Wow, what a money maker for the government.  OH wait, the IRS isn't an
agency of the government, that's right.

Anyway, according to the mysterious computer at the irs, everything
that requires them to obey the law is frivolous.

Anything that they don't feel like addressing is frivolous.

Anything that exposes their fraud is frivolous.

Anything that shows they have wrongly applied the law is frivolous.

Anything short of handing over your money with no questions asked is
frivolous.

Who voted on the new $5000 frivolous penalty I wonder.  I don't recall
that being on the floor of the senate or house of representatives.
Who would draw up such a bill in the first place and what is the
reasoning I wonder.

I seem to remember a guy named Pete Hendrickson who recently backed
the criminals into a corner by writing a book showing people what the
law actually says and how it is lawfully suppose to be applied.  Of
course the income tax is not a tax on income but a tax on taxable
activities and of course that is considered frivolous.

Now all of the sudden this new $5000 penalty comes out.  What a
strange coincidence.

It sure would be great if that frivolous penalty went the other way.

Oh wait, there is RICO.


--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Fleischner" <gmf@...>
wrote:
>
> Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2007-14
> April 2, 2007
>
> Notice 2007-30
> Frivolous Positions
>
> Numbers show item # out of a list of 40
>
> 12. In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the
coins is
> excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is
the face
> value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of
determining
> taxable income.
>
> 24. An IRS Form 23C, Assessment Certificate — Summary Record of
Assessments,
> is an invalid record of assessment for purposes of section 6203 and
Treas.
> Reg. § 301.6203-1, the Form 23C must be personally signed by the
Secretary of
> the Treasury for an assessment to be valid, the Service must provide
a copy of
> the Form 23C to a taxpayer if requested before taking collection
action, or
> similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007-21,
2007-14 I.R.B.
>
>
>
> The principal author of this notice is the Office of Associate Chief
Counsel
> (Procedure & Administration).  For further information, contact the
Office of
> Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Administrative
> Provisions & Judicial Practice Division, Branch 2, at (202) 622-4940.
>

I wouldn't say he terrorized my daughter, he just
scared her and my mother-in-law by not stating the
reason he was looking for me and that reason was to
server the papers so I could give testimony for the
prosecution to help them get an indictment.

But that is why I got upset in the way she was talking
to me considering I'm supposed to be benefitting them.

--- Email41@... wrote:

> Another issue to consider, No one, not even some
> supposed agent of the  government has the right or
> authority to terrorize anyone, least of all your
> daughter. I would either file a criminal complaint
> in accordance with the state  penal code, or charge
> the agent with the felony in open court when I was
> on the witness stand under oath.
>
>
>
>
>

--:: The Bill of Rights Institute ::---


                                 Category: Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the
Constitution View More Lessons from this Category
                                 Back to Lessons Home
                                 Subject October 2007: McCullough v. Maryland
(1819)
                                 Synopsis *For a version of this lesson with
questions and answers on separate pages, click here*

                                 This month we spotlight one of the first and
most important Supreme Court cases on federal power: McCullough v. Maryland
(1819). In this case, Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers
derived from those listed in Article I, Section 8. The "Necessary and Proper"
Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank.
                                  RESOURCES

                                 a..
http://citizenbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=690


                                 b..
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0/


                                 c..
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Instructional/Resources/FoundingDocuments/D\
ocs/Constitution.htm
                                 ACTIVITY

                                 It was 1819 and the United States had been a
nation under the Constitution for barely a generation when an important case
about federal power reached the Court. After a first attempt in 1791, Congress
established the second National Bank of the United States in 1816. Many states
opposed branches of the National Bank within their borders. They did not want
the National Bank competing with their own banks, and objected to the
establishment of a National Bank as an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's
power.

                                 The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the bank
of $15,000/year, which cashier James McCullough of the Baltimore branch refused
to pay. The case went to the Supreme Court. Maryland argued that as a sovereign
state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders. McCullough's
attorneys argued that a national bank was "necessary and proper" for Congress to
establish in order to carry out its enumerated powers.

                                 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "Although,
among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word 'bank,'.we
find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate
commerce.Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of
the constitution, are constitutional."

                                 Further, the Court ruled that Maryland could not
tax the national bank: "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy. . .
. If the states may tax one instrument, employed by the [federal] government in
the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument..This
was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their
government dependent on the states."

                                 Marshall also noted an important difference
between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (the United States'
first governing document that had been replaced by the Constitution). The
Articles said that the states retained all powers not "expressly" given to the
federal government. The Tenth Amendment, Marshall noted, did not include the
word "expressly." This was further evidence, he argued, that the Constitution
did not limit Congress to doing only those things specifically listed in Article
I.

                                 QUESTIONS

                                 1.. What happened to bring McCullough v.
Maryland to the Supreme Court?


                                 2.. Read Article I, Section 8 (link above) and
underline the express powers of Congress that might be dependent on the
operation of a bank. Can Congress effectively carry out its powers without
establishing a national bank?


                                 3.. How did the Supreme Court rule?


                                 4.. To what extent did the ruling in McCullough
v. Maryland expand federal power?
                                 ANSWERS

                                 1.. Maryland imposed a tax on Baltimore branch
of the National Bank of the United States. The cashier refused to pay the tax.


                                 2.. Sections which could be underlined:
                                 a.. The Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States.
                                 b.. To borrow money on the credit of the United
States;.
                                 c.. To coin money, regulate the value thereof,.
                                 d.. To raise and support armies, but no
appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years..
                                 e.. To provide and maintain a navy;
                                 f.. and to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the
same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and
other needful buildings;

                                 Students will most likely say that a bank would
be required in order for Congress to perform these functions.


                                 3.. The Court ruled that the establishment of a
national bank was constitutional, as it was necessary and proper in order for
Congress to carry out its responsibilities. It was "within the letter and the
spirit" of the Constitution. Further, Maryland could not tax the federal bank.


                                 4.. The ruling expanded federal power by
allowing Congress to take actions which were not expressly listed in Article I,
Section 8 nor expressly prohibited by Article I Section 9. The ruling's
description of what kind of actions can be justly implied, however, restricts
the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause to those laws that are "within the
scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the
letter and spirit of the constitution."


                                 Last Edited On 10/19/2007 2:43:00 PM

I got some responses to this, but what I was really
looking for is, is there a way I can get out of being
subpoenaed all together?

I don't want to go down and have to testify.  I
already gave them grand jury testimony and I don't
like they way she talked to me on the phone when she
called last week.

So I was looking for ideas or ways to opt out of their
realm so to speak.

Here's the chapter on coins and currency from the US code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10_51.html

Gold bullion coin act 1985

http://www.izagg.com/WealthBuilding/Postings/goldinfo3.htm

Aticle on the kahre case.

As a side note the attorney that represented Kahre was Joel Hanson. I spoke with
his brother who knows the details inside and out and he did say the guys were
paid as contractors. A brief outline as to how this worked.
The people working for Kahre were independent contractors.
As such they had a contract to be paid in gold and silver. The government has no
right to interfere with private contracts and it doesnt matter what the hourly
rate works out to be.
Because he had an obligation to  fulfill his contracts and pay the contractors
in gold and silver, he was able to write off the cost of the gold and silver as
an expense to fulfill his contract obligations. The contractors on the other
hand were merely claiming the face value of the coin they recieved.

Also not mentioned here is the fact that several of the contactors pleaded
guilty before the trial but it wasnt a conspiracy plea and all testified at the
trial that there was no conspiracy to defraud.

One last note if that this was another case that the Cheek defense was used.
Doesnt mean that what they did was legal. That remains to be seen.



-------------- Original message --------------
From: "The Handyman" <ebobie@...>
  From what you say a pewter cladded coins' value according to the act of 1985 is
in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceeds its
numismatic  value.  How could you attempt to avoid taxes by using them?  The
National Collector's Mint, Inc.sells a Morgan Silver Dollar (86 to 129 years
old) for $19.00.  Its face value is $1.  A 2007 silver (sic)  dollar has a face
value of $1 but most probably is worth 15 cents  as it is mostly pewter. Could
you post what the act of 1985 says?  I don't see a way to use such application.
Also, where can I read more about the Kahre case?

When I was in retail sales a few years ago, I asked an attorney at the
California State Board of Equalization (the agency responsible for collecting
sales taxes): if I sold items in exchange for Silver Dollars, could I collect
and pay sales tax in Federal Reserve Notes?

His answer: you can collect and pay sales tax in anything that's legal tender.

Jerry Fleischner

From what you say a pewter cladded coins' value according to the act of 1985 is  in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceeds its numismatic  value.  How could you attempt to avoid taxes by using them?  The National Collector's Mint, Inc.sells a Morgan Silver Dollar (86 to 129 years old) for $19.00.  Its face value is $1.  A 2007 silver (sic)  dollar has a face value of $1 but most probably is worth 15 cents  as it is mostly pewter. Could you post what the act of 1985 says?  I don't see a way to use such application. Also, where can I read more about the Kahre case?   jlaporte02@comcast.net said:     Check the gold coin and bullion act of 1985. It is more current than the 1965 act and as such states that the coins minted are of numismatic status. Also the courts have already ruled that silver and gold coins before 1985 are of numismatic value so using them at face value to avoid taxes would be illegal. The judge in the Kahre case ruled the same although Kahre's attorney is appealing that particular decision as he feels it did not apply after the 1985 act.

I don't know if your group sees the difference, but Title 28 sec. 2072 (b)
is for substantive rights, which are the same as natural rights of a man,
and includes his labor or his earnings, while 3205 is about non-exempt
disposable earnings, which would be earnings from, not the man, but other
persons" such as corporations.  A man can labor for his earnings, while a
name or corporation cannot labor being as it is nominal.  One has to stay
out of the legal or colorable realm.  That's the problem most people have,
not knowing how to use context.  That is why one that understands, can lien
the attorney, as most of them understand and know how to use context to
deceive others.  I just spoke to this friend that is an attorney, and asked
him if he understood context, and he said he didn't.  He actually asked me
to study together.  The only way to interpret any statute, is by context.
That is important, because otherwise, the statutes would violate the over
breath doctrine of the constitution.  The attorneys all know this.  Only a
man has constitutional rights, and that is why when the attorneys write the
statutes, they have to watch not to destroy the special clause of the
statute. They can destroy the general clause of the statute, as fraud is
always couched in generalities.
The Bar Buster






Thank you Zetoolman for posting section 3104. I don't know why it didn't
Come up in my previous search, my mistake somewhere I guess. However, it is
Interesting to note that this section is for PRE judgment remidies. In
Section 3205 (POST judgment remidies it states:

The creator of "frivolous positions" appears to be the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration). Call (202) 622-4940 to discuss
this with one of its attorneys.

A full list of recent 'frivolous positions is at:

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/ar20.html


Jerry Fleischner


  "jjmozingo2002" <jjmozingo@...> wrote

> Wow, what a money maker for the government.  OH wait, the IRS isn't an
agency of the government, that's right.
>
> Anyway, according to the mysterious computer at the irs, everything that
requires them to obey the law is frivolous.

A good way to access the Kahre case is by searching using key words 'Kahre'
with 'IRS'

Ron wrote:

> This only says that it is legal tender, not that it must be valued at
> face value.

Sometimes the obvious need not be explained.  When was the last time you
dealt with legal tender and altered the numerical figures based upon
some other factor than the face value?

> Probably the more important question is; what is the
> definition of the 'dollar' on it?

It's the only definition of "dollar" there is, the original one.
Everything else is based upon that.

> The fifty 'dollars' on the one ounce
> gold are obviously not FRN 'dollars'!  It takes more like 750 of the
> FRN 'dollars' to get the fifty gold ones.  They are obviously two
> different 'dollars'!

No, they are not two different dollars.  Both are what they are as a
result of laws people COULD go read, but most likely never will.

The "Fifty Dollars" on the one ounce gold coin is an admission by
Congress that they had to change the exchange value between the "real
dollars" (that existed before our country did, and were so well known
world-wide that it would be ridiculous to think a few arrogant Americans
could change the reality of it) and the legislated gold equivalent,
which they do have the right to regulate and which they have done in all
cases of the issue of gold coins for trade.

The word "dollar" on FRNs or any other debt instrument means just what
it says - a dollar of silver is owed to somebody.  Does that change
because the debtor changes his mind and pretends to forget?  No.  Does
it change if the debtor loudly proclaims that his notes will never be
paid?  No.  What does change after that public admission is that anyone
accepting the bad notes from the debtor deserves what he gets because he
was warned of the quality of the debt.  Debt instruments are rated; for
example, this year the Federal Reserve's debt instruments have gotten a
lower rating that those of the European Union, with the "euro" (an
imaginary unit originally based upon the Federal Reserve's imaginary
unit) now being "worth" about one third more in international trade
credits than a note from Americans.

> There is even a discrepency between the 'dollar' in the 1792 coinage
> act and the 'dollar' on the one ounce silver eagle, which is also
> legal tender.

Right: the "dollar" in the coinage act is the definition of the word.
It was taken from everyday use with no changes.

The word "dollar" on the one ounce silver eagle is called "face value"
(the value on the face of a coin) and THAT is the "legal tender value"
of the coin, for accounting purposes.  The fact that this coin contains
more or less silver than the nominal amount is a result of the decisions
of men in charge of making the coins.  Maybe Ronald Reagan wanted to
make a small gift to Americans willing to avoid the Fed and use coins -
no matter, because the actual "dollar coins" have NEVER contained the
exact lawful amount of metal as defined in the monetary act because of
"seignorage", the amount of metal deducted from each physical coin in
order to pay for the minting and engraving.  The word "dollar" on a coin
is like the word "Milk" on a cardboard container.  The thing may or may
not contain what the word conveys.

> Since 'dollar' is a unit of measure of wealth,

More accurately, a measure of elemental silver.

> and all three
> of these items bearing the same quantity of 'dollars' on them

Dollars are not born "on" anything.  The word is, but not the thing
itself.  An empty milk container saying "one quart of milk" is NOT any
milk at all, and not a quart of anything except maybe air.

> but
> representing different amounts of wealth means that the use of the
> word 'dollar' on them is meaningless.  It is akin to putting '1
> gallon'
> on an oil drum, a thimble and a coffee cup and saying that 'gallon' is
> a unit of liquid measure!

No, it is not.  If I were to go paint the words "one gallon" on those
three containers, should I assume people are so stupid that they equate
them all as the same volume of substance?  Some would be that stupid,
I'll grant you, maybe severely retarded ones.  Maybe a retarded person
could not conceptualize the difference between a thing and the
representation of a thing by a word.  He'd maybe believe that if you
stamped the word "gallon" on his head, he'd become a gallon!  Things
aren't that bad, YET!

When things get that bad, prisoners should expect at mealtimes to
receive empty paper plates with words printed on them, like "submarine
sandwich" or "steak dinner".  "What did you get for dinner, Joe?"  "I
dunno, it must've been a misprint..."

Regards,

FF

> > 12. In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the
> coins is
> > excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is
> the face
> > value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of
> determining
> > taxable income.

I receive rolls of nickels every day.  Each one has a face value of $2.

The government just passed a law saying you cannot melt nickels for
their fair market value.  They claim it costs ten cents to make each
nickel token, giving each roll a fair market value of $4.

So, assuming I owe income tax on my nickels, how would they have me
report them in order not to appear too frivolous?  I need to know.

Regards,

FF

It seems Frog Farmer's policy of scrutinizing oaths of public
officials is spreading!  Look at this.

Subject:  judge oath problem in NYS


http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/09/29/oaths_project/


NYS Oaths Project To Survey State's Judiciary
<http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/09/29/oaths_project/>


Posted on Saturday, 29 of September , 2007 at 10:23 pm


When The North Country Gazette and the NYS Oaths Project conducted a
statewide survey of judges during 2003 and 2004, it was learned that
over 90% of individuals claiming judicial office had never taken and
filed their oaths of office and bonds as required by law.

Town and village justices across the state were illegally performing
judicial duties without having legal title to the office but when it
was brought to their attention, they poo-pooed the challenge, became
defensive and said, so what.

The Association of Towns sent out a directive that confirmed that the
Oaths Project was correct, that oaths and bonds of public officers,
including town justices, have to be filed within 30 days of the
commencement of their term-either elected or appointed-or else by
matter of law they have vacated the office, in effect refusing to
serve and they have no authority to perform the duties of the office
or collect compensation.

The NYS Unified Court System also quietly concurred, sending out a
memorandum to town and village justices across the state, informing
them that pursuant to the Uniform Justice Court Act they had to file
their oaths and bonds in three places-with the town or village clerk,
with the county clerk and with the Office of Court Administration.

If they failed to do so and there was no oath filed, they had no
office and could not legally be compensated.

Despite the existing case law, many claimed "just a technicality" but
the State Legislature said not, it was not.  Judges across the state
and perhaps across the nation were scared that it could open
Pandora's Box in reopening cases if the judges involved were not
legally in office.  De facto! They cried but that doesn't hold true
in many cases as one first must legally hold the title to the office
in order to claim de facto status.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org:80/articles/122906NoOathNoOffice.ht
ml
<http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/122906NoOathNoOffice.html
>

More than three years since the NYS Oaths Project completed its
survey, it appears that many justices and judges in the state are
still not legally in office, they are thumbing their nose at the law
and continue to sit in judgment of citizens they claim have violated
the law, exercising a double standard that you have to comply to the
letter of the law but public officials do not, especially if they're
claiming to be judges.

June Maxam, publisher of The North Country Gazette and coordinator of
the NYS Oaths Project discovered first hand that there is still a
blatant disregard for the law among public officers, particularly in
Warren County where law enforcement officers who made false arrests
of her had failed to file their oaths, the Warren County Sheriff
hadn't failed either his oath or undertaking, the town justices
weren't legally in office and the special prosecutors appointed to
prosecute her for the false arrests hadn't filed their certificates
of appointments, their oaths or bonds but performed the duties of the
office anyway and collected thousands of tax dollars illegally.

Most recently, the Glens Falls City Court tried to resurrect a three
year old traffic ticket against Maxam which had never been prosecuted
and motion for dismissal and challenging jurisdiction had been
pending since February, 2006.  The court claimed that Marc Zuckerman
of Bolton Landing had been appointed special prosecutor to handle the
case.

However, no certificate of appointment had been filed by Zuckerman in
the Warren County Clerk's office as required nor had Zuckerman ever
filed his oath of office.  As a matter of law, even if there had been
such an appointment, without having filed his oath within 30 days of
the appointment, he vacated the office ipso facto, no other
proceeding was necessary.

Following the submission of a second motion, challenging speedy trial
rights and denial of due process, the ticket was finally dismissed,
35 months after it was issued.

Despite the new legislation and memos issued by the state court
system and others, it appears that public officers and in particular
town justices are still in gross non-compliance of the law which
could and should lead to challenges to decisions made by black robed
imposters.

The North Country Gazette and the NYS Oaths Project will undertake a
new project beginning Oct. 10, surveying the 62 counties of the state
to determine how many of the state's judiciary are currently
performing the duties of the office unlawfully, illegally plucking a
paycheck and benefits from the taxpayers of New York totally without
lawful authority with absolutely no jurisdiction to sit in judgment
of individuals charged in violating the law, having no authority to
send people to jail and make decisions that forever impacts the lives
of others.

This survey will entail significant postage costs as well as copying
costs under the Freedom of Information Law.  In an attempt to help
defray expenses, the Oaths Project will accept donations and will
publish a weekly newsletter detailing the survey progress.

FF,

It's easy.  It's all frivolous.

Just hand over whatever the computer tells you like a good little slave.

Don't ask any questions.....Questions are frivolous.

Don't quote the code....The code is frivolous.

The only thing that isn't frivolous is handing over what the computer
tells you to hand over.

Resistance is frivolous.

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
wrote:
>
> > > 12. In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the
> > coins is
> > > excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is
> > the face
> > > value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of
> > determining
> > > taxable income.
>
> I receive rolls of nickels every day.  Each one has a face value of $2.
>
> The government just passed a law saying you cannot melt nickels for
> their fair market value.  They claim it costs ten cents to make each
> nickel token, giving each roll a fair market value of $4.
>
> So, assuming I owe income tax on my nickels, how would they have me
> report them in order not to appear too frivolous?  I need to know.
>
> Regards,
>
> FF
>

> From: The Handyman [mailto:ebobie@...] wrote:

> Gordon Epperly is an Alaskan Patriot that works very hard at
> litigation.  Like all of us he
> Is the target of corrupt Judges trying to financially destroy him. Be
> sure to read the
> Link below. I've been complaining about court  fees since January.
> All courts, state
> and federal, have gone up.

James Allen Daum pays no fees.  He sees doing so as a waiver of rights,
and he sees the attempt to collect them as an attempt to get a person to
waive rights.  Many see going into United States District Courts as a
waiver as opposed to using the District Court of the United States.
Today people tend to use what is offered them (convenience and
expedience) and do not seek out that which is hidden from them
(requiring time and effort).

When only evidence of debt circulates as money among a deceived people,
those deceived ones are forced to become either debtors or creditors.
Those professing to be Christians obeying Scripture are placed in a
dilemma.

There is an economy that avoids debt and uses substance lawfully defined
as money in this country.  That economy is ignored by the corporate
fascists who would prefer that it be wiped out, so people looking for
confirmation of its existence have to look a little harder to find it.
People often express wonder and amazement that such an economy exists,
and often question aloud how such a thing could work.  Few realize it
was everyday American life from 1792 until after 1964.  Those who
remember should be hard to fool; those born after that should be
expected to be totally fooled.

Regards,

FF

jlaporte02@... wrote:

> Here's the chapter on coins and currency from the US code
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10
> _51.html

I read it just to see if anything was new or contradictory to
established laws.

> Gold bullion coin act 1985

> The people working for Kahre were independent contractors.
> As such they had a contract to be paid in gold and silver.

Paid what?  Dollars or ounces, of gold or silver?

> Doesn't mean that what they did was legal. That remains to be
> seen.

I guess, for some.  For some, like the blind, everything will remain to
be seen.  For others, there's no question.

For those born yesterday, or even as recently as ten or twenty years
ago, that "chapter" of code might be the only information taken into
consideration when contemplating the situation with money today.  Older
folks who've been paying attention to money for a lot longer know that
many omissions have been made to the code (not repeals, just stuff "left
out", statutes and laws still valid, yet unannotated), since code is
only evidence of the law and not the law itself.  As I read what they've
left in the code for newbies to read, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors
and obfuscation and downright illiteracy on the part of the writers.
I'm not going to tear it apart here; that would be better saved should
the minions ever decide to take me on in my own cases.  What I'd really
like to see is the top secret files that explain to anyone WHY certain
things are still there!  For example, can anyone describe this situation
and who it might be involving:

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an amount equal to the
amount by which the proceeds from the sale of the coins issued under
section 5112(i) of title 31, United States Code, exceed the sum of -
       (1) the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins,
and
       (2) the value of gold certificates (not exceeding forty-two and
two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) retired from the use of gold
contained in such coins,
shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall be used
for the sole purpose of reducing the national debt.
------

I thought gold certificates were no longer being honored!  Apparently,
they are, for some people.  Who might they be?  Rockefellers and other
central bankers?

"Forty-two and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce" has what
significance today?  Apparently it has some.  Actually, the two laws
offered, the code and the 1985 gold act are just more attempts at
obfuscation and deception that become evident when trying to reconcile
their provisions with existing unrepealed monetary laws.  For example:
the word "amount" is used without ever specifying "amount of what".  The
word "dollar" is defined in terms of its fractions, which is ridiculous.

People might notice if the definition of "pound" was "16 ounces" and the
definition of "ounce" was "1/16th of a pound".  They fail to notice the
absurdity of the current code definition of "dollar" most likely because
in their brief stay on the planet they've never been exposed to the
concept of the dollar being a unit of measurement of some thing.  Units
don't exist by themselves.  They need a physical manifestation to
connect the concept to reality.  Congress has not yet explained
everything that is logical in code, and most likely never will.  They
will never pass a law saying that when it rains, things get wet! Some
things are just going to have to be understood prior to congress
explaining them. Some things like money used to be widely understood by
a majority.  This was when real money was even in the pockets of bums
and hoboes, and children of 6 years old, like I was when I learned about
it.  Today people drowning in debt and driving expensive cars have never
held an amount of money equal to the amount a bum used to use to buy
coffee 50 years ago. This is what permits the illiteracy seen in the
codes, where the official notations are mostly comments upon what
"probably should have been" but was not written.  Also, did anyone
notice that the "secretary" could ignore just about any of those
provisions "in his discretion"?  Which secretary is that, the Secretary
of the Treasury of the United States of America, or the Secretary of the
Treasury of the International Monetary Fund?  The first office no longer
exists, does it?

Another point to ponder is when did the lawful established distinction
between "coined money" and "token coinage" disappear from public
consciousness such that now people refer to the latter as the former?
It apparently has occurred, but when and why?  I blame it on public
diseducation after 1970.

These recent attempts to hide the fraud really do a poor job of it for
anyone who has read and followed monetary law from the beginning.  The
ignorance of the writers is so apparent; they were either grossly
ignorant, or paid to do the best job of obfuscation possible, which was
a poor attempt.

When I was in school, in math class, I did learn about a thing called
"absolute numbers":

"The absolute value of x, denoted "| x |" (and which is read as "the
absolute value of x"), is regarded as the distance of x from zero. This
is why absolute value is never negative; absolute value only asks "how
far?", not "in which direction?". This means that | 3 | = 3, because 3
is three units to the right of zero, and also | -3 | = 3, because -3 is
three units to the left of zero."

This is the only way "three FRNs = three dollars".  In the past, and
according to law, money was physical metal that could be coined,
meaning, made into round pieces each of a standard weight and purity.
Today, apparently, people think "coined" means something else, maybe
like they "coin an expression".  Today, they think in dollars as they
would with absolute numbers, such that to them, "one dollar" could be
either a dollar in the hand (present), or a dollar of debt (absent).

There is a difference between money and debt (money not present, but due
and owing).  People don't appear to realize yet that FRNs are evidences
of debt, even though the laws clearly make that distinction.  People for
some reason fail to note that the absence of a thing cannot be equal to
the thing, unless one is thinking in the abstract terms of "absolute
numbers", then $100 of debt can "become" $100 of money in the mind of
one so disposed to think in terms of absolute numbers only, where
positive and negative have no place in the calculations.  People who
consider $1 of debt (1 FRN) to be equal to $1 of money are living in a
dream world they've been led to live in through propaganda and vast
resources spent on deception.  Until they see and can articulate the
difference they will be victimized by the central bankers who produce
debt in unlimited amounts far exceeding the amount of money ever coined.
They fail to note that papers were always tokens for the coined money
and were never the money itself.  Today, people believe that the symbol
for something is equal to the thing represented, but they never look
into whether or not too many symbols have been put into circulation
compared to the amount of money they were made to represent.  Some
people, even if you show them the numbers, believe that something
numbering, for example, "ten" can be increased by only increasing the
number of symbols representing it, for example, to "one hundred".  Then
you have two groups of people, some knowing only the ten things exist,
but a larger group trading 100 coupons for those 10 things.  Obviously,
90% of the coupons will never be redeemed for their stated value.  And
so some people say, "no problem, I'll pass the coupons off to someone
else for something real and so I will never suffer the consequences."
This works until the majority realizes that money has to be a positive
number, and debt is a negative number, and that absolute numbers don't
work in the real world to eliminate the obvious differences between
having money and having debt.

Regards,

FF

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I am looking for suggestions for my next move with regard to a judge
who entered orders in favor of a "corrupt court appointed attorney"
without following the Rules of Civil Procedures and for tips on how to
get the judge to grant me an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing so
that I might expose how the court appointed attorney violated the law.
The court-appointed attorney is a lackey for the court and seems to be
untouchable.   I am in the state of Colorado,

My adversary, the court-appointed attorney, filed a motion for fees
and costs for "having to" participate in the Court of Appeals to
"defend" an order the court entered against me for the attorney's
fees.  (The attorney was not a party to the case.  The attorney
requested attorney fees in the Court of Appeals, and was denied.  So
the attorney went back to the district court and requested fees there.)

I filed a Motion for More Definite Statement of the attorney's claim
for fees requesting the attorney to clarify some of the statements in
her motion.  I needed clarification of some of the statements in her
claim before I could properly file a response.  In my Motion for More
Definite Statement, I also requested the court hold a hearing
regarding the issues.

The court denied my Motion for More Definite Statement and entered an
Order for me to pay the attorney's fees in the same order.

Procedurally, the court erred.  The Rules of Civil Procedure require
that the court must first either grant or deny a Motion For More
Definite Statement----and then should have given me 10 days to file a
Response to the Motion for Fees.

I filed a C.R.C.P.  Rule 59 motion requesting the court vacate the
Order¡ and grant me an opportunity to first file a Response to the
Motion before entering any Order.  I again requested the court grant
My motion for an evidentiary hearing.  I also requested that the Court
enter an order that was based on the facts of the case and the law¡ Or
Else transfer the case to a judge who would.

The judge recued herself¡ and transferred the case to a new judge. The
new judge "partially granted" my Rule 59 Motion.  In the judge's
"Order Concerning Respondent's Verified Motion for Relief Pursuant To
C.R.C.P.  Rule 59", the judge denied my Motion for More Definite
Statement, but did grant me 10 days in which to file a Response to The
Attorney's Motion.

I filed a Response, Affirmative Defense, and Counterclaim against The
Attorney.  My counterclaim was based upon the fact that the attorney
violated the law, violated the Chief Justice Directive, and violated
Several Rules of Professional Conduct.  (I gave examples of the
violations.)  I requested the court enter an order requiring the
attorney to reimburse me all of the fees she had collected as a
Sanction (Per C.R.C.P.  Rule 11) and ¡ §13-17-102 (groundless and
frivolous motion) for her violation of the law, Chief Justice
Directives and the Rules of Professional Conduct, plus costs and
damages for having to defend against the attorney's groundless and
frivolous motions.

The attorney did not respond to my Counterclaim within the 20 days
permitted to file a Response.     C.R.C.P.  Rule 7(a) requires a reply
to a counterclaim.  "There SHALL be a complaint and answer, a reply to
a counterclaim denominated as such, and there MAY BE a reply to an
affirmative defense."(A reply to an affirmative defense is permissive.

By failing to deny the averments in my counterclaim, the attorney
effectively ADMITTED TO the averments in my counterclaim. C.R.C.P.
Rule 8(d) states:  "Effect of Failure to Deny" states: "Averments in a
pleading to which a responsive pleading is required are admitted when
not denied in a responsive pleading"

A few days ago, the new judge entered an order "Concerning
Respondent's Motion For Relief Pursuant to C.R.C.P.  Rule 59"  (The
same title used earlier when granting me an opportunity to first
Respond to the attorney's Motion For Fees).

The new judge ignored my counterclaim, and affirmed the same orders
the previous judge entered before I got a chance to file a Response.
The Order stated, "The Court, having heard ample evidence find that an
evidentiary hearing is not necessary to grant the attorney her
fees"(This was a new judge; we had never appeared before the judge¡
the judge could not have possibly "heard" any evidence because the
court denied my motion for an evidentiary hearing.)

The new judge---or even the first judge doesn't have a clue as to what
this case is about.  I want to have an evidentiary hearing so the
judge will clearly understand how the attorney violated the law¡. Etc
¡ and will hopefully report the attorney to the Attorney Regulation
Counsel¡ and the dishonest attorney will get disbarred.    I made
numerous motions for the court to grant me an evidentiary hearing¡ but
the court always denied my motion for hearing.  When I contacted the
court's cler to get several hearing dates set¡ I was told that "the
judge will decide whether he/she wants a hearing.  If the judge wants
to have a hearing, I will let you know. The Colorado Supreme Court has
ruled, "When a party requests a hearing regarding attorney fees and
costs under ¡±13-17-102, the trial court MUST conduct an evidentiary
hearing."  In re Marriage of Aldrich 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1977)

I need to know what my next step should be¡ .Should I file another Rule
59 Motion requesting the court vacate the most recent order and  to
grant an evidentiary hearing, while pointing out the court's errors in
not permitting an evidentiary hearing¡ and by entering an order
without requiring the attorney to respond to my Counterclaim?  I
figure since she failed to respond to my counterclaim¡ she effectively
admitted to the averments and I should win by default.

I feel there is favorable bias towards the attorney because the
attorney appears before these judges each week and she accepts "court
appointments"; .and I am just a lowly pro se that has exposed the
attorney's illegal acts.  The court stymies me by refusing to require
the attorney to provide a more definite statement so that I can
Properly respond to her motion¡ then denies me an evidentiary hearing¡
.and then enters orders in favor of the attorney without requiring the
attorney to file a response to my Counterclaim.

I am stumped¡ does anyone have any Tips and Tricks with regard as to
what my next move should/could be?  I only have about a week left to
file some sort of Motion.

I am sorry that I do not have any money or other items that I can
offer the group to pay for any tips with this issue, however, I can
offer the website address of a free, neat  little program that will
remove all of those annoying "carrots" ( the >> and the <<) from email
messages that Bear hates to much..  Even if you can't offer any
suggestions, I'd be happy to provide the email address if you let me
know that you'd like to have it!

I have some questions and need some help.

When one is looking to make
a statement about the sovereign state or land area
known as example California. What is proper to say:
State of California or California Republic?

I have researched it and find different opinions. I thought
California Republic was the sovereign free land area.
Am I correct?

  Rights that a man is born with are unalienable,
so, the constitution does not secure those rights, correct??
I think that the constitution is the rules to control the government.
But, many refer to it as the rights of the people. Which is it?

I am working on a status and disclosure affidavit and some things in it do
not
look correct to me. I want to make sure I make the statements correctly!

Like to put "to the best of my knowledge and belief" in a statement that is
supposed to be a fact, I would think that statement
is not a straight fact, but an opinion. In an affidavit, it is only to
contain facts.

Also, refers to State of California, that wording is the artificial
government controlled
area not the sovereign land area known as California. What is correct to
say?

When making the final statement or affirming the affidavit, I have read many
different
ways to do it. I do not want to make it in a way that ruins the who
affidavit by putting me into a different venue I am trying to avoid.
This is what I thought as correct:

I certify under penalty of perjury under the California state common law,
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Further, Affiant saith not.



Any input on all this would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Z

General powers.

Each county shall have capacity as a body corporate to:

1. Have succession perpetually by its corporate name.
2. Sue and be sued and complain and defend in all proper courts by the name of the county of ________________
3. Purchase, acquire by gift or otherwise, hold, lease, let and convey such real and personal property as shall be deemed to be for the best interests of the county.
4. Make contracts for carrying into execution the laws relating to counties and for all lawful purposes.
5. Have and use a seal which shall be in the custody of the commissioners thereof. The official acts of the commissioners shall be authenticated therewith. The commissioners may prescribe the form of such seal.
6. To make appropriations for any purpose authorized by this or any other act of the General Assembly.