Tom Cryer Acquitted

No doubt you all have heard of the acquittal of Tom Cryer in his Federal Tax case.

What do you mean you haven't heard of this case? This WAS on all the news outlets wasn't it? It wasn't? How did that happen? I thought they were a "watchdog" to protect us from abuses by the government! (Haha, yeah right!)

Tom Cryer is an attorney in Louisiana who has practiced law for 34 years. Several years ago a friend of his told him that there is no income tax law that requires the average American to pay an income tax. Tom wanted to keep his friend from getting himself into trouble so he decided to research the issue. It took him a total of two years to go over all of the law as well as the case law. Mr Cryer found that indeed there is no law. As is often the case the IRS took him to court. Read more on that on this previous post of mine.

WND reports that Tom Cryer was acquitted on July 11th.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

Anyone interested further in his case can visit his website at TruthAttack.org

Cryer also released a video here

Heroic Police

Our valiant police officers. Always keeping us safe from deranged people. People who do bad things. People who endanger others. People who violate the Rights of others. People who make faces at dogs?

Yep. Our valiant public "servants" arrested a woman for making faces at a police dog and charged her with "cruelty to a police animal." That's right, Jayna Hutchinson was trying to give a statement and the officer refused to take it from her as she may have been drunk. After arguing with him and waiting, she made faces at the police dog.

In the face of such cruelty, the officer sprung into action and arrested this horrific person. Unfortunately, despite such heroic efforts by "law enforcement" the prosecutor dropped the case with only a week to go before trial. It seems the dog would not testify. Some might say that he couldn't but I think we all know it would simply have been too hard emotionally for him to do so. Sometimes it is just too hard to face the person that has abused you so cruelly.

What Does It Take To Serve A Warrant?

It would seem that it requires roadblocks 1+ miles from the house, cutting power and phones, numerous helicopters, men in ghillie suits and 6 Armored Personnel Carriers. At least, this is what the Gov was using to "serve a warrant" on Ed & Elaine Brown.

I think it is obvious that their intentions were an assault, not serving a warrant. The only reason the siege didn't happen was because it was thwarted by an occupant walking a dog. His being shot at fully alerted the Brown household to what was coming.

In a press video, the U.S. Marshall stated that the dog walker had to be taken into custody "because he essentially discovered us there." The Marshall also stated all this equipment was part of the "surveillance operation"

Brown asserted he will not surrender his liberty and had choice words for his elite stalkers:

"For all intents and purposes there is no law and order anymore in this country. We don't have warrior class people, you are a bunch a cowards using omnipotent tactics like the KGB did, we are through talking with these people nationwide, not just me and wife. It's too late already, if anything happens to us we will be reciprocal, we will protect the sake of our community and our nation. we are obligated under the Constitution to protect this nation.

If they wish to take out lives and send us to the creator it will do far far more damage to them, that's why all the safeties are off all around the property and they can come in whenever they like."

The Browns have told Infowars that they are very much at peace, and do not fear what lies ahead. Elaine Brown delivered a final stark and moving message to all their supporters:

"I want everyone to remember us, and we'll see you on the other side"

Prohibition = Crime

Prohibition causes crime. It is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be talked about. Problem is, too many people ignore the obvious in favor of emotional arguments against "bad" things.

In 1920, the "Noble Experiment" more commonly known as Prohibition was instituted. I think it is important to note the reasons for passing the 18th Amendment. The intention was to "reduce crime and corruption, improve health, solve social problems and reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses."

What we saw instead was a rise in gangs and the mobs. Violence was introduced to society as groups fought over the distribution of a highly profitable product. I am not sure how much, if at all, alcohol was taxed at that time, but with the taxation that is on it now it is actually a large stream of revenue for the State.

Prohibition caused an artificial rift between regular law-abiding Citizens and the Law as many regular people had to hide their activities from the police. This causes distrust of the police as well as creates corrupt cops as those gangs seek to protect their distribution and are more than willing to buy off the police.

Which brings us to today. This past week in Mexico a drug cartel had made some sort of agreement with the police in Cananea, Mexico which is just across the border from Arizona. A total of 23 are dead including 5 cops and as of this time more than 15 cops have resigned, likely due to the danger. The attack was a retaliation against cops who had gone against the deal they had made with the cartel.

Now these drugs are quite obviously headed for American soil. America prohibits all these drugs, but the public demands it anyways. The combination of demand and Prohibition creates artificially high prices and therefore high profits. These profits create a huge incentive to enter the drug distribution market as well as a desire to grow your personal distribution. It is that incentive that creates the violence that we see in the drug trade, both locally and abroad.

The violence on the border this week is caused by the exact same thing that causes gang violence in our cities: Prohibition. It is time that we end this violence. We have lost the "war" and no amount of increased violence on the part of the Government is going to win it.

Income Tax Not Plain and Clear

The following is excerpted from Mr. Cryer's motion to dismiss with prejudice. I have mentioned this before about how the income tax isnt imposed like other taxes are. Mr Cryer, a lawyer by trade (and successful at that), compiled this list in his defense.

THE INCOME TAX LAW DOES NOT "PLAINLY AND CLEARLY LAY" ANY
TAX UPON DEFENDANT OR HIS REVENUE
The Internal Revenue Code does not "Plainly and Clearly Lay" any liability for an income tax on defendant. The Income Tax Law, Subtitle A of Title 26, United States Code, imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain individuals in § 1:
"26 U.S.C. § 1. Tax Imposed.
"(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of —
"(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a
single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
"(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
"(b) Heads of households
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
"(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a
household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as
defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following
table:
. . .
"(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return
jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance
with the following table: . . ."

but this section does not designate anyone as liable for the payment of the tax.
It should be noted at this point that titles and headings, such as "Married individuals and surviving spouses filing joint returns" and "Heads of households" are not part of the law and have absolutely no legal effect. 26 U.S.C. § 7806. Therefore, the actual statute commences with "There is hereby imposed . . ." The imposition of the tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. In contrast, see 26 U.S.C. § 884, discussed more fully infra, which does impose a tax on an entity.

Subtitle A does, however, designate partners as liable for the taxes on income of a partnership, but only in their "individual" capacities (26 U.S.C. § 701) while certain partnerships are declared liable for excess recapture of credits (26 U.S.C. 704). Foreign corporations are specifically designated as the party liable for payment of the "Branch profits tax" imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 884 (which, incidentally, does impose the tax on "any foreign corporation").

The only other party that is identified in the income tax law as liable for the payment of any income tax is revealed in 26 U.S.C. § 1461:

"Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
"Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

"This chapter" is "Chapter 3 - Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations". Thus the liable party in this instance is anyone withholding tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

There are no other references in Subtitle A (the income tax law) to anyone being liable for the tax imposed by § 1 other than those: partners (but only in their "individual" capacity); certain large partnerships in certain excess credit situations; foreign corporations; and those withholding taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

There is only one other party that is identified as being liable for the income tax, but to find that party we have to journey outside the realm of the income tax law to "Subtitle C
– Employment Taxes", where we find:
"Sec. 3403. Liability for tax
"The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter ["Subtitle C – Employment Taxes; Chapter 24 – Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages"], and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment."

Thus, the only persons being assigned any liability for the income tax imposed by § 1 are those five instances — partners, certain large partnerships, foreign corporations, withholders of taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and those employers required by Chapter 24 of Subtitle C to withhold taxes on employees.

The absence, or near absence, of a statutory provision specifying exactly who is liable for a tax imposed is not customary. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the Estate Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the FICA tax;: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the Railroad Retirement Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability for Employment Taxes; 26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify not only who is primarily liable, but who is secondarily liable for the Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax. See also: 26 U.S.C. §§ 4051 and 4052 (Heavy Trucks and Trailers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4071 (Tire Manufacture Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4219 (Manufacturers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4401 (Tax on Wagers); 26 U.S.C. § 4411 (Wagering Occupational Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4483(Vehicle Use Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4611 (Tax on Petroleum); 26 U.S.C. § 4662 (Tax on Chemicals); 26 U.S.C. § 4972 (Tax on Contributions to Qualified Employer Pension Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980B (Excise Tax on Failure to Satisfy Continuation Coverage Requirements of Group Health Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980D (Excise Tax on Failure to Meet Certain Group Health Plan Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 4980F (Excise Tax on Failure of Applicable Plans Reducing Benefit Accruals to Satisfy Notice Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 5005 (Gallonage Tax on Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5043 (Gallonage Tax on Wines); 26 U.S.C. § 5232 (Storage Tax on Imported Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5364 (Tax on Wine Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5418 (Tax on Beer Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5703 (Excise Tax on Manufacture of Tobacco Products); and 26 U.S.C. § 5751 (Tax on Purchase, Receipt, Possession or Sale of Tobacco Products), to name a few.

Considering the "standard in the drafting of taxation laws industry", particularly in view of the requirement of strict construction, the limitation of liability to those five instances cannot be assumed to have been an oversight. In this instance the only ones liable are those specifically named as liable, just as in any other tax provision.

Ed Brown

Quest For A Fair Trial In Concord, N.H.

Ed Brown and his wife have been asking the IRS for the law that makes them liable for an income tax for ten years now. Ten years, and no answer. The IRS took them to court alleging a tax bill of $625,000 and charged them with violating the penalty statute. The one that says if you are liable for a tax and don't pay it then you are subject to these penalties. Well, it isn't possible to violate a penalty statute. One must violate a different law which would then invoke a penalty statute. Still, the IRS continues in this vain, and of course the corrupt courts are allowing them to.

Prior to and during the trial Ed Brown filed various legal motions and attempts to get information from his prosecutors, including the law that he violated, which is every man's Right to know. If one is not allowed to know the law that he broke he cannot hope to defend himself.* The judge denied all but two of the motions, and those two were procedural and not substantive to the trial and his defense.

Mr. Brown did not finish the trial, though his wife continued to go through and was predictably convicted unlawfully. Mr. Brown has barricaded himself in his home with several supporters and is apparently awaiting the Gov's efforts to apprehend him. Brown has declared that he will forcibly resist any attempt to take him.

Already the Gov is referring to Brown's home as a "compound" so I think it is safe to say they will raid his home, similar to their attacks on the Branch Davidians and the family on Ruby Ridge. The feds loaded the Davidian complex with tear gas in amounts known to be flammable which set the place ablaze. And according to satellite photos of the events they were firing into the building as it went up so that any attempts to make it out alive were unsuccessful. In all, 82 were killed which included 27 children. Similar events played out at Ruby Ridge, where the bastards killed a woman who was holding her 10-month old child.

A summary of all the events with Brown, including the trial and events leading up to it can be found at We The People

* The US Gov is now open about having secret laws. Laws that they say cannot be revealed as it would compromise security, yet citizens can be charged with breaking these laws. For the entirety of this country, and even before, a law had to be published publicly that one might have a reasonable opportunity to know what is illegal. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled this. Yet, somehow, this country that is supposedly run by laws gets away with such things.

Whiny Judges

Okay, so it isnt just teachers whining over pay. Now it is Chief Justice John Roberts. Apparently we aren't paying federal judges enough. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Roberts says that the issue of pay "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

Wow. Not only are they able to find rights to abortion in penumbras, but they are also able to find a constitutional right to higher pay. It is truly amazing how good Chief Justice Roberts is. I mean, the Constitution has been around for over 200 years and just now the right to higher pay has been discovered. Truly amazing that someone hadn't found it earlier.

So how much do they make? Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100. I don't know about you, but I know that I couldn't live off of just 165K a year. I mean, that is practically poverty level!

They do make a point about those working as deans and whatnot making more but the issue is this. Government is a SERVANT. It is a PUBLIC SERVICE job, not a lifetime-take-care-of-everything job. Or at least it shouldn't be. Those serving in Gov are supposed to be there because of a sense altruism, of doing what is right, not to be taken care of.

Thank You Chief Justice John Roberts. You are truly an inspiration. I am going to pull out my copy of the Constitution and find my right to a Ferrari and a mansion overlooking the ocean. It must be in there. Someone just has to find it.

Colorado Ballot Issues

Regarding Amendment 43 the marriage amendment the Libertarian party has this to say

The LPCO Legislative Director, Richard Randall, stated "Due to the complexity of wording in certain issues, there are valid Libertarian arguments both for and against those issues for which we did not take a position."

Explaining the LPCO position regarding Amendment 43 (defining Marriage) and Referendum I (Domestic Partnerships), Randall said "The sacred institution of marriage was established by religion; and the Colorado State Constitution, Article II, Section 4, forever guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination. An amendment to the Colorado State Constitution defining any religious term, including marriage, would create a conflict with Article II, Section 4 as it would, by its very nature, constitute an abridgment, regulation or restriction of our right to religious freedom."

I agree with this position. Lets get the Government out of Marriage. It is a religious rite, not a secular one.

Also on the ballot is an innitiative to pass what is effectively gay marriage. I am against this one for the same reason as I am against Amendment 43. It simply isnt an issue the Gov should be meddling with. I will post later on what I believe to be the best way to deal with marriage from a legal standpoint.

Proposed Law: Must Own Firearm

Greenleaf, Idaho -- All Americans have the right to bear arms. Some towns have even gone as far as to require each household to have a gun. Now a small Idaho town is contemplating a similar idea-- it's called the Civil Emergencies Ordinance. And although gun ownership is just one piece of this ordinance, it's the part that's getting the most attention.

If city council member Steve Jett has his way, each head of household that can legally own a gun, will. Along with that they're encouraged to have ammunition and appropriate training.

The proposed ordinance is modeled after a similar plan that went into place in 1982 in Kennesaw, Ga. In that instance there was a dramatic decrease in criminal activity.

Remember that Idaho is one of the three states in the Free West Alliance. The other two being Montana and Wyoming. These are states that have a reasonable chance of achieving the Free State Project's dream of "Liberty in our lifetime."

Email Scams & Money Laundering

I finally got one of those emails that try to get your account info by giving some story about some person dying and leaving lots of money. The one where the banker is desperate to give away the money, some $25 Million in this one.

I am replying to him and going to see if I can mess with him. I'll give an update if there is anything to add.

Land Of The Free?

Hard to believe, but government is spying on you. I know I know. With Echelon and Carnivore they have been spying on us for years. But now we have one more layer of "protection".

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

So in other words, they are checking your behavior so that if you suddenly change it they can flag you and actively spy upon you. Change jobs? You might qualify. Move? you might qualify.

Isnt it great living in the land of the free?

Income Tax part II

I found an article today on DailyReckoning.com that is perfect considering my little series on the Income Tax. Laurence M. Vance wrote a review/rebuke of Steve Forbes's new book Flat Tax Revolution. Mr Vance takes Forbes to task over his proposal for a progressive "flat" tax, but they both agree on the following which is instructive of what I spoke about last time.

Forbes' description of the Federal income tax code:

* A monster of a system.
* Abominably, appallingly confusing.
* A multi-headed hydra of countless brackets, deductions, and exemptions.
* Our horrifically heavy, appallingly complex, corruption-inducing tax code.

In addition to his accurate description of the horrific U.S. tax code, Forbes also correctly points out the huge costs of complying with the tax code. Compliance costs in terms of time have skyrocketed from an average of 17 hours and 7 minutes fifteen years ago to 28 hours and 30 minutes today. Lost productivity is in the billions of hours. The cost in dollars is now about $200 billion.

The U.S. tax code - with its "nine million word mountain of verbiage" - is so complex and "littered with impenetrable passages" that a fictional tax return given by Money magazine to forty-five tax preparers resulted in forty-five different calculations of the correct amount of tax due. This is not surprising since IRS employees (Forbes says that there are 97,440 of them) don't even give the same answers to tax questions. Forbes mentions a 2003 Treasury Department study, which found that callers to the IRS toll-free help lines "gave the wrong answers to tax-related questions more than 25 percent of the time."

Take a good look at that. The income tax code is now over 9 million words (the 7 million I quoted was a number I knew was getting old, but I'm too lazy (or smart)to try and count them on my own.) And more to the point, one tax return given to 45 different preparers ended up with 45 different totals? You cant even begin to tell me this doesnt fall under the Void for Vagueness doctrine. And those IRS employees giving out wrong answers? Nothing you can do about it. You cant sue them or the department, nor is their wrong info a defense for you.

Income tax... Illegal through and through and through.

Income Tax Not Constitutional

As people are all pissy about the subject of taxation before the "due" date I decided to hold off on this until now. No doubt there are those who will simply accuse me of not paying my "fair share." (Note: the "fair share" argument is really just a whine and holds no weight in a discussion.) So here is the first in what is likely to be a topic on this blog for a while.

The current income tax was instituted in 1913 (not coincidentally the same year the Fed was created.) Now as a bit of history, Congress had passed an Income Tax as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894. This tax was decided by the United States Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in 1895. Why? Because it was a tax on "property" and it was a direct tax without respect to the census and therefore unapportioned.

Currently in the common vernacular we interpret "income" to be that which we take home from our jobs. That weekly paycheck (or for some of us, weakly paycheck) is not, in fact, income as defined by law, nor as considered by SCotUS. SCotUS has ruled that income in the legal sense arises from gain or increase arising from corporate activity. (Note 1) Now, in the abscence of gain there can be no "income" (Note 2)

SCotUS has also ruled that one's labor constitutes property (Note 3) and that "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." (Note 4)

From these court cases it is easy to see that labor, the primary "income" for Americans (yes that includes office workers too,) is not taxable. This means that there is no "gross income" for which one would have to file a tax return. This also means that the FICA "Contribution" taxes also do not apply to you as you have no taxable income. This also means that there is no "fair share."

The current Income Tax code contains more than 7 million words. By way of comparison the KJV Bible has 791,328 words. Off the top of my head I can think of 8 different sects (Note 5) with differing opinions that these 791,328 words have spawned, learned men and scholars amongst them all. How many more opinions would 7,000,000+ words create? It is true, and been upheld in court, that even IRS employees and their publications cannot be counted on (or held liable) to give correct advice regarding the tax laws. The Void for Vagueness doctrine would seem to apply to this.

"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application." (Note 6)

"Criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law." (Note 7)

Furthermore, when tax laws are vague they are to interpreted in favor of the "taxpayer."
“...if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." (Note 8) and " Where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of whom upon which the tax is sought to be laid." (Note 9)


To sum up, the Income Tax law(s) is too vague to be enforcable and doesnt apply to anyone anyways.



Note 1: Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 and Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct.136

Note 2: Stratton’s Indep. v. Howbert , 231 U.S. 399; Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179; So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Eisnerv. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189; Merchant’s Loan v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509

Note 3: Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 and Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct.136

Note 4: Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields)

Note 5: Nazarene, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, NonDenominational, Friends, Quaker, Mennonite

Note 6: Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972)

Note 7: U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952)

Note 8: Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938)

Note 9: Spreckles Sugar Refining v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 416 (1904); Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917); Smietanka v. First Trust & Savings Bank, 257 U.S. 602, 606 (1922); Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U.S. 573, 577 (1929); Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930); Burnet v. Niagra Falls Brewing Co., 282 U.S. 648, 654 (1931); Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 508 (1932); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 314 (1938); U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123 (1978); Security Bank of Minnesota v. CIA, 994 F.2d 432, 436 (CA8 1993)

Bush Against Abortion Ban

Bush is against the abortion ban that South Dakota is now pushing in an attempt to topple the infamous Roe v. Wade. Bush is against it in part because he wants three exceptions to the ban, for 1) rape 2) incest and 3) life of the mother. The South Dakota ban gives an exception for the life of the Mother.

1) Rape
Arielle has posted on the issue of aborting the child of rape, as well as a letter she recieved from just such a child. She has done a fine job on those, so go read it.

2) Incest
What is incest? Sex between close familial relations. What is it about this that makes the child so monstrous? Is there a higher incidence of mutation/defect? yes. But realistically the risk isn't any higher than a (now common) 40 year old woman bearing children. And the other objection is that incest is forced, I mean, everyone knows that right? Where do people get that? Incest is either consensual or it isnt. If it isnt than it is rape. If it is rape then it falls under the rape argument which Arielle has already discredited. If it is consentual then who is to say that that child is unloved or unwanted? Or that the child of a consentual act deserves death? I am not sure a reasonable argument can be put forth for killing this child.

3) Life of Mother
Bush has this one right. Saying the "health" of the mother is simply to ambiguous. The way such things are interpreted today that could mean just about anything including the potential for post-partum depression. At the very least there needs to be a clear and compelling threat to the mother for any 'justification' of infanticide.

Thanks to Astrosmith for this item

Right to Petition Update and Primer

I have recieved quite a few hits so far today for the "Right to Petition For Redress of Grievance" so I figured I would add some more info on this site. Either there was a news article or broadcast I am not yet aware of, or Google moved me to the top of the search. Whatever the reason, I am posting a primer on the Right to Petition lawsuit.

The group leading the way is We the People. Spokesman Bob Schulz is a man dedicated to fighting to keep Government at all levels to their Constitutional bounds. Schulz has and is still fighting his local government and is a pro se litigant in the current RTP lawsuit at the Federal level. There are 1700+ other named litigants and literally thousands unnamed.

On November 8th, 2002, every single member of both the House and the Senate were served with four (4) Petitions For Redress of Grievance. On Nov. 12th the President (G.W. Bush) was served with these same four (4) Petitions. The Petitions address specific constitutional grievances relating to: 1) the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution; 2) the privacy, due process and free speech clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act; 3) the money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System; and 4) the tax-related clauses of the Constitution and the federal Income Tax system.

As no substantive response has been recieved to date, the Petition that was furthest along, the Federal Income Tax Petition, has gone forward in the Courts. As of this writing this Petition is before the U.S. District Court of Appeals as case #04CV01211 (this was the case# at the District Court, I am assuming it stays the same for the Appeal.) WTP has already filed its Brief and the Department of Justice, representing the Government, has until March 24th to respond to the Brief. WTP will then have until April 7th to file a Reply Brief. From there the case will go forward. Regardless of who wins this case it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court so a resolution is still a ways off yet.

The four (4) petitions can be read and signed here
Here are the 537 Questions that the Goverment has refused to answer. (PDF File)

Full color full page ads that have been placed in both the New York Times and USA Today can be found here. As a bonus if you had the money and wanted to take action you could submit them to your local paper.

Don't Correct The Police

It seems that correcting the police can earn you a ticket and a day in court.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) - A college student has been given a lesson from a judge after his day in court - don't correct the police.

Clay Palmer, a student at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, honked his car horn when he saw police stop their patrol car, turn on blue flashers to go through a red light and then turn the flashers off. He got a ticket for violating the city noise ordinance.

The charge was reduced to a warning Wednesday when he went before a judge who told him he acted wrongly.

"The horn blowing is not the real problem here, it's that you were trying to correct the police and they didn't need correcting," Judge Russell Bean said.

Palmer left traffic court saying he still believed officers were abusing their authority.

"I see this cop with his blue lights come screeching up beside me and I didn't know what was going on," Palmer said. "Before they got to the next light, I could see they turned their blue lights off."

Palmer said officer Matthew Puglise forced him onto the hood of his car and issued him a ticket for honking the horn when there was no reason.

Puglise said he was helping another officer track down a speeder when Palmer saw him pass through the red light.

Bean said Puglise was right and Palmer was wrong.

"I expect officers to follow the rules like everyone else," Bean said.

Worth: Cop vs. Citizen

Yesterday a cop was shot and killed in Colorado Springs. The officer, Jarred Jensen, was on duty and actually performing a duty that the citizenry expects from their police, apprehending someone who in the past month stabbed his own sister several times. The criminal, Jereme Lamberth AKA Jereme Scheinhardt, was apprehended later that day.

The failure of the system is for a later post, this one concerns the value that is placed on a cop's life vs the value that is placed upon a citizen's life. Just why is it that a cop's life is so sacred? Why is it that when a cop is shot the entire police force comes out and locks down businesses and schools and streets, but when a citizen is shot the response is to send a few cars and plot the crime scene? It isnt just this one incident. There are many examples, and I am sure that you can think of some yourselves.

Often people will say that it is because cops have one of the most dangerous jobs. That one falls to stats which show that the police are never even near the top 10 (with the exception of 2001 due to 9-11.)
Others will state that it is because cops are there to protect us. This is also not the case as I have posted on before, and the last police officer killed in Colorado Springs was back in 1982 so this is a very safe place to be a cop so it isnt like we hear of their deaths on a regular basis. In fact a citizen is 430 times more likely to be murdered than a cop in this city. (Latest stats carried back 24 years since that last cop was killed. OT, the pictures the city has chosen for these pages are rather entertaining)

So the question is this? What makes the life of a cop more valuable than that of a citizen?

George Made Another Funny

Good ol' George, always making us laugh. What did he joke about this time? He made a jest about actually vetoing a bill.

Haha, what a joker!!

Bush is threatening to veto any bill looking to block the sale of ports to Bush's good buddies, the Arabs. Now of course, Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill in his two terms so the likelyhood of him vetoing this are miniscule. It is interesting to note that he says he is willing to exercise his power to push through something that many people feel would compromise our security.

Further evidence that this still undeclared "war" has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with a FedGov power grab.

Marijuana: Washington State's 8th Largest Cash Crop

Pot seizures have grown every year for the last 7 years. In 2005 some 135,323 plants were taken and presumably destroyed. Given an estimated street value of $270 million this places it above sweet cherries ($242M.) In the article they state they are lucky to get half which means an estimated street value of $540M.

The valuation is extremely flawed of course. If that pot made it to market the market would get flooded and it would drop the price but we'll let them pretend they are doing a good work. AP Article here.

Right To Petition For Redress Of Grievance

"I thought the feds usually ignored lawful petitions. I thought "Right to Petition" just meant one could hold a protest or something, but that there was no obligation on the part of the feds to 'provide satisfaction', so to speak.

Am I wrong? If you know anything different about the specifics of Right to Petition, please correct me." Triton

Yes, the Feds ignore the Citizens and yes the Feds want people to believe that a petition is nothing more than a protest. However that isn't why it was placed into the Constitution. It was a way of keeping the government from ignoring petitions. When our Founding Fathers were creating the Constitution, and subsequently the Bill of Rights, they were no doubt thinking upon immediate history as well as the Rights they had as Englishmen. So lets look at three of the more obvious documents.

Over the course of years many petitions from the Colonists to the King of England had been ignored. The reasons varied with taxation, trade, and trial by jury as well as other issues of law. Indeed, the King's ignoring the petitions was the reason we had separated from England. The Colonists Petitioned expecting Redress and, in their words, recieved injury. The following is from the Declaration of Independence.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

They petitioned as they had been assured that Right by the British Bill of Rights, passed in 1689. This was passed because it was found that Parliment would ignore or even punish those who petitioned the government

"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal."

The origins of this Right goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. As everyone should already know the Magna Carta is the basis for many of the Rights we have. Also Common Law dates back to this time which is where our Law and Rights were defined until the advent of "statutory" law which was created by merging Maritime and Equity. But I digress... The Magna Carta gave a rather specific and some would say drastic measure for enforcing the Right to Petition: seizure of "federal" property.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.
Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

The Right to Petition is much more than simply the Right to make noise. The Founding Fathers intended for there to be teeth in this Right for it was they who wrote "If money is wanted by Rulers, who have in any manner oppressed the people, they may retain it, until their grievances are redressed; and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions, or disturbing the public tranquillity."