Bob Hurt web site discusses killing government workers

[Famspear]

These are excerpts from Bob Hurt's web site (bolding added). The material appears to have been signed by Bob Hurt.

Excise a Gerp today (was The Breakup of the United States)

We don’t need to break up the US or the states. We need only to identify the criminals in government and excise them one at a time.

Think:

YOUR own personal IRS agent.

Your own personal bailiffs down at the courthouse, the one that belly bumped you and ordered you out of the courtroom

Your own personal judge, the one that snatched your kids and ignored you divorce settlement agreement

You other own personal. Judge, the one who gave a summary judgment to the bank who foreclosed on you without proving ownership of your note

Your own personal sheriff, the one who allows deputies to work as lapdogs for judges, and lets them pillage speeders while letting criminal illegal aliens run wild

Your own personal jail guard, the one who threw you in the hole for refusing to sign that paper

Your own personal clerk of court, the one who lets the IRS file fraudulent liens against you without showing either authority to enforce collections or a shred of proof that you owe unpaid, lawfully assessed taxes

Just think of all the veterans now in their twilight years, once trained as brutal killers for our government, and now on their way off this planet for good. Each of them could take one of the above crooks with him on the way out. Each could, if properly aware and motivated.

Americans need to realize that crooks in government deserve summary excision from government, without advance notice. One day the gerp is on the job. Next day the gerp doesn’t show up for work, nor the next or next or next, forever.

Crime in and by government could become very unpopular.

Remember that a perpetrator of crime in government (a gerp) does not constitute de jure government. The gerp functions as mugger and thief under color of law, stomping your rights willy nilly, ultra vires, outside the scope of lawful constitutional authority, in violation of that precious loyalty oath that keeps the rest of us relatively safe from injustice. The gerp has become a self-styled, self-appointed autocrat, choosing to impose upon you and others a form of government to which you never agreed, and which the nation’s founders did not contemplate, other than by reference to “treason,” a muddy term that has little meaning today. Such treason by gerps has become so popular that people dare not call it by that name.

[ . . . .]

In other words, those rights came from God. Thus, you cannot forfeit or give them away, and nobody can nullify, void, undo, or repudiate them.

You HAVE the right, therefore, to drop an autocrat mugger dead in his tracks for the purpose of eliminating the fact and the threat of criminal government over you. God gave you that right. The constitutions and declaration of independence simply realleged, acknowledged, and clarified it. For a little more clarification, look carefully at the warnings to gerps in the CUSA’s 9th and 10th amendments:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You see, the founders did not mean the above warning for YOU, the feckless Citizen. They meant it for government employees who might decide to start tinkering with their powers under “color of law” to stomp your rights. Lest they think they can get away with it, the CUSA warns them that those rights belong to you unless the CUSA specifically declares otherwise.

You therefore face only two questions, some admittedly quite difficult to answer in this era of rampant, flaming patriot myths scorching the landscape of commonsense across America:

1. Has a gerp committed a crime under color of law, abusing your rights in the process?

2. How and when will you summarily excise the bastard from government without becoming a victim in execution of that excision?

Corrupt judges get away with crooked, unconstitutional rulings all the time because they have armed bailiffs in the courtroom, and those bailiffs do the bidding of the judge, right or wrong, caring nothing for their actual constitutional duties as conservators of the peace. If the baliff senses a threat to the judge’s physical safety, the baliff will immediately attack the threat. The attacker will suffer physical injury and jail time, if not death.
Without those bailiffs, many judges would die in their robes, slumped over their benches, a cavity from a .44 slug in the brain. And, but for the threat of disbarment and sanction, more than half of those slugs would come from weapons wielded by angry attorneys.

“WAIT JUST A DADGUM MINUTE,” you yell. “You’re writing about killing judges here. And judges are kind of like, well, the daddies of American society We cannot just up an kill them because we don’t agree with their rulings.. … CAN WE?”

Well, ideally, NO. And that explains the Marshals and Deputy Sheriffs in our courtrooms.

But somewhere, somehow, if society has come to the point where people cannot reliably obtain remedy in courts because 1) they cannot afford lawyers, 2) They cannot win without a lawyer, 3) the judges are crooked, 4) the process of getting into court and having a jury trial has become crooked, 5) they cannot afford the court costs and associated fees and fines and taxes, 6) their politicians squander their time in office and end up making government worse and more abusive than ever, 7) the people have no hope of electing honest politicians because the political process has become so crooked, and tens of millions of stupid people swamp the sanity we should normally expect from the electorate, the grand jury system either does not exist or does not work in bringing government criminals to justice, 9) The good old boys network of criminals in government actually protects criminals in government, at all levels…

Well, a pistol and a chamber of .44 magnums don’t cost all that much by comparison. And many Americans have begun to make that comparison. Rightly so, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I have started discussing VIOLENCE and THREAT OF VIOLENCE as a viable solution to our problems with criminals in government. True, Jesus and the declaration of Independence both give lip service to turning the other cheek and showing monumental patience and forebearance. They encourage us to forgive others and to suffer all kinds of abuse before resorting to out and out hostility for solving problems.

But let us look at this issue frankly. Government exists to prevent, not foster, injustice. Our nation’s founders vested government with a military and acknowledged the need for militias and for bearing arms for that purpose: WEILDING [sic] FORCE THROUGH VIOLENCE AND THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE to prevent injustice, either by warding off invasions and fighting wars against enemy nations, or to enforce the safeguards and enjoyment of rights guaranteed in and by the constitutions of the US and the several states. And take note that militias have but one major purpose aside from squelching civil uprisings: preventing the establishment and perpetuation of abusive government.

[ . . . ]

So, in all honesty, you must admit that you love violence, you believe in violence, and you employ violence, through government and personally, every day of your life, in spite of what Jesus, MLK, Ghandi, the Declaration of Independence, and any other harbinger of world peace has spoken, written, or advocated. You possess weapons, some knowledge of how to use them in self-defense, and some willingness to use them, even if it means grabbing a butcher knife in your kitchen to ward off a midnight burgler-rapist. Bottom line, you and our entire society have become inculcated with and steeped in violence. And I don’t believe that will change any time soon. Get used to it. Confess to it. Admit it. Face it. Acknowledge it. Embrace it. Become it. It fits you like a nice suit of clothes.

And start conditioning yourself to use it to excise gerps from government, and if necessary from the planet. Don’t hide it like some politically incorrect topic. Talk about it. Openly. TO YOUR POLITICIANS, judges, attorneys, and law enforcers. Nicely, of course. Ask your family, friends, associates, and political leaders about it, and about their loyalty to their loyalty oaths. Ask what recourse Citizens should seek when it becomes impossible to obtain remedy in our crooked courts and to enjoy our 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment rights to associate and be let alone, free from government interference with the exercise of all those rights to which the 10th Amendment and extended bill of rights refer. Don’t feel surprised if such government employees take on a nervous, hunted look. That’s the general idea – they should begin to worry, a lot, about Americans’ sense of justice for gerps.

NO, I do NOT promote REBELLION against government, I do NOT promote OVERTHROWING government, even though the CUSA, the Constitutions of the several states, the Declaration of Independence, and the BIBLE blatantly encourage it in some situations.

Instead, I promote individual GUERILLA action by individuals to excise criminals from government. Now, if we had a law abiding government, I’d suggest filing criminal complaints and tort lawsuits and ethics complaints and impeachment articles. Actually, I do promote and suggest that all citizens with knowledge of such crimes report them through such administrative and legal channels. But at the same time, I urge caution, such as filing them under some nom du guerre or alter ego. Why? Because when you file, you paint a big set of crosshairs on your face, and you might end up with a destroyed career, or wake up dead in a public parking lot some morning. Government criminals REALLY ARE CRIMINALS, and they become mean when somebody threatens their income such as by trying to expose them.

[ . . . ]

I prefer the Remington model 700 SPS [ . . . ] with 22-250 chambering [ . . . ] under a variable 3x-10x scope. The hot round (4500 f/s) gives excellent accuracy at a thousand yards, it penetrates steel plate better than 30-06, it weighs less to carry a bunch of rounds, it makes less noise, it recoils less, it lets the barrel last longer, and target practice costs far less. Plus, anything that will turn a fat groundhog into a pink mist at half a mile will easily reduce a human adversary to a non-threat, permanently. The hydrostatic shock of the full-velocity 22-250 impact is something to behold. A shot to the chest area can turn the brain and liver into mush. The frangible bullet fully unloads residual muzzle velocity into the target as the bullet disintegrates. It thus diminishes over-penetration and ricochets, causing less inadvertent and collateral damage than the 30-06 or .308.

[ . . . ]

Every American should become a guerilla in mind and heart, armed and conditioned for guerilla activism. Why? Because when it comes to excising rogue gerps from government, NO safety exists AT ALL for the excisor. Bringing gerps down through lawsuits and criminal complaints has become next to impossible and personally dangerous to the Citizen. The individual Citizen cannot stand up to the unified military and police power of a city, county, state, or federal government motivated and armed to murder those who would excise its rogue leaders.

[ . . . ]

I believe it starts with dialog. So, I encourage you to talk about it, and don’t turn into a wimp when it comes to discussing violence as a viable option for dealing with gerps. The very notion that we have yielded to government our war-making sovereignty along with sweeping police powers shows that we believe in violence as an option for preventing injustice. Until Jesus comes back and straightens everyone out, I imagine violence will remain an option.

[ . . . ]

To get off to a healthy start, working with others, join TRUTH ATTACK [ . . . ]

Bob Hurt [ . . . ] Clearwater, Florida 33763 USA

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... f85ba5573e

[.]

Yet another keyboard kommando.

This is the sort of swill that our all-purpose punching bag, Harvey would suck up in a flash.

[Olsenfin]

His website reveals Mr. Hurt to be a rather pathetic narcissist and unabashed mooch. (He wants to study law, and asks for donations for his "Law Scholarship Fund", on the same page where he offers seminars that " teach you to liberate yourself from debt, government oppression and corruption (such as the IRS or crooked courts)".

He doesn't promote "rebellion", he says. Merely murder on an individual basis, to do which, he says, is our God-given right, so long as WE determine that the person we murder has it coming. (for example, the judge who rules against you or the cop who arrests you for speeding).

He urges us to take action with "a pistol and a chamber of .44 magnums" - which should demonstrate to anyone with a basic knowledge of firearms that he doesn't know much about guns. (The "chamber" of a .44 magnum pistol, revolver, or rifle - or of any firearm of any caliber - holds ONE round. The "cylinder" of a revolver holds several, one in each "chamber". If he can't get this rather simple and straightforward nomenclature straight, one can understand why Constitutional or administrative law would confuse him).

Presumably, he does not urge anyone to view Bob Hurt as a "gerp" (whatever that is) and "excise" him.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt posts about David Miner, and then goes back to his own thoughts about killing government workers. Posted on 17 December 2010:

The IRS has attacked David Miner of http://irx-solutions.com for telling people how to pressure the IRS to correct lies in the individual master file, and thereby obtain non-filer statuts. Frankly, I believe he used a proper process, but the IRS and DOJ feel convinced that they can suborn the court and prove otherwise. Dave has a lot of technical knowledge, so let's see what shakes out. Many people have contacted me in the past 3 weeks asking how to get in touch with him. I have not has [sic] any luck at that myself. Now I know why.

Note in the DOJ announcement below that the government does not have a criminal complaint against David. They seek only to enjoin him from helping people beat the IRS. Remember Dr. Joe Sweet, now in prison? Similarly, the DOJ obtained an injunction against him for promoting Unincorporated Business Trusts as tools for beating the IRS (which generally don't work, by the way), and promoting "opt-out-of-income-tax" schemes as he did through the Joy Foundation. Joe kept on helping people and got convicted of violating the injunction. I imagine the DOJ hopes to hammer David Miner the same way.

Remember this before you get down on people like David Miner, Joe Sweet, Pete Hendrickson, and Bill Benson: They could have decided only assassination would work against the criminals in government who keep destroying lives through the illegal imposition of an income tax the people do not owe. They chose the peaceable way, and government used force and incarceration (in other words, violence) to stop them. That boils down to a threat of violence against anyone who openly opposes the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges who together comprises an iniquitous Gestapo Mafia to steal the wealth of the people and hand it off to wealthy banking families who own the Federal Reserve.

You can deal with this in three ways. Do nothing and wait your turn; fight them in court;, assassinate. I leave it to you to determine the best method for achieving liberty from these thugs.

Oh, you don't like my reminding you of your right to assassinate government criminals? I remind you, then, of the murder of federal public defender Nancy Bergeson <http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10153>
who defended Marcel Roy Bendshadler, who reported to federal prison last week. Roy had told Nancy the government would suborn the jury, and Nancy had not believed him, thinking his innocence would get him acquitted. Wrong. The jury convicted Roy, and Nancy spoke out in court, saying she would investigate. That night someone murdered her at home in her pajamas. No, the government has not unearthed the culprit. The story shows you what happens when you get close to winning a tax crime case n a federal Kangaroo court and how hard the government will work to find the killer of whoever helps you.

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... ce18a804f0

[fortinbras]

It appears that the entire website is devoted to Bob Hurt and, offhand, I cannot find evidence that anyone bothers to respond to any of his threads.

[grixit]

Wait-- how did the assassins get into her pajamas?

[wserra]

how did the assassins get into her pajamas?

She'll never know.

[Famspear]

.....That night someone murdered her at home in her pajamas. No, the government has not unearthed the culprit. The story shows you what happens when you get close to winning a tax crime case n a federal Kangaroo court and how hard the government will work to find the killer of whoever helps you.

As usual, Bob Hurt hasn't done his homework. From a news report:

Since then, detectives have worked through hundreds of tips and leads in the Bergeson killing, said Norm Frink, one of Multnomah County’s chief deputy district attorneys....

--from The Oregonian, Nov. 24, 2010, at:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... etect.html

[ASITStands]

It appears that the entire website is devoted to Bob Hurt and, offhand, I cannot find evidence that anyone bothers to respond to any of his threads.

It's a one-way mailing list and not a discussion forum.

Occasionally, he publishes responses by some of his readers.

Once upon a time he had a dispute with Chuck Conces about "who" was the real Lawman, and Bob tried vigorously to get Chuck to give him the national mailing list. He never did.

In light of talk of assassins, one wonders when Bob Hurt will be served with an injunction.

[fortinbras]

I could only find two cases in WestLaw that involved Bob Hurt, and in both he was merely tangential.

Pound v. Gallen (MD Fla 10/29/07) was an ugly child custody fight (is there any other kind?). The pro se defendant tried to argue that the court didn't have jurisdiction to take his kid. One of his arguments was the old militia ploy that the judge hadn't taken his oath of office .... but the court noted that, among the papers the defendant had filed was an affidavit from Bob Hurt that mentioned that, yes, the judge's signed oath was on file.

Bosset v. IRS (MD Fla 3/27/06) 96 AFTR2d 1991 was a typical tax resister suit, attempting to prevent the IRS from going any further to collect Bosset's taxes. Bosset was pro se and he had gotten about two dozen friends, including Bob Hurt, to sign on as pro se co-plaintiffs. No particular mention of Hurt beyond that. In a very short decision, the court rejected the plaintiffs' attempts to deny the efficacy of the Anti-Injunction Act and their attempt to prevent the District Court from citing its own previous decisions.

[grixit]

It appears that the entire website is devoted to Bob Hurt and, offhand, I cannot find evidence that anyone bothers to respond to any of his threads.

It's a one-way mailing list and not a discussion forum.

Occasionally, he publishes responses by some of his readers.

Once upon a time he had a dispute with Chuck Conces about "who" was the real Lawman

I thought it was Chuck Conners who was the real Lawman.

[fortinbras]

Chuck Conners was The Rifleman. Burt Lancaster was The Lawman.

[ASITStands]

Chuck Conners was The Rifleman. Burt Lancaster was The Lawman.

Making Conces and Hurt pretenders? Say it ain't so?

[Cathulhu]

It's so. Chuck Connors, rest his soul, was a manlier man than either of those clowns.

[bobhurt]

You, principally Larry Williams / famspear who have written the foregoing dreck, seem to have a hard time comprehending plain English.

I, Bob Hurt, do not and did not advocate killing government workers. I advocated DISCUSSING the excision of CRIMINALS from government, by assassination if necessary. I believe it high time for Americans to engage vigorously in such discussions, and to take whatever action they must to remove criminals from government.

I notice that you did not take issue with any of the salient points I made. Instead, you ignorantly tried to fault my good grammar by intentionally misreading my statement about the government failing to unearth the assassin who murdered Nancy Bergeson in her pajamas. You Quatloosers seem to revel in her heinous murder. Why? Does it please you that the IRS/DOJ eliminated her before she could launch an investigation to expose their subornation of judge and jury in the Marcel Roy Bendshadler case? You seem to have taken to an extreme your hatred of those who protest government crimes. You teeter on the edge of violating 18 USC 3.

Yes, I control the Lawmen google group, an "e-letter". Had you bothered to read my entries at the beginning of the archives, you would have seen why I made it an e-letter rather than a discussion group: to keep Quatloosers like you, and other bozos, from polluting it with inane, disruptive, hateful drivel that characterizes your Quatloos postings.

Remember that unlike most of you, I do not hide. My life has become an open book. I have nothing to hide from others. I occasionally err in an analysis or commentary, and when I become convinced of the error, I typically apologize and ask forgiveness of my subscribers.

Regarding Chuck Conces, who established the "Lawman" group...

I began studying income tax issues in the Constitution and tax code in the year 2000, prior to which I had spent my entire adult live involved with computer technology in one way or another, beginning in the US Navy in 1963. Because of my ignorance about how to do law research, I started reading Otto Skinner and Joe Sweet's writings. I discovered all which they taught, and the central fact that the IRS and DOJ would answer questions about tax liability by prosecuting whomever they could. I considered that criminal in nature. And, as I started reading cases about crimes related to income tax, I concluded that the DOJ and IRS operate a criminal enterprise, with the endorsement of Congress.

In December 2005 I stumbled across Chuck Conces' web site one day, wrote him an email, and received an email invitation to attend a Tampa Lawman monthly meeting. I attended the meeting and met a bunch of people who had trouble with the IRS. In March 2006 I learned that the DOJ had won an injunction against Chuck Conces. He had to take false or illegal information from his web site. Chuck stopped publishing all that information about his case pleadings. In May 2006 I started the Lawmen group so that I could start publishing to interested people my comments regarding my lessons in law, including income tax issues. I invited people to subscribe if they wished. I intended to do what Chuck Conces refused to do - discuss aspects of law OTHER than his personal case.

In August 2006 the Tampa Lawman leader, whom Conces had appointed, abandoned the group while he recovered from surgery. The group elected me as chair person. I did as good a job as I could to organize people in activities calculated to evoke information from the IRS, such as discovering the lies in their IMFs, and obtaining verified assessments. Meeting attendance increased. People with other kinds of legal problems started attending. Several formed another group and elected me as chair person. Before he died in 2008, Chuck Conces complained that he had not appointed me to head the Lawman group. The old leader came back on the scene and bought in his cronies to sabotage my effort to merge the two groups. Eventually, I handed off leadership, the groups merged, people with IRS problems stopped attending, and the group totally fell apart. I stopped attending meetings regularly two years ago for personal and philosophic reasons. In January 2010 many remnant attendees got involved in The Restore America Plan, and after that fell apart, they started meeting to form some other state republic group as part of a Tim Turner American Republic group.

I have not changed my position on income tax, and I believe the IRS/DOJ, regarding income tax, function like the world's most abusive Mafia, stealing people's assets under color of law, for taxes those people don't owe.

Meanwhile, WIkipedia articles on income tax, thanks to Larry Williams and his cronies, distort the truth by appearing to endorse the government (DOJ and IRS) position, labeling as tax protesters those who believe the implementation of income tax in the US constitutes a crime against the people. Wikipedia seems to have become a propaganda machine for the IRS and DOJ, not a source of fair and balanced fact. The income tax articles should state the positions of DOJ/IRS and of their opponents, without favoring one or the other. The articles should suggest that the positions of the Supreme and Circuit panels fall into disrepute for want of unanimity; their differences of opinion show that the common people cannot know the law with certainty. Famspear succeeded in getting me banned from Wikipedia for life because I insisted that the articles on income tax show opposing positions fairly, and because I argued strenuously against his interpretation of the law.

Guess what? If the IRS agents had nothing to lose, they WOULD answer people's questions honestly and forthrightly. Unfortunately, IRS agent behavior does not comport with law sufficiently to justify their mission of pillaging Americans' wealth.

I'll give you just one example of a practical dispute. The law requires that, unless the Secretary stipulates otherwise, the IRS must sign under penalties of perjury all documents the law requires them to "make." The law requires that the IRS to provide people with verified (written) assessments on request., free of charge. The IRS insists that the assessment does not exist in writing, but that it "arises" as function of the unpaid deficiency.

I wrote to the IRS disclosure officer one year and requested my assessment. I received a computer printout asserting that I had become part of a territorial group for which the assessment amounted to many millions of dollars. Someone had signed a statement on the printout attesting (not under penalty of perjury) that the printout constituted an accurate transcript of the information in the computer. I complained to the disclosure officer that I wanted MY assessment, not a group assessment. She said I'd have to contact someone else and PAY for it. I never received a verified assessment.

An assessment in the world of taxation operates like an invoice in the world of commerce. Without it, the consumer does not know what to pay and has no proper record of notice. The IRS sends deficiency notices (based on the alleged assessment), but never sends an assessment unless the alleged taxpayer requests it. This seem calculated to cheat the alleged taxpayer.

As for your cavalier, locker-room joviality, people who read these pages cannot help but notice that you behave like a pack of chumps, carping away at sincere truth seekers who see little solution (thanks in large part to your profligate irresponsibility at holding government thugs accountable for their behavior) other than visiting government criminals with violence in order to excise them from power. I certainly notice it. Your manners shame you and embarrass me.

Yes, I believe Americans should start discussing violence as a solution to government crime, and Govenrment employees flouting their loyalty oaths at whim. The American electorate has become utterly dumbed down by the procreation and immigration of hordes of low-IQ people, and by the erosion of restrictions so that now children, welfare recipients, indigents, the abysmally ignorant and stupid enjoy the same suffrage as intelligent, productive, responsible citizenry. This virtually guarantees the election of demagogues and criminals. That and ballot box stuffing/voting machine rigging make it nearly impossible to put truly good and competent people in office. Abused Americans will not get remedy from them or our crooked courts. They have no chance of prevailing in an armed effort to change the system of government. What options remain other than simply hunkering down and tolerating the abuse? Only one that I know of: assassination.

You will find in the history of the American Revolution and all monarchies full support for the concept of violence as a solution to government problems. Look at paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence and Article I Section 2 of the n1838 Florida Constitution. If these words make you wince, remember that I did not author them, but I do, as you ought to, agree with them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Your jackass braying on Quatloos constitute part of the problem, not part of the solution. You seem to have made a profession out of deriding people who honestly seek deserved relief and remedy against the IRS. Maybe you'd do better by contacting them early on, listening to their issues, and offering cogent explanations and solutions OTHER than caving in to a criminal enterprise disguised as lawful taxation.

Don't think that I support "Patriot Myth Mongers" or so-called patriots who merely want something for nothing, for I do not. However, just as a person suffering from paranoia can have real enemies, people who want relief from the IRS for fraudulent reasons nevertheless deserve fair taxation as Americans, in compliance with law pursuant to the Constitution. You could help provide that justified relief.

You could, for example. start lobbying Congress to change the tax code so that it comports with the Constitution's principle of apportioning direct taxes among the states. After all, the IRS does collect the income tax DIRECTLY, not as an excise, which the Supremes claimed characterizes it. Because it functions as an excise, it taxes a taxable activity or event, and receiving income cannot constitute such an event because that would make it a property tax. Remember Frank Kowalik, author of IRS Humbug? He very well showed in his book how IRC subtitle A applies only to government contractors and employees who RETURN (tax RETURN, get it?) part of the money they received from government back to the government as a KICKBACK for the privilege of having a cushy government job. Now exercising that privilege does properly become the subject of the excise-like income tax.

One more point. Do any of you personally know Larry Becraft, Jeff Dickstein, or Tom Cryer? You know they have dozens of years of experience as attorneys, right? Have you read any of their case work? Have you talked with them about their positions on the income tax and litigating against the criminals in the IRS and DOJ? If you haven't already done so, maybe you should seek them out for a heart-to-heart discussion. Maybe you will start seeing the light about the criminals in the IRS and DOJ. Go to http://truthattack.org. READ the documents in Tom Cryer's case and see what actual fault you can find with them. Remember that he shared your animosity to tax protesters till he actually started trying to answer the very questions the IRS refuses to answer.

If you consider that just too onerous, why don't you push on government to find Nancy Bergeson's murderer? You can save a lot of time if you start your search in the IRS, then move to the DOJ. If you want a really good head start, write to Marcel Roy Bendshadler, #70873-065, Taft Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 7001.Taft, CA 93268. I imagine he'll happily explain to you what she said in court after the jury convicted him and how she had gradually come to believe his claim that the DOJ had suborned the jury.

By the way, for those of you who function as law professionals, you ought to hang your heads in shame for the fallacious reasoning you use on Quatloos as a tool for disparaging your targets. They do convince readers, all right. They convince readers of your lack of integrity. The truth can withstand honest investigation. You seem to avoid both.

[Quixote]

I, Bob Hurt, do not and did not advocate killing government workers. I advocated DISCUSSING the excision of CRIMINALS from government, by assassination if necessary.

Thanks for clarifying that, Bob. I'll keep posting anonymously in case you decide to broaden the discussion to include anyone who pisses you off.

Do any of you personally know Larry Becraft, Jeff Dickstein, or Tom Cryer? You know they have dozens of years of experience as attorneys, right? Have you read any of their case work? Have you talked with them about their positions on the income tax and litigating against the criminals in the IRS and DOJ?

They are all aware of this forum. They are also aware that their ideas about the income tax, as opposed to their ideas about criminal defense, would be met without the tenderness this crowd usually displays.

[aitchel]

Don't forget , you need to age manure that strong for quite a while or it will burn the young plants

[bobhurt]

His website reveals Mr. Hurt to be a rather pathetic narcissist and unabashed mooch. (He wants to study law, and asks for donations for his "Law Scholarship Fund", on the same page where he offers seminars that " teach you to liberate yourself from debt, government oppression and corruption (such as the IRS or crooked courts)".

What can you say to justify your "narcissist" crack?

As for mooch,the word means "parasite, one who seeks something for nothing." I won't ask how many Quatloosians obtained a student loan for college or law school, and then tried to get out of paying it. And I won't ask Quatloosians to tell me of all their pro bono efforts to educate others in the law or help them with administrative remedy or litigation problems. I'll simply remind you that I give much, demand nothing, and accept donations from those who feel inspired by my work to donate. That does not equal mooching. But it does make you disingenuous for delivering the wisecrack in a public forum.

I decided for a variety of personal reasons not to look for funding to attend law school. Instead, I decided to study court rules, civil practice, and specific topics of law, in a sequence of my choosing, and on my own schedule. I imagine I'll remain a student of law as long as I live.

As for pro bono work, I do it every day. I read law, pleadings, and court rulings even though I have no case of my own to litigate. I encourage people to become courtwatchers to help hapless litigants disqualify judges who flout their oaths and the code of judicial conduct. I write analyses and commentaries about legal issues, and post those, as well as law related items from which I have filtered any myths and nonsense I could detect, to my Lawmen group, and sometimes to other email groups. For the past two years I have focused mostly on mortgage foreclosure defense.

People call me nearly every day seeking law help of some kind. I usually discuss the issues with them, share my understanding of the law with them, and then recommend one or more practitioners I think can help them. I charge nothing for this service. So I do everything except seminars "pro bono" and I even deliver seminars for recommended donations, and always let some people attend at no charge, out of compassion.

I used to work for a living. I no longer do. I live within my means, debt-free. I have a precious wife, Maria, whom I cherish. I play guitar and sing for her. I love the teachings in The Urantia Book (http://urantiabook.org), which I have studied off and on since late 1971. I suffer no ongoing conflict with government or anyone else. I live a happy, untroubled life.

As for the donations (I welcome yours), I have used that money mostly to obtain law study materials and seminar furnishings, or attend seminars.

You call that mooching. I call it giving from myself the best quality I can manage without expecting anything in return, and graciously, thankfully accepting an occasional honorarium. I fail to see why you would want to belittle that method by referring to me as a "mooch."

As to whether I do any actual good for people (I imagine you wonder about this), I have a lot of emails thanking me for my tireless efforts to encourage people to learn the law and become disposed to using it, and for informing them. I have posted over 4000 messages to the Lawmen group since I started it 1 May 2006. Go to the archives and see them for yourself. I shy away from politics, particularly partisan politics in my commentaries, so I keep the postings pretty much on topic. Nobody has EVER complained to me about the value I deliver through my work, in spite of my making an occasional mistake in my commentaries. I guess you could call my work a "ministry" even though it has nothing to do with any organized religion. I have found that once people subscribe to my Lawmen group, very few unsubscribe. Membership stands close to 1500. I don't add members without their permission.

I encourage you to reconsider your position. Do you really think me a mooch?

[Duke2Earl]

As to whether you are a mooch.... I really don't know other that it seems clear that you are willing to receive the benefits of citizenship in this country without paying anything in return. As to self educating yourself in law... in your case, that seems to be about as effective as self educating yourself in brain surgery. All of your legal conclusions are basically devoid of any basis other than your fervent belief. You seem to have exactly zero understanding of either our history or constitutional law except in regard to your fervent beliefs. And all the fervent believing in the world does not make it so. The fact (if it is actually so) that others enlist your help and ask your opinion simply proves how many fools there are out there. You see, the vast majority of us live in a world that actually is... we accept actual reality. The fact that you refuse to do so is not a fault in us.

And no I will not debate any of this. I will not debate reality with one who cannot see it when it is thrust in his face.

[bobhurt]

I'll keep posting anonymously in case you decide to broaden the discussion to include anyone who pisses you off.

Your wisecracks don't anger me. Your effort to grab just any excuse to denigrate me makes you seem pathetic, and your integrity seem impoverished and on the brink of starvation for lack of good will.

They are all aware of this forum. They are also aware that their ideas about the income tax, as opposed to their ideas about criminal defense, would be met without the tenderness this crowd usually displays.

Yes, and they probably loathe both the forum and the Quatloosers posing as Quatloosians specifically because of your unprepossessing manners and disloyalty to truth. I mentioned to Larry the other day that Quatloos has a pretty good area devoted to something like patriot myths, and that you and he share a common objective in dissuading people from embracing those myths. He quickly denied that he wanted anything to do with you. Hang your head in shame. Larry is one of the few attorneys who will even give the time of day to so-called patriots looking for guidance. The patriot myths upset him terribly because those who embrace them and get indicted come to him for help. And some embrace even more myths with the result of destroying his defense.

His web site contains a lot of material that belongs in the Quatloos section that denounces patriot myths.

I believe this: if you quatlooser quatloosians would comport yourselves with more dignity and respect, you'd actually do some good, instead of making people in the patriot community actually hate you.

Back to your apparent concern... I don't feel angry toward you, but even if I did, I would not want to hurt or kill you. I cannot imagine why you would think otherwise.

You seem intent upon misconstruing and misrepresenting my comments about the legitimacy of resorting to violence in order to excise criminals and their crimes from governments. Criminals in government differ from criminals tryng to mug you in the street only in the respect that government criminal operate under color of law, and they have a massive amount of weaponry and virtual jack-boots at their disposal to force their wills upon their victims.

Judicial immunity and other forms of sovereign immunity, added to the good old boys network, make it virtually impossible to correct, discipline, or punish government criminals ot to terminate their crimes. This makes people hate, distrust, and fear government and its operatives.

You, on the other hand, could abuse them in your private, non-government capacity, and they could sue you or file a criminal complaint against you, and aside from crookedness in the police department, state attorney office, or courts, they could bring you to justice and achieve relief and remedy against your wrongs.

So, see? No need to assassinate you. So, stop worrying.