Quote:
[posted on the Site linked to. http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/BAR.html]
McKinney v. Regan, 599 F.Supp. 126, 129 (M.D.La. 1984)"Petitioner's shield of the 'Common Law' as an 'Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic,' provides him with precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary [sic] -- ZERO"
|
Kind of funny that the ruling is for people of the "U"nited States od America. I wonder if this ruling would be different if the person did not admit to being a Citizen of a corporation?
Quote:
|
United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir. 1991)("The Krugers' principle argument below and on appeal is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution unlawfully purported to bestow citizenship upon non-white races and other 'artificial statutory persons.' This argument is absurd").
|
I wonder if this argument would still be absurd if the individual making the claim did not state that the ammendment was unlawful.
Linear Mode
