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

Re: trial

Expand Messages
  • Nilbux@aol.com
    Tax statutes here concern dollars not $ . Prosecutor demanded $4300 and in bold, underlined capitals he said: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH.
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 2, 2004
      Tax statutes here concern "dollars" not "$".

      Prosecutor demanded $4300 and in bold,
      underlined capitals he said:


      "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH."

      Interoggatories were served on theDirector of Revenue
      to be answered under oath.  Prosecutor wrote
      "irrelevant" to all questions and wrote that they
      were answered under oath WITHOUT A SIGNATURE!
      There is no evidence that Director of Revenue saw them
      though they were mailed to her, certified with return
      receipt requested.

      Trial was without jury, to my surprize since I had 3
      other trials with juries.

      Prosecutor introduced as evidence, tax returns forged
      by the state AND  copies of letters the state sent me 7
      years ago stating the returns are not valid without my
      signature!

      I had the judge take judicial notice that "cash" means
      money after she examined the letter from prosecutor.
      I then said "he does not want money."  She ruled
      against me as she had to no matter what took place
      in court.  Justice cannot be permitted in tax cases at
      that level.  There is no doubt that I would have won
      if there had been a jury.  Trial lasted 40 minutes.

      Nobody wants us to pay taxes, they want us to pretend
      or be punished.  The object is to regulate our use of
      money that Keynes called "worthless" so that it does
      not become useless as he warned.

      I offer 100 pounds of money to each person who just
      describes the money that government spends.  Surely
      you can use some extra money?

    • Dave Miner
      Nilbux -- So you are now offering your same useless insight in this group. How exciting. For your info, many public offices and more and more private
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 2, 2004
        Nilbux --
         
        So you are now offering your same useless insight in this group.  How exciting.
         
        For your info, many public offices and more and more private companies are not accepting cash.  The reason has nothing to do with your assertions, and everything to do with their desire to avoid being robbed.  By your own definitions, federal reserve notes are the same as checks and credit card purchases, since the latter two are based on the former.  So, to point out that a particular govt office doesn't accept cash while neglecting that the same office will accept checks, cannot possibly mean what you are trying to imply.
         
        I think pretty much everyone here understands that federal reserve notes are based on no hard assets but only on the so-called faith and credit of the fed govt.  I think everyone here already understands that America is no longer on the gold standard, and that Constitutional money is based on gold or silver.  And I think everyone here already understands that the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express.
         
        So please don't subject us to dozens of posts each and every week making these same claims as if you are the only one in the world who understands these issues, like you did in the last group where I met you.
         
        And the judge ruled against you because she believed you were insane.  No one but you believes that cash is the only form of money.  The rest of America believes that checks, money orders and credit card charges are money also.  As a result, the rest of us would have responded to you the same as the judge did for your assertions that the DA's office "did not want money" and would not accept money simply because it did not want a pile of cash sitting around just asking to be stolen.
         
        Yours in freedom,
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:53 AM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: trial

        Tax statutes here concern "dollars" not "$".

        Prosecutor demanded $4300 and in bold,
        underlined capitals he said:


        "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH."

        Interoggatories were served on theDirector of Revenue
        to be answered under oath.  Prosecutor wrote
        "irrelevant" to all questions and wrote that they
        were answered under oath WITHOUT A SIGNATURE!
        There is no evidence that Director of Revenue saw them
        though they were mailed to her, certified with return
        receipt requested.

        Trial was without jury, to my surprize since I had 3
        other trials with juries.

        Prosecutor introduced as evidence, tax returns forged
        by the state AND  copies of letters the state sent me 7
        years ago stating the returns are not valid without my
        signature!

        I had the judge take judicial notice that "cash" means
        money after she examined the letter from prosecutor.
        I then said "he does not want money."  She ruled
        against me as she had to no matter what took place
        in court.  Justice cannot be permitted in tax cases at
        that level.  There is no doubt that I would have won
        if there had been a jury.  Trial lasted 40 minutes.

        Nobody wants us to pay taxes, they want us to pretend
        or be punished.  The object is to regulate our use of
        money that Keynes called "worthless" so that it does
        not become useless as he warned.

        I offer 100 pounds of money to each person who just
        describes the money that government spends.  Surely
        you can use some extra money?

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