Independent American News

Secretary of State Ross Miller Says Strong Enforcement Will Continue In
2010 Campaign Season

(Carson City, NV; June 26, 2009) - Secretary of State Ross Miller today announced what may be the largest penalty ever issued in Nevada for a political candidate’s failure to file campaign contribution and expenditure reports.

The First District Judicial Court earlier this month granted the state’s motion for summary judgment against Zachary Michael Triggs, a candidate for Washoe County Clerk in 2002.

The Honorable Judge James Russell ordered Triggs to pay $15,000 in civil penalties for failing to properly file three required campaign finance reports with the Secretary of State’s office. Triggs was also ordered to pay $33,369 in attorneys’ fees and $5,934 in interest and other costs. The award of judgment totaled $54,303.

“Nevada’s campaign finance laws are not arduous. There is no excuse for non-compliance,” said Secretary Miller. “These laws are necessary to protect the public’s right to know who is contributing to a candidate’s campaign and the amount of the contributions. I appreciate the message the court is sending with this judgment. My office will remain vigilant and will continue to aggressively enforce this state’s campaign finance laws.”

The Secretary of State’s office sends regular notices to political candidates reminding them of the dates by which campaign finance reports are due. By state law, the next report is not due until January 15, 2010.

The original complaint against Triggs was filed by the Secretary of State’s office on March 30, 2004. The June 1st judgment against Triggs follows a similar judgment issued last year by Judge Russell. In that case, a 2002 candidate for a Washoe County state senate seat was ordered to pay $37,000 in fines and fees for failure to file campaign finance reports.

The Nevada Attorney General’s office litigated both cases on behalf of the Secretary of State’s office.

For more information on Nevada’s campaign finance reporting laws, including deadlines for submitting reports, www.nvsos.gov.

Christopher Hansen writing from a secure and undisclosed location while recovering from the effects of governemnt tyranny writes:

In ruling in favor of the White firefighters and overruling Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, the Court proved again the wisdom of Madison.

And then again our Supreme Court, in a ruling concerning DNA evidence it proved the words of PUBLIUS to be true.

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
“Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.
“In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. …
“But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.” PUBLIUS. (Madison) Federalist Papers 62

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in favor of the White firefighters. Justice Scalia filed concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed concurring opinion joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg filed dissenting opinion joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.

Got that? 5/4 decision.

Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne 129 S.Ct. 2308

Justice Alito filed concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined and in which Justice Thomas joined in part. Justice Stevens filed dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Souter joined in part. Justice Souter filed dissenting opinion.

Got that? 5/4 decision.

When the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot agree as to what the law is by at least a super majority how can the average, “industrious and uniformed mass of the people” have a chance to know what the law is and how it will directly effect them?

Supreme Court justices have accountants prepare 1040 returns and then those same Justices file them not knowing if every material matter is true and correct but only hoping it is. That is perjury.

America, as predicted by Madison has become a nation that is not respected in the world, is not truly respectable as it does not possessing a certain portion of order and stability because laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, and so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

Hence continuous 5/4 6/3 rulings from the High Court.

By Christopher Hansen,

The American people do not have to tolerate an income tax system in which the federal government requires a citizen to give up any constitutional rights. The IRS has established a feudalist state and the State Civic Religion of Marxism/Socialism and that establishment violates the Establishment clause and the RFRA and even the Free Exercise Clause no matter what the Black Robed Tyrants that support their Spanish Inquisition, called Tax Court, tell us serfs.

PERSONAL INCOME TAXES POLARIZE AND DIVIDE AN OTHERWISE UNITED NATION AND PROMOTE CLASS WARFARE AND MISTRUST OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

1. The second plank in the Communist Manifesto (the Ten Commandments of the Communist Civil Religion) calls for a heavy, progressive (graduated) income tax not unlike what we have now with the IRS and its 5th Amendment violating form 1040, which punishes Americans so that their wealth may be redistributed to the Corporations the wealthy and rarely the poor.
2. Such a redistribution of wealth by and through taxation is outside the powers of the Federal Legislature (Congress) and in violation of our Republican form of government according to the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798)

The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, *389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

3. Communism is a religion.
4. Dr. Wallace Mills of St Mary’s University wrote the following to this reporter:

“I certainly came to the conclusion many years ago that Marxism is a religion, contrary to Marx’s contention that he was being ‘scientific’. This was related to my own upbringing in a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church and I came to see a huge number of similarities and parallels between the two belief systems.”

5. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot establish a religion of secularism in School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225, (1963)

We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’

6. The Supreme Court has ruled in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992) that the government cannot establish a civic religion.

[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds.

7. Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations by Linda Woodhead Chapter 4, Titled Chinese Religions, page 99 states:

“The Cultural Revolution can itself be viewed as a secular or civic religion and revitalization of revolution….This civic religion was enforced through education.”

8. HOST Krista Tippett. “From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about belief, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, author Anchee Min on ‘Surviving the Religion of Mao.’”

Author Anchee Min “I was taught to write ‘I love you, Chairman Mao’ before I was taught to write my own name. I never thought I belonged to myself. It was never ‘I love you, Papa’ and ‘I love you, Mama’; it’s always ‘I love you, Communist Party of China,’ ‘I love you, Chairman Mao.’ What I want to say is that Mao was our religion.” Surviving the Religion of Mao TRANSCRIPT Broadcast Date: August 10, 2006

9. Human Rights Watch/Asia Copyright © October 1997 by Human Rights Watch ISBN: 1-56432-224-6 stated that:

Every important Chinese leader and religious official has stressed that no one in China is prosecuted for his or her religious beliefs but rather for suspected criminal acts. Tightening of control over religion, they maintain, has come only at the expense of illegal groups and illegal activities. There are two problems with that argument, however. One is that refusal to register and submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring outlined above is precisely what renders an organization illegal. The second is that for Chinese officials, religious belief is a personal, individual act, and they distinguish between personal worship and participation in organized religious activities. It is the latter that they go to great lengths to control, not the former. The whole concept of religious freedom, however, involves not only freedom of the individual to believe but to manifest that belief in community with others.

10. The IRS acts much the same way as the Communist Chinese. They allow Americans to have religious liberty as long as they “submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring” created by the Communist promoted graduated income tax.
11. China allows for so-called religious freedom as long as you FIRST submit to their civic religion of Communism. The same is NOW true in the United States. As long as you get the Mark of the Beast, AKA Social Security Number and/or numerically marked Federal reserve notes (George Read of Delaware debating the Federal Government being allowed to print paper money at the Constitutional Convention where such powers were totally denied to the Federal Government said: “The words which grant this power, if not struck out, will be as alarming as the mark of the Beast, in the Apocalypse.”) and voluntary comply with the income tax code (for I cannot call it law) then and only then can you practice your religion after you practice the Judicially and Congressionally established Civic religion of Communism/Socialism/Fascism.
12. To be forced to practice atheistic communism is forcing us, by compulsion, of the acceptance of a creed (any system of principles or beliefs, WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University) or the practice of a form of religious worship and that is not lawful according the Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter 492 U.S. 573, *660, (1989)

[T]he Religion Clauses “forestal[l] compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship…”

13. In Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488, *494-495, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

14. If Americans are forced to sign a 1040 (subornation of perjury) or other tax returns that are ONLY for “taxpayers” (See also South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, (1984) (Non-taxpayers have different remedies), Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982) (only taxpayers can go to Tax Court) Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. U. S. 470 F.2d 585, *589 (Ct.Cl.,1972) “[P]ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers…” ) Therefore a taxpayer must be considered by a Christian, Jew or Muslim to be a member of a religious cult, then we are forced “to profess a belief or disbelief in [a] religion” that is anathema to our religious beliefs and exercise and that is both unconstitutional and violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
15. In Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488, *496, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 219, 97 L.Ed. 216. We there pointed out that whether or not ‘an abstract right to public employment exists,’ Congress could not pass a law providing “ that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.”

16. Congress, by the reasoning in Torcaso could also not require a person receiving a Congressionally created right to “attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.” But this is exactly what is occurring with the Income tax as it is allegedly requiring us to obtain and or use a Social Security Number to promote the plans (do missionary work) demanded in the Communist Manifesto which was paid for by those same groups that have debauched Americas currency in order to destroy the Liberty of this people. Liberty and the promotion of liberty is an essential part of our religious exercise. To force us, through threats of sanctions, frivolous penalties, arrest, etc. to be a part of this obvious religious and/or anti-religious doctrine and practice is akin to forcing us to “attend [BLACK] Mass or take any active part in missionary work” and is therefore a violation of both the First Amendment and the RFRA.
17. Americans, therefore, cannot be forced to participate in a religious or creed promoting taxing scheme that “takes property from A. and gives it to B: [because] It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it” (see Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *389, (U.S. August Term 1798)
18. Communism is a different belief than a belief in God and therefore neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’… based on different beliefs than the existence of God and against those religions founded on the existence of God and yet that is exactly what the income Tax and the Federal Reserve System is attempting to do to us.
19. Communism meets the standards of a religion a defined by the United States Supreme Court.
20. To define what a religion is, is an establishment of a religion as it limits religion by acts of the court and/or Congress.
21. Religion is the science of determining what is good and evil.
22. It is a maxim of law that: Jus est ars boni et aequi. Law is the science of what is good and evil.
23. Communism is being established by the governments of the USA as a civic or secular religion in the United States of America because the Communist Manifesto is being forced upon Americans especially, but not limited to, the 2nd, 5th and 10th planks of that manifesto.
24. The redistribution of wealth by debauched currency such as Federal reserve notes and Income Taxes are Communist and/or Capitalist Sorcery in there design and nature.
25. There was no income tax in the United States until after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 AD.
26. The U.S. Constitution requires that all direct taxes must be uniform as follows, from in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

27. To be uniform, a tax must apply equally to all persons similarly situated and all property of the same type or class being taxed must be taxed at the same percentage rate, no matter where people live, where the property is, or how much taxable income the person makes. Otherwise, the tax discriminates against the rich.
28. The Supreme Court stated in the case of Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) that:

“Congress has the exclusive power of selecting the class. It has regulated that particular branch of commerce which concerns the bringing of alien passengers,’ and that taxes shall be levied upon such property as shall be prescribed by law. The object of this provision was to prevent unjust discriminations. It prevents property from being classified, and taxed as classed, by different rules. All kinds of property must be taxed uniformly or be entirely exempt. The uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which the tax applies. Mr. Justice Miller, in his lectures on the constitution, 1889 -1890 ( pages 240, 241), said of taxes levied by congress: ‘ The tax must be uniform on the particular article; and it is uniform, within the meaning of the constitutional requirement, if it is made to bear the same percentage over all the United States. That is manifestly the meaning of this word, as used in this clause. The framers of the constitution could not have meant to say that the government, in raising its revenues, should not be allowed to discriminate between the articles which it should tax.’ In discussing generally the requirement of uniformity found in state constitutions, he said: ‘The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] ‘uniform,’ which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.’ One of the learned counsel puts it very clearly when he says that the correct meaning of the provisions requiring duties, imposts, and excises to be ‘uniform throughout the United States’ is that the law imposing them should ‘have an equal and uniform application in every part of the Union.’
If there were any doubt as to the intention of the states to make the grant of the right to impose indirect taxes subject to the condition that such taxes shall be in all respects uniform and impartial, that doubt, as said by counsel, should be resolved in the interest of justice, in favor of the taxpayer.”

29. The article being taxed in the case of Subtitle A income taxes is “income” as constitutionally defined. In order to meet the uniformity requirement, every dollar bill (the article being taxed) taxed must be taxed at the same rate and not in a way that is based on the income of the person receiving it, because this would amount to discrimination according to the Supreme Court as listed above.
30. Because graduated income taxes violate the uniformity requirement of the Constitution, they must be voluntary, because the government cannot by legislation compel its citizens to violate the Constitution.
31. The Supreme Court stated the following about the nature of income taxes in general, and that neither of these two cases has ever been overruled: “To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is…called taxation.” Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) “A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. ” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
32. All entitlement programs, including Welfare, Social Security, FICA, etc, fall into the class of taxes identified in U.S. v. Butler that are “expropriations of money from one group for the benefit of another.” Using income taxes to redistribute income or property between social classes or persons within society makes the U.S. into a socialist country:

“socialism 1.: any of various economic political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2. a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled [partially or wholly] by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, Merriam -Webster, p. 1118]

33. The Supreme Court, in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), stated, concerning the income tax instituted by Congress that:

“The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness. … The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.”

34. The payment of social benefits to persons not associated with the government under entitlement programs such as Social Security and Welfare invites and encourages the kind of class warfare described above in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
35. Compelled charity is not charity at all, but slavery disguised as charity.
36. It is also an anti-Christ religion and an establishment of religion in violation of the Constitutional restrictions against such on by the federal government.
37. Social Security is not insurance and is not a contract as ruled by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
38. Social Security is Socialism, and that socialism must be voluntary at all times in a free country if liberty is to be preserved.
39. For the Social Security program to be called voluntary, a participant should be able or at least know how to quit a program, at all times, and that the agency should not constrain or restrict those who quit or refuse to provide information about how to quit.
40. The Social Security Administration has no well documented means to quit the Social Security religious program on their website or in any of their publications, and that they will not tell you how to do so if you call their 800 number.
41. Absent an ability to leave the Social Security program at any time, the program constructively becomes a compulsory/involuntary program for those joined or were defrauded into joining because they are not allowed to quit.
42. The application for joining Social Security does not indicate that the choice to join is irrevocable.
43. Most persons who allegedly joined the Social Security program did so when they were not competent adults, and/or joining was done by the parents and without the consent or assent of the child joining.
44. Persons whose parents applied for Social Security on their behalf are not offered a choice, upon reaching adulthood, to rescind the application so that their participation is entirely voluntary.
45. The Enumeration at Birth Program of the Social Security Administration creates the impression at hospitals where babies are born that the obtaining of Social Security numbers for their children is mandatory, and that they make it inconvenient and awkward to refuse receiving a number for their child. The child must be “baptized” into Socialism by being Marked with a numerical marking before they are allowed to leave.
46. Even though income tax returns require listing social security numbers for children who are dependents in order to claim them as deductions, parents may provide other proof such as a birth certificate in lieu of a social(ist) security number to claim the deduction for certain religious people.
47. A majority of employers will insist that their employees obtain a Social Security Number as a precondition of employment, and that makes joining the program compulsory and not mandatory for all practical purposes. (See the definition of voluntary as defined in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992))
48. The United States Supreme Court defined what voluntary meant in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

“Petitioners’ argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary.” Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high.”

49. The government of the United States is acting in an invidious and/or covert manner to establish an anti-Christ religion and is calling it a voluntary system while violating the definition given of voluntary by the United States Supreme Court.
50. Using the government to plunder the assets of the rich to support the poor using the force of the law is no less extortion or theft because it is called “taxation”.
51. All of the preceding alleged actions and or violations assist in creating a feudalist state and the State Civic Religion of Socialism and violate the Establishment clause and the RFRA.

So at least rattle your chains a lit while you commit perjury and sign that 1040 while you practice the enforced established Civic Religion of Amerika.

By Christopher Hansen,

Admit it. You are one of millions of people in the United States of America that commit perjury every year. Do you want proof. Okay…

But first a quote from history: The great mass of people…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. –Adolph Hitler (1889–1945), Mein Kampf

Now on to the reasons why you commit perjury every year.

First let us look at the statute:

26 USC § 7206. Fraud and false statements
Any person who—
(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury
Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

So according to 26 USC § 7206, if you sign a tax form using a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury and you not believe it to be true and correct as to every material matter you are “guilty of a felony.”

So be honest. Do you honestly believe you even owe an income tax?

Do you have any reservations whatsoever that the 16th Amendment was legally passed?

Do you know if you have a “legal residence” in any “internal revenue district”?

Are you SURE you are a person required to file? Have you read the code? Do you understand it in every material matter.

Do you honestly believe that Federal Reserve Notes are dollars even though you know in your heart that a note CANNOT be a dollar?

Do you believe that the Income tax is “voluntary“?

And if you do believe it is voluntary then why are you filing a return?

Do you honestly believe that when you sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury that you believe it is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter? If you do then the words of Senator Elihu Root, 1913 debate regarding the first eighty-eight page income tax act come to mind concerning your intellect:

“I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

In other words…If you believe the 1040 you sign every year is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter then you, “have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

Got that? If you file believing that the 1040 you signed under penalties of perjury is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter… You are stupid. But at least you are a part of big group.

But now let us move on to those people that procure you to commit perjury by signing a 1040 form when you do not and cannot, unless you are a moron believe it is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter.

USC 18 § 1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

That’s right, IRS agents, Department of Justice Attorneys like Greg Damm, federal judges like Judge Jones and Judge Dawson. You know… traitors to the Constitution and liberty. Thugs.

So now if you did believe you could sign a 1040 and not commit perjury you no longer can, unless of course you, “have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.

Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904

Tax laws, like all other laws, are made to be obeyed. They should therefore be intelligible to those who are expected to obey them.

White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16, 20 & 21, 58 S.Ct. 95, U.S. 1937

By Christopher Hansen,

Have you ever wondered about Traffic Court?

Is it a Court to hear Criminal cases or Civil cases? (Criminal)

What are your rights? (If you don’t know you don’t have any)

Are they followed by the Court? (nope)

Do you want to know what your rights are so you can fight back at even the VERY FIRST COURT HEARING?

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has put together a wonderful FREE BOOK that every American should read, especially lawyers.

This FREE BOOK can help every American that is at least intelligent enough not to be registered as a Republican or a Democrat.

If you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican you can still wise up and take the 12 step program for people like you.

Start there and figure out why our current government is far more tyrannical than the King of England was in 1776 AD and maybe there is a chance for you to take off your voluntary chains. If you cannot figure it out then please continue to be a slave.

I hate to say that I agree with Obama but NOW I guess I have to.

Click Here

By Joshua Hansen

So here was a comment I can’t stand:

“It’s never a waste when you are attempting to limit the damage. Picking the least of two evils still gives you an advantage you wouldn’t have normally had.”

And my response:

Except there’s NO SUCH THING as the lesser of two evils. That’s where the joke is on everyone who thinks that way. How many people voted for Obama because he was the “lesser” of two evils? And what are we getting now? Not only do we have someone who has no intention of any real “change” but his party is also in control of congress which can help expedite tyranny.

And, as I always say, give me the greater of two evils. Democracy is a useless fat asshole who will always follow the path of least resistance and apathy. In order to get that fat ass to rise to action, the situation has to get really, really bad. I was really hoping McCain made it in to office because I think he was losing it anyway and with Palin we’d have had a pair of lunatics that would have caused such an obvious nightmare that maybe, just maybe, the bloated and disgusting Cheeto-eating diabetic soda drinking toothless brainless blob that best represents the American people may have been so scared that it moved.

Or it would have eaten up the rampant nationalism and authoritarianism and imploded on itself. I’m okay with either one really.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is more dangerous than putting a lunatic in office who is bad enough to wake the people from their collective stupor. It slows the erosion of liberty down to a slow enough pace that the Kentucky Fried Majority never even notices they’ve been robbed of their rights.

You can’t mitigate the damage coming down from on high in Washington. They’re ALL bought and paid for. Obama is as much of a stooge as Bush… and Clinton… and Reagan… etc. You cannot be a harbinger of POSITIVE change while working for one of the two political machines that’s been sodomizing this nation for the past century plus. Neither of those organizations is designed with anything in mind but consolidation of power and wealth lining its own pockets.

If every asshole out there who voted for the “lesser of two evils” (and make no mistake, Democrats are not the only people who do that) voted their conscience and went third party or independent instead, I don’t know who would win but I can tell you, it probably won’t be any of the front runners since virtually ALL their “supporters” cast their vote while holding their noses.

You decide.

Click here to read an old New York Times Article

Ed Noonan Wrote:

The Bank of England (aka Rothschild Family) had it’s tentacles into the FED (aka Central Bank of the United States) from almost as soon as the ink was dry from forming the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

The New York Times reported in their December 26th, 1916 edition reported that not only would the Federal Reserve Bank of New York take part but the other 11 Federal Reserve Banks in the other regions of the US could join in. They reported, “Other Federal Reserve banks may participate in the agency relationship with the Bank of England upon the same terms and conditions that will govern the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if they so desire…”

Let us all sing praises for a small victory and then let us weep for the loss of the Constitution and the Supreme Court maintains its Kritocracy.

This picture shows the current Supreme Court (represented as animals) and the United States Constitution (represented as a man).

But before you read this think about something. Why would any parent that honestly loved their child ever send them to a government Marxist school?

SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1, et al., PETITIONERS v.APRIL REDDING
No. 08-479
United States Supreme Court.
Argued April 21, 2009
Decided June 25, 2009

The Syllabus states:

After escorting 13-year-old Savana Redding from her middle school classroom to his office, Assistant Principal Wilson showed her a day planner containing knives and other contraband. She admitted owning the planner, but said that she had lent it to her friend Marissa and that the contraband was not hers. He then produced four prescription-strength, and one over-the-counter, pain relief pills, all of which are banned under school rules without advance permission. She denied knowledge of them, but Wilson said that he had a report that she was giving pills to fellow students. She denied it and agreed to let him search her belongings. He and Helen Romero, an administrative assistant, searched Savana’s backpack, finding nothing. Wilson then had Romero take Savana to the school nurse’s office to search her clothes for pills. After Romero and the nurse, Peggy Schwallier, had Savana remove her outer clothing, they told her to pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree. No pills were found. Savana’s mother filed suit against petitioner school district (Safford), Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier, alleging that the strip search violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights. Claiming qualified immunity, the individuals (hereinafter petitioners) moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion, finding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, and the en banc Ninth Circuit reversed. Following the protocol for evaluating qualified immunity claims, see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 200, the court held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325. It then applied the test for qualified immunity. Finding that Savana’s right was clearly established at the time of the search, it reversed the summary judgment as to Wilson, but affirmed as to Schwallier and Romero because they were not independent decisionmakers.

Held:

1. The search of Savana’s underwear violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3-11.
At least they got that part right.

(a) For school searches, “the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause.” T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 341. Under the resulting reasonable suspicion standard, a school search “will be permissible … when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Id., at 342. The required knowledge component of reasonable suspicion for a school administrator’s evidence search is that it raise a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. Pp. 3-5.

(b) Wilson had sufficient suspicion to justify searching Savana’s backpack and outer clothing. A week earlier, a student, Jordan, had told the principal and Wilson that students were bringing drugs and weapons to school and that he had gotten sick from some pills. On the day of the search, Jordan gave Wilson a pill that he said came from Marissa. Learning that the pill was prescription strength, Wilson called Marissa out of class and was handed the day planner. Once in his office, Wilson, with Romero present, had Marissa turn out her pockets and open her wallet, producing, inter alia, an over-the-counter pill that Marissa claimed was Savana’s. She also denied knowing about the day planner’s contents. Wilson did not ask her when she received the pills from Savana or where Savana might be hiding them. After a search of Marissa’s underwear by Romero and Schwallier revealed no additional pills, Wilson called Savana into his office. He showed her the day planner and confirmed her relationship with Marissa. He knew that the girls had been identified as part of an unusually rowdy group at a school dance, during which alcohol and cigarettes were found in the girls’ bathroom. He had other reasons to connect them with this contraband, for Jordan had told the principal that before the dance, he had attended a party at Savana’s house where alcohol was served. Thus, Marissa’s statement that the pills came from Savana was sufficiently plausible to warrant suspicion that Savana was involved in pill distribution. A student who is reasonably suspected of giving out contraband pills is reasonably suspected of carrying them on her person and in her backpack. Looking into Savana’s bag, in her presence and in the relative privacy of Wilson’s office, was not excessively intrusive, any more than Romero’s subsequent search of her outer clothing. Pp. 5-8.

(c) Because the suspected facts pointing to Savana did not indicate that the drugs presented a danger to students or were concealed in her underwear, Wilson did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search to the point of making Savana pull out her underwear. Romero and Schwallier said that they did not see anything when Savana pulled out her underwear, but a strip search and its Fourth Amendment consequences are not defined by who was looking and how much was seen. Savana’s actions in their presence necessarily exposed her breasts and pelvic area to some degree, and both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings. Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation is indicated by the common reaction of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure’s patent intrusiveness. Its indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that “the search [be] ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ” T. L. O., supra, at 341. Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. Because Wilson knew that the pills were common pain relievers, he must have known of their nature and limited threat and had no reason to suspect that large amounts were being passed around or that individual students had great quantities. Nor could he have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear. When suspected facts must support the categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to an adolescent’s body, petitioners’ general belief that students hide contraband in their clothing falls short; a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will succeed. Nondangerous school contraband does not conjure up the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence of such behavior at the school; neither Jordan nor Marissa suggested that Savana was doing that, and the search of Marissa yielded nothing. Wilson also never determined when Marissa had received the pills from Savana; had it been a few days before, that would weigh heavily against any reasonable conclusion that Savana presently had the pills on her person, much less in her underwear. Pp. 8-11.

This is where the Court GETS IT 100% WRONG The 4th Amendment is what it is and if those morons at the school cannot understand it then they are too stupid to keep their money. I am sick to death of the Court making these ruling so that the government is not liable for a violation of the Constitution or the law UNTIL the Courts say how it is. These UNELECTED Priest of the Cult of the Black Robe make Congress and the Constitution nothing about worthless scrap of paper UNTIL they put their ever change stamp of approval on it. They have proven once again that America is no longer a Republican but Kritocracy and have established their Civic Religion upon us serfs. But they cannot be held liable because they, themselves, have not established a: “clearly established law that shows that they violate the First Amendment at will.

2. Although the strip search violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights, petitioners Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier are protected from liability by qualified immunity because “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. ___, ___. The intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot, under T. L. O., be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances, but lower court cases viewing school strip searches differently are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt about the clarity with which the right was previously stated. Pp. 11-13.

3. The issue of petitioner Safford’s liability under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 694, should be addressed on remand. P. 13.

531 F. 3d 1071, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.