Do you Understand the Charges?

Not guilty graffiti (Photo credit: duncan)

Many of us involved in the “legal reform” movement have understood for most of twenty years that when a judge asks a defendant if “Do you understand the charges against you,” something “funny” is happening.  We believe the judge isn’t merely asking if we comprehend the charges on an intellectual basis.

Instead, we suspect that, by using the word “understand” as a term of art, the judge is actually asking if we agree, consent, or even contract to be subject to the charges claimed by the plaintiff or prosecution.    The implication of this suspicion is that we must agree to “understand” the charges before the judge can proceed.  I.e., if we expressly refuse to “understand” the charges, the court might not be able to proceed against us.

However, even though we’ve “understood” that “somethin’ funny” is goin’ on whenever the court asks “Do you understand the charges?,” I, at least, have not precisly understood what the judge means when he asks that question.

Understand?

 

IRS Not Registered to Do Business in North Carolina & Texas

Image via Wikipedia

I believe the income tax laws are absolutely constitutional within the US “territories” subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress under Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States.

I believe the income tax laws are generally unconstitutional when applied within the borders of the States of the Union (there may be some exceptions for particular occupations performed within the States of the Union).

I know that “The State of Texas”  (“The State”) is the proper name for the State of the Union in which I am domiciled.

I strongly suspect that “STATE OF TEXAS,” “TEXAS” and “TX” signify a territorial, administrative district of the United States that is not a State of the Union, but is, instead, subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress as per Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States.

If I’m right, you and I are obligated to pay “federal” income taxes if we live in an “administrative territory” (like TX, NC, NY, CA, etc.), but we may be generally not obligated to pay “federal” income taxes if we live within States of the Union (like “The State of Texas,” “The State of North Carolina,” etc.).

 

No IRS Authority to make Substitute For Return for missing 1040′s?

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve known Michael Ellis since the early 1990s.  He came to our Citizens For Legal Reform meetings and  volunteered to lead the opening prayer.  I saw almost immediately that whenever Michael led the opening prayer, our meetings were somehow much improved.  There was more energy, more goodwill–the room and audience seemed to glow a little more when Michael prayed.  By the time Michael had finished leading a prayer at his third meeting, I was convinced that Michael had an unusual “connection” with the Good LORD.  So I “drafted” him to play a much bigger role in the CFLR meetings and even hired him to help me publish my AntiShyster News Magazine.

After about 18 months, Michael went off to other work.  Since then, we talk to each other every few years.  He always seems to be doing well.  I still think the Good LORD’s hand is on him.

Last week, Michael sent me an email with an attached copy of a letter he’d sent to the IRS.  Apparently, the IRS alleges that Michael has failed to file a 1040 Income Tax Return for one or more years.  Lacking a 1040 from Michael, the IRS therefore proceeded to prepare a Substitute For Return (“SFR”) to replace the missing 1040 and create grounds for further legal process against Michael.  

 

Internal Revenue Districts

Image via Wikipedia

Bob Conlon was my guest on my radio show last night (Tuesday, November 1st).  He’s drafted a very interesting document dealing with the legal requirement that the IRS operate in relation to “Internal Revenue Districts” and the possibility that such “Districts” no longer exist.

If his research is correct, he may have discovered a very strong basis for arguing that the “IRS” has no authority to collect income taxes from individual men and women.

As I understand it, Bob asserts two premises:

1) The Internal Revenue Districts are required by law as a necessary element for the existence of any lawful authority to collect income taxes.  I haven’t researched this issue, but I believe this first premise is true.

2) In recent years, the Internal Revenue Districts have been abolished.  Bob is intelligent and diligent and I presume his second presume is also true–but I haven’t done enough reading to verify.

If both premises are true, then Bob’s conclusion (that the modern IRS is acting without authority and therefore criminally) may also be true.  If so, Bob may have discovered and published a powerful argument that may stop most IRS collection procedures.  If either premise is false, his conclusion also fails.

 

Ron Paul: What’s the Definition of a Dollar?

Image by epSos.de via Flickr

Congressman Paul asks a witness (perhaps from the Treasury Department) to define what, exactly, is a dollar.  It’s funny to see the witness hem, haw and squirm for a few seconds and finally BS his way out of actually defining the “dollar”.   Curiously, Congressman Paul lets him off the hook.  Nevertheless, it appears that government has no current definition for “dollars”.

But definitions are the “law” of the Law.  You cannot know what a “law” means unless you know the definitions of the words used to express that law.  How can anyone know the the meaning of a law that employs a word that is not defined?

 

Title 26 is not the Internal Revenue Code

Image via Wikipedia

The United States Code (USC) consists of 51 “Titles”.  Each “Title” deals with a different subject matter.  For example, Title 26 deals with internal revenue tax laws.

Roughly half of those 51 Titles have been enacted into “positive law”; about half have not.

Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law.

A friend mine, Dick Clark, passed away a few years ago.  He’d been at war with the IRS for most of 20 years before he passed, and had written a book on the subject.   As part of his research, Dick asked the National Archives for a list of those Titles in the USC that had been enacted into “positive” law and those Titles that had not.  The National Archives provided the requested list.

I never saw the list.  But Dick told me that, surprisingly, of the 51 Titles on the National Archive list—only one, Title 26, had an asterisk and associated footnote at the bottom of the list.  The footnote said something like “Title 26 is identical to the Internal Revenue Code”.

The implication was extraordinary.  Title 26 was not the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)  Title 26 and the IRC were two different documents.  Yes, they might be “identical” in terms of verbiage, but they were not identical in terms of authority.

 

Interesting Times

Image via Wikipedia

The speaker in the 9-minute video (below) makes a number of allegations that sound like something from the tin-foil hat brigade.  He talks about a “government within the government” of the US that the President can’t control.  He talks about UFOs not only being real, but in close contact with the US government . . . that the US has developed its own UFOs . . . he even mentions government preparations for a possible war with space aliens.

I wouldn’t normally post such fantastic commentary.  But in this case, I’ll make an exception for two reasons:  1) the speaker’s demeanor seems rational, intelligent and knowledgeable (he doesn’t act like a nut); and 2) the speaker is former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer.

The man’s bearing and credentials suggest that he might know what he’s talking about.

If he does, we live in times that are far more “interesting” than most suppose.