Court Corruption!

[BOBT12]

Here's a good example of why our courts are corrupt. And why there is no justice regarding many Constitutional topics, in this case the Second Amendment.

Bloomberg’s End-run Around the Second Amendment

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars

May 10, 2008

In New York, the notorious gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg wants to censor the Second Amendment. “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has moved from outrage to atrocity, said the Second Amendment Foundation, by asking anti-gun activist federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during a civil lawsuit trial beginning May 27 against Georgia gun dealer Jay Wallace, proprietor at Adventure Outdoors,” reports PR Newswire.

But the “billionaire demagogue who considers himself so far above the law,” as Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, characterizes Bloomberg, wants to go after the First Amendment, too. Bloomberg wants a gag order slapped on the case. In “Mikey’s world… a fair trial is one in which a defense attorney is muzzled, and the defendant is already guilty until proven innocent. Bloomberg missed his calling. Instead of being mayor of an American city, he should have been the administrator of a gulag.”

Reports the New York Sun:
City lawyers, in a motion filed Tuesday, asked the judge, Jack Weinstein of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, to preclude the store’s lawyers from arguing that the suit infringed on any Second Amendment rights belonging to the gun store or its customers. In the motion, the lawyer for the city, Eric Proshansky, is also seeking a ban on “any references” to the amendment.

“Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant,” the brief states.
In other words, New York is a Constitution free zone. But then so is much of the rest of the country, thanks to Bush, who considers the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.” Bush and his coterie of Straussian neocons need to get rid of the Second Amendment in particular because militarized police states don’t go far if people have guns. Come marital law, Bush and crew may want to begin with New York, Chicago, and D.C., where restrictive gun laws rule. Short of some draconian law, it will be hard going out here in the hinterlands.

Bloomberg’s senator, Hillary Clinton, would have us believe she is a defender of the Second Amendment. She recently sent out a mailer with a picture of a 66 Mauser rifle — printed backwards — declaring her support, or rather Obama’s lack of support for the Second Amendment. It is funny, though, how the elite, who run Hillary and Barack and John the robot alike, are fond of sending cryptic messages to the commoners. “The Mauser costs about $2,200, and sports a double trigger, an accessory rarely found on American guns, but more typical of Western Europe, where the firearms market is more geared to custom guns for the aristocracy, as opposed to America’s off-the-racks guns for the masses,” writes Dave Kopel.

Clinton has a nearly perfect gun-grabber record in the Senate and now she wants you to believe she is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. If we examine her political literature, it appears she supports the right of the ruling elite to own fancy hunting rifles.

Once Clinton or Obama take over, we can expect stunts like the one Michael Bloomberg is pulling to become common place. Recall Hillary’s hubby signed into law background checks and an assault weapons ban. He wanted a national licensing program for all gun owners, but that ran into a lot of opposition. Hillary will pick up where Bill left off.

Bloomberg’s attempt to squash the constitutional rights of a gun shop owner in Georgia is simply another angle gun-grabbers will take up with frothy zeal if a “liberal” — as in neoliberal — gets into office. Here’s how Bloomberg runs his scam, according to a Liberty Coalition letter sent to Michael J. Sullivan, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
Bloomberg has organized a multi-state vigilante-style campaign against federal gun dealers. Bloomberg’s gambit is simple — without any federal or state law enforcement authorization, he sends people to federal firearms dealers to break federal law by providing false information on the federal ATF Form 4473 firearm transfer form, and then purchasing guns for persons prohibited by law from taking possession of guns (a so called ‘straw sale’). Bloomberg then files a civil lawsuit against the dealer in a New York court while using a covertly made video tape of the transaction to blackmail the dealer into ‘settling’ on terms where the City of New York’s ‘Special Master’ will supplant ATF supervision of the dealer and peruse Americans’ confidential federal gun transfer records at will.

Expect more of this funny business after Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton get in the White House.

And if you think McCain will save the Second Amendment, think again — there is a strong possibility Mike DeWine will become his attorney general if the McManchurian candidate is selected. DeWine is a darling of the gun-grabbers with a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsement. “When he ran for the Senate in 1994, he backed the Clinton Gun Ban,” writes the Buckeye Firearms Association “In 2006, Human Events Online named DeWine among the Top 10 anti-gun U.S. Senators. And shortly before his defeat, DeWine took a position in opposition to legislation which barred gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business.”

Call it the Bloomberg tactic, an end-run around the Second Amendment.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2056

I will add excerpts from another unnamed forum regarding Court Corruption. This website is not exactly on friendly terms with the other website, thus, I will not link the information.

The information in the excerpts is mostly regarding taxation. Nevertheless, I feel it also illustrates how the courts close their ears to justice.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by BOBT12

You seem to completely ignore the fact that these individuals may actually believe what they are doing. Of course, I believe Tommy Cryer is honest in his views. Moreover, the jury believed him.

Nevertheless, with enough lies the public may be made to think that a foot is a hand, or a direct tax is indirect, and choose to convict the individuals who suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Based on reason was Galileo incorrect? Of course not! The Inquisition wasn't concerned about the truth, they merely wanted to persecute Galileo for making public views they didn't want the in the public domain.

However, like the Inquisition, the courts only see what they wish, regardless of truth. They want to support a tax tyranny in spite of the Constitution and unalienable rights.

They then intimidate the jury into believing they can only judge fact and not the law itself. This is fraud.

So yes, since all government is corrupt, and has exceeded the chains of the Constitution, it is a political question.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I know of his ideas and positions that he took in is motions in the case against him, the case that he prevailed in. I have read many of his other statements. Am I expected to know him in some other fashion?

Emphasis added.

I agree with Cryer. Where does it state that a wage earner is liable for a Schedule A tax? I feel that the code is void for vagueness among many other problem.

Emphsis added.

Yes, play follow the leader, I understand. However, if that history is in error it should be challenged. And I think this is what Cryer is trying to do.

Why should anyone be forced to waive their forth and fifth Amendment protection by filling out a confession form for strictly personal business? Why shouldn't these protections stand above other taxing concerns, being that the Bill of Rights were from the people, and the provisions of the Constitution from their representatives.

Yes, well:

See above. The court, all government, misleads the public, and robs them through unjust taxes.

And does this change the facts regarding Galileo?

Amendments 4, 5, 13, etc. With taxes the government take life liberty and property. This is certainly true of a tax upon right, such as wages, without which one cannot provide for ones-self, or family. Thus, this is a direct tax, and if taxed, should be done according to an apportionment as indicated in the Constitution. This was certainly considered a direct tax under common law, prior to the Constitution, can you show where the people intended to give up this protection (apportionment)? The question is why would a free people want to be hunted down like dogs by the likes of the IRS?

Where did the people ever knowingly gave up this right and duty?

Emphasis added.

True, the court are sometime less tyrannical then the other branches of government, it seems that they still tend towards tyranny.

Jefferson was a good observer of human nature, that nature doesn’t change as fast as you seem to suggest.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by BOBT12

It seems to have mattered to a jury.

Where did I say that I was an attorney?

Based on reason was Galileo incorrect? Of course not! Like Galileo I have provided reason, based upon the laws of universal reason, sometime call self-evidence.

The Inquisition wasn't concerned about the truth, they merely wanted to persecute Galileo for making public views they didn't want the in the public domain. The courts today seem to engage in the same practice.

Emphasis added.

Emphasis added.

REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT - REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT

Of course, just as the Inquisition did not have a need to provide a justification for its action.

For the tax indicated in Pollock, perhaps,

Emphasis added.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

And common sense.

The law of the Inquisition?

This is why I really respect Tommy Cryer. He understood that the path was difficult, but he followed his conscience. I am trying to do the same thing.

My heart goes out to many who are being persecuted at the hands of the tyrannical government:

Emphasis added.

Irwin Schiff went through similar treatment in prison. In addition to the "diesel therapy", Irwin was put in a cold cell without clothing. He was probably selected due to the success of his book "The Federal Mafia". This book points out how this government is mostly based upon fear, or tyranny. Of course, state governments play follow the leader, and engage in such abuse. Our own Planetmark and Marksgirl reported similar conduct, little or no clothing, in a cold cell, no bedding, for days on end.

I gave reason, you are the attorney. What law would Galileo give to the Inquisition? Would he be able to cite their previous decisions for his position? Or would he ask them to come to his telescope, and gaze upon the laws of the Universe for themselves?

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Of course, I am sad about the persecution of Snipes, he is being made to suffer at the hands of the heartless government.

Being he was convinced of a misdemeanor, he shouldn't serve more than a year (maximum) in confinement in any case. The government is making an example of Snipes in order to inspire fear in the people so they will comply with the burdensome tax scam. Yet, should be painfully clear this is a state of tyranny, where greater, and greater, numbers of people don't "consent" (see the Declaration of Independence for more information) to the current tax scheme.Thus, more unjust coercion must be used to keep the people in line. This is the very definition of tyranny.

Isn't this a warning against the tax system we see today? Madison was a framer of the Constitution, he may have had some "valid" ideas of what was intended, and what was not.

It has long been known that the Constitution was intended to be understood using the Federalist Papers, and Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Bingo! Thanks, mrg. This is the sort of thing I was looking for; this shows that it was common practice to use the Federalist Papers to look to determine the intent of the people. I am having trouble finding Madison’s quote regarding how his notes of the Constitutional Convention should be used; however, I believe that I have properly portrayed the intent of the framers below.

Emphasis added.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by Equinox

All one has to do is read section 3506 (1995) and see that the form 1040 does not comply with the PRA of 1995 in any respect listed therein. The Director is to "evaluate" fairly whether proposed collections of information should be approved under this chapter to-:

"ensure that each information collection-(1) is inventoried, displays a control number and, if appropriate, an expiration date; (2) indicate the collection is in accordance with the clearance requirements of section 3507; and (3) informs the person receiving the collection of information of - (I) the reasons the information is being collected; (II) the way such information is to be used; (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection; (IV) whether the responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays avalid control number."


All one has to do is look at the purported "request" to see if any of these criteria are met. The form 1040 does not contain the warning required as appearing on all other forms. The warning the IRS does notice the public about appears in the instruction booklet and not on the form as required. Remember, the PRA of 1980 and 1995 only apply to the information collection request and not the "instruction booklets." The instruction booklet for form 1040 even denounces its affiliation with any tax forms ("this booklet does not contain any tax forms.")(if the instruction booklet is not a collection of information and is not subject to OMB approval, then how does the requirements intended to appear on the tax form become satisfied by appearing in the instruction booklet only?)(who approved that?)(are they going to now say the instruction booklet is subject to the PRA of 1995?)(then there is the question if the instruction booklet denounces containing any tax forms, how does the government and court argue the duty
was satisfied by what is contained within the instruction booklets?)

No expiration date that exists prior to its expiration, no indication the collection is in accordance with section 3507, no informing the person about the reasons the information is being collected; (II) the way such information is to be used; (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection; (IV) whether the responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays avalid control number.


NOTHING WHATSOEVER ON FORM 1040 FOR ANY YEAR 1981 THROUGH 2006!.


There is also two additional considerations need to understand current knowledge of this issue. OMB says that 26 U.S.C. section 6011 is the statutory command and therefore, the IRS forms are exempt from the PRA of 1995. That section completely defies the entire reason for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits reasoning for the "statutory origin theory." Said theory was based upon the "expressed mandate of congress" vs. "promulgated via regulation" theory. Section 6011 says "when required by regulation proscribed by the Secretary......." The Commissioner in the instruction booklet also says 6001, 6011, 6012 and THEIR REGULATIONS."


In conclusion, the dictum division on the statutory mandate theory proves there is no such mandate. It also proves the form 1040 is promulgated via regulation and also proves "at the discretion of the agency" because the IRS completely ignores the requirements of the PRA of both 1980 and 1995. They could only do that if they were evading the PRA of 1995 (yes, willfully). It also shows that the instruction booklet, not being an information collection request, cannot save the violations of the form 1040 (placing something on page 72 that is to appear obvious and on the surface of a request which comes "first," in my opinion, looks more like hiding than displaying.


I would also suggest here that there is a reason why the IRS hides the PRA and even ignores the existence of the 1995 Act (see mentioning 1980 PRA in 2006 instruction booklet) and that is because they are required to "first" tell you what they can do with your answers to their questions, how they will be used and whether your requirement to answer is voluntary or mandatory. See Section 3506(1995 PRA).

The form 1040 is a perjury trap.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by Equinox

The form 1040 is a perjury trap.

A perjury trap claim was recently used by an assistant to the Attorney General of the United States in response to questions asked by subpoena in a Congressional hearing in explaining a Firth Amendment protection claim. If the IRS can use the information you provide them against you in a criminal case, outside of you being in a criminal case, there is no better direct link to the Fifth Amendment than that threatened possibility.

If the IRS writes "warning, you are answering these questions voluntarily and any thing you say may be used against you" what would then be the result of that gathering information tool? Also, is the response then "voluntary" or "mandatory"? Mandatory under certain sections and voluntary as it relates to the fifth amendment? I think you can get the point. How can it be both voluntary and mandatory? It simply cannot. Either your answers are compelled and thus cannot be used against you (direct language of the Fifth Amendment), making the perjury clause meaningless, or the answers are voluntary and you are not required to answer them and that exercise of the fifth amendment privilege to remain silent, remember perjury trap, cannot ever be used against you as well.

[BOBT12]

Court Corruption Continued

Originally Posted by Equinox

You're welcome, and know the preceding particular piece is not my writing. I do verify content however.



Maybe no judge wants to "be the one" who "does the legally and morally correct thing" which in turn will cause the "system" to have to change. Cause and Effect. However, no matter, change is eminent.

The change will hopfully remove from hiding all the "hidden taxes" that Ron Paul hasn't talked about - Paul talks mostly about the inflation hidden tax. When people see what is REALLY going on, watch for the down size of government and the reduction of prison population - that being the CORRECT thing in a FREE SOCIETY.

The country will also become a quieter place for we will not hear the noises from those feeding from the public trough - (Meaning govt. employees will become fewer and will not be creating work, via the barrel of a gun, and harrassing their fellow man with more rules and regulations that tend only to serve to make government expand while having prosperity, peace and liberty diminish.)

Let us find now those in opposition to correctness offer their thoughts, as has been in past and now, this being a new day, they offer their rebuttal without the use of name calling for it is much like suicide when one begins calling others they don't even know, names. Like casting a stone at the intended target but that target turns out to be the self!

Dear wserra,

Cited below is another case wherein the court disagrees with other courts which in turn causes confusion among the people.


US v. Collins 920 F2nd 619 629 10th 1990

the 16th authroizes a direct unapportioned tax....

So is the income tax a direct unapportioned tax as per the above and Sloan

OR


Is it an indirect tax


OR


Is it only in "the nature of" an indirect tax

Or

Is it all three, any two or just one of the above?


No confussion with court rulings...
I hope you read some of the PRA post and the confussion in the courts and YET it is believed that people are somehow scumbags because they cannot understand what the court cannot explain.

[BOBT12]

Interesting information:

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. . While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law," --By Geraldine Hawkins, "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition", Judge Tells Harvard Law School, (March 7, 2003)

Emphasis added.

Isn't this sort of complaint at the base of many of our negative view of attorneys?


http://www.massnews.com/2003_Edition..._corrupt.shtml