Posted on 09/22/2002 7:21:03 AM PDT by 11B3
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I had tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted.
I was involved with a patriot group and I studied supreme Court cases. I concluded that the supreme Court had declared that I was not a person required to file an income tax--that the tax was an excise tax on privileges granted by government. So I quit filing and paying income taxes, it was not long before they came down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a notice of deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it that the biggest temptation was to go in with their letter and say, "Where in the world did you ever get that figure?" They claimed I owed them some $60,000. But even if I had been paying taxes, I never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that much?
(Excerpt) Read more at theawaregroup.com ...
Excellent analogy. I am going to start using it.
Since the actual document was removed from display on July 5th, 2001, I have become more curious about the abuses to it. There is a short explanation on a gov site that says it has been removed for "display area remodeling purposes". hmm
But then, he found out about the yellow fringe on the flag!.
That explained everything.
I think somebody who used these 'techniques' might find himself in the Greybar Hotel.
--Boris
Lewis Carrol in his play "Alice in Wonderland", and George Orwell in his book 1984 make the same point. Words mean what ever the people in power say they mean. Thus in the book 1984 Orwell had a nations useing the word WAR to mean PEACE adn PEACE to mean WAR. Remember Freedom is Slavery And Slavery is Freedom. The question always comes down to who holds the power. Not what words mean to you or me.
In every nation created in the history of this earth the laws mean what ever those who rule say they mean.Thus the words "Congress shall make no LAW" means "Congress shall make YES LAW" if that is what those inpower want it to mean. "YES we shall have no religion" is what they say it means.
It is senseless to argue over what the constitution means. Since 1804 it has meant what ever the Supreme Court Justices said it means. It should not take a real bright person to figure out that if the constitution is to mean what you want it to mean, YOUY MUST get JUDGES appointed who think it means the same thing YOU do.
The left has understood that for 140 years. Most of the right has yet to figure it out.
Think about it in a real case. If the members of the Florida Supreme court has been on the Federal Supreme Court who would be president today? You know the answer. Now tell me which provision in the constituion you used to determine your answer.
People look at the document and exclaim, See it says X. That is not worth anything. If every citizen of the USA says it says X and a majority of the 9 justices on the supreme court said is says Y. The constituion says Y.
The only freedom we have is the freedom to influence who gets to be a the judges. Since judges retire and die. The contest can never be won. Every liberal knows that. Few conservatives do.
"There is no federal general common law. This “general law” disregarded practically all local and state law. There is no clause in the constitution giving federal courts this power. If a federal court hears a case dealing with purely state issues, it must use applicable state law in making its decision. It cannot arbitrarily apply any law it chooses."
This is a good decision. It affirms the 10th amendment.
It says that "unwritten" common or general law cannot be used by federal courts in making their decisions.
Federal courts "must use applicable state law in making its decision."
I do not know about you but I do not want to deal with "unwritten" common or general law when I am in court.
That would be the equivalent of being struck by a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
If you take the time to read the decision of Erie RR v Tompkins, you will understand how the use of unwritten common or general law was arbitrary, illogical, and ultimately capricious in its application.
This doctrine used by the federal courts for 100 years was a use of power that was never conferred on the federal courts by the Constitution. This decision actually took a lot of power out of the federal judiciary.
I do not understand the leap that some people are making that we are now under the jurisdiction of Merchant, Commercial, or Admirality law when we are in federal court and not under the jurisdicition enumerated in the Constitution in matters of federal jurisdiction.
Under the Constitution we are considered innocent until proven guilty. Under Admirality law we are guilty until proven otherwise.
I've also read that since Roosevelt every president has enacted the Emergency Powers Act , giving the executive branch free reign over the other branches.
Our Constitution , the greatest document ever written protecting basic human rights stands in the way of world rule.
Our government working for the elites who want world rule are persuing that end. So our Constitution must be replaced by the UN's constitution.
Lawyers who belong to the international BAR ( Englands lawyer association ) are given the title of Esquire and work for the courts , not the defendants. They are making our Constitution look out dated and useless , so that the UN's constitution will be more easily accepted.
Get America out of the UN and the UN out of America.
Probably because you have no idea what the common law is. The constitution itself is a common law document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.