THIS IS YOUR MODERATOR SPEAKING:

Whereas the Socratic teaching method requires the continued probing into the
subject with questions by a teacher having an understanding of the topic;

And whereas the Socratic teaching method requires that there be a general logic
of reasoning on subjects that have been developed by those who have shared goals
and objectives (which defined the subject focus); shared questions and problems
(whose solution they pursued); shared information and data (which they used as
an empirical basis); shared modes of interpreting or judging that information;
shared specialized concepts and ideas (which they used to help them organize
their data); shared key assumptions (that give them a basis from which to
collectively begin); and a shared point of view (which enables them to pursue
common goals from a common framework);

And whereas the Socratic teaching method requires that the teacher question
assumptions being made by the students ask the students to trace out the
implications and consequences of what they are saying;

And whereas the Socratic teaching method requires of a necessity that there be a
consensual teacher/student relationship wherein the student determines that
he/she has an interest in participating in a Socratic teaching method with a
teacher that the student considers to have more knowledge themselves;

And whereas the Tips & Tricks Yahoo Group does not consist of teachers and
students but rather consists of people who share a common interest having
varying degrees of knowledge on a wide variety of law topics and have an
interest in increasing their knowledge by the exchange of information and not
necessarily by being asked a single question by a group member that there is no
way to determine whether such member is qualified to ask that single question as
a teacher as the beginning of a Socratic teaching session, or, as a mere query
for knowledge;

And whereas the Tips & Tricks Yahoo Group already consists of people who have a
thirst for law knowledge and do not need to have their curiosity aroused or
their motivation be heightened by questioning;

AS YOUR MODERATOR it is therefore adjudged, ordered and decreed that the asking
of a single question, or, of a series of questions as the beginning of a, or
having the appearance of, a Socratic teaching session will not be allowed on the
Tips & Tricks group.

Welcome to Tips & Tricks for going to court! I am delighted that you decided to
join my group. Some of you joined this group because you involved in a domestic
relations suit (divorce etc.), fighting the government over some issue (IRS,
zoning, traffic etc.), or you are going to court or would like to go court to
vindicate your rights and collect your damages. Others have joined this group
because they are either defending or expect to defend a suit.

It really does not matter why you are going to court; if you are going to court
a skill that will always greatly help you is the ability to skillfully do legal
research. In the law library there are books on every aspect of going to court.
There are books full of previous rulings by the courts in your jurisdiction.
There are books that tell all about how to do a divorce in your jurisdiction;
how to do a civil rights suit; how to defend and criminal or traffic case; how
to put on a trial. There are books full of sample forms that even describe how
to go about filling out the forms!

If you know how the law library works you can put your hands on the authority
and forms you need in minutes and put together paperwork that will have the
court thinking that you might be a lawyer. The ability to do legal research and
put together professional looking paperwork will be very intimidating to your
opponent; especially if your opponent has to hire and pay a lawyer to produce
paperwork that isn’t anywhere near as good as yours. And then, there’s the
internet. If you know the right places to look on the internet, you will rarely
need to make a trip to the law library. Almost everything you need can be
brought straight to your home via your internet connection if you know where to
look.

I went into two different law libraries with a professional video producer and
produced a video that shows what these books look like and went into detail on
how they work. I offer that video at www.legalresearchvideo.com. You will have
to watch the video numerous times to glean from and use all of the information
on there. When you have mastered the information there it will take you a long
way to becoming effective in the court. As an additional bonus for purchasing
the video I offer 110 law related links that will help you do research and find
forms online.

Also at that web site I give a substantial discount on Blackstone’s Law Course
when you buy a legal research video. In 1914 this course was used to prepare
lawyers to pass the bar examine. This two volume law course is well organized,
comprehensive, and easy to read. After you have read it cover to cover there
will not be much about law that you didn’t know you didn’t know. You will have a
good understanding respecting what remedies are available in any situation and a
starting place for your research for situations you or your friends are involved
in.

If you master the ability to do legal research it will be very empowering to
you.

Again, thanks for participating in Tips & Tricks. Bear

One of the biggest sources of grief for me as moderator and owner of Tips
& Tricks springs from when I reject a post. After rejecting a post, I have been
called a “Communist,” and a “censor”. I have been accused of keeping the “truth”
from the group. Comments like these cause me to examine myself. I think about
the time I left the group un-moderated while I attended the week long Feast of
Tabernacles. When I returned I learned that group members had been flaming each
other and that there had been a bunch of strife and the group had lost about a
third of its members in one week. When I think about that week and it occurs to
me that it is much better to have a moderated group.
       Then I review the posts to other Yahoo groups I am involved in and see
among those posts a bunch of spam that has nothing to do with law and group
members using the group to send private messages to each other and again it
occurs to me that it is much better to have a moderated group.
       When I review the other law groups I am involved in and see that Tips &
Tricks has passed them all with respect to number of members, again it occurs to
me that it is much better to have a moderated group. Then I consider…for Tips &
Tricks to become the largest law group, that has to mean that more people are
staying than are leaving the group. To me what that means is that I must be
doing more things right than I am wrong.
       That brings me to the point of this post. Instead of thinking of myself as
a “Communist” or a “censor”, I am now thinking of myself as an editor. As an
editor, I have been taking some editorial control of the content on Tips &
Tricks posts and as such, I have been drawing the line tighter on the posts I
allow in two areas:
       1) posts that draw conclusions without setting forth the facts or law that
were relied upon to draw the conclusion;
       2) What I have started to think of as dredging posts; posts in which the
poster makes little or no investment into the writing of it but posts it in
hopes that someone has already done the research they seek and will give it to
them for free. Below is a post I recently rejected that serves as an example of
both:

Do the Courts or the DOJ have a constitutional right to defend an
institution (IRS) foreign to the Constitution of the United States of
America? Can someone out there Please <sic> reply to this Question?

I rejected the above post saying, “When you re-post, I want you to include a
couple paragraphs about what you already know about this. You have drawn a
conclusion that IRS is "foreign to the Constitution of the United States". I
want you to include both the reasoning and facts that caused you to arrive at
this conclusion. You have drawn a conclusion that the DOJ (What are you doing
using an acronym anyway? How are we supposed to know what DOJ is?) has a
"constitutional right". I want you to include both the reasoning and facts that
caused you to arrive at this conclusion. You have drawn a conclusion that the
courts defend the IRS. I want you to include both the reasoning and facts that
caused you to arrive at this conclusion. Bear Tips & Tricks”
	 As the editor of Tips & Tricks posts, here is what I want from posters who seek
to stir things up or get some information for free. I want the poster to invest
something in the post that results in the post being substantive. Please notice
that the above post is a question containing conclusions that borders on the
Socratic teaching method. It cannot be told from the post whether the poster is
attempting to teach us something by asking the question, or, whether the poster
if genuinely ignorant about the topic. I would consider the post to be
substantive if the poster told us something like:

“I am in Federal Court right now on willful failure to file and I have been
thinking about whether the US Attorney or the Dept. of Justice can represent the
IRS. I was reading up on the history of the IRS and I cannot see where they were
ever created as a matter of law. I did some research on the authority of the
Dept. of Justice and I found a couple statutes, 28 USC ??? and 28 USC ??? that
appear to say that they can represent anybody they want…but when I ran those
statutes in the case law there were some cases that said they could not
represent anybody they want but none of those were about the IRS. The judge is
my case appears to be taking every opportunity to defend the IRS by…blah…blah,
etc. Is there anybody else on the group that has taken this issue farther than
this?”

I rejected another post for similar reasons. It went something like:

“How do I get a message to the group about unjust use of imminent domain in
Youngstown Ohio?”

I replied in my rejection that I would allow his message when he put with it
what research he had done and what tactics he was trying or thinking of trying.
For some reason it just does not sit well with me to let people troll the group
with posts that they invest nothing in for free legal research or for somebody
to ride in on their white horse and save the day for free. Here’s another way to
put it, if you are going to use Tips & Tricks to ask for free help with your
legal problem, please ask in a post that includes some substance including what
state you are in; some facts that we can think about; some research that you
have done; some reasoning that you have already gone through; and the details of
what you have already tried and the results.

Thanks for participating, Bear

File        : dele Tips Rules.rtf
Description : Tips & Tricks Rules

As moderator and owner of Tips & Tricks for going to court, I would like to see
this group pointed more in the direction or practical litigation tactics. When
people write in with their problems asking for solutions I would like to see
more members of the group be able to offer practical, workable solutions that
have a likelihood of success based on first hand study and research instead of
old tired research that has been passed around so much it cannot be used in
court because it is so far removed from its origin. As I see it, if group
members would read law books and write book reports and post them to the group
based on the usable ideas they glean from them, not only would the reader
benefit, but group members as well. Below is the first list of books I would
like group members to check out of the library, buy through Amazon.com, or
acquire through interlibrary loans, read, and post book reports about. I would
like to see some lively discussion respecting these books and expect that we
will have some testimonies from people who have used what they learn both from
reading the books, and reading and writing the book reports posted to Tips &
Tricks. We don’t want to be like the dog who chases a car and when he catches it
doesn’t know what to do. Let us be like “wise virgins” and be prepared.

Most of us would like to win on our motions, so, here are some books on motions
practice:

Motions Practice and Persuasion by L. Ronald Jorgesen

This book teaches new lawyers how to effectively make and oppose motions and
help
experienced lawyers create more original and innovative work. It teaches the
basics of motion
practice, with a particular focus on the written motion and provides expert
advice on making
motions more persuasive. It discusses the tools of persuasion and the marshaling
of facts, law
and form to produce a winning motion. Instead of merely laying out the rules,
the book outlines
the analysis that the lawyer must make in writing and presenting a motion.

Motion Practice, Fourth Edition by Roger S. Haydock David F. Herr
       This comprehensive guide not only analyzes every applicable rule of civil
procedure, but also gives you practice-proven techniques for evaluating what
motions will work most effectively in each of your cases. From early pretrial
motions dealing with complaints and jurisdiction to appellate motion practice
for both victor and vanquished, Motion Practice, Fourth Edition shows you both
what is permissible and what is advisable in such aspects of motion practice as:
Formal requirements Strategic uses Use of supporting documents Effective
advocacy Persuasive oral argument Ethical issues The authors include a table of
deadlines affecting motions, along with sample forms and illustrative trial
examples.

A Guide To Motion Practice, by Samuel S Tripp

Motion Practice by David F Herr

Motions in Federal Court, Civil Practice by Shepards Mcgraw-Hill

Civil motion practice: How To Win Without Trying  by Marcus E Cohn

Whether we are the plaintiff or the defendant we need to know how to do cross
examination, so, here are some books on doing effective cross examination:

Cross-examination: Science & Techniques by Larry S. Pozner, Roger Dodd

The Art of Questioning : Thirty Maxims of Cross-Examination by Peter Megargee
Brown
       Step by step, how lawyers and nonlawyers alike can learn to ask the right
questions and get the answer they want, whether it’s in the courtroom or the
boardroom.

The Art of Cross-Examination by Francis L. Wellman
	 With the cross-examinations of important witnesses in some celebrated cases.
Wellman, one of the great nineteenth-century trial lawyers, made his reputation
in the musty New York
courtrooms of the 1880s and 1890s as assistant corporation counsel and assistant
district
attorney. In this volume he draws upon his own experiences and the brilliant
achievements of
other noted lawyers to explain and exemplify the principles of questioning. He
quotes
extensively from many memorable cases, utilizing them to illustrate both the
manner and matter
of cross-examination. He takes up the handling of the perjured witness and the
expert, he
underscores the importance of sequence, and he offers many insights into the
psychology of the
witness; showing that knowing when to elicit information, and when not to, is
critical to the
artistry of the advocate.

Cross-Examination: The Comprehensive Guide for Experts by Steven Babitsky, James
J., Jr. Mangraviti
       The ultimate measure of every expert is how well the expert performs
during cross-examination. SEAK’s new text, Cross-Examination: The Comprehensive
Guide For Experts will help experts quickly and efficiently master the art of
responding to each and every cross-examination question truthfully and artfully.
Experts will learn how to prepare for, anticipate, recognize, and effectively
deal with counsel
       About the Author Steven Babitsky and James J. Mangraviti, Jr. are the
nation's leading and most prolific authors and trainers on expert witness
issues. They are both former trial lawyers whose past texts include: How To
Excel During Cross-Examination: Techniques for Experts that Work, How To Excel
During Depositions: Techniques for Experts that Work, and The Comprehensive
Forensic Services Manual: The Essential Resources for all Experts. Attorneys
Babitsky and Mangraviti have trained thousands of experts on the skills needed
to be more effective and better assist the trier of fact.

Here are some books on how to make effective closing arguments:

Closing Arguments -- by Frederick Busch;

Ladies And Gentlemen Of The Jury: Greatest Closing Arguments In Modern Law -- by
Michael
S. Lief

In the Interest of Justice : Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100
Years by Joel
Seidemann

Closing Arguments: The Last Battle by Mike Papantonio, Fred Levin, Martin Levin

There are even books on jurisdiction:

Federal Jurisdiction (Introduction to Law)  by Erwin Chemerinsky
	 A Review: I'm a very average law student, and my federal courts class was
stacked with the top 2nd and 3rd year students in my school. Despite this, I got
the highest grade in the class. The reason...this book. This single most
impressive book I have encountered in 3 years of law school. And if you plan to
practice in the federal court system, this book is essential. Buy it.

The Practice And Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Admiralty: In Three Parts by John
E. Hall

A Treatise on the Law of Lis Pendens: Or the Effect of Jurisdiction upon
Property Involved in
Suit by John I. Bennett

Let’s study up on trial tactics:

The Trial Lawyers : The Nation's Top Litigators Tell How They Win by Emily
Couric

The Underground Lawyer by Michael Louis Minns

Trial : Theories, Tactics, Techniques by Roger S. Haydock, John Sonsteng

Trial tactics;: A book of suggestions on the trial of cases, containing
pertinent addresses by many well-known trial experts by Asher L Cornelius

Trial tactics and methods by Robert E Keeton

Successful trial tactics by Aaron Smith Cutler

Basic expressions for trial lawyers: Supplement to Keeton, Trial tactics and
methods by Robert
E Keeton

Eyewitness Testimony Strategies and Tactics/With Supplement: Strategies and
Tactics by
William Carroll, Edward Arnolds

Questioning Techniques and Tactics by Jeffrey L. Kestler

Dombroff on Unfair Tactics by Mark A. Dombroff

 28 USC 451. Definitions

As used in this title

The term “agency” includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.

The IRS is not a U.S Government Agency. It is an Agency of the
IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE
U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967,
Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

__._,_._

File        : RulesCheckListB4Posting.rtf
Description : Prior to posting, review this checklist!

People have been using Tips & Tricks to promote their web pages, conference
calls, and seminars. From here on out, before I allow that I am going to require
a link to Tips & Tricks and my web pages on their web pages.

Below are both my web pages and code for a Tips & Tricks link to make easy to
add links to the web page you would like to promote on Tips & Tricks.

When you post a link to somebody else’s web page; also post where the Tips &
Tricks link and links to my web pages appear on their web page. I will delete
that before I approve the post. Failure to do so will result in the post being
rejected until it is in compliance.

My webmaster reminds you to cut and paste this code into note pad first then
stick the code in your site;

  I appreciate your participation in Tips & Tricks, Bear

There are several options for the Tips & Tricks link; choose one you like:

Block style: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/tips_and_tricks/join"
target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://irs-armory.com/images/yahoojoin3.gif" alt="YahooGroups" width="90"
height="100"></a>

Banner Style: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/tips_and_tricks/join"
target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://irs-armory.com/images/yahoobanner2.gif" alt="YahooGroups"
width="240" height="28"></a>

Block Style: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/tips_and_tricks/join"
target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://irs-armory.com/images/yahoojoin2.jpg" alt="YahooGroups" width="90"
height="100"></a>

Banner Style: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/tips_and_tricks/join"
target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://irs-armory.com/images/yahoobanner3.gif" alt="YahooGroups"
width="240" height="28"></a>

The web pages I want links to are:

www.irs-armory.com
www.irslienthumper.com
www.irslevythumper.com
www.legalbears.com
www.legalresearchvideo.com
www.cantheydothat.com
(A free IRS lien evaluation)

From: Legalbear [bear@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:57 PM
To: 'tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: Hear Ye!! Hear Ye!! This is your fair warning!

Dear Tips & Tricks Group:

This is your moderator speaking. I realize this is just a Yahoo Group and that
if your post does not make it to the group it is not the end of the world.

I have a predicament. As has been demonstrated in the past, if the group has
gone un-moderated all kinds of craziness, strife/flames, and off point
posts/spam come into the group making it no fun and results ultimately in the
group losing members. That makes changing the group to un-moderated an
unattractive option.

There are two group rule violations that are needlessly making me crazy and
taking up a lot of my time. As the group has grown larger the problem has
increased in magnitude necessitating what follows. Those problems are:

1.    Group members replying to Tips & Tricks posts and leaving prior group
posts (usually this portion has the carrots next to it), exceeding the length of
their reply hanging off the end of their reply/email.

2.   Group members using the group to forward email to only one group member
that can answer/reply to the email.

In the past, I have returned these emails for correction. Then, a new problem
arises; people responding to the rejection email because they will not take the
time to understand what I am saying. Usually, this is worst on point 2 above. If
I reject 3-4 posts for correction and compliance with group rules, it is an easy
prediction that I will receive 3-4 emails back in my inbox replying to the
rejection.

MY SOLUTION: Part of what is time consuming is copying and pasting the specifics
as to why the email is rejected. I have noticed that some group members pay no
heed to the specifics for the rejection and continue to disregard the group
rules in new posts. So, to discourage rule violations such as points 1 & 2
above, as of this posting forward I WILL SIMPLY DELETE THE POST. I will leave it
on you to re-read group rules. You get to figure out why your post never made it
to the group. I have it set up now that group rules are sent out every thirty
days automatically.

If you have a problem remembering to deal with point 1, I suggest that to post
to the group that you start with a brand new email, put in the same subject
line, and then copy over the portion of the group post you are replying to.

Usually, violators of point 2 can’t find an email address for the single group
member they need to email. Here is a suggestion, if you use a preview screen
(where your emails are displayed on the left and when you highlight the email it
shows you the email on the right), look at the top of the message you are
reading. You should see something that pertains to Yahoo and to the right of
that is the senders email address. Double click on that and a box will open that
you can copy the senders email address out of and paste into the "To" line of
your reply email.

I apologize in advance, for deleting your future posts that are not in
conformity with group rules. J Bear

PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.

For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO  80634

BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

www.legal-research-video.com
www.legalbears.com
www.irslienthumper.com
www.irs-armory.com

To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Legalbear" <bear@...> wrote:
>
> Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@... posted this to the trustees_agents
> Yahoo Group and I thought it would prove useful if you are
fighting a  foreclosure:
>
"The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage agreement and
enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if you
signed that agreement or ask is that your signature?"

   "Your reply is, no that is not my signature."


THAT IS NOT the Proper Reply/Response "Madison Smith"!!!


The PROPER Response is a Demurrer.


Therefore the Correct Reply should be as:


'I have No information, or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the Authenticity of the signature presented by opposing party
which is alleging same to be mine.'

NOTE:
Since the Proponent has the Burden to Establish the Facts and
Evidence to support the allegation, There is NO obligation to either
help establish such, or RISK looking like a LIAR in Open Court!


He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools
will be destroyed. Proverbs 13:20

Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7


"vivus spartacus"
All Rights Reserved (In the 9th Amendment)

Dear John-Chester,

You must be less than 65 years old.  The MONSTER has
it rigged that you cannot get health insurance, after
age 65, unless you accept Social Security and
Medicare.  The SYSTEM forces you to become a 14th
amendment citizen.

You may or may not know this, but Social Security was
imported from Germany.  65 years eligibility was set
because most people died before they reached 50!

This is a very believeable argument, but there is
probably a more restrictive "mark" available from the
United Nations and Satan.

Thank YOU for your continued input.

Dr. William Doell
--- mobinem@... wrote:




      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

www.socialsecurity.gov

Home Questions?If you tabbed to this link, use the right arrow to jump past the list of question categories. Benefits General Benefit Questions Retirement Survivors Spouses Benefits Medicare General Prescription Drug Program Income-Related Part B Premiums Disability General Ticket to Work/Return to Work Supplemental Security Income Earned and Unearned Income General - SSI Resources SSI Living Arrangements Medicaid Change of Address Checks and Payments Computation of Benefits Direct Deposit General-Checks and Payments Non-receipt of a Payment Overpayment of Benefits Earnings and Employment Employer Wage Reporting General-Earnings & Employment Annual Earnings Test Self Employment Forms and Publications Forms Publications Government Pension Rules Government Pension Offset Windfall Elimination Provision Hearings and Appeals International Issues Credit for Work Outside U.S. Immigration International Benefits International Customer Service Medicare Outside U.S. Social Security Numbers Special Veterans Benefits Law and Regulations Laws and Legislation Rules and Regulations Miscellaneous About the SSA General Questions Commissioner Finding an Office History Ways to Contact SSA Fees for Representatives Fraud and Abuse Freedom of Information Death Records (Death Index) Locating Friends/Relatives Prisoner Rules Service to the Public General - Service to the Public The 800 Number This Website Trustees Report Wage Garnishment Online Transactions General Questions Benefit Eligibility Screening Tool Check Your Social Security Benefits Internet Benefit Claim Password Services Social Security Statement Retirement Planner Social Security Numbers and Cards General Questions Cards for Newborns/Children Changing Your Name Lost Card Marriage/Divorce Identity Theft SSNs for Non-Citizens Social Security Statement Automatic Statements Benefits on Another Record Earnings, Taxes and Credits Family Benefits Federal, State, Local Govt Work Military or Railroad Service Multiple Social Security Numbers Request a Statement Work Outside U.S. Wrong Name/Birthdate/Address Your Benefits Taxes and Social Security General-Taxes Taxes for Self-Employed Social Security Benefits Statement -1099 Contact Us Online Compliments Suggestions Complaints Fraud reports By phone (toll free) By mail In person From outside the U.S. Employers Job Seekers About Us

Search

History Home	This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures
	Brief History

Otto von Bismarck German Chancellor 1862-1890 SSA History Archives. Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state." Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me." The German system provided contributory retirement benefits and disability benefits as well. Participation was mandatory and contributions were taken from the employee, the employer and the government. Coupled with the workers' compensation program established in 1884 and the "sickness" insurance enacted the year before, this gave the Germans a comprehensive system of income security based on social insurance principles. (They would add unemployment insurance in 1927, making their system complete.) One persistent myth about the German program is that it adopted age 65 as the standard retirement age because that was Bismarck's age. This myth is important because Germany was one of the models America looked to in designing its own Social Security plan; and the myth is that America adopted age 65 as the age for retirement benefits because this was the age adopted by Germany when they created their program. In fact, Germany initially set age 70 as the retirement age (and Bismarck himself was 74 at the time) and it was not until 27 years later (in 1916) that the age was lowered to 65. By that time, Bismarck had been dead for 18 years.

	Privacy Policy | Website Policies & Other Important Information | Site Map	Need Larger Text?

Dear John-Chester,

You must be less than 65 years old. The MONSTER has
it rigged that you cannot get health insurance, after
age 65, unless you accept Social Security and
Medicare. The SYSTEM forces you to become a 14th
amendment citizen.

You may or may not know this, but Social Security was
imported from Germany. 65 years eligibility was set
because most people died before they reached 50!

This is a very believeable argument, but there is
probably a more restrictive "mark" available from the
United Nations and Satan.

Thank YOU for your continued input.

Dr. William Doell
--- mobinem@aol.com wrote:

__________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

(CAPTION)

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FOR FAILURE TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE

The Defendant, _____________________, by and through counsel,
respectfully Moves the court pursuant to FRCrP 12(b)(2) to set aside
the Verdict for failure of the Information to charge an offense.

It is established that an indictment for a tax issue must identify
a "known legal duty" to be valid.   United States v. Pomponio, 429
US 10; Cheek v US, 498 US 192. The requirement of a known legal duty
is jurisdictional that can never be waived. Freytag v CIR, 501 US
868, 896; Bowen v Johnston, 306 US 19, 24; Machibroda v US, 368 US
487; Kaufman v US, 394 US 217, 222.    Legal process that does not
identify a crime is void from its inception .  Moore v Dempsey, 261
US 86; Patton v US, 281 US 276.   "It is well settled that (even)
the entry of a guilty plea does not act as a waiver of
jurisdictional defects such as an indictment's failure to charge an
offense and the defendant may raise such failure at ANY time." US v
White, 258 F3d 374, 379 (5th Cir 2001). An information has no less
requirement for the averment of a legal duty to have been violated
than does an indictment; a violation of a law is indispensable for
an accusation.

It is additionally established that the defendant has no necessity
to discredit potential inferences or presumptions of
responsibility.  Due Process requires the plaintiff in a criminal
proceeding to carry the burden of proof of a valid established
authority duly legislated, succinctly and clearly averred in the
pleading, and submitted to contestation.
"Convictions generally have been sustained as long as the proof upon
which they are based corresponds to an offense that was clearly set
out in the indictment… Deprivation of such a basic right (to be
tried only on charges presented in an indictment) is far too serious
to be treated as nothing more than a variance and then dismissed as
harmless error." US v Miller, 471 US 130, 136, 140 (1985); Russell v
US, 369 US 749, 770-771;
Cole v Arkansas, 333 US 196; Speiser v Randall, 357 US 513, 529;
First Unitarian Church v Los Angeles, 357 US 545.

And where in the instant Information have the requirements of Due
Process to identify an offense been manifested ???

The Plaintiff avers in each of the four courts that the
defendant "was required by Title 26, United States Code, and by
regulations made under the authority thereof, to make a federal
income tax return."  This declaration is multiple self-serving
conclusions of law that has no standing.  Fernandez-Montes v Allied
Pilots Ass'n, 987 F2d 278, 284 (5th. Cir. 1993); Ryan v Scoggin, 245
F2d 54; Blackburn v Fisk Univ, 443 F2d 121; Pauling v McElroy, 278
F2d 252; Columbia v Tatum, 58 F3d 1101; Wag-Aero v US, 837 FSup
1479, affm. 35 F3d 569.    Moreover, any regulation, even if
identified, does not establish a legal requirement.

Each count additionally alludes to a "minimum filing requirement"
which is another self-serving conclusion of law. It has no
standing.  If such a requirement exists, Due Process requires the
plaintiff to aver the statutory requirement and submit it to
contestation with the plaintiff carrying the burden of proof. A
defendant has no necessity to assume and defend from a nebulous,
unidentified requirement.

The paragraph continues to again claim the defendant failed to file
a return "as required by such law and such regulation."  Again, this
is a legal conclusion that has no standing.  Or is this a reference
to the hanging phrase that is projected to constitute a subsequent
paragraph: "In violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section
7203."  ?

Is the plaintiff attempting to infer Section 7203 establishes a
legal requirement for the defendant to file a return for an income
tax ?  Assuming this is what the plaintiff intends, such an
conclusion cannot be supported. Section 7203 does not mention an
income tax, a filing requirement, or even who---upon what conditions-
-- might be required to perform such an act. The courts have further
repeatedly evidenced a conclusion of such a requirement would be
impossible.

In reviewing whether 26 USC §7207  could be applicable to the
offense at bar, the Supreme Court declared, upon review of the 1954
Congressional Record legislation of Part I of Chapter 75: "Congress
specifically stated that it placed all these provisions (26 USC
§7201 through §7217) in the same part of the Code because it wished
them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes."  Sansone
v United States, 380 US 343, 348 citations omitted.  By the words of
the Supreme Court and Congress itself, a citation of Part I of
Chapter 75 does not identify a specific tax the defendant can
violate.  The citation in the instant information therefore cannot
identify a "known legal duty" for any tax.

Concurring evidence abounds in case law.

In Grosso v US, 390 US 62, the Supreme Court addressed an issue of
willful failure to pay a wagering tax (IRC §4401) and willful
failure to pay a gambler's occupational license tax (IRC §4411).
Willful failure is not mentioned in either of the two cited
statutes. Willful failure came from §7203.  "Those LIABLE for
payment of that tax are REQUIRED to submit each month Internal
Revenue Service Form 730 . . . failure to pay the excise tax and to
FILE A RETURN are separately punishable under 26 USC §7203." id 65,
emphasis added.  Notice should be taken that the known legal duties
of those "required, liable" and the requirement to "file a return"
are identified within Chapter 35 (§4401 to §4424) while punishment
is established by §7203.

Marchetti v United States, 390 US 39,  also involved an offense
punishable by §7203 for violations of gambling tax statutes.  "The
second indictment included two counts: the first alleged a willful
failure to pay the occupational tax, and the second a willful
failure to register, as required by 26 U.S.C. 4412, before engaging
in the business of accepting wagers."   id, 40-41.  Note that the
statutory requirements of a "known legal duty" are again "required"
within the gambling tax statutes.  Willful failure as a conditional
requirement for imposition of a specific punishment comes from §7203.

In Ingram v US, 360 US 672, the Supreme Court reviewed utilization
of §7201 and §7203 to punish violation of §4401, §4411, and §4421
wagering tax provisions. id, Footnote #1. The court
declared:  "Liability for the federal tax is imposed by §4401 and
4411 of the IRC…" id 675. The "known legal duty" was within Chapter
35; it was not in Chapter 75.

Punishment via §§7201, 7203, and 7206 for violations relating to
wagering taxes was also imposed in US v Sheer, 278 F2d 67; Burks v
US, 287 F2d 117;  US v Shaffer, 291 F2d 689; US v Minker, 312 F2d
632; Bohn v US, 260 F2d 773;  US v Claney, 276 F2d 617; US v
Stoffey, 279 F2d 924; Application of Leahy, 298 F2d 233; George v
US, 346 F2d 137; US v DiPrimio, 209 FSup 137; US v Nicholas, 224
FSup 310.

Liquor law violations were punished by §7201, §7203 or §7206 in
prosecutions for untaxed distilled spirits in Wilson v US, 320 F2d
493; US v Cook, 412 F2d 293; US v One Ford, 304 F2d 419; US v
Champion, 387 F2d 561; Benefield v US, 370 F2d 912; US v Davis, 369
F2d 775; US v Goss, 353 F2d 671; Hyche v US, 286 F2d 248; Ingram v
US, 241 F2d 708; Dowling v US, 249 F2d 746; Brown v US, 253 F2d 587;
West v US, 259 F2d 868;  O'Neal v US, 273 F2d 549; Tucker v US, 279
F2d 62; King v US, 282 F2d 398; Monnette v US, 299 F2d 847;
Blumenfield v US, 306 F2d 892;  US v Denton, 307 F2d 336; US v One
Pontiac, 308 F2d 893; US v Lemons, 309 F2d 168; US v Ivey, 310 F2d
229; Davis v US, 385 F2d 919; US v Rector, 488 F2d 1079.  The "known
legal duties" are found in Chapter 51. Chapter 75 does not identify
that responsibility.

§7201, §7203, or §7206  were used to punish the failure to file
excise tax returns on wagers required by §4401 and §4411 in Tyler v
US, 397 F2d 565; US v Stavros, 597 F2d 108; Edwards v US, 321 F2d
324; US v Sams, 340 F2d 1014;  Scaglione v US, 396 F2d 219; US v
Magliano, 336 F2d 817; Rutherford v US, 264 F2d 180; US v Gaydos,
310 F2d 883; US v Sette, 334 F2d 267; US v Simon, 241 F2d 308; Clay
v US, 246 F2d 298; Merritt v US, 248 F2d 19;  Field v US, 263 758;
Barnhill v US, 279 F2d 105; Rosen v US, 293 F2d 938; US v Woodson,
303 F2d 49; US v Nicholson, 303 F2d 330; US v Brooks, 303 F2d 851;
US v Marchointe, 309 F2d 435;  US v Whiting, 311 F2d 191; US v
Viale, 312 F2d 595; US v Grossman, 315 F2d 94; US v Wilson, 214 FSup
629.   The "known legal duties" are found in Chapter 35.  Punishment
was imposed as authorized by  Chapter 75.

Violations of the required filing of race track forms could have
been charged with a misdemeanor under §7203 or a felony under §7206
according to the court in US v LaHaye, 548 F2d 474. Similar gambling
violations used the same punishments in US v McGee, 572 F2d 1097; US
v Snyder, 549 F2d 171; US v Dumaine, 493 F2d 1257; US v Kessler, 449
F2d 1315; US v Haimowitx, 404 F2d 38; US v Willoz, 449 F2d 1321; US
v Salerno, 330 FSup 1401.

A violation of §4461 coin operated gaming devices statute was
punished by §7203 in US v Menk, 260 FSup 784. The "known legal duty"
is found in Chapter 36.

Violations of corporate/employment tax requirements resulted in
punishment by §7201, §7202, §7203 or §7210 in Van Allen Co, v US,
422 US 617; Gundlach v US, 262 F2d 72; US v  Mollet, 290 F2d 273; US
v Stevedores, 310 F2d 47; Botta v Scanlon, 314 F2d 392; Ryan v US,
314 F2d 306; US v Becker, 259 F2d 869; US v Rothbart, 723 F2d 752.

Tax preparer violations were punished by §§ 7201, 7203, and 7206 in
US v Mesheski, 286 F2d 345, and US v Barnes, 313 F2d 325.

A sugar tax violation was punished by §7203 in Call v US, 265 F2d
167.
An estate tax violation was punished by §7207 in US v Alker, 254 F2d
292.
A marijuana tax violation was punished by §7206 in US v Alvere, 470
F2d 981.
A violation of concealing property from levy was punished by §7206
in US v Bergman, 306 F2d 653.

This list is not exhaustive. Its purpose is to merely show that the
provisions of Chapter 75, and specifically §7203,  have been
utilized for the prosecution of a multitude of Title 26 offenses
other than what the prosecution would have this court assume and
apply. The "known legal duties" for the offenses within the above
list have not been contained within Chapter 75, nor can Chapter 75
be used to identify any legal duties specifically for an income
tax.  A conclusion that Chapter 75 identifies the required "known
legal duty" for an income tax, as contended by the prosecution, is
totally incompatible with the above case law.

It is a "well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation
unless the same is imposed by CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCABLE  language, and
that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is
to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be
laid..." Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397 emphasis added.   And
again: "The (revenue) statute was evidently drawn with care. Its
language is plain and unambiguous. What the government asks is not a
construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by
the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may
be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the
judicial function."  Iselin v U.S., 270 US 245, 250-251; West
Virginia University Hospital v Casey, 499 US 83, 101 (1991). In the
instant case, the prosecution does not want the court to merely
construct an ambiguous statute in a favorable manner or enlarge a
statute that might be overly restrictive, but wants the court to
conjure and assume numerous statutes in their entirety for multiple
legally imposed responsibilities---after the trial where the
prosecution has been relieved of the burden of proof and the
assumptions cannot be contested. Such an act is not supported by any
holding, or dicta, of the supreme court. No appellate court condones
such an action except for income tax cases.

All we have in the instant case is a naked accusation without any
statutory foundation. If the only thing necessary for establishing
the existence of a legal responsibility is the whim of the
prosecutor, there is no reason for a judicial proceeding. The whim
can equally prearrange requirements of culpability even to where an
accusation is conclusive evidence of guilt.  Due Process would be
set back 2000 years to Roman law.

The necessity of being informed of a known legal duty has been
expressed by the court.
"This Court has repeatedly stated that criminal statutes which fail
to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is
done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law."
Jordan v De George, 341 US 223, 230 (1951). In the instant
information, we are not faced with a lack of a statute that gives
notice of a lawful duty before an act is done; we are instead
looking for a law that describes a mandatory responsibility before
conviction.   The prosecution implicitly asks the court to assume
such a law exists but refuses to identify it and submit it to
contestation. And again: "Conviction upon a charge not made would be
sheer denial of due process." De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 362.
(1937); Dunn v US, 442 US 100, 106-107.  "If doubt exists as to the
construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the taxpayer."   Hassett v Welch, 303 US 303, 314.  Again,
a request for construction by the Hassett court must rest upon an
identified tax statute that has previously been averred, which has
not been done in the instant case.

This is not a situation were a defendant has been accused of one
crime and convicted of another with "prejudice" being required to
set aside the verdict.   Where NO crime has been averred, prejudice
is a non sequitur. Patton v US, 281 US 276, 292; Harris v US, 149
F3d 1304, 1308; Kelly v US, 29 F3d 1107, 1113-1114.

Nor can the prosecutor rely upon the provision of FRCrP 7(c)(3) that
authorizes criminal process without a statutory citation. The
committee that wrote the provision in 2002 relied upon the two cases
of Williams v US, 168 US 382 (1897) and US v Hutcheson, 312 US  219
(1941) as supporting authority for the provision.  Scrutiny of the
two cases reveal each case involved the averring of one crime with
the conviction of another crime, and the origin of the prejudice
requirement.  They do not support the validity of process that has
NO statutory duty averred.  Eight hundred years evolution of Due
Process that no man shall be punished for a crime except "by the law
of the land" cannot properly be reversed by a misleading
representation made by a committee rewriting procedural rules.

CONCLUSION
The responsibility for a tax can only be imposed by a statute.   26
USC §7203 is the only statute identified in the information and the
above analysis conclusively shows §7203 can apply to numerous
different taxes and to many acts forbidden within each tax.  The
citation therefore cannot identify a "known legal duty" that the
defendant may have violated and the information therefore does not
charge an offense.

Without a crime being presented to the court in the information, the
court does not have a "case" before it and the verdict must be set
aside.
*****************************************************

> Madison Smith sobaybuild2000@... posted this
> to the trustees_agents Yahoo Group

> The only way of getting the banks is by going after
> them for fraud.

Actually, yes and no.  Going after a lender for fraud
puts the onus on "you" (whoever is suing), and having
to prove all the elements of fraud is not easy.

>You must go after the banks by taking them in to
>court and make them produce the Note and make them
>follow the rule of the court as well as the rule of
>evidence.

Usually, the lender goes after you first, and that is
to your advantage.  Now you are in a position to
make the lender prove all its elements of foreclosure

> In the foreclosure cases the bank must be the Holder
> in due Course having the right to foreclose.

The two most important elements the bank must prove,
and failure on the first negates the latter, a point
I am currently going after on appeal for my own
situation.


>In most cases the bank doesn't have the Note.

In all cases would be more accurate.



> In most cases when you look at the mortgage in the
> definitions of a Loan it may
> something like this "Loan is evidence by the Note
> and Mortgage".

In all cases, it really says something like, "...in
return for A LOAN, you promise to pay $xxx,xxx, ...

"a" is an indefinite article.  Your loan was very
specific.  To what does "a loan" refer is a question
no lender will answer, other than to dance around it
and say, "the $xxx,xxx, silly."


> Read the attached pg from Black's Law 4Ed 1957

While you have your Black's Law out, look up "a."

> So that that being said the Note and the Mortgage
> mean NOTHING without the
> other in the case of a Loan of credit on a titled
> property.

If you play your hand right, you will never get to
that part.
>
> Personally I witnessed an attorney state in open
> court. The Judge; "Do you have the Note"?
>
> The banks attorney; "No your honor, our client has
> followed standard
> industry practice pooled the Note with others and
> sold it to their investors"

And who was the fool that did not object for the open
admission of fraud?!!!!

"Oh really?  And where precisely was that part of my
terms of the Note?  Your honor, (sorry FF, they did
not disqualify you know who), is opposing counsel
telling us that the lender went outside the terms of
my Note without my knowledge, consent or approval?"

If you understand that, you got'em.
>
> I was there as a witness along with two other
> Notaries.

Mute witnesses.  Who needs them?


>
> If you have already done a Notary Protest to which
> you have recorded, then
> that can be brought in as evidence to move the court
> for further discovery.
> A Notary Protest is evidence under the Rules of
> evidence I believe 920 and
> 921. I would have to look it up again as well as
> 201.

A needless waste of time and off point.

> The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage
> agreement and enter a copy
> of that agreement. The judge well then ask you if
> you signed that agreement
> or ask is that your signature? Your reply is, no
> that is not my signature.
> So under the rules of evidence 1003 they must now
> produce the evidence that
> the signature on that document is yours. But still
> must have BOTH DOCUMENTS
> the Note and Mortgage to enforce so never loose
> sight of that.

Again, having the lender produce the original Note,
by denying that is your signature on a copy precludes
the judge asking the question, which has you on the
defensive instead of the other way around.

Just a few thoughts in response.

Cheers, all.

mn


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--- vivus_spartacus <vivus_spartacus@...> wrote:

> "The banks well try and say you signed a mortgage
> agreement and
> enter a copy of that agreement. The judge well then
> ask you if you
> signed that agreement or ask is that your
> signature?"
>
>

>
>
> Therefore the Correct Reply should be as:
>
>
>
> 'I have No information, or knowledge sufficient to
> form a belief as
> to the Authenticity of the signature presented by
> opposing party
> which is alleging same to be mine.'
>
>

I am not dogging you here, v_s, but by requiring the
lender  to produce the original note from the outset,
as I noted in another post to this theme, eliminates
putting oneself into that position.

I prefer to always make the lender sweat what is
impossible for it to do.

Cheers!

mn



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

http://cybersafe.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/40ctax.htm

Any in put on this manual, not sure if I could post the link but
thought it would be easy than a long paste.




Updated October 2001
40.01 GENERALLY

40.02 SCHEMES
       40.02[1] Paper Terrorism
             40.02[1][a] Harassment Schemes
             40.02[1][b] Bogus Financial Instruments
       40.02[2] Warehouse Banks
       40.02[3] Trusts
       40.02[4] Church Schemes
             40.02[4][a] Generally
             40.02[4][b] Vow of Poverty
             40.02[4][c] Charitable Contributions
             40.02[4][d] First Amendment Considerations

40.03 TRIAL TACTICS/CONSIDERATIONS
       40.03[1] Criminal Summons
       40.03[2] 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5) Juror Audit Information
       40.03[3] IRS Agents' Authority
       40.03[4] Indictment Not Sufficient Notice of Illegality
       40.03[5] Filing of Protest Documents: Is the Document Filed a
Tax Return?
             40.03[5][a] Generally
             40.03[5][b] What Is a Tax Return?
             40.03[5][c] What Is or Is Not a Tax Return: A Matter of
Law
       40.03[6] Discovery of IRS Master Files
       40.03[7] Motions in Limine
       40.03[8] Attorney Sanctions
       40.03[9] Evidentiary Issues
             40.03[9][a] Prior or Subsequent Tax Protest Activities:
Rule 404(b)
             40.03[9][b] IRS Agent's Testimony and Sequestration
             40.03[9][c] Admissibility of IRS Computer Records
       40.03[10] Use of Pseudonyms by IRS Revenue Agents and Officers
       40.03[11] Jury Nullification

40.04 WILLFULNESS

40.05 DEFENSES
       40.05[1] Good Faith
             40.05[1][a] Reliance on Return Preparer/Accountant
             40.05[1][b] Reliance on Advice of Counsel
             40.05[1][c] No Defense in Non-Tax Cases
       40.05[2] Constitutional Challenges
             40.05[2][a] Fourth Amendment -- Unreasonable Search and
Seizure
             40.05[2][b] Fifth Amendment -- Due Process; Freedom from
Self-incrimination
             40.05[2][c] Tax Laws Are Unconstitutionally Vague
             40.05[2][d] Sixteenth Amendment Never Ratified
       40.05[3] Selective Prosecution and Freedom of Speech
             40.05[3][a] Generally
             40.05[3][b] Selective Prosecution Defense
             40.05[3][c] Freedom of Speech
       40.05[4] District Court Lacks Jurisdiction of Title 26 Offenses
             40.05[4][a]  Generally
             40.05[4][b] The Gold-Fringed Flag ("The American Maritime
Flag of War")
       40.05[5] Filing Income Tax Returns Is Voluntary, Not Mandatory
       40.05[6] Wages Are Not Income
       40.05[7] Defendant Not A "Person" or "Citizen";
                District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Non-Persons and
State Citizens
             40.05[7][a] Generally
             40.05[7][b] Filing U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax
Return
       40.05[8] IRS Has Duty to Prepare Returns for Taxpayer (26
U.S.C. § 6020(b))
       40.05[9] Violation of the Privacy Act
       40.05[10] Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Legal Tender
       40.05[11] Form W-2 As Substitute for Form 1040
       40.05[12] Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") Defense
       40.05[13] Lack of Publication in the Federal Register
       40.05[14] Taxpayer's Name in Capital Letters or Misspelled
       40.05[15] Tax Protest Against Government Spending

O.K. Since I was responding to the faulty scenario created /provided
by "Madison Smith",


perhaps you would like to explain:

Exactly which part of the Demurrer Process/Timing do you not
understand?


The Demurrer is filed in Response to the Original Complaint.


The subsequent Discovery Process and Pre-Trial Motions Calender,


whereby the Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Evidence is heard,
does not require one to State in Open Court, the erroneous reply
which "Madison Smith" presented as proper.



Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

Extra Cheers!


"vivus spartacus"
All Rights Reserved (In the 9th Amendment)




--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Michael Noonan
<mn_chicago@...> wrote:
>
"I am not dogging you here, v_s, but by requiring the lender  to
produce the original note from the outset, as I noted in another
post to this theme, eliminates putting oneself into that position."
>
"I prefer to always make the lender sweat what is impossible for it
to do."
>
Cheers!
>
mn
>

"kasgs300" <kasgs300@...> has informed us of the link to the
government's website of courtroom protests to the income tax.

The sheer length of the list of tax resisters and the multitude of
claims is amazing.  And I am sure the number of cases identified is
but a small fraction of the actual cases taken to court.

Note also that [40.03[8] Attorney Sanctions] gives evidence that
various presentations of claims challenging the existence of
liability, and unacceptable trial dramatics, has resulted in
sanctions.  Becraft paid $2500 and may well be intimidated about
having his license suspended for any further filing.  It is
submitted the legal analysis made by lawyers in prior cases has not
been as documented as in the MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT posted as
#15631 on this board December 5.

Reb
******************************
>
> http://cybersafe.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/40ctax.htm
>
> Any in put on this manual, not sure if I could post the link but
> thought it would be easy than a long paste.
>
>
>
>
> Updated October 2001
> 40.01 GENERALLY
>
> 40.02 SCHEMES

>     ****SNIPPED******

Before you try this in Florida make sure you read Florida Statute
673.3091
The bank can just say " we lost it"

673.3091  Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.--

(1)  A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to
enforce the instrument if:

(a)  The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to
enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has
directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a
person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of
possession occurred;

(b)  The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the
person or a lawful seizure; and

(c)  The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument
because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be
determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person
or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of
process.

(2)  A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection
(1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to
enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 applies to
the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the
instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person
seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay
the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur
by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument.
Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

History.--s. 2, ch. 92-82; s. 1, ch. 2004-3.

Is it legal for them to say "we lost it" when in reality they sold it?

The sheer length of the list of tax resisters and the multitude of
claims is amazing. And I am sure the number of cases identified is
but a small fraction of the actual cases taken to court.

Note also that [40.03[8] Attorney Sanctions] gives evidence that
various presentations of claims challenging the existence of
liability, and unacceptable trial dramatics, has resulted in
sanctions. Becraft paid $2500 and may well be intimidated about
having his license suspended for any further filing.

Re: Right to due process memory  refresher,  with valuable legal a material
for free.

Good comments. It is worth reading this on the right to due process etc.:



http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/41-4_pdf/book.pdf



There must be, nevertheless, a similar source with legal tax protesters tax
manual.

Does anyone have any such information to contribute to the rest of us legal
tax objectors?

Yannis



  The sheer length of the list of tax resisters and the multitude of
claims is amazing. And I am sure the number of cases identified is
but a small fraction of the actual cases taken to court.