Larken Rose is raped by the Zionist cabal!

[Logan]

I know this news has already been posted in the Service Providers Section, but I felt it needed to be posted again in the Taxation Section.

This is another clear indication of how much the government HATES all of us! Remember, hate is born of the Devil and love is the foundation of GOD. If anyone out there still has their head up their ass and believes that the government cares at all about their well being, then they are advocating the desires of Satan and will likely be joined to him at Judgement!
These proceedings, along with Irwin Shiffs, Bush's lies, the media spin, government assassinations, armed robbery by traffic cops, forced slavery at birth.. etc,etc ought to boil the blood of every valiant patriotic American citizen. This should well up a rage so deep down that it can only be satisfied by grabbing your Louisville slugger and marching down to the appropriate courthouse to drag the unaccountable Judge out by his ears and to publicly dethrone him!
(this has been done several times throughout history, yet we are still afraid.)
WHEN WILL ENOUGH BE ENOUGH?! When we are killed by the thousands? (Pearl Harbor, 911, Iraq, katrina, rita, etc) or when we are publicly assassinated? (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, etc), or when we are tortured without representation? (guantanamo prison holding american as enemy combantants) or when ours and our childrens birth rights are sold for the continued material wealth of the Zionist Elite? (YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SOCIAL SECURITY, SELECTIVE SERVICE) ETC, ETC, and ETC.

Wake up America, the government HATES you and is slowly turning up the temperature to the pot you are soaking in.

http://www.unknownnews.org/0511251123LarkinRose.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/cabal_index.htm
http://www.rep5.org/

Nov. 23, 2005

A tax protester who openly dared the IRS to prosecute him was sentenced yesterday to 15 months in prison for failing to file returns over a five-year period.

Larken Rose, 37, of Jenkintown, operated a Web site on which he sold a $19.95 video called Theft By Deception. It argued that the U.S. Tax Code does not require Americans to pay tax on domestic income, an argument the government has called legally absurd.

In 2002, Rose placed advertisements on the Web and in local newspapers. He taunted the government with the headline "Please prosecute me."

Nine months ago, a federal grand jury did.

In August, after a four-day trial, a jury deliberated less than two hours and convicted him.

Yesterday, Rose gave a tearful six-minute apology.

"My own arrogance... my own actions brought this stress and embarrassment and pain on the ones I love the most," he told U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson. "I brought this on myself, I know. I asked for my day in court and I got it. I can't say I'm pleased with the outcome."

Sixteen agents from the IRS' Criminal Division crammed a back bench to watch the proceedings. Peter Alvarado, the special agent in charge, was not among them, but afterward he said of Rose: "He's been so outspoken for so long, and so this closes a chapter for us. It sends a message that there are grave consequences to not paying your federal income taxes."

Rose's mother sat a few rows in front of the agents and cried as her son spoke. His wife, Tessa Rose, sat a few feet away. She was recently convicted of similar charges and is to be sentenced next year.

In an e-mail sent to some 6,000 subscribers in September, Rose discouraged others from challenging the government the way he had.

"I volunteered to be the guinea pig to make a public record," he wrote.

At the end of the e-mail, he offered this advice: "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not your sport."

Rose's lawyer had sought home detention or probation, and the judge noted that since the trial, Rose had embarked on the road to rehabilitation. He has paid $38,000 in back taxes and disabled his Web sites.

Baylson, however, said Rose still deserved prison time because he not only failed to pay his taxes over five years, but he profited from his choice by selling the videos.

"It's a pretty simple duty to file tax returns," said Nanette L. Davis, a trial lawyer at the Department of Justice. "Larken Rose failed that duty."

Rose was ordered to report to prison on Monday.

"It's time," Judge Baylson said.
(to crush the american demand for accountability) (parenthesis mine)



The sleeper has awakened,
Logan

[Shoonra]

Please explain how "the Zionist cabal" is in charge of the Larken Rose case (it wasn't mentioned at all in the news clipping you quoted).

[Logan]

The Zionists control all areas of societal influence. This includes the privately owned Federal Reserve, the privately owned Infernal Revenue Service, all property in the corporate UNITED STATES and parts of the world, every UNITED STATES CITIZEN, all the media outlets, all influencial organizations (including the public schools), most of the church organizations through statutory regulations and even every dollar to your name!

Larkens case was doomed from the day one, because he chose to argue in their arena. However, even by statutory guidelines, his outcome had been decided long before his indictment. His trial was a complete joke, and the grand jury transcripts show intentional jury selection and instruction in bias. The Judge would not allow the law or even the Infernal Revenue Code to be discussed at all, (just like Irwins case) and simply allowed Larken to make an ass of himself to set an example.

This treatment by the private club unaccountable elite has got to STOP! This Republic was not created to ensure a class system of people. But for the past 150 years approx, we have been slowly indoctrinated to accept the pitance which the now independant government leviathan feels merciful to provide. The Servants have become the MASTERS and if you do not believe me, just try asking some simple explorative questions to ANY public servant concerning your Constitutional rights, or even your corporate Statutory rights, the next time you are chosen to give some of your sweat equity over to the all consuming state and federal beast.

[scottinalaska]

To answer your statement of how the govt HATES us, this is easily shown by how the judge eagerly put Larken in jail.
No probabtion, house arrest, suspended sentence(like we see even in violent cases where the perp appears to have become better).
The "system" would incarcerate a human who has damaged NO other human in order to maintain the same system. THAT in itself speaks of the inherent flaw: Violence and more violence.
But of course, you have to use the right words to describe violence or some might get upset. Let's use words like, incarcerate, forfeit, impound, detain, restrain, or arrest.
s

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Logan

This should well up a rage so deep down that it can only be satisfied by grabbing your Louisville slugger and marching down to the appropriate courthouse to drag the unaccountable Judge out by his ears and to publicly dethrone him!

Nahhh. There just has to be more people dropping out/cancelling contracts and then not participating.
A re-establishment of a DeJure/Non-insurgent pre-14th Amendment government would be most ideal

[Logan]

Yeah, but I would get more satisfaction from the Louisville slugger option.

But you are right, when we all cease to play THEIR game, the solution will be naturally acheived. (hopefully in my lifetime).

and weis, I really liked the deprogramming link you posted, thanks.



BTW, I wanted to share this article from Joe Bannister's newsletter.

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>The other day I distributed my colleague (former IRS Collection Division 10 year veteran Revenue Officer) John Turner's objection to proposed changes to the "6020(b)" regulations. John authored a subsequent commentary on the topic that I thought was equally powerful and very educational. John gave me permission to forward it to you so here it is. John spends a great deal of time educating others with his unique knowledge of the inner workings of the Internal Revenue Service. He has done this important work because of his dedication to the truth and without compensation ever since his resignation from the IRS in 1997. John is not aware that I wanted to make this request (until he reads this email) but I will happily accept and forward any donations that you would like to send John's way as a thank you for his efforts. Just be sure to tell me the donation is meant for John. The address is near the end of this email. Happy reading!
>
>***************************************
>The "OBJECTION TO THE RULE AND REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING" email below, distributed by my friend Joe Banister, himself a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division special agent, to approximately 6,000 people who have signed up to be on his email list, is a 5 page document I wrote and sent to the IRS objecting to some newly proposed tax regulations. I thought I would take a few minutes to explain to some of you why I wrote what I wrote and why I wrote it the way I did.
>
>Congress is charged with writing federal tax laws and it is the Secretary of the Treasury who is responsible to write the regulations that correspond with the tax laws. The Secretary's regulations are to be an accurate interpretation and explanation of the law to aid his enforcement of the law. Regulations are not supposed to create new law where no law exists or add to the law where a law does not speak. Certain regulations, if they meet appropriate criteria, may have the force and effect of law but regulations cannot "make law". Only Congress is authorized to write the law; the Secretary of the Treasury is not. The proposed rules for Internal Revenue Code section 6020(b) are only now, finally, being proposed by the IRS after many years absence! The regulations that have been in place all the many years had never been promulgated. These particular regulations were never published in the Federal Register (which is what is now finally happening). Regulations, in order to be applicable and enforceable against members of the public, must be given a period of review and exposed to the public for objection and comment before they can take affect. Without that opportunity for review, the public would not have a way to challenge the regulations or to disover what regulations have any direct affect on themselves or whether they are required to do anything under the law. The method used is to publish proposed rules in the Federal Register, allowing a period of time for public comment and an opportunity to request a public hearing. This summer during tax court litigation wherein the citizen pointed out that regulations for IRC 6020(b) had never been promulgated, the IRS suddenly put forward these proposed rules in the Federal Register. They fall short (to say the least) which is why I wrote and objected to them and requested a public hearing.
>
>Although it is correct that these proposed regulations do not comply with the law as written, which is why I have objected, the brutal, cold, hard truth of the matter is that under current law, no regulations could be written which would allow the IRS to make an income tax return for any individual who fails to file one! Does that seem unbelievable?
>
>Some of you might wonder why I chose to write such a lengthy objection and why I chose to include some rather pointed claims. Yes, a simple and effective objection and request for a public hearing could have been done on one page if that had been my sole purpose. And that was the main purpose. However, this issue in law (IRS' administration of section 6020(b) of the tax Code with respect to income tax 'nonfilers) is complex. It should not be confusing or difficult but it is, and that is only because the government has purposely made it so. Nevertheless, I believe that the public needs to be informed on the subject and the muddiness needs to be clarified. I suspected that my document might find its way into the public domain and based upon that, regardless of the eventual outcome of the many objections that have been made to these proposed regulations by many, many people, I thought it wise to make the document useful for regular people who are not necessarily informed about aspects of tax law administration, especially the subject of "Substitute For Return/IRC section 6020(b)". Most people are not.
>
>I will digress a bit. I believe that most Americans dutifully file 1040 individual income tax forms and pay income tax as declared on their returns each April 15th not because of any knowledge they have about what the law actually requires of them, but rather they do so out of a combination of things: 1) a BELIEF that they are required to do so, sort of the "everybody knows you must pay taxes" mentality, 2) a FEAR of would happen to them if they failed to, 3) a FEELING that "paying taxes" is PATRIOTIC, and, 4) a BELIEF that the government could not operate if they did not contribute (pay their fair share). I think most people probably believe they are required to pay income tax but do not "know" it to be true; they have not made an informed determination to verify it for themselves.
>
>The IRS enforces the tax code through whatever measure of intimidation and fear that it deems is necessary on a case by case basis. The activity of tax collection in the United States is highly politicized and is policy driven in nature. Unfortunately it is not a matter of law enforcement, even though that is what the public is lead to believe. As an aside here to illustrate this, if the law requires everyone to file a Form 1040, why then does the IRS and the Department of Justice only "come after" some people who have "violated" the law by not filing their form 1040's? Millions and millions of individuals fail to file a form 1040 every year. Why doesn't the IRS criminally pursue all of them? You could answer that the IRS does not have the resources to pursue everyone and you would be correct in that but you would also still be missing the main point. Why don't all people who don't file tax returns all get prosecuted with their freedom subjected to the whims of 12 citizens on a jury? If there really is a lawful requirement to file a Form 1040, why isn't the law in that respect applied EVENLY across the board? A sufficient explanation in covering all the legal complexities associated with this would be long-winded, and should not be so.
>
>You see, simply failing to file a Form 1040 is not criminal. The element of "willfulness" is involved in making the failure to file a return a criminal matter. "Willful" is a word with a legal meaning. The standard used by the courts in criminal tax trials for the word willfulness, has changed over time. Not too many years ago in tax trials, it would connote "bad faith, evil purpose". In fact, the classroom hand-out materials that were used in my training as a revenue officer in 1987 included "bad faith and evil purpose" as elements of willfulness. The Suprement Court has allowed that standard to be diminished. "Willfulness", in the legal sense, was traditionally never meant to be solely equated with "deliberately", "on purpose", "purposely" or "purposefully". For all practical purposes in today's criminal tax trials, the standard for "willfulness" for failure to file or pay pretty much makes it the same as "deliberately" or "purposefully". As a revenue officer, part of my duties included the responsibility of demanding delinqent tax returns from people. A quality interview of the taxpayer would include an effort to determine why returns had not been filed. Most people, however it was manifested, would tell me that when they discovered they could not pay the tax and were then overcome with fear, imagining somehow that not filing their return would help them. My point is that most people's answers to my question indicated that there was a conscious decision not to file their income tax returns. Their "fear" did not necessarily mean "bad faith or evil purpose" was part of their failure to file. Under the standard for "willfulness" now being used in criminal tax trials, the government's job of getting convictions has been made easier. Theoretically, if the IRS was to criminally pursue everyone who failed to timely file an income tax return and used the current standard for willfulness, lots and lots of (innocent) citizens might be convicted and incarcerated. The truth is, way too many citizens HAVE BEEN and ARE BEING criminally prosecuted using what I believe is a deficient standard for the all important legal term "willful".

[Logan]

Defendants in "tax protester" criminal tax trials are not allowed to cite or discuss the law that they have allegedly violated. Often they are not allowed to present for the jury key evidence and/or witnesses. Technically, the government has the burden of proof, while the defendant is not required to say a thing. In reality, however, most defendant's in "tax protester" trials must include a strategy to show that they did not act criminally willful. This gets into the area of being able to demonstrate your "good faith beliefs". A jury is much more apt to believe that the defendant really believes if the defendant is also able to speak freely about what his beliefs are and why he believed what he believed. That means discussing the law, which is not permitted. This puts the typical defendant in these types of trials at great disadvantage. The government enjoys an appearance of adminisitering a fair trial, due process, etc., but the truth is that the defendant is prevented from defending himself. However, the government now has the advantage of making "willfulness", for their purposes, to be the same as "he did it" (failed to file/pay) on purpose. Juries in today's modern criminal tax trials are told by judges that they (the judges) determine the law and will "instruct" the jury in the law. They are told they will judge the "facts". In fact, the "facts" they are typically allowed to consider and to weigh are controlled and limited to the defendant's disadvantage. Juries are not allowed to see or consider the law; they are made to accept on face value from the mouth of the judge that there is a law that applies to the defendant. Often, defendant's are in the straits that they are BECAUSE they had determined that they were not liable for filing an income tax return and then are prevented from openly discussing the law in front of the jury!
>
>In other words, although for different reasons than the guy who didn't file because he was "afraid", the defendant is subjected to a "willfulness" standard that is equated in the juries minds as "he chose not to file deliberately and purposefully". The judge will tell the jury there is a law, although he won't show it to them, even if they make a specific written request while they are deliberating the defendant's fate!!! The government will enter evidence proving that returns were in fact not filed by the defendant. Well, in many cases, the defendant, because his "non-filing" was due to a principled, informed decision based on his understanding of the law and its application to him, will even stipulate that returns were not filed. Largely, it comes down to one's belief about the law rather than the law itself. Peculiar, huh? Does that mean that lots and lots of folks who find themselves convicted are all a bunch of insincere oafs who do not really believe what they say they believe? No, the harsh reality is that our government is sending many innocent men and women to prison because the government also greatly controls what goes on in the trials: control of evidence, witnesses, discussion of the law, semantics which result in unevenness sometimes in applying the rules of "practice" and evidence; and a substandard definition for "wilfulness" which is a key for most nonfilers who are nonfilers because of their understanding and BELIEF about the law.
>
>The jury is told that the defendant "knew he had a duty to file and deliberately failed to file". This is one of the elements that juries must consider in their deliberations. The problem is that they must assume that there is a "duty to file" because they were told that there is. They are never allowed to verify this for themselves, by having the law shown to them that would demonstrate the legal requirement/duty to file. How did the defendant know he had a duty to file? The government generally relies on evidence they submit showing that the person had in previous years filed tax returns. Never mind that the person filed those returns prior to ever examining the law for himself to determine that he was not required to file. When applicable, sometimes the government will also tell the jury that the defendant is an accountant or a professional who should have known better. In practice, this substitutes for a clear, unequivocal presentation to the jury of the law that was allegedly violated and evidence that the defendant was subject to that law and required to obey it.
>
>Congress has the legal ability and authority to write law making individual American citizens subject to income tax. It is not too big of a chore for Congress to write tax law in simple, straight-forward language such that any 8th grader could understand and easily comply with it. Currently, Congress has done neither. Instead, Congress has written the tax law so as to appear to apply to nearly everyone on the planet (which of course is ridiculous), and it's complexity is famous for drawing criticism even of IRS Commissioners, who have stated that the law cannot be understood by anybody, including IRS employees who enforce the law.
>
>People often ask: "If this is true, why then doesn't Congress simply "fix" the law and re-write it to correct the deficiency?" The short answer is, "they cannot". They cannot, at least, without also voluntarily yielding some of their power. If Congress were to actually make Americans legally subject to an income tax, it would result would in a tremendous loss of power over indiviual Americans by the federal government. A substantial part of that legal process would involve the States, which would necessarily transfer some power away from the FEDS. The FEDS will do whatever it takes to prevent any loss of power to them. The Founding Fathers intended for it to be difficult, nearly impossible in fact, for the federal government to be in such a position to be able to tax 100% of your income. You do realize, don't you, that according to the way the IRS interprets and enforces the law, and according to the way Congress would have you believe they have written the law, ALL of your income is subject to tax save what they let you keep by their benevolence. They let us keep some of our income! This is the mistaken
>notion that we Americans are operating upon!
>
>I told you I would digress, but that was a long digression. Now, what does any of the above have to do with the subject of IRC section 6020(b), the IRS "Substitute for Return" program, and these proposed
>6020(b) regulations? If Americans were really required to file a Form 1040 (as the government maintains, not by proving there is a law that makes one liable, but by taking ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS against people and their property), Congress would have given the tax agency authority to MAKE AN INCOME TAX FORM 1040 for you if you failed to file, and the IRS WOULD IN FACT MAKE A VALID RETURN ON YOUR BEHALF. They do not do that. They merely pretend to prepare a "return"; the documents they do prepare are not legally valid returns. This is a great fear of the IRS: As Americans come to know and understand this folly about the income tax, they might decide, in large numbers, to stop filing returns. The IRS fears the public gaining a knowledge of how their scam works. Americans are basically law-abiding, patriotic people. They want to contribute to the federal government. But they don't want a lying, cheating, conniving government. At least, I hope they don't want that. Nor would they like it if they were to learn that a powerful agency such as the IRS might not even be part of the United States Government. Americans don't want to cheat their government or prevent it from doing what it is constitutionally charged with doing; but they don't want to be deceived or cheated by the government either. And they are being so deceived and cheated. If people stopped filing returns, the entire system would collapse. The system absolutely depends on people voluntarily reporting. As of now, the IRS is feverishly working on developing ways so that in the future they will not have to depend upon people to file a paper tax return. They are working on a plan so that they can determine your tax liability without input from you. Whether such measures will ever become reality I don't know. But, a collpase of the system due to people discovering the fraud and deciding not to participate in it anymore would not mean the collapse of America but it would mean the collpase of the current tax system, which is nothing more than a revenue generating system to support the international banking cartel (which keeps America in debt) and the American welfare state (which is hugely popular although it is So******m, which is not allowed by our constitution).
>
>That is why objecting to these proposed regs is an important thing to do. The IRS KNOWS the public is slowly realizing that the tax system is a scam and is gaining a more thorough knowledge of how the scam works. The purpose of these regs is to try and keep the charade going. Their secret is being exposed. The truth is getting out: "If I don't file a Form 1040, you IRS, don't have the authority to "file" a return for me".
>
>I resigned from the IRS the week of April 15th, 1997 upon discovering, through study and research, that I had unknowingly been participating in this great scam.

(former IRS Collection Division 10 year veteran Revenue Officer) John Turner

[SKYGZR]

***See the message posted under Service Providers for more***
"Constitutional Counsellor"
**copy/paste** from Educational Materials

Contract for Assistance of Counsel Package:

Are you in a situation where you don’t have Effective Assistance of Counsel? Are you possibly going to spend some time in the clink? Are the “Powers that Be” only willing to provide a “Public Pretender,” as in someone who is pretending to be in your best interests? Do you wish to assert your Rights as found in Article VI of the Bill of Rights to “Assistance of Counsel? Are you being “bullied” into “moving on” in the “interests of our docket” despite the requirements of the Bill of Rights? If you are answering “yes” to one or more of these questions, then the “Assistance of Counsel” package can help you overcome these obstacles.

This package includes a 2-page PDF of 7 Corpus Juris Secundum, Attorney & Client § 4, pgs 801-802. These two pages lay out in easy to understand English why the “attorney” is NOT your friend, but is, at best, a “spy” for the “enemy.” The “enemy” being “the state” that wants to deprive you of your Life, Liberty, or Property. Once you read these two pages and understand what the courts are telling you about the “relationship” between “Attorney & Client” you will never again use the word “My” next to the word “Attorney” ever again in your life as you will be “inoculated” against that disease! Also included is a 2-page document of major court decisions where the supreme Court (that’s the one in Washington, District of Criminals, er, Columbia, as opposed to a “Supreme Court” which would be in one of the 50 Union States) acknowledges and instructs “The Powers that Be” on the importance of not trampling your Rights.

On this subject, of being deprived of your Life, Liberty, or Property, without being afforded “Assistance of Counsel” the supreme Court laid it out in the case of Argersinger v Hamlin which stated, “No accused may be deprived of his liberty… in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.” The court made it very clear that an “attorney” is NOT the same as “assistance of counsel” and the Contract for Assistance of Counsel takes everything that is in 7 C.J.S. 801-802, stands it on its head, and then shoves it back down their craw. Trust me, it is a most unpleasant experience for them, and as such they may retaliate against you, so this is NOT something for the “faint of heart!”

Since I often teach “The Principle of Study: Don’t Take My Word For It”* I cannot tell you to just “trust me” without actually backing it up. So, to back up what I am saying regarding your Right to “Assistance of Counsel,” included in this package is 4 pages of research on the subject of Counsel, and probably more importantly what Ineffective Counsel means! Additionally, I will include information on FRAUD to help bolster your confidence in combating the FRAUD that calls itself a “court.”

* See “Foundation Principles for Freemen” #14.

Finally, since “The Powers That Be” will often try to “force” that Public Pretender upon you, how do you “get rid” of it, since it is allot like a tic* and since trying to “scratch” it out of your hide can leave parts of it behind to “infect” you, there has to be a way to “cleanse” yourself of this “Public Pretender.” Well, to answer the question I can hear you asking, “HOW?” is the Affidavit of Termination of Ineffective Counsel. This “fires” the ineffective counsel as the “legal lunatic” they are! Of course, if the thief in the black-dress will not “allow” you to “fire your attorney,” also included is an Affidavit of Prejudice. Some of these cross-dressers will try to tell you that you only get to “recuse” one “judge” per case. With this Affidavit you can remind them that you are NOT asking them to “recuse” themselves, you are making the record that they are prejudiced against you and if they continue to “preside” over the case, they are then creating an instant reversal at an appellate level, for they are supposed to have an Oath of Office which states they are “impartial.”

*A blood-sucking creature, when there are many of them, we say “poly” which means “many” so the “shorthand” for allot of them is “politics.”

I have used this to personally get cases “dismissed” with prejudice and “vacated” so it is like they never “charged” you in the first place. Over the past 2 years, my record has been 25-0. How much is your time/freedom worth? This represents literally months of research and development. Just in case you missed it, here is a review of the 26 pages that are included, along with suggested donations if you want just part of the package:

**end copy/paste***

[rottweiler]

Do I smell a rat or is it just Baal's bad breath? Is the juristic person LARKEN ROSE a corporation and a creation of the government? Larken Rose stood in for LARKEN ROSE at trial and lost and will do the time. The courts have long ago decided that the income tax is a excise tax on corporate profits. The ROSE's and SCHIFF's truly are liable and were found guilty of "willful failure to file". The only issues at trial are willfulness and whether or not a return was filed. Rose stipulated to not filing.
Maybe he could of asked the judge for the contracts that make him liable, the answer(if any)would have been very interesting(checking account, birth certificate, marriage license, social security number, ad nauseum). I wish they could of had a honest judge that let's them make a case for lack of willfullness.

EVERYTHING IS CONTRACTS!

Is a Amish person liable for the income tax? Do Amish have these contracts with the beast or did they keep the original one they had with their Creator? What do they know that we don't?

Is the Creator using our non-compliance with His Contract(His Commandments) to punish us? Let Schiff and Rose be a lesson for us. If they can't win in "court" with those strategies how can anyone else possibly stand a chance? If anyone here is ever in danger of prosecution for not filing, just file the damn things. That will stop the prosecution dead in it's tracks.

http://usa-the-republic.com/amendmen...%20Mercier.htm

There are three types of patriots. Those that are in jail, those that were in jail, and those that are going to jail.

[Freedomless]

With the real 13th Amendment still law, the judgments that these judges pass down are null and void. NO TITLE OF NOBILITY IS TO HOLD ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE.

When the American people gather together to demand that this Amendment be inforced, those who have used the black robe to do injustice, may get real justice themselves.

I found this article to be informative.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...id=2941&page=2