I took the CRA to court a few years ago and I won. The judged ruled in my favour. I can't go into details, but i think I am probably one of the few rare cases that win against them.
Cheats
said
12 4
@ Rick- This story has nothing to do with tax cheats! This has to do with the tax department cheating the taxpayer! Perhaps not puposefully, nonetheless, they hold all the cards and we are at their mercy with whatever decision they dish out at us. Come to think of it, aren't they supposed to be working for us rather then the other way around... sounds more like organized crime to me.
Les from Alberta
said
16 4
Wait until W5 does a story on GST audits if you want to see how corrupt the system is. The GST auditors continue to audit and disallow everything until it gets to the point where you give in and pay the amount because it is costing you more to have the review with the wasting of your time, your office staff, your accountant. Most of the auditors have never run a business and have no idea about the costs of running a business. It is the biggest scam going in the country to date.
th.mtnann
said
16 4
Those who refuse to complain and or go on the record have good reason to be afraid of the CRA. I had a friend who was audited by the CRA. When he complained about it, he was threatened. When he finally did complain he was charged. He won his case, but was told 'off the record', that they would be watching him for the rest of his life. He left Canada 4 years ago. He since has said that its wonderful to live somewhere where the tax department acts ethically and follows the law. This can happen to any of us.
GaryinWpg
said
18 3
Thankyou CTV for your work on this subject. Please continue, this type of journalism is sorely needed in an age where it seems "talking points" is news. Thank you again.
can't say
said
8 15
Because of stringent privacy rules, no one from CRA can discuss an individual's account, so what gets reported may not be the full truth. If CRA's made an error, there are many channels for a taxpayer to use to get that error corrected. If it's an interpretation of a law, then CRA has to rely on legal opinions, interpretations, court decisions. The onus is on CRA when it goes to court to prove its case beyond a doubt. What should be asked is how individuals & groups are using loopholes to get refunds that they clearly are not entitled to, and cheating Canada. That's the crime and the real story.
Brian
said
8 1
Our tax laws are too complex and open to fights with the CRA. Simple, gross income and basic personal exemption, chartity deductions, child family deduction, lower the tax brackets and that is it. Net income,pay tax.
chel in the Peg
said
10 2
@ Luc from Carp - absolutely. I felt the same way when my mother was audited. At the time, she was in her late 50s, worked in a coffee shop, and lived in subsidized housing. Of course CRA found nothing (she kept impeccable records), but honestly you'd think they'd have bigger fish to fry.
rick
said
23 63
My wife and I work for CRA, and while mistakes happen, we rely on the honor system for people to submit their returns, and focus on a small percentage for audits. I've worked for collections and other areas. I understand that people can become frustrated by CRA's policies and errors, but we all have to pay taxes, and many millions of dollars are owed by fraudulant taxpayers. Perhaps W5 needs to go back to school and study real journalism for a balanced story on how CRA compares to the IRS and other national tax agencies, and how many tax payers cheat the government compared to other countries.
CraigW
said
34 4
As a tax professional, my experience is that CRA is not vindictive and taxpayers should not be afraid to tell their story. Indeed, by making their story public, taxpayers can help others who may be in a similar situation and if the review is ongoing, may get their case kicked up to a supervisor who can intervene if an auditor isn't being fair. We just need to remember that auditors are just like everyone else, some are good at their job, and some aren't.
Joe
said
43 8
Being an government they should fully disclose how they handle disputes. To just decline just wears away at the little credibility that these agencies have with regular Canadian citizens. Sounds like the government will fight the disputes all the way to court because people can not afford to pay the legal fees to fight the government and will abandon their dispute and just pay out!!
SAM
said
38 6
Please press on with this story, W5. Thank you for bringing this into the light.
David J
said
16 52
Frankly, I am pleased that the CRA is denying your efforts to investigate their rulings. At a time when the public is demanding accountability from the government and its agencies, it is refreshing to see that the CRA takes confidentiality seriously. Even when individuals make their complaints public, for the CRA to discuss rulings publicly would set an unfortunate precedent. People who have a complaint with the CRA should be contacting a lawyer, not the media.
Proud Canadian
said
49 6
It's about time the government and the people realize. THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR US! WE DON'T WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT!
Luc from Carp
said
50 3
How about an investigation about those who defraud the Canadian population by willfully not paying their taxes and then reaching a negotiated settlement at a fractioon of what is owed.
Robert B
said
11 33
Just when you think Csis is secretive, CRA is not only secretive but down right Syrian, in their treatment of The very people who pay their wages!!! Just another good reason for peole to OCCUPY/ Revolt?? Let her rip Canada, I'm anxous to see what the next 10 years will bring.
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20120217/w5-auditing-the-taxman-120218/#ixzz1mnRiHRol
Traffic and the Transportation Code.
Have you ever got a “TRAFFIC” TICKET?
The word traffic does not appear in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary. Therefore it must not be a common law term and used later only as a corporatist commercial meaning. The Texas Transportation code is packed full of uses of this word all through the Code.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition
T
TRAFFIC. Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for traffic:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displaying 3 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic (Page: 1525)
Traf"fic (?), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Trafficked (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Trafficking (?).] [F. trafiquer; cf. It. trafficare, Sp. traficar, trafagar, Pg. traficar, trafegar, trafeguear, LL. traficare; of uncertain origin, perhaps fr. L. trans across, over + -ficare to make (see -fy, and cf. G. \'81bermachen to transmit, send over, e. g., money, wares); or cf. Pg. trasfegar to pour out from one vessel into another, OPg. also, to traffic, perhaps fr. (assumed) LL. vicare to exchange, from L. vicis change (cf. Vicar).]
1. To pass goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money; to buy or sell goods; to barter; to trade.
2. To trade meanly or mercenarily; to bargain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic (Page: 1525)
Traf"fic, v. t. To exchange in traffic; to effect by a bargain or for a consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic (Page: 1525)
Traf"fic, n. [Cf. F. trafic, It. traffico, Sp. tráfico, tráfago, Pg. tráfego, LL. traficum, trafica. See Traffic, v.]
1. Commerce, either by barter or by buying and selling; interchange of goods and commodities; trade.
A merchant of great traffic through the world. Shak.
The traffic in honors, places, and pardons. Macaulay.
&hand; This word, like trade, comprehends every species of dealing in the exchange or passing of goods or merchandise from hand to hand for an equivalent, unless the business of relating may be excepted. It signifies appropriately foreign trade, but is not limited to that. [1526]
2. Commodities of the market. [R.]
You 'll see a draggled damsel From Billingsgate her fishy traffic bear. Gay.
3. The business done upon a railway, steamboat line, etc., with reference to the number of passengers or the amount of freight carried. Traffic return, a periodical statement of the receipts for goods and passengers, as on a railway line. -- Traffic taker, a computer of the returns of traffic on a railway, steamboat line, etc.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition
T
TRANSPORTATION, punishment. In the English law, this punishment is inflicted by virtue of sundry statutes; it was unknown to the common law. 2 H. Bl. 223. It is a part of the judgment or sentence of the court, that the party shall be transported or sent into exile. 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 789 to 796: Princ. of Pen. Law, c. 4 §2.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for transportation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (Page: 1531)
Trans`por*ta"tion (?), n. [L. transportatio: cf. F. transportation.]
1. The act of transporting, or the state of being transported; carriage from one place to another; removal; conveyance.
To provide a vessel for their transportation. Sir H. Wotton.
2. Transport; ecstasy. [R.] South.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTA''TION, n. The act of carrying or conveying from one place to another, either on beasts or in vehicles, by land or water, or in air. Goods in Asia are transported on camels; in Europe and America, either on beasts or on carriages or sleds. But transportation by water is the great means of commercial intercourse.
1. Banishment for felony.
2. Transmission; conveyance.
3. Transport; ecstasy. [Little used.]
4. Removal from one country to another; as the transportation of plants.
[from: http://groups.google.com/group/administrating-your-public-servants?hl=en?hl=en
The taxes are long outdated -
they were introduced because of population control by 666 wars -
but all are super red bolshevistic 666 khazarian robberies -
to keep the PEOPLE as slaves for totalitarian red dictators etc.
I don't mind to pay a fair share as a contribution for local
firefighters etc. but the name tax is super red and should
be made illegal and wiped out of all new book keepings etc. -
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71940780
Ron Paul telling us;
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%,
making America competitive in the global market.
Allows American companies to repatriate capital
without additional taxation, spurring trillions
in new investment.
Extends all Bush tax cuts.
Abolishes the Death Tax.
Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families
to build a nest egg.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71893387
God Bless
[Administrating:7041] Taxation & Banking Agreements (Receivership)...
The best way out of taxation: Take a banking agreement, sit with a banker and tell them to accept your agreement as part of "banking business". Tell them, you have a promissory note and you'll sign it to "purchase bank notes" (e.g. paper money) from them as a "money buyer"... Example of what you should USE, to become a non-taxable person (without taxable interest, on your money): http://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/Washington_Mutual_P_and_A.pdf
Now, as a currency 'buyer', your no longer taxed for your pay check as long as your promissory note(s), can "buy the difference" [e.g. promissory note's woth $100k, your check is worth, say, $1k so, you REDUCE DEBT time's its self, for $1k leaving you a BALANCE of $99k in purchasing POWER).. This can be done, in ANY state/country...
Be safe and enjoy!
Phil Without Recourse
http://groups.google.com/group/administrating-your-public-servants?hl=en?hl=
Your LABOR is your Private Property
"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.
Your LABOR is your Private Property
"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation from any type of labor" Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739
“…every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, as generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120
“The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry”. 48 American Jurisprudence, pg. 80
“Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others… It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable… to hinder his employing…in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property”. Butchers’ Union v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of a constitutional right”. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945
“…The term [liberty]…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life…The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action…”. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400
“A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation cannot, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money”. Stevens v. State, 2 Ark., 291. 35 Am. Dec. 72, Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735, 21 L.R.A. 416
“…The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, is a personal right, whether the property in question is a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact a fundamental interdependence exists between the person’s right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other”. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538
Quod Approbo Non Reprobo What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
Quod Consat Clare Non Debet Verificari What is clearly apparent need not be proved.
Jus Publicum Public law, or the law relating to the Constitution and functions of government and its officers and the administration of criminal justice. Also public ownership, or the paramount or sovereign territorial right or title of the state or government.
[from an email: Fwd: Your Labor is your private property?]
Subject: Fw: Court Finds Porisky Guilty
The article the Vancouver Sun posted is a disgrace to Human rights!
Hi everyone,
As I predicted, Russ Porisky aka Paradigm Education Group lost his case in court yesterday:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Chilliwack+proponent+natural+person+theory+convicted+counselling/6019051/story.html
The judgment is very, um, one-sided. Obviously they will now try to use this decision against others. I have therefore just issued a press release about 10 minutes ago:
Media Release
For immediate release
January 19, 2012
Supreme Court judge errs in complex tax case
VANCOUVER - Russ Porisky, charged with four tax-related offences, has been found guilty on three charges by Judge Elliott Myers in BC Supreme Court yesterday.
Drawing on 10 years of dedicated research on Canadian human rights, Porisky vigorously defended himself and his companion, Elaine Gould in a three-week trial. He is convicted on one count of income tax evasion, one count of failing to remit GST and one count of counseling others to commit an offence. The case, R. v. Porisky & Gould 2012 BCSC 67, charged the two as a partnership, a legal entity that is not a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act, and whose existence was never proven in court.
We are disappointed in the judgment, says Eric Ho, a legal researcher who has studied Poriskys and others material for more than eight years. I do not mean any disrespect, but the ruling once again includes errors and misquotes, just like many previous decisions that challenged the taxing authorities.
Ho further states, I hope that the thousands of supporters across Canada will pursue justice because our legal right to property is at risk. This ruling is just another in a long list of decisions by our courts to suppress our human right, and civic duty, to question the tax regime in Canada.
Some notable errors include, but are not limited to: ignoring Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and failing to explain why Porisky was required to collect GST; yet Porisky has been found guilty for not remitting GST. There are also at least ten misquotes in the written judgment.
Russ findings - that we have a right to private property - should not be controversial because the alternative is that we are all slaves with no private property rights. Those who have truly studied his material, including accountants, tax lawyers, and former CRA auditors find his conclusions reasonable. So why were these same accountants, tax lawyers and former auditors prohibited by the Court from testifying in Poriskys defence? says Ho.
Clearly, this is a highly complex matter that mustnt be judged by the public from media reports. All Canadians, especially tax professionals should examine this case closely. Aside from these professionals, Russ is arguably one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on the Income Tax Act. He has spent over 20,000 hours studying other acts, case law, authorities on how to interpret statutes, and our human rights regarding private property and liberty, says Ho.
- 30 -
Background and facts:
· Eric Ho has been a legal researcher for eight years. Previously he was a Security Consultant licensed by the Attorney General of BC and taught Professional Development courses for the insurance industry, seminars for the Vancouver Police, and security seminars on television with the RCMP.
· Porisky, as Paradigm Education Group, ceased operation in 2009 but the supporters continue to grow. Porisky started as PEG in 2002. His materials included a 200-page Intermediate and 600-page Advance Courses on Canadian human rights. Students across Canada and around the world - many of whom are professionals -- began independent studies of the material and participated in active study groups that subjected Poriskys findings to intensive review, often spanning a hundred or more hours per student.
· Hundreds, maybe thousands, including accountants, lawyers, engineers and other professionals have studied the material, with many participating in long term study groups. They were prohibited from testifying in Poriskys defence.
· Porisky operated as Paradigm without an intent to profit.
· The BC Partnership Act defines partnership as the relation which subsists between persons carrying on business in common with a view of profit
· The Supreme Court of Canada in 2002 ruled what constitutes a source of income: an activity done with intent to profit.
· Mountain Equipment Co-op, a non-profit, generated $261 million in revenue in 2010 and paid only .11% income tax because as a co-op it had no intent to profit.
· Foundational to the school materials were verbatim sections of the Income Tax Act, Statistics Act, CPP Act, WCB Act, EI Act.
· Private property rights is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces as per s.92(13) of the British North America Act of 1867 that formed Canada.
· Deem is used over 3800 times in the Income Tax Act, and is defined on the Department of Justices web site as a fact different from what it is in reality
· The Excise Tax Act states that there is no need to remit GST if that activity is carried on without a reasonable expectation of profit by a natural person
Media contact:
Eric Ho
knosin@me.com
Eric Ho Legal Researcher
Canadian Rights Education Group
Skype: knosin
This Video Changed My Life: 'Ron Paul: Stop Dreaming' -
Happy New Year Bud and thanks for all your
good messages
please, don't forget that RON PAUL is
the ONLY politician who saying NO-NO -
to all super red nwo bolshevikstic cults
banksters rip off taxes they rob from the
PEOPLE and giving to each other as gangsters
bonuses etc. + sky high wages to sit and
become lazy and fat in their chair behind
a desk -
E.g.,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70411057
God Bless
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! & thanks for all those sites/posts
Canadian bank bailout total touches $186 billion -
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/2010/12/02/canadian-bank-bailout-total-touches-186-billion/#axzz1cBItlYGs
Canada's 75 Billion Dollar Bank Bailout -
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007
- that's the Peoples money given to the 666 banksters -
- the biggest crime in the Canadian history against the 888 People!
The super red banksters cults -
Rothschilds World Part 1 "Glen, Rush, Michael...Here's to you boy's"
City State of London -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Mayor_of_the_City_of_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Wall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Clerk_of_London
The City of London, England.
London's inner city is a privately owned corporation or city state, located right in the middle of greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when King William the third of Orange privatised and turned the Bank of England over to the bankers.
Today the City State of London is the world's financial power centre and the wealthiest square mile on the face of the Earth. It houses the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyds of London, the London stock exchange, all British banks, the branch offices of 385 foreign banks and 70 US banks. It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag and its own police force. It is not part of greater London, or England, or the British Commonwealth and pays no taxes. The City State of London houses Fleet Street's newspaper and publishing monopolies. It is also the headquarters for world wide English Freemasonry, and headquarters for the world wide money cartel known as The Crown.
Contrary to popular belief, The Crown is not the Royal Family or the British Monarch. The Crown is the private corporate City State of London. It has a council of 12 members who rule the corporation under a mayor, called the lord mayor. The lord mayor and his 12 member council serves as proxies or representatives who sit-in for 13 of the worlds wealthiest, most powerful banking families, including the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family and the Schiff family. These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London.
The Crown Corporation holds the title to world wide Crown land in Crown colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. British parliament and the British prime minister serve as a public front for the hidden power of these ruling crown families.
Ever heard of corporation soles? Check this out
http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define+corporation+sole
from the site: http://groups.google.com/group/administrating-your-public-servants?hl=en?hl=en
http://corporationsole.insights2.org/Corporation.html
fwd: The City of London, England.
London's inner city is a privately owned corporation or city state, located right in the middle of greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when King William the third of Orange privatised and turned the Bank of England over to the bankers.
Today the City State of London is the world's financial power centre and the wealthiest square mile on the face of the Earth. It houses the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyds of London, the London stock exchange, all British banks, the branch offices of 385 foreign banks and 70 US banks. It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag and its own police force. It is not part of greater London, or England, or the British Commonwealth and pays no taxes. The City State of London houses Fleet Street's newspaper and publishing monopolies. It is also the headquarters for world wide English Freemasonry, and headquarters for the world wide money cartel known as The Crown.
Contrary to popular belief, The Crown is not the Royal Family or the British Monarch. The Crown is the private corporate City State of London. It has a council of 12 members who rule the corporation under a mayor, called the lord mayor. The lord mayor and his 12 member council serves as proxies or representatives who sit-in for 13 of the worlds wealthiest, most powerful banking families, including the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family and the Schiff family. These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London.
The Crown Corporation holds the title to world wide Crown land in Crown colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. British parliament and the British prime minister serve as a public front for the hidden power of these ruling crown families.
Ever heard of corporation soles? Check this out
http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define+corporation+sole
from the site: http://groups.google.com/group/administrating-your-public-servants?hl=en?hl=en
Eliminate local property taxes, retroactive on January 1, 2012.
North Dakota would be the first state in the nation to do so.
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/north-dakotans-hope-to-right-property-tax-wrong/#ixzz1gSbUjAg2
locked?? try being a member. it's free.
C O M M E R C I A L LIENS http://ebook.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/06d/857/Commercial%20Liens.pdf?1317278976
BUD good to see you back
COMMERCIAL LIENS
http://ebook.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/06d/857/Commercial%20Liens.pdf?1317278976
- the link is locked -
https://ebook.groupsite.com/login
U.K.: Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System - Queen not valid monarch
Queen-elizabeth-unhappy Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System
Written by Debra Siddons
Friday, 27 May 2011 07:51
If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."
For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-
http://mtrial.org
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/
7/7/ Ripple effect http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/
There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned.
There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority. That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.
The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God.
These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.
To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.
Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.
Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now.
For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR.
So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".
For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit: http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes
By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case.
While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is.
This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also found not guilty).
John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event.
As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record.
And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record.
This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
by Debra Siddons
REGINA/THE QUEEN
V
JAH
LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEREIGNTY
1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenbergs Fraudulent Coronation.
1. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacobs Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film The Coronation Stone, (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: No Stone Unturned (pages 36, 44), A Touch of Treason (page 50) and The Taking of The Stone of Destiny (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm .
1. The real Coronation Stone (National Treasure No. 1), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamiltons books No Stone Unturned and The Taking of The Stone of Destiny, and the factory-manager, when I visited him.
1. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrews Flag Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the queens coronation, according to Bertie Grays children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.
Link to Daily Record article
1. The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled The Stone of Destiny, Symbol of Nationhood, obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Majors Conservative government in 1996.
1. As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone, for that and other reasons, that I will go into in great and minute detail later, during the hearing on 9th May 2011.
Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judges authority comes from her.
Further, and without prejudice to the above...
2. Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenbergs other Crimes.
Sample Crimes/Points of Law:-
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacobs Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called crown is attacking the Defendant with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendant.
2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of Gods Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave Royal-Assent to ANY Act of Parliament, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you.
11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
A Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law).
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/
3. Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25).
Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
17:20 That his (the Sovereigns) heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left…
Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
4. Removal of the death-penalty that is prescribed as the deterrent for capital crimes in The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; e.g. Sodomy (Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 20:13); Pedophilia; Rape; Murder; Adultery; etc., thus encouraging these crimes, that are now legion.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Etc., etc., etc.
5. Actually encouraging and promoting sodomy, by legalizing it, then further enacting un-Lawful anti-discrimination legislation, promoting it in schools, and giving knighthoods to high-profile sodomites in the music, film and fashion industries, instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others.
Music - Elton John
Film - Ian McKellen of Stonewall; John Gielgud
Fashion Norman Hartnell knighted 1977 and Hardy Amies knighted 1989.
6. Enriching herself in defiance of Gods Law that she swore to uphold, at the expense of her subjects, driving them into debt-slavery (Egypt), poverty and homelessness (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Including the collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Fabergé collections, etc.)
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, WHOM THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (see Psalm 2): [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
17:20 That his heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…
7. Legalising, facilitating and engaging in usury/interest, that has caused the ruin, bankruptcy and debt-slavery of the entire nation.http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
8. Ignoring the Year of Release, where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the Year of Jubilee every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people.
Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; …
Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
9. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg has also broken Gods Law by allowing the EU, which is not the British peoples racial brother, but is a stranger, to rule over you / us, in contravention of Deuteronomy 17:15.
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
7:7 The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
7:8 But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the Oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth Covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations;
7:10 And repayeth them that hate (or disobey) Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth (or disobeyeth) Him, He will repay him to his face.
7:11 Thou shalt therefore KEEP the Commandments, and the Statutes, and the Judgments, which I command thee this day, to DOthem.
7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee The Covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers:
7:13 And He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which He sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
7:15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that [will be] a snare unto thee.
7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations [are] more than I; how can I dispossess them?
7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: [but] shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt (and pharaoh ruled the whole known world at that time);
7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
7:20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God [is] among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
7:24 And He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the Lord thy God.
7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: [but] thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it [is] a cursed thing.
8:1 All the Commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.
8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to test thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His Commandments (Law), or not.
God warned His people, YOU, the British-Israel people ( http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm ), in the Revelation/Apocalypse to John, to come out of the Mother of Harlots, abominable (Rev. 17:5) Babylonian ( http://jahtruth.net/robab.htm ) Market System:-
Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, MY people, that ye take not part in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (punishment).
10. She has allowed Witchcraft and condoned it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284449/100-UK-servicemen-class-pagans-MoD-reveals.html - and Satanism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm - in her/the realm and in her/the armed forces.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a WITCH,
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a WIZARD, or a necromancer (medium).
18:12 For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God (Matt. 5:48).
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But the Beloved waxed fat, and rebelled: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [withfatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they Him to anger.
32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Revelation/Apocalypse 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my (adopted) son.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
She has given an O.B.E. to Joanne "Jo" Rowling (J. K. Rowling), who promotes witchcraft, thus herself condoning the promotion of witchcraft, and the poisoning of the minds of the nation and its children.
The other and major part of witchcraft/sorcery, that she has also allowed, and probably actually invested in, is the chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is slowly poisoning the nation through chemical-fertilizers, pesticides, chemtrails, vaccines, etc., and other pharmaceutical products/medicines/poisons (witches brews / potions) in order to maximize their profits, because they do not make any money from healthy people. That is why there are more sick people every year and a correspondingly higher NHS budget, rather than less sick people and a correspondingly shrinking NHS budget. The NHS, doctors and pharmacists are therefore obviously harming the population, not healing it. http://www.rense.com/general34/quotes.htm http://jahtruth.net/heal.htm
Note well that it states in Revelation/Apocalypse 21:8 ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone . . . and the word Parliament means Speaking Lies from the French words Parler which means to speak, and mentir which means to tell lies. Also the word Politics, poly meaning many; tics are blood-sucking parasites; thus politics means many blood-sucking parasites.
11. Each and every single one of the above crimes carries the death-penalty, with public execution; under The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; for not doing so, along with all those who likewise reject The Law of God Deuteronomy 17:8-13, 27:26; Malachi chapter 4.
Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee The Sentence of Judgment:
17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it to the right hand, nor to the left.
17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thus thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).
27:26 Cursed be he (like Elizabeth) that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to DO them.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (in the Greek Original pleroo = to fully preach it).
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL (the Prophecies) be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees (politicians), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
James 2:10 He who breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do so is guilty of all.
The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.
All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereigns Bible (Exhibit 2) upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary BattenbergsCoronation Oath (Exhibit 1) was sworn (all emphasis mine), containing Gods Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1).
12. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. That Perfect Royal Law of Liberty was given by God to the British-Israel peoples to protect the British-Israel peoples from exploitation, oppression, poverty and harm, and which God has warned the British-Israel peoples to return to, with dire consequences for failure to do so. Her obscene wealth and that of her relatives, cronies and accomplices must be seized and shared out amongst the poor and homeless.
Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch(nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye (and return to) The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord:
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 1).
13. The person who purports to be queen was, in fact, as proven above, never rightfully nor Lawfully the Sovereign/Crown. Therefore the Crown/Prosecution/Regina has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judges authority comes from her.
14. In addition, without prejudice to the above, based on Gods Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1) the queen is in breach of contract. She has amongst other things accumulated a large amount of personal wealth and done many other things that are expressly forbidden, some of which are listed above, and so she has breached her contract with God and the British-Israel people. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted, the queen was genuinely crowned, the breach of contract disqualifies her from sitting and renders null and void proceedings instituted in her name.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg and the Sovereigns Bible, that is kept in Lambeth Palace*, be present in court on May 9th for my challenge to her jurisdiction and sovereignty to be heard, and for me to face my false-accuser, examine her and have her arrested.
* Class-Mark Ref. No.: E185 1953 [**] Signed: _______________________
Date: 31/03/2011
Source: http://wfs.me/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112%3Alandmark-case-could-stymie-legal-system&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=1
Amazon - $AMZN and Big Brother
Warning: This article is fairly long, and is mostly about a
particular situation which, by itself, is pretty dang trivial,
though it is a symptom of the "Big Brother" mentality that so many
Americans have. (Those who sell things on Amazon might have a
personal interest in it.)
I sell my books through Amazon.com. Apparently there are new IRS
regulations requiring the reporting of certain payments, such as
what Amazon pays to those who sell things on Amazon, if--and only
if--the seller makes more than 200 sales in a year AND makes over
$20,000 in a year in sales. I barely meet the first criteria, and
don't nearly meet the second criteria (unfortunately).
However, Amazon.com is now telling anyone who sells stuff on Amazon
that they must supply their Social Security Number (or other TIN),
no matter how much they make in sales, if they exceed 50 sales in a
year. Considering how huge Amazon is, this would no doubt include
hundreds, if not thousands, of merchants who do not at all meet the
legal criteria. Here are excerpts from my exchange with Amazon:
1) Amazon (from an e-mail they keep sending out): "beginning with
the 2011 tax year, new IRS regulations require Amazon to file a
Form 1099-K for sellers who exceed $20,000 in unadjusted gross
sales and 200 transactions in a calendar year. To assist in
complying with these regulations, we are requiring sellers who
exceed 50 transactions in a calendar year, regardless of monetary
threshold, to provide their tax identity information."
See the bait-and-switch? They pretend that demanding Social
Security Numbers from everyone with more than 50 sales is being
done "to assist in complying with these regulations," when that's
obviously not true. In the case of those who don't meet the
200/$20,000 requirement, Amazon is just making up their own
requirement, completely unrelated to what the IRS requires.
2) Me (in a message to Amazon): "As you know, pursuant to 26 USC
6050W(e)(1), a return (Form 1099-K) is required only when the
"gross amount of the reportable payment transactions" exceeds
$20,000 in any given year. Because that is not the case in my own
situation, there is no legal requirement for Amazon.com to file a
return regarding transfers made to me, and therefore no legal
requirement for me to supply any Taxpayer Identification Number to
Amazon. As such, your request for my TIN (which would be my Social
Security Number) has nothing to do with any legal requirement, but
is simply a request from a private business (Amazon) to a private
individual (myself) to supply a Social Security Number, and really
has nothing to do with the new federal reporting regulations."
But wait, there's a twist. My note continues:
"As you may know, requiring an individual to provide his Social
Security Number (and in some cases, even just requesting it), when
there is no reporting requirement or other law mandating it,
violates state law in Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Rhode Island and New
Mexico."
So I objected to their new policy, and objected to them pretending
they're just doing it to comply with the new rules, when that is
patently untrue. Their response? They repeated their policy, and
ignored the issue.
3) Amazon: "Beginning in 2011, sellers who exceed 50 transactions
in a calendar year, regardless of sales volume, will be required by
Amazon to provide taxpayer identification information to Amazon. If
the required information is not provided to Amazon by December 26,
2011, your Amazon selling privileges will be suspended until you
provide the information."
Um, yeah. They already said that.
4) Me: "Doing a cut and paste of what you sent before is not
answering the question. You are requesting an SSN, and threatening
to deny services if you don't get it, even though you have no legal
basis for doing so. ... You are asking for something you obviously
don't need--which you've done without before, and which you're
specifically not allowed to have in several states--and pretending
it has something to do with the new IRS regulations, when it
doesn't."
Their response to that succinctly summed up the situation.
5) Amazon: "We understand that your sales does not increase (sic)
$20,000 annual threshold. However the TIN information is required
if the seller crosses 50 transactions in a given year irrespective
of the sales volume. The sellers having more than $20,000 in
unadjusted gross sales, and more than 200
transactions should file a 1099 K form. However we require the TIN
number if the seller is selling more than 50 items a month."
So they acknowledge that the new rules do NOT apply to my
situation, but proclaim that they require me to provide my Social
Security Number anyway, as a condition of receiving their services.
Then they again sent me the first e-mail (at the top) proclaiming
that the need the number to comply with the new regulations. So I
responded.
6) Me: "Why do you keep lying, claiming you are demanding TIN
numbers 'to assist in complying with these (new IRS) regulations,'
when you are demanding TIN's from people who don't at all fall
under the new rules, such as myself? Anyone making under $20,000 a
year in Amazon sales is NOT SUBJECT to the new rules, and you know
it. When you demand a TIN from someone who does not meet the
criteria, such as myself, you are NOT complying with regulations;
you are making up your own demands, without a shred of legal basis,
and in direct violation of several state laws."
I would bet money a lawyer wrote their response, since it just
drips with spin and obfuscation.
7) Amazon: "Please note that it is not only $20,000 in gross sales
but they take into consideration if you exceed 200 transaction as
well. The new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations require
that US third-party settlement organizations and payment
processors, including Amazon, file Form 1099-K to report unadjusted
annual gross sales information for sellers that meet both of the
following thresholds in a calendar year:
- - More than $20,000 in unadjusted gross sales, and
- - More than 200 transactions."
Notice they just acknowledged what I said: both criteria must be
met, and I only meet one of them. Nonetheless, they then repeat the
lie, by adding this:
"Upon reviewing account I see that you have exceeded the IRS
threshold and have about 296 orders placed in a calender year hence
please understand that this decision is ultimately left to you if
you wish to provide info or not but as per the rules you are
required to enter this information before the 26th of Dec to avoid
suspension of your account."
So they are STILL pretending that demanding a number from me, as a
condition of rendering services, is about complying with the new
IRS rules, instead of about complying with something Amazon just
made up on its own.
8) Me: "I asked why you keep lying. Your response was to lie again.
As your own e-mail says, the new 1099-K requirements are for those
who meet BOTH criteria: over 200 transactions AND over $20,000 in
sales in one year. I meet the first, not the second (not even
close), which means I am NOT subject to the new rules. Yet you
continue to demand a TIN, as a conditioning for rendering services,
when doing so directly violates state law in several states (not in
Pennsylvania, however). Why can't you at least be honest, and admit
that in many cases, your request for these numbers is UNRELATED to
the new regulations? Again, I don't understand why Amazon would
expose itself to a lawsuit from anyone residing in those states
where it is illegal to demand an SSN as a condition for rendering
services. But at least please stop pretending that requesting MY
Social Security Number--and however many hundreds of others in my
position--has ANYTHING to do with the new rules. You know that it
doesn't."
9) Amazon: "It is Amazon’s policy for Amazon.com sellers that
exceed 50 transactions in a calendar year, regardless of sales
volume, to provide taxpayer identification information to Amazon.
If the required information is not on file by December 26, 2011,
your Amazon selling privileges will be suspended until you provide
the information. Please understand that this is a fixed constraint
and that we are unable to answer further correspondence about this
issue."
Well, at least that time they didn't pretend it was because of the
IRS rules that time; they just said it was "Amazon's policy." (They
still didn't mention the fact that their "policy" violates several
state laws.) Ultimately, the folks at Amazon will decide whether to
require Social Security Numbers as a condition of rendering
services, and I'll have to decide whether to do business with them
or not.
But what's worth noting here is not about my case. No doubt many
readers of Freedoms Phoenix are well aware that when the Ponzi
scheme known as Social Security was pitched to the masses, the
politicians zealously promised that the new numbers would never be
used for general identification purposes. For a long time, the
cards had printed right on them that they are not to be used for
that. Well, as I often say, whenever a politician says, "The reason
we're doing this is not because..." whatever comes out of his mouth
next is the exact reason they are doing it.
Today, Social Security numbers are used all over the place, for all
sorts of things, and not just by the parasites in "government."
It's convenient and easy, so most people can't imagine why we
shouldn't. It makes it so easy to keep track of everything, create
huge data-bases, and so on. What could be wrong with that? If you
have to announce your "government"-assigned number to get a
driver's license, or open a bank account, who cares?
It's about privacy versus surveillance, and freedom versus control.
Of course, the claim will always be made that privacy and freedom
can create opportunities for people to do bad things. Well, no
kidding. So why not just cage everyone, if it would make us all
safer? Yes, a secret bank account, without even a name or a Social
Security number, could be used by terrorists or criminals! Of
course, it could also be used by good people, for perfectly moral
purposes. And yes, when something shady happens, having a huge
system of surveillance and record-keeping can making finding the
bad guy easier. So while we're at it, let's install "government"
cameras in all of our houses. Hey, wouldn't that make it even
easier to catch bad guys?
Amazon wanting my number, even though the "government" isn't even
requiring it, is pretty darn trivial in the big picture. But it's
one of a thousand ways in which the surveillance-and-control
society inches forward. And you can bet that whatever records any
company that big keeps, the feds can snoop into it whenever they
want, with or without a warrant, and with or without the knowledge
of the company.
"Hey, we just want to know, and keep track of ONE tiny little extra
tidbit of information about you. What's the problem?" The problem
is that all of those tiny little tidbits add up to everything. And
if, every inch of the way, we just quietly go along to make things
easy, where do you suppose we will end up?
Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0
Ben Bernanke under oath in 2009 says the Fed will not monetize the debt.
Then
Kerry Martin, IRS Crook & EXTORTIONISTS
This is so members can ask each other about tax questions..ex..
www.givemeliberty.org/research_documents.htm
Dear Fellow Conservative, I hope you join me in my firm conviction that now is the time to fight back against the out of control Federal Reserve and continued Wall Street plundering of our tax dollars. The threat isn't hard to see -- just look all around us. Our constitutional principles and freedoms are being assaulted at every turn. More bailouts, trillion dollar "stimulus" plans, huge new debt burdens for our children, simply printing money to cover our failed policies -- I could go on and on. You and I both know that President Obama is going to keep going and going unless someone puts a stop to the madness. But the good news is there is a way to fight back. And that fight starts today -- by "Auditing the Fed" and showing the American people just how the Fed has abused its power, debauched the dollar, and helped strangle our economy. Because I know you are a friend in Liberty, I wanted you to be among the first people contacted by Campaign for Liberty for the vital fight against the out of control Federal Reserve. Please read the email below from my friend and Campaign for Liberty's President, John Tate. John isn't just a friend of mine. He's also a patriot with years of experience getting things done in politics. Now he's agreed to take up the fight in a way I cannot -- by leading the fight for Liberty on the outside, while I do battle in the halls of Congress. I trust you'll find this battle to expose the out of control Fed worth your support. For Liberty, Congressman Ron Paul |
Dear Patriot, Trillions of dollars have been stolen from U.S. taxpayers. You and I, right now, are seeing the worst plundering of a country's wealth in the history of civilization, led by an out of control Federal Reserve. But you and I together CAN put a stop to it all. With your help (including completing the petition to your Representative and Senators) today, Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty are ready to take the battle straight to the heart of the problem - the Federal Reserve itself. Last year, we came close to enacting a full Audit of the Fed. This year, with more Fed opponents put in office and the economy still reeling, we have our best chance ever. But you must act today. Just think about the scope of the problem for a minute. The massive, outrageous amount of dollars committed to the economic bailouts in recent months totals: More than the socialist New Deal... More than the entire Iraq debacle... More than the 1980's savings and loan mess... More than the Korean War... COMBINED. Where will it all end? It's time you and I put a stop to an out of control Federal Reserve. And Ron Paul has a bill before Congress to do just that. That's why it's vital you fill out your personal "Audit the Fed" petition in support of Congressman Paul's bill. This bill, introduced in the House by Congressman Ron Paul and in the Senate by Senator Rand Paul, will finally pull the lid off the FED and expose it's out of control power grabs. Now is the time to make sure your Representative and Senators feel the heat to support the Audit the Fed bill! If you and I don't act today, I'm afraid this crisis will end with the economic ruin of every man, woman, and child in the United States. Today, nearly 14 TRILLION in taxpayer dollars in bailouts and loans have been agreed to by Congress, the Bush and Obama Treasury Departments, and the out of control Fed. So is it really any wonder more and more folks are starting to realize the Washington, D.C. establishment is hurtling us toward complete economic disaster? Whether it's watching a phony "stimulus" package get rammed into law or seeing Congress pass a $700 BILLION bank "bailout," the American people are agitated and increasingly angry. You saw the result of that anger in the Tea Parties last year and then in the November elections. Statist, pro-Fed politicians were tossed out of office left and right! That means it's a perfect time to unleash the pressure of MILLIONS of outraged Americans on the out of control Fed today! So please agree to complete your petition urging your Representative and Senators to cosponsor and seek roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill - the first step toward ENDING THE FEDERAL RESERVE once and for all! As I know you're aware, the Federal Reserve is shrouded in secrecy. Its meetings are off-limits to the public. Its inner-workings are off-limits to the public. Fed leaders know coming clean with Congress and the American people on how they create money out of thin air would result in an anti-Fed firestorm. So can you imagine the impact of a full-scale audit? You and I will finally be able to show the American people that the Federal Reserve System leads to: *** Constant economic crises - the housing crisis and the resulting chaos is just one example of an economic bubble created by centrally-planned interest rates and money manipulation; *** The destruction of the middle class - as fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs soar, everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of their money slowly decreases; *** Currency destruction - history shows us that riots, violence, and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize fiat money isn't worth the paper it's printed on and REFUSE to accept it. And unless you and I do end the madness in Washington, D.C., we may be closer than we'd like to think to learning that history lesson firsthand, right here on the streets of our towns and cities. That's why your commitment to helping pass the Audit the Fed Bill - and helping Campaign for Liberty fight this battle - is so vital. Just a few years ago, there was no chance of passing any legislation like Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill. So I guess there has been one "CHANGE." You see, with the piling up of trillions of dollars in out of control "bailouts" of Wall Street and international bankers, even many politicians in Washington, D.C. want to show you they're "being responsible". What better way for Congress to do this than by auditing the Federal Reserve to account for the trillions stolen from U.S. taxpayers? More and more Congressmen are already feeling the pressure and are signing up to support this bill. I've even received word Audit the Fed could move in the coming weeks in the U.S. House. When that happens, you and I must be ready to fight. There will be many battles you and I must wage over the coming months to take back our country. But this one is set to rage in Congress in just a few short weeks. And, it's both a bill we CAN pass and one that is vital to exposing the massive corruption and downright evil at the Federal Reserve. You see, after regulating, taxing, spending, borrowing, and printing us into what looks like the worst recession in decades, establishment politicians and power brokers are assuring us they're working hard to "fix" our economic woes. What is their solution? You guessed it. More of the same! I'm convinced that if you and others will insist on Congress passing Audit the Fed, the votes will be there. Then the question is whether Barack Obama will sign it. But here's the thing: even if Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill is vetoed by Obama, just forcing him to do it is a win/win situation. Can you imagine how it will look in the 2012 election when you and I tell the American people President Obama refused to even LOOK for the trillions of dollars stolen from the taxpayers? Now, we just need to show Congress the American people demand action on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill. Here's how we plan to do that. First, we're already busy contacting up to five million activists nationwide through mail, phones, and email to generate petitions to the U.S. Congress demanding action on Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Bill. But that's just the beginning. We'll work the talk radio stations and grant local media interviews to further turn up the pressure on Congress. And a few days before the vote, if we have the resources, we'd also like to run hard-hitting targeted radio, TV, and newspaper ads. This entire program is designed to send this one, CLEAR message to Congress - Any politician who votes against the Federal Reserve Audit should look for another job. But such a massive effort won't be easy - or cheap. So, in addition to your signed petitions, I also hope you'll agree to chip in a contribution of $10 to Campaign for Liberty. If we don't take action, the America we see in just a few years could look far worse than even the one we see today. Can I count on you to join the fight to AUDIT THE FED by filling out the Petition and chipping in a quick $10 contribution right now? In Liberty, John Tate President P.S. Please complete your petition DEMANDING your Representative and Senators cosponsor and seek roll call votes on the Audit the Fed Bill TODAY! With federal spending at record levels, and TRILLIONS of new dollars flying off the printing presses, it's never been more important the Federal Reserve's abuses are exposed to the American people once and for all. So along with your signed petition, please chip in a contribution of $10, $25, or even $50, to Campaign for Liberty TODAY! |
The first National Tea Party Convention!!!
http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/home.aspx
"The truth is that Americans are still losing jobs, the Fed
is still inflating, and more regulations are in the works
that will prevent jobs and productivity from coming back.....
The Federal Reserve is a government-sanctioned banking cartel
that has held far too much power
for far too long and is in the end stages
of running the dollar into the ground,
and our economy along with it."
Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul634.html
According To The Annual "Index On Economic Freedom,"
produced by
The Heritage Foundation,
the United States now ranks 8th,
just behind Canada.
That's a drop of two full points since last year, and the largest drop of all nations -
in overall economic freedom.
Socialism does not work.
It robs the fruits of labor from one citizen to fill the pockets of another.
It kills incentive.
It demoralizes industrious people.
And it leads to misery.
Socialism combined with Fascist Corporatism
(as in the current trend toward Public/Private Partnerships)
creates government-sanctioned monopolies,
giving the corporations the reins of power over government
at the expense of the people.
That is the model America has now chosen to follow.
The United States is on a path to destruction.
In one year it's dropped two more points toward totalitarianism.
The people feel the pain and are furious about it.
And yet, the Obama Administration still thinks the anger and protests are just false products of the Republicans and Fox News.
Astonishing.
See the complete Economic Freedom Index here.
by Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center
and Editor of The DeWeese Report ,
70 Main Street, Suite 23,
Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 341-8911
E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com
Website: www.americanpolicy.org
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom159.htm
More nwo neofascism?
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/07/will-obama-opt-for-war-on-iran/
THE POWER ELITE AND THE SECRET NAZI PLAN
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis174.htm
FYS. Don't forget the truth......
http://www.reformation.org/adolf-hitler.html
E.g.,
Late Night Listening: Alex Jones Interviews Naomi Wolf -
"Lord I have no plans of my own save those you shall reveal to me. ... beginning of the end for the power elite (neocons, globalists, etc. ...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/11129
American Tent Cities Proliferate as Second Great Depression ...
You are witnessing the wealthy elite buying up everything in site
for ... Yes, a Nazi leaning bozo who, despite being here for 40 years,
... and Arnold admits he has plans as a global leader. ....
"This has been a dirty little secret, ... like the power of hope
and the heretofore untapped power of ...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/110817
Celente: The Revolution is Coming | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for ...
The elite at the very top ... the financiers . ... The facist/nazi/socialist/communist labels are so frequently tossed ... Lousy odds for them, unless they have a sly and redundant plan to do us ... In other words, they had the power to make us or break us. .....
Bill Moyers: The Secret Government ...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/103326
The Devaluation of the Dollar -
Mr. Glenn Beck's Presentation -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9_d4fm3MYM
An Open Letter to the US House of Representatives -
Submit the information below to sign the petition and join the Audit the Fed coalition. Copies will be sent to your representatives in Congress:
http://www.auditthefed.com/
We Want America Back -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
God Bless us
www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/wake_up_america.html
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
www.bullnotbull.com/bull/index.php
http://dnn501.startbutton.com/Portals/23/Skins/taxfree/images/skin_03.png); background-repeat: repeat-y;">
http://dnn501.startbutton.com/Portals/23/Skins/taxfree/images/skin_02.png); height: 34px;"> Home| Action Plan| Educate!| Prepare Yourselves!| Links| Contact Us | ||
|
Is taxation legal? Necessary? Watch and decide...
James Duane explains why innocent people should never
talk to the police....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&hl=en
http://www.detaxcanada.org/
www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php
www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/issue10/#/2/
America Freedom to Fascism -
As We Slept somebody stole America.
www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm
Communism's True Believers Won't Give Up -
http://www.henrymakow.com/communisms_useful_idiots_wont.html
Where all the money goes....
www.brasschecktv.com/page/512.html
Or, ever been audited? Share your nightmare here.
Regarding OBAMA that he is NOT "NATURAL BORN" and therefore NOT constitutionally QUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT-
www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/
Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane - 27:25 -
bolshevikz gov. 666clownz - ? -
May 21, 2008 -
Ex..
James Duane explains why innocent people should never
talk to the police....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&hl=en
Ex..
Obama Deficit Roars past Bush 8-year Total in Just 38 Days -
10:14 am CST - February 27, 2009
Posted under The Scoop
(WASHINGTON, DC) - President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats
today surpassed the eight-year federal deficit total of the Bush Administration
in just a little more than one month after taking control
of all three branches of the federal government.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36322330
Army slams door on Obama details
Lt. Col. Lakin hearing: 'Items pertaining to president's credentials are not relevant'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161961
http://www.eutimes.net/?s=9%2F11
http://www.texemarrs.com/
Useful PM related sites:
http://www.24hgold.com/
http://www.jsmineset.com/
http://www.marketwatch.com/
http://www.mineweb.com/
http://www.gold-eagle.com/
http://www.kitco.com/
http://www.usagold.com/
http://www.usagold.com/amk/usagoldmarketupdate.html
http://www.GoldSeek.com/
http://www.GoldReview.com/
http://www.capitalupdates.com/
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/
http://www.goldenbar.com/
http://www.silver-investor.com/
http://www.thebulliondesk.com/
http://www.sharelynx.com/
http://www.mininglife.com/
http://www.financialsense.com/
http://www.fgmr.com/
http://www.goldensextant.com/
http://www.goldismoney.info/index.html
http://www.howestreet.com/
http://www.depression2.tv/
http://www.un-debt.net/
http://www.minersmanual.com/minernews.html
http://www.a1-guide-to-gold-investments.com/euro-vs-dollar.html
http://www.goldcolony.com/
http://www.miningstocks.com/
http://www.mineralstox.com/
http://www.freemarketnews.com/
http://www.321gold.com/
http://www.silverseek.com/
http://www.investmentrarities.com/
http://www.kereport.com/ (Korelin Business Report -- audio)
http://www.plata.com.mx/plata/home.htm (in Spanish)
http://www.plata.com.mx/plata/plata/english.htm (in English)
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/
http://www.miningmx.com/
http://www.prudentbear.com/
http://www.dollarcollapse.com/
http://www.kitcocasey.com/
http://000999.forumactif.com/
http://www.golddrivers.com/
http://www.goldpennystocks.com/
http://www.oroyfinanzas.com/
http://www.goldcore.com/
http://coininfo.com/
http://www.insidegold.com/
http://www.goldmau.com/
http://www.milesfranklin.com/
http://www.silverminers.com/
http://www.gold-speculator.com/
http://bullion.nwtmint.com/
http://www.preciousmetalsmonthly.com/
http://www.silverstockreport.com/
http://www.longwavegroup.com/
http://theaureport.com/
Subscription sites:
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/
http://www.marketforceanalysis.com/
http://www.hsletter.com/
http://www.interventionalanalysis.com/
http://www.investmentindicators.com/
http://www.caseyresearch.com/
http://www.deepcaster.com/
http://www.vrtrader.net/
Eagle Ranch discussion site:
http://os2eagle.net/SSL/phpentry.php
Ted Butler silver commentary archive:
http://www.investmentrarities.com/
Conspiracy World: A Truthteller's Compendium of Eye-Opening Revelations and Forbidden Knowledge
How The Khazar Rothschilds Devoured Europe
The Criminal Rothschilds - Vid
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |