knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,

The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.

For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.

As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.

But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."

There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.

If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.

I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).

It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com


You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited individuals
as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a single critical
cell in your head.
FK

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:59 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,
The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.
For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.
As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.
Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.
But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."
There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.
I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).
It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
single critical cell in your head.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ad hominem.
Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?


Why bother? Your support of his work is enough for me. You are so
thoroughly a discredited fool that it is a totally acceptable maxim that
anything you support is total nonsense. There have been no exception to
date about your unerring ability to be taken in by utter nonsense. You are
without doubt the universal village idiot. Of course there have also been
your own forays into utter stupidity (e.g., the attempt to incite a police
officer into losing his cool). If for no other reason that every item so
far supported by you has been totally specious. All the so-called science
you support has to this day produced no example of anything that can be
supported by usable product to accomplish what you claim others have
proven. Political positions you take are almost exclusively part of con
games by others to sell products. You are a helpless imbecile. Get help.
You need psychiatric attention.
FK

On Jun 9, 5:51 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:59 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,
The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.
For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.
As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.
Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.
But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."
There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.
I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).
It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
single critical cell in your head.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ad hominem.
Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?

Why bother? Your support of his work is enough for me. You are so
thoroughly a discredited fool that it is a totally acceptable maxim that
anything you support is total nonsense. There have been no exception to
date about your unerring ability to be taken in by utter nonsense. You
are without doubt the universal village idiot. Of course there have also
been your own forays into utter stupidity (e.g., the attempt to incite
a police officer into losing his cool). If for no other reason that
every item so far supported by you has been totally specious. All the
so-called science you support has to this day produced no example of
anything that can be supported by usable product to accomplish what you
claim others have proven. Political positions you take are almost
exclusively part of con games by others to sell products. You are a
helpless imbecile. Get help. You need psychiatric attention.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What exactly does Rose sell besides his labor when not sitting in
prison for standing up for principle and truth?

Whose the goon?

Show me how the income tax as "advertised" is not a direct tax on the
exchange of labor which by law is to be apportioned?
Show me how I can sell my labor avoid it and still eat if it is not a
direct tax and is indirect which is by definition avoidable.
Address the 1925 law like Rose requests of the "Professor."

How can a law require somebody to violate the U.S. Constitution?

As in the right not to incriminate oneself with an income tax form?

Why can no lawyer, judge, or even a former IRS commissioner answer
this very simple question without resorting to name calling or threats?

I've asked both my Senator's to answer this question. One or the other
should be able to answer it, don't you think? Actually I'm expecting a
responce like "I don't understand the question", same as I've heard so
many respond in the past. But I'll keep an open mind. I'm not privy to
perfect knowledge like many others around here.

What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely defined as
to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in compliance with
any Supreme Court decision.

As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the income tax
fraud into your Individual Master File when you are first asked to bring
your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in your
file to bring out before the Jury.

Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but they can't
deal with 12 million illegal aliens?

Understand he has not been paid for his labor!

He has only received promissory notes (which
are a promise to be paid in the future).

You can not pay your debts with them!,

but discharge your debt to someone else.

"Fred Kasner" <fkasner@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2xEai.32584$Um6.591@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,

The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.

For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.

As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.

But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."

There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.

If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.

I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).

It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited individuals
as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a single critical
cell in your head.
FK

How can a law require somebody to violate the U.S. Constitution?

As in the right not to incriminate oneself with an income tax form?

Why can no lawyer, judge, or even a former IRS commissioner answer
this very simple question without resorting to name calling or threats?

I've asked both my Senator's to answer this question. One or the other
should be able to answer it, don't you think? Actually I'm expecting a
responce like "I don't understand the question", same as I've heard so
many respond in the past. But I'll keep an open mind. I'm not privy to
perfect knowledge like many others around here.

"Fred Kasner" <fkasner@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bWHai.14431$rO7.5828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:59 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,
The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.
For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.
As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.
Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.
But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."
There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.
I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).
It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
single critical cell in your head.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Ad hominem.
Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?

Why bother? Your support of his work is enough for me. You are so
thoroughly a discredited fool that it is a totally acceptable maxim that
anything you support is total nonsense. There have been no exception to
date about your unerring ability to be taken in by utter nonsense. You are
without doubt the universal village idiot. Of course there have also been
your own forays into utter stupidity (e.g., the attempt to incite a police
officer into losing his cool). If for no other reason that every item so
far supported by you has been totally specious. All the so-called science
you support has to this day produced no example of anything that can be
supported by usable product to accomplish what you claim others have
proven. Political positions you take are almost exclusively part of con
games by others to sell products. You are a helpless imbecile. Get help.
You need psychiatric attention.
FK

What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely defined as
to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in compliance with
any Supreme Court decision.

As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the income tax
fraud into your Individual Master File when you are first asked to bring
your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in your
file to bring out before the Jury.

Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but they can't
deal with 12 million illegal aliens?

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181446887.699036.251700@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 9, 5:51 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:59 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Subscriber,
The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.
For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.
As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.
Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.
But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."
There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.
I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).
It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
single critical cell in your head.
FK- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ad hominem.
Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?
Why bother? Your support of his work is enough for me. You are so
thoroughly a discredited fool that it is a totally acceptable maxim that
anything you support is total nonsense. There have been no exception to
date about your unerring ability to be taken in by utter nonsense. You
are without doubt the universal village idiot. Of course there have also
been your own forays into utter stupidity (e.g., the attempt to incite
a police officer into losing his cool). If for no other reason that
every item so far supported by you has been totally specious. All the
so-called science you support has to this day produced no example of
anything that can be supported by usable product to accomplish what you
claim others have proven. Political positions you take are almost
exclusively part of con games by others to sell products. You are a
helpless imbecile. Get help. You need psychiatric attention.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What exactly does Rose sell besides his labor when not sitting in
prison for standing up for principle and truth?

Understand he has not been paid for his labor! He has only received
promissory notes (which are a promise to be paid in the future).
You can not pay your debts with them!, but discharge your debt to
someone else. Not that these agencies actually care about the law.
Or even truth any more than a Mafia boss cares about the law.
Whose the goon?

Show me how the income tax as "advertised" is not a direct tax on the
exchange of labor which by law is to be apportioned?
Show me how I can sell my labor avoid it and still eat if it is not a
direct tax and is indirect which is by definition avoidable.
Address the 1925 law like Rose requests of the "Professor."

What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely
defined as to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in
compliance with any Supreme Court decision.


The law is neither broad nor vague except to morons, like you.


As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the
income tax fraud into your Individual Master File when you are
first asked to bring your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in
your file to bring out before the Jury.

Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but
they can't deal with 12 million illegal aliens?


One of the other marks of the tax morons like yourself, is the
fantasy that there are so many of you. In reality there are
substantially less than 50,000 of you nuts.


I vaguely recall reading an actual IRS publication that said
something about refusing certain requests. Maybe it was about
trying to appeal to the federal court, after an audit resulted in
a tax-due bill.

And it included something about induhviduals who had already been
officially designated as "tax protestors." And that those people
would receive less consideration.

I took that to mean people with big mouths. The ones who
actually spout the Constitutional arguments, and so forth, about
how the US income tax is bogus.

Which is a lot different to the much larger hordes of folks who
are involved in mistakes or misinterpretations or arguments about
specific amounts. Or people just don't have the money to spare,
and are looking for a break.

Usenet2...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG wrote:
What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely
defined as to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in
compliance with any Supreme Court decision.

The law is neither broad nor vague except to morons, like you.

As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the
income tax fraud into your Individual Master File when you are
first asked to bring your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in
your file to bring out before the Jury.

Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but
they can't deal with 12 million illegal aliens?

One of the other marks of the tax morons like yourself, is the
fantasy that there are so many of you. In reality there are
substantially less than 50,000 of you nuts.

I vaguely recall reading an actual IRS publication that said
something about refusing certain requests. Maybe it was about
trying to appeal to the federal court, after an audit resulted in
a tax-due bill.

And it included something about induhviduals who had already been
officially designated as "tax protestors." And that those people
would receive less consideration.

I took that to mean people with big mouths. The ones who
actually spout the Constitutional arguments, and so forth, about
how the US income tax is bogus.

Which is a lot different to the much larger hordes of folks who
are involved in mistakes or misinterpretations or arguments about
specific amounts. Or people just don't have the money to spare,
and are looking for a break.

Here are some of the dummies. These are people who really believed in
the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then
was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for
asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the
IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that
irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor
materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get
creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money
you paid for the materials, your defense attorney's fees, the value of
your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible
individual.

Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

a.. United States v. Schiff; "America's leading untax expert" is
convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of
willful failure to file. Some expert!

b.. United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

c.. Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

d.. Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get
out of jail. He loses this too.

e.. In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied
too.

f.. Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December
27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for
individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and
on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse
and delay.

g.. Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70
(January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana
law or the Internal Revenue Code.

h.. Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117
(January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S.
income taxation.

i.. Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No.
94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor
could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their
affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back taxes owed.

j.. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January
21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of
government-related entities.

k.. Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No.
99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information
to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.

l.. Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021
(August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code
("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute
or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" liable
under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn
"wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he
had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term and the
Supreme Court's definition of the term.

m.. McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98
(February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear Taxpayer"
were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In addition to
losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making
frivolous arguments.

n.. House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ
(January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons" within the meaning
of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens of the Sovereign State
of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the United States

Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

a.. United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is
unclear.

b.. United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is
not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations
issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.

c.. United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the
Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or
implied agreements with the Federal Government."

d.. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction,"
that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that
they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.

e.. United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign
citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and
that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.

f.. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn"
state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not
a"person" under the tax code.

g.. United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number,
that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no
Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and
that the district court has no jurisdiction.

h.. United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS
failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to
publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.

i.. Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the
Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments
are takings.

j.. United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements
of the Administrative Procedure Act.

k.. United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of
the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.

l.. United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income tax
does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident," and
that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

m.. In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.

n.. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

o.. United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty
jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his
First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.

p.. McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn't
owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.

q.. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the
income tax is a taking.

r.. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

s.. Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable
income.

t.. Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial
information from his income tax return.

u.. Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax
code requires individuals to pay income tax.

v.. Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege
from a governmental agency.

w.. Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that
there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of
"income" is vague.

x.. Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to
impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a
tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined
meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

y.. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are
"natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any
privilege from an agency of government."

z.. United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth
Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons, and
that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not expansion.

aa.. United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid
exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination.

ab.. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract
for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction,
and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment
rights.

ac.. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the
flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into
the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!

ad.. United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses
from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.

ae.. United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to
profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the
Internal Revenue Code.

af.. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued
that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen
of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction,
that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic
of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of
admiralty.

ag.. Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were
non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States,
and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.

ah.. Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla.
1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract" with
the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign
citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security
system.

ai.. United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District
of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment
was never ratified lawfully.

aj.. United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

ak.. Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind.
1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax
code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a bill
of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.

al.. Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the
government of the United States.

am.. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the United
States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for filing a
frivolous tax return.

an.. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title
and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing
foreclosure.

ao.. Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an
interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.

ap.. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp.
253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a
"land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County
Recorder of Deeds Office.

aq.. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387
(Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return
foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.

ar.. United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County,
851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that
enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.

as.. City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses
unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.

at.. State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him
without his consent.

au.. State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance
statutes are unconstitutional.

What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay
protection money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and
vaguely defined as to mean whatever the beholder says it does.
But not in compliance with any Supreme Court decision.

The law is neither broad nor vague except to morons, like you.

As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the
income tax fraud into your Individual Master File when you are
first asked to bring your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in
your file to bring out before the Jury.

Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but
they can't deal with 12 million illegal aliens?

One of the other marks of the tax morons like yourself, is the
fantasy that there are so many of you. In reality there are
substantially less than 50,000 of you nuts.

I vaguely recall reading an actual IRS publication that said
something about refusing certain requests. Maybe it was about
trying to appeal to the federal court, after an audit resulted in
a tax-due bill.

And it included something about induhviduals who had already been
officially designated as "tax protestors." And that those people
would receive less consideration.

I took that to mean people with big mouths. The ones who
actually spout the Constitutional arguments, and so forth, about
how the US income tax is bogus.

Which is a lot different to the much larger hordes of folks who
are involved in mistakes or misinterpretations or arguments about
specific amounts. Or people just don't have the money to spare,
and are looking for a break.

Here are some of the dummies. These are people who really believed
in the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and
then was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or
fined for asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case
against the IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively
that irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor
materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will
get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the
money you paid for the materials, your defense attorney's fees, the
value of your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a
sensible individual.

Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

a.. United States v. Schiff; "America's leading untax expert" is
convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of
willful failure to file. Some expert!

b.. United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or
corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free
association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax
returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He
loses, again.

c.. Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or
corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free
association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax
returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He
loses, again.

d.. Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to
get out of jail. He loses this too.

e.. In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is
denied too.

f.. Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98
(December 27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for
individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties,
and on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for
abuse and delay.

g.. Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No.
49T10-9806-TA-70 (January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income
under either Indiana law or the Internal Revenue Code.

h.. Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117
(January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S.
income taxation.

i.. Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No.
94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor
could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their
affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back taxes owed.

j.. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98
(January 21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of
government-related entities.

k.. Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No.
99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating
information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.

l.. Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021
(August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no
statute or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian"
liable under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not
earn "wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations;
and he had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term
and the Supreme Court's definition of the term.

m.. McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98
(February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear
Taxpayer" were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In
addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the
court for making frivolous arguments.

n.. House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No.
2:99-2428-23AJ (January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons"
within the meaning of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens
of the Sovereign State of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the
United States

Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

a.. United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is
unclear.

b.. United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana
is not part of the United States, and because there were no
regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he
was convicted.

c.. United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the
Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or
implied agreements with the Federal Government."

d.. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction,"
that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that
they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.

e.. United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign
citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws,
and that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.

f.. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that
"freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an
individual is not a"person" under the tax code.

g.. United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control
number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses
because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal
Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.

h.. United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS
failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS
failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.

i.. Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the
Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax
assessments are takings.

j.. United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

k.. United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen
of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.

l.. United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income
tax does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a
"resident," and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

m.. In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.

n.. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

o.. United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty
jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated
his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.

p.. McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he
didn't owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.

q.. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the
income tax is a taking.

r.. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

s.. Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable
income.

t.. Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all
financial information from his income tax return.

u.. Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the
tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.

v.. Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any
privilege from a governmental agency.

w.. Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that
there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of
"income" is vague.

x.. Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority
to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to
pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no
defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

y.. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are
"natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised
any privilege from an agency of government."

z.. United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the
Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not
persons, and that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not
expansion.

aa.. United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid
exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination.

ab.. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a
contract for government services, that the district court had no
jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and
Thirteenth Amendment rights.

ac.. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the
flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it
into the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!

ad.. United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that
summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing
regulations.

ae.. United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to
profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under
the Internal Revenue Code.

af.. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex.
1996) Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees.
Argued
that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure
Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked
jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme
Court for the Republic of Texas," and that fringe on an American
flag denotes a court of admiralty.

ag.. Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were
non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United
States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax
code.

ah.. Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla.
1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract"
with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural
sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the
Social Security system.

ai.. United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the
District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth
Amendment was never ratified lawfully.

aj.. United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

ak.. Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind.
1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax
code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a
bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.

al.. Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the
government of the United States.

am.. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the
United States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties
for filing a frivolous tax return.

an.. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear
title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby
preventing foreclosure.

ao.. Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an
interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.

ap.. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F.
Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis
of a "land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the
County Recorder of Deeds Office.

aq.. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d
387 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return
foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.

ar.. United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor
County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right t