Chris Hansen Under The Gun

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Chris, we do appreciate your clearing things up. Your site opened my eyes to alot of different angles concerning the Law

I REALLY like this:

I really don't know why you would like it.

Chris Hansen's "disclaimer" is about as effective as ... well, it's not effective at all.

I find this one really amusing ...

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

This website and the educational materials on it were prepared for the use of the author only by himself. Any use of the terms "you", "your", "individuals", "we recommend", "you should", "we" or "our readers", "readers", "those" or "most Americans" either on the website or in any verbal communications or correspondence with our readers is directed at the author and not other readers.

So in other words, when Chris is saying "You should fill out this form and send it in" he's *really* referring to himself. Of course he's not telling you that "you" should use the form.

Egads.

Who would believe such a thing?

This is also a real laugher ...

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

The word "frivolous" as used on other websites in referring to this website shall mean "correct" and "truthful".

So, if I post something on my website calling Chris Hansen's arguments "frivolous" then somehow Chris has the power to change the meaning of that word so that it really doesn't mean that his arguments are crap ... it now means that I'm saying his arguments are "correct" and "truthful".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Alright.

Brian,

You conveniently left out the remainder of the Disclaimer on the subject of "frivolous":

Any attempts to call anything on this website incorrect or untruthful must be accompanied by authoritative, court-admissible evidence to support such a conclusion or shall be presumed by the reader to be untrustworthy and untruthful. That evidence must satisfy the rules of evidence found in section 21 of our About Us page

The word "frivolous" is redefined to discourage its use, so that detractors MUST justify themselves with legally admissible evidence based on the rules of evidence, which is the same standard applied to EVERYTHING on the Family Guardian website. This forces readers to focus on facts and law and to stay away from propaganda, emotion, and rhetoric. This ensures that "due process" is required in every interaction with the author and also affords readers a means to practice arguing their case in a court of law. Are you saying that you don't like being held responsible to legally justify what otherwsie would be bigoted and presumptuous rhetoric?

The next thing you cover is the Disclaimer's definition of the word "you" and "we". This is consistent with the About Us page (http://famguardian.org/aboutus.htm, section 12), which says that the ministry is not allowed to give legal advice. What makes the information presented worthy of use by the audience is whether it proclaims verifiable truth, not who uses it or whether it is guaranteed. People who search for earthly guarantees don't have to depend on God, but on man, which is what the Bible says we should not do. See Psalms 118:8-9 (http://biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...9;&version=50;). Such a man-centric relativistic philosophy is the very thing, in fact, which accomplished most of the corruption found in the government at this time. Only a Sovereign who takes complete responsibility for his choices and actions would understand that. So******ts want the opposite: a government that assumes all liability so they never have to grow up or take responsibility for themselves, which is idolatry. See:
The Unlimited Liability Universe

So******ts such as yourself, who apparently do nothing but suck on the government tit and receive handouts from the government to sit in front of a computer all day submitting presumptuous, false, or unsubstantiated propaganda to lambast those who want an accountable, law-abiding government would not understand this concept.

The truth should stand on its own. Only error needs a confirmation or a guarantee from a fallable man. Thomas Jefferson agreed when he said:

"Follow truth as the only safe guide, and... eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234

"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their [ONLY] guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice [including us] to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388

A person who is jealous for his rights and liberties trusts NO MAN, including me. Instead, a man of reason trusts only what the law says and not what others say. Even the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison that we are a society of law and not of men. A society of law does not concern itself with what men [including us] say, but instead what the enacted positive law itself says. Such a society also disregards and does not obey anything that is not enacted positive law. 1 USC 204 legislative notes admits that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, so it ought to be disregarded unless and until it is so enacted. Please rebut sections 5.4 through 5.4.3.6 of The Great IRS Hoax if you disagree, and do so not with presumptuous opinion, but with enacted positive law and the rulings of the Supreme Court, as we do in all cases. The Family Guardian website does nothing but expose what the law says and tells people to disregard everything else, and especially that which is not law, such as Titles 26, 42, and 50 of the U.S. Code. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Those who are so lazy that they would rather trust another man than their own reading of the law are doomed to be slaves of government and tyrants.

Instead of focusing on personalities and opinions, which is the mark of a little mind, why don't you do something more constructive like informing this enlightened audience about what exactly you think is verifiably incorrect among the thousands of pages of legal evidence of government fraud found in the Great IRS Hoax book? You have been admonished to do this on many occasions such as on the MSN tax board, the Quatloos website, and even the Family Guardian website forums. Yet, you still refuse to "get a life".

"How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge." [Prov. 1:22, Bible, NKJV]

Your silence on this post shall constitute agreement.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

"How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge." [Prov. 1:22, Bible, NKJV]

Hey Chris, maybe you should also heed God's instruction to obey the authorities and pay your taxes:

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Romans 13:1-7, NKJV.

I know you're next reply will be that you don't owe ... but we know better.

The Supreme Court says the "governing authorities" are We the People, and not their servants in government.

“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..." [Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

This is covered at:
What Pastors and Clergy Need to Know About Government and Taxation

The presentation very clearly establishes who "Caesar" and the "governing authorities" are, and what they have ordained. That which they have ordained and therefore consented to is described ONLY in enacted positive law. Positive law is simply the ONLY legitimate evidence of "consent of the governed". Show me the consent and the jurisdiction and you will have my unfailing allegiance.

The Internal Revenue Code does not constitute such evidence, because 1 USC 204 legislative notes says it is not positive law, but "presumed" to be law, which is what "prima facie" evidence is. It is a sin for Christians to presume anything as shown in Numbers 15:30, and it is also a violation of due process. "Presumption" can NEVER be used as a substitute for real evidence without violating due process:

"(1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected interests: A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application would impair a party's constitutionally-protected liberty or property interests. In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party's due process and equal protection rights. [Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]" [Rutter Group Practice Guide-Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, paragraph 8:4993, page 8K-34]

The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, and therefore, the "governing authorities" never authorized it nor consented to enforce it upon themselves. Therefore, it can only be enforced where the consent of the governed is not required, such as areas within the federal zone. The Declaration of Independence very clearly says that all just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed. Any attempt to enforce that which the people never explicitly consented to enforce upon themselves IN WRITING is UNJUST. Consent cannot be "presumed": it can only be demonstrated with evidence. To "presume" consent is the equivalent of RAPE. Once again, this subject is very thoroughly covered in Great IRS Hoax sections 5.4 through 5.4.3.6. Please rebut the content of those sections and the above presentation instead of wasting time on political propaganda of the above sort.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

I know you're next reply will be that you don't owe ... but we know better.

Yes, I and most here (We the People) do know better, we know we do not owe Title 26 taxes!

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Your silence on this post shall constitute agreement.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

LOL!!! It's so funny when you try to make those assertions.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, and therefore, the "governing authorities" never authorized it nor consented to enforce it upon themselves. The Declaration of Independence says that all just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed. Any attempt to enforce that which the people never explicitly consented to enforce upon themselves is UNJUST. Once again, this subject is very thoroughly covered in Great IRS Hoax sections 5.4 through 5.4.3.6. Please rebut the content of those sections and the above presentation instead of wasting time on political propaganda of the above sort.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

If you don't like looking in title 26, then I suggest you rummage through the Statutes at Large, which ARE legal evidence of the laws, and not "prima facie" evidence of the laws.

Of course, the only substantive difference between the two is that the statutes prevail if the code is inconsistent.

"By 1 U.S.C. 54(a), 1 U.S.C.A. 54(a) the Code establishes 'prima facie' the laws of the United States. But the very meaning of 'prima facie' is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent." Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S 423 (1943)

Brian,
All the Statutes at Large prior to 1939 having to do with the subject of revenue were REPEALED in 1939, 53 Stat. 1. See:
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat 1

The above act also repealed the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 upon which our modern I.R.C. is based, leaving us with NO enacted positive law on the subject of Internal Revenue from 1939 to the present. Show me even one federal court case where the moving party was required to prove the section they were using was "positive law". The fact that they aren't EVER doing it is simply evidence that the federal judiciary has become a state-sponsored church that has institutionalized violation of due process using "presumption". The "Bible" of this state sponsored federal church is the Infernal (SATANIC) Revenue Code.

“The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one [state-sponsored political] religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” [Everson v. Bd. of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947)]
__________________________________________________ ____
“[T]he Establishment Clause is infringed when the government makes adherence to religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community. Direct government action endorsing religion or a particular religious practice is invalid under this approach, because it sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community”. [Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 69 (1985)]

Even that which is not positive law can become "law" if a person individually consents to it in writing, but that doesn't make it law to those who don't individually and explicitly consent IN WRITING. Those who don't consent are "nontaxpayers", which describes most Americans. Those who consented in writing to the I.R.C. (such as by submitting a W-4, 1040, or SS-5 form signed with a perjury oath in violation of the Bible) and therefore made themselves subject to in (26 USC 7701(a)(14)) have joined the state-sponsored religion called the "Infernal (SATANIC) Revenue Code", which is a dangerous cult.

Once again, this is covered in the Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.4.3 through 5.4.3.3. Please rebut those sections. I'm not interested in wasting my breath educating fools who reject knowledge and rational investigation.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Brian,
All the Statutes at Large prior to 1939 having to do with the subject of revenue were REPEALED in 1939, 53 Stat. 1. See:
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat 1

Well, you better check it.

The IRC of 1939 was passed in February 10th of that year.

The IRC of 1939 says that all laws in force on January 2nd of that year were repealed.

Since the IRC of 1939 was not in force on January 2, it could not have been repealed.

Try again.

Furthermore, even if true, a statute in 1939 would not have had any effect on the 1954 code, which appears as volume 68A of the Statutes at Large.

Brian,

Section 4 of 53 Stat. 1 says:

"The Internal Revenue Title, as hereinafter set forth, is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws relating exclusively to internal revenue, in force on the 2nd day of January 1939"

The repeal applied to laws in force on that day, not the date the repeal was enacted. An enactment of a repeal doesn't enact the law upon which it is based. Therefore, the repeal included the 1939 code itself as well. The confusing wording of that section is just a clever way for deceitful politicians to disguise the nature of their actions.

Also, the 1954 code did not amend anthing. The beginning of it did not say which sections of the 1939 code were updated. The reason it didn't is because the 1939 code was never enacted into positive law. It amended a dead code, not a postive law.

Chris