WTP Lawsuit Dismissed

[Ice]

TG,

You have earned the right to be banned. Your last 3 posts have broken the guidelines of this forum.

Bye.

Ice

Originally Posted by Tommygun

"Nanny Nanny Boo Boo! Go away person spoiling our fantasy game!"

Listen to yourself.

I can hear your mommy calling. Climb out of your tree-house, idiot, your dinner is getting cold.

Tommy, a great man once said something like,"call no one fool lest ye burn in the fires of gehenna". May have something to do with ,"the wisdom of man is foolishness to God".


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)


Skyzgr, haven't looked up 18USC1510 yet. Is that the federal witness statute? Has anyone ever used that as a defense to actions of the government against them?

[lchesson]

Sounds like TG really took a beating and is getting even by being the forum 'bully'. If he's really a steward of truth and possibly a believer, he'll NEVER be content with involuntary servitude.

Here is Shultz's latest update on the dismissal:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-09-13.htm

And it's almost ironic how he clearly sees the line in the sand, yet wants to take a few steps back before moving forward again. Federal Judges, Federal Courts, Federal Money, etc.; is as rigged as the game gets, but at least he is willing to exhaust clear up through SCOTUS.

[SKYGZR]

First off, Thanks Ice for dumping that MORON...and on to this post...
It is now clear that prior to any "proceedings"', one MUST confirm Proper Credentials for "Robes".

Further Thought..........It now seems IMPERATIVE, that prior to any "Court Actions", we Lawperson(s) really need to establish Proper Credentials for these "Robes"!! Once we have Evidence that the proper credentials DO NOT, nor CAN NOT be produced, then requiring Judicial Notice should be the first and foremost Question (along with the establishment/challenging jurisdiction), to ask the "Court/Robe" in any proceeding. Should the Robe admit to holding such, and we can prove otherwise, then proper, un-biased, and un-fair proceedings can't continue, and move to recuse, or mis-trial.

I believe that "Paul" (pen name), at Supreme Law is onto this fiasco, and has been "hinting" at it for awhile now. There are many "out there" who wish to discredit this man's work, yet one has to admit that his research is quite well versed.

Just my thoughts and observations.

***********Copy/Paste from Supreme Law/Topica************

ORDER by Singleton (fed) on IRS Injunction


Singleton BS ORDER
5 U.S.C. § 701-706 - required on all agent/agencies to get waiver of
immunity
Sabhari v. Reno, 197 F.3d 938 (1999) 1331 and waiver of APA required



An Injunction was filed against the IRS Agents in
their individual capacities (5 U.S.C. § 702), and
on their failure to follow the procedure (706).
We filed in a preliminary motion and an expedited
motion for preliminary motion, which is similar
to a TRO in reality. Single had already
characterized the parties as "protesting a tax
lien" in a prior ORDER and a motion to recuse was
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 144 - a one time shot to
have another judge look at the case. Any other
recusals will have to be filed under 28 U.S.C. §
455.

The Injunction did plead 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for the jurisdiction.

The Injunction did plead 5 U.S.C. § 701-706 for
the waiver of sovereign immunity with the two
exceptions in 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) and (2)

The Injunction did plead the injury, being the
specific statutes and substantive regulations and
5 U.S.C. § 706 such as 706(1)(D), etc in 706.

The injunction did meet the requirements of Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 561
(1992) and Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751
(1984) of (1) injury in fact; and (2)legal
relations - connection to some other party; and,
(3)redressed by a favorable decision, i.e. a
court that has cognizance to of the class of case.

There were no damages asked for in the injunction relief.

Singleton's ORDER is in totality a complete pack of lies.

A motion to reconsider will be filed.

What we are seeing to date in all of the cases
now in the criminal and civil, is when the spear
of truth penetrates the deception, these soldiers
of Lucifer and their ilk refuse to even
acknowledge the truth, but instead establish
false issues and then go into great detail
establishing the foundation for the false issues.

I have attached just one case on the need for the sovereign immunity
issue.

I have also attached the 5 U.S.C. § 701-706
unambiguous language for the only place that you
can hold an agent or agency accountable,
otherwise they are immune under the statutory
SCHEME of Congress.



************BREAK***********



IRS is not an "agency" as that term is defined
in the Administrative Procedures Act or in the
Freedom of Information Act:

IRS is not an "agency" as that term is defined
in the Administrative Procedures Act or in the
Freedom of Information Act:

See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C)
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/551.html>

and 5 U.S.C. 701 to wit:
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/701.html>

Here's the pertinent part of 5 U.S.C. 551:

§ 551. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter-
(1) "agency" means each authority of the Government of the United
States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another
agency, but does not include-
============================
(A) the Congress; [same as 701 below]
(B) the courts of the United States; [same as 701 below]
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United
States ....

[/excerpt]

As Trust #62 domiciled in San Juan, Puerto Rico,
IRS is expressly EXcluded from the definition of
"agency" above at sections 701(b)(1)(C) and at 501(1)(C).

<http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm> (Question #26)
<http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31Q&A.in.evidence.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/cooper.htm>
(latter have both been entered into evidence in
federal courts, without verified rebuttals)

The trust is authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62):

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> (a)(62)

When suing the IRS, it's important to identify the
"other" Secretary of the Treasury -- i.e. the one
with offices in San Juan, Puerto Rico:

<http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/diaz-saldana/>

Puerto RICO Man!!

(HINT:
"RICO" = Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

"Respondeat superior" (vicarious liability) is a proper
legal theory to apply to that second Secretary.

Compare also a Bivens action.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
<http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm>

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

**************BREAK********************


DOES ANYONE HAVE Smith v. Ark. State Highway Employees, Local 1315
case
cited below that they can post on line? I for one would like to see
exactly what the Supremes have said.
******
Recently, the "We the People" case against the government regarding
our
First Amendment right to receive a response to a Petition of Redress
was
dismissed for the following stated reason (in part):
"The Supreme Court, however, has held that "the First Amendment does
not
impose any affirmative obligation on the 'government to listen, to
respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain
with it." See Smith v. Ark. State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441
U.S.
463, 46b (1979). Plaintiffs' claims that the defendants are obligated
to
"properly" respond to plaintiffs' petitions shall thus be dismissed
for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."

************************************************** *************************

Generally, if a Supreme Court case is available at
www.findlaw.com, you can translate the cite into
the correct URL as follows:

441 U.S. 463
becomes
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/441/463.html>


I find serious problems with the holding above.

Nevertheless ...

The difference in the Schulz case, however,
is that a SUBPOENA is still outstanding for
the missing liability statute for IRC subtitle A:

<http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm>

And there is a standing U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Commissioner v. Acker which has direct bearing
on that question:

<http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm>

Why? Answer: because the IRS created the liability
for subtitle A taxes in the Code of Federal Regulations,
but Congress never enacted a corresponding liability
STATUTE!

That is a clear violation of Separation of Powers,
and of Due Process of Law:

<http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm>


Even IF the IRS were a lawful service or bureau
within the U.S. Department of the Treasury
(which they are NOT), they would STILL not have
any authority to create a tax liability by means
of a regulation published in the Federal Register.

Only Congress can make law; the Executive Branch
may NOT make law, EVER! See Article I.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
<http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm>
<http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm>

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[dadmoonbunny]

U.S. Supreme Court

SMITH v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES, 441 U.S. 463 (1979)

441 U.S. 463

SMITH ET AL. v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1315, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 78-1223.

Decided April 30, 1979

Held:

The Arkansas State Highway Commission's refusal to consider employee grievances when filed by the union rather than directly by an employee of the State Highway Department does not violate the First Amendment. Even assuming that the Commission's procedure would constitute an unfair labor practice if the Commission were subject to the same labor laws applicable to private employers and that its procedure tends to impair the effectiveness of the union in representing the economic interests of its members, nevertheless, this type of "impairment" is not one that the Constitution forbids, the Commission not having prohibited its employees from joining together in a union, from persuading others to do so, or from advocating any particular ideas.

Certiorari granted; 585 F.2d 876, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

In grievance proceedings initiated by employees of the Arkansas State Highway Department, the State Highway Commission will not consider a grievance unless the employee submits his written complaint directly to the designated employer representative. The District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas found that this procedure denied the union representing the employees the ability to submit effective grievances on their behalf and therefore violated the First Amendment. 459 F. Supp. 452 (1978). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 1 585 F.2d 876 [441 U.S. 463, 464] (1978). We disagree with these holdings; finding no constitutional violation in the actions of the Commission or its individual members, we grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.









The First Amendment protects the right of an individual to speak freely, to advocate ideas, to associate with others, and to petition his government for redress of grievances. And it protects the right of associations to engage in advocacy on behalf of their members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961). The government is prohibited from infringing upon these guarantees either by a general prohibition against certain forms of advocacy, NAACP v. Button, supra, or by imposing sanctions for the expression of particular views it opposes, e. g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964).

But the First Amendment is not a substitute for the national labor relations laws. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognized in Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F.2d 456 (1972), the fact that procedures followed by a public employer in bypassing the union and dealing directly with its members might well be unfair labor practices were federal statutory law applicable hardly establishes that such procedures violate the Constitution. The First Amendment right [441 U.S. 463, 465] to associate and to advocate "provides no guarantee that a speech will persuade or that advocacy will be effective." Id., at 461. The public employee surely can associate and speak freely and petition openly, and he is protected by the First Amendment from retaliation for doing so. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574 -575 (1968); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). But the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it. 2

In the case before us, there is no claim that the Highway Commission has prohibited its employees from joining together in a union, or from persuading others to do so, or from advocating any particular ideas. There is, in short, no claim of retaliation or discrimination proscribed by the First Amendment. Rather, the complaint of the union and its members is simply that the Commission refuses to consider or act upon grievances when filed by the union rather than by the employee directly.

Were public employers such as the Commission subject to the same labor laws applicable to private employers, this refusal might well constitute an unfair labor practice. We may assume that it would and, further, that it tends to impair or undermine - if only slightly 3 - the effectiveness of the union [441 U.S. 463, 466] in representing the economic interests of its members. Cf. Hanover Township, supra.

But this type of "impairment" is not one that the Constitution prohibits. Far from taking steps to prohibit or discourage union membership or association, all that the Commission has done in its challenged conduct is simply to ignore the union. That it is free to do.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.



It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[dadmoonbunny]

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] This suit was brought by the Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, and eight of its individual members, after the Commission refused to consider grievances submitted by the union on behalf of two of its members. The facts in these two cases are not in dispute:

"[E]ach employee sent a letter to Local 1315, explaining the nature of their grievance and requesting the union to process the grievances on their [441 U.S. 463, 464] behalf. In each case the union forwarded the employee's letter to the designated employer's representative and included its own letter stating that it represented the employees and desired to set up a meeting. The employer's representative did not respond to the union's letter. Thereafter each employee filed a written complaint directly with the employer representative. Local 1315 represented each employee at subsequent meetings with the employer representative." 585 F.2d, at 877.

The individual Commissioners of the Arkansas State Highway Commission and the Director of the State Highway Department were named as defendants, and are the petitioners in this Court.

[ Footnote 2 ] See Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F.2d 456, 461 (CA7 1972), quoting Indianapolis Education Assn. v. Lewallen, 72 LRRM 2071, 2072 (CA7 1969) ("there is no constitutional duty to bargain collectively with an exclusive bargaining agent").

[ Footnote 3 ] The union does represent its members at all meetings with employer representatives subsequent to the filing of a written grievance. See n. 1, supra. The "impairment" is thus limited to the requirement that written complaints, to be considered, must initially be submitted directly to the employer representative by the employee. There appears to be no bar, however, on the employee's securing any form of advice from his union, or [441 U.S. 463, 466] from anyone else. Cf. Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217 (1967); Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964).

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

Now this Court is deciding vital constitutional questions without even a plenary hearing. I dissent.

This Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the right of unions to secure legal representation for their members. Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217, 221 -222 (1967); Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1, 8 (1964); see Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576 (1971); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961). Based on this precedent and on Arkansas' recognition of public employees' right to organize and join a union, Potts v. Hay, 229 Ark. 830, 315 S. W. 2d 826 (1958), the Court of Appeals concluded that the First Amendment also encompasses respondent union's right to file grievances on behalf of its members. If under Mine Workers and Railroad Trainmen a public employer may not refuse to entertain a grievance submitted by a union-salaried attorney, it is not immediately [441 U.S. 463, 467] apparent why the employer in this case should be entitled to reject a grievance asserted by the union itself.

I decline to join a summary reversal that so cavalierly disposes of substantial First Amendment issues. *

[ Footnote * ] Moreover, summary reversal seems to me an especially inappropriate means of resolving conflicts between the United States Courts of Appeals. Compare Arkansas State Highway Employees Local 1315 v. Smith, 585 F.2d 876 (CAS 1978), with Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F.2d 456 (CA7 1972). [441 U.S. 463, 468]

[Shoonra]

Thw WTP lawsuit was first advertised by Schulz as a direct challenge to the validity of the income tax, which enormous damages and refunds coming from the IRS, so please "invest" in the lawsuit.

Then it changed its spin: It became a lawsuit over the right to petition the govt. Nobody had ever denied Schulz the right to petition, but Schulz seemed to think that his right to petition the govt also include a guarantee that the govt would respond to his petition, and in a way satisfactory to him. This suit was essentially for declaratory judgment, not for money, so money spent on it was definitely making a one-way trip.

Mark Lane, notorious lawyer and troublemaker, having made a name for himself peddling conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, then being lawyer to Jim Jones (and missing the assassination of Rep. Leo Ryan by less than a day), then settling down for years as Liberty Lobby's in-house counsel, is now WTP's lawyer. As evidence of his devotion to the cause, to carry this case forward he demanded being paid, up front, something more than the average lawyer's entire annual earnings. Since he undoubtedly encouraged Schulz to commence this lawsuit, and since he might have gotten payment from the govt under the Equal Access to Justice Act if he had won, etc., his insistence on getting a year's pay in advance reveals his own unbelief in this harebrained lawsuit.

Actually, this ground was already plowed. There had been previous cases, and the courts had held that the only things the right to petition guaranteed was the right to send complaints and requests to the govt and nothing in return from the govt was guaranteed. It's not too difficult to find these cases, so Lane was either shilling his own client to pay a fortune for a doomed lawsuit that had already been decided, or else he fell down on the job of researching his case.

Oddly enough, Schulz is still shaking his tambourine for money for this lawsuit even after it was thrown out of court; his explanation was that Lane was still owed something more than most people's annual income. Apparently Lane isn't ashamed to keep demanding outrageous sums for a case that he already lost and that he should have known was doomed.

[Shoonra]

News comes today that the notorious "Johnny Liberty", real (or at least realler) name John David van Hove, has pled guilty to tax offenses and is going to the slammer.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...0369/1170/NEWS

[Freedomless]

It is clear that you are not a man/woman who is looking for the truth. You look to discredit and back the unlawful laws.

One can check the Federalist Papers and other works by our forefathers and it is clear that we are to govern and not be governed.

I think, therefore I am. No law was ever to be passed to protect us from ourselves. Many of these types of laws have been enacted unlawfully. The courts are filled with judges that are ruling with judgments that are unconstitutional. If you are not able to see the problem, don't add to it.

Show me the law that says that I (sovereign) am to pay taxes on my income.

[Freedomless]

After posting on the last thread, I received the following:

Help Project Our Country!

http://59.asp010.com/m/l?3xp-eaku-1-aqdx-7lcpc

Wanted: Qualified Professionals for Careers in Criminal Justice

Homeland security is creating more jobs. Get educated and take advantage.

EducationAdvance.com has 100's of schools and degrees to choose from. We will match you with the best schools for the degree you are interedted in.

FREE INFROMATION. NO OBLIGATION

http://59.asp010.com/m/l?3xp-eaku-2-aqdx-7lcpc

from -------New Account [NewAccounts@59.asp010.com]