Devvy Kidd: Sort of an embarassment Submitted by RussellMeansFan <http://www.dailypaul.com/user/4724> on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 11:18 in
- Daily Paul Liberty Forum<http://www.dailypaul.com/forums/daily-paul-liberty-forum> 0 votes Let me preface my post by saying that I have a lot of respect for Devvy Kidd. She was a steadfast Ron Paul supporter. She has done great work on the Fed, the Income Tax as well as other issues. Let me also say that I am a non-religious but pro-religion libertarian. Devvy's latest article , http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd366.htm, is filled with typical Religious Right nonsense. And I'm not talking about the abortion stuff. I am very sypathetic to the pro-life position from a libertarian perspective. But the anti-gay stuff in the article was way over the top. I understand that Christians have an objection to homosexual acts and that's fine. Although I don't think that the Bible is very harsh against lesbianism as Devvy is purporting. By the way, I don't know anyone who is gay and the issue is completely irrelevant to me. I think that a small percentage of people are born gay while many "act" gay. Of course, everyone has a choice in how they want to behae. I don't think that anyone who supports the right for (adult)individuals to engage in consensual sexual activity is necessarily as supporter of those actions. Ron Paul made this point several times in the campaign but in a more general way. As far as Hillary and Obama being Marxists, I think there is no evidence for it. By calling them such, she makes herself appear to be indistinguishable from the typical fake conservative on talk radio. If the politicials in DC having any ideology at all, it is fascism, not Marxism. And I'm including so called left wingers like Bernie Sanders and so called right wingers like Tom Coburn. Ron Paul stands alone as a supporter of individualism and the free-market. In this article Devvy sounds like a right wing collectivism. I welcome any support or criticism of my opinions. On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Quatlosers Hall of Shame > > *Devvy Kidd* > > These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name > for themselves in their particular business endeavors > > Devvy Kidd > > Keeping with our 100Q collection that commemorates famous and infamous tax > scam artists, we have minted a chip for de-tax dame Devvy Kidd. > > You know, if you start to think that most of these leaders of the "tax > protestor" movement have a screw loose which is rattling around in only > half a brain, you only have to look as far as Devvy Kidd for confirmation. > Devvy buys into about every far-right-wing conspiracy theory, including > that the world is actually illegally controlled by > Freemasons<http://www.devvy.com/read_list.html#fm>. > New World Order, United Nations, buying Chinese products -- if it is a > stupid theory the odds are good that Devvy has bought into it whole hog. > > Of course, not having half a brain doesn't mean that you can't cash in > like the other tax scam artists. For a mere $24.95 you can get the whole > Devvy collection of conspiracy theories and her "proof". But wait! Selling > CDs is small pickin's compared to Devvy's other gig, which is endorsing "El > Dorado Gold Discount <http://www.eldoradogold.net/>" which deals in gold > coins over the internet. > > At one point, Devvy apparently tried to form the "Wallace Institute" > (named after Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart) but was unsuccessful in > getting 501(c)(3) charitable status, so that went by the wayside. > > Devvy's theory regarding taxes is that the 16th Amendment was never > properly ratified. Of course, she didn't do any significant research on her > own but merely refers to ex-felon and fellow Quatlooser Bill > Benson's<http://www.quatlosers.com/bill_benson.htm>"The Law That Never Was". > In January of 2000, Devvy > proclaimed<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21498>that > the Wallace Institute was preparing to file a lawsuit in Oklahoma City > to declare the 16th Amendment illegal. The case of course went nowhere. > Devvy also has put our flyers > <http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/devvyfly.htm>declaring the income tax to be > "voluntary", although the courts have > regularly sanctioned, fined, and convicted those who have raised this > ridiculous argument. > > Devvy has also been > implicated<http://slickmisc.spunge.org/list/200209/msg00016.html>in the "We > the People <http://www.quatlosers.com/bob_schultz.htm>" scam, which has > had its greatest publicity recently with Lynne Meredith's indictment. We > can only hope that Devvy is soon able to spend long hours chatting with her > comrade-in-scam. > > ___________________________ > > *Devvy Kidd 's Claims Exploded* > > Devvy Kidd 's premise is that all federal income tax laws are > unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially > ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time > of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents > mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue. > > The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay > and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without > apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or > enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified > by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. > Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under > Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed > to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth > Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. > Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the > income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth > Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that > time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the > federal income tax. > > *Relevant Case Law: * > > *Miller v. United States*, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per > curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and > unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth > amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and > those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never > Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective > forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The > court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" > position. > > *United States v. Stahl*, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. > denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's > certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has > been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the > Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's > conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement. > > *Knoblauch v. Commissioner*, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. > denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the > Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without > merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the > frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument > has rejected it," the court observed. > > *United States v. Foster*, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 > U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, > failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his > claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. > > See also > *http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification*<http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification> > > Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further exposed as scam artists at > http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html > ------------------------------ > > *Thurston Bell says Devvy Kidd is a Scam Artist* > > from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm > > *Notice of Academic Deficiency* > > 5.12.2001 > > There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the > internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence > of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who > also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the > federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact > SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my > life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the > wishes of the Treasury Department. > > I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for > themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over > the World Wide Web. > > When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty > regarding the issues of lawsuits. > > A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because; > > B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House > of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program. > > C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case > out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which > relief can be granted. > > D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your > argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues. > > So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to > help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and > there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails. > > If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially > supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a > means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail > please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what > results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and > do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem. > > This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. > (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was > doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you > already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek > counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth > your time and effort. > > Thurston P. Bell > Founder > > *PLEASE NOTE:* > > NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The > people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have > already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to > show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is > just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these > people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and > claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous > res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are > networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / > women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first > hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or > CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust: > > > > > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
