A Federal Judge Admits 16th Amend. is Void

I like to keep tabs on the "tax-honesty" movement. Recently, they've made quite a bit of progress putting back together the structure of the Internal Revenue Service after Congress tore it apart. They've also proven that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order. On a personal note, I've looked into the law and I've come to my own conclusions about what is and is not permissible for the federal government to do when it comes to directly taxing the American public. So, this morning I thought I would log onto We the People's web site to see if there was any new news. Boy, was I surprised!

The first article I ran across was titled, 'The Motive, Federal Judge Says Tyranny Changes The Constitution'. The first part of the article compares the amount of money initially collected from American Taxpayers in FY 1913 to the amount collected in FY 2005. While interesting, the best part was down at the bottom of the article:

In March of 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Donald Sullivan, an active duty Lt. Colonel, and Jeffrey Sullivan, his nephew -- an active duty Sp4 -- sued the government to prevent the application of the armed forces in Iraq unless and until the Congress declared war, in keeping with the war powers clauses of the Constitution.

A hearing for a temporary restraining order was held before the Senior United States District Court Judge James C. Fox. Note: The hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2003, without the knowledge that the war would start on March 20, 2003.

An official transcript of the hearing has been obtained by WTP.

(Right-click on the link above to download it to your computer before opening. 650 KB, .pdf)

I've recreated the most pertinent pages from the above transcript for you to read. In my opinion, it is absolutely amazing:

I believe the treatise that Judge Fox was referring to is titled, The Law That Never Was, Volumes I & II, by Bill Benson. Larry Becraft has written an excellent piece framing what Mr. Benson accomplished:

FRAUD SHOWN IN PASSAGE OF 16^TH AMENDMENT

by Larry Becraft

The National Educator, April 1989

The federal government and its tax agencies, supported by our congressmen, would like for us to believe that the power of the government to tax was greatly changed by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913. Having been denied the right to tax incomes by a Supreme Court decision in 1895, Uncle Sam claims that, once this Amendment was ratified, a constitutional deficiency was corrected by the Amendment and that after 1913, it had a legal right to claim a portion of income of every American in taxes.

Ever since the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments after the Civil War, arguments were made that these amendments were not legally ratified, but nobody ever did enough research to conclusively prove this contention in court. When the Sixteenth Amendment came along, popular support for the amendment and the very light taxes imposed as a consequence of the amendment were sufficient to prevent similar arguments that this amendment was not ratified. It was only when the income tax burden became almost unbearable and tax enforcement and collection turned ruthless that for the first time in American history someone decided to actually research and investigate the question of whether a federal amendment had legally and really been ratified. (Click here to continue)

There you have it. A Federal Judge admits that he has knowledge of fraud committed by the United States government against the American people. What's worse, Judge Fox goes on to say, "I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever -- would set it aside." In other words, the U.S. government is free to carry on defrauding the American public because the Judiciary does not now, nor ever intends to rescue them. May I remind everyone that Judge Fox is bound by oath[1] to protect the Rights of American Citizens. It is his Duty to make right the wrongs committed against the American Citizenry, no matter what the cost might be. Until this happens, we truly do live in tyranny and hopelessness[2]!

1. Article VI, Section 3, U.S. Constitution: "…all … judicial Officers … of the United States … shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution")

2. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." President Bush's 2nd Inaugural Address [transcript of the speech available at USAToday].

Memo: You Need Permission To Tell Government What You Think

It appears that President Bush's arch nemesis, Cindy Sheehan, has run afoul of the law and got herself arrested.

 

[The Associated Press reports...] She and the others sat down along the pedestrian walkway in front of the White House and began to sing and chant "Stop the war now!" Police warned them three times that they would be arrested if they didn't move along, but that didn't deter them.

A spokesman for the U.S. Park Police estimates about 370 people were taken into custody over a four and a half hour period. The demonstrators who were arrested cooperated with police.

All but one person was charged with a misdemeanor of demonstrating without a permit. One person was charged with crossing a police line. (Continue article here)

 

 

Demonstrating without a permit... That's their crime?!? Are you telling me that because they forgot to get permission from authorities to tell those same authorities what they thought about their authority, they were arrested?!? What country do we live in, again?

 

Let's just stop for a minute and remind everybody of the rules we all live under. The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I says explicitly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The D.C. police have no authority to arrest anyone because they don't have a permit to demonstrate. Remember, the concept of needing a permit stems from doing an activity that otherwise would not be allowed by law. The D.C. authorities can't issue permits of this nature because our Constitution stripped them of the authority to make laws prohibiting such activities! We don't need to get permission from our Government to tell them they suck! We need only to open our mouths and let the words come out, and there ain't nothing anyone can do to shut us up!

 

"Liberty and justice for all?" I hope the above picture doesn't exemplify our Government's definition of "Liberty" and "Justice". I, for one, won't stand for it!

Warren Buffet feels "lucky" to be robbed of his money?!?

An article caught my eye about Warren Buffet suing the IRS over its misinterpretation of the tax codes (surprise!). Buffet's company claims that the IRS wrongly assessed Berkshire Hathaway Inc. taxes on borrowed money that Berkshire then used to purchase stocks to better it's financial position. Anyway, the best part of the article was the last paragraph. It's a quote by Mr. Buffet that made me immediately think of another quote. But, first, Mr. Buffet:

"Writing checks to the IRS that include strings of zeros does not bother ... me," he said. "Berkshire as a corporation, and we as individuals have prospered in America as we would have in no other country. Indeed, if we lived in some other part of the world and completely escaped taxes, I'm sure we would be worse off financially and in many other ways as well. Overall, we feel extraordinarily lucky to have been dealt a hand in life that enables us to write large checks to the government."

That last sentence made me laugh. Hell, Mr. Buffet, if I oppressed you, would you write me large checks, too? I'll be right over! I said at the beginning that his words reminded me of another quote. Here it is (and its fitting, too):

A fool and his money are soon parted.
~Thomas Tusser

On a side note, I'm not saying that Berkshire should or should not pay taxes. If Berkshire is a "taxpayer", as defined in USC Title 26, then Berkshire is subject to all those laws applicable to "taxpayers". I say, "Good luck with that fight, there, Mr. Buffet... You're going to need it!"

Posse Comitatus is changing to Posse Come-and-Get-Us?

When hurricane Katrina was done blowing over the last house in Louisiana, I began to wonder why the state/federal response was slow in coming. It seemed like the only thing getting done was blaming the other guy for why nothing was getting done. People were begging for help while government officials sat on their hands. Even when the private citizenry tried to set up improvised rescue missions, they were thwarted by government officials. Nobody was allowed to do anything unless government gave the official 'OK' to do it. It all seemed rather odd... and deliberate.

I watched and speculated at their motives. It became obvious that the fed seemed to be positioning themselves to argue that they needed more power and control when dealing with natural disasters. The fed wanted to use the military to "aid" in the clean up. They wanted complete control over the military; and they wanted to be able to utilize the military in events like this where before the states directed the national guard and coast guard in disaster responses.

Then, even before all the water had been drained away from the latest hurricane, Bush is pushing for the use of the military, to be controlled by the Pentagon (from the AP):

Bush, anticipating future disasters, began pushing a politically sensitive proposal to give the military a larger role in search-and-rescue missions.

"Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case," he said. But if there is "a natural disaster — of a certain size — that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort," Bush said.

The president said he would ask Congress to consider putting the Pentagon in charge of disaster rescues after senior officers indicated the need for such a national plan.

His proposal divided lawmakers trying to balance an adequate federal response against trampling on states' rights.

Currently, the Homeland Security Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency lead response missions in large-scale disasters. If federal troops are brought in to help, they do so in support of FEMA, through the U.S. Northern Command. The command was set up as part of a military reorganization after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Remember these important facts as events unfold concerning the use of the military with regards to natural disasters:

1. The government (federal/state) had just as much warning before hurricane Rita as they did before hurricane Katrina. Look at how much more smoothly things have been handled with hurricane Rita.
   
2. Look at how little bickering has occurred between the state government and federal government when it comes to coordinating clean up efforts with hurricane Rita. The task of clean up and reconstruction is getting done. There is no bickering, no fighting, and no "finger pointing" or "blame laying".
   
3. Looking to past hurricanes, compare the government's response put forward in those past hurricanes to government's response to hurricane Katrina ...and to hurricane Rita. Why the sudden incompetence dealing with hurricane Katrina, but not with hurricane Rita? Again, very suspicious! Government cannot "mend it's ways" that quickly.
   

In closing, I may be trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but when it comes to even more federal control over individual states, everyone should be alarmed.

For more information on the Posse Comitatus Act and an interesting viewpoint on why it was enacted ("They understood the heel of a jackboot"), visit the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

UPDATE: C.T. Rossi has an excellent article at LewRockwell.com titled 'The Danger of Standing Armies' that's well worth the read. His article shows that the current administration has pushed for the scrapping of the PCA for awhile.

Constitution Day

For what its worth, Happy Constitution Day!

Friend or Foe?

With friends like these, who needs enemies?!?

---

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

(Click here to continue article.)

Assumed New Powers of Government Mark Death of Liberty

I was reading an article from FT.com about the "US appeals court [upholding the President's] authority to imprison indefinitely a US citizen captured on American soil." The U.S. citizen the article is referring to is José Padilla. From the article:

[T]the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that José Padilla, a suspected al-Qaeda operative who US officials say was planning to carry out a terrorist attack inside the US, could be detained as an "enemy combatant" without any review by US civilian courts.
...
But the court's ruling... said definitively that Mr Bush had been given such powers by the congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

That resolution, the court said, "provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts," including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.

The first question that should come to the forefront of everyone's mind is, "What powers do congress possess, that they can then delegate to the executive branch? If those powers were granted to congress by We, the People when congress was formed, wouldn't those powers need to conform to the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights?" Let's look at the resolution that congress passed, giving these "new" powers to the president:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists

Pub. L. 107-40, Sept. 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224, provided that:
"Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and "Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and "Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and "Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
"This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
"(a) In General. -That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The only thing I can see in this resolution that remotely looks like granted authority is, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force..." I cannot see where Congress empowered the president with new powers. Besides, how could Congress when it never initially possessed those powers? I want to make myself, and this point, perfectly clear. The Bill of Rights, amended to The Constitution of the United States of America, says very clearly that:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

All of government has a wall built around it by the Bill of Rights. It is not allowed to do those things enumerated in the Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact, the Ninth Amendment goes so far as to say, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This further binds down government. Finally, we can clearly derive the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights from it's preamble.

We read from the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

As anyone can plainly see, government does not have now, nor has it ever had, the authority to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens. Relabeling U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" is a word-game played by slick lawyers. This sort of tomfoolery doesn't cut it, either.

I say, "Charge Mr. Pidilla with a crime, or release him, NOW!"

Took a Double Take

I was zippin' along the information super-highway when I hit this speed bump:

I had to stop at this site and take a look around (after I quit laughing, of course)!

Here's a link to this site's main page. Go have a look. You know you want to.

From this site, I recommend:

• I, Pilsner, a "tribute to (or rip-off of) Leonard E. Read's brilliant monograph 'I, Pencil'." It's a pretty interesting look at taxes and beer.
• What to do in an Emergency in 2003, "another attempt at scare mongering in the style of the old 'duck and cover' advice after WWII." (WARNING: VERY FUNNY! Proceed with caution!)

A Change to the Site

I decided to make a few minor changes to the site. I changed the look of the header and added some new graphics to "jazz" things up. Also, I created a couple of "link-banners" to a few blogs that I visit regularly.

Feel free to copy and paste these as needed. Also, since I created these I figured I should probably create one for my site.

Finally, I know these following link-banners have been up on my site for awhile, but I still recommend them.

Dilbert Duality

Do you like to play that game where the challenge is to find the differences between two similar pictures? Well, I have one for you. Below are two Dilbert comics that ran on Tuesday, September 6, 2005.

The first version was published on the internet:

(Click image for larger version)

The second version was published in Snohomish County's The Herald (print copy; pg. B5):

(Click image for larger version)

I have to wonder why the readers of The Herald would be shielded from the first version of the Dilbert comic. Could it be that the paper was trying not to offend lawyers? Porpoises? Or, perhaps, the entry point of the porpoise in the first version violated some obscure state animal cruelty law, so the author had to remove it. Hmmm... Some points to ponder.

P.S. I personally found the first version extremely funny. When I read the comic's section of The Hearald and saw their version had been sanitized, I was outraged!

UPDATE: I received a response from Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert. Here's his explanation:

Hi,

Sometimes I provide two versions to newspapers and let them decide which one is right for their market.

Scott

Proposed Legal Memorandum for Federal Takeover?

Can someone explain this to me? I see the words, but I need help understanding the story behind this story:

An emerging power struggle
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration had sought control over National Guard units, normally under control of the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request, noting that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. State authorities suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who is an adviser and does not have the authority to speak publicly.

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

Why would there be a struggle for control of the National Guard? Could the blatant delay of help rendered to Louisiana be due to the federal government's attempt to usurp the state's authority? Or, are the fed's hands constitutionally tied until there is a "legal request" for help from the state? If someone knows, please share in the comments section.

UPDATE: I ran across this article that goes into the mechanics of Louisiana's State Emergency Operations Plan:

Why Didn't Louisiana Follow it's Required Emergency Plan?
September 4, 2005
Joseph Ranos

1) Why Didn't Louisiana Follow it's Emergency Plan? Why isn't anyone talking about this?
2) Why hasn't anyone mentioned that a Pre-Requisite for a Federal Response BY LAW is that State Law is Executed and the Emergency Plan is Executed FIRST?
3) Why did the Governor abandon the City of New Orleans for the Safety of Baton Rouge, before the Plan was Executed?
4) Why, when the federal Government was acting in accordance with the Stafford Act, did the State of Louisiana, by its Governors acts, delay making requests when being told this storm was going to hit?
5) Why did Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco, delay while sleeping on it Saturday night, the Mandatory evacuation spelled out in the Louisiana Emergency Plan? Saturday the Mayor said he may order an evacuation tomorrow. (Sunday)
6) Where were the Parish Presidents who were signatories to the Louisiana Emergency Plan, and why did they fail in its Execution to the plan?
7) In the Parish failure to implement, why didn't the State take over as required by the plan?
8) Why weren't the Hospitals nursing homes, etc. evacuated since the plan required them to do so?
9) Why did the Mandatory evacuation only occur AFTER President Bush
called, and why did Governor Blanco stress that it was only after President Bush Called to urging the Evacuation order? Was she concerned for the Citizens, or was she grandstanding so she could blame the President if the Storm didn't hit?
10) Why were the Action Plan implementations required not done by the Local and State Government?
(Click here to continue article)

After reviewing all the information from the article and referenced documents, it would seem that Louisiana suffered a massive bureaucratic breakdown. It would not surprise me to hear that the chain of command broke down somewhere between the state level and the parish and/or city level. Sad.

...It is the duty of the [citizen] to protect his [state] from its government. - Thomas Paine

UPDATE (Part 2): I was reading an article from Paul Craig Roberts that:

A senior Bush administration official planted on the Washington Post the disinformation that FEMA could not act because the Louisiana governor had not declared a state of emergency. Hours after printing this disinformation, a red-faced Washington Post issued a retraction, which reads: "A Sept. 4 article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. 26."

It would seem that perhaps Louisiana got it right. For now, I'll wait and watch what happens. The truth will come out, eventually.

UPDATE (PART 3): Here's an article from Knight Ridder that seems to point to Chertoff, not Brown as the weak link when it comes to Federal bungling:

Chertoff delayed federal response, memo shows Knight Ridder - Tue Sep 13,10:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not the former FEMA chief who was relieved of his duties and resigned earlier this week, federal documents reviewed by Knight Ridder show. Even before the storm struck the Gulf Coast, Chertoff could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown had only limited authority to do so until about 36 hours after the storm hit, when Chertoff designated him as the "principal federal official" in charge of the storm.

Chertoff Memo on Katrina Response [PDF] at Knight Ridder

Again, I'm still waiting for the dust to settle...