Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Is the income Tax a Giant Fraud?

From : Peymon Mottahedeh
Reply-To :
Sent : Wednesday, March 7, 2007 5:33 PM
To :
Subject : 2007 Justice & Freedom Conference March 9-11, Irvine CA


The 2007 Justice and Freedom Conference which is brought to you by Freedom Law School will be held on March 9-11, 2007 in Irvine , California . This conference will have 17 of the most informative, eye-opening and dynamic speakers in America . The major Themes and some of the speakers of this Conference are:

What happened on 9/11 that the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media failed to tell you

Hear from 9/11 Eyewitnesses:

9/11 National Hero William Rodriguez ,, the last man out of the North Tower who in the North Tower saved hundreds of lives, but the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media hid his revealing testimony from YOU, the American people!

April Gallop , the Pentagon eyewitness will tell you what she did and did not see in the Pentagon hole!

Hear from scientists and experts on 9/11:

Physics Professor Steven Jones will share why by the laws of physics; fire could NOT have brought down the Twin Towers !

Producer David vonKleist,, Producer of “In Plane Sight” will share never before released video of inside the Pentagon Hole on 9/11!

Kevin Barrett,, head of the Muslim- Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth will share how various people of faith have gathered in their search of 9/11 truth and justice.

Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe or Jason Bermas,, one of the creators of “Loose Change”, the most widely seen alternative 9/11 documentary exposing the latest on 9/11 that major Media did not show you on 911 will speak.

Webster Tarpley,, the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA which has been described by Amazon's top non-fiction book reviewer, Robert David Steele, as "the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon." Mr. Tarpley will connect the 9/11 dots for you.

Is the income Tax a Giant Fraud?

Ex-IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister,, The IRS Whistle blower who the IRS tried to muzzle, will expose how the IRS is robbing you blind and you did not even know it!

Robert Lawrence, Hear how the IRS dropped the Tax Evasion charges IRS laid against Robert after realizing that Robert may expose the IRS’ wholesale violation of the law and your rights.

Peymon Mottahedeh,, President and Founder of Freedom Law School, will share how YOU can stand up for rights to the IRS bully, live free of IRS thugerry and breathe FREE now and restore the U.S. Constitution at the same time!

What crimes are the CIA and DOD committing with YOUR money in YOUR name?

William Blum,, Former U.S. State Department employee, author of many books on the secret history of the CIA from Second World War till today will share what you were not told by the U.S. Government!

Doug Rokke, Former Department of Defense Employee expert on Depleted Uranium (D.U.), blowing the whistle on widespread use of uranium waste as a weapon of war and its devastating consequences.

We provide volume discounts to allow everyone to attend and is FREE to any one under 21 years of age. For more details and registration information go to Freedom Law School ’s web site at or call Freedom Law School at (760) 868-4271.


If you cannot make it this weekend, you can listen to the conference (with 1 hour delay) at the We The People Radio Network (

This Conference is produced by Freedom law School (760) 868-4271 and is co-sponsored by the American Free press - The Power Hour Radio - Free Enterprise Society – Frank Dorrel – Jeff Rense Radio Show – – Republic broadcasting Network - William Rodriguez , 911 National Hero -Gabriel Day - Muslim- Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

A Purge for Legislatures, by H.L. Mencken

Brian, a supporter from the midwest, wrote:

I’m currently reading (and enjoying) H.L. Mencken’s selected collection of articles in a book called “A Mencken Chrestomathy.” In 1927, he wrote “A Purge for Legislatures.” I was so impressed by its brilliance and common sense that I retyped it here for your consideration. As he indicated that “[m]y plan belongs to any reformers who care to lift it,” I didn’t think there’d be a problem with forwarding it. (I apologize in advance for any typos.)

A Purge for Legislatures, by H.L. Mencken

A mood of constructive criticism being upon me, I propose forthwith that the method of choosing legislators now prevailing in the United States be abandoned and that the method used in choosing juries be substituted. That is to say, I propose that the men who make our laws be chosen by chance and against their will, instead of by fraud and against the will of all the rest of us, as now. But isn’t the jury system itself imperfect? Isn’t it occasionally disgraced by gross abuse and scandal? Then so is the system of justice devised and ordained by the Lord God Himself. Didn’t He assume that the Noachian Deluge would be a lasting lesson to sinful humanity – that it would put an end to all manner of crime and wickedness, and convert mankind into a race of Presbyterians? And wasn’t Noah himself, its chief beneficiary, lying drunk, naked and uproarious with a year after the ark landed on Ararat? All I argue for the jury system, invested by man, is that it is measurably better than the scheme invested by God. It has its failures and its absurdities, its abuses and its corruptions, but taking one day with another it manifestly works. It is not the fault of juries that so many murderers go unwhipped of justice, and it is not the fault of juries that so many honest men are harassed by preposterous laws. The juries find the gunman guilty: it is functionaries higher up, all politicians, who deliver them from the noose, and turn them out to resume their butcheries.

So I propose that our Legislatures be chosen as our juries are now chosen – that the names of all the men eligible in each assembly district be put into a hat (or, if no hat can be found that is large enough, into a bathtub), and that a blind moron, preferably of tender years, be delegated to draw out one. Let the constituted catchpolls then proceed swiftly to the man's house, and take him before he can get away. Let him be brought into court forthwith and put under bond to serve as elected, and if he cannot furnish the bond, let him be kept until the appointed day in the nearest jail.

The advantages that this system would offer are so vast and obvious that I hesitate to venture into the banality of rehearsing them. It would in the first place, save the commonwealth the present excessive cost of elections, and make political campaigns unnecessary. It would in the second place, get rid of all the heart-burnings that now flow out of every contest at the polls, and block the reprisals and charges of fraud that now issue from the heart-burnings. It would, in the third place, fill all the State Legislatures with men of a peculiar and unprecedented cast of mind – men actually convinced that public service is a public burden, and not merely a private snap. And it would, in the fourth and most important place, completely dispose of the present degrading knee-bending and trading in votes, for nine-tenths of the legislators, having got into office unwillingly, would be eager only to finish their duties and go home, and even those who acquired a taste for the life would be unable to increase the probability, even by one chance in a million, of their reelection.

The disadvantages of the plan are very few, and most of them, I believe, yield readily to analysis. Do I hear argument that a miscellaneous gang of tin-roofers, delicatessen dealers and retired bookkeepers, chosen by hazard, would lack the vast knowledge of public affairs needed by makers of laws? Then I can only answer (a) that no such knowledge is actually necessary, and (b) that few, if any, of the existing legislators possess it. The great majority of public problems, indeed, are quite simple, and any man may be trusted to grasp their elements in ten days who may be – and is – trusted to unravel the obfuscations of two gangs of lawyers in the same time. In this department the so-called expertness of so-called experts is largely imaginary. My scheme would have the capital merit of barring them from the game. They would lose their present enormous advantages as a class, and so their class would tend to disappear.

Would that be a disservice to the state? Certainly not. On the contrary, it would be a service of the first magnitude, for the worst curse of democracy, as we suffer under it today, is that it makes public office a monopoly of a palpably inferior and ignoble group of men. They have to abase themselves to get it, and they have to keep on abasing themselves in order to hold it. The fact reflects in their general character, which is obviously low. They are men congenitally capable of cringing and dishonorable acts, else they would not have got into public life at all. There are, of course, exceptions to that rule among them, but how many? What I contend is simply that the number of such exceptions is bound to be smaller in the class of professional job-seekers than it is in any other class, or in the population in general. What I contend, second, is that choosing legislators from that populations, by chance, would reduce immensely the proportion of such slimy men in the halls of legislation, and that the effects would be instantly visible in a great improvement in the justice and reasonableness of the laws.

Are juries ignorant? Then they are still intelligent enough to be entrusted with your life and mine. Are they venal? Then they are still honest enough to take our fortunes into their hands. Such is the fundamental law of the Germanic peoples, and it has worked for nearly a thousand years. I have launched my proposal that it be extended upward and onward, and the mood of constructive criticism passes from me. My plan belongs to any reformers who care to lift it.

USA v Langenour Drops HUGE BOMB on Courtroom Criminals

From : Jimmy Turner
Sent : Wednesday, March 7, 2007 12:46 PM
To : "Fred K. Smart"
CC : Doug Kenline
Subject : Fw: [citizensoftheUSofA] USA v Langenour Drops HUGE BOMB on Courtroom Criminals

Attachment : image001.jpg (< 0.01 MB), USDC-MDC-2-06-cv-00183-GEB-KJM-_76.pdf (0.33 MB), USDC-MDC-2-06-cv-00183-GEB-KJM-_76.doc (0.08 MB)

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Bob Hurt
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:31:53 AM
Subject: [citizensoftheUSofA] USA v Langenour Drops HUGE BOMB on Courtroom Criminals

USA v Langenours, case number 2:06-CV-00183
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Bombshell document number 76, filed on 21 February 2007.

I have just uploaded the important US v. Langenour case documents to , delivered to me from Pacer by my buddy El Lobo (Wuff!). Download the zip file directly from this link:

What makes this case a bombshell?

As you will see when you view documents 70 through 76 of the case, the DOJ attempted to get the Langenours to admit to all kinds of tax obligations. Instead, the Langenours accused the DOJ of a plethora of crimes, and they made many assertions about income tax-related issues.

The DOJ not answer. The DOJ by silence and acquiescence thereby admitted, agreed, and confessed to all the Langenours' assertions.

I performed OCR on the PDF file obtained from Pacer, document 76 in the case, shown below. In it the Langenours serve judicial notice that their unrebutted assertions constitute the established the facts of the case.

Document 76 utterly destroys the credibility of the courts and the IRS. IRS victims might use it in their criminal cases to prove that federal judges and DOJ attorneys accept bribes and commit fraud, extortion, theft, and racketeering against the people and the courts, thereby making it impossible for IRS victims to obtain a fair trail in federal courts. And certainly, the Langenours now have grounds for filing criminal complaints against the IRS agents and the DOJ attorneys in their case, and possibly even the judge.

The facts prove that the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges operate an extortion racket so enormous and diabolical that it probably makes the world's Mafia families green with envy. If the DOJ came after me for tax evasion or willful failure to file, I would obtain a certified copy from the court by calling the Clerk (cost less than $15)

I have attached Document 76 for your immediate review in both PDF and DOC file formats. Clerk contact info:

Welcome to the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Clerk's Office is located on the 4th Floor of the United States Courthouse, 501 "I" Street, Sacramento , 95814 and is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. All documents presented for filing or lodging must be delivered to the Clerk's Office.

If you have any questions, please utilize the links to information provided or contact

Office of the Clerk
Hours : 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Ph: (916) 930 - 4000.

By the way, Richard Cornforth told me about this case. I believe he generaled it.

Truly, sincerely, and without prejudice (UCC 1-308),

Bob Hurt, All Rights Reserved

2460 Persian Drive #70 × Clearwater , Florida 33763 × USA

+1 (727) 669-5511 ×

Please donate to my Law Studies Scholarship Fund:

Join my Law List:

Read the Archives:

Visit my Web Site:

Visit my Blog:

Learn to Litigate: Jurisdictionary®

I am no attorney. I do not practice law or give legal advice.



Wed, 7 Mar 2007

This is an appeal to all Americans in the fight for our freedoms.

If there is someone in this movement that has the capability to facilitate a master list I would appreciate your help!

I personally talked to Bob Schulz today, founder of "We the People", regarding the upcoming "GML Conference" to be held in Washington, DC.

I am requesting, on behalf of our couragious countrymen, THEIR RECOGNITION AS AMERICAN HEROES. Some of these people have gone to jail fighting for our freedoms against a tyrannical government and need to be recognized. They're no different than our Soldiers in the field. They have sacrificed their lives and their family's lives to fight for and speak the truth in defense of our unaleinable rights GRANTED BY GOD and our Constitution!


I will start the list from here but it needs to be added to as it goes. SPREAD THIS ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!

Purple Heart - qualifications, went to jail, especially tax related incarcerations:

Robert B. Graham Sr.(3 years in prison)
Larkin Rose(1 year in prison)
Tessa Rose(15-30 day bogus incarceration)
Dave Baugh(still incarcerated in Missouri)
Irwin Schiff(railroaded by an enemy of the state...a crooked judge)


Medal of Honor - those who have fought or are currently fighting for the
rights of the People:

Richard McDonald
Bob Schulz
Aaron Russo
Dave Champion
Pete Hendrickson
Devy Kidd
Joe Banister
Ron Branson


Silver Star - Those who are willing to stand with their fellow man against tyranny from the Government WE THE PEOPLE CREATED. Probably soon to be Medal of Honor recipients if we allow our Govt. to go unchecked by the People.




Please email to express your wishes in regards to this "A TRIBUTE TO TRUE AMERICANS" at the GML Conference in DC.

If I could play a song for these Heroes at the conference I would play Irving Berlin's original production of "God Bless America" first sung by "Kate Smith"!

Listen to it here and PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN! Every red-blooded American needs to hear this even if it's the first time(they won't hear it in the schools because it's ILLEGAL and WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW THE 3% TO TRUMP US)[1].wav


Jim Palmisano
Missouri State Coordinator
We the People Congress
America: Freedom to Fascism
cell: 417-496-1973(call anytime)
hm: 417-459-4234

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Credentials versus Evidence

From :
Sent : Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:22 PM
To :
Subject : Credentials versus Evidence

(Please pardon the length of this e-mail. Unlike some people, I
have a nasty habit of actually quoting citations to support the
points I make, which tends to lengthen things considerably. Plus,
I'm naturally long-winded.)

Dear Subscriber,

Yet another "expert"
opinion poo-pooing the 861 evidence was recently brought to my
attention. It would be a full-time job to respond to all of them
(the status quo always has a lot of beneficiaries, and therefore
proponents), but the general gist of most of them can be addressed
with one response. The example I'll use this time comes from a
professor of law at the George Washington University Law School (in
DC), so one would think that it would at least be a little more
credible than the remarks of some untrained paper-pusher. Here is
the link to the (attempted) refutation of the 861 evidence:

important first thing to note about the article is that it cites
absolutely nothing from the law. Not one word. Anywhere. As is
often the case, it consists of a string of unsupported assertions.
The closest thing to legal support Mr. Siegel gives is to say that
"the rest of the tax code (especially sections 1, 61 and 63) shows
that U.S. citizens are taxed on their income from all sources,
whether from within or outside the United States." Again, nothing
from the law is quoted.

As many of you know, Section 1 imposes a
tax on one's "taxable income." It says nothing about how to
determine what is and what is not "taxable income." Section 63
generally defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income" minus
deductions. It says nothing about how to determine what is or is
not to be included in "gross income." Section 61 not only says
NOTHING about geographic origin of income, or the type of commerce
which generates the income (which is addressed in great detail in
Subchapter N of the code, beginning with Section 861), but Section
61 itself, for many decades, was followed by a cross-reference
referring the reader to Section 861 regarding "Income from sources
WITHIN the United States," and to Section 862 regarding income from
OUTSIDE of the United States. (If the wording of Section 61 meant
that geographic origin didn't MATTER, why on earth would we be told
to look somewhere else concerning geographic origin?)

I expect
that Mr. Siegel is basing his conclusion upon the wording "all
income from whatever source derived" from Section 61, though he did
not bother to quote even that. But the first thing that should be
addressed is actually a psychological point: WHY did he feel no
need to cite ANYTHING from the law? My guess is that, being a
professor of law, he is accustomed to having his students assume
that he knows what he's talking about. In other words, his
credentials ARE his support, and the only support he thinks he
needs. (Conversely, many people might view my LACK of credentials
as all that is needed to render my "opinion" worthless, despite the
fact that I quote from the law itself constantly, as you'll see

Mr Siegel asserts that 861 and its regs exist, not to
determine whether domestic income is taxable, but merely to
"determine[] whether income is considered to be from a source
within the United States or from a source outside the United
States." While that is ONE thing that those sections do (though he
cites nothing demonstrating that), the implication is clearly that
one should NOT look there to determine whether his domestic income
is TAXABLE. Again, nothing is cited supporting such a claim.

sans credentials myself, I must defer to the statutes and
regulations. Mr. Siegel states that whether one's income is foreign
or domestic "doesn't matter" and that 861 "is irrelevant" for most
U.S. citizens, "because U.S. citizens are taxed on all income from
all sources." However, here is what the official Executive branch
regulations say:

“(c) Determination of taxable income. The
taxpayer’s taxable income from sources WITHIN OR WITHOUT the United
States WILL BE DETERMINED under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 [and
following].” [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]

Of course, to determine what
(if anything) you owe, you must first determine your TAXABLE
income, be it foreign and/or domestic. So how does one DETERMINE
his taxable domestic income? I think the above is pretty darn clear
about that. I believe the following is pretty darn clear as well:

“Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms HOW TO DETERMINE
after gross income from sources within the United States has been
determined. Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how
to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources WITHOUT the
United States after gross income from sources without the United
States has been determined.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8]

Clearly implied in
Mr. Siegel's comments is that you DON'T NEED to go to Section 861
and its regs to determine the "taxable income of a taxpayer from
sources within the United States." The rest of the code, he say
(without quoting anything from it), says that citizens are taxed on
their income regardless of its geographic source. Someone can have
taxable domestic income, taxable foreign income, both, or neither.
(There can't be taxable income that doesn't come from anywhere.)

Consider the following, which is what the first section of
regulations under 861 says, and has said since before I was born
(with minor wording changes). While reading it, keep in mind that
this professor of law says you should NOT be looking to 861 to
determine your taxable domestic income:

Ҥ1.861-1 Income from
sources within the United States
(a) Categories of income. Part I
(section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code,
and the regulations thereunder DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR
PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX. ... The statute provides for the
following three categories of income:
  (1) WITHIN the United
States The gross income from sources within the United States,
consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a)
plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such
sources in accordance with section 863(a). See §§ 1.861-2 to 1.861-
7, inclusive, and § 1.863-1. The TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES, in the case of such income, shall be determined
by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and
863(a), the [allowable deductions]. See §§ 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.

(2) Without [outside of] the United States ...
  (3) Partly within
and partly without the United States ...
(b) Taxable income from
sources within the United States.
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES shall consist of the taxable income
described in paragraph (a)(l) of this section plus the taxable
income allocated or apportioned to such sources, as indicated in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.” [26 CFR § 1.861-1]
In giving his
reason for 861's existence, without (in his words) "going into all
the situations where section 861 matters," Mr. Siegel gives two
examples: 1) a foreigner distinguishing between taxable domestic
income and non-taxable foreign income, and; 2) a citizen entitled
to the foreign tax credit, who must determine domestic versus
foreign to figure out the limit on the credit. Again (sorry to beat
a dead horse), he cites nothing supporting his claim that 861 is
only to be used in such unusual circumstances. Above, you can see
for yourself what the OFFICIAL government regulations say about
what the sections are for. Notice that they give NO indication that
only CERTAIN people should be referring to those sections. Here is
yet another example of an official IRS document summarizing the
purpose of 861 and following. See if you see ANY indication that
most people should ignore the section entirely, as Mr. Siegel

“Rules are prescribed for DETERMINATION OF GROSS INCOME
United States, and for the allocation of income derived partly from
sources within the United States and partly without the United
States or within United States possessions. §§ 1.861-1 through
1.864. (Secs 861-864; ‘54 Code.)” [Treasury Decision 6258]

I just
can't relate to this strange psychological phenomenon wherein
someone with credentials can assert ANYTHING, and somehow people
think it needs responding to. "That section is only for
foreigners/Americans with foreign income/albino wombats named
Edmund." They ASSERT who should look there, and people
automatically give it credibility, though the asserters cite
NOTHING from the law supporting it. They can assert until they're
blue in the face that 861 is for someone other than you, but when
have you ever seen any of them QUOTE anything from the statutes or
regulations which comes close to supporting that claim? Show me ANY
citation which says that 861 is NOT to be used by everyone to
determine their taxable domestic income. You will NEVER see one.
I've done text searches through ALL of the tax statutes and
regulations, reviewing EVERY mention of Section 861. NEVER is there
any indication, or even a subtle hint, that most people should
IGNORE 861 when it comes to determining their taxable domestic
income. Quite the opposite, as you can see above.

So let's review:
we have lots of assertions but ZERO citations saying that we
shouldn't use 861--that's it's not for us--and at least half a
dozen official citations (including those shown above) which say,
unequivocally and unconditionally, that those ARE the sections to
use for "determining taxable income from sources within the United
States." Why are people so reluctant to believe their own eyes, or
to accept what is right in front of them in black and white? Why do
they continue to give weight to the provably-false, utterly
baseless assertions of people, just because those people have
credentials (i.e., pieces of paper that say they SHOULD know what
they're talking about)?

I must admit, my respect for Mr. Siegel
dropped a few notches when his otherwise civil comments ended with
a reference to a completely substance-free attempt by Irwin Schiff
to discredit the 861 evidence. Mr. Siegel mentions Mr. Schiff's
comments, and adds that "When even the tax protestors reject your
tax protestor argument, you know it's got problems." Aside from the
fact that he uses the ever-popular spin
of mischaracterizing the
issue as being about "protesting" a tax (when anyone with basic
reading comprehension can see that it's not), his little dig is
intellectually dishonest, if not borderline schizophrenic. I'm sure
Mr. Siegel's deferring to Mr. Schiff as some sort of authority
would not apply when Mr. Schiff is disagreeing with conventional
wisdom--only when he's disagreeing with me. Furthermore, a
professor of law should certainly be able to recognize that Mr.
Schiff's comments about Section 861 and its regulations--which Mr.
Schiff ADMITS to not understanding--are not a substantive rebuttal
at all, but merely a complaint that I don't argue what Mr. Schiff
wants people to argue (that wages aren't income). What kind of
rebuttal is that?

I've long since lost track of how many supposed
experts have ASSERTED that we shouldn't be looking at 861 at all,
but I know exactly how many actual citations of law I've seen
supporting that claim: ZERO. If you ask me, lots of evidence and no
credentials is more compelling than lots of credentials and no
evidence. (I'm funny that way.) I should add, however, that there
ARE some people who have credentials AND cite evidence. For an
excellent example, put on a pot of coffee, make a sandwich, and dig
into THIS:


(I haven't yet read the entire motion, but I
agree wholeheartedly with the parts I've reviewed so far.)


Larken Rose
Version: Hush 2.5
Note: This signature can be verified at

To subscribe, send a blank message to
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
To change your email address, send a message to
with your old address in the Subject: line
To contact the list owner, send your message to

This message was launched into cyberspace to

Chuck Conces v. The US Government In "The Court of Public Opinion"

The Court of Public Opinion

March 7, 2007
By Bill Price

Litigants are demanding jury trials. People want their evidence to be heard by a jury of their peers. Chuck Conces demanded a jury trial for the civil lawsuit filed against him by the Department of Justice. We know the lawsuit against Conces and its recent result, of him being remanded to custody for a violation of a “court order” is a charade. We shall see how long this will be able to stand. The Hon. Gordon J. Quist issued an order at the request of DOJ attorneys. Their relentless pursuit to coerce answers without any proof, continues. Where is the evidence that Conces ever did what they are claiming in the first place? But, remember the mantra:

“There was no violation, because there was no civil lawsuit. There was no lawsuit because there was no Authorization.”

IRC Sec.7401; AUTHORIZATION: “No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the secretary (of the Treasury) authorizes the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.”

There are many other reasons that Chuck should have been able get the D.O.J’s phony lawsuit dismissed, but we don’t need to go into any of them. The D.O.J. lied by stating that they had the above authority. The evidence for Chuck Conces’s allegation of fraud is contained in DOJ’s silence. “Silence can only be equated with fraud…” U.S v Tweel

Keep repeating the mantra!

“There was no violation, because there was no civil lawsuit. There was no lawsuit because there was no Authorization.”

So, they refuse to give Conces proof of their authorization for filing the civil suit, and they refused to allow him a jury trial, claiming that the damage does not exceed $20. Can you believe that? Why not refuse to allow him to speak? Actually they have. Why else do you think they have him remanded to custody? Chuck’s wife, Mary, told me in a mildly excited manner, that she got Chuck’s legal books out and found that the court cannot use this “remanding” as punishment, but only to obtain information. Watch out Mary, the DOJ may have to remand you next. The nerve of that lady…

There is a dimension related to all this corruption surfacing, and I will take a cue from one of Chuck Conces’s favorite sayings. Within every society are the seeds to its own renewal as well as to its own destruction. Well, my fellow patriots, we are the seeds of renewal. There is a danger in becoming too pessimistic. When we can’t see evidence of progress as often as we think we should, or not at all for too long, it acts as a psychological drain on our state of mind. Fear not, we have something going for us that the adversaries of liberty are extremely afraid of. What’s that? Access to the court of public opinion! Additionally the numbers in its juries are continuing to increase.

More people all the time are deliberating. The trial has already begun. The really disturbing thing for the renegades in officialdom is that the courtroom is beginning to fill up.

The seeds of renewal are undoubtedly maturing faster than those of destruction. The Lawmen for example have only been on the patriot landscape for 8 or 9 years. Richard Cornforth’s group is not much older, and Aaron Russo’s movie premiered less than a year ago. We the People probably has the longest tenure and I don’t know how long JAIL has been around. But, we are all relatively new to America’s social scene. 15 years ago all the groups mentioned above would have considered me part of the problem. All of us finally woke up at some point in time. So, let’s take a breath now.

The big question is when will the court of public opinion finally render its verdict? Judging by the rate of growth we’ve seen over the last year (thank you Aaron Russo), not long. Like most people living today, I was born in the poppy fields of officialdom’s lies. I accepted officialdom’s explanation for our country’s involvement in Vietnam (the gulf of Tonkin). We now know that story is a fairytale; to this day I do not regret having fought to help the South Vietnamese keep free of communism, but upon awakening from the influence of the poppies, (Iike many before me), I realized that communism had found a way to breed itself here in Amerika under a disguise, “Democracy”. Our form of government (a Republic) depends on the Constitution for its operation, but democracy, apart from the constitution, has trumped our republic’s safeguards, enabling, among other things, American foreign policy to operate apart from the limiting features deliberately placed in our Constitution. The Constitution states that we are not allowed to make war without a congressional declaration first, but a “democratic process” has “authorized” a simple vote to “fund continuing resolutions“. To not declare war per Article 1 § 8 before you embark on waging one is a constitutional violation. The cowards in congress found a way to avoid the public’s wrath at the voting booth. The 58,000 dead U.S. servicemen thought they were in a war, and they would beg us if they could speak from their graves to not give up on this Republic and its Constitution. A conflict? Spare me.

I know things are a mess, but they were a mess before 1776 too. We have all the tools we need now to move forward in the court of public opinion. What are the tools, you say? We are! I have cause for real hope. Visit my web site at, download the free 16th Amendment flyer “Withholding a la Manhattan”. It’s only two pages front and back. The flyer is not only attractive, thanks to T. J., my graphic artist friend, it is irrefutable. We still have first Amendment rights and I plan on exercising mine until the walls of Jericho finally come down. We are in a battle for the mind, the outcome will be judged in the very near future by way of verdict through the court of public opinion. We should, in case you have not already, start using the most powerful P.R. tool in our patriot arsenal. Aaron Russo’s: “America Freedom to Fascism”

Freedom to Fascism, an Orwellian Odyssey

“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen – keep your eyes open wide this chance won’t come again – and don’t speak too soon for the wheel is still in spin, and there’s no telling who it will be naming …. for the times they are a changing…” Bob Dylan 1964.

Lately some writers and critics have tried to forewarn the middle class of the coming crisis. Pat Buchanan’s effort to sound the alarm against NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, is a recent example. The media conglomerates have shown time and again just how easily they can manage such forays into the public consciousness. The wheel of fate alluded to in Dylan’s song has come to rest. Names have been named, places revealed, dates are now known and the future then, now occupies its place in history.

George Orwell would have been pleased to see this day in America. Orwell’s novels “Animal Farm” and “1984” predicted a state of totalitarianism in the world. Regrettably, Orwell did not live to see the phenomena you are about to witness. The movie “America, Freedom to Fascism” is an expose’ on the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve Banking/system and finally the facts about an international cartel that has been very busy “arranging” your entire future. It is more powerful than anything you have seen. Ironically, these world planners featured in Aaron Russo’s movie, have something in common with George Orwell, their most notable critic. The cartel’s global plan for the middle class, and the title of Mr. Orwell’s most famous book, could very well share the same name, “Animal Farm”

“Animal Farm” released in 1945 was an ominous warning to the world. There was another ominous release that year, the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. “Freedom to Fascism” was released in 2006 and with it, something even more powerful than the atomic bomb, the truth.

“Gather round people wherever you roam, and admit that the waters around you have grown - so you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, if to you your time is worth saving, for the times they are a changing…”

Is our time worth saving? Spread the word, by using the most powerful weapon known to man, the truth. Watch and share “America, Freedom to Fascism”.

“Keep your eyes open wide this chance won’t come again…for the times they are a changing...”

This introduction was prepared by Bill Price. The producer and director of “America, Freedom to Fascism”, Aaron Russo does not necessarily endorse the views expressed herein. For additional information on the federal income tax, visit

Bill Price

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Larken Rose - The Long Run

From :
Sent : Sunday, March 4, 2007 1:50 PM
To :
Subject : The Long Run

Dear Subscriber,

When combatting a current and ongoing
injustice, it's easy to get impatient. I know I do. Every day that
someone is wrongfully imprisoned, every day that the IRS is
terrorizing someone, ruining someone's life, swiping someone's bank
account, etc., is a day too many. And it was my desperation to end
that, not some day in the distant future, but NOW, which led me to
invite the government to prosecute me. And when I lost--when twelve
(presumably) randomly-selected Americans gave their blessing to the
government's vilification and intimidation tactics--when, with
their verdict, they declared that us peasants have no business
looking at the law, and that it is a mortal sin for us to ever
disbelieve a federal bureaucrat who makes an assertion (however
ignorant the bureaucrat and however bogus the assertion)--it was a
huge letdown for a lot of people. It was an opportunity lost, which
could have been a giant leap towards ending the largest financial
fraud in history. Instead, it was a leap backwards, giving the feds
another trophy for their mantle-piece; another example to point to
and say, "If you don't blindly believe us and do as you're told
(and ignore all those pesky statutes and regulations and stuff),
here's what will happen to you." (And by the way, for those who
have asked, I never expected the government or the courts to follow
the law or provide justice; I did, however, have a shred of hope
that a jury of "normal" folk might be able to see the bleeding
obvious, and do the right thing. Apparently not.)

All things
considered, it's easy (and tempting) to sit around wallowing in
discouragement, depression, frustration, anger, and so on--and I've
done my share of that in the last year. But there's some good news
as well. Let's do a flashback to something that happened 335 years
(and two days) before I was born. There was this dude who was
saying stuff that the authorities of the day couldn't refute, but
really didn't like. And so, as people with power often do, they
decided to use the time-honored "debating" method of using brute
force, locking the guy up and threatening to do nasty things to
him, if he didn't stop contradicting their official doctrine.
Eventually their thuggery paid off, and the dude wrote this (not in
English, though):

"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,
Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this
tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord
Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity
throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes
and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have
always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future
believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction
had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the
effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the
sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is
not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold,
defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the
said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the
said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed
a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and
adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting
any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced
by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to
say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the
world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and

I find it particularly amusing that he "confessed" to
giving "arguments of great cogency" for the earth orbiting the sun,
without giving any compelling contrary arguments (since none
exist). Sounds familiar. Anyway, that Galileo dude went on to
declare "with sincere heart and unfeigned faith" (under threat of
punishment) that he was wrong, that he was really, really sorry,
and he swore that in the future he would never again suggest or
teach that the earth moves, and that it goes around the sun.

tempting to think, based on that example, that not a whole lot has
changed with the way the world works: "authority" declares what
beliefs are acceptable, and terrorizes those who voice contrary
beliefs. (Who needs logic, evidence, and reason, when you have guns
and prisons?) That's not exactly encouraging. But here's something
else to consider: who won? Whose ideas prevailed? What became of
that dude's radical, ridiculous, heretical "theory"?

It became
the universally-accepted, undisputed truth. Despite all of the
threats, vilifications, and punishments dished out by those in
power, the truth won. It sometimes takes a long time (it only took
300 years for that particular authority to apologize to Galileo),
but the truth will ALWAYS outlast a lie in the long run. Why?
Because a lie requires an ongoing, perpetual effort to preserve it.
And once it falls, it's nearly impossible to revive. (Do you think
it will ever again be conventional wisdom that the sun goes around
the earth? Not likely.)

At my trial, the "authorities" didn't
bother to try to refute any of the evidence on which my "belief" is
based. They avoided the substance of the issue entirely, except for
a quick, provably flawed blurb which the prosecutor gave AFTER my
closing argument, knowing I would have no chance to respond.
(Incidentally, it was a blatant violation of the rules of court to
let the prosecutor advise the jury on what the law is, but the
judge let him do it anyway, while making sure I was prohibited from
doing so. As usual, I obeyed the rules, and they didn't.) The
prosecution knew they didn't have to deal with substance or logic.
They could declare "we TOLD him he was wrong," and to most people
(twelve in particular), that's good enough. The powers that be had
declared the accepted doctrine; who was I to doubt it?

But they
can't refute the evidence, and it's not going to go away. They
can't make it disappear, and they can't keep people from being
exposed to it. They can vilify people, slander people, threaten
people, rob people, imprison people--who knows, they may get around
to killing someone for this kind of heresy (Ed Brown comes to
mind). But intimidation and violence can never outlast evidence, or
keep it suppressed forever.

As long as people are being extorted,
vilified, persecuted, etc., I'm going to be impatient to see
justice happen. And I know the same is true of a lot of you. But,
if you need a little pick-me-up amongst the barrage of bad news
these days, here it is: it may not happen soon, but the truth will
always win. When it does, even if it's after I'm dead, I'll be glad
to have been on the right side. There are a lot of people in power
who now gloat, who history will remember as the lawless thugs and
tyrants they are. They cannot hold off the truth forever. As a
(fictional) radical extremist once put it, ideas are bulletproof.


Larken Rose

(P.S. I managed to
lose the contact info for the couple who so graciously had a copy
of "V for Vendetta" sent to me. So I'll thank you in front of 6,000
people instead (right now), and hope you notice this.)
Version: Hush 2.5
Note: This signature can be verified at

To subscribe, send a blank message to
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
To change your email address, send a message to
with your old address in the Subject: line
To contact the list owner, send your message to

To unsubscribe, click on the following web page.

This message was launched into cyberspace to

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Regarding Chuck Conces

From :
Sent : Saturday, March 3, 2007 4:37 PM
To :
Subject : Chuck Concess visit to Tampa postponed

Hello everyone:

As most of you have heard by now Chuck is being held someplace in Michigan by the DOJ. For this reason only, Chuck's scheduled meeting with the Tampa Lawman Group is postponed until further notice. What an interesting meeting it will be when he is finally here!

The charges are contempt of court for not answering questions that he keeps telling the DOJ and Judge Quist he does not know. In the previous email, Bill Price gave us the reasons of this "contempt charge"

I just spoke with Rose Lear and Bill Price and Bill assures us that Chuck was fine when he last saw him, that Chuck was very relaxed and calm, and that he was in no way shocked or upset with the decision of the court. Chuck expected the court to do something like this.

Mary, Chuck's wife is fine. She is not in need of money at the present time. She is still trying to find Chuck's location and she has a lot of help.

Many in Michigan and across the country are working to get him freed, and it looks like Quist is just totally out of control according to Bill.

A blog is being set up to provide all of us information regarding Chucks whereabouts (even his wife currently does not know where they are holding him). As soon as we know we will forward this information to all of you. When we have the information, letters of support, I am sure, will be appreciated.

If you have met Chuck, you know he is standing firm for his beliefs. We can still be proud of his stand for the law and for what is ethically right.

As soon as we get the blog site, we will send out an email to let you know where to look for further information.

Stand firm!


blog site will be combination chuck conces, ed brown, tom cryer, aftf, wtp blog here......

Doug Kenline
Atlanta, Georgia


LawmanAmerica - America's Posse

To: The Lawman

Chuck Conces had a meeting scheduled for Thursday morning at the U.S. Marshal’s office in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The session was ordered by U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist, and was to take place with a couple of U.S. attorneys. All of this was apparently being done under FRCP 26, for discovery. Conces was notified by mail on Monday of that week. I accompanied Chuck along with another friend that also went as a witness. When we arrived the marshals informed us that no witnesses would be allowed in the session. Most of the marshal’s were courteous (just following orders) and one in particular was kind enough to give us an occasional update on Chuck’s status. Don’t lose sight of the fact that many of these ordinary government employees are not too happy with the current state of affairs either.

I would like to point out that the attorney’s for the government have consistently refused to answer Mr. Conces’ questions or provide any documentation regarding their authorities for filing the their civil lawsuit in the first place. Conces has been denied his right to discovery under FRCP 26. Although Conces has several times requested/demanded a copy of the documentation necessary per IRC 7401 and allegedly used to begin the civil lawsuit, he has received nothing. U. S. Attorney Michael Rahm (not sure of the spelling) lied in the government’s complaint against Conces by stating that he had obtained authorization to bring the civil suit. There is no delegation order to commence the government’s lawsuit against Conces. I’ll tell ya folks that’s actually the end of it all right there. Fraud… fraud, and more fraud.

IRC Sec.7401; AUTHORIZATION. “No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the secretary (of the Treasury) authorizes the proceedings and the attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced”

The Supreme Court rulings in: Nudd V. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426. “Fraud destroys the validity of everything in to which it enters.”
U.S. V. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
Miranda, 384 US 436, at 491. “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
The injunction Quist claimed Conces violated is all Fraud. And, now the media is being spoon fed crap about an “injunction”. Give me a break!!

Moving along… After almost six hours of waiting we were told by one of the marshals that Chuck would be coming into the court room one floor below. So we left our post and went to the court. Ten minutes later Chuck was escorted in, handcuffed. They moved him to the front and un-cuffed him. Chuck was very relaxed. He showed no signs of distress. We traded little smiles and all stood while Judge Quist entered the courtroom. The DOJ attorneys moved that the Court incarcerate Chuck, claiming that he was not cooperating with their effort to get answer to their questions. I thought to myself, “Wouldn’t it be nice to say to the DOJ, I’ll trade answers with you, I’ll give you documents if you will give me one first.” The first document I would ask for is the delegation of authority they were supposed to have in order to file their lawsuit. They wanted Chuck to give names of anyone he prepared taxes for. Chuck told them that he does not prepare taxes for people and to the best of his knowledge has not done so during the time period (5 years) they were asking about. They were demanding records, names, addresses and bank account numbers. Chuck told them that he doesn’t have records…doesn’t keep records. Then came help from the bench. Judge Quist, “Mr. Conces you seem to be a gentleman and honorable man sometimes, I’m going to leave the room and I want you to do your best at answering the questions for the government.” When I come back in 15 minutes we’ll have a look at your answers. The judge returned and once again the same questions, same answers. Quist granted the government’s request for incarceration pending answers and they put the cuffs on the Lawman.

Chuck’s wife Mary one of the nicest gals you’ll ever meet was not at the hearing. Chuck didn’t want her to come. Mary was a little flustered but she’s got guts. She started trying to locate her husband after my wife told her about the incarceration. If you have never been to jail, one of the psychological realities for family and friends is the “I don’t know for sure, call back later, we will let you know” games etc. etc.

We finally got some money in Chuck’s account after half a dozen or so phone calls. If you didn’t know, you can’t do anything in jail unless you have money in an account, and I happen to know Chuck took a little money with him, but I presume they take that along with your shoelaces. You must be someone who they consider authorized to set the account up, like next of kin. Mary and I worked it out and know Chuck can afford his first phone call to his wife.

This just in… I just got a call from Chuck’s wife who said that she just received a call from a woman with a heavy Spanish accent; her son called from the prison at Newago, White Cloud MI, and told her that Chuck is in prison with him. The lady was just passing the info on to Mary. If you have ever been in jail you know that there are good people there too.

Finally, don’t worry folks, Chuck will be O.K. This is all about our right to exercise free speech and certain officials are deathly afraid of the truth being spoken too loudly. We will be filing a writ of Habeas Corpus Monday or Tuesday and we’ll take it from there.

Bill Price