Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax

This is a one-way announcement list. Please do not reply to this

When you wish to send a comment, the contact source (e-mail or link)
is provided whenever possible for your convenience.

Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for the accuracy of the information being provided by others. It is your sole responsibility and duty, to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information you are viewing on the Internet.

Prepare. Persist. Prevail. http://www.preferredservices.org Subscribe to the free e-letter Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com

Lawful information is not legal advice. Use all lawful and legal means to peacefully restore the American's unalienable natural law rights against de facto government and its public policy. Threats and coercion are not advocated or supported against anyone.


Why the Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax

The book that explains why the Federal income tax is constitutional, why millions of citizens of the United States are liable for, or subject to, the income tax, and why most Citizens of the several States are not liable for the Federal income tax. I found a 1920s Federal court case, which, after I had thought about it for several months, finally allowed me to make sense out of parts of the tax code. The case points out that Congress has the ability to lay and collect taxes with a constitutional authority other than article 1, section 8, clause 1. That information allowed me to finally understand the Federal income tax. Until you learn the information in this book, you will never, never, never understand the Federal income tax.


Is it unconstitutional and a grand fraud upon the American people?


Is it constitutional with most Americans being liable for it?

A large number of patriotic Americans, who have studied the Federal income tax for years, maintain that it is unconstitutional and nobody owes it.

On the other hand, the Government, with the support of the courts, maintains that it is constitutional and that all citizens of the United States are liable for the Federal income tax. As a result, many income tax protesting Americans have been sent to jail after having been found guilty of Federal income tax related offenses.

Where does the truth lay?

What many have not considered is, maybe the truth is to be found somewhere in between those two positions. Perhaps the Federal income tax is constitutional. Perhaps most citizens of the United States are liable for the income tax. Maybe numerous Citizens of the several States are also liable for the tax. Perhaps at the same time though, a good many Citizens of the several States are not liable for the Federal income tax. They are not taxpayers. They are in fact nontaxpayers. To understand why they are nontaxpayers one has understand the following:

From Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed., the following information is

Fourteenth Amendment. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;..."

Prior to the 14th amendment, one could not be a citizen of the United States without first being a Citizen of one of the several States. Since the 14th amendment, millions of persons have been made citizens of the United States without having ever set foot in one of the several States. Several sections of the U.S. Code can be found where the natives of some of the insular possessions of the United States have been made citizens of the United States by legislative fiat. Prior to the 14th amendment, these persons might have been made nationals, but not citizens, of the United States.

While the insular possessions (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, Virgin Islands, etc.) of the United States have their individual governments, they are still under Congress' legislative jurisdiction. (Legislative jurisdiction is the power to make and enforce laws within a given area.) In addition to these insular possessions, the United States owns better than 20 percent of the land mass of the continental United States, most of Alaska, and areas in Hawaii over which Congress exercises legislative jurisdiction. There are millions of persons who operate businesses and work within these areas. There are millions of citizens of the United States who maintain their domiciles or legal residences throughout these areas. The constitutional clause at article 4, section 3, clause 2 makes Congress the supreme legislative body over its territory and other property. Congress, empowered by that clause to make all necessary rules and regulations for its territory, acts in the capacity of a state legislature, as well as a national legislature. When making laws for the several States, Congress is limited by the terms of the Constitution but, when making laws for its territory and other property, Congress can pass any law that the Constitution does not forbid.

Let us consider the foregoing facts: 1. Congress is the supreme legislative body over territory which includes a number of insular possessions, Washington, D.C., better than 20 percent of the land mass of the continental United States, a large percentage of Alaska, and part of Hawaii. 2. Congress can make laws for these areas just as a state legislature can make laws for areas under its jurisdiction. 3. The 14th amendment allowed Congress, while acting in the capacity of a state legislature, to have millions of citizens of the United States who are not also Citizens of the several States. They live within the United States' various territory and other property and they are subject to the United States' legislative jurisdiction. 4. There are numerous businesses and persons who work within territory under Congress' jurisdiction.

Considering the above, suppose Congress, acting in its capacity as a state legislature over its territory, desired to lay and collect taxes on incomes only within areas under its legislative jurisdiction. What constitutional authority would Congress use for laying and collecting a tax intended just for those areas under its legislative jurisdiction? What few Americans realize is that article 4, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution provides full authority for Congress to lay and collect taxes within areas subject to Congress' legislative jurisdiction. (See note following.) Congress does not rely on article 1, section 8, clause 1 for any tax that is applicable just within these areas.

From a Federal court case:

[1] The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for the collection thereof in the possessions of the United States, is not restricted by constitutional provision (section 8, article 1), which may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and apportionment when legislating for the mainland or United States proper, for it acts in the premises under the authority of clause 2, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

Note: TDO 150-01 delegates authority to the Commissioner for the administration of taxes in territories and insular possessions, and other authorized areas. No other delegation order can be found authorizing the Commissioner to administer the Federal income tax within the several States.

Why the 16th amendment was necessary: Consider that the IRS always points out that the 16th amendment authorized the Federal income tax. The legislatures of the several States have the ability to lay and collect direct taxes in areas under their legislative jurisdictions but, prior to the 16th amendment, Congress was forbidden by the language of article 1, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution from doing so, as that clause forbade Congress from laying any other direct tax unless it was apportioned.

Who then is liable for a tax on their incomes? The millions of citizens of the United States who maintain their domiciles or legal residences within areas under United States' jurisdiction. These citizens of the United States, who are subject to its jurisdiction
(see 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)), are not Citizens of any of the several States
and they are liable for the Federal income tax regardless of where they earn their incomes, i.e., wherever they are resident. There are also millions of persons who earn incomes within areas under Federal jurisdiction or from business operations within such areas. These persons are considered resident within the United States. There are millions of persons who work for and/or receive income from the Federal Government. These persons would also be liable for the Federal income tax. There are millions of Citizens of the several States who are part of these latter categories. They make themselves liable for the Federal income tax as a result of their actions.

What Americans have to realize is that Congress' authority for the Federal income tax is not article 1, section 8, clause 1. The income tax is not a national tax. Congress' authority for the tax is derived from article 4, section 3, clause 2, Congress' plenary powers over those areas subject to Congress' legislative jurisdiction. The income tax is akin to a state income tax. The state just happens to be the United States and its territory is made up of 1000s of disconnected properties spread throughout the several States as well as a number of insular possessions over which Congress is the supreme legislative body.

As pointed out above, article 4, section 3, clause 2 delegates to Congress plenary authority over its territory and other property. Congress is sovereign over its territory. Congress can pass any law within its territory that the Constitution does not forbid. Barring constitutional limitations and prohibitions, you can't tell a sovereign government, e.g., the United States, that it can not lay and collect taxes within areas under its authority. That's the reason courts tell tax protesters their arguments are political questions. You will also learn why those who violate the tax laws are tried under the admiralty jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Inasmuch as the Federal income tax is pursuant to article 4, section 3, clause 2, there are proper arguments to make having to do with citizenship, legislative jurisdiction, and other statements which deny liability for the income tax.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

The book also includes a 1945 Government memorandum Administrative History of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (This memorandum will be on CD as PDF file after present printed copies are exhausted.)

The Price of the book is $35.00.
Shipping (USPS First Class) and handling are $4.00 per book. Price subject to change.

To order the book send:

Postal Money Order in the correct amount;

Include self-addressed, self-adhesive address label.
Be sure your address is correct on the label.

Send to:
Timothy McCrory
c/o 1124 SW Blvd.
Blackwell, Oklahoma 74631

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html


This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a message. To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com To unsubscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com Update your email address, send a message to Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com with your old address in the Subject: area

Archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy

Monday, February 19, 2007

Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law

From : Jimmy Turner
Sent : Monday, February 19, 2007 5:59 PM
To : kg5os@yahoo.com
Subject : Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Legalbear bear@freedivorceforms.net
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:49:55 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law

I was perusing other groups and came across this article. I wanted this group to see it. Bear

Attorney Challenges Income Tax Law

Constitutional History in the Making

Longtime Shreveport , Louisiana , attorney, Tommy K. Cryer, is no stranger to conflict and

controversy. The Hall of Fame attorney, an honor graduate of LSU Law School and member

of the prestigious Order of the Coif, has a reputation for taking on issues no one else would

and, on a number of occasions, he has made new inroads in the legal world. But now he has

thrown down the gauntlet in front of the mother of all 800 pound gorillas, the Internal

Revenue Service, and the mama gorilla has picked it up. The only thing certain now is that

someone is going to be hurt.

The story began over a decade ago when a friend told Cryer that

the income tax was a sham. Cryer did not believe a word of it and thought his friend had

gone off the deep end. Learning that his friend had decided to stop filing tax returns, Cryer

determined to research the matter, show his friend where he was wrong, and keep him from

getting in trouble with the IRS. That is how a two-year research project began, but it did not

turn out the way Cryer expected. Sporting a wry grin, Cryer said "That just goes to show you

that no good deed goes unpunished." His research not only included the tax laws themselves,

but went past the first income tax in 1861 to the drafting of the Constitution and included

reading hundreds of cases, Congressional archives and tax laws from 1913 to present. Cryer

learned that although his friend had only a piece of the picture, he was right. "The Tax Code

and its regulations are carefully and," he adds, "ingeniously crafted to deceive," said Cryer.

He explains that the answer is not in what the laws say, but rather in what they do not say,

and those provisions that are revealing are either hidden within tons of verbiage or behind

double and triple negatives. And, more importantly, he says, he knows why.

So Cryer decided he would also stop filing returns and would challenge the IRS if and when it came

to call. Cryer said "Once you've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law,

obeying the law is only half the job. You also have to be willing to fight for it. I've not only

sworn to fight for the Constitution as an attorney, as a former officer in the Army I've sworn

to die for it." In 2001 they came, demanding information and returns. Cryer advised them

that if they could show him any law making him liable or making his revenues taxable he

would file any tax returns required by the law. They could not show him any law. Instead,

the IRS began to pelt Cryer with a series of summonses, gathering up all banking records. It

even subpoenaed Cryer's secretary into the office for interrogation. But Cryer did not budge.

Frustrated, the IRS called in their criminal investigations division, CID, and Cryer told them

the same thing, "Show me the law that makes me liable or my revenue taxable and I will file."

They could not show him any law. CID began the summons pelting all over again, but Cryer

filed a petition to quash the summonses, which even included summonsing his college and

law school records from almost forty years ago. "I suppose they thought the records would

show I was some kind of kook or an idiot, but all they would have found is that I graduated

from college in only three years and that I graduated from law school in the top of my class."

Cryer said. So, CID called in the Justice Department (DOJ) and the sabers began to rattle.

Cryer met with the Assistant U. S. Attorney and an official of the IRS and reminded them

that all they need do is show him the law. They could not show him any law, either. "The

CID and DOJ both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a

position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" Cryer said, "Imagine my

sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply

said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.' What would you say?

Would you write the check?" "After that they circled for awhile, apparently not sure what to

do with or to me," he continues, "but when I went public with a book I'm writing, / LIBERTY

LOST, A Treasure Map to Buried Freedom/, about how the federal government has escaped

its constitutional limits and how to put it back, that broke the impasse. Within two months

they accused me of tax evasion. Do I look like Al Capone? Well, I am a bit overweight and

he was kind of chubby, too."

The two count indictment accuses Cryer of concealing income

in a trust in 2000 and 2001, keeping himself "below the radar." But in 2001 he was not only

on the radar, he was in the cross-hairs. Cryer, whose wife, Carolyn, was severely disabled,

was worried that if anything happened to him Carolyn's son would have her destitute before

the grass grew over his grave. He set up the trust in 1993 and opened brokerage accounts in

hopes of parlaying the seed money he could muster up into a fund to provide for her and

safeguard the money. Carolyn died in 1999, but he continued to trade in the accounts. "They

subpoenaed every record on me you could imagine, they even got into my dry cleaner's

account, but they did not subpoena the brokerage account records. They did not want the

facts, just an indictment. If they had they would have known that the trust not only had no

income for those two years, it lost money both years, but they did not want to know the truth

because that would prevent them from accusing me. " he said. Cryer says that it has already

been an eye-opening experience for him, "It's been revealing.

I've had agents tell me the law

did not apply to them, so I suppose they think they are above the law. Another, challenged

with having failed to follow IRS procedures explained that the procedures are binding on us

(the peasants?), but that the IRS does not have to follow its own procedures unless it wants

to. After effecting a legal stay on the CID summonses, a CID investigator called the banks he

had summonsed and when they pointed out that they were stayed and not allowed to release

records until the court ruled, he demanded they send him the records anyway, law or no law.

After I made full disclosure of all records, saying show me where any of this is taxed, they

sent agents out to 'visit' with my clients, and you can imagine what effect that has had on my


But the ride is going to get a lot bumpier from here on. I'm threatening a lot of rice

bowls. Someone may actually have to go get a job and work like the rest of us." Well, now

the worm has turned. Cryer filed a motion to dismiss both counts against him, showing that

the law, as it is written, does not make him liable nor tax his revenue from his law practice.

The motion takes another bold step, however, revealing that the income tax, as applied to

wages, salaries and fees personally earned, is unconstitutional, citing four separate grounds

for the unconstitutionality of the law as to almost every citizen's revenue personally earned.

According to Cryer, the law, which is carefully drawn to stay inside the Constitution, does

not actually tax personal earnings, but the IRS publications, no more law than Time

Magazine, say it does and by collecting taxes on personal earnings it has violated several

fundamental constitutional restrictions. He says that nearly a trillion dollars is siphoned,

illegally, away from families and households every year, although their wages and salaries,

including bonuses, are exempt from taxation under the Constitution. "I wish there were some

way I could have taken this case on a 1/3 contingency," he joked.

Due to the adverse publicity and clients' fear of being targeted if they get too close to a target, Cryer says his

practice has suffered immensely, placing him in a severe financial strain. "Getting the

government off everyone's back and out of their pockets is going to be expensive and,

frankly, I don't have the means," Cryer said, "but somehow I am going to finish this. I am

totally convinced that this is why I am here on this Earth, this is why I am a lawyer, and since

it's meant to be, it will be."



This man has devoted his life and practice to helping people. He left the big firm road over

thirty years ago and opened a storefront solo practice because he did not become a lawyer to

run up billable hours and stack up money. He wanted to solve people's problems and make

the system work as it was intended. He is not a fat cat lawyer and deals with the same

problems we all do every day. Now, he's put his freedom and future on the line for all of us.

The government has destroyed Tom Cryer's practice in order to impede his ability to fight

this battle and he needs your help. If you are tired of being afraid of your own government

and can help, please send whatever you can to the Tom Cryer Defense Fund and then

forward this message to everyone you know. Make checks payable to "C. L. Mitchell" with

"Cryer Defense" on the memo line and mail to:

C. L. Mitchell

Cryer Defense Fund

11190 General Bradley Ave.

Shreveport, LA 71106

(and for a free copy of the 104 page memorandum Mr. Cryer filed explaining the law and the

reasons the Constitution makes your paycheck exempt, include your email)

Contributors will NOT be disclosed to ANYONE, especially the government. This is not a

political campaign, so there are no reporting requirements.

PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/ 720-203-5142 c.

For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley , CO 80634


www.irs-armory. com

www.irslienthumper. com

www.legalbears. com

www.legalresearchvi deo.com

www.cantheydothat. com

To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
tips_and_tricks- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com

Friday, February 09, 2007

flawed Wesley Snipes 2-part film ciruculating

-----Original Message-----
From: Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: flawed Wesley Snipes 2-part film ciruculating

This is a one-way announcement list. Please do not reply to this

When you wish to send a comment, the contact source (e-mail or link)
is provided whenever possible for your convenience.

Paycheck Piracy acts as a portal of independent views and does not
exercise any form of control over the content contained in messages
provided by others. The content contained and made available
originates from outside sources believed to be credible; however
Paycheck Piracy makes no warranties or guarantees as to outside

Prepare. Persist. Prevail. http://www.preferredservices.org

Subscribe to the free e-letter Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com

Lawful information is not legal advice. Use all lawful and legal
means to peacefully restore the American's unalienable natural
law rights against de facto government and its public policy.
Threats and coercion are not advocated or supported against anyone.


The "861 argument" folks are at it again, circulating a
well-produced two-part film purporting to demonstrate that only
non-Americans or those doing business in foreign countries or
federal territories and possessions can be liable for "income"
taxes. The film focuses on the recent indictment of Wesley Snipes,
and the fact that, in part, the indictment accuses Snipes of
"failing to file a return stating his income and claiming any
deductions and credits to which he is entitled". Seizing on the
language "deductions and credits", the actors in the film conduct a
search of 26 USC for those words as a phrase, which (it is asserted)
will only be found in portions of the code related to non-resident
aliens, foreign corporations and territories or possessions. They
suggest (without troubling themselves with the fact that claiming
deductions and credits is obviously optional) that it therefore must
be concluded that only persons to whom these portions relate can be
"required to file a return".

Unfortunately, this is merely an exercise in fallacious reasoning,
in which the film-maker's proposition is illegitimately presented as
being decisive of the issue they claim to address, and is also
carefully framed in a fashion that leads to the conclusion desired.
Without bothering to run my own search to the same effect, I'll
grant for purposes of this discussion that these may be the only
locations where the entire phrase "deductions and credits" may be
found. However, they are certainly NOT the only places that
"deductions" and/or "credits" available to filers are found in the
code or the law. A search for either will turn up MANY references
to these terms. Those found here
-.html> and here
-.html> :

26 USC 151. Allowance of deductions for personal exemptions

(a) Allowance of deductions

In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this
section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.


26 USC 31. Tax withheld on wages

(a) Wage withholding for income tax purposes

(1) In general The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24 shall be
allowed to the recipient of the income as a credit against the tax
imposed by this subtitle.

...are sufficient by themselves to make clear that the film's
premise is completely unfounded.

That this presentation, and the thinking behind it, is invalid
doesn't mean that Mr. Snipes has actually done anything wrong, in
the sense of having had ill-intent, or in the sense of having evaded
a tax liability which he actually owed, of course. I hope that
someone who knows him gets a copy of CtC
into his hands,
so that he can learn what is actually going on in his case.

I also hope that the very talented producers of these films learn
the truth as well. Putting erroneous material like this into
circulation is very harmful. The flaws in presentations like this
will be very quickly apparent to any "newbie" that gives them brief
consideration and even the most superficial research, such as is
demonstrated here. This is likely to result in that "newbie"
turning his or her back on the whole concept of "tax honesty" and
never looking further to find the real truth-- another possible
warrior for the truth transformed into a disparaging and cynical
voice helping to dissuade the next American from even taking a first
look at the subject.

On the other hand, these very talented producers could be doing a
lot of good, if they were devoting their time to learning, and
helping spread the word, about the reality of the "income" tax...

(More on the "861 argument" fallacy can be found at


Anyone circulating any of this stuff is advised to immediately cease
and desist, and anyone receiving it should reply to the sender to
that effect, in the strongest possible terms. In recognition of the
sender's failure to do even minimal research to verify what he or
she is circulating, and the possibility that the circulation of
erroneous information and ideas is deliberate, anything presented by
that sender in the future should be taken with at least a grain of
salt, if not a little suspicion, in the future.

NOTE: Needless to say, I cannot address EVERY bit of the vast amount
of nonsense constantly making its way around the "tax honesty"
community. The simple rule of thumb to follow is this-- if you
didn't read it in CtC
, or on
losthorizons.com (the Forum
-- which is itself a
home to much baloney-- excluded), it is either unreliable or simply
not true; and in any case is irrelevant to the "income" tax subject.
The material posted here
ion.htm> and here
s.htm> is worth reading in this regard.

Also, please don't waste pixels writing to argue with me about items
posted here, or to defend them. The reason items are listed here is
that they are wrong, and serve to distract from the reality of the
law, and our critically important responsibility for its
enforcement. I have already looked into each of the listed items
and don't intend to let myself be distracted any further-- you
shouldn't either. Those looking for more detailed discussions of
myths, misunderstandings and errors about the law will find many
posted here

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their
equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's
job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction
issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's
pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing,
voluntary, written consent.
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a
To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com
To unsubscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com
Update your email address, send a message to
Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com with your old address in the Subject: area

Archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Conference Bridge Number


press 2 followed by 1626 #

Friday, February 02, 2007

John Stadtmiller terrorizes RBN workers - (Menaces workers with firearm at staff meeting, and threatens to send police to workers' home)

(Updated: 02/01/2007 03:15:00) Former RBN Webmaster/Program Director Danny Romero weighs in on the recent events at RBN: (as posted on jackbloodforum.com)

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:27 am Subject: What Really Happened At RBN

I had the opportunity to hear a recording of John Stadtmiller's explanation of what he thinks happened at RBN last weekend. My congratulations to who ever pranked John with their so called “inside information”. There was no big conspiracy to bring down RBN from the inside, as John stated on his show on Monday. Here’s what really happened, and I should know because I was there; there are many people who can back this up.

Jan. 10, 2007, I arrive at RBN in the afternoon to hear John Stadtmiller and Chris Hanson talking about Alex Jones. They were talking about, what they thought, were references from Alex Jones, about John Stadtmiller, on Alex’s show. Chris tells John about a former GCN host making drug allegations about Alex years ago. My impression at the time was it sounded like total hearsay bullshit gossip. When I came back to the fridge to get a drink about 20 minutes before airtime, John is telling Chris to loop 6 minutes of Alex’s theme. I ask John “what are you going to do?” he tells me not to worry, “I promise you I’m going to be very subtle.” So, as it turns out, John's statement that he hired a private investigator to spy on Alex was just a rumor from Chris in the office about some old gossip.

I’m always very busy on the phone, and as usual I’m on the phone when John airs his “subtle” piece, so I didn’t get to hear it. Shortly thereafter, Sandra was coming out her office and asked me, “What the hell did John just do?” (I guess she was starting to get phone calls). I told her, I didn’t hear that part of the show. John then comes into the office during the next break and proudly asks me if I heard the piece. I said no and I would have to listen to it later in the archives. Later that night, I heard the archived show, and I felt sick. As we all know now, John’s piece was as subtle as a lead pipe to the head. I knew right then this was going to have serious repercussions for RBN and that it wasn’t going to go away.

Jan. 11, 2007, (the next day) Alex responds and soon thereafter Jason Bermas leaves RBN, followed by Dan Abrahamson; with rumors flying that Webster Tarpley was soon to follow, (Nick Begich has since left as well). Now please understand my situation here, I was the person responsible for the programming innovations at RBN. I brought and produced Karen Kwiatowski, Nick Begich, Janis Karpinski, Jason Bermas, Dan Abrahamson, Kevin Barrett, Greg Szymanski, Jim Fetzer, Alex Ansary, Ingri Cassel, Don Harkins, Richard Reeves, Gary Franchi, Eric Shine and D’Anne Burley. By this time, I’m beginning to watch the people I consider my friends, start to bail from the network, not to mention the undoing of all my hard work.

If that was not bad enough, some our advertisers started dropping, and now RBN is converted from a stable workplace, to a group of pissed off people doing damage control; and for what? This on air debacle was as foolish as G.W. Bush’s “Bring Um On” statement. The change was immediate and it caused me to be concerned about the future of RBN and the great people who are really responsible for RBN’s success. By the way, I have nothing bad to say about Sandra who has worked harder than anybody there and has endured more bad treatment from John in front of the entire staff. It is her common sense about business that has kept RBN alive all this time.

A couple of days later John knows I’m bummed about what is happening to RBN and tries to assure me that things are going to be OK and that the people who were leaving were “no good anyway”; referring to Dan Abrahamson, he said “One less Jew on the network!” Wow; what a racist thing to say. This, from a man who goes on air and says he knows the difference between Jews, Judaism and Zionism? I guess he felt this was supposed to make me feel better. At this point I finally realize that John is never going to evolve past basic instincts.

Shortly thereafter, I called Wes because he has a web hosting business, and asked him to reserve WTPRN.com for me in case RBN failed on its own. Wes was not the initiator of WTPRN, but felt he might be able to help if the failure did come to pass. There was never an internal plot to take hosts or advertisers, as that would be unethical. Anybody who truly knows me knows that this is not my style. If anything, I felt very uncomfortable about John’s collusion with Mike Jones of RFA to take Alex Jones off the low power FMs, and force the other low powers to carry mostly RBN programming or lose the equipment that Mike Jones supplied.

John also stated in his Monday spin piece that our alleged “conspiracy” included a talk show host and the president of another radio network. Nothing could be further from the truth and I absolutely had no agreements with anyone. He also stated that the hosts who left RBN first were probably part of that plot. I have never talked to any of those hosts who had left previously and anyone can clear this up by contacting those hosts. My only interest in establishing WTPRN was to make sure that the innocent people at RBN didn’t have to pay the price of John’s careless mistakes. John said he likes healthy competition, but he and Mike Jones were working feverishly to get Alex Jones off all the local low power FMs; and he always hoped to bring down GCN by going after their advertisers.

By the end of last week there were only two people at RBN who knew about the WTPRN site and about its true future purpose. Those individuals were specifically asked by me never to talk to any existing RBN advertisers or hosts, and to continue doing the jobs they were being paid to do. Sales were still being made, guests were still being booked, websites still updated, it was business as usual, except for that nagging feeling “what’s going to happen next?” No conspiracy here, just a safety net for the hard work we have all done trying to save our Constitutional Republic.

Friday Jan. 26, 2007, Wes calls Chris Hanson at home, and informs him that he’s not coming in because he feels it’s a hostile environment. He also informs Chris that he is not obligated to give RBN his intellectual property (Automated archives scripts) he wrote as an independent contractor. He also tells them, they need to pay him for these services if they want to continue to use his scripts. Chris is trembling with anger when he comes back to RBN to report this info to John and Sandra. Wes also requested that they give his payment (for the previous week’s service) to me, although none of this was prearranged with me, they declined to give me his payment.

Sat. evening Jan. 27, 2007, I log on to my computer after getting a call from John, and I see the statement posted by Wes on the RBN site. I was not informed by Wes he was going to do this, but John claimed on last Monday’s spin piece that this too was all orchestrated; more lies. John told me on Saturday night that he had already called the Round Rock Police and that he was probably going to call the FBI.

Not knowing what pushed Wes to take control of the website, I called him and he told me that he had been informed by another RBN insider, that Mike Jones of RFA had learned of Wes’s new address, and that Mike and John were overheard talking about calling the police on Wes’s warrants if he didn’t cooperate with the transition. Wes felt very threatened at that moment, given John’s history of irrational behavior. Morally, I was compelled to tell Wes what John had just said to me on the phone, because Wes has a wife and 3 small children.

After working closely with John for 2 ½ years I’ve seen a lot of disturbing behavior, and many past employees, ex-hosts and local supporters have also been subjected to his erratic behavior. Many of our listeners and supporters would email John with suggestions and minor criticisms, and he would email them back and basically tell them to go screw themselves. I guess I have been too consumed with the website in the morning, then coming in and booking guests and producing new programming, to deal with his lack of respect of the very people who made RBN successful.

I have read the theories on the internet about Wes starting “We the People Radio Network” to bring down RBN - this is not true. The real truth is John Stadtmiller struck the fatal blow to RBN by airing his bullshit hit piece on Alex Jones, trying to intimidate him. Now he’s blaming everyone else for his own stupidity. John forced Wes’s hand by his “I know where you live” threat. John did call the Police and told me he was going to call the FBI on Saturday night. What kind of patriot would do this? The incidents are so numerous it would take up way to much time to cover and I only wish to get all this crap behind us all.

I understand that many of you are upset with what happened to RBN, and I respect your concerns; we are all fighting the same battles for truth. Being the person who brought you most of the better programs at RBN, and Wes being the person who brought the technical innovation and invented the automated free archives, this situation is very difficult for us too. While I am proud for being involved in creating the best elements of RBN, it was not done for personal glory, and sometimes in life you have to stand up and do what’s right and walk away from a bad situation. I want to look forward now and continue the development of “We the People Radio Network” to bring you important programming, including important voices who have been kept off the air at RBN. I want to also be a vehicle to support Ron Paul for President. There’s much work to do and it’s time to put this behind us, if you want to support the honest efforts of WTPRN, you can temporarily contact me at zerosum50@yahoo.com. If you’re still a John Stadtmiller sycophant, I can only suggest you go over to RBN, as there are many job openings now and you can experience it all first hand.

Danny Romero

(Updated: 01/31/2007 11:15:00)

I, Wes Perkins, received a call from Sandra from RBN a few minutes ago. She left a voice mail and requested copies of the credit card information for the subscribers of the RBN listen line. The listen line was a service that I offered on my own infrastructure which allowed people to call into a phone number and listen to RBN by phone. RBN and I split the revenue from this service and charges were charged on RBN's CSIN credit card account. We had less than ten subscribers total. Sandra said that if she doesn't receive these by the end of the day that she will consider this theft and she will file additional charges.

Since I have concluded my relationship with RBN, I am no longer offering this service. I have also destroyed the requested subscriber list including all related credit card information.

Threatening people with false theft charges if they do not comply with their requests is a terroristic threat and unlawful. This continues the blackmail, threats and abuse that I received in attempting to leave RBN last week.

This is the first and only voicemail I have received from RBN since services were terminated.

(Updated: 01/30/2007 09:00:00)

I, Wes Perkins, now have additional witnesses who have stepped forward to confirm, and now I am willing to go public with the fact, that Mike Jones, my former landlord, is the man who tracked down where I moved to and passed that information to John Stadtmiller. (See below for more details.) Also, on John Stadtmiller's Monday, January 29, 2007 broadcast, John said something that jogged my memory. On Friday, January 12, 2007, John Stadtmiller, in the presence of two witnesses in front of the RBN offices in Round Rock, TX, told me that I don't need to worry about my personal safety while at RBN. "If I wanted to get you, I would not use a gun, I would only need to tell the police where to find you," said Stadtmiller. He admitted this on his Monday program. Stadtmiller also confirmed on his Monday broadcast that he did indeed bring a gun into a staff meeting, did indeed kick his wife's dog because the dog urinated on the carpet and has kicked trash cans and slammed doors. He continued by confirming that I was concerned for my personal safety and that I wanted to conclude our relationship by phone rather than in person.

On Jack Blood's Monday broadcast, January 29, 2007, Jack confirmed the deplorable work environment at RBN with the Stadtmiller tantrums. Jack saw it early on that John was holding RBN back and left to continue his broadcast career with GCN. The Monday following Jack's departure from RBN, Stadtmiller's Monday February 21, 2005 broadcast, John used the entire first hour of his show to trash Jack Blood's character. This is the way John treats people who leave his organization under "good" terms, especially if they leave to join the "enemy" camp. I was producing John's show that day - it was the most embarrassing and vile hour of broadcast that I had ever had to sit through.

Jack Blood did not respond on air to that devastating and vicious attack. He took the high road and for that I will always admire him.

(Updated: 01/29/2007 15:00:00)

I, Wes Perkins, own the domain names rbnlive.com and rbnlive.net. It is my right to post an affidavit on my own domains. After the threats and harassment that I've received and continue to receive, I've posted the truth on my website and terminated all services provided through the infrastructure that I own, due to non-payment for services being withheld as of last Friday. If Stadtmiller is filing any reports with any agencies or authorities claiming to own rbnlive.com and rbnlive.net, they are false reports and punishable under criminal and civil procedures.

(Updated: 01/28/2007 13:29:15)

I, Wes Perkins, am issuing this public affidavit as a warning to the public and as a protection to myself and my family from an individual who rules by intimidation, threats and fear.

"Don't listen to those crazy people, there's no danger to you here" retorts John and Sandra Stadtmiller as they try to explain away an incident in the summer of 2006 where John brings a gun into a staff meeting. Four eyewitnesses at the meeting verified that John brought a gun into a staff meeting after a short break, and set the gun down on the table, giving it a slight spin as he put it down. "I was startled to see the gun, and didn't know his intentions" states one of the eye witnesses. John and Sandra even blame the publicity of this event on, and continue to harass, a former employee who quit shortly after the incident, even though that employee wasn't even present in the room when this happened. That employee was recently told, "you better lay low". On a second occasion another eyewitness to a separate incident observed John showing off his handgun, and he accidentally dropped it. "That's how people get shot", said the witness.

Months earlier I was at a Denny's restaurant and two separate people who've had dealings with Stadtmiller mentioned about how Stadtmiller out of the blue had pointed firearms at them telling them that they had better do as he says. Those two people are Alex Jones and Keith Perry. Alex was telling his gun story while eating his eggs when Keith interjected that John had done the same thing to him.

Alex's story, which he recounted on Jack Blood's radio show on January 11, 2007; "I was at this guy's house (Stadtmiller's), and I'm sitting there doing a radio show with him, and all of a sudden I look up and he's pointing a Walter PPK handgun at me, and he has this maniacal look of pleasure, and I jumped up and said 'you'd better put that down - you've got a problem and I'm not going to be around you anymore'. And so I just went away."

Alex has also told me about John admitting to having a hand in getting Mark Koernke thrown into prison, as well as being involved in the breakup of the Michigan Militia. On two separate occasions while Alex was co-hosting the Saturday show with Stadtmiller, John told Alex not to defend Koernke - "because he's bad. He messed with me and you saw what happened to him. I'm glad he's in prison." Alex Jones had heard this from credible people in Michigan, but had never believed it until hearing it directly from Stadtmiller.

Alex told me about a situation at a gun show where John and Sandra tried to get Alex to do a straw man gun purchase for John *(clarification - John told Alex that he had a record and couldn't buy a gun, so he needed Alex to purchase one for him), which Alex refused because it was against the law and the whole thing had a sting feel to it - there was a BATF guy drifting within a few feet from Alex when John asked Alex to purchase the gun for him. When Alex refused, John turned red with anger, and then suddenly became calm, whipped out his driver license, then bought the same handgun that John later pointed at Jones. Stadtmiller begged Alex to go to the gun show with him, and the whole thing had a feeling of a setup. It felt like a setup because John said he couldn't buy a gun and then bought one minutes later with total confidence. In classic BATF stings that have been run at the Saxet Gun and Knife Show in the past, the BATF poses as someone who cannot buy a gun and then tries to get someone to buy one for them. There have been thousands of these cases across the country. These activities represent the majority of BATF stings. So Alex says that John may have been just trying to get him to buy the gun in his name for some other reason, which is bad enough, but it does mirror thousands of federal stings. So you decide. John had just had a highly publicized gun arrest the year before, so this would also fit the classic pattern of how someone is inducted into snitchdom. Attempting to buy a gun for someone who is a felon or who is posing as a felon or anyone who is barred from owning firearms under the 1968 gun control act, is a serious federal crime and you could spend up to ten years in prison for one offense. This would have been the end of Alex Jones - just like Mark Koernke.

Just this past week Alex Jones told me how Stadtmiller called him on his cell phone after 1 am, sounding drunk or drugged, and Stadtmiller told him "when I pointed that gun at you, you were little and scared". Stadtmiller also said that he would like to beat Alex's wife.

Back to my situation.

I'm finally getting fed up with everything that I'm witnessing at RBN and want to put some distance between them and myself. Stadtmiller wants me to "turn over all of my technology and property" that manages the RBN archives. I'm telling them that they need to replace it with their own technology, so that they fully understand and can manage it properly. My technology is intellectual property and would take too much time to train others to manage.

Also, another thing I did was move out of a house that I was renting from someone who I learned through eyewitnesses was passing personal information about me to John.

Threatening to snitch out a patriot:

Now, I have a couple of outstanding warrants due to my protesting the National ID card a few years ago, and getting thrown into jail. I was charged with failure to show ID, then with a stacked charge on top of that of Interference with Public Duty. The underlying charge of failure to ID was dismissed, but the stacked charge was never dismissed even though it no longer had the underlying charge to support it. After many court appearances, and after realizing how the courts were nothing but a railroad job, I finally missed a court date and hence the warrants.

This week I have confirmation from a couple of RBN staffers who have overheard John and my former landlord discussing how they know where I moved to and will call the police on my warrants if I don't cooperate. Others warned me that John Stadtmiller was a snitch - now I have confirmation of the fact.

I'm not going to live in terror; it's time that someone stands up to the bully and his henchmen.

I'm through dealing with this evil man, John Stadtmiller. I'm also through dealing with his right-hand man, whom I also once believed to be an upstanding patriot. I'm ashamed to have ever gotten involved with these evil creatures, and am sorry for helping Stadtmiller succeed to the extent where he has caused this community so much pain and suffering.

Please distribute this story far and wide so that it may always be accessible to future would-be associates and/or supporters of John Stadtmiller, and may they right now be warned. Run...run away really fast!

A little more personal history:

I woke up to the new world order corruption in our society in 2000 listening to local patriot radio. In January 2004, talk show host John Stadtmiller was kicked off of the Genesis Communications Network.

Days later, I offered to help get Stadtmiller back on the air on shortwave and some local patriot radio outlets. Over the following months we produced Stadtmiller's daily two-hour radio show out of his home using a temporary makeshift studio, and during this time Stadtmiller setup his new radio network RBN (the Republic Broadcasting Network).

I brought a fair amount of my own computer equipment into the mix to assist in setting up RBN quickly - at no charge to RBN. To date I have not been compensated for the hardware that still resides at RBN. The equipment amounted to between $2,000 and $4,000 in value at the time of install. I had let Stadtmiller know from the start that I am a contractor and I own my own materials. All of my equipment at RBN has my labels on it, and now the locks have reportedly been changed to prevent me from having access to my equipment.

After the launch of RBN in June of 2004, I wrote the software to automate and manage RBN's archives and streaming, which has brought RBN to the forefront of the patriot movement as the only network with such a complete and high-quality streaming and archiving system. To date I have continued to provide this service to RBN. My system has allowed RBN to provide an incredible archive of information for a relatively low cost - only a small fraction of RBN's shortwave budget.

I have also been contracted to do board-op duties producing live radio shows on the network from the beginning. This gave me an up-close, insider look at the personalities behind the microphones at RBN. My alias for on-air purposes was "Producer Paul Martin". As producer I screened thousands of calls and produced thousands of hours of shows on RBN.

During my tenure at RBN I have witnessed dozens of temper tantrums by John Stadtmiller, including, but not limited to: shouting and hanging up on people from listeners to vendors to fellow broadcasters, kicking trash cans across the office, slamming doors, racing away on his Harley motorcycle and kicking his wife's dog in the throat. I have noticed that from day one producing his show he often spoke in a derogatory manner on his radio show about GCN (Genesis Communications Network), some of GCN's advertisers and sponsors and many of GCN's talk show hosts. I have personally witnessed this hundreds of times, and have always felt it was in poor taste, was divisive and had no place on the air. On a couple of occasions he even said on air that GCN was going under. I have also witnessed many occasions where the local patriot outlets would make programming decisions that were not always favorable to RBN, and Stadtmiller would erupt into a fit of rage against them, sometimes taking his complaints to the airwaves - insulting the management of those outlets on the air. I've always felt this was short-sided of Stadtmiller, as the local patriot outlets would air RBN's programming, including RBN's commercials, which directly benefited RBN, with no compensation whatsoever being made to the local outlets - they are not-for-profit and are only interested in waking up as many folks as possible to the truths of the dire condition of the nation.

I've come to realize that Stadtmiller is an expert wordsmith. He speaks on his radio show in such a way that folks who don't know him too well will think that he is the father of the patriot movement and that he controls and has founded all of the various radio outlets where his show is heard. He has often done entire shows where he would criticize listeners for not doing enough, usually at times where the finances were tight. I've also witnessed folks coming into the office to donate and would either thank Stadtmiller for airing Alex Jones or thank Stadtmiller for the local patriot outlets, neither of which are associated with Stadtmiller. He would nonetheless accept the money without any correction or clarification whatsoever that those outlets or talk show hosts are not affiliated with his network. I also personally know of folks who have loaned tens of thousands of dollars to RBN and have not been paid back. Stadtmiller for the first couple of years of RBN's existence often wordsmithed on the air about how he founded the GCN network. When finally confronted about this publicly by Alex Jones and by GCN owner Ted Anderson, John modified his language to say that he founded the network that later became GCN. This is still not quite correct, from the multiple sources that I have heard from who have first-hand knowledge of the facts.

There was a disturbing situation involving talk show host Chris Gerner regarding donations. Chris had found a large money donor who was willing to donate $15,000 to RBN solely because Chris was on the network covering Agenda-21 issues. The donor was willing to continue with donations given that Chris remain on the network doing what he always does. At the time the money came in, money was otherwise tight and RBN applied the money to various back bills, but still insisted that Chris personally pay for his own shortwave, disregarding that the donor specifically donated due to Chris. I witnessed similar trends on multiple occasions regarding the shortwave bills. It seemed Stadtmiller would entice new hosts to join without a written contract or specific details being ironed out regarding who would pay for shortwave time. Then if a host became boring to Stadtmiller, he would start billing the host for his shortwave time. If the host otherwise remained a "benefit" to the network, RBN would cover the cost without argument. Chris Gerner ultimately lost interest in doing the show and eventually quit over this issue.

The money-related issues mentioned above may not be so alarming in and of themselves, however, there is no accountability at RBN. RBN operates like a commercial entity in that it airs a full complement of commercials, but also operates as a non-profit and accepts donations. There is no board to oversee the operations, and in my opinion there is way too much overhead there. During startup he turned down a lot of money where folks wanted some sort of oversight over how their money would be managed, and only accepted money with relatively no strings attached. I've witnessed Stadtmiller spending money impulsively on a number of occasions.

In mid-2006 Stadtmiller brought in a fellow to assist in looking at the internal operations at RBN to attempt to flush out the problems and vision-build. During the numerous meetings I had suggested that we need a board of directors to buffer Stadtmiller's impulsive decision-making and provide some accounting oversight over the financial operations. Every time the subject came up Stadtmiller got very fidgety and irritable. The board never materialized and RBN continues to be managed in an impulsive manner.

Stadtmiller, on his Wednesday show, January 10, 2007, came out with a vicious attack piece of lies about Alex Jones. Although he never named Jones, he played Jones' bumper music underneath his rant and used a number of linking phrases that no patriot with any length in the movement would mistake as referring to any other than Alex Jones. John indicated that he had hired a private investigator for the previous 60 days to look into an egomaniacal talk show host, and he even knew who your favorite talk show hosts' drug dealer is. Alex has stated that this is a complete lie and challenges Stadtmiller to produce his proof. While John refers to drug use by Alex, it is actually John who is witnessed doing drugs by talk show host Jack Blood, as stated on Blood's January 11, 2007 show. Incidentally, John also refers to me several times in the hit piece, as the non-loyal staffer.

Mr. John Stadtmiller, I am loyal to the movement. Many in this movement know this, because they know my work and me. I assist many entities technically in their endeavors to wake people up and spread the truth of what's going on in our nation. I'm only loyal to you to the extent that you do good work - beyond that - I have no use for you. With this last hit piece you may have just put your foot in your mouth so deep that it will take the Jaws of Life to extract. You have had many good and talented employees, contractors and talk show hosts come and go through RBN - many of whom were chased away by your pompous, arrogant and demeaning personality. You have reversed the hard work of many good and well-meaning people over the past few years that I have witnessed.

As I've alluded to earlier, I've literally built Stadtmiller's network. I own the domain names rbnlive.com and rbnlive.net, and I want nothing further to do with a spider's web that is meant to catch well-meaning patriots like flies. As of Friday I requested to be paid by proxy through a trusted co-worker and they refused to hand him my payment. Effective today, Saturday, January 27, 2007, I am disconnecting all of my equipment and services that I own and provide to RBN. I am disconnecting all services that I provide through my equipment that is being held hostage, and I am removing myself from this monster's sphere of influence. I am simply severing all my connections to RBN - as a free man it is my right to not provide services to a user who has terrorized my family and others in the community.

John Stadtmiller I am finished dealing with you - so have a better life, but may God's judgment deal with you accordingly for your wrongdoings.

Lord, help us all, and heal our land and this movement.

Wes Perkins