Quatloos! > Tax Scams > Tax Protestors > EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases

Tax Protestor Cases Exhibit
("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is it that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")

---

Please be clear. Did or did not the Independent Treasury Act (that IS what you refer to?) extend FRBs (it was for them collectively or just for one?) into the states of the union?

 How was McFadden killed? Did he quiet down before he was killed or did he have any opportunity left to keep chirping?

 MSBookshelf has nothing on McFadden!!

 Why do you minimize tautology. Isn't it a rule for law that tautology is never permissible? I mean the point I'm trying to get solid on by bouncing it off of fellow literates is that Congress really had to go round the bend on this one -to put over the illusion that it was for the 48 states.

 Are you saying that naked authority originating in Roosevelt and continued by Presidents is GOOD FOR LAW irrespective of approval of Congress whether only by appearance of sanction or by the real thing (which they have never done)?

 AND I note in the petition for repeal of the emergency powers that FDR's order are incorporated in 12 USC 95. If that is so FDR never said anything about the America people, bout only about the banks and the penalty liability for FRBs if not in step?

 So where on paper is the alteration of Wilson's 1917 language?

 Please help me understand how this all fits together. -Thank you -JS

 On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:15:28 -0500 Big Al <xxx> writes:

Since the federal reserve Board actually wrote the trading with the enemy act of 1933 and the pres signed it under executive authority under the war power emergency, that is all that he needed to get Congress, the dupes that they were, to go along and give the appearance of law when it was only executive orders and resolutions. McFadden was the lone cryer in the woods and he was killed for that.  Yes there was authorization for the federal reserve banks to do business and that was the Act of 1920 in the year 1921.  A Tautologist is just  one who uses different words to express the same thing.
Big Al

xxx wrote:

 Then you also recognize tautology in 12 USC 95? [I saw that the enclaves were included] You also see that just likethere is nowhere any explicit authorization for the Federal Reserve banks to inhabit, or at least no authorization for them toserve/do the business to, the now 50 states, there likewise was and is no explicit authorization for any bank holidays to have occurred in the 48 states, nor any explicit authority for making the America people alien enemies? Word smart Congress has covered its ass since 1933 and has the people petitioning for paper repeal of a tyranny THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON PAPER but does exist by force of critical mass functional illiteracy? On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:22:16 -0500 Big Al <xxx> writes:

No, they took care of the enclaves within the States when they used the term possessions. An enclave is a possession of the United States so the termonology is correct in the statute.
Big Al
 Julian Swig wrote:

I.

IRS Publication 1999 1040A Forms and Instructions at page 66 the two pie graphs for "Income" and "Outlays" This respresentation belies our assertions (from various corners of the research world) that the income tax goes 100% to to the rouge bankers for interest on the national debt. Now it is important to me that our credibility not be fractured in the feeble minds of inquiring sheeple. The trick has to be that the Outlay pie is not the income or is not all of the of the "Income" pie. Have I just answered my own question? If so its by speculation. "Personal income taxes are 48% of the Income pie. Do SS 33%, Corporate 11%, Excise et., al 8% go to the debt or do they become part of all of the Outlay pie? The Fed. borrows its paper into circulation by asking moma may I to the U.S. and then loaning to member banks? Am I right? Does the U.S. also borrow outright by writing checks for its budgetary operations (The military, welefare, fed. employees, etc.)?So the Outlay pie is part or all debt borrowed check writing? So, can anyone offer any comments to affect my feeling of specuation?

II.

a.

12 USC §95. (a) In order to provide for . resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis of deposits subject to withdrawal by check, . (b) (1) In the event of . other emergency conditions occurring in any State . caused by acts of . of man, .. (2) For the purpose of this subsection, the term ''State'' means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

Damn it. Could this be tautology? They know they named them all except enclaves within the states of the union. Doesn't "or any other" make of "any of the several States" territories of posessions of the United States? By sentence structure it is tautology.

b.

The whole of (a) relates to reasons for and to penalty prescription <not relating to we the people>, the whole of (b) relates to various modes of calling  bank holidays and punishing Fed. Reserve banks that don't keep in step <not relating to we the people>. Please somebody who understands this, state in 25 words or less how the American people have been brought under war powers by THIS PROVISION. Thank you, Peoples' Law Association/Julian:

Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit