-Caveat Lector-
From: TenebrousT
Subject: [CTRL] 300,000$ reward, bunk. . .
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:16:13 -0700
<http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg26403.html>
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Here is a list of topics from http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
<snip>
No offense Teo, but Dan Evans is a statist imp, and a
wanna be shyster -- as anyone who ever subscribed to
misc.taxes well knows -- it's saddening to see you post
his swill on CTRL.
His Tax Protester FAQ is deceptive in that the
constitutional issues the FAQ seems to debunk, are
*not* decided in tax court on constitutional grounds.
Indeed many of the 'debunked' arguments are
constitutionally correct, the problem is that (as far
as tax court goes) constitutional arguments with
regards to income tax are utterly irrelevant. That's
why federal judges presiding over income tax cases
often blurt out something along the lines of, "The
constitution does not apply in my court!"
Income Tax cases are decided on "Invisible Contracts",
thus constitutional arguments based on tort are losing
arguments, not because they are legally incorrect on
constitutional grounds, but because whenever contract
law applies, tort arguments are automatically
overruled.
I've read enough of Dan Evans' usenet posts over the
years to understand that he *knows* this, and instead
of "letting the cat out of the bag", and exposing the
true nature of why these constitutional arguments are
losing arguments (because of "Invisible Contracts"), he
deceptively pretends that these constitutional
arguments lost on *constitutional* grounds, which is
not the case.
In short, the information in the "300,000$ reward"
posted by Bob Stokes is *not* bunk, at least with
regards to tort and constitutional law, although it is
bunk when "Invisible Contracts" are factored into those
cases brought forward in tax court -- cases that Dan
has *deceptively* based his FAQ on. When these
"Invisible Contracts" are not present, the IRS never
goes to court with Protestors because their tort/
constitutional arguments (that Dan Evans styles as
'bunk') would be legally potent, and the IRS knows it
would be a losing case.
There are numerous Americans that have legally not paid
income taxes in 15-20 years -- individuals whom the IRS
would *never* bring into tax court because they are not
bound by the "Invisible Contracts" which the IRS
actually bases it's income tax cases on -- individuals
such as Frog Farmer <http://www.frogfarm.org/>, for
example.
The following was recently posted to CTRL, but does
such a good job of explaining what is really going on
with these losing constitutional arguments (and
debunking that non sequitur fallacies Dan's Tax
Protester FAQ is based on) that it's worth re-posting:
philately
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
"The Armen Condo Letter"
-- background --
In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage
Protection Agency ("YHPA") was being prosecuted by the
Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes,
as well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.
The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the
largest organized tax protester group to ever have
existed in the United States (with respectful deference
to our Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung
"tax protester" patriots living and laying their lives
on the line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its
heyday in the 1970s/1980s, the YHPA's dues-paying
membership reached well into the 20,000 to 30,000
range, before it was ultimately brought into a state of
non-existence through the intervention of strongly
persuasive federal influences.
The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and
continued on in their efforts for several years, with
their primary focus based upon the illegitimacy of
Federal Reserve Notes, contending thereon that receipt
of said Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute
"income," therefore, no one receiving said notes was
liable under federal income tax statutes. Although
additional proprietary "tax protester" positions were
routinely addressed, the YHPA's primary focus remained
centered around Federal Reserve Notes.
Curiously, as a side note, individuals choosing to join
the YHPA (usually in the context of a dinner/seminar
setting), were guided through a "joining process" at
the conclusion of the seminar, where dual ID photos
were taken (the YHPA kept one photo, and you received
the other, using a dual-photo camera similar to the
dual-photo cameras used at your local Department of
Motor Vehicles or local passport photo vendor) and
slick, professional looking "ID cards" were processed
on the spot and given to each new member at that time.
In hindsight, the stated reasons given at these
dinner/seminars with respect to the "necessity" of
having/creating a photo ID card were rather specious at
best, and in fact, there was some additional hindsight
talk that perhaps the YHPA was a Federal "Tax
Protester" Sting Operation all along, designed to
attract and then identify. [For example, in the
U.S.S.R., the KGB is known to have secretly "created"
(sponsored is more like it) -- various protester groups
for the sole purpose of throwing out some attractive
philosophy designed to attract a certain type of
individual, and then having "extracted" those
individuals from society, and having thus identified
them -- then shutting down the organization and
arresting the members. This practice is a utilization
of the principle known as the "Doctrine of False
Opposition."]
After all, it is rather suspicious, if not ironic, that
an organization purporting to be highly critical of
"government," and taking a relatively "radical"
approach to same (non-filing tax protesters "sign up
here..."), and having an orientation favoring the
individual over government in general, would in fact so
closely emulate "Big Brother" tactics such as requiring
a photo ID card for all of its new members, and for
reasons that would not normally hold up to intellectual
scrutiny or inspection except for the fact that within
the context of the actual joining process, those people
were not concerning themselves at the time with such
incongruities, but were instead swept up in the
excitement and impetus of the "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm
Not Going To Take Anymore" sentiment generated at
typical YHPA recruitment seminars.
Against this backdrop, George Mercier wrote a
thoughtful advisory letter to Armen Condo in August of
1984, seeking to correctively alter the course Condo
was then pursuing vis-a-vis his federal case, with the
objective of the letter being oriented towards keeping
Armen Condo out of a federal cage. And with respect to
Armen Condo, the letter was a wash, as Armen Condo was
highly unreceptive to its contents (being in an
unteachable state of mind, and so he rejected it "in
toto"); however, the letter did not stop there with
Armen Condo. In fact, it somehow "exploded" into the
general patriot pipeline/network, and was widely copied
and circulated all across the country. (Although Armen
Condo reacted adversely to the letter, it found a very
receptive and appreciative audience amongst patriots
across the nation).
One such copy of the letter found its way into the
hands of Frank May, who subsequently wrote an
intelligent and thoughtful letter to George Mercier,
seeking an expansion of the enticing data contained in
the Armen Condo Letter. Expansion he wanted --
expansion he got, because George Mercier in turn wrote
a reply letter to Frank May -- a 745-page letter, which
then became a privately published book entitled
"Invisible Contracts - The Frank May Letter" (dated
December 31, 1985).
So, without further commentary, what follows is the
original letter to Armen Condo, the letter which
started it all...
-----------------------------------------
August, 1984
Dear Mr. Condo:
I just received your periodical "YHPA" for March, 1984,
which I had requested from your organization for the
purpose of contemplating subscribing to it.
In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found
that the United States is apparently trying to:
1. Get a restraining order to shut down your operation;
2. Trying to get some incarceration out of you as well.
In trying to get a feel for your sentiments towards the
United States for doing these things to you, I detected
underlying feelings of anxiety and some resentment on
your part. Therefore, what I have to say will only be
of value to you to the extent that you are in a
teachable attitude. I know that I am taking a shot in
the dark by telling you things which follow, but I
think it is important that someone inform you why you
are on the "left side" of the issues and why and how
the United States is on the "right side" of the issues
-- and that the Federal Judge is merely enforcing
private agreements that you continue to maintain in
effect with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
By the time you receive this letter in August, the
Judge may already have taken some action on the
government's petition for a restraining order against
you -- I do not know the present status of that action,
but the information you need to know will be important
to you either way the Judge rules. If the restraining
order has been granted, I can show you how to get it
reversed next January.
Before I identify the private agreement you continue to
maintain with the Secretary of the Treasury (which
agreement places you into a written, equity
relationship with the United States), there is a
fundamental principle underlying American jurisprudence
you must be aware of as background material to
understand what follows. This principle is a hybrid
corollary and consistent extension of the evidentiary
doctrine that specificity in evidence will always
overrule generalities in evidence, even when they are
in direct conflict with each other. For example, the
statement by one witness to a crime that...
"I saw a woman run around the corner, it wasn't a
man..." (and therefore the defendant, who is a man,
isn't the criminal).
that statement would be overruled by this statement
from another witness...
"The person I saw run around the corner had long hair,
a beard, and something like a tatoo on his neck..."
Hence, conflicts in testimony are always resolved by
giving the greater weight to the most specific
statements. This is also the way equity grievances in
contract disputes are settled -- the most specific,
detailed clause governing the disputed circumstance is
construed to be the statement meant to govern the
disputed circumstances -- even though broader, more
general statements can be found in the contract and may
favor the other party.
The principle that applies to your relationship with
the King (the King being the United States -- the
Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of
English Common Law as it was at that time, with only
additional restrainments being placed on the King) is
the principle that private agreements will always
overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thus,
specific agreements governing individual circumstances
will always overrule broad general clauses found in the
Constitution. Or expressed in other words, it is
irrational to allow someone to enter into a private
agreement with someone, and then allow him to take a
clause out of the Constitution -- off point and out of
context -- and allow him to take that clause and use it
to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the
agreement, all while retaining the financial gain the
agreement gave him in the first place. This is
irrational, and judges won't allow it.
For example, let's say that I hired you to come work
for me as a computer design engineer for my computer
company. When you started work for me you signed an
agreement agreeing that all company information that
you were exposed to while employed here, and all
knowledge you acquired regarding impending new products
and technologies being worked on here -- you had agreed
not to disclose, release or disseminate any such
confidential information to any other person for a five
year period after you left my employ for any reason. So
let's say that you have now left my company, and you
start publishing and disseminating information you
learned while here to my competitors. Your excuse for
violating the agreement you signed earlier with me is
that...
"Well, the First Amendment says I got freedom of speech
and press..."
So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a
restraining order. Question: Does the First Amendment
apply? The answer is no, it doesn't. Restraining order
granted. Reason: Private agreements overrule the Bill
of Rights. In other words, one does not get to use the
Bill of Rights to weasel out of private agreements,
while retaining the gain that the agreement gave him in
the first place. In the back of the judge's mind is the
following logic:
"Well, Mr. Condo... you entered into an agreement with
Mr. Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which
you experienced financial gain or profit. Now that you
don't feel like honoring the agreement any longer, you
want to take a clause out of the Bill of Rights to work
your way out of your agreement with Mr. Mercier, all
while keeping the money he gave you under the agreement
by working for him. This is irrational. Restraining
order will have to be granted."
Another example is this: Say that you are a convict
sitting in a prison. The warden calls you upstairs and
offers to let you go free if you sign an agreement.
That agreement calls for parole checking, warrantless
entry of your residence at any time, and you agree not
to carry any guns. You sign the agreement and clear out
of prison. A month later your car is stopped for
speeding and a gun is seen half covered in the back
seat. The officer charges you with possession of a
concealed weapon. You argue Second Amendment rights
during pretrial motions. The trial judge ignores your
motions and sets a trial date. Question: Is the judge a
fifth column commie pinko? No, he isn't; he is merely
enforcing private agreements. Here you signed an
agreement and you experienced a gain (premature
freedom). Now you want to take the Second Amendment,
and use that to weasel and twist your way out of an
agreement, all while retaining the gain (freedom) that
the agreement gave you. This is irrational, and judges
will not allow it, properly so.
You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges
will tell defendants and counsel in Section 7203 --
Willful Failure To File criminal trials that...
"...the Constitution does not apply here."
That statement shocks most people up a wall -- but it
is an accurate and correct statement. The Judge will
never tell you why, though. Of all of the different
Judges that I know who have blurted out that statement,
none of the criminal defendants have ever pressed the
Judge for an explanation as to why the Constitution
does not apply. The reason why the Constitution does
not apply is because the Judge is merely enforcing
private agreements the defendant signed with the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Judge is not a fifth
column commie pinko. The agreement the Judge has in
front of him is not the defendant's 1040 or the
defendant's W-2/4; those are merely declarations of
facts and no profit or gain is experienced by them. The
real reason is as follows:
When new Federal Judges are hired (nominated by the
President and later confirmed by the Senate) after
hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- after
they go through that hiring procedure in Washington --
they are taken back to Washington and are taken into
private seminars that are sponsored by the United
States Department of Justice. It is in these seminars
that new Federal Judges are taught and trained "how to"
manage their criminal proceedings so as to avoid
reversible error, i.e., absence of counsel and trial
procedure, etc. They are taught and trained what the
Supreme Court of the United States wants for perfecting
due process. They are given Supreme Court cases to
study -- and sitting next to that new Judge in these
seminars is their Appeals Court Justice (who will be
auditing appeals coming out of their trial court),
confirming that the information being taught and
presented by Justice Department lawyers is true and
correct and that "Things will be done this way."
They are given a "Bench Book" to take with them, giving
the new Judge guidance on handling problems as they
arise on the bench. Finally, the interesting part
comes: They are taught how to manage "Tax Protester"
trials -- violations of Title 26. Federal Judges have
been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in
a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275
that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress.
In other words, the interstate system of banks is the
private property of the King. This means that any
profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and
loan/employee credit union -- any regulated financial
institution carries with it -- as an operation of law
-- the identical same full force and effect as if the
King himself created the gain. So as an operation of
law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a
credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking,
savings, CD's, charge cards, car loans, real estate
mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain
created by the King -- so says the Supreme Court.
At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts
(because you accept checks as payment for books and
subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY
RELATIONSHIP with the King.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter:
"Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing
agreements."
Or in other words, Judges don't like the idea of being
thought upon as being mean gestapo agents -- doing the
dirty work for the King. They consider themselves as
being struck between a rock and a hard spot -- being
asked to enforce agreements and without being given any
valid reason as to why you should be let out of it --
other than you just don't feel like being incarcerated.
So what happens during these Willful Failure to File
trials is that:
1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the
local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and
obtains copies of the protester's signature card and
financial transactions statements from the bank.
2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to
sign the Summons, the Judge has been presented with
your bank account information. So now during the
prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on
the bench with your agreement with the King in front of
him while the tax protester argues:
"Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."
"Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."
Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to
experience frustration and blurt out "the Constitution
does not apply here!"?
Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally
related arguments and denying all motions.
If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager
to show you your signature card again, in small print
you will see the words:
"The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the
Rules of this Bank."
Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If
you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to
abide by all of the administrative rulings of the
Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.
What is really happening in these Willful Failure to
File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the
penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have
agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it
make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the
Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by
Congress -- in whole or in part -- in order to make it
enforceable.
As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that
the King creates a "juristic personality" at the time
you open your bank account. And it is that juristic
personality (its income and assets) that the King's
Agents are "excising" back to the King. But in any
event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by
contract or use of the King's property. The Congress
does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers
to raise revenue.
That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland
way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the
procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law
-- not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.
(I have some reservations on the modus operandi of
Federal Judges to the extent that the Supreme Court
mentions over and over again that:
"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice."
[Offutt vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11] and that when a man is
thoroughly convinced that he is on the right side of an
issue -- a man like Irwin Schiff -- that justice has
not satisfied the appearance of justice unless the
criminal defendant is aware that he did wrong. And on
these tax protester trials, that requires a sentencing
hearing lecture by the judge to the defendant on why
and where the defendant did err. So I disagree with the
modus operandi of Federal Judges to this extent).
I am not going to spend any more time on this subject
just right now -- other than you should be cognizant by
this point in the letter that you are on the left side
of the issue -- and that the King's Agents are not
working a great evil by going around the countryside
asking people to stop defiling themselves by
dishonoring their own agreements with the King.
So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16th Amendment
were somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am -- it
would not change a single thing (other than the IRS
would have to start giving people a correct
presentation of the law to justify the taxes). The IRS
and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue
on as usual.
As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the
King's Agents are trying to get against you and your
alter ego, please get a copy of the Complaint filed by
U.S. Attorney Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984
-- and turn to page 9. Examine the last five words in
paragraph "b":
"...under the Court's equity powers."
This petition by the United States for a restraining
order against you is legitimate to the extent that you
are in written contractual equity with the King.
When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on
your bank card, you will find that you agreed to be
bound by Title 26, and under Section 7202 you agreed
not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. And the
concept that Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable
instruments of commerce -- for any reason -- when the
person has a written agreement with the King saying
that FRN's are taxable -- this concept is in fact
fraudulent.
I would encourage you, Mr. Condo, to prove me wrong.
You can prove me wrong by asking the Judge:
"Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which
creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between
the United States and me."
The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to
disclose what document it is that you executed which
created the attachment of equity jurisdiction. They
have been asked not to let the cat out of the bag. The
IRS handles this "bank account = equity relationship"
on a military style "need-to-know" only type basis. You
can file a Mandamus in the Circuit Court of Appeals or
petition for a Subpoena Duces Tecum returnable against
the U.S. Attorney to compel discovery of what it is
that you signed that created the attachment of equity
jurisdiction the King's Agents are now acting under in
trying to get a restraining order against you. This
type of equity jurisdiction always attaches by written
consent.
If this restraining order has already been granted by
now -- then get rid of your bank accounts and file a
petition for reversal next January -- your arguments
being then that you are not in an equity relationship
with the King anymore. Then the First Amendment would
apply then, but it does not apply to you now since you
are in an equity relationship with the King -- and
private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.
END OF LETTER
see also:
George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts"
<http://claimhelp.com/initiative/march98%20article.htm>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
