Independent American News

“Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.” Dr. Benjamin Rush, Founding Father, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Citizen of Pennsylvania, physician, professor of medical theory and clinical practice at the University of Pennsylvania.

Founding Father George Read from Delaware in the debates at the Constitutional Convention concerning a constitutional provision that would have allowed the Federal Government the authority to print paper money was recorded by James Madison as saying: “Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.”

It is interesting to note that Federal Reserve notes are all numbered, you hold them in your hand and you must use them to buy or sell.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “They (the judiciary) are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.”

And Patrick Henry said: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

No where did the Founding Fathers allow for or desire an Income Tax. Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Lincoln did, but not the Freedom loving Founding Fathers.

No where did the Founding Fathers allow for the Federal Government to be involved in financing public education with Federal taxation. Hitler, Lenin and Marx however, LOVED government educated tax slaves.

No where did the Founding Fathers allow for the Social Security System because they abhorred socialism.

No where did the Founding Fathers allow for the Federal Government to print paper money. As you can see for the Constitutional convention debates printing paper money was NOT ALLOWED. But Lenin and Marx and Lincoln supported such a philosophy.

The Constitutional principles have been destroyed by Americans asking the government to care for them. It is impossible to be free and be taken care of by the government.

Socialized medicine will work as efficiently as the War in Iraq.

Medicine and those that practice medicine should not be forced to be licensed by any State or the Federal Government. We all should have 100% total medical choice freedom.

All drug laws are nothing more than a Bastille for Medical Science and a foundation for huge international corporate profits. All such laws laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic.

Why is America in debt, in foreign undeclared wars, desperately unemployed?

Why are American prisons full to bursting?

Why don’t drug laws stop the people from destroying their lives by taking these poisons?

Thomas Jefferson answered these questions in two short sentences: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson

God will not bless America because good fruit does not spring forth from an evil tree.

Now look into the mirror and decide if you are supporting Constitutional principles that lead to liberty or if you are a practicing Marxists. Most Americans are Marxists or some derivative of Marxists philosophy. Especially those that CLAIM to be patriots and lovers of liberty. They talk but do not act. They live a lie. They accept government “benefits” but do not want to pay for them. Such men like Irwin Shiff who was accepting Social Security benefits while refusing to pay income taxes.

If you are on government welfare aka Social Security, unemployment, food stamps, disability, Medicare, Medicaid, sending your child to a government financed school, then you are a PRACTICING Marxists.

Do you have a Socialist Security Number?

Do you file and pay the Marxist Income Tax?

Do you register your guns? Do you carry a gun on your person at all times when you are abroad?

Do you support medical licensing laws?

Do you support the Federal Government’s War on drugs?

Do you support undeclared foreign wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do you support U.S. troops that invade other sovereign countries without a declaration of war from Congress?

Do you support the enforcement of the USA PATRIOT ACT?

Do you send your children to government propaganda mills called public schools?

Do you calculate your finances in gold and silver dollars or in Federal Reserve Notes?

So are you worthy of liberty or are you a voluntary slave?

For those of you that know how important Sven has become in my life I want you all to know that I finial found a picture of him.

For those of you that do not know about Sven he is his saga:

The Saga of Sven Pig Herder

Born on a Viking Ship out on the Sea,
Son of Thor he would always be,
He herds pigs for you and me,
killed a vicious rabbit when he was only three.
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

When Sven was born Valhalla rocked with a grand cheer
As Thor and Odin toasted with a horn of beer
For here was what they’d waited for a child this grand
To spread the word of liberty throughout the land
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

Sven’s mother was a peasant woman that is true
She reared him to believe good deeds were far to few
She taught him men were equals and to honor all
She taught him kings were tyrants that they all should fall
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

Sven warded pigs with his grand whip and pointy stick
And enemies they felt his lash and deadly kick
No beast nor tyrant dared to fight the mighty Sven
He is the hero of the Norse and of all men
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

King Hroðgar needed Sven to build a mighty hall
The foremost under heaven stories do recall
He built it out of timber that was clad with gold
Then shared a horn with Beowulf as legend had foretold
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home.

Beowulf and Sven they were the best of men
Then Grendal came to Mead Hall and attacked Sven’s pen
Beowulf and Sven they fought all though the night
To keep Sven’s pigs from slaughter from the Grendal blight.
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home.

The Valkyrie sing the praises of this son of Thor
Sven Herders’ legend grows and grows forevermore
The Valkyrie they all want him for their very own
For Sven will always rise above an earthly throne
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

When Eric needed help to find the new Vineland
Sven offered up his help to Eric and his band
They sailed away from Iceland to this far off shore
Where Sven he let his sow make piglets with his boar
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

Sven heard about some trouble with a fleece of gold
Jason needed help from Sven we’ve all been told
Sven jumped upon the Argo and away he sailed
Jason had the fleece cause Sven, its true, he never failed
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home.

Sven sailed from Spain in fourteen hundred, ninety two
Out with ole’ Chris Columbus and his valiant Crew
He took Columbus and his crew to ole Vineland
He had been there before with Eric and his Band
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

Sven lives in every man who seeks for liberty
From humble birth to riches as the case may be
For freemen’s blood is always rich and blue as blue
All men are equals with no kings, Sven knows it’s true
Sven, Sven Pig Herder
Valhalla shall be his home

Here is a statue of Sven

By Wiikwaji’o,

I received the following article and it made me think about something that should be important to EVERY freedom loving American. Any patriot that knows anything about history knows that the Banks are our enemies. I hope every bank fails since they are perpetrating the Federal Reserve Fraud system on America.

So what can we do to fight back? We should be suing these banks on EVERY mortgage. You should get your house as a pat of your end of TARP and the BAILOUT. You can but you have to have the guts to fight back against this corruption.

Read this article and think about what you can do to fight back against these banking criminals.

By PAM MARTENS
The financial tsunami unleashed by Wall Street’s esurient alchemy of spinning toxic home mortgages into triple-A bonds, a process known as securitization, has set off its second round of financial tremors.

After leaving mortgage investors, bank shareholders, and pension fiduciaries awash in losses and a large chunk of Wall Street feeding at the public trough, the full threat of this vast securitization machine and its unseen masters who push the levers behind a tightly drawn curtain is playing out in courtrooms across America.

Three plain talking judges, in state courts in Massachusetts and Kansas, and a Federal Court in Ohio, have drilled down to the “straw man” aspect of securitization. The judges’ decisions have raised serious questions as to the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures that have transpired as well as the legal standing of the subsequent purchasers of those homes, who are more and more frequently the Wall Street banks themselves.

Adding to the chaos, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has made rule changes that will force hundreds of billions of dollars of these securitizations back onto the Wall Street banks balance sheets, necessitating the need to raise capital just as the unseemly courtroom dramas are playing out.

The problems grew out of the steps required to structure a mortgage securitization. In order to meet the test of an arm’s length transaction, pass muster with regulators, conform to accounting rules and to qualify as an actual sale of the securities in order to be removed from the bank’s balance sheet, the mortgages get transferred a number of times before being sold to investors. Typically, the original lender (or a sponsor who has purchased the mortgages in the secondary market) will transfer the mortgages to a limited purpose entity called a depositor. The depositor will then transfer the mortgages to a trust which sells certificates to investors based on the various risk-rated tranches of the mortgage pool. (Theoretically, the lower rated tranches were to absorb the losses of defaults first with the top triple-A tiers being safe. In reality, many of the triple-A tiers have received ratings downgrades along with all the other tranches.)

Because of the expense, time and paperwork it would take to record each of the assignments of the thousands of mortgages in each securitization, Wall Street firms decided to just issue blank mortgage assignments all along the channel of transfers, skipping the actual physical recording of the mortgage at the county registry of deeds.

Astonishingly, representatives for the trusts have been foreclosing on homes across the country, evicting the families, then auctioning the homes, without a proper paper trail on the mortgage assignments or proof that they had legal standing. In some cases, the courts have allowed the representatives to foreclose and evict despite their admission that the original mortgage note is lost. (This raises the question as to whether these mortgage notes are really lost or might have been fraudulently used in multiple securitizations, a concern raised by some Wall Street veterans.)

But, at last, some astute judges have done more than take a cursory look and render a shrug. In a decision handed down on October 14, 2009, Judge Keith Long of the Massachusetts Land Court wrote:

“The blank mortgage assignments they possessed transferred nothing…in Massachusetts, a mortgage is a conveyance of land. Nothing is conveyed unless and until it is validly conveyed. The various agreements between the securitization entities stating that each had a right to an assignment of the mortgage are not themselves an assignment and they are certainly not in recordable form…The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature. To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. The law recognizes the troubling nature of these assumptions, the harm caused if those assumptions prove erroneous, and commands otherwise.” [Italic emphasis in original.] (U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez/Wells Fargo v. Larace)

A month and a half before, on August 28, 2009, Judge Eric S. Rosen of the Kansas Supreme Court took an intensive look at a “straw man” some Wall Street firms had set up to handle the dirty work of foreclosure and serve as the “nominee” as the mortgages flipped between the various entities. Called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) it’s a bankruptcy-remote subsidiary of MERSCORP, which in turn is owned by units of Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association and assorted mortgage and title companies. According to the MERSCORP web site, these “shareholders played a critical role in the development of MERS. Through their capital support, MERS was able to fund expenses related to development and initial start-up.”

In recent years, MERS has become less of an electronic registration system and more of a serial defendant in courts across the land. In a May 2009 document titled “The Building Blocks of MERS,” the company concedes that “Recently there has been a wave of lawsuits filed by homeowners facing foreclosure which challenge MERS standing…” and then proceeds over the next 30 pages to describe the lawsuits state by state, putting a decidedly optimistic spin on the situation.

MERS doesn’t have a big roster of employees or lawyers running around the country foreclosing and defending itself in lawsuits. It simply deputizes employees of the banks and mortgage companies that use it as a nominee. It calls these deputies a “certifying officer.” Here’s how they explain this on their web site: “A certifying officer is an officer of the Member [mortgage company or bank] who is appointed a MERS officer by the Corporate Secretary of MERS by the issuance of a MERS Corporate Resolution. The Resolution authorizes the certifying officer to execute documents as a MERS officer.”

Kansas Supreme Court Judge Rosen wasn’t buying MERS’ story. In fact, Wall Street was probably not too happy to land before Judge Rosen. In January 2002, Judge Rosen had received the Martin Luther King “Living the Dream” Humanitarian Award; he previously served as Associate General Counsel for the Kansas Securities Commissioner, and as Assistant District Attorney in Shawnee County, Kansas. Judge Rosen wrote:

“The relationship that MERS has to Sovereign [Bank] is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer… What meaning is this court to attach to MERS’s designation as nominee for Millennia [Mortgage Corp.]? The parties appear to have defined the word in much the same way that the blind men of Indian legend described an elephant — their description depended on which part they were touching at any given time. Counsel for Sovereign stated to the trial court that MERS holds the mortgage ‘in street name, if you will, and our client the bank and other banks transfer these mortgages and rely on MERS to provide them with notice of foreclosures and what not.’ ” (Landmark National Bank v. Boyd A. Kesler)

Lawyers for homeowners see a darker agenda to MERS. Timothy McCandless, a California lawyer, wrote on his blog as follows:

“…all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name — even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers’ discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer’s home. While up against the wall of foreclosure, consumers that try to assert predatory lending defenses are often forced to join the party — usually an investment trust — that actually will benefit from the foreclosure. As a simple matter of logistics this can be difficult, since the investment trust is even more faceless and seemingly innocent than MERS itself. The investment trust has no customer service personnel and has probably not even retained counsel. Inquiries to the trustee — if it can be identified — are typically referred to the servicer, who will then direct counsel back to MERS. This pattern of non-response gives the securitization conduit significant leverage in forcing consumers out of their homes. The prospect of waging a protracted discovery battle with all of these well funded parties in hopes of uncovering evidence of predatory lending can be too daunting even for those victims who know such evidence exists. So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a ‘vast’ number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note — the legal sine qua non of foreclosure — much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.”

One of the first judges to hand Wall Street a serious slap down was Christopher A. Boyko of U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio. In an opinion dated October 31, 2007, Judge Boyko dismissed 14 foreclosures that had been brought on behalf of investors in securitizations. Judge Boyko delivered the following harsh rebuke in a footnote:

“Plaintiff’s ‘Judge, you just don’t understand how things work,’ argument reveals a condescending mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still control, the foreclosure process…There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure is driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution’s favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit – to the contrary, they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers…” (In Re Foreclosure Cases)

While the illegal foreclosure filings, investor lawsuits over securitization improprieties, and predatory lending challenges play out in courts across the country, a few sentences buried deep in Citigroup’s 10Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 signals that we’ve seen merely a few warts on the head of the securitization monster thus far and the massive torso remains well hidden in murky water.

Citigroup tells us that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued a new rule, SFAS No. 166, and this is going to have a significant impact on Citigroup’s Consolidated Financial Statements “as the Company will lose sales treatment for certain assets previously sold to QSPEs [Qualifying Special Purpose Entities], as well as for certain future sales, and for certain transfers of portions of assets that do not meet the definition of participating interests. Just when might we expect this new land mine to go off? “SFAS 166 is effective for fiscal years that begin after November 15, 2009.” There’s more bad news. The FASB has also issued SFAS 167 and, long story short, more of those off balance sheet assets are going to move back onto Citi’s books.

Bottom line says Citi:

“… the cumulative effect of adopting these new accounting standards as of January 1, 2010, based on financial information as of June 30, 2009, would result in an estimated aggregate after-tax charge to Retained earnings of approximately $8.3 billion, reflecting the net effect of an overall pretax charge to Retained earnings (primarily relating to the establishment of loan loss reserves and the reversal of residual interests held) of approximately $13.3 billion and the recognition of related deferred tax assets amounting to approximately $5.0 billion….” [Emphasis in original.]

I’m trying to imagine how the American taxpayer is going to be asked to put more money into Citigroup as it continues to bleed into infinity.

Citigroup is far from alone in financial hits that will be coming from the Qualifying Special Purpose Entities. Regulators are receiving letters from Citigroup and other Wall Street firms pressing hard to rethink when this change will take effect.

Putting aside for the moment the massive predatory lending frauds bundled into mortgage securitizations, inadequate debate has occurred on whether securitization of home mortgages (other than those of government sponsored enterprises) should be resuscitated or allowed to die a welcome death. If we understand the true function of Wall Street, to efficiently allocate capital, the answer must be a resounding no to this racket.

Trillions of dollars of bundled home mortgage loans and derivative side bets tied to those loans were being manufactured by Wall Street without any one asking the basic question: why is all this capital being invested in a dormant structure? Houses don’t think and innovate. Houses don’t spawn new technologies, patents, new industries. Houses don’t create the jobs of tomorrow.

Also, by acting as wholesale lenders to the unscrupulous mortgage firms (some in house at Wall Street firms), Wall Street was not responding to legitimate consumer demand, it was creating an artificial demand simply to create mortgage product to feed its securitization machine and generate big fees for itself. Now we see the aftermath of that inefficient allocation of capital: a massive glut of condos and homes pulling down asset prices in neighborhoods as well as in those ill-conceived securitizations whose triple-A ratings have been downgraded to junk.

There’s no doubt that one of the contributing factors to the depression of the 30s and the intractable unemployment today stem from a massive misallocation of capital to both bad ideas and fraud. Today’s Wall Street, it turns out, is just another straw man for a rigged wealth transfer system.
Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no security position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article other than that which the U.S. Treasury has thrust upon her and fellow Americans involuntarily through TARP. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.com

By Christopher Hansen,

The IRS is happy today!

I am sorry to announce that another “filer” has been convicted by our Socialist Religious Courts with the help of a High Priest of the Religion of Marxism aka judge and 12 uneducated slaves.

Pete Hendrickson wrote

…and after the two most attentive jurors– one of whom had actually asked during the trial to see the language of 3401 and 3121, and been rebuffed– were bumped as alternates, the jury in my trial came back with guilty verdicts on all counts.

I will repeat this as many times as I can. If you file a 1040 RETURN you are a taxpayer. Only taxpayers file 1040 returns. If you don’t owe an income tax then you should not file a return. You become a Taxpayer by volunteering to accept a Congressionally created right. If you are not employed in a job that is Congressionally created by statute then you cannot be a taxpayer. You cannot tell the government you are not a taxpayer when you are signing a 1040 form for “taxpayers” under penalty of perjury that makes you admit you know it is true.

The IRS is required to answer taxpayers questions (See IRS Publication #1) If they fail to answer your questions then you must not be a taxpayer. If you would like a few questions to ask them please let me know. I have many they have not answered but then I am not a taxpayer so they are not required to answer my questions.

You CANNOT know a 1040 Return is true because the laws are intentionally vague. But since you volunteered to be a taxpayer the private laws” don’t have to be clear and unequivocal because they are not actually tax laws. They are more like tithing. In fact that is exactly what they are.

You cannot sign a 1040 Return honestly because you cannot know what a dollar is. You cannot even put down you have ZERO dollars in income or taxable income when you don’t know what a dollar is.

The Income Tax is an establishment of a religious cult. It is a commandment of Marxism. It is the heart of the Religion of Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and Marxism. It is VOLUNTARY and if you sign a 1040 form you just volunteered. It is like joining the Army. Once you join your rights go out the window. Shut up and do what you are told or QUIT the ARMY.

The 13th Amendment ALLOWS for voluntary servitude. Remember that.

You MUST send the Social Security Number these Marxists assigned to you back to them. You MUST refuse to be a slave. You must stand up and be a sovereign. You must stop volunteering to be in their cult. Or you must submit to tyranny.

I weep for all Americans that refuse to see these simple truths.

You CANNOT be a practicing Marxist/Socialist and be free. Get rid of the Mark of the Beast and stop being a slave or shut up and be a good little slave and practice the religion that these Fascists have established.

Naturally this is not legal advice since I am not a lawyer. It is however religious advice since I am a minister of the religion of liberty.

A blogger that calls themself Christmeal asked: “Would you say that truth and falsehood are indistinguishable, or that they are distinguished by some essential quality?”

I find this question intriguing due to my own never ending political and religious metamorphosis.

I currently believe there is an absolute difference between truth and falsehood. The dispute I have is how humans tend to place choices that are neither true nor false into one category or the other.

For example. Is it true that education is good? I can easily argue both sides of that equation because the question must be addressed: Good for what purpose? If you are teaching a child to be a socialist then such education is anything but good because socialism is founded upon force and fraud.

How about: Is knowledge good? I can also argue both sides of that equation because the question must be addressed: Good for what purpose? Knowledge without an understanding of responsibility is always dangerous.

It is a maxim of law that: Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust.

So what truth is can change if its implementation is sought by force or fraud. Therefore the first thing that must be done to determine if a truth is different from a falsehood is to determine whether or not its attempted implementation is sought by force or fraud.

I know that if I never taste caviar that I will never know if I desire its specific flavor. If I am poor and cannot afford caviar then it would probably be best if I never taste caviar. But then again if I taste caviar while being poor it may encourage me to become rich so that I can eat all the caviar I want. But then again is being rich good?

I know that I do not want to educate or give knowledge to my enemy and yet if I give him no education nor knowledge he will remain my enemy. But then again he may remain my enemy anyway. So is the following statement a truth or a falsehood?

“I should educate my enemy.”

It is like the two terms “Liberal” and “Conservative.” What is a Liberal? What is a Conservative? Was Patrick Henry either one of those? What was Hitler? What was Nixon? Is the ACLU liberal or conservative? Is the USA PATRIOT ACT liberal or conservative? Is the Independent American Party of Nevada Liberal or Conservative.

I have, in the press, been called an Ultra Conservative. I have also been called Baby Murderer, Oppressor of Women’s Rights, Homophobe, Gun Rights Nut, Pro-gun Control Fascist and many more… because people feel the need to put labels on things. And if they cannot label you then you are evil, which is, of course, ridiculous. Or is it?

Is sex good or evil?
Is it always wrong to steal?
Must you always tell the absolute truth?
What is right and wrong during war?
If your country is invaded what is right and wrong in defending your country?
What is right or wrong is a self-defense situation?
When does life begin?
Is all life sacred?
Is religion good or evil?
What is truth?
What is falsehood?

I know this one truth: Freedom of choice is the most important principle in the universe. Those that seek to take away freedom of choice are evil. Those that wish to enable freedom of choice are not necessarily good, but they are not evil while seeking to enable freedom of choice.

The problem with this truth is that the actions and choices of those around us take away our freedom of choice and our choices take away the choices of others. Abortion is a prime example. If you take away the “choice” of abortion then you have stopped that freedom but if you do not stop abortion then the life of the child to be has been taken and the child never had the right to make a choice.

Without mercy and forgiveness and tolerance life becomes intolerable. And yet without justice and punishment life become intolerable.

Then the questions comes about: What is freedom?

Is freedom truth or falsehood? That is like asking if self-defense is good or evil. Do you have the right to defend yourself against a person that is trying to retake, by force, his property?

I believe that freedom is the result of correct choices.

You have freedom from being burned by the fire if you do not put your hand into the fire but that does not save you from a sunburn. And sometimes if you do not put your hand into the fire then you risk that same fire consuming everything you have including your life.

So is it truth that a person should not put his hand into a fire?

You wil not catch a sexually transmitted disease if you do not have sex but you will not have even the chance of finding the joy and companionship that can be found within a sexual relationship.

So what is truth? What is falsehood? I know what they are in certain circumstances but I also know that such a truth is MY truth and to you may be a falsehood.

I know that Cherry pie is the best pie there is. But is that the truth or is that a falsehood? I know that if I try to force you to believe that Cherry pie is the best pie that Cherry pie becomes the tool of evil.

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy

Greetings All,
Just in case you’ve not seen this action prior, I thought I would forward this to you so you could see the progress of the legal theories being applied. Lindsey needs our financial support. prayers, and blessings in order to see this thing through. If one has ever seen how twisted things have become over the years where the law is concerned, one need only to read taxing cases to how corrupt things have become. It is time we the people straighten this mess out. Here is one way we can start doing so. Stand up and be heard even if it is through another like Lindsey.

Respectfully,
Bob L.

From: Lindsey Springer
Subject: Court Rejects Government statutory obligation theory and Holds Paperwork Reduction Act is complete defense and good faith defense during trial.
To: “lindsey springer” Date: Sunday, October 25, 2009, 5:26 AM

Lindsey Springer here and providing an update on the status of the Government’s theory regarding the obligation to provide information on a Form 1040 with the threat of prison for willful failure to do so.

Trial begins on Monday, October 26, 2009, and is expected to last 3 to 5 weeks.

On October 13, 2009 the United States District Court ordered the Government to provide a list of each regulation they theorize encompasses the “obligation to file a return” allegedly “required by law” in the Grand Jury indictment returned against me.

On October 19, 2009, with just minutes to spare, the Government filed the following Bill of Particulars:

“The Court ordered the United States to file a supplemental bill of particulars “specifying the ‘regulations thereunder’ . . . specifically relied upon by the government as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 192 at 1. The abbreviated answer to the Court’s order is that the passing, parenthetical reference to regulations in the government’s trial brief was not intended to suggest that the Government would be relying on Treasury Regulations in proving its case in chief. As indicated in the Government’s prior filings and further referenced below, the obligation to file a tax return is a statutory obligation. In its case in chief, the Government will prove that the defendant had a statutorily-mandated obligation to file a federal tax return without reference or reliance on Treasury Regulations.

In the United States Trial Brief (doc. no. 138), the United States included the parenthetical phrase “and regulations thereunder,” when describing the law that specifies the events that trigger an obligation to file a return. Doc. no. 138 at 12. As previously stated by the Government in earlier responses to Defendants’ motions for bill of particulars, the filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). In its Bill of Particulars filed July 17, 2009, the United States identified the statutes that impacted on the required filing of individual federal income tax returns: Title 26, United States Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151, and 7203. Doc. no. 104 at 2. Given the likely defense that the funds received by Defendant Springer were gifts and therefore not taxable income, Title 26, United States Code Section 102 is also implicated.

Regulations under the Internal Revenue Code provide some clarification and specific examples regarding filing requirements that may or may not be helpful in a specific individual’s situation. In this case, a review of the regulations reveals no exceptions or qualifications that would exclude Defendant Springer from the filing requirement. The regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code that provide clarification of the filing requirements for individuals include the following: Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 1.1-1, 1.61-1 et seq., 1.63, 1.102-1, 1.151-1, 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. However, as stated above, the United States did not rely upon any regulations specifying events triggering an obligation for the Defendants to file tax returns.

So, on October 21, 2009, a pretrial hearing was held and the District Court rejected the Prosecution’s statutory mandate theory. It told the United States that the Court was denying their Motion in Limine which sought to prevent me from even uttering the words “Paperwork Reduction Act” of both 1980 and 1995. The Court informed the Prosecution that I am allowed to present the Paperwork Reduction Act during their case in chief and as a good faith defense.

The reason why this is so significant is because every Court agrees that if regulations are involved in the “obligation to file a return” or play any role, then the request Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 5 CFR 1320 by the Office of Management and Budget.

Here is just but a portion of the words I uttered to accomplish the outcome regarding “statutory mandate obligation” v. “statutory and regulation thereunder obligation” to which regulations obviously won:

“Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the by product of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return,[fn14] maintaining required records,[fn15] or reporting an accident,[fn16] does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.[fn17] United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35 (2000)

“Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records. See S. Rep., at 3-4. Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990)

“In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), this court held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because the filing of income tax returns was obligatory. This holding is superseded by the Supreme Court’s analysis in Dole v. United Steelworkers, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act. Dole would also appear to call into question the holdings in Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984) and Cameron v. IRS, 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff’d 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985), both of which held the Paperwork Reduction Act inapplicable to IRS forms.” U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-631 (fn 12) (10th Cir. 1990)

“We would be inclined to follow the general analysis of Wunder and Hicks and hold that the operation of the PRA in these circumstances did not repeal the criminal sanctions for failing to file an income tax return because the obligation to file is a statutory one. However, we are not compelled to rest our opinion on the statutory origin theory because we find the analysis of other courts which have considered the issue to be persuasive.” U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991)

If you notice the Government cited in their “2nd Bill of Particulars” after they said “mandate of statute” they cited to “United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).

It is clear the Collins and Dawes decisions by the 10th Circuit rejected this theory. It is true the decision in Neff, Hicks, Kerwin and Wunder mentioned the statutory origin theory but Neff said “Congress created Neff’s duty to file the Returns in 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), and nowhere did Congress condition this duty on any Treasury regulation. See United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).” See Neff at page 700 cited by the Government.

In Hicks, the 9th Circuit said “But where Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that the citizen provide information, and provides statutory criminal penalties for failure to comply with the request, that is another matter. This is a legislative command, not an administrative request.” U.S. v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991)

In Kerwin, the 5th Circuit said “This issue was considered in United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990), which held that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. Since Kerwin, like the taxpayer in Wunder, was convicted of that statute, which is not an information request, there is no violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the reasons set forth in Wunder, we AFFIRM.” U.S. v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 92 (5th Cir. 1991)

And of course, the problem child for the Judiciary is United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) which held “The tax years in question here were 1979, 1980, and 1981. Clearly, tax returns for 1979 and 1980 would not be affected by the PRA. As for the 1981 return, it did display the appropriate control number, and the regulations do not need a number because the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation. Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6012 and 7203. The Paperwork Reduction Act, therefore, does not apply to the statutory requirement, but only to the forms themselves, which contained the appropriate numbers.”

In 1995 Congress rewrote the Paperwork Reduction Act and specifically stated that its reason to write the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act was to eliminate “exemptions” for the Internal Revenue Service. See Public Law 104-13, see 109 Stat. 163, page 171

The Commissioner instructs yearly that his or her request for income information stems from sections 6001, 6011, 6012 and “their regulations.”

There is a reason why the Government is fighting so hard against the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and that is because the Form 1040, or any other Form, must comply with the Act and they see that if they succeed on arguing the obligation is purely statutory then they think they escape the Public Protection under 44 U.S.C. section 3512.

What type of person would wish to escape a law that is entitled “public protection”? Obviously someone who is against the public. The same person argues they are protecting the public when they are ignoring the public protection provision.

For now I leave you with the words of Congress written in law greater than that of the Internal Revenue Code and that is:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if —

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

See 44 U.S.C. section 3512

I cannot begin tell you how appreciative I am to those of you who have given me and my family the financial support in recent months you have given no matter what the amount. Great thought goes into how I can make requests of you and I concluded that if you are led to help me then please do not ignore that leading. I can really use your support more now than ever. I am up against the Billionaires of the U.S. Department of Justice and IRS. I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 in name of Bondage Breaker’s Ministry or Lindsey Springer

I will provide periodic updates throughout the trial. If you have signed up for this email and did not get it do not worry because I simply have not been able to update my list and I am so busy tyring to do something with nothing. I will try during my breaks to update the list.
Thank you, Lindsey Springer 10.25.09

Howdy Parrrdner!

In the words of Las Vegas Metro Sergeant Wally Pinjuv, “This is the Wild Wild West and we do things different out here.”

AMEN! Brother Pinjuv! At least that is a perfect description of Las Vegas Metro. (109 MPH with no lights and sirens! AND 71 MPH with no light and sirens and no seat belts… Oops another one bites the dust!)

I have been in depositions for days. Over the past year I have been in depositions with 7, that is right, SEVEN Metro officers. One trainer, two Sergeants, four officers and the added bonus of a Cop’s wife (she committed a felony and is helping to cover up Metro’s crimes). It was an enlightening experience. Here is what I learned DIRECTLY from Metro Officers:

1. You can be patted down by Metro if they believe you MAY have a gun because if you have a gun you MAY be dangerous. (New Mexico Cops think that way too)

Got that? You do not have to be suspected of a crime. You do not have to be considered to be armed and dangerous. The Cops just has to think you may have a gun. The law in Nevada is a little bit different than what they claim. NRS 171.123 and NRS 171.1232.

2. Metro Cops believe that there is a law in Nevada that requires ALL pistol owners to register their pistols.

Got that! Metro Cops don’t know the law. There is NO requirement that a Nevadan register his pistol in ANY county EXCEPT Clark County.

3. If Metro Cops have a warrant for your neighbor for missing a traffic court appointment and your children are playing at your neighbor’s house when the men in brown shirts (this is not a joke METRO wears brown shirts They are not the men in Blue) arrive to arrest your neighbor, the Cops can pat down your children to see if they are armed even though they have no reason to believe that your child has committed a crime or is armed or is dangerous. (I don’t really need to comment on this…Do I?

4. People are patted down and cars (yes you read that right) cars are “frisked.” (Ponder this, my gentle snow flakes, and get back to me!)

5. Metro believes that they can confiscate your pistol for “safekeeping” even though you are not “CHARGED” with a crime for having that pistol. If fact according to at least one Metro Officer, if you own a pistol and you had an argument with your neighbor, they “haffta take it” for “safekeeping.”

GOT THAT! Metro believes they can take your pistol away from you without any legal authority whatsoever. Fourth Amendment… What Fourth Amendment? Second Amendment… What Second Amendment? Nevada Constitution… What the heck is that? By the way… five of the officers had never read the Nevada Constitution and we forgot to ask the last two.

And of course there is no right to own a gun in Nevada and if you own a pistol you ARE a criminal. Wait a minute I may have that wrong. It is hard to remember what the law really is after deposing Metro Cops because they are so totally ignorant of the laws of Nevada that their lack of knowledge could fill a Black Hole.

6. The lives of Metro Officers and the safety of Metro officers is not only more important than your rights to life and safety but their right to safety supersedes all Constitutionally guaranteed rights, God given rights and even statutory rights like NRS 171.1232, if such rights interfere in their right to be safe form any possibility that you may be armed even legally armed.

And so I can say, after being in depositions with 7 Cops, that a picture is worth 1000 words.

IT’S FINALLY HAPPENED!

BEN BERNANKE’s [federal reserve note] dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency.

Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen — not the federal reserve notes — a nearly complete reversal of the FRN dollar’s onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar’s share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent — compared with two-thirds a decade ago.

Fed boss Ben Bernanke may be forced to raise rates in order to restore faith in the dollar — and help bring the euro and the yen back to earth.

Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks — the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.
Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the federal reserve note on the operating table.

After printing up trillions of new FRN dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy — ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.

“He’s in a crisis worse than the meltdown ever was,” said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. “I fear that he could be the Fed chairman who brought down the whole thing.”

Investors and central banks are snubbing FRN dollars because the FRN greenback is kept too weak by zero interest rates and a flood of FRN greenbacks in the global economy.

They grumble that they’ve loaned the US record amounts to cover its mounting debt, but are getting paid back by a currency that’s worth 10 percent less in the past three months alone. In a decade, it’s down nearly one-third.

Yesterday, the dollar had a mixed performance, falling slightly against the British pound to $1.5801 from $1.5846 Friday, but rising against the euro to $1.4779 from $1.4709 and against the yen to 89.85 yen from 89.78.

Economists believe the market rebellion against the FRN dollar will spread until Bernanke starts raising interest rates from around zero to the high single digits, and pulls back the flood of currency spewed from US printing presses.
“That’s a cure, but it’s also going to stifle any US economic growth,” said Schiff. “The economy is addicted to the cheap interest and liquidity.”
Economists warn that a jump in rates will clobber stocks & cripple the already stalled housing market.

“Bernanke’s other choice is to keep rates at zero, print even more money and sell more debt, but we’ll see triple-digit inflation that could collapse the economy as we know it.

“The stimulus is what’s toxic — we’re poisoning ourselves and the global economy with it.”

By Christopher Hansen,
There appears to be a chance that the United States Supreme Court will hear a case concerning the 5th Amendment and the 1040 confessional.
High Court Ponders Fate of Tax Rebel By James P. Tucker, Jr.

Here is the reason I believe that even if it goes to the High Court he will lose.

“You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily.” — 1992 Form 1040 Tax Instruction Booklet

“We have a voluntary compliance system.” — Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Nightline with Ted Koppel, Apr.13, 1990

“Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” — United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958)

You see the Income tax is a voluntary system or it would be unconstitutional. It would be a violation of the 13th Amendment. It would be a violation of the God given right of man. The income tax is a tax on a Congressionally created statutory right. That is why when you have a dispute with the IRS you don’t go to an Article III Court but you go to a particularized tribunal called Tax Court.

[W]hen Congress establishes a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, 83-84, (1982)

So what is this Congressionally created statutory right that would force you to go to Tax Court and why does it make income taxes voluntary.

First the voluntary part.

If you get a job at any company that company can required you to be tested for drugs or they will not hire you. If the government tried to force you to have a blood test you could say, “WAIT JUST A DOLL GERN MINUTE…I have rights.” But your rights with the company go out the window when you ask for a benefit. That benefit is working for them. You see it was voluntary. YOu did not have to work for them or even ask them for a job.

The same is true when you volunteer for the military. You no longer have your freedom. You don’t go to Article III Courts but to military tribunals. You are told when to get up and were to go. You are told what clothes to wear and how to cut your hair. And how can that be legal? Because you joined voluntarily.

So what does voluntary mean according to the Supreme Court? In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 595 (1992) the Court was VERY clear:

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.”

Now remember: “Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” — United States v. Flora 362 US 145 (1958)

So what did you do to voluntarily become a “taxpayer”?

Rev. 13: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

If you are a member of a Federal Government retirement program, like Social Security, you are government personnel, by law (See title 5).

So the only real question left is: What are you willing to do about it?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows you to sue the government. Marxism is a religion that has been established by the Federal Government. The First Amendment says the Federal Government cannot establish a religion.
All of the weapons, granted to you by God to fight for your liberty are available and what do you do about it?

You volunteer. Why? Because it is easier to be a slave than to be free. So stop complaining about high taxes and get back out to the fields, boy. You volunteered. So wear that Mark proudly and know in your heart which side you chose. The left side. Interesting, is it not, that they say that Communists and Socialists are a bunch of leftists?

Matt. 25: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Josh. 24: 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

So choose you this day. Marked or not marked?