LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

Them

Perspective - Part 2

Table of Contents
This web page is part 2 of the collection of a poster using the 'nym' of Perspective.
He has been posting on the commentary section of the Trial logs Web blog.
After crossing words with perspective, I went back into the archives and extracted every post that was signed by perspective.
I also pulled out any other poster's posts that I thought appropriate for showing how perspective posts and how he interacts with other posters.
Something just doesn't ring true in his postings, and because he has been such a PITA, I am turning my attention and intellect to analyzing his posts.

My comments are in black, perspective's are in green.

As this is an ongoing project, I am going to provide jump links to index where each addition to this file is added.
Append 1  Append 2  Append 3  Append 4  Append 5  Append 6  Append 7 Append 8 Append 9 Append 10



Don | 11.23.05 - 7:21 am |

We’ve had enough unconstitutional legislation as is, the fair tax is just one more unlawful act. This freedom movement isn’t about you getting your PAYCHECK. Wake UP!! The IRS isn’t the problem,
Nothing is wrong- #35.

the Constitutional violations of Congress are.
Don't read the law- #16.

These violations need to be reversed and corrected through CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.
Ethereal "solutions"- #46.
In this Country, before we had socialism imposed on us, it was considered CONFISCATORY to tax beyond 1 ½ to 2 % for all local, state, Federal governmental purposes. In other word the governments—had to stay within their means to serve their constituents.
Talks the talk
This Country needs major Constitutional surgery not your Ban-Aid “fair tax.” Your fair tax, if adopted, would have to be challenged just as the present system. NO THANKS!!
Talks the talk.

Thank you.
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 10:52 am | #

The Constitutionalists | 11.21.05 - 8:47 pm |

Perspective said, "Those statements by the judge are not in question. The judge has a perfect right to state the law as given."

The Constitutionalist said: “We think you misunderstood what we were saying. It was not THE LAW as conjured up by Dawson that we were talking about. Perhaps you do not know but several times during the trail Dawson stopped Mr. Schiff from proving a point by saying things like "That IS your opinion, Mr. Schiff" or "You (Mr. Schiff) may believe such and such" or “That’s what YOU THINK it says, Mr. Schiff” which confirms Dawson believed Mr. Schiff does BELIEVE what he teaches. That being the case Dawson’s duty was to dismiss the case because HE believed Mr. Schiff was sincere in his beliefs”

I’m going to suggest to you a possible novel defense for Irwin. You can consider my statement as THEORY ONLY. But before I go on, let’s clear one thing up: Judge Dawson was perfectly correct by WARNING Irwin not to expound his version of the LAW before the jury.
Nothing is wrong- #36.
Don't read the law- #17.
Ok, now, from that moment of WARNING forward, Judge Dawson CONTINUALLY and RIGHTFULLY found he had to sanction Irwin for going against that warning.
Nothing is wrong- #37.
Don't read the law- #18.

That should have turned a RED LIGHT ON in the Judge’s mind that he might have a “Due Process” problem of the possibility that Irwin was not COMPETENT to represent himself.
They're stupid- #87.

The Court should have stopped the trial proceedings (very early) and appointed or allowed Irwin to obtain new council.
Continuing with this theory: A sharp attorney would have known to bring in the government’s psychologist to testify as to Irwin’s good faith beliefs and state of mind. This may or may not have affected the outcome for Cindy, depending on how much the jury believed Irwin’s influence over her regarding his tax philosophy. The Due Process clause may have been violated as shown by the massive sanctions the judge had to use against Irwin, which fell on deft ears.
I do not believe the judicial system, regarding the “incompetence standards,” has taken into account someone as “fanatical” in his beliefs as Irwin.
Nothing is wrong- #38. 
They're stupid- #88.
Ad hominem- #14.

It could be shown that enough instability in Irwin may at least justify a NEW Trial.
Nothing is wrong- #39.

It will be doubtful that Irwin is even capable of thinking along these lines because of his stubbornness.
They're stupid- #89.
Don't read the law- #19.

But spending the rest of his life in prison isn’t much of an option.
Quoting S. Ct: “If a defendant is incompetent, due process considerations require suspension of the criminal trial until such time, if any, that the defendant regains the capacity to participate in his defense and understand the proceedings against him.” (Cite omitted)
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Perspective | 11.23.05 - 10:52 am |

Unfortunately I don't see your bill in Congress but I do see H.R. 52 [typo- it's H.R. 25] The FairTax Act of 2005 and H.J. RES. 61
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
Don | 11.23.05 - 5:12 pm | #

Don | 11.23.05 - 5:12 pm

You can't tell the difference between legal challenges from political b.s.
Denigrating attitude- #25.   (In this case I agree that Don deserves it, by his failure to address what I brought up re: HR25)

You seem to be having a hard time reading.
Denigrating attitude- #26.

Are you a socialist?
Ad hominem- #14.

Perspective | 11.23.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Don,

The following quote is just my anticipation of further foolish statements on your part. I believe in George Washington and the United States Constitution, not Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. Your Promotion of the (got to love those words) “Fair Tax,” is misplaced. That fits right next too the “PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE.” Don, you are just NOT seeing the HAMMER yet!!

President CALVIN COOLIDGE: “...........Concerning the wisdom of such measures, however, COOLIDGE took the opposite tack, saying, "I do not believe that the Government should seek SOCIAL legislation in the guise of taxation. If we are to adopt SOCIALISM it should be presented to the people of this country as SOCIALISM and not under the GUISE of a law to collect revenue." "THE AMERICAN LEVIATHAN" by Charles A. Beard; 1930 Page 342.

This statement was made approx. 1927.
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 5:57 pm | #
Now he's back to talkin' the talk again.

Duplicate post deleted to save your eyes.
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 2:34 pm | #

"Most people are mirrors, reflecting the moods and emotions of the times; few are windows, bringing light to bear on the dark corners where troubles fester. The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows."-Sydney J. Harris
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 4:10 pm | #
YAWN.

Perspective said, "Judge Dawson was perfectly correct by WARNING Irwin not to expound his version of the LAW before the jury."
We do not know how to make this any clearer. Your words "Irwin not to expound his version of the LAW"
HIS VERSION are the operative words! His version means his belief and it was his belief that was the only question that needed to be answered
and Judge Dawson, by trying to shut Mr. Schiff up demonstrated he knew what Mr. Schiff's beleifs were. SO IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO THE JURY!
What part of that do you not understand?
The Constitutionalists | 11.23.05 - 4:25 pm | #

The Constitutionalists | 11.23.05 - 4:25 pm |

Constitutionalist said: “We do not know how to make this any clearer. Your words "Irwin not to expound his version of the LAW"
HIS VERSION are the operative words! His version means his belief and it was his belief that was the only question that needed to be answered
and Judge Dawson, by trying to shut Mr. Schiff up demonstrated he knew what Mr. Schiff's beleifs were. SO IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO THE JURY!
What part of that do you not understand?”

I'm getting to think you guys can't read. I give you possible appeals issues and you can't get pass your hate for the Judge. Get over it!!
They're stupid- #90.  And just for general tone of this post: Nothing is wrong- #40.  Don't read the law- #20.

For the hundredth time, any questions of law are brought up before the trial not after it starts. The issue of FACT is all that goes before the jury.
Is it a fact that the written words of the law say "X", "Y", and "Z"?

Why do you think they kept sequestering the jury almost every time Irwin was sanctioned?
To keep them from finding out that the written words of law do not put a liability upon Irwin for any tax.

Now if Irwin, lets say had, Larry B, on his team he would have drawn out Irwin’s good faith beliefs without bringing into the trial sanction against Irwin’s interpretation of tax law.
It's not an "INTERPRETATION".  It's reading the clear meaning of the Statutes and Regulations. Those words you don't want anybody to read.
Don't read the law- #21.

But he didn’t; now it’s water under the bridge.
You’re stuck in a hole and won’t let go of the bone. Irwin’s arguments on what he thinks the law is means nothing during trial.
Nothing is wrong- #41.
Don't read the law- #22.

Go read American Jurisprudence on Juries—stop with this ignorance stuff.
Ad hominem- #15.
They're stupid- #91.
The question: Did you want appealable issues or not? An attorney would have been in your pocket book already.

Your Welcome.
Perspective | 11.23.05 - 5:06 pm | #

To Peon

The Constitutionalist said: ‘As far as sharing a cell with Mr. Schiff it would be an honor but the last time we checked freedom of speech is still slightly alive and slander is a civil action tried in a state court where Dawson cannot shut us up.”
The Constitutionalists | 11.24.05 - 10:42 pm |

Peon re-read the above statement, start breaking it down: 1. “. . . sharing a cell with Mr. Sciff . . . be an honor” this is FEAR talking.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #19.
Or a pragmatic understanding that it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.

2. “. . . but last time we checked freedom of speech is still slightly alive…” that contradicts their beliefs we have NO laws protecting citizens.
What was that you said a few posts ago?  Oh yeah, "You seem to be having a hard time reading."  You missed the key word. I bold emphasized it for you.

Remember, they belief ALL courts are corrupt.
Nothing is wrong- #42.
Only the ones that are.... Like Dawson's.

3. And last but not least “. . . slander is a civil action tried in a state court where Dawson cannot shut us up.” This explains best why these guys neither understand law nor the Constitution,
They're stupid- #92.

nor do they care to protect either of them.
When you can hit center mass at 250 meters with an M-16 in single shot mode, you can talk about protecting the Constitution. 
Unsubstantiated assertion- #20.

If Judge Dawson wanted to take a civil action against these guys as an AMERICAN CITIZEN he can bring the suit IN A STATE COURT just as well as the next guy.

I would suggest you leave “The Constitutionalists” and The Law alone; they’re not interested in anyone trying to help them. Nor does the names fit the claim: “The Constitutionalists” “The Law” etc., it’s so sad.
Ad hominem- #16.

Guys, all you’re doing is hurting the FREEDOM MOVEMENT, it already has a bad enough name.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #21.

Your hate speech isn’t helping Irwin;
Misrepresentation of position- #23.

in fact it may be doing the opposite by convincing any judge or court that Irwin creates dangerous followers.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #22.
Argumentum ad Baculum

Therefore solidifying in their minds that Irwin is a menace to society.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #23.
Argumentum ad Baculum

With your hate speech Irwin’s sentence could go even harder on him than it would have.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #24.
Argumentum ad Baculum
You keep doing what you’ve been doing and you’ll keep getting what you’ve been getting, bad results and nowhere. Think about it?
Unsubstantiated assertion- #25

Perspective | 11.25.05 - 10:30 am | #

Perspective said,
"The constitutional answers have always been right in front of us if we will only take the time to look and understand."

Perspective | 11.19.05 - 12:38 pm | #

Your statement above is vague to me.

Can yoou elaborate?
(please do not say, "Go back and read my previous posts".

I have read your posts and still do not have an epiphany.

If you believe there is something I am overlooking, please repost what it is.

[snip non perspective portion of post]
Jim | 11.25.05 - 12:21 pm | #

"The constitutional answers have always been right in front of us if we will only take the time to look and understand."

Jim said: “Your statement above is vague to me.

Can yoou elaborate?
(please do not say, "Go back and read my previous posts".

I have read your posts and still do not have an epiphany.

If you believe there is something I am overlooking, please repost what it is.”
Jim, the first thing you must clearly understand regarding taxes, or criminal tax cases, is the fact that in the EYES OF THE COURT/S it appears that so-called patriots are trying to undermine Congress’ power to tax.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #26.

Just let that thought sink in for a while, setting aside any preconceived patriot assumptions.
They're stupid- #93.

Next, you must ask yourself the following question: Does the Constitution give Congress the power to tax? Answer: Of course it does, YES!!
Misrepresentation of position- #24.
So why does it APPEAR
Nothing is wrong- #43.

the government is persecuting good honest patriotic American citizens for taxes they don’t think they owe?
You can't prove to me they owe them for a few reasons. 1. You won't discuss the written words of law. 2. The written words of law do not agree with the courts nor those who defend the courts corrupt actions.

It’s because the government has actually put you in the legal relationship to owe the tax without you even knowing how you got there.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #27.
Nexus / priviledge- #21

The Code isn’t the issue; it’s the “RELATIONSHIP” to the tax that is.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #28.
Nexus / priviledge- #22.
Don't read the law- #23.

The question is — how’d you get into the jurisdiction of the “income tax” powers of Congress and the IRS?
Yes, that is the question.

And believe me, you have been tricked into that jurisdiction, like it or not.
But that is a non answer.
“Gee whiz, he leaves me with nothing more to go on than the above to hang my hat on,” you might say.
Meaningless tripe- #27.  He's proud of his ethereal postings of clouds.

I will tentatively leave you with this: Americans have been continually waiving rights for privileges for over 80 some odd years;
Nexus / priviledge- #23.

in almost every case a GENERAL INCOME TAX can be attached to those privileges.
Nexus / priviledge- #24.

Can you think of anything you’re getting or will be getting from the government that might, just might, bring you within the income tax powers?
Nexus / priviledge- #25.

Now, Congress has the power to attach an additional income tax to those privileges.
Nexus / priviledge- #26.

You know the answer — and in that answer is the first step in identifying the problem.
Meaningless tripe- #28.
Now, I’ve given you enough to rethink your position.
Ethereal "solutions"- #47.

Because of the complexity of the issues and the legal delicacy that it’s going to take to overcome the repugnancies perpetrated against the U.S. Constitution, I must stop here.
They're stupid- #94.
Ethereal "solutions"- #48.

Just know real research is going on.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #29.

It’s taken the socialists many years to put us in this position.
Talking the talk.

We can only reverse it with a concerted effort and proper issues.
Ethereal "solutions"- #49.

I hope you understand I cannot trust divulging any solutions to the so-called freedom movement, because I want my country back, not some nut farm.
Ethereal "solutions"- #50. 
Ad hominem- #17.
(In view of the posts perspective shot at me during the process of examining his multiple tripe, I have to note his paranoia.)

Perspective | 11.25.05 - 2:11 pm | #

Duplicate post deleted
Perspective | 11.25.05 - 2:29 pm | #

Reasonable Guy | 11.25.05 - 1:53 pm

I appreciate your sanity!! I’ll keep this short; maybe someone beside you will catch the drift?

"It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes." Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 131.

Belated—Happy Thanksgiving!!
Perspective | 11.25.05 - 2:45 pm | #
Meaningless tripe- #29.

1. Everybody who matters is stupid now and then.
2. If I'm being stupid, that's my problem.
That is a self serving way of apologizing but we accept your apology. You are a better man for it.
Now why don't you see the error of your ways, get some guts and use your obvious intellect to try and help Mr. Schiff and Mr. Rose?
The Constitutionalists | 11.25.05 - 3:30 pm | #

The Constitutionalists | 11.25.05 - 3:30 pm |

"It is the peculiarity of the bore that he is the last person to find himself out."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Perspective | 11.25.05 - 3:41 pm | #

"It is the peculiarity of the bore that he is the last person to find himself out."
We certainly are glad you finally, at long last, realized that. And, we have every confidence you will be less boring in the future. You will be a better man for it!
The Constitutionalists | 11.25.05 - 4:01 pm | #
The Constitutionalists | 11.25.05 - 4:01 pm

You’re continually making my point of how little you actually know or can think about anyone but yourself.
Denigrating attitude- #27.

The few quotes I cited drew you out into the Sunlight, which isn’t good for Vampires.
Ad hominem- #18.

In other words, I’m sorry to say, you are nothing more than an energy drain on anything pure or helpful.
Ad hominem- #19.
Denigrating attitude- #28.
Fascists find your kind of weak mindedness their best means of controlling the masses.
Ad hominem- #20.
Denigrating attitude- #29.
They're stupid- #95.

You cannot help anyone, because you’re too negative to even help yourself.
Denigrating attitude- #30.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #30.

Warning for ALL true Americans: Run from these fools calling themselves “The Constitutionalists” or “The Law.”
Ad hominem- #21.

They do not have your best interests at heart; and can’t or won’t even realize it. I wonder if they ever will.
P-K-B.

Perspective | 11.25.05 - 4:56 pm | #

David,
Your premise on losing our liberties in this country is correct;
Talks the talk.

your directions on how to get them back are misdirected.
They're stupid- #96.

Taking on Congress’s taxing powers without knowing the causes is suicide.
Misrepresentation of position- #25.
They're stupid- #97.
I agree with Mr. Buckner’s
He says don't read the law also....
Don't read the law- #24.

comments about the average American’s perspective, but only because socialism can take on the appearance of freedom when in reality there is none.
Talks the talk.

I’ve stated many times: Without first acquiring the historical principles and background of American civics, most Americans just wouldn’t know the difference between freedom and control.
They're stupid- #98.
I know you're trying to control this blog to keep the newcomers from reading the law.
Our system is based on representative limited government, but when you introduce socialism, the appearance and functions take on more of the look of the British Parliament.
Perspective | 11.25.05 - 6:37 pm | #

Lets find out if IRS agent Frank Buckner and his counterpart, Perspective can tell the truth about anything.
A simple quiz,
1. If you wrote a book that contained nothing but the truth do you think the government has the right to ban it because they do not like the content?
2. A search warrant is served on your business and you can prove it was not obtained by a person authorized to do so. Should you be able to prove it was a bogus search?
3. (A) You are charged with filing an illegal tax return should you be entitle to ask and receive an answer from the IRS agent who determined it was illegal, while he is testifying, to the question “what, if anything, was illegal about it?” (B) Should the judge be able to legally tell you whatever was illegal about your tax return is irreverent so you are not entitled to know?
4. You can prove the IRS agent did not have the authority (Pocket commission) to investigate or do anything to you. Should you be allowed to prove it?
5. If you cannot find any law which requires you to file or pay income tax and so you do not file or pay. Should the government be required to show it to you before locking you up for the rest of your life?
6. If you can prove the IRS has no authority to do anything regarding income tax because the Secretary of the Treasury never delegated his authority, should you be allowed to prove that?
7. If you are charged with a crime should you be allowed to call any witness that will prove you are innocent?
7. Should the prosecutor be allowed to tell a jury that they, the jury, would be committing a crime if they found you innocent?
8. Should any judge have the authority to tell you what you can or cannot ask a witness?
9. Should any judge have the authority to make you write down all the questions you will answer when you testify and not allow you to be asked the one he does not like?
10. Should a judge be allowed to keep you locked up during an appeal because he dislikes you even though he knows you are not a flight risk?
11. Do you think a judge has the right to keep a hearing impaired citizen from having a monitor so he can keep up with what is happening during his trial?
12. Did you know there is a little know law that allows a citizen who wonders if the person he is talking to is an IRS agent, prosecutor or asshole to ask them if they are a IRS agent, prosecutor or asshole and if they are then they must admit it or face jail time?
13. In that regard are you Frank Buckner and Perspective IRS agents or prosecutors or are both of you just lying assholes?
The Law | 11.25.05 - 10:02 pm | #
The Law | 11.25.05 - 10:02 pm

Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. Maybe yes, maybe no, not sure of the question. I hope that helps?
Perspective | 11.25.05 - 10:50 pm | #
Sidesteps question- #15.
Meaningless tripe- #30.
Denigrating attitude- #31.
No, Perspective but it proves my point that you will not answer any question that proves your hypothesis that you can get justice in a federal court is wrong. So thanks. I have an idea. When you and Frank do lunch invite me.
The Law | 11.26.05 - 12:02 am | #

David,

David said: “. . . You people are so nieve believing anyone gets a fair trial in our court system.” David Jahn | 11.26.05 - 12:58 am

It’s obvious you’re a very sincere individual with strong personal beliefs — 15 years ago we would have been singing pretty much the same song.
One of us- #26.

But back then I simply didn’t know how off point my perspective was. I was only looking at the surface of the issues and didn’t know that I was ignorant, nor had I really studied history or law enough to get beyond my own prejudices.
He once was dumb but now he's smart. I'm smart- #17.
Inferred, he's Chevy Chase and your not: They're stupid- #99.
Which in the and is Meaningless tripe- #31.

The question is: Are you willing to go beyond your prejudices?
What prejudice is he referring to. The statement is void for lack of substance in re: to the alleged prejudice.
Meaningless tripe- #32.

If we’re going to change the system back to its original principles we first have to know what those principles are.
Implied since he is no longer dumb:
I'm smart- #18.  They're stupid- #100.

From thereon in we must work within the laws to eliminate or change bad laws.
Ethereal "solutions"- #51.

To blame the courts for our ignorance is just not productive, no matter how justified we may feel at times.
Nothing is wrong- #44. 

“All governments, in all times, have found it necessary to adopt stringent measures for the collection of taxes and to be rigid in the enforcement of them. These measures are not judicial; nor does the government resort, except in extraordinary cases, to the courts for that purpose.” 92 U.S. 85, 88 (1875)
Gobbledegook. He fails to make a point. Thus: Meaningless tripe- #33. (perhaps I need a gobbledegook category)
Irwin, Cindy, Larken, Tessa — had little to no defense for the simple fact it only takes a minimum amount of evidence to show that the IRS has jurisdiction over them. Misrepresentation of position- #26.
IRS only has jurisdiction if they are "TAXPAYERS" as the term is STATUTORILY defined... You know... The WRITTEN WORDS of LAW.

Once that authority has been shown in a court of law
That authority is proven by the existence of a law that clearly attaches a duty.  If no law attaches a duty, NO duty exists.

you’re looking at the big one “A KNOWN LEGAL DUTY.”
Please cite the WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW in the STATUTES that create that "KNOWN LEGAL DUTY."

That duty is called Prima Facie evidence.
You got the cart in front of the horse.
The LAW creates the terms of the duty. The LAW creates the nexus for that particular duty.  One's choice of actions either fits within those terms or it does not, which means the law either creates a duty based upon those actions or it doesn't.

"That duty is called Prima Facie evidence" is pure unadulterated BULL SHIT.  You are spewing meaningless words.
Meaningless tripe- #34.

prima facie adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a grand jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account, makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case. Cite.

Latin for "on its face." A prima facie case is one that at first glance presents sufficient evidence for the plaintiff to win. Such a case must be refuted in some way by the defendant for him to have a chance of prevailing at trial. For example, if you can show that someone intentionally touched you in a harmful or offensive way and caused some injury to you, you have established a prima facie case of battery. However, this does not mean that you automatically win your case. The defendant would win if he could show that you consented to the harmful or offensive touching.  Cite.

(Latin) A legal presumption which means "on the face of it" or "at first sight". Law-makers will often use this device to establish that if a certain set of facts are proven, then another fact is established prima facie. For example, proof of mailing a letter is prima facie proof that it was received by the person to whom it was addressed and will accepted as such by a court unless proven otherwise. Other situations may require a prima facie case before proceeding to another step in the judicial process so that you would have to at least prove then that at first glance, there appears to be a case.  Cite.

The existence of a duty, is NOT prima facie evidence of anything.

The burden to DISPROVE your guilt has almost totally shifted, at this point, to the defendant. Now the burden is on you to show your innocence. You are now put in an almost impossible position, making the prosecutor’s job easy and pretty much a downhill affair with smooth sailing.
Only when a corrupt judge refuses to allow the defendent to defend themselves...  Like demanding the prosecutor show evidence of the duty in the WRITTEN WORDS of the law.

To hang your hopes on your “good faith belief,” that there is NO law that makes you liable, is pretty much wishful thinking and becomes a slim defense to almost NO defense.
Quoting from the Cheek decision: "Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty."

Was this done in the Simkanin, Schiff, or Rose cases....   Be careful how you answer Pinocchio.

Remember, for those that missed the beginning the agency has already SHOWN they have jurisdiction over you, therefore it has been FACTUALLY shown you have a known legal duty.
You are as much a LIAR is they are.  If you and they can not point to a law that clearly makes a duty for a person to do something, that duty DOES NOT EXIST.  If you can not point to the circumstances described in the written words of law that match the circumstances that the duty addresses, then that person DOES NOT HAVE  a duty because the written requirements that create and attach the duty DO NOT EXIST.

Now you may start to realize how exceptional Mr. Cheeks case was using the good faith defense, it’s rare at best.
Meaningless tripe- #35.
The reader is referred back to where I examined the Cheek case on the other page. (opens in new window).
To continue to miss these very real legal points is to continue to wrongly blame the courts for being unfair.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #31.
Nothing is wrong- #45.
To continue to ignore the written words of the law is to continue to wrongly IGNORE that very same written law.  To continue to support such wrongdoing in the courts is to continue to support a government of men and not a government of law.

When the taxing agency of the government shows a violation has occurred WITHIN THEIR CIRCUMSCRIBE AUTHORITY they can pretty much slam-dunk you.
Answer this question, "How can the government show a violation when the government NEVER CITES THE WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW?
Nothing is wrong- #46.
Meaningless tripe- #36.
Don't read the law- #25.
Nexus / priviledge- #27.

COURTS know this and they will NOT stand in the way of Congress power to tax, its Congress’s powers not the courts power at stake.
Meaningless tripe- #37.  Gobbledegook.  This is meaningless. Show me the WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW. That means the WRITTEN STATUTES and the WRITTEN REGULATIONS.

On the surface it may look like the judge isn’t being fair to the defendant, but in reality he is just trying to keep order.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #32.
Nothing is wrong- #47.
You can refuse to believe what the courts have been saying since the beginning of this country by staying in denial, but your opinions won’t change those judicial facts.
Your failure to state "what the courts have been saying" makes this another posting of Meaningless tripe- #38.

Now go back and re-read the cited case twenty times.
Meaningless tripe- #39.
Once with understanding is sufficiant.
Perspective: My purpose is and always will be to restore, as much liberty and freedom back into this country as I can, along with creating a system that will stay eternally vigilant as protectors of the U.S. Constitution.
Ethereal "solutions"- #52.
I'm smart- #19.

Perspective | 11.26.05 - 7:14 am | #

To Law

The Law | 11.26.05 - 1:16 am |

The Law said: “Damn the IRS agents on this site run in packs. Now Peon is defending Dawson's despicable display of judicial misconduct during Mr. Schiff's trial. What happened to you guys pretending you are neutral? I would suggest Peon take that quiz but we know if he did he would condemned because he would have to lie or admit Mr. Schiff got shafted by his hero Dawson.
Hope you are reading all this Mr. Jahn so you will know Perspective. Peon and Little Frankie Boy are here to undermine the patriots finding out what is going on. As Mama told me, “BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER””


I will say a prayer for you that you’ll recover from your malady.
Denigrating attitude- #32.
Ad hominem- #22.

But the prognosis isn’t looking good; I don’t believe they’ve invented a VACCINE FOR STUPID YET!!
Denigrating attitude- #33.
Ad hominem- #23.

Perspective | 11.26.05 - 7:33 am | #

The great and powerful OZ (Perspective) said, "Irwin, Cindy, Larken, Tessa — had little to no defense for the simple fact it only takes a minimum amount of evidence to show that the IRS has jurisdiction over them."
Well, BOSO you did not take the quiz because you knew you could not overcome the "authority" questions so you now use the word "Jurisdiction" to insinuate the IRS has authority to do the crap they do. If you really want to end this once and for all then simply prove the Secretary of the Treasury delegated his authority to the IRS. Even you cannot claim or prove the congress gave the IRS such authority. So if the secretary did not delegate his authority then they have none.
However, in your little world you may believe the GODS gave the IRS their authority. Even if that were true the pocket commissions of the individual agents who screwed Mr. Schiff did not allow them to do any of the crap they did. They did not have investigative powers or seizure powers. The only power they had was the power of the gun. Which, by the way they were not authorized to carry.
And you clown’s hero Dawson knew that was all true so how did he stop Mr. Schiff from proving it? He told him to sit down and shut up. No reason given. No law sited. Nothing to justify his actions but the power to say, “Just a sit down and shut up Mr. Schiff or I will have one of my goons shut you up.”
In the final analysis your claims that Mr. Schiff was treated fairly under the law are absurd. You know it. I know it. Your fellow IRS agents Peon and Little Frankie Boy know it. And, more importantly everybody with a functioning brain who visits this blog site know it. So until you can overcome the “AUTHORITY” problem go back to your hole in the ground and play with yourself. . .
The Law | 11.26.05 - 12:06 pm | #

The Law | 11.26.05 - 12:06 pm |

The Law said: “. . . Even you cannot claim or prove the congress gave the IRS such authority . . .”

Ignorance and hate is not good for anyone in the freedom movement.
Meaningless tripe- #40.

I would hope that intelligent people are realizing that some people on this cite are just BROKEN RECORDS with NO answers.
I'm smart- #20.
They're stupid- #101.

Just think how ridiculous certain statements become when reason is applied to them.
Denigrating attitude- #34.

The IRS doesn’t have authority yada, yada, blaah, blaah, etc. Let’s see: Does Congress FUND the operations of the IRS so Congress can collect TAXES?
Straw man- #2.
Nothing is wrong- #48.
Don't read the law- #26
Which taxes and under what conditions and circumstances?   Oh wait... To find that out, one READS THE WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW.

    Subtitle                                                
    A.          Income taxes.                                        
    B.          Estate and gift taxes.                               
    C.          Employment taxes.                                    
    D.          Miscellaneous excise taxes.                          
    E.          Alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes.    
    F.          Procedure and administration.                        
    G.          The Joint Committee on Taxation.                     
    H.          Financing of Presidential election campaigns.        
    I.          Trust Fund Code.                                     
    J.          Coal industry health benefits.(!1)                    
    K.          Group health plan requirements.                      

Of course it does!
Our dynamo perspective just knock all the stuffing out of them bib overalls.

Why does Congress fund the IRS? Common sense tells you that Congress doesn’t have the time nor the people to collect taxes from 300,000,000 citizens by itself.
Perhaps you are not the Constitutional potentate you would have us believe. Article 1 Section 8: Congress shall have the power to lay and COLLECT.... Key word there, "COLLECT" taxes.  Maybe the founders meant exactly what they said, CONGRESS must collect taxes... Things would be a whole lot different if those criminals had to look people in the eyes when taking their money for pork barrel projects..

That concept is appealing — Congress having to collect taxes all by themselves — because it wouldn’t leave them time to create more bad laws.
You get a brownie point for this sentence.

Please understand: The IR CODE and ALL IRS internal operations are simply a means of enforcing the collection of taxes; that’s their JOB.
Congratulations... Now, WHAT are those means? Where do they begin? Where do they end? What do they encompass?  Why, one would have to read the written words of law to find out what means are LEGALLY available to the IRS.  Any "means" of the IRS is prescribed, proscribed, circumscribed, and authorized BY LAW.  That would be WRITTEN LAW.

Your incessant off-point patriot questions are simply vacuus (empty),
They're stupid- #102.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #33.

having no merit,
They're stupid- #103.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #34.

because the substance of the IRS enforcements stems from the “privilege/s” you’ve accepted
Nexus / priviledge- #28.
Would that be the "privilege/s" you will soon be shown refusing to address/ explain/ describe?

— not from the regulations.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #35.
Don't read the law- #27.

Legal questions under Administrative Law usually fall within the rational relationship test;
Gobbledegook; Meaningless tripe- #41.
Somebody wake me if he ever posts an explanation as to what he is babbling on about.

Legal questions under Administrative Law usually fall within the rational relationship test; it’s rare they ever rise above that level of review.
Gobbledegook; Meaningless tripe- #42.
Didn't the Native Americans refer to this as "speaking with forked tongue"?

In other words, legalities within the agency powers are just refinements of the regulations — not challenges to their authority.
Gobbledegook; Meaningless tripe- #43.
Three increments to the meaningless tripe count just to set up the following statement of delusion:
It wouldn’t matter if the Code were ALL blank pages;
Unsubstantiated assertion- #36.
Meaningless tripe- #44. (unadulterated bullshit actually)

the IRS would still have the authority from Congress to collect the taxes
Since the IRS would not have a lawful, legal, method of determining the AMOUNT of taxes...
Nor would the IRS have a lawful, legal definition of what, when, where, who, how, and why any natural person would have a Nexus / Privilege that was taxable.
Meaningless tripe- #45. (More unadulterated bullshit)
Unsubstantiated assertion- #37.

once the NEXUS is determined.
That would be the Nexus / priviledge that perspective NEVER addresses.
Nexus / priviledge- #28.

 Perspective | 11.26.05 - 2:37 pm | #

The Constitutionalist said: “. . . To explain our position one must first understand the rights afforded to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
The Constitutionalists | 11.26.05 - 2:35 pm

Ignorance and hate is not good for anyone in the freedom movement.
Meaningless tripe- #46.
By the way, your use of the term “afforded” is incorrect. Only a beggar seeking his master’s permission would use the term.
Denigrating attitude- #35.
Our rights are antecedent to ALL constitutions; therefore, the phrase “inherent rights” is proper relating to FREEMEN and not to mere “afforded” grants. The Bill of Rights work as negatives against the government, not a positive. Period.
He's talking the talk,  and powerfully too.  If not for all his other crap, the above statement would be perfection.

Perspective | 11.26.05 - 3:12 pm | #

'Per' you used the the word vacuus and then explained what it means by putting it's definition in parenthesis (empty).

Why not just use empty?

Are you trying to teach us new words to use, or just showing off?

You are hard to figure out.

Are you saying that because congress wants to collect tax, the IRS can use unlawful or illegal means, and the courts must go along with it?

What about the questions that have been posted here numberous times?

No one here has addressed any questions.

Why does the government want to jail us?

Wouldn't it be better PR to just amend the con to include a direct tax on wages?

Most people wouldn't mind.

The gov could have a prelimnary hearing, find us guilty, demand we start filing, even under duress.

They could issue a decree that says if we refuse they can shoot us on site.

I think it is high time we stop pretending we have rights, or are soverign, don't you?

Also to David.

Maybe it's time you start acting like the gov and just edit any comments you do not like or find appropiate.

If somebody calls someone a name and talks hateful, just edit it out.

If the complain, send them a response similar to the one the gov sends us when we complain.

Thank them for their interest, and tell them the matter will be looked into as soon as possible.
Jim | 11.26.05 - 4:40 pm | #

Jim | 11.26.05 - 4:40 pm

Jim said: “Are you saying that because congress wants to collect tax, the IRS can use unlawful or illegal means, and the courts must go along with it?”

No, that is not what I was saying.
Actually, that is exactly what you said.

All American citizens have been tricked into the tax system and don’t know it.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #38.
Too bad, because substantiation on this statement could have been educational and enlightening...

The operations of applied taxing laws are legal —
Nothing is wrong- #49. 

it’s the inducement that isn’t.
Ethereal "problem".
Unexplained (as usual).

Stopping filing, or whatever patriots are doing, is NOT the solution to correcting the problem;
Which is it? Are they "Stopping filing" or are they doing "whatever"?
Ethereal problem. Unexplained (as usual).
Ethereal "solutions"- #53.
But whatever it is, the patriots are stupid- #104.

it just exacerbates the problem.
Ethereal problem. Unexplained (as usual).
As for the continuing questions about the Code, Delegation of Authority, etc, they are simply immaterial within the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and even in the courts, as I’ve explained all through my posts, especially @ Perspective | 11.26.05 - 2:37 pm |
You have explained NOTHING.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #39.
Don't read the law- #28.
The Constitution is fine (no amendments are necessary);
Nothing is wrong- #50.

so are everyone’s rights —
Nothing is wrong- #51.

the problem has been you’ve waived certain rights and their protections and opted for the nanny state.
Ethereal problem. Unexplained (as usual).

Americans have been waiving their rights on a general basis, and don’t even know it.
Ethereal problem. Unexplained (as usual).

These infringements on the Constitution are being extended into other areas of law to expand the centralization in D.C.
Talks the talk.

The terms now describing our government look more like: Socialistic, imperialistic, autocratic, and/or corporate fascism.
Talks the talk.

Pick any one of these terms — they all mean government over man, which is the direct opposite to the U. S. Constitution.
Talks the talk.

We and our parents have allowed this to happen;
Ethereal problem. Unexplained (as usual).

it’s up to thinking Americans to smarten up and reverse this travesty reinstalling the Constitution as originally intended.
Ethereal "solutions"- #54.
Jim, you’re mistaken. The tax being imposed is NOT a direct tax—requiring apportionment whatsoever.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #40.
“Why does the government want to jail us?” They don’t WANT to jail us, but going against the system that is in place, patriots are making themselves easy targets.
That would be the system that is authorized, prescribed, proscribed, and circumscribed by the written words of law that "they" including perspective, don't want "us" to read.

Perspective | 11.26.05 - 6:03 pm | #

Perspective once again tap dances around the truth by saying "everybody knows the IRS has the authority to do what they want so they must have the authority!" Such nonsense is prosecutor speak and proves what Perspective is.
The Law | 11.26.05 - 7:31 pm | #
Notice something amiss with perspective's post didja?

Perspective,
Being a gambling man I will bet you $500.00 you cannot produce any law which gives the IRS it's authority. And, a second $500.00 the agents that screwed with Mr. Schiff did not have the pocket commissions necessary do to the crap they did.
Put up or shut up little man.
The Law | 11.26.05 - 7:39 pm | #

"Law," you can't handle the truth.
To avoid having to deal with the direct challenge: Denigrating attitude- #36.

You have issues, but they are not issues of law.
Ad hominem- #24.
Denigrating attitude- #37.

All the years I've known Irwin, he's been more interested in selling his books and materials than finding real answers.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #41.
Denigrating attitude- #38.

Delusional people turn into fanatics because their minds have refused to listen to reason.
Ad hominem- #25.
Denigrating attitude- #39.
They're stupid- #106.

No matter how many times Irwin was confronted with reality, it wasn’t good enough because only HIS truth was the real truth in his own mind.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #42.  Especially if that confrontation with reality was anything like the non-substantive, whispy, nonreality crap of yours I have spent over a week wading through.
Denigrating attitude- #40.
Personal attack bordering on... What were those words?...  Yeah, I remember now. "hate is not good for anyone in the freedom movement."

Mr. Schiff shows he knows little or nothing about law,
They're stupid- #107.

and yet his charisma has attracted many foolish people
They're stupid- #108.

who will buy his materials and then find themselves sacrificed to the cause. You can ask your meaningless questions
Unsubstantiated assertion- #43.
You're stupid- #109.
Don't read the law- #29.

until the cows come home and your questions will mean nothing when dealing with administrative law.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #44.
You're stupid- #110.
Don't read the law- #30.

What don’t you get about that?
Uh... Substance in most of your posts.
He's left thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of broken and lost patriots over the last 20 some years.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #45.
Uh, oh, and quote: "hate is not good for anyone in the freedom movement."

His followers are just sad remains of his bad dream.
They're stupid- #111.
Denigrating attitude- #41.

Mr. Schiff understood there are many problems in the country but never could fathom a realistic direction to solve them.
They're stupid- #112. 
Ethereal "solutions"- #55.

Perspective | 11.26.05 - 9:04 pm | #

If you're bad-mouthing Schiff, he must be an alright guy.

Another IRA agent, Perspective, claims he has known and been a friend to Mr. Schiff and then trashes him. Go play with CJ you idiot?
The Law | 11.26.05 - 9:10 pm | #

The Peon | 11.26.05 - 9:32 pm

Very good, you're starting to get the picture. Your comments were about 3/4 correct, that's okay. One doesn't eat an elephant in one bite. Drop the Admiralty stuff it's off point. We're making progress--Peon--good job!

Stay on the high road and disregard detractors they just waste time and energy.
Looking in the mirror while you wrote that last sentence I see.

Perspective | 11.27.05 - 5:48 am | #


No agent need waste his time on your site; they have better things to do than try reasoning with you.
They're stupid- #113.

The agency already knows all so-called patriots are just job security (I’m sorry to say), which adds to the IRS’s bureaucracy.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #46.
Meaningless tripe- #47.

There have been people on this site who have attempted to open your minds.
Who? You with your Ethereal solutions, You all are stupid and other ad hominems, Nothing is wrong,  Resistance is futile, Don't read the law posts?
Meaningless tripe- #48.

Some with little legal knowledge but just wanted sincerely to help because they know the freedom movement has turned into a closed system or dead end.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #47.
Resistance is futile- #26.

For their troubles all they receive is fools shouting them down with the same old patriot no-mind rhetoric.
I'm not shouting you down.... Yet.  In fact, You are reading this over here on MY cyberspace. I'm not even answering you on the blog anymore.  You've a clear channel to broadcast your tripe.  Since exposing your tripe for what it is takes up space, I'm doing it on my space. And exposing your tripe is such a target rich environment. Lest I forget, your preceding sentence earned an increment in the following categories: Ad hominem- #27; They're stupid- #114.
I have a friend who does rescue diving. He related to me there are some people you cannot save from drowning, no matter what you do. He said you have to leave them on the bottom otherwise they’ll take you down with them. The present state of this so-called freedom movement has already drowned and just doesn’t know it’s dead.
Denigrating attitude- #42.

It could have been a good movement if it only trusted in individuals thinking for themselves
I trust my own thinking.  I do NOT trust YOUR thinking, since you can't or won't answer simple questions in regard to your own posts.  What is your purpose of posting here if you won't discuss anything other than "don't read the law"?

instead of following gurus,
Ad hominem- #28.

fools,
Ad hominem- #29.

and fanatics.
Ad hominem- #30.
So which are you?
An "ethereal solution" guru?
A "nothing is wrong with the courts" fool?
Or a "don't read the law" fanatic?
I’ve given you food for thought with my posts —
You've given ethereal solutions (55) to ethereal problems. You've given (26) misrepresentations of position. You've inferred (26 times) Resistance is futile. You've posted (30) ad hominem insults. You've called or inferred other people are stupid (114 times). And you have just incremented your meaningless tripe count to #49 with that last statement.

and yet NOT ONE of you could even fathom the possibility you were being given hope and direction with the exception of one or two.
"hope and direction" comes from ethereal solutions and meaningless tripe....
Meaningless tripe- #50.

You were only concerned with your blind hate for anything called government or anyone else’s opinion.
Opinions are like assholes... Everybody's got one, Some stink, and some are full of shit.
Why don't you post some substance instead of opinion?
(Of course, your substanceless opinion has more substance than your ethereal solutions to ethereal problems you can't seem to name.)
Misrepresentation of position- #27.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #48.

You will solve nothing by the direction you have taken, and will only continue in the end to be frustrated.
They're stupid- #115.
Resistance is futile- #27.
Don't read the law- #31.
To be pleased with one's limits is a wretched state.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Meaningless tripe- #51.
Perspective | 11.27.05 - 11:07 pm | #

The Peon | 11.27.05 - 11:25 pm |

Your grand children will know what freedom is. The principles of the Country are strong and so is the Constitution. As I've said before the real freedom movement hasn't even started yet. Keep the faith bro!!
Perspective | 11.28.05 - 9:11 am | #
Rah! Rah!
Gimme an F!
Gimme an R!
Gimme an E!
Gimme another E!
ad nauseum.

Meaningless tripe- #52.
Ethereal "solutions"- #56.

David,
I think you’re on to something. In every criminal tax trial the defendant should insist he receives a psychological evaluation before he goes to trail. Now he can bring in an EXPERT witness in his/her favor, which will prove his good faith subjective beliefs.
How about these corrupt courts do what the Supreme Court said MUST be done in its Cheek decision.
Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.

The only way to prove that the law imposes a duty on a defendant is for the government to SHOW THE JURY the statute that creates the duty. 

The only problem I see with that scenario is who’s going to evaluate the jury? The jury may be objectively indifferent to the subjective claims. Not good!!
Personally I wish the government would just stop all these criminal tax trials. It’s so much easier for them to just lean, seize, confiscate, garnish people property why hassle with criminal trials?
"Why hassle with criminal trials?"
The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
Cite 18 USC 2331

That’s the real OBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE STORY.
Perspective | 11.28.05 - 9:52 am | #

Reasonable Guy said: "No wonder Perspective left. Calling you folks dense is almost a compliment."
Reasonable Guy | 12.03.05 - 2:29 pm |

The following post was my last entry after many futile attempts were made trying to put some light on the patriots’ misdirected legal arguments.
You've given ethereal solutions (56) to ethereal problems. You've given (27) misrepresentations of position. You've inferred (27 times) Resistance is futile. You've posted (30) ad hominem insults. You've called or inferred other people are stupid (115 times). And you have just incremented your meaningless tripe count to #53 with that last statement.

The assumptions of so-called patriots regarding Constitutional law are, at the best, juvenile.
Ad hominem- #31.
They're stupid- #116.
Denigrating attitude- #43.

Our Constitutional system is not as simple as most people think; it is, in fact, very complex.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #49.

Few, if any, can even fathom what it will take to regain limited government after 100 years of neglect.
They're stupid- #117.
Ethereal "solutions"- #57.

It is clear none of these so-called “freedom movement” people have even a clue.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #50.
Denigrating attitude- #44.
They're stupid- #118.
Reasonable Guy, I for one have appreciated your perspective.
Appreciates a proven liar.

It may be time for you to let the blind lead the blind. Merry Christmas!
They're stupid- #119.
This portion of this post was a duplicate and was deleted to save your eyes.
Perspective | 12.03.05 - 5:48 pm | #

Oh please Mr. Perspective Sir. Bestow some more of your wisdom on us for with it all we will have on our side is the TRUTH!
The Law | 12.03.05 - 6:37 pm | #
Seems I'm not the only one that recognizes bull biscuits when I sees them.


Anonymous | 12.03.05 - 10:10 pm

A. . . S.S… disconnect is in order, but you fail to identify cause, and are only dealing with effects.
I'll give him the benefit of doubt. Perhaps the missing context of the anonymous 10:10 pm post would make this statement make sense.

I suggest you find out what "class action" means, before you promote it, because it’s off point.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #51.
Denigrating attitude- #45.
They're stupid- #120.

Those types of actions sounds a lot like a communistic collective, don’t you think? What kind of rights would you be protecting by being a socialist? Stop playing with law—patriots haven’t done very well at it.
Don't read the law- #32.
They're stupid- #121.

Perspective | 12.03.05 - 10:29 pm | #

Why would anyone promote further action,through the court system?Has it not become obvious that the "justice"system is so corrupt,that this is certainley not the vehicle of fairness,and personal rights? Obviously, there is only one option left,to people that consider themselves free.And that is to fight for their freedoms in the ways that the government fights to preserve their power.Is there any doubt as to the course we should take?I say there is not.Until the sheeple decide that they will not abandon the Constitution,and the Bill of Rights ,there must be a cohesive effort to protect these fundamental mandates.How has it gone this far,and how much further will it go,before we as a people say,this is enough.I am very disappointed in how far it has gone thus far.We must arm,and fight.We must carry on the ideas that caused this nation to exist.Please join in an American tradition,and defend the right to be free!IT IS THE ONLY TRUE FREEDOM YOU HAVE,Take it Back,for you,for me,and everyone!
Conrad | 12.04.05 - 2:12 am | #

Conrad,
Think for yourself.
Unsubstantiated implied assertion- #52.  How do you really know Conrad isn't thinking for himself?
Denigrating attitude- #46.

Anyone can parrot so-called patriot rhetoric. By saying: “Those damn courts must all be corrupt.”
Denigrating attitude- #47.

I’m telling you it’s not the courts that are the problem,
Nothing is wrong- #52.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #53.

but the off point ARGUMENTS the so-called patriots use that is causing your frustrations.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #54.
Ad hominem- #32.

They have NO solutions so they play the blame game pointing to everyone but themselves.
They're stupid- #122.
Ethereal "solutions"- #58.

These patriots’ gurus only have unconstitutional arguments and don’t even know how to identify the issues.
Ad hominem- #33.
Misrepresentation of position- #28.
They're stupid- #123.

Then they emotionally work everyone up into foam and sell you some more losing b.s.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #55.
Misrepresentation of position- #29.

The real solutions to regaining our freedoms are not going to be easy,
Ethereal "solutions"- #59.

but they must at all cost be sought with lawful and Constitutional means.
Ethereal "solutions"- #60.

The means must be life promoting otherwise nothing will be gained but further suppression of our own making.
We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
The Constitution is our hope and direction; it holds the answers to bring the country back to its sanity.
Ethereal "solutions"- #61.

If you think violence will solve anything you’ve already turned you back on the founding fathers and the Constitution.
No bully, no tyrant, EVER quit picking on their victims because a warm and fuzzy, touchy feely request moved them to stop being bullies and tyrants.
The founder's quotes on this issue are too numerous for me to bother with at this time.

Perspective | 12.04.05 - 2:59 am | #

If you think violence will solve anything you’ve already turned you back on the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Just how the f*** do you think the founders started this country.

Bullies don't understand anything but violence. Neither do tyrants and arrogant federal slugs.
Anonymous | 12.04.05 - 3:39 am | #
I see somebody else understands what you do not.

Conrad,
The founding fathers understood the issues you do not.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #56.
They're stupid- #124.
And perspective is so off base that he is assuming Conrad did the anonymous post.

They put the Constitution in place so any future generations didn't have to go to war with itself ever again.
Misrepresentation of position- #30.  I'll wait until I get ready to summarize the results of examining perspective's posts before I nail his ignorance on this issue.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #57. <sarcasm> It must be true, perspective said it on the internet.</sarcasm>

Your anger is controlling you--
Unsubstantiated assertion- #58.  He can't figure out that he's not replying to Conrad, but he knows what the anonymous poster is thinking? NOT!

think and trust "the law of the land" it’s your real hope.
Ethereal "solutions"- #62.

Ask yourself: Who's the bullies? Who are the tyrants?
That would be government agents and employees that don't want us to read the law... But thanks for asking.

Nameless faces aren’t much to deal with,
It's called "chain of command". In the end, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Secretary of Treasury John Snow, and President and CEO of the United States are responsible for those under their command who violate the law.

but the LAW we can touch and relate to.
Note to self, Cite the above sentence next time he spews that the Statutes and Regulations are meaningless...

Let's do it right--get smart not mad.
Ethereal "solutions"- #63.

You have value, talents, and power why misdirect it?
Since you have yet to intelligently state a direction, for you to belittle other's choice of direction is simply disengenuous.  You have made an Unsubstantiated assertion- #59, that somebody else is misdirecting their "value, talents, and power".  By inference you have just said They're stupid- #125.

You cannot accomplish anything if you’re broke, helpless, or worst killed.
Argumentum ad Baculum
In view of the context, Ethereal "solutions"- #64.

Living for a good and righteous cause is the real hard part; act as an individual not a puppet, think about it?
Meaningless tripe- #54. 
Ethereal "solutions"- #65.

Perspective | 12.04.05 - 4:16 am | #

Why do you think the second amendment is right there after the first amendment?

Why do you think the government slugs want to take the citizen's weapons away from them.

If government fears the people you have freedom.
If the people fear the government you have tyranny.

Get a clue.
Anonymous | 12.04.05 - 5:24 am | #

Conrad,
He is still assuming Conrad wrote the previous quote.

Fanaticism doesn’t work nor does being paranoid.
They're stupid- #126.
Maybe I should have had a category for all of perspective's presumptions.

I’ve attempted to show you that the founding fathers gave us reasonable Constitutional solutions not suicide.
Misrepresentation of [founder's] position- #31.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #60. (I don't want to detract from my present purpose, so at this moment I decline to substantiate exactly the opposite of perspective's pansy position.)
Ethereal "solutions"- #66.

The freedom movement hasn’t even started to address the real issues of law nor rights,
And neither have you in any of your endless dreck posted to trial blogs.

and you want to shoot something??
I didn't read anything in anonymous post that suggested he/she wants to shoot something.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #61.
Misrepresentation of position- #32.

That’s being weak not strong, it’s hard to work for a solution it’s easy to be stupid.
Ethereal "solutions"- #67.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #62.
They're stupid- #127.

Sorry, you’ve bought into the patriot’s propaganda of fear and it’s really showing.
Your post is starting to make it look like you're one of those government slugs who is afraid of a citizen rightfully standing up you your usurpations.
Looks like a half-assed attempt to set up a Straw man- #3.

Of course there’s lots of problems to be resolved in the country, but your solution only will increase tyranny not eliminate it.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #63.
Resistance is futile- #30.
I think you aid and abet the tyrants, and I think you are afraid of people like anonymous.

You’re sounding like “the radio rebel,” a hot head without a clue; that guy is a lost cause
Presumption again. And Denigrating attitude- #48.

Perspective | 12.04.05 - 10:45 am | #

Perspective,

Again, how disingenuous can you be?

You wrote,

The founding fathers understood the issues you do not. They put the Constitution in place so any future generations didn't have to go to war with itself ever again. Your anger is controlling you--think and trust "the law of the land" it’s your real hope.

"WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation...

" That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles..."

As well you should read the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights to which this government of anarchy (absent the rule of the people) disregards. "... to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

http://etext.virginia.edu/jeffer...ns/ jeff1770.htm

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto.

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:300

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1790. ME 8:13

People paid a heavy price for the inalienable freedoms confirmed in these documents.

The "legal" law is the cover they hide under to justify what they steal, those they put in jail and those they murder who only tell the truth.

What "constitution" do you speak of? The one with the slave mentality as you seem to speak of?
Anonymous2 | 12.04.05 - 1:44 pm | #


Anonymous 1, 2 whatever,
Denigrating attitude- #49.

Thomas Jefferson also thought the French revolution was okay. That revolution only replaced one tyrant (the king) with another, the MOB. France has been a socialistic or dictatorship country ever since, madness and power corrupts. Mr. Jefferson played no actual part in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. He did, however, convince Mr. James Madison to push for a Bill of Rights, which has proven a mistake as Alexander Hamilton predicted and explains in the Federalist Papers. If you study Jefferson a little beyond a few quotes you’ll find that he was considered a pacifist.
Somebody double check all those Jefferson Liberty Quotes.  Find out who the person is putting all those word's in Jefferson's handwriting..
Government has to be put back into its Constitutional box, but you guys aren’t the ones to do it.
They're stupid- #128.

For going on 30 years
One of us- #27.

I’ve watched fanatics calling themselves patriots screw up case after case.
Ad hominem- #34.
They're stupid- #129.

This ignorance has to stop you’ve only increase the difficulty with bad case law.
They're stupid- #130.

And what is worst you increase the opposition with your off point issues.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #64.

All this so-called freedom movement has done is alienate the average citizen,
Unsubstantiated assertion- #65.
Denigrating attitude- #50.

because your position doesn’t relate to them.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #66.
What do you call taking a person's property against their will, and at gunpoint if you don't submit to such taking?   I call it THEFT or ARMED ROBBERY.
It doesn't matter who or what is doing the taking, nor does it matter by what name it is called; Taking something from somebody against their will is THEFT. If guns are involved, it's armed robbery.

Think they can relate to that?
It appears your more interested in getting your paychecks than actually correcting governmental abuse.
You ASSume a lot.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #67.

I’ve said it over and over again we have massive issues to deal with,
Yes, you have referred to the ethereal problems may times.

but to correct them we must use “THE LAW Of LAND” to do it,
Ethereal "solutions"- #68. 

not stupidity.
They're stupid- #131.
Oh, by the way governmental socialistic programs COVER you, until that relationship is destroyed it’s called taxes not theft.
Well I almost saw an outline of that ethereal problem in the mist... Anybody else see it?
Nexus / priviledge- #29.

Perspective | 12.05.05 - 11:18 am | #

Does the never ending "I be smarter than anyone which allows me to criticize everyone while offering no solutions or anything of value" by Perspec6tive never end?
To the "I want out of the Social Security scam" person. Mr. Schiff wrote a book which some people have used the information therein to get out of that system. If fact, one guy got a huge refund of every dime he contributed to the Social Security fund!
The Law | 12.05.05 - 2:51 pm | #
As of December 5, I still had not really looked at perspective's posts.  Now that I am examining perspective's posts, I see that I was not the only one who thinks perspective posts a lot of uninformative words.

Anonymous2 | 12.05.05 - 2:39 pm |

Putting words into my mouth isn’t going to solve your lack of civics.
They're stupid- #132.

I suggest you order a copy of the Federalist Papers at http://Mary.Webster.org
How much are you making on the plug?
You keep quoting the “Declaration of Independence”: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?” Thomas Jefferson did a good job, but those principles were well known in the Colonies long before he put them down on paper; he was just reiterating what was already agreed upon.
Is there a point you are going to make or is this just some more Meaningless tripe- #55. 

As you know, the U. S. Constitution is a different document—so what’s your issue?
Maybe he has an issue with those unalienable rights being trod upon...?

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are extended in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. But in the interpretation of the Constitution, the Declaration plays little or no part in judicial decisions.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #68.
About now A2 should be posting a citation from the Yick Wo court case.... Again, those unalienable rights... In fact, it is only by the existence of those unalienable rights that power is granted to the judiciary to do what they do... Judges are SERVANTS just like Executive Branch Officers.  Power flows from the people, So the principles of the Declaration of Independence extend to Article 1 Section 1... All legislative powers herein granted.  That connects to the statement in the D of I, something about All men are created (with) equal (rights)... Life, Liberty, property.... That to protect these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...  That "consent" being "the legislative powers herein granted."... Or words to that effect.  It's late, I'm tired, and what I just wrote was from memory.  Maybe someday I'll copy n paste the actual words.
As for the bill of rights, I suggested that Alexander Hamilton was correct in principle that a Bill of Rights would suggest (as it has come to pass) that the government was being given a tool to twist those rights when the federal government had NO power to determine those rights in the first place.
You're talkin' the talk again.

Inalienable rights are my goal if you haven’t realized it yet.
So you profess.  But you fall WAY short of being willing to pay whatever price is required to insure those rights are not lost.

Just because Americans have been waiving those rights for over 100 years doesn’t mean they’re lost; they have to be recovered, which is my main point.
Ethereal "solutions"- #69.
As for defending the Constitution, that’s the first duty Americans owe their country, which includes defending the Country from all enemies foreign and domestic. When you can correct government corruption by the law, why would you choose not to?
Would that be the Law as written in the Statutes and Regulations?  Would that be the Law that shows how the government is not following the Law?  Would that be the Law you keep trying to keep people from reading?
From where I'm looking at you, you are a domestic enemy....  You'll get one chance to redeem yourself and prove me wrong when I get to the end of this project.
We’re really not that far apart in wanting to return the country to its original principles.
One of us- #28.

The only difference is I have a workable plan,
I'm smart- #21.
Ethereal "solutions"- #70.

where the so-called patriots haven’t.
They're stupid- #133.
Denigrating attitude- #51.

I think we can have a win - win situation,
Who is the other party, and what are they going to win?
Ethereal "solutions"- #71.

but it will take real research that’s not stuck in the present rut the so-called patriots are stuck in.
Ad hominem- #35.
"it will take real research" means there is no solution like you keep lying.. Did I say lying?  I meant to say like you keep posting. 
Ethereal "solutions"- #72.
I’ve given up debating with the people in this web site because they are simply too inflexible with insufferable attitudes.
You haven't said anything... Aaargh you are meaningless.
Meaningless tripe- #56.
Denigrating attitude- #52.

They continue to argue old, dead, and off-point issues over, and over, and over again.
And you continue to argue for us to use your Ethereal Solutions over, and over, and over again.
Like 72 times you have inferred this grand master solution of yours and it is yet to be posted.
And "Off point?"  Unsubstantiated assertion- #69.
Don't read the law- #33.


The courts will just sanction them over, and over, and over again. Why?
Because the WRITTEN words of law as contained in the Statutes and Regulations show the judges for the LIARS they are and the judges MUST KILL the TRUTH.

Because they’re simply out of Context—in Schiff’s case and all the others.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #70.
My main reluctance in sharing the real issues is that so-called patriots do not have the insights necessary to fathom the complexity that needs to be dealt with to overcome America’s problems and would only abuse this research into confusability.
Bafflegab.  Meaningless tripe- #57.
They're stupid- #134.
Nice dance on explaining your ethereal solutions.
Real issues not shared = Ethereal "solutions"- #73.
My work has already saved people pain—that’s my point. We can WIN!!
Unsubstantiated assertion- #71.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #72.
You "can" win.  So you "didn't" really win yet?

Perspective | 12.05.05 - 4:38 pm | #

Anonymous2 | 12.05.05 - 3:58 pm

Annoymous 2 said; “What Perspective doesn't say is how to use "common law" aka "law of the land" aka Constitution to help anyone out.”
Looks like a straight up challenge to perspective by A2 to make a statement on HOW to use ""common law" aka "law of the land" aka Constitution" to help someone. And perspective replys:
“There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution and laws of the Union. The common law is not a part of the federal system except in so far as it may be made so by legislative adoption.” (cites omitted)
Anonymous | 12.05.05 - 4:57 pm | #
A2, He gave you the wrong answer.  The correct answer is "Fish".... "Riding a bicycle".
Meaningless tripe- #58. 
Sidesteps question- #16.
Sorry forgot to sign in. Perspective

Duplicate post deleted to save your eyes.
Perspective | 12.05.05 - 5:01 pm | #

Anonymous2 | 12.05.05 - 3:58 pm

Anonymous 2 said: “The government has a little problem. It needs the Sheeple to believe they are free. The reality is the Sheeple have granted privileges. In so many words this is what Perspective said.”
You are being far to kind to perspective.  And you have just challenged him on the Nexus / priviledge question.
Anonymous, if you’d go back to my post from 11/04 to present day.
That has as much substance as all the posts you are telling everybody to go read... NONE.
Meaningless tripe- #59.

The above answer is EXACTLY. My fight is with ALL socialism in this country, period. You cannot have ANY RIGHTS while socialism exist. Taxes are just the EFFECTS!! Get it??????
Meaningless tripe- #60.

Perspective | 12.05.05 - 5:11 pm | #

Anonymous | 12.05.05 - 8:26 pm

Anonymous said: “Common Law means Stare Decisis.”

There are many volumes on what Common Law is considered to MEAN, and it’s not restricted to the doctrine of Stare Decisis. I suggest you look up both terms in any reliable law dictionary. And if you really want to thoroughly cover the subject matter go to Kent’s commentaries. I suggest you read the 12th or 13th edition, anyway the one which is authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Reading the complete set should take you about a year to read, and a lifetime to understand. Enjoy!

Star Decisis “The doctrine or principle that decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future…” (Bal.L.Dic) Your statement should read, “Stare Decisis is a doctrine that is applied to Common Law actions. But Stare Decisis also applies in Equity, Admiralty, or any other case/s that has established a rule of decision relating to that field or area of law. Does that clear it up a little? Common law is NOT sacrosanct. My interests focus on U.S. Constitutional Law, which is also NOT Common Law, although the terms used in the Constitution were set forth with Common Law support and understanding for determining the original meaning of that document. Does that help?

§ 2 Nature [15A Am Jur 2d COMMON LAW]

“Both the common law and the statutes of a state are, in the same sense, laws of the state, the common law being only one of the forms of municipal law, no more sacred than any other.”

Have a nice day.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 8:49 am | #
With what I have seen of your posts so far, I don't trust a word you say. You could be 100% correct in this post and it is still nothing more than an Unsubstantiated assertion- #73.

Peon said: "Your so close to the truth that it hurts." The Peon | 12.03.05 - 8:58 pm

With all due respect,
Ha ha ha ha ha. All due respect... The "they're stupid" count is 134, "Ad hominem" count is at 35, and "Denigrating attitude" count is at 52.

nobody in the patriot movement is close to anything.
They're stupid- #135.

They cannot even identify the problem let alone the solution.
Nor can you by the lack of substance in your posts on the very same topic.
Ethereal problems and Ethereal "solutions"- #74.
They're stupid- #136. 

Perspective | 12.03.05 - 9:33 pm | #

Perspective,
And as for you, I have put you back in your place so many times I must know, "How do you keep finding a way out of your hole?"
The Law | 12.03.05 - 9:40 pm | #
Perspective,
I, being a compassionate man, did not want to tell you this but the last time I put you in your hole I covered it with horse crap so you would feel at home. Now I know, because God did not give IRS agents a nose so they would not be offended by there own stench, you had no way of knowing about the horse carp. But, uh, you really need to take a bath!
A last thought. How do you keep your glasses up without a nose?
The Law | 12.03.05 - 9:54 pm | #
Hey Law, chill. They're only ethereal solutions....
Santa is checking his list and it looks like you'll be getting a bag of coal for Christmas. I'd put in a good word for you but I don't think it will do any good. Maybe if you ask for forgiveness from all those patriots that really want to find some answers and shut your mouth, instead of proving what a fool talks like, you'd be doing them a favor. Fool!!
Answers you claim you have, but somehow can't post them?

How’s it feel down in “Davey Jones Locker?”
Perspective | 12.03.05 - 10:07 pm | #


For cryin' out loud, would the three of you knock it off. Go get a motel room somewhere.

Your posts are as useful to me as Mr. Buckner's.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 12.03.05 - 11:05 pm | #

Dale,
I suggest you direct your comments to The Law. As for your arguments they've been dead since the mid 70's.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #74.

 Perspective | 12.03.05 - 11:23 pm | #

As for your arguments they've been dead since the mid 70's.

What arguments?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 12.04.05 - 12:32 am | #

As for your arguments they've been dead since the mid 70's.

What arguments?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 12.04.05 - 12:32 am | #

**********************

Exactly!
Sidesteps question- #17.

Reasonable Guy | 12.04.05 - 1:02 am | #

Dale said: “What arguments?”

Dale’s web site, “Assertion:
The average person is NOT required to pay income taxes.” Beep, NO CIGAR!!

Your ENTIRE assertion and site is out of CONTEXT;
Unsubstantiated assertion- #75.

we argued these off point issues back in the 70’s.
One of us- #29.
Resistance is futile- #31. 

Every patriot argument ever since A. J. Porth to the present day has overlooked the actual relationship that has been established for income tax purposes.
Nexus / priviledge- #30.

And no it doesn’t have to do with the “Corporate Excise Tax Act,” of 1909.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #76.

The real issues do not revolve around finding just the “right tax terms,” nor definitions, or just the right “silver bullet” court cite/s, but they do revolve around issues of right.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #77.
Ethereal "solutions"- #75.

The patriot community can play with the codes and case law until hell freezes over and still will never know where to look for the causes.
Don't read the law- #34.
They're stupid- #137.
Ethereal "solutions"- #76.

Nor would I be crazy enough to divulge those issues,
Ethereal "solutions"- #77.

because they have to be handled by a real law team,
Unsubstantiated assertion- #78.

backed up by real research.
Ethereal "solutions"- #78. 

With all due respect,
Something you don't have.
Meaningless tripe- #60.

you appear to mean well, but good intentions out of context and off point
Unsubstantiated assertion- #79.

have just exacerbated the problems,
Unsubstantiated assertion- #80.

and have only confused those who wouldn’t know a law book from a menu.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #81.

Those people thinking they’re going to save the country
You can read minds now?

by foolishly following so-called patriot gurus
Ad hominem- #36.

only get burnt. I’ve seen enough patriot martyrs at the hands of gurus for a lifetime in this so-called freedom movement.
One of us- #30.
Ad hominem- #37.
Resistance is futile- #32.

Have a nice Christmas.
Perspective | 12.04.05 - 1:42 am | #

The Law,
Hey, when you find the “IRS pocket commissions,” I’ll be listed as BR549 right next to Merle Haggart, and Willy Nelson, they’re IRS agents, but you’d never know it by looking at them. Your expert knowledge should have divulged this information to all the tax honesty people by now. As for me, just look for the one wearing bib coveralls, selling used cars on Heeha. Fool!!
Perspective | 12.04.05 - 2:13 am | #
Denigrating attitude- #53.
Ad hominem- #38.

Dale,
Lets start with Perspective. I interpret his last post to say, "Dale's stuff is old and does not work! However I, the great and powerful Perspective know what works but I am not going to tell you how to win. So, don’t be fooled by people like Mr. Schiff and be good little boys and girls and pay the income tax.”
Conclusion:
Perspective is a blowhard craving attention and praise or an IRS agent. Either way he should be ignored.
The Law | 12.04.05 - 2:14 am | #
TheLaw,
Which is it? Blowhard craving attention and praise. or IRS agent. Make up your "expert" mind--fool.
Perspective | 12.04.05 - 2:24 am | #
Ad hominem- #39.
Denigrating attitude- #54.

Nor would I be crazy enough to divulge those issues

Then I guess you have nothing of value to say.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 12.04.05 - 3:28 am | #

Dale said: “Then I guess you have nothing of value to say.”

The value in my message is in stopping the sacrifice of more people to losing arguments that have been around for over 35 years.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #82.
One of us- #31.

The patriot community is simply not the forum to address the real issues.
I just knew I should have counted how many times he implies "issues", or as I have been calling them, Ethereal problems.

The so-called freedom movement’s only accomplishment for all these years is to put people in a world of hurt.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #83.
Since no "solutions" have been forthcoming: Resistance is futile- #33.

There is NO need to shoot oneself in the foot when there’s a better direction to go.
Ethereal "solutions"- #79.

You can play guru like the rest
Misrepresentation of position- #33.
Ad hominem- #40.

but you’ll remain just a toothless tigers just roaring, having to hide or get beat up by the government in the end.
Resistance is futile- #34.
Argumentum ad Baculum
I believe you’re an intelligent guy. If you could win the country back without seeing anymore patriots being prosecuted would you do it?
Ethereal "solutions"- #80.

If people could protect their property and still support the freedom movement would you support it?
Ethereal "solutions"- #81.

The system would remain as is, until the proper time to take legal actions were ready to go.
Ethereal "solutions"- #82.
Resistance is futile- #35.

Dealing with one issue at a time.
The ethereal problems.

It would be for the long haul but first the bleeding must be stopped.
Ethereal "solutions"- #83.


Most patriots’ have only focused on the tax issue when in reality there are hundreds of issues and even thousands to resolve.
Ethereal problems.

The most important project is the future generations teaching civics for the on going vigilance of the country.
Since there is no substance posted on the "civics" issue: Ethereal "solutions"- #84.

You can become part of the solution or waste your time playing with codes getting nowhere. Think about it?
Ethereal "solutions"- #85.
Don't read the law- #35.

Perspective | 12.04.05 - 3:59 am | #

Dale,
I've been posting since 11/04. I'm not going to re-write what is already there.
There is a God. Prayers have been answered.

Go back and see what's there,
That's what this whole web page, and its predecessor is about.

you see if there’s any substance to my words.
Haven't seen any yet.

If you still believe I’m the bogeyman go ahead and continue to listen to fools like, “the law,” misleading people with his narrow mind and hate.
Ad hominem- #41.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #84.

Perspective | 12.04.05 - 4:55 am | #

You can play guru

I'm not a "guru". Why would you insult me thus?

The value in my message is in stopping the sacrifice of more people to losing arguments that have been around for over 35 years

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to "WHAT ARGUMENT"?
He never does answer this question.

What is the meaning of the term "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment?
And why does that meaning have no meaning for you?
He never does answer this question.

And no, I'm not going to go back and re-read your stuff.
I was already seeing a pattern of nonsubstantive fluff being posted by this guy.

I'm focussed on you right here, right now. Type slow, use small words, and educate me.

What is your point; what is your issue; what do you really want to say to everyone to help them chain the beast?
He never does answer this question.

Dale Eastman | Homepage | 12.04.05 - 5:17 am | #

Dale here is another clip from your site;

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part, at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed.

Would then the exercise of any privilege make one subject to the IRC?
Social security is a privilege, not a right. As is any license or certification needed from the government to do ones job. Government loans and grants are privileges as well. The creation of a legal entity is also a privilege or possibly a franchise issued by the government is it not? Unemployment, welfare, and a whole host of other benefits if accepted by a person would then subject that person to Congresses taxing powers, because of special privileges received.

Another quote from your site;

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
The Peon | 12.06.05 - 4:14 pm |#
The Peon | 12.06.05 - 4:14 pm

Exactly!!
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 4:30 pm | #
Since the context for this post is the peon post that precedes it, By inferrence perspective has touched Nexus / priviledge- #31.

Again, I repeat my four questions.

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that signing up for Social Security is the privilege that creates the nexus.

Does this not mean the statutes and regulations apply?

Does this not mean the statutes and regulations control?

With that said, I repeat my questions:

Does regulation 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) state:
Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
????

Does it logically follow:
_____________Tax Exempt = Not taxable
____Considered Tax Exempt = Considered Not Taxable
Not Considered Tax Exempt = Not Considered Not Taxable
Double negatives cancel.
Not Considered Tax Exempt = Considered Taxable
???
Dale Eastman | 12.06.05 - 6:04 pm | #

Lise | 12.06.05 - 11:10 am

Lise said: “Dr. Ward Dean should challenge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court (a territorial court only). It is NOT an article III court which is territorial, too. See Williams v United States(1951)341, US, 97, 101 which says in part: "It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court."”

Quoting Williams v United States the court said: “The question in this case is whether a special police officer who in his official capacity subjects a person suspected of crime to force and violence in order to obtain a confession may be prosecuted under § 20 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 52, now 18 U.S.C. § 242.”
I have personally looked up Williams v. U.S.  and can confirm the passage as quoted is accurate.
This case has NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTICLE III COURTS.
This assertion is almost unsubstantiated.  Perspective could have done more to substantiate his assertion... By giving the URL for the case like I did.
Like I said... "almost unsubstantiated".  Since I have read the court case, I will testify and confirm perspective's assertion, " This case has NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTICLE III COURTS"

It’s this kind of patriot b.s, that just keeps confusing people.
Denigrating attitude- #55.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #85.
Misrepresentation of position- #34.
The KANGAROO COURT referred to on page 101 of the case was in reference to the “special police officer” who BEAT CONFESSIONS OUT OF PEOPLE.
On first look, your statement is plausible, However upon close examination of the Williams case, you have made an Unsubstantiated assertion- #86 and you have stated a Misrepresentation of position- #35.  The proper context of the sentence you attempt to deny Lise is this:

But where police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court. Hence when officers wring confessions from the accused by force and violence, they violate some of the most fundamental, basic, and well-established constitutional rights which every citizen enjoys. Petitioner and his associates acted willfully and purposely; their aim was precisely to deny the protection that the Constitution affords.

The KANGAROO COURT referred to on page 101 of the case was in reference to VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
Lise posted:   "It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court."
Which means "It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, that DOESN'T VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."

You do not give full weight to the term "Kangaroo Court" and what is meant by such a term:

A mock court set up in violation of established legal procedure.
A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetence.
Stay away from law you’re dangerous.
Denigrating attitude- #56.

Perspective | 12.06.05 - 2:53 pm | #

I have not studied the issue of Federal U.S. Territory/ jurisdiction, other than to be aware of the existence of the "Federal Zone". Thus no comment on Art 1/ Art 3 courts.

Lise | 12.06.05 - 3:47 pm

Dr. Dean is in an Article III court. The case creates the jurisdiction; it’s not the other way around. Congress has designated the United States District Courts to hear criminal tax trials. To challenge jurisdiction one must be able to show that the AGENCY lacks subject matter authority over you, [bold emphasis mine]  or that the taxing statute is unconstitutional on its face and/or is being unconstitutionally applied.

If there is no law making picking boogers out of your nose or scratching your ass in public a crime, then picking boogers out of your nose or scratching your ass in public is NOT a CRIME. There should not be a criminal booger picking or criminal ass scratching trial for a law that DOES NOT exist.
Likewise, if there is NO law in regard to certain actions or inactions in respect of paying a tax, then those actions or inactions ARE NOT CRIMES. And just as likewise, there should not be a criminal tax trial if the action or inaction is NOT unlawful.

No agency has "subject matter authority" until you choose to do the activity that is within the statutes and regulations that defines said "subject matter authority".

For example, If you jump in your car and cross two state lines on your way to a long weekend in a recreational area.  Are you required to fill out a logbook?

Now on the other hand, for example, If you jump into your company's big rig semi-truck and cross two state lines on your way to make a delivery. Are you required to fill out a logbook?

In the one case, you have brought yourself under the "subject matter authority" of the U.S.D.O.T. and their published rules and regulations because the activity is within the statutes and regulations.  You are driving a vehicle that weighs over 26,001 pounds across state lines for commercial purposes. 

In the other case, the U.S.D.O.T. can shove their logbook rules up their backside. You are NOT within the "subject matter authority" because you are NOT driving a commercial motor vehicle over 26,001 pounds across a state line. 

How do you know WHEN any "subject matter authority" attaches?  You read the WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW. That would be the statutes and regulations.
The very thing perspective keeps trying to tell you to NOT read in regard to taxes.

There is no other in-between; the rest of the trial will only deal with FACTS from thereon in.
How come Mr. Legal-Know-It-All-perspective hasn't said a word about the difference between a special appearance in a court proceding and a general appearance in a court proceding?
Your heart is in the right place, but please, please be careful when dealing with law. The courts have a policy of sanctioning anyone bringing frivolous issues before them.
Resistance is futile- #36.
Resort to Argumentum ad Baculum

Even Larry B has been sanctioned for bringing up the wrong issues, and he’s pretty good at what he does.
Resistance is futile- #37. 
Resort to Argumentum ad Baculum

Perspective | 12.06.05 - 4:11 pm | #

Lise | 12.06.05 - 4:11 pm |
Again you’re off point—and lack civics.
They're stupid- #138.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #87.

Your arguments would be sanctioned.
Resistance is futile- #38. 
Resort to Argumentum ad Baculum
“The federal government is not a foreign sovereignty either as to states or people, nor is it hostile to either.
Using that logic, The Illinois government is "not a foreign sovereignty" to the Wisconsin government.  WRONG!

And with State's rights going down the toilet, the federal government IS HOSTILE to the States, and the federal government IS HOSTILE to the people of the States. (But then we don't know what definition of "state" is being used in the quote since perspective can't be bothered to cite his source. perhaps "state" only means D.C. and federal territories... a.k.a. the Federal Zone, in which case the quote is accurate.)

It proceeds from the same people, and is as much under their control as the state governments.
Maybe back when this quote was first uttered.

Where by the constitution the power of legislation is exclusively vested in congress, that body represents the power of the Union, and the laws enacted by it are as binding upon the states and people as are the constitutional enactments of a state legislature upon the people of the state.”
Correct. 
Now using your own method of posting.  You are wrong, since the cube root of 729 is 9 and you can't prove otherwise.

(cites omitted)
CONTEXT of the passage omitted.

Perspective | 12.06.05 - 4:21 pm | #

Lise | 12.06.05 - 4:26 pm

Dr. Dean isn't in any territorial court. Please read my last post--I'm citing you the law, not wishful thinking.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 4:33 pm | #
Yep. The cube root of 729 is 9 and you are wrong.

Lise,

You must ask yourself: Does Congress have the Constitutional power to tax within the geographical boundaries of the United States? Answer: Yes!! Next questions: If Congress has the Constitutional power to tax wouldn’t you think it has the power to enforce those taxes? Answer: Yes!!
But when I post passages of those laws that Congress uses to lay those taxes, and when I post passages of those laws that Congress uses to that delegate those enforcement powers to say, the IRS, and whein I post passages of those laws that Congress uses to tell the IRS what they may and what they may NOT do, you post attacks essentially calling me names for reading those laws.
If I could suggest a good civics resource this should be very helpful to you. http://Mary.Webster.org
Distraction off in another direction.
Don't read the law- #36.
I’ve cited further clarification for your edification.

"In this country, every man sustains a two-fold political capacity; one in relation to the state, and another in relation to the United States. In relation to the state, he is subject to various municipal regulations, founded upon the state constitution and policy, which do not affect him in his relation to the United States." (cites omitted)
Bold emphasis mine. As perspective has quoted, persons are subject to "various municipal regulations" of which said "various municipal regulations" perspective WILL NOT DISCUSS.

Thank you.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 4:58 pm | #

16. There are two conflicting schools of thought about the criminal justice system that must be reconciled before any solutions to the broken system can be formulated. The criminal justice system is thought to be terribly flawed, but there is still the belief that a criminal defendant can obtain justice in a criminal court. It is impossible for the vast majority of federal criminal defendants to obtain justice in a federal districtcourt because those courts are limited to administrative law and to federal territory. To do justice, a court, judge and jury must have access to all the pertinent facts and all the applicable law—federal courts deny this. Since 1789, federal district courts have been limited to the territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress and the only law that is available there is federal administrative law.

http://www.edrivera.com/kenlayletter.pdf
Anonymous | 12.06.05 - 6:21 pm | #

Peon,
Larry will do a good job for Dr. Dean. I think he'll walk on the good faith belief issue. Larry is very good with that argument.
Talks the talk without any substance.
I posted (in part) the following quote from a few post back. I suggest you do the same and ignore any childish arguments with the less informed.
Denigrating attitude- #57.

“I’ve given up debating with the people in this web site because they are simply too inflexible with insufferable attitudes.
You have stated your opinion as fact: Unsubstantiated assertion- #88.
Thus it is: Meaningless tripe- #61.

They continue to argue old, dead, and off-point issues over, and over, and over again.
By that, he means the WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW, To Wit: The written words of the statutes; The written words of the regulations.
Don't read the law- #37.

The courts will just sanction them over, and over, and over again.
Resistance is futile- #39. 
Resort to Argumentum ad Baculum

Why? Because they’re simply out of Context—in Schiff’s case and all the others.
They're stupid- #139.
My main reluctance in sharing the real issues is that so-called patriots do not have the insights necessary to fathom the complexity that needs to be dealt with to overcome America’s problems and would only abuse this research into confusability.”
A complex sentence. It uses many words, and essentially says nothing:

" My main reluctance in sharing the real issues "
Ethereal issues; ethereal problems; Ethereal "solutions"- #86; Ethereal Nexus / priviledge- #32.

"so-called patriots do not have the insights necessary... "
They're stupid- #140.

"...to fathom the complexity"
They're stupid- #141.

"to overcome America’s problems"
Ethereal problems; Ethereal "solutions"- #87

"would only abuse this research"
Unsubstantiated assertion- #89

"abuse this ... into confusability"
Yep. That's what you did with that compound sentence, making it into: Meaningless tripe- #62.
The above statement also includes Ed the attorney, with his off point territorial arguments.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #90.
They're stupid- #142.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 6:43 pm | #

Peon,
There will be a venue; you’ll know us by the quality of the work.
I'm smart- #22.
"Quality"????  With what you have posted so far...
"Quality" --- Unsubstantiated assertion- #91.

We’re in the process of putting together a Primer on Americanism.
Rah, Rah! So you're One of us- #32.
"We’re in the process of putting together a Primer on Americanism." is an Unsubstantiated assertion- #92.
If it wasn't for having to address your BS, I could be out in my garage right now putting the finishing touches on my FTL space engine.

Once that project is done we should be in a position to open a Web site mid to late 2006.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #93.
Hey! That's about the time I should be done with my FTL engine and "Once that project is done we should be in a position to open a Web site mid to late 2006."

So keep your eyes open. Hope is eternal!!
Meaningless tripe- #63.
One of our prime objectives is to help small business owners, just like you.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #94.  You've posted NOTHING of help to anyone yet.

As I’ve said the Constitution isn’t dead, its only been sleeping for about 100 years.
I'm smart- #23.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #95.

With intelligent and concerted efforts
They're stupid- #143.

we can start reversing the entrenched socialism and suppressive taxations that has plagued us.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #96.
Who is "we"? That hard on you have in you pants for my posts doesn't count as a person...
For that matter, you do know those come in adult sizes also?
(Sorry folks. If you have been reading this distilled essence of perspective's posts you know a little flame was way overdue.)

Hang in there!!
Rah, Rah! (again)

Perspective | 12.06.05 - 7:19 pm | #

Perspective said

The above statement also includes Ed the attorney, with his off point territorial arguments.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 6:43 pm | #

Perspective,

I do not take the word of anyone on these subjects without checking out their documentation. I admit I have not spent a lot of time checking out Ed Rivera claims but as to your response "The above statement also includes Ed the attorney, with his off point territorial arguments" you are going to have to do better than that.
I would certianly be responsive to any information you can provid to set the record straight.
Anonymous | 12.06.05 - 7:32 pm | #
Anonymous | 12.06.05 - 7:32 pm |

Anonymous said: “"The above statement also includes Ed the attorney, with his off point territorial arguments" you are going to have to do better than that.
I would certianly be responsive to any information you can provid to set the record straight.”

Territorial, administrative, judicial, not sure what you’re asking. Can you formulate a clear question that when I answer it will also inform others at the same time?
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 7:47 pm | #

Good job on the perspective prance dance where you Sidestep question- #18, said question asking you to substantiate your Unsubstantiated assertion.  However, He's calling you on your Unsubstantiated assertion- which was #90 in this (my) analysis of your tripe.

Dear Lise,

Lise said: “Thank you Anonymous for placing Dr. Ed Rivera's material on this forum. I read that piece several weeks ago, and I believe that he is correct.”

Would you be so kind and explain why you think, “he is correct,” in his theories, referring to Ed R? Maybe we can come to some kind of common vector and find an agreement between ourselves.

I hope I’m mistaken, so please someone help me out, but it seems to me Ed was sanctioned not to long ago for misinforming the public on tax matters.
Argumentum ad Baculum

Now I could be mistaken, but his attorney’s license may have been revoke if he didn’t cease and desist. Who knows?
Argumentum ad Baculum

Perspective | 12.06.05 - 9:28 pm | #

Dear Lise,

You have an opinion, you said: “and I believe that he is correct,” referring to Ed theories. Then you state: “Lise | 12.06.05 - 10:36 pm | First of all, check out Dr. Rivera's website, then check out Title 28, USC, and Title 40 USC.”
I only ask you WHY you believe Ed is correct—it’s not my opinion but yours I’m interested in.
Do I have a category for perspectives outright lies?  He says he's interested in her opinion, but pay attention to what he does to shut her up.

You apparently read his site and his referenced Titles. So what specifically on his site, or in Title 28, 40 USC helped you reach your conclusions? And after you demonstrate your reasons for your beliefs, what application to the subject matter, I’ll assume tax issues, does Ed’s conclusions address?
So now he can procede to shut Lise out.
Maybe I should save you time and stress and go to a higher authority to dispel Ed’s assumptions.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #97. Without proof that perspective is even aware of what's on Ed's site, and what Lise is attempting to get at, perspective starts with diarrhea of the keyboard.

I’ll start with the U. S. Constitution. Congress power to create courts, Article I Sec.8 clause 8, “To constitute TRIBUNALS INFERIOR to the supreme Court; …” and Article III Section I. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such INFERIOR COURTS as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish . . .” that’s one down.
He's on a roll. Just step aside so you don't get knocked over.
Next Congress’ taxing powers: Article I Sec.8, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and EXCISES, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the UNITED STATES; . . . etc” That taxing power pretty much covers the whole Country if a nexus to any one of those particular taxes applies to you. That’s two down.
Nexus / priviledge- #33.  Those are going to start racking up an impressive score very soon.
Last Ed’s fascination with Article I Sec. 8 Clause 16, (Congress enumerated powers) “. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) . . . become the Seat of the Government of the United States. . .”
“Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia and Places under Exclusive Federal Control.—Within the District of Columbia, and within the forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and needful buildings, acquired and used pursuant to the provisions of the 16th clause of the 8th section of the first article of the constitution, the NATIONAL AND MUNICIPAL powers of government of every description are united in the government of the Union. But these are the only cases, within the United States, in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the case of the temporary territorial governments, and even there local governments exist.” (Cite omitted)
Context omitted.
Proof of existence of posted words in any document with authority omitted.
Even if 100% correct, the posting of the above passage is an Unsubstantiated assertion- #98.
“In the enumeration of the powers of congress, in the eighth section of the first article, we find that of exercising exclusive legislation over such district as shall become the seat of government. This power, like all others which are specified, is conferred on congress as the legislature of the Union. In no other character can it be exercised. In legislating for the district, they necessarily preserve the character of the legislature of the Union; for it is in that character alone that, the constitution confers on them this power of exclusive jurisdiction.” (Cite omitted)
Context omitted.
Proof omitted.
As you can see, Lise, Congress exercises both National and municipal powers. They are not restricted to federal enclaves only. They powers they exercise over the entire Country and local powers like you city hall. Strike three.
As you can see, perspective wants you to believe what he asserts, without provision of checking his sources to check that he is not a liar.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #99.
Common Sense is the best policy—not convoluted legal wishful thinking.
Meaningless tripe- #64.

We both can agree the government has been usurping powers, and I’m saying the Constitution is waiting for us to put them back in their place.
Now he's back to being One of us- #33 and he is providing his Ethereal "solutions"- #88 again.

Thank you.
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 9:49 am | #

"Who knows? Maybe my life belongs to God. Maybe it belongs to me. But I do know one thing: I'm damned if it belongs to the government."

Arthur W. Hoppe (1925-2000) American newspaper columnist, humorist, satirist
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 12:42 pm | #
Meaningless tripe- #65.
One of us- #34.
Talks the talk.

"A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be."

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) Chief Justice, US Supreme Court (1953-69)
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 12:45 pm | #
Talkin' the talk.
One of us- #35.

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 12:47 pm | #
One of us- #36.

Duplicate post deleted to save your eyes.... And mind.
Perspective | 12.06.05 - 2:17 pm | #
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 1:08 pm | #

Peon,
Please go lightly at this time; no one belongs in jail over this corrupt taxing system.
Talks the talk- One of us- #37.

You’ve been a good friend on this site but you may have missed my main purpose.
They're stupid- #144.
Oops. You splashed that on your good friend.

It was to promote HOPE!!
By implying everyone else is stupid 144 time; By stating or implying resistance is futile 39 times; and by resorting to Argumentum ad Baculum uncounted times.
I have asked David and a few others on this site the following question: “If you could get your freedoms back without having to jeopardize your family, job, business, or property would you do it?” DEAD SILIENCE — NOT ONE ANSWERED.
Perhaps it's because you have NEVER stated HOW.  You have done nothing but inferred Ethereal "solutions" 88 times. Add one for that sentence: Ethereal "solutions"- #89.

You see, in my mind that’s fatalism—they would rather die than change their beliefs, not even if there was a better direction to win their freedoms.
Ethereal "solutions"- #90.
I'm not responding to the emotional charge he put in that sentence.

They yell and scream about convictions, corrupt courts etc, refusing to see that all patriot arguments have NO chance of winning because they are simply coming from the wrong direction.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #100.
They're stupid- #145.
Resistance is futile- #40.
Argumentum ad Baculum
You see, in my research I discovered HOW the government put us in this terrible socialistic quagmire.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #101.
I'm smart- #24.
Ethereal "solutions"- #91.
Anybody see anything he has posted that even comes into the same room as that lying assertion?

I further discovered the crack in their armor—which you could drive a Mack “Constitutional” truck right through.
Ethereal "solutions"- #92.

In plain English it can be shown that the taxing system IS unconstitutional on its face, in regards to the average business and their employees.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #102.

I’m not talking about governmental privileged corporations or organizations.
As typical, you're not talking about much of anything.

Again, my main focus is not just on the taxing system but ALL government usurpation of inalienable rights.
Whatever you say Tommy Flanagan 
Unsubstantiated assertion- #103.
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 11:08 pm | #

Fatalism and fear is a dead end. If you want to change the system you get into the water without creating ripples. This takes brains—along with superior principles. I think the colonists also had to deal with loyalist, which said the same thing to George Washington. And we all know how the rest of the story goes.

Thank you.
Perspective | 12.07.05 - 11:53 pm | #
Meaningless tripe- #66.


Peon,
Thanks!! Keep thinking free. "Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has been long taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert."
Perspective | 12.08.05 - 12:25 am | #
Talking the talk. One of us- #38.

Peon,
Just in case someone calls you a clown again, put a smile on your face, you’re in good company.

“The arrival of a good clown exercises a more beneficial influence upon the health of a town than the arrival of twenty asses laden with drugs.” Thomas Sydenham
Perspective | 12.08.05 - 12:35 am | #
How quaint. How trite. Meaningless tripe- #67.

Save yourselves some money just ask Larry Becraft why the jury voted the way it did, he usually ask their opinion after the verdict.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #104.
David, I find it sad you focus on Peon as maybe being ban from your site as a troll, but you over look the venom coming from 'the law' & the 'constitutionalist.'
Unsubstantiated assertion- #105.
Talking to brick walls has been real fun. Keep doing it the hard way maybe another 35 years you'll wake up?
They're stupid- #146.
Resistance is futile- #41.
Perspective | 12.09.05 - 12:20 am | #

Duplicate post deleted to save your eyes and mind.
Perspective | 12.09.05 - 12:54 am | #

Perspective 12.09.05 - 12:54 am wrote:

Save yourselves some money just ask Larry Becraft why the jury voted the way it did, he usually ask their opinion after the verdict.

If he did interview the jury it wasn't taped or transcribed for anyone's benefit.

David, I find it sad you focus on Peon as maybe being ban from your site as a troll, but you over look the venom coming from 'the law' & the 'constitutionalist.'

I'm sorry you are sad.

Talking to brick walls has been real fun. Keep doing it the hard way maybe another 35 years you'll wake up?

Talking with a broken record hasn't been fun. You claim to have a constitutional solution to the problems confronting us, and I hope you do. The reality however is likely that your mysterious efforts won't see the light of day in our courts. Maybe then you'll appreciate where I and others are at today.

Maybe some day you'll put something of substance regarding your supposed solutions out here for our review. Maybe than I and others will be motivated to contribute to your efforts. Until then, forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical and not all that anxious to join your band wagon.

What! Preposterous!  Perspective would neveer post substanceless posts. Surely Mr. Jahn, you must be mistaken....  NOT!

I believe there are numerous problems with the court system in our nation. Some problems lie in the process that has evolved over the years, and some lie with the personailities involed in the adminstration of the system. Wherever the problems lie, we need to identify and reveal them.

It is quite possible our efforts here today will help your efforts tomorrow. You should perhaps keep an open mind.


David Jahn | 12.09.05 - 7:36 am | #

David Jahn | 12.09.05 - 7:36 am

David said: “Talking with a broken record hasn't been fun.” . . . “Maybe some day you'll put something of substance regarding your supposed solutions out here for our review.”

David, you said to me, you don’t have the time to read what I’ve posted. I think it’s because your blindness fogs your thinking.
Non sequitur.

Facing the truth hurts so you and the so-called patriot movement just ignores it.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #106 is that perspective is posting "truth".
Denigrating attitude- #58.

I’ve explained why the courts go against the patriot arguments many times.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #107.
You've explained NOTHING.

You call it a broken record?
Nothing is wrong- #52.   I'm smart- #24.  They're stupid- #146.  Resistance is futile- #41.  One of us- #38.  Ad hominem- #41. Unsubstantiated assertion- #107.
Meaningless tripe- #67.  Straw man- #3.  Nexus / priviledge- #33. Ethereal "solutions"- #92.  Don't read the law- #37. Misrepresentation of position- #35.
Denigrating attitude- #58.  Sidesteps question- #18.
DO THE MATH.

I even give you the judicial doctrine/s you’re up against.
You give unsubstantiated assertions.

And you call it a broken record?
Yes.

I explain to you I’ve been in your shoes and found the patriots arguments frivolous years ago.
One of us- #39.
They're stupid- #147.
Resistance is futile- #42.
Ethereal "solutions"- #93.

You call it a broken record?
Provably a broken record.

I’ve demonstrated legal understanding the patriot wouldn’t even know where to look for.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #108.
They're stupid- #148.
Denigrating attitude- #59.

You call it a broken record?
Um, yeees.

I quote authorities like “American Jurisprudence” I and II etc.,
And do everything in your power to convince nubes to Don't read the law- #38.

and you quote nothing but wishful thinking.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #109, that quoting statute and regulation is quoting "wishful thinking".

I’ve explained why the Code/s, and terms the patriots get catch up with have NOTHING of value when the taxing agency has already established jurisdictional authority over you.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #110.
You refuse to discuss the codes which explain what, when, where, who, how, and why in regard to jurisdictional authority.  I already covered this here.

You call it a broken record?
You catch on quick. No fooling you.

I’ve dispelled poor patriot arguments with real issues of law.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #111.

You call it a broken record?
Maybe you're not as quick as I thought.

I’ve listened to two of the Schiff TROLLS spout their b.s. at anyone they disagreed with, with their ignorance and hate.
As opposed to you spouting your BS, ignorance, and hate at me because I refuse to ignore the written word of the statutes and regulations.
Ad hominem- #42.
They're stupid- #149. 
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.

But that’s OK with you?
Temper, Temper.

But when they wanted my help for Irwin’s appeal I gave them a reasonable and viable issue, just because they couldn’t understand it, they ragged on me as being a IRS agent, NO Thanks. You said nothing.
Who is the "they" that "wanted" your help? Was it Irwin? The same guy you were badmouthing?
Oh, and that grandiosity of yours.  Your here to help the earth? What planet are you from.
I don't care about "them". The reason I'M ragging on you for being an IRS agent, is because only an IRS agent would post the lying, misdirecting, drivel you have posted... And I'm not even into your posts yet, where you crossed words with me.

Now you call it a broken record?
Just keep repeating that until you comprehend the point.
The only BROKEN RECORD I see is your lack of PERSPECTIVE.
Oooh. Dave I'm sorry perspective hit you so hard with his effete words. Did you get a bloody eardrum?

The courts are not corrupt, the patriot arguments are simply unconstitutional on their face, and just plain FRIVILOUS.
Unsubstantiated assertion- #112.
They're stupid- #150.
Resistance is futile- #43.
Misrepresentation of position- #36.
Nothing is wrong- #53.

ALL OF THEM!!
They're stupid- #151.

Just because one has to repeat something many times before someone who’s thick headed will hear it, doesn’t make it untrue.
You must be referring to your Unsubstantiated assertions- #113.
Ad hominem- #43.

Maybe you can remember hearing or someone saying to you: Don’t run into the street you’ll get run over, it’s true, just realize the government is the BUS and you’re not listening.
Argumentum ad Baculum
Resistance is futile- #44.

The so-called patriots are like children with headphones on while mom keeps yelling WATCH OUT FOR THE BUS!!
Ad hominem- #44.
They're stupid- #152.

And David calls it a broken record?
Nothing is wrong- #53.   I'm smart- #24.  They're stupid- #152.  Resistance is futile- #44.  One of us- #39.  Ad hominem- #44. Unsubstantiated assertion- #113.
Meaningless tripe- #67.  Straw man- #3.  Nexus / priviledge- #33. Ethereal "solutions"- #93.  Don't read the law- #38. Misrepresentation of position- #36.
Denigrating attitude- #59.  Sidesteps question- #18.

How SAD.

As far you or the so-called patriots reviewing my work—you’ll first have to take civics 101.
Ad hominem- #45.
They're stupid- #153.
I'm smart- #25.
Ethereal "solutions"- #94. 
Unsubstantiated assertion- #114.

I’m sorry but even the basics of law has simply been OVER YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS.
They're stupid- #154.

Call me a smart ass; in this case I’ll consider it an honor.
Then be So Honored - Mr. Sphincter.

Perspective | 12.09.05 - 8:57 am | #

Perspective 12.09.05 - 8:57 am wrote:

I think it’s because your blindness fogs your thinking. Facing the truth hurts so you and the so-called patriot movement just ignores it.

Perspective, I've never been part or in any way associated with the so called patriot movement.

You perhaps should go back and read my post again so you can better understand my position.

I didn't say you haven't posted anything of substance. Some of your content seems erroneous to me, some may have merit.

I must say your dream of turning the nation around strikes me as delusional. However, I cling to the hope that you might come through with something of value.

As far you or the so-called patriots reviewing my work—you’ll first have to take civics 101. I’m sorry but even the basics of law has simply been OVER YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS. Call me a smart ass; in this case I’ll consider it an honor.

No, I don't see you as a smart ass. You strike me as just another one in the crowd. I'll keep hoping for more.

Meanwhile, you might want to start judging people individually instead of collectivley. Quite frankly, this peg doesn't fit the hole your trying to put it into. It makes me wonder what else you've gotten wrong.

David Jahn | 12.09.05 - 9:56 am | #

FINALLY!  After wading through all of perspective's tripe, I get to the point where I actually engaged with him in real time.
That analysis will start on this page.

In view of the trollish behavior of perspective as I was going through all the above tripe, I decided that he was a waste of time.  I gave him one last chance to answer a simple question. That question was asked for the 30th (thirtieth) time on this page

Nothing is wrong- #53.   I'm smart- #25.  They're stupid- #154.  Resistance is futile- #44.  One of us- #39.  Ad hominem- #45. Unsubstantiated assertion- #114.  Meaningless tripe- #68.  Straw man- #3.  Nexus / priviledge- #33. Ethereal "solutions"- #94.  Don't read the law- #38. Misrepresentation of position- #36.  Denigrating attitude- #59.  Sidesteps question- #18.

Next page

Table of Contents