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

Re: property tax case

Expand Messages
  • JcP
    ... The way I see it.......REAL ESTATE (commercial property) is taxable. PRIVATE PROPERTY is NOT taxable.... Definitions.....definitions.....
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 17 6:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      The way I see it.......REAL ESTATE (commercial property) is taxable. PRIVATE PROPERTY is NOT taxable....

      Definitions.....definitions.....
    • Don S.
      All property is taxable. BUT, private property requires a DIRECT TAX. A DIRECT TAX must be apportioned. Why should a house/ property valued at a higher
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 17 10:09 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        All property is taxable.

        BUT, private property requires a DIRECT TAX.

        A DIRECT TAX must be apportioned.

        Why should a house/ property valued at a "higher"
        artificial price, have to pay more in taxes for municipal services?

        What, they need "more" voluntary police protection?

        More fire or ambulance services?

        See the lie.

        Each home should pay a equal share of municipal services,
        not hidden in a percentile tax as is done now.

        In fact, this nation should run off INDIRECT TAXES as tariffs
        and excises on goods or products or services, and only
        make up the NEEDED DIFFERENCE with a DIRECT TAX.

        This would encourage SAVINGS and an American work ethic.







        =====================================
        At 09:28 AM 4/17/2010 -0400, you wrote:
        >
        >
        >----------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >The way I see it.......REAL ESTATE (commercial property) is taxable.
        >PRIVATE PROPERTY is NOT taxable....
        >
        >Definitions.....definitions.....
        >
        >
      • Jake
        ... A State property tax does not need to be apportioned & the rules of apportionment / uniformity in the U.S. Constitution applicable to Congress do not bind
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 17 6:02 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > All property is taxable.

          > BUT, private property requires a DIRECT TAX.

          > A DIRECT TAX must be apportioned.
          A State property tax does not need to be apportioned & the rules of apportionment / uniformity in the U.S. Constitution applicable to Congress do not bind the State legislatures.  



          All property is taxable.



          BUT, private property requires a DIRECT TAX.



          A DIRECT TAX must be apportioned.
        • DA
          All property is owned by the State; we are users, tenants and maintenance workers protecting the State s asset. Our use of the property is a benefit and
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 17 7:10 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            All property is owned by the State; we are users, tenants and maintenance workers protecting the State's asset. Our use of the property is a benefit and privilege taxable by the state.

            I don't like it but I think that's the way it is...at least until we find our way out of it.

            just some thoughts
          • E Junker
            And what of Allodial titles ? ________________________________ From: DA To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 17 9:17 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              And what of "Allodial titles"?



              From: DA <kaptnjack@...>
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 8:10:50 PM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case

               

              All property is owned by the State; we are users, tenants and maintenance workers protecting the State's asset. Our use of the property is a benefit and privilege taxable by the state.

              I don't like it but I think that's the way it is...at least until we find our way out of it.

              just some thoughts

            • BOB GREGORY
              Direct taxes are only required to be apportioned when they are FEDERAL taxes. States do not have the requirement for apportionment. Since property taxes are
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 17 9:27 PM
              • 0 Attachment


                Direct taxes are only required to be apportioned when they are FEDERAL taxes.  States do not have the requirement for apportionment. 

                Since property taxes are stated as percentages of the value of the property, it seems logical that they should rarely need to be increased by percentage but only by means of changes in the value of the property.  Some property values increase as land use changes from agricultural to residential and business.  Most property values "increase" just because of inflation.  The dollar becomes worth less and less as the government issues more and more dollars with no backing other than the "full faith and credit of the United States."  Land that continues in the same use with no reason that it has become more intrinsically desirable because of changes in land use near it should not change in value, but a nice house and lot that cost $25,000 in 1960 now may cost $175,000 just because dollars are worth less.  That is an indictment of the government's monetary policy and fiscal policy but not particularly unfair if it happens to everyone equally. (Of course, when your are taxed on a "capital gain" that occurred because of inflation, you are being royally screwed and double taxed.)

                The reason for increasing the PERCENTAGE of property taxes is overspending by state and local governments for every kind of gee-gaw and service under the sun and requiring the people to pay for them through taxation.  People who do not understand this keep demanding that THEY (the government) do more and more, figuring that somebody else will pay for it.  But in the case of real property taxes, they are fooling themselves.  Even renters pay property taxes through their rents.  Everyone pays commercial property taxes by paying more for the goods and services they purchase. As a general rule, business never actually pay any taxes because they pass them along to customers in the form of higher prices.  If you are an investor in a stock in a business, the business pays taxes (passed on to customers), hopefully makes a profit and pays dividends to you.  You then are required to pay taxes on the dividends that the company already paid taxes on.  Great system, no?

                Now we are seeing more and more USER FEES.  We pay sales taxes and property taxes and income taxes and all sorts of other taxes, but when we have a need to use a government service, we find that there is a "user fee" so that people who use the services are paying for a substantial part of the cost of the services they have already been taxed for.   They are also increasing police traffic patrol and other activities to provide more revenue through fines.  You will probably see more of this because governments at all levels have consistently spent more than have received in taxes and they are broke.  They are irresponsible and criminally negligent.  And most of the taxpayers are so stupid they do not even realize how badly they are being screwed.

                =============================================
              • robertparker99@gmail.com
                I can not see how any government entity has the right to tax an object (be it a car, lamp, or land) on a continual basis. If the government can tax
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 17 11:05 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I can not see how any government entity has the right to tax an object (be it a car, lamp, or land) on a continual basis. If the government can tax possessions then the government is the actual owner. How is this constitutional?
                • Jake
                      And what of Allodial titles ?  Have you ever seen one?   Allodial. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassage or
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 18 4:09 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                       > And what of "Allodial titles"? 


                    Have you ever seen one?  


                    "Allodial. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassage or fealty; the opposite of feudal." - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. p. 76. 


                    The only property that comes to mind right off which might qualify is Dartmouth College & somebody who lives in the area might check to see if it pays property taxes.  It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corp., but (to the best of my knowledge) it's still in the trust created in 1769 & clear back in 1819, the U.S. supreme court held the State legislature had no authority to take over Dartmouth or to change it's charter.  See: Trustees of Dartmouth v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819):


                    "The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.


                    An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.


                    Under its charter, Dartmouth College was a private, and not a public, corporation. That a corporation is established for purposes of general charity, or for education generally does not, per se, make it a public corporation, liable to the control of the legislature."


                    The 1st & most common problem with claiming absolute ownership of property is that unlike Dartmouth, where the land was given by an absolute grant from a sovereign to a private individual (the king of England to a Reverend Eleazor Wheelock) for a specific purpose (to start a charity school), is that today, land is nearly always financed with a mortgage & has changed hands many, many times.  In other words, if you were living on property that's been in your family continuously since the American Revolution or even before & nobody has ever borrowed any $$$ on it, you might have a claim.


                    And what people fail to understand is the reciprocal relationship between citizens & the state, which is summed up well in this statement from the 1776 Constitution of North-Carolina:


                    "WHEREAS allegiance and protection are, in their nature, reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused when the other is withdrawn:"


                    See also, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906), a famous 5th Amendment case:


                    "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property."  (Emphasis added).


                    In other words, when the state assumes the responsibility of protecting your life and property, you owe the state allegiance & if the state says that includes paying a tax based on the value of your property, then you have to pay it.  Or see if you can get elected to the legislature & get enough support to repeal the tax.  But as the (1776) N.C. constitution makes clear, if the state withdraws its protection, you should withdraw your allegiance - and on the flip-side of the coin, if you withdraw your allegiance, then the state is within its right to refuse its protection.  In other words, call the fire dept. if your house catches fire & nobody comes.


                    I think where people have gotten so far off track is falling for a belief in the non-existent status of "sovereign" - no one individual in the U.S. is, ever was, or ever will be a "sovereign" entitled to absolute property ownership without gov't. regulation of any kind.   In the U.S., "sovereignty resides in the body of the people" - it is the body politic which is the sovereign, not any one individual.  So while the body politic can change the laws & even the form of gov't., you as an individual can't & you can't just make up your own rules / laws as you go, which is what so many are trying to do.  What you think the law ought to be is irrelevant to what it is, like it or not.


                    That reciprocal relationship has been in existence for 1000's of years & it's the foundation of gov't. - a gov't. exists to do things the people as individuals cannot do for themselves.  If you want to be a "sovereign", then you have to assume the responsibility of paving your own roads, organizing your own police & fire depts., etc. & if you accept the benefits gov't. provides, then you have to support that gov't. - or change it if you don't like it - or move.


                    Two other cases that come to mind which demonstrate the point I'm trying to make are the VMI & Citadel cases - remember those?  Those military schools would not admit women & the courts ruled that as long as you accept $$$ from the gov't. (state or federal) you will do what you're told - but - if you're a totally private school, you can set your admission standards wherever you want.  I remember reading that VMI was trying to raise the $$$ necessary to operate without any gov't. funding @ all, but some of the land & buildings belong to the State & while the State said you can buy them if you want, they could not raise enough $$$ to buy those properties outright.  So while New Hampshire can't tell Dartmouth what to do, as long as the Citadel gets benefits from South Carolina & VMI gets benefits from Virginia, they have to go by rules those States set & if they get $$$ from the federal gov't., they have to go by federal rules too.


                    Well, you say you're a private individual who gets no $$$ from the gov't., so all that doesn't apply - yes it does.  Do you drive on public highways?  Do you count on the fire dept. coming if you need them?  Is there a public hospital you can go to the emergency room at even if you don't have any $$$ or insurance?  The list goes on & on - some how, some way, you accept "benefits" from the gov't. every single day.  Now while it's true that property tax $$$ doesn't go directly to pave roads, maintain fire depts., etc., it does in theory & more importantly, the body politic of the State gave the State the authority to tax.  In other words, you gave the State that authority, as you are part of that body politic. 


                    If you don't like it that way, go buy an island somewhere & be a "sovereign".  Name yourself king & do whatever you want.  But you're not going to be a sovereign in any nation on this planet.  Oh, you probably could be in Somalia if you had a good army - there's no functional gov't. over there.


                    And I think the name of this Group sums up the intent - Tips & Tricks to get things done given the current state of affairs - it's not named Whiners & Crybabies, is it?  What's the point of complaining about the current state of affairs?  The one who is successful is the one who learns how to deal with them & I think the whole idea is to share what did work in a given situation, not what ought to work in a hypothetical situation.


                    ~ ~ ~ 



                    --- On Sun, 4/18/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:

                    From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 12:17 AM

                     
                    And what of "Allodial titles"?



                    From: DA <kaptnjack@comcast. net>
                    To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 8:10:50 PM
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case

                     

                    All property is owned by the State; we are users, tenants and maintenance workers protecting the State's asset. Our use of the property is a benefit and privilege taxable by the state.

                    I don't like it but I think that's the way it is...at least until we find our way out of it.

                    just some thoughts


                  • Don S.
                    Point taken about the states. If a state allows DIRECT taxes upon person or property without apportionment, that would be the law in the state. But it would be
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 18 6:55 AM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Point taken about the states. If a state allows DIRECT
                      taxes upon person or property without apportionment,
                      that would be the law in the state.

                      But it would be problematic to the operation of the union government.

                      There could be direct and immediate conflict between the two
                      governments.

                      Hauenstein, 100 US 483 at 490.............

                      "....the Constitution, laws and treaties of the US are as much a part of
                      the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution.
                      This is a fundamental principle in our complex national polity."


                      I have always been troubled how a state could do something the
                      union government is not allowed to do, but magically you are able to
                      go to the US Supreme Court to seek redress of grievance for such
                      unlawful state acts.

                      EXAMPLE: Congress cannot disarm the people of the several states,
                      but he states can disarm their citizens!

                      Congress cannot apply a DIRECT TAX unless apportioned,
                      but he states can.

                      See my confusion................



                      =======================================
                      At 06:02 PM 4/17/2010 -0700, you wrote:
                       

                      > All property is taxable.

                      > BUT, private property requires a DIRECT TAX.

                      > A DIRECT TAX must be apportioned.



                      A State property tax does not need to be apportioned & the rules of apportionment / uniformity in the U.S. Constitution applicable to Congress do not bind the State legislatures. Â



                    • Don S.
                      Life, liberty and happiness meant PRIVATE ownership of property. It is understandable that taxes have to be collected to fund the basic services of a
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 18 6:59 AM
                      • 0 Attachment



                        Life, liberty and happiness meant PRIVATE ownership of property.

                        It is understandable that taxes have to be collected to fund
                        the basic services of a municipality, but the question is how
                        this is to be done, constitutionally.

                        Arms were not taken up against the KING to enslave us to
                        our public servants.

                        How did we go from MASTERS and SOVEREIGNS of this nation
                        to renting property from it?



                        At 09:10 PM 4/17/2010 -0500, you wrote:
                         

                        All property is owned by the State; we are users, tenants and maintenance workers protecting the State's asset. Our use of the property is a benefit and privilege taxable by the state.

                        I don't like it but I think that's the way it is...at least until we find our way out of it.

                        just some thoughts

                      • Don S.
                        Powers is granted to our servants to only tax as necessary to provide constitutional functions of government. All things done by our servants, must be done in
                        Message 11 of 22 , Apr 18 7:09 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Powers is granted to our servants to only tax
                          as necessary to provide constitutional functions of government.

                          All things done by our servants, must be done in pursuance
                          of the Constitution and by their oath under Article VI of
                          the US Const., state servants must uphold the principles
                          of the US Const.

                          The Const. exists only to secure or facilitate our rights.

                          So even state servants must obey the principles of the
                          union constitution in what they do in the states.

                          We have been lied to by our servants as to the "needs"
                          of the American people.

                          Some 45% of the federal budget goes to "give-a-way" programs.

                          For every $1 given away, it requires $3 - 5 taken OUT of the economy to
                          fund the give-a-way program.

                          Give a way programs are worthless and evil.

                          Ask your self how government would function if workers did not
                          earn as much as they do so government could take as much as they do.

                          Our servants do not SEE the necessary functions to be performed
                          and then determine how much is needed to fund same,
                          they just take the money, then seek places to spend it!

                          This is patently wrong.



                          ===========================================
                          At 06:05 AM 4/18/2010 +0000, you wrote:
                          >I can not see how any government entity has the right to tax an object (be
                          >it a car, lamp, or land) on a continual basis. If the government can tax
                          >possessions then the government is the actual owner. How is this
                          >constitutional?
                          >
                          >
                          >------------------------------------
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • JcP
                          ... Land cannot be taxed if a land Patent/Grant is current. A Patent/Grant is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive, against the government and all
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 18 9:05 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Land cannot be taxed if a land Patent/Grant is current.



                            "A Patent/Grant is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive, against the government and all claiming under junior titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal." Stone v U.S. 67 U.S. 765.



                            Private property can be removed from public domain through private purchase and therefore no is longer in a taxing jurisdiction.



                            In Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox , 298 U.S. 193 (1936) it states: Property taxes can be on tangibles or intangibles. In order to have a situs for taxation (a basis for imposing the tax), tangible property (physical property) must reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority, and intangibles.



                            "... In one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, [24 L. Ed. 77], it is said: 'When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.' But so long as he uses his property for private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its control. Other case to the same effect are Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, [36 L. Ed. 247, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468]; Weems Steamboat Co. v. People's Co., 214 U. S. 345, [16 Ann. Cas. 1222, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622]; and Del Mar Water Co. v. Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, [140 Pac. 591, 948]. Indeed, our attention is directed to no authority in this state or elsewhere holding otherwise." Associated etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 526.



                            When you record your property, you enter into a Trustor/Trustee relationship, in which your real property has been transferred into a government trust, and you are given authorized permission to use their property (warranty deed). Further, your property tax is based on a commercial classification which has been assigned to your real property. I guarantee you that your property has been classified as either agricultural, industrial, or residential. Each of these is commercial in nature (the legal definition of "resident" is a class of government official; residential is a house in which a government official lives).

                            There are three ways to lawfully opt out of property taxes: obtain allodial title, un-record your property, or have your real property re-classified as private.

                            If you can obtain allodial title to your real property, you will have effectively created an envelope in which you reign supreme. No zoning ordinances, easements, bureaucratic regulations, state or federal law have any effect on property held in allodium. Literally, you have created a kingdom in the midst of bureaucratic chaos, and you will never again receive any property tax assessments. Every piece of recorded real property is used to collateralize government loans, so your real property has public debt attached to it. You need to find out the amount of the public debt (approximately seven times the annual property tax) and the holder of the debt, then pay it off.

                            The process of un-recording your property is easier, though not quite as solid. It is based on the fact that you are assessed a tax based upon using government services (County Recorder) to which you are not entitled or mandated. The process involves transferring ownership to another party, notifying the County Recorder that a transfer has been completed, then having the property - after a reasonable time period has passed - transferred back into your name. If done correctly, the property is not recorded anymore, and there will be no further tax assessments.

                            The final method of opting out of property tax is one that involves the classification of property, on which the assessed tax is based. Property which is taxed is always identified by one of three commercial classifications: residential, industrial or agricultural. Private property cannot be taxed! Contact your Tax Assessor and ask for a written explanation of the numbered codes appearing on your property tax statement. Once you have deciphered the statement, you will find your property classified by one of the above commercial designations.

                            Write a letter to your Tax Assessor, explaining that you have discovered an error in your tax statement. Do not mention the tax itself, as the error in question relates only to the classification. Explain that your property has mistakenly been classified as ____________ (agricultural, industrial, residential), and to please correct the classification to read "private." Ask the Assessor to notify you by mail once the matter has been handled. If the Assessor honors your wishes, you will never see a property tax statement again. If, as is more likely, the Assessor writes back, refusing to adjust his records, you may now open up discussion as to why not. Ask whether you have the right to own private property. He will say yes, of course. Ask why he refuses to classify it as private property. He will either explain to you that he cannot tax property unless it is classified pursuant to constitutional limitations (residential, industrial, agricultural), or he will reveal to you that you do not really own the property (in which case he has admitted to fraud, nullifying the transfer of property in the first place, since you were no aware of what you were doing at the time). In either case, once the Assessor brings up taxation, you can now make the argument that your real property has been re-classified, without your permission, for the sole purpose of taxation. This is the firm basis for a lawsuit.

                            Remember, in the united States of America, each Citizen has the right to live his/her life without paying any taxes at all! All taxes are voluntary! Learn why you pay taxes and you can learn how to stop paying them. And for those who insist that you are somehow hurting people by not paying taxes to the government, when the government starts living within the limitations which We the People have imposed on them; when they stop violating our natural rights and show that they can be trusted with the powers We the People have granted them, when they stop trying to force us to pay for their socialist, un-American programs, then we will consider whether they are worthy of receiving a portion of the fruit of our labor. Until then, I say let the government starve!

                            GET AUGUSTUS BALCKSTONES BOOK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            The Errant Sovereigns' Handbook by Augustus Blackstone is the definitive book on restoring sovereignty and property rights.....
                          • Mike
                            It would not be Constitutional , the Constitution seems to be suspended as a result of The National Emergency in 1933, wherein a group of lawmakers gave
                            Message 13 of 22 , Apr 18 11:05 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It would not be "Constitutional", the "Constitution" seems to be suspended as a result of "The National Emergency" in 1933, wherein a group of "lawmakers" gave away ALL PROPERTY AS COLLATERAL FOR THE DEBT OWED TO INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. See: "Contracts Payable in Gold", Senate Document 43, 1933 (this is from memory, so I might be a little off... the name should do "it") That debt is still outstanding and is over 1000 times greater than when this mess began...

                              "ALL PROPERTY" INCLUDES THE "PERSONS SUBJECT" TO THE CONSTITUTION!

                              IT IS ABJECT SLAVERY FOR THOSE SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION!

                              You can find cases wherein the Courts have recognized the "de facto" nature of our government as opposed to "de jure" nature.

                              So the way I see it is... you either are subject to the "Constitution" or Sovereign to it.

                              Do you have "Rights" because of the "Constitution and Bill of Rights" or something else?

                              My rights are unaLIENable because they are from "Nature's G-d" not some "State sponsored religion"
                            • Patrick McKEE
                              People might want to VERIFY those cites and/or READ the cases because there are many things on the internet that have INCORRECT cites and/or are taken out of
                              Message 14 of 22 , Apr 22 6:50 PM
                              • 0 Attachment

                                People might want to VERIFY those cites and/or READ the cases because there are many things on the internet that have INCORRECT cites and/or are taken out of CONTEXT.

                                 

                                Patrick in California

                                 

                                Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

                                 

                                "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." -- Molly Ivins

                              • Jake
                                      People might want to VERIFY those cites and/or READ the cases because there are many things on the internet that have INCORRECT cites and/or are
                                Message 15 of 22 , Apr 24 2:28 AM
                                     > People might want to VERIFY those cites and/or READ the cases because there are many things on the internet that have INCORRECT cites and/or are taken out of CONTEXT.


                                I don't know what particular cites / cases Patrick is referring to, but his statement applies to all & I'd say "must" rather than "might want to" !!!  


                                Speaking for myself only, I never quote from a case I don't actually have the full text of & whatever I quote is straight from the actual text, but almost every day I see where someone has done a copy & paste from a website, e-mail, etc. & what they're citing / quoting is either wrong, or in many cases, the case cited or language used doesn't even exist.  


                                Here's a classic example - one guy had the below cite / quote on every e-mail he sent to group forums (other false statements too) - don't know if he still does it 'cause I put him on the "blocked sender" list, since he wouldn't take the false statements off the pre-formatted e-mails:


                                “A finding of no jurisdiction will mean that we as a nation accept usurpation and tyranny by a small group of individuals who can act in concert and gain control of both parties and overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and that citizens of the United States such as the plaintiffs, whose life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property are threatened by such a plan and action, do not have any due process to protect themselves through a legal action in which they ask the judicial branch of government to protect them by enforcing the Constitution.”  


                                United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).


                                The above "quote" does not exist.  The decision says no such thing, and in fact the case is Olmstead v. United States, not the other way around.

                                I've attached the decision (about telephone wiretapping) in a .pdf file - do a word search for "nation", "usurpation" & "overthrow" - you'll find they're not in the decision.  Do a word search for "tyranny" & you'll find the word is used once -  but not in any statement even close to the above "quote".

                                ~ ~ ~


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