We The People - Beware

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.sweetliberty.org//issues/wolves/shultz.htm

Beware
The goal of We The People is to have a constitutional
convention that will DESTROY THE BILL OF RIGHT. Once a constitutional
convention starts, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS of what may be modified.

The charter of We The People is to support a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION in New York "as soon as possible," not repeal the income tax.



Why hasthe IRS left Schultz' TAX EXEMPT educational organization alone?

Contributions to WTP are TAX TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

BE VERY VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS GROUP!!!

I personally wouldn't subscribe

Although Schulz's suits have been notable, keep in mind the controlled opposition concept.

The Elite in Gov't will have people who are seemingly on both sides (i.e. Quatloos, the IRS versus Shultz); but who are really on the same team.

This way the outcome can be how they determined it.

Schulz's victory this week seems like a small step, but it really is bait and an issue that the IRS/DOJ/U.S. can part with

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

[b]http://www.sweetliberty.org//issues/wolves/shultz.htm

Beware...

...people who are seemingly on both sides (i.e. Quatloos, the IRS versus Shultz); but who are really on the same team.

There is an interrogation strategy known as "Mutt and Jeff" that does appear to parallel or be like unto "controlled opposition" in psychological operations and propagandization. [See also Factitious Disorder by Proxy.]

" Name: "Mutt and Jeff" (aka "good cop/bad cop")

Source: DOD Working Group memo; Miranda v. Arizona; pick your cop show

Description: The "bad cop" threatens the subject or acts in a way that creates fear or anxiety. The "good cop" comes in to displace the bad cop, sometimes by physically ejecting him from the room to protect the detainee. The intercession is supposed to build rapport and trust and induce the detainee to tell the good cop what he knows, lest the bad cop come back.

Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Negligible

Locations Used: Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan

Legal Opinion: This is, quite literally, one of the oldest tricks in the book. As a mental ruse, it rarely rises to the level of illegality. But under certain circumstances, some threats can evolve into the type of coercion that violates the Geneva Conventions. The April 16, 2003, Pentagon memo states that this technique may violate the conventions' prohibition against intimidating detainees."

Might there even an incarnation of a Mutt & Jeff technique on a much larger such as "good army bad army"? Who knows!?

[iamfreeru2]

Weis,

Very enlightening post. Now that you have brought this out, I do remember Shultz talking about a "con con" in New York. Makes me wonder now if Banister is legit as well. Are we being taken for a ride? This all raises definite concerns.

[weishaupt1776]

Isn't it questionable that Al Thompson gets his ass handed to him & JB walks?

Also, did you notice that the DOJ was completely unprepared?

Although most U.S. attorneys are law school flunkies, they could do way better than that.

They took a dive

NOT ONLY THAT,

Bannister's "win" was due to them winning on procedure NOT in law which would then set precedent

Some so-called Plaintiffs in their lawsuit are left to rot behind bars, while others are getting more specific attention.

Go figure...???

[iamfreeru2]

We could be reading something into this that is not there. It has certainly raised questions and we will see how it plays out for sure. All the more reason for us to remain vigilant in our research and application of the knowledge we gain. This could be a ploy on the other side to cause division. Remember a house divided will not stand. It is no different than what some are doing here.

[aksis]

Which Bill of rights would be being ammended? The Organic or the Corpirate?

[Chinese Panda]

I agree there's something not quite right about the Bannister thing. Yes, I am on their subscription list. Yes, I did go to one of their meetings and I met Joe Bannister. It just didn't "feel" right. However, you know they have given out some good tools to use. What was it their 512 questions on CD? I have it around here somewhere, there was some good stuff on there. Also, can somebody tell me why this wasn't a big issue? http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-05-21.htm

It seems to me that this Challenge To Authority filed at the County Clerk would really make them cross their T's and dot those I's.

[weishaupt1776]

Yuo, that FRE 902(4) is the dealiyo

For dial-up users:

• Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
  (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

[weishaupt1776]

I remember during the time Schulz had the Class Action Law Suit for Redress of Grievances, and the Doj trashed it

All it was were questions which did not form a complaint because they failed to form a cause of action/complaint for declaration.

This is what Clyde noticed were some GLARING omissions in Schulz's work:

"The 4th amendment wasn't even mentioned, the right to be secure in homes and property. The 6th or 7th wasn't likewise, nor the 8th, nor any of the causes I advocate, other than the first amendment.

No allegation of Superior Sovereigns in the People.

No allegation that Congress set a trap and in doing so thus denies real remedy.

No allegation that the code is not law"