Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Which Flag applies?

Expand Messages
  • BOB GREGORY
    Larry Becraft is a prominent attorney in the tax honesty movement. He won the Stone case in Tennessee and was one of Vernice Kuglin s attorneys in her win
    Message 1 of 23 , Apr 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry Becraft is a prominent attorney in the tax honesty movement.  He won the Stone case in Tennessee and was one of Vernice Kuglin's attorneys in her win against the IRS in Memphis ( The other attorney was Robert Bernhoft.)  Here is what Becraft has to say about such stuff:

      "I absolutely hate and despise scammers, and plenty have gone thru this movement. Those utterly baseless and crazy UCC, “we are Brits,” fringe flag, etc, arguments have done incalculable damage and made this movement look like a bunch of freaks. Every day, I detect gross legal errors in arguments promoted in this movement. People injured by the same come to me for help and frankly, I am tired of playing “clean-up” for the gurus who promote these arguments but NEVER help those injured thereby.

      What about that stupid redemption process promoted by Wrong Way Law, Roger Elvick, Dave DeReimer, etc? From its start, I tried to stop promotion of that insanity, and I even defended after indictment some people who got caught up in that craziness. But when trying to battle promoters of stupid arguments, they defend themselves by hurling defamation. I have learned to hate and despise all such promoters.

      Presently, there is floating around the movement a book, USA vs US, which is premised on an utterly baseless contention that the “Act of 1871" completely changed our form of govt. I address this argument below. Is it not fraud for people to claim that this “act” continues in effect today when the legal truth of the matter is that the act was repealed a few years after it was adopted? The gullible bite into these utterly false “legal” arguments “hook, line and sinker,” but engage in defamation against all who try to show them the truth. Such is the power of brainwashing."



      Michael Noonan wrote:

      Wednesday



      4 April 2007

      >From my notes, but I cannot find the source for more:

      Flags are in the category of heraldry. The United
      States has many different flags: the national flag,
      military, military boat flags, casket flags, and the
      flag of the united States.


    • Michael Noonan
      ... Would that be as opposed to any damage done by the military flag, (curiously not addressed in his vitriolic monologue) which undeniably hangs suspended
      Message 2 of 23 , Apr 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:


        ---------------------------------

        >Larry Becraft is a prominent attorney in the tax
        >honesty movement.

        >"I absolutely hate and despise scammers, andplenty
        >have gone thru thismovement. Those utterly baseless
        >and crazy UCC, “we are Brits,” fringeflag,etc,
        >arguments have done incalculable damage and made
        >this movementlook like abunch of freaks.

        Would that be as opposed to any damage done by the
        military flag, (curiously not addressed in his
        vitriolic monologue) which undeniably hangs suspended
        from a pole in each courtroom, for what, merely
        because the yellow fringe gives it a smart, added
        look?

        So, are we left to assume that this "prominent
        attorney" (two words that clash together) says such
        an issued is to be ignored. Just let the gold-fringed
        flag, signaling a military court, be, seems to be his
        conclusion.



        >Presently, there is floating around the movement a
        >book, USA vs US,which ispremised on an utterly
        >baseless contention that the “Act of 1871"completely
        >changed our form of govt.

        Yeah, he's proboably right. No need to be concerned
        over such a trivial issue, especially since it is a
        baseless contention.


        > Isit notfraud for people to claim that this “act”
        >continues in effect todaywhen thelegal truth of the
        >matter is that the act was repealed a few yearsafter
        >it wasadopted?

        It is really unclear what this "prominent attorney" is
        actually saying, and clearly, any fraud did not arise
        from one "act" alone.


        Let us know if there any other acts in his play, or
        any that make a real point and not the kind of
        genrealizations he is as guilty of using as those
        against whom he rails.

        Somehow, I am left feeling that failing as some freak
        would make more since than failing as some lemming.

        Maybe I just missed the point.

        Cheers,

        mn



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
        with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
        http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
      • Frog Farmer
        ... They must be in Vulcan Mind Meld with your adversaries! I find it gratifying that this list provides for many government jobs that would not be there
        Message 3 of 23 , Apr 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

          > I will add, there was one participant on this site
          > who ridiculed me in a private e-mail, saying I had no
          > clue what I was doing, and quasi-boasted that I would
          > fail in my efforts.

          They must be in Vulcan Mind Meld with your adversaries!

          I find it gratifying that this list provides for many government jobs
          that would not be there without it.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Frog Farmer
          ... I don t have the time to search out all the mistakes he s made, but they are memorialized on the net somewhere. He protects his bar card. I m not
          Message 4 of 23 , Apr 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            BOB GREGORY [mailto:rhgusn@...] wrote:

            > Larry Becraft is a prominent attorney in the tax honesty movement.

            I don't have the time to search out all the mistakes he's made, but they
            are memorialized on the net somewhere. He protects his bar card. I'm
            not impressed by him or those who fall upon him as a last resort.

            > Here is what Becraft has to say about such
            > stuff:
            >
            > "I absolutely hate and despise scammers, and plenty have gone thru
            > this movement. Those utterly baseless and crazy UCC, "we are Brits,"
            > fringe flag, etc, arguments have done incalculable damage and made
            > this movement look like a bunch of freaks. Every day, I detect gross
            > legal errors in arguments promoted in this movement. People injured by
            > the same come to me for help and frankly, I am tired of playing
            > "clean-up" for the gurus who promote these arguments but NEVER help
            > those injured thereby.

            I can agree with that, but his hatred doesn't eliminate the relevance of
            UCC, flag fringe, involvement with Brits or anything else. It just
            means he's bothered by the idiots who hang their hats on one defense
            they never come to understand themselves, and being an attorney, he has
            other priorities than his clients.

            > What about that stupid redemption process promoted by Wrong Way Law,
            > Roger Elvick, Dave DeReimer, etc?

            Oh, you mean the one from the Scriptures? That "Redemption"? That's the one
            Roger Elvick discussed at a dinner table with me. It doesn't need
            "promotion" as the Scriptures is pretty well distributed. I do know there is
            a "stupid redemption process" out there getting people into trouble, but
            I haven't been willing to pay to see what it is and how it is stupid.
            The process in the Scriptures that Roger told me about is free, and wasn't
            invented by anyone I'd want to call "stupid", eh, Bear?!

            > From its start, I tried to stop
            > promotion of that insanity, and I even defended after indictment some
            > people who got caught up in that craziness. But when trying to battle
            > promoters of stupid arguments, they defend themselves by hurling
            > defamation. I have learned to hate and despise all such promoters.

            Yes, so here we have a third party, Bob, exhorting us to eschew various
            defenses based upon the "hate" of an attorney. Don't answer any direct
            questions about specifics, just refer to "crazy arguments" (without
            identifying them or pointing out the errors, just refer in general to a
            wide category of topics and let the mud stick where it lands...)

            > Presently, there is floating around the movement a book, USA vs US,
            > which is premised on an utterly baseless contention that the "Act of
            > 1871" completely changed our form of govt. I address this argument
            > below. Is it not fraud for people to claim that this "act" continues
            > in effect today when the legal truth of the matter is that the act was
            > repealed a few years after it was adopted? The gullible bite into
            > these utterly false "legal" arguments "hook, line and sinker," but
            > engage in defamation against all who try to show them the truth. Such
            > is the power of brainwashing."

            And so if an act was repealed, and a book that doesn't take note of it
            is titled (by the private author) "USA vs. US" that necessarily means
            that there is no difference between the terms "USA" and "US"?? You'd
            have to be brainwashable (and on the spin cycle) to believe that one
            too.

            Regards,

            FF
          • BOB GREGORY
            Larry Becraft has fought criminal government people and criminal judges for many years, probably longer than most people on this group have been aware of the
            Message 5 of 23 , Apr 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Larry Becraft has fought criminal government people and criminal judges for many years, probably longer than most people on this group have been aware of the problems we're dealing with.  He has researched those topics which he has classified as flaky, not just come out against them because it seemed like fun.  He is presently assisting Tommy Cryer in his defense against the IRS/DOJ.  If you are not familiar with Tommy Cryer, another prominent attorney fighting the IRS.  See his web site at liefreezone.com

              In the case of the fringed flag, here are some quotes:

              The quote below concerning gold fringe on the Flag is from the book "So Proudly We Hail, The History of the United States Flag" Smithsonian Institute Press 1981, by Wiliam R. Furlong and Byron McCandless. "The placing of a fringe on Our Flag is optional with the person of organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either prohibits the practice, according to the Institute of Hearaldry. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags on outdoor flags would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a Flag is considered and 'honorable enrichment only', and its official use by the US Army dates from 1895.. A 1925 Attorney General's Opinion states: 'the fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.'"

              The gold trim is generally used on ceremonial indoor flags that are used for special services and is believed to have been first used in a military setting. It has no specific significance that I have ever run across, and its (gold trim) use is in compliance with applicable flag codes and laws.

              There have been many rumors about the origin, use and purpose of the gold fringe or braided silk that is often found on the American flag. The truth is that there is no specific meaning or significance to such trim on the American flag as it is used nowadays. There are websites, pamphlets, blogs and books that have proclaimed the fringe as having specific hidden meanings to groups ranging from Freemasons, Jewish business interests and non-caucasion groups as well as groups with political agendas like anti-taxation groups and organizations promoting admiralty law and uniform commercial code groups.

              The gold fringe adornment found on many American flags is just that--adornment. Many U.S. military flags, courtrooms, municipalities and organizations who hold ceremonies or are involved in parades use American flags with such gold fringe simply for the aesthetic value. In short, many think it looks good, feels good and is fitting.


              Decoration

              Traditionally, the flag may be decorated with golden fringe surrounding the perimeter of the flag itself as long as it does not deface the flag proper. Ceremonial displays of the flag, such as those in parades or on indoor posts, often utilize fringe to enhance the beauty of the flag. The first recorded use of fringe on a flag dates from 1835, and the Army used it officially in 1895. No specific law governs the legality of fringe, but a 1925 opinion of the attorney general approves the use of fringe "...at the descretion of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy...". The United States Institute of Heraldry also confirms that there are no implications of symbolism in the use of fringe. [10]




              Michael Noonan wrote:
              --- BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@bellsouth. net> wrote:


              ------------ --------- --------- ---

              >Larry Becraft is a prominent attorney in the tax
              >honesty movement.

              >"I absolutely hate and despise scammers, andplenty
              >have gone thru thismovement. Those utterly baseless
              >and crazy UCC, “we are Brits,” fringeflag,etc,
              >arguments have done incalculable damage and made
              >this movementlook like abunch of freaks.

              Would that be as opposed to any damage done by the
              military flag, (curiously not addressed in his
              vitriolic monologue) which undeniably hangs suspended
              from a pole in each courtroom, for what, merely
              because the yellow fringe gives it a smart, added
              look?


            • rebel382003
              ... I wish for Tom Cryer the best in the world in his confrontation with the IRS. Unfortunately, I believe his efforts will be unsuccessful. The website
              Message 6 of 23 , Apr 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                A subscriber has written:

                >Larry Becraft has fought criminal government people and criminal
                >judges for many years, probably longer than most people on this
                >group have been aware of the problems we're dealing with. He has
                >researched those topics which he has classified as flaky, not
                >just come out against them because it seemed like fun. He is
                >presently assisting Tommy Cryer in his defense against the
                >IRS/DOJ. If you are not familiar with Tommy Cryer, another
                >prominent attorney fighting the IRS. See his web site at
                >liefreezone.com <http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/>

                I wish for Tom Cryer the best in the world in his confrontation with
                the IRS. Unfortunately, I believe his efforts will be
                unsuccessful. The website cited above that has posted information
                on his proceedings indicate his positions are:

                1. THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX;
                2. THE LAW DOES NOT TAX FEES HE HAS PERSONALLY EARNED;
                3. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THEFEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX
                FEES HE HAS PERSONALLY EARNED;
                4. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE
                PRACTICE OF LAW, WHICH IS SOLELY UNDER STATE JURISDICTION;
                5. THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES YOUR AND TOM'S RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING
                AND TO ENGAGE IN ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION AND THE CONSTITUTION
                PROHIBITS TAXING ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT; AND
                6. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT TAXATION OF YOUR OR TOM'S WAGES,
                SALARIES AND FEES PERSONALLY EARNED

                I am not privy to all four Motions he has filed and do not know how
                they are worded. The one Motion that has been available on the
                internet indicates he is claiming the income tax does not apply to
                him, that the income tax violates certain of his rights, etc., and
                generally follows the above six points.

                Inherent in the process, he has accepted the burden of proof that he
                will evidence the impropriety of the income tax. The court will
                require that Cryer PROVE there is NO possible way the income tax
                MIGHT be valid. It is a requirement that is impossible to achieve.
                Such an effort will fail.

                Due process has historically required that any tax enforcer must
                identify the statutory authorization of the imposed tax and carry
                the burden of proof of its validity before the court. The IRS has
                been successful in avoiding this responsibility for 40 years. If
                Cryer allows the burden of proof to be shifted to him, he cannot win.

                Cryer's indictment, and all income tax indictments for the past 40
                years, have relied upon 26 USC ##7201 through 7215 to claim the
                required "known legal duty" to pay an income tax is identified. In
                Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, the Supreme court, in
                adjudicating whether 26 USC §7207 was applicable to income tax cases
                reflected on the 1954 Congressional Record legislation of Part I of
                Chapter 75. "Congress specifically stated that it placed all these
                provisions (§7201 through §7217) in the same part of the Code
                because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income
                taxes." id 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. Such a citation in Cryer's indictment therefore cannot
                identify "a known legal duty" required in a valid indictment that is
                averred to be violated by the defendant.

                In addition, 100 appellate cases have been identified that use the
                same statutes for other than income tax cases. If they can be used
                to punish wagering taxes, amusement taxes, alcohol taxes, etc., it
                is obvious they cannot also identify a "known legal duty" to pay an
                income tax. Ref.
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/13755

                The placement of the burden of proof will determine the winner.

                Reb
              • Mike Beiser
                During the last year of World War II, Beardsley Ruml read a paper before the American Bar Association. A magazine called American Affairs published it in
                Message 7 of 23 , Apr 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  During the last year of World War II, Beardsley Ruml read a paper
                  before the American Bar Association. A magazine called American
                  Affairs published it in January, 1946, under the title, "Taxes for
                  Revenue Are Obsolete." In the introduction to the paper, the editor
                  said this: ". . . His thesis is that given (1) control of a central
                  banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign
                  national government is finally free of money worries and need no
                  longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue.
                  All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view
                  of social and economic consequences. . . ." (emphasis added)

                  Before you write a check, you need to deposit "money" to back it. If
                  you don't deposit "money" your check will bounce. What would happen
                  if the bank said you could keep writing checks, but no longer need
                  to make deposits? Yee Haa!!! That is what the government arranged
                  for itself when it stopped depositing gold (and silver) to back
                  the "dollar." The "dollars" it printed thenceforth were tantamount
                  to your rubber checks.

                  Beardsley Ruml himself put it this way: "The necessity for a
                  government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its
                  solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true
                  for a national government. . . ." Ruml says two historic changes
                  have made that possible. "The first of these changes is the gaining
                  of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The
                  second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the
                  convertibility of the currency into gold."

                  Ruml was talking about the creation of the Federal Reserve, the
                  nation's central bank, and about the theft of the people's gold by
                  mass murderer Franklin Roosevelt (Pearl Harbor). So, if we don't
                  need taxes to run the government, why do we have them? What are they
                  for? Under the heading, "What Taxes Are Really For," the Ruml
                  article lists four purposes:

                  1.As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing
                  power of the dollar;
                  2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of
                  income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
                  3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various
                  industries and economic groups;
                  4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national
                  benefits, such as highways and social security.

                  According to Ruml, the first of these purposes is by far the most
                  important, his explanation of which deserves quotation at
                  length: "By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served
                  by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar
                  which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this
                  purpose is stated as `the avoidance of inflation' . . . .

                  ". . . If federal taxes are insufficient or of the wrong kind, the
                  purchasing power in the hands of the public is likely to be greater
                  than the output of goods and services with which this purchasing
                  demand can be satisfied. If the demand becomes too great, the result
                  will be a rise in prices and there will be no proportionate increase
                  in the quantity of things for sale. This will mean that the dollar
                  is worth less than it was before – that is inflation. . . .

                  "The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the
                  hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the
                  government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and,
                  therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things
                  which are available for sale. . . ."

                  Notice that the true purpose of the
                  income tax, according to Ruml, is to protect the totally unbacked
                  Federal Reserve funny "money" from collapsing like the 1923 German
                  mark. Its true purpose is to pay the people with one hand, and to
                  confiscate with the other; thereby inhibiting the inflationary
                  effect of ravenous government spending.

                  And the scheme has worked. The income tax has delayed the inevitable
                  collapse of the dollar by offering a safety valve through which the
                  inflationary pressure generated by that spending can more safely be
                  released. The income tax does that by transferring purchasing power
                  from the people to the government. Again, the income tax has nothing
                  to do with supporting the government.

                  Beardsley Ruml said all this fifty-eight years ago. Is it still true
                  today? On November 21, 2002, Ben S. Bernanke addressed the National
                  Economists Club in the District of Conspiracy. Bernanke is one of
                  seven governors of the Federal Reserve, now the Federal reserve
                  Chairman, and belongs to its crucial, top-secret Open Market
                  Committee, so he is another horse's mouth.

                  Indeed at a celebration of economist Milton Friedman's 90th
                  birthday, Bernanke wound up his accolade as follows: "Let me end my
                  talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of
                  the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton . . . regarding
                  the Great Depression: You're right, we did it."

                  Last November 21st, in the District of Conspiracy, Bernanke told the
                  economists: "Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent
                  that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government
                  has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic
                  equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it
                  wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S.
                  dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so,
                  the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms
                  of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in
                  dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-
                  money system, a determined government can always generate higher
                  spending and hence positive inflation."

                  In other words, nothing has changed. The Federal Reserve – the
                  billionaire totalitarian socialist conspirators who illegally force
                  us to pay interest to use our own money – needs the income tax.
                  Americans don't.
                • hobot
                  I disagree. It is the flag that carries the day for the jurisdiction of both plaintiff and defendant. Military. mn Ok then what party is the one that chooses
                  Message 8 of 23 , Apr 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I disagree. It is the flag that carries the day for
                    the jurisdiction of both plaintiff and defendant.
                    Military.

                    mn

                    Ok then what party is the one that chooses which flag applies
                    or do both have to agree?

                    hobot

                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley? Regards, FF
                    Message 9 of 23 , Apr 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      hobot [mailto:hobot@...] wrote:

                      > Ok then what party is the one that chooses which flag applies
                      > or do both have to agree?

                      How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley?

                      Regards,

                      FF
                    • hugger8@aol.com
                      Please note: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c) explains what has to be in an indictment. That is the codification of our 6th Amendment right to
                      Message 10 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Please note: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c) explains what has to be in an indictment.  That is the codification of our 6th Amendment right to know the "nature and cause of the accusation."  The indictment must point out the statute that you violated.  Chapter 75 sec. 7201 through 7203 cannot be violated.  They are benign and only come into play AFTER you have violated a statute, rule, or regulation that imposes a duty.
                         
                        Wally




                        See what's free at AOL.com.
                      • Michael Noonan
                        ... I do not have first-hand information/experience on that, but given that the proper flag, as described and called the peace flag, trumps all other flags, I
                        Message 11 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- hobot <hobot@...> wrote:

                          > I disagree. It is the flag that carries the day for
                          > the jurisdiction of both plaintiff and defendant.
                          > Military.
                          >
                          > mn
                          >
                          > Ok then what party is the one that chooses which
                          > flag applies
                          > or do both have to agree?


                          I do not have first-hand information/experience on
                          that, but given that the proper flag, as described
                          and called the peace flag, trumps all other flags,
                          I will display a peace flag in the court and defy
                          any judge to say it does not carry over the displayed
                          military flag.

                          Regards,

                          mn



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Bored stiff? Loosen up...
                          Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
                          http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
                        • James Garofalo
                          Before you get to 7(c) one should look closely at FRCrimP 3 and 4. If we go straight to the indictment rule(s), we miss the true problem with Federal
                          Message 12 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Before you get to 7(c) one should look closely at FRCrimP 3 and 4. 
                            If we go straight to the indictment rule(s), we miss the true "problem" with Federal Criminal procedure.  Modern Criminal Procedure tells us that there is a lower magistrate's court and an upper judge's trial court.  It says that the accusatory instrument of the upper court is the indictment  and  the accusatory instrument of the lower court is the complaint.  If the lower court proceedings go the distance of proper due process steps riding on the complaint, then it can go to the grand jury for an indictment.  If indicted, the indictment REPLACES the complaint as the accusatory instrument for the upper trial court. 
                                 SO....getting back to basics: where's the COMPLAINT??  And how is it that without the complaint, jurisdiction is conferred upon the court?  It isn't.  Without the complaint, and therefore without jurisdiction, the court has no authority to issue ANY process: summons or warrant of arrest!  Yet they do!  People are being (allegedly) arraigned on (alleged)INDICTMENTS (the upper court accusatory instrument) in the lower court!  Why? Because the complaint must be sworn and subscribed to by the prosecutor, i.e.  the prosecutor must swear that a 'crime' has been committed.  The prosecutor must only sign the indictment.  The prosecutor knows that Federal Criminal law can rarely be applied to people of the state unless it can be shown that a part of the crime took place on federal property as described in the old Title 40 section 255, and that proof doesn't exist, i.e. they can't establish a portion of the crime as having taken place on federal territory.  
                                 So the 'bait and switch' is to (allegedly) arraign people on the (alleged) indictment rather than the complaint, which frees the prosecutor from obvious perjury. 
                                 Rule 3 of the FRCrimP says there will be a complaint.  Rule 4 of the FRCrimP states that the complaint will be FILED along with any affidavit relied on to establish PROBABLE CAUSE.  If you're running a fraudulent operation, these are good rules to get around.  If you allow the court to go forward absent fulfilling rules 3 and 4, your chances of winning diminish rapidly. 
                                 I've heard that attorneys are forbidden to question the validity of the indictment...which is to say, get your client to bypass the complaint and let's go forward on the (alleged) indictment. 
                                Be careful about running to any rule that passes FRCrimP 3 and 4. 
                                

                            hugger8@... wrote:
                            Please note: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c) explains what has to be in an indictment.  That is the codification of our 6th Amendment right to know the "nature and cause of the accusation."  The indictment must point out the statute that you violated.  Chapter 75 sec. 7201 through 7203 cannot be violated.  They are benign and only come into play AFTER you have violated a statute, rule, or regulation that imposes a duty.
                             
                            Wally




                            See what's free at AOL.com.

                          • hobot
                            How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley? Regards, FF Say What ! FF offering up a white rag as sign of surrender? hobot
                            Message 13 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley?
                              Regards,
                              FF

                              Say What !  FF offering up a  white rag as sign  of surrender?

                              hobot
                               

                            • Tim Wallace
                              A white flag is not always a sign of surrender. It can also be used as a sign of truce and/or non-hostile communication. To parley is to confer with an enemy.
                              Message 14 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                A white flag is not always a sign of surrender.  It can also be used as a sign of truce and/or non-hostile communication.
                                 
                                To parley is to confer with an enemy.
                                 
                                TW


                                How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley?
                                Regards,
                                FF

                                Say What !  FF offering up a  white rag as sign  of surrender?

                                hobot
                                 

                              • Frog Farmer
                                ... No. From Wikipedia: White flags have had different meanings throughout history and depending on the locale. The white flag is an internationally
                                Message 15 of 23 , Apr 7, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  hobot [mailto:hobot@...] wrote:


                                  > How about the white flag, as both parties approach to parley?
                                  > Regards,
                                  > FF
                                  >
                                  > Say What ! FF offering up a white rag as sign of surrender?

                                  No. From Wikipedia:

                                  "White flags have had different meanings throughout history and
                                  depending on the locale.
                                  The white flag is an internationally recognized protective sign of truce
                                  or ceasefire, and request for negotiation. It is also used to symbolize
                                  surrender..."

                                  Truce is not surrender, and surrender is not the primary meaning of the
                                  white flag. At your parley, you can choose to surrender, but don't have
                                  to. Instead you may wish to offer surrender terms to your adversary.

                                  truce (plural: truces)

                                  a period of time in which no fighting takes place due to an agreement
                                  between the opposed parties
                                  an agreement between opposed parties in which they pledge to cease
                                  fighting for a limited time

                                  Regards,

                                  FF
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.