E-Mail from a Bill Benson Fan

[Judge Roy Bean]

Wasn't this guy on the Gong Show?

Hmmm...... look familiar?

[LegalEagleMan]

Joey,

I am not defending him, he can do that himself. I am not saying I agree with him, in principle I would say I agree with some of his thoughts but not necessarily on the details.

IMHO I would say this is almost completely not true what you said below.

You see, America's heart and soul is its democracy, the idea that the Nation is governed by decisions of a majority of its people.

From my readings and if you read many of the works of what is referred to as the Founding Fathers, there are all types of works you can read. You will see democracy was not ever the foundation for this country. Although they did not want to completely eliminate some democracy type structures within. True democracy is mob rule. IMHO.

the idea that the Nation is governed by decisions of a majority of its people.

The Nation was so to be ruled by the People within a set of rules(they are not Laws) according to the Constitution. The governed were not suppose to be "the people" unless "one" of the "people" infringed on the Rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". What does that mean, leave me the hell alone.

IMHO that is not how this country's principles are today, it's an administrative state that wants to govern ALL. To me the compact is null and void.

Like I said, I don't agree with him completely, matter of fact I stopped reading his post. He is obviously upset, I can't say I blame him. If he feels like he doesn't need to live under someone's iron thumb, I sure in heck am not going to stop him. He has just as much right to impose his will on the person that is trying to impose their will on him. He might lose, but he has every right to do just that.

The sword does and always will cut both ways. Either way, all you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this all over with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...So what do I use to measure gain or increase with? I don't know. Do you? FRNS change every day and their value is not established by Congress as required by the Constitutions and are not dollars according to the Treasury Department. So what should I use?
...

Asked and answered. Move on.

[Noah]

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

But removed restrictions on existing powers. Nice try.

Thanks Arthur,
Your making me think As you see it, which restrictions was removed ?
Nevertheless, It seems to me that adding or removing restrictions would create a new power.

[cynicalflyer]

Publicity builds minor parties. When I was State Chairman the party grew from 16,000 members to 50,000.

Because most people who registered though they were registering as independents, not for a particular party (i.e. the Independent American Party).

Ah Chris, I remember you from the good old days when Ron Branson was giving you and the other NV JAIL4Judges idiots orders.

The only credit I can and will give you is that you got out from under that idiot. Sadly, that is as far as you have progressed...

[Cpt Banjo]

You see, America's heart and soul is its democracy, the idea that the Nation is governed by decisions of a majority of its people.

Not exactly.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

[Arthur Rubin]

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

But removed restrictions on existing powers. Nice try.

Thanks Arthur,
Your making me think As you see it, which restrictions was removed ?
Nevertheless, It seems to me that adding or removing restrictions would create a new power.

It was specifically written to override Pollack; the restrictions removed were the restrictions that income taxes, to the extent declared direct under Pollack, must be apportioned.

[Chemnor]

I cannot be sure of every material matter until I know what a dollar is. That I am sure of.

Which makes you a gibbering idiot. Which is what many people have been trying to tell you for quite some time. The fact that you will never understand that you are a gibbering idiot really matters not at all, and you'll no doubt continue your stream of gibbering idiocy, much to our ongoing amusement.

What I always find with Marxists, like you, is that they resort to name calling instead of just citing the law. It is a standard practice with people that have been brainwashed into an evil cult. Thanks for confirming your membership. I always enjoy a good laugh whenever you Marxist cultists are forced into name calling because you cannot cite the law in your own defense. What faith in nothing you people have.

We gibbering idiots know your tactics and our membership in the religion of Shut Up and Just Show Us the Law Cult of the Doubting Thomas', understand your tactics. "In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse." –Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)

So just keep bluffing or instead of showing us the law use threats of enforcement. "That is another of your favorite tactics. I don't have to show you the law...I can just arrest you and make your life Hell." RIGHT. Heard it. And I still fear God more than the IRS unlike the majority of Americans so I will not claim that FRNs are equal weights and measures and not an abomination to the Lord.

And if I am a gibbering idiot, which if you are intelligent would be fine with me just so I would not be classified with people that are so totally mentally and morally corrupted, it also makes Senator Harry Reid, Judge Jones, Judge Dawson, Senator John Ensign, Winthrop P. Hambley Assistant to the Federal Reserve Board, Congressman Dean Heller, Congresswoman Titus, Congresswoman Berkley, Assemblyman Bob Beers, Russell L. Munk Assistant General Counsel for the U.S Treasury, Nevada's Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada's Treasurer, The Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Mint and many others gibbering idiots.

For example:
Thank you for contacting Senator John Ensign's office with your request for the
legal definition of a dollar. After contacting the Congressional Research Service with
your request, they have directed me to a report that explains the definition of a dollar
from the 1856 edition of the Bouvier's Law Dictionary, to the 1996 edition of Black's
Law, Second Pocket Edition, and explained that the definition of a dollar is actually quite
fluid. I have enclosed that report, and I hope it will be of help to you.

It said Federal Reserve Notes were not dollars and that there was no definition for a dollar today. Quite fluid indeed. If the Congressional Research Service and Senator John Ensign were not gibbering idiots, like me, they could have just CITED THE LAW that fixes the standard of weight and measure and value for a dollar. But those gibbering idiots could not do it. Neither can you.

Those gibbering idiots that gave America the Maxims of law seem to understand why I have concerns about clear and unequivocal law also:

Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum.-Where the law is uncertain, there is no law. –Maxim of law

Ubi non adest norma legis, omnia quasi pro suspectis habenda sunt.- When the law fails to serve as a rule, almost everything ought to be suspected. –Maxim of law

Silly me: Since I cannot find the law that creates the rule about what a dollar is, I almost suspect everything.

But then we gibbering idiots have known that Marxists and IRS apologists do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under code since at least 1913 AD.

"I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."-Senator Elihu Root, 1913 debate regarding the first eighty-eight page income tax act

"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents. Nor would he be likely to make any distinction between revenue agents and special agents without some explanation as to the different functions of these two offices. As noted in Lipton, ‘Constitutional Rights in Criminal Tax Investigations,’ 45 F.R.D. 323, 336 (1968), the pressures on the uninformed taxpayer to cooperate with the agents are considerable: ‘First, there is always the fear of incurring a civil tax liability that hopefully might be avoided by cooperation. Also, a taxpayer may conclude that lack of cooperation will result in unwanted publicity about a tax liability. The average citizen, moreover, believes that the government prosecutes only the recalcitrant, uncooperative individual who is unwilling to pay what he owes. Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights.’"
U.S. v. Dickerson 413 F.2d 1111, 1116 (C.A.Ill. 1969)

Now me, I rely on Constitutionally guaranteed rights and the RFRA and God. Silly me. but it has worked quite well for 4 decades. I think I will just keep asking questions that you smart people can never seem to answer with anything but insults or vagaries but never with citations to law. But I am always amazed at the faith you people have in nothing at all.

We know you. John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You are his servants.

[Duke2Earl]

Personally, I always look for Marxists under the bed. Why exactly is anyone discussing anything with this lunatic? He's not even amusing.

[Chemnor]

Wasn't this guy on the Gong Show?

Hmmm...... look familiar?

The necktie? Why yes it does. I have one exactly like it. So did my dad. Always a crowd pleaser on Memorial Day, the 4th of July and Veterans" Day.

Pretty good picture of me speaking out against the Patriot Act with the Gary Peck of the ACLU and Republicans like GOPGeorge Harris and lots of elected Democrats and the NAACP and Muslim groups and Christian groups and the Libertarian Party and the Green party.

Harry even joined in latter. "It seems to me that the Patriot Act was used to circumvent existing laws in a case that had nothing to do with terrorism," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said he supported the passage of the act in 2001, but now has growing concerns that the FBI is overreaching.

Of course Fascists LOVE the PATRIOT Act so most of you IRS apologists must just cream your jeans over it.

I could only find a silhouette of your guys though.

[Chemnor]

Personally, I always look for Marxists under the bed. Why exactly is anyone discussing anything with this lunatic? He's not even amusing.

But like a bad train wreck you just keep responding. But on the other hand I find you folks greatly amusing. All talk no citations. You still can't cite the laws that answer the questions and you still need to resort to name calling.

CLASSIC just continually and continually CLASSIC.

[Chemnor]

That one is my favorite. The IAP grew leaps and bounds after that. The local coverage and even national coverage, was about the IAP and not the to two Republicrat dolts debating.

Jimmy Gibbons ended up being elected and then getting thrown out of the Governor's mansion by his wife. And they thought what I did was embarrassing. "Wait for me honey, there;s a another Cocktail waitress I haven't slept with yet." Mormon Nevada Governor Jim "taxpayer" Gibbons and good friend with Judge Dawson, Jones and Greg Damm.

The court just ordered this good taxpayer governor to turn over his phone records. He was under investigation by the FBI too for his well known bribe taking.
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/49281552.html

Jimmy, we called him Jimmy when he was growing up just around the corner from us, couldn't tell me what the legal definition of a dollar is either. Neither could State Senator Dina Titus, the nice lady in the picture with me, and now my new Congresscritter.

Of course in the debate she did have all the answers given to her first and written by others. Very smart of her to refuse to debate me. She never would show up when the debate promoters allowed us crazies into the debates. Such tried and true slaves of the state just don't like to asked REAL questions they, like you guys, cannot answer by just CITING THE LAW.

[LegalEagleMan]

Since the dollar is not backed by gold or silver, what makes you think there has to be a law defining what a dollar is?

The dollar is backed by various metals including gold, silver, etc. It is 100% backed by the metals in accordance to statute passed by Congress and authorized by the Constitution. Federal reserve notes are non-bearing promissory notes that are not backed by gold and silver or anything else because the United States ran out of money to support the compounding interest equation.

I assure you if you write your Congressman you find that out either through them or research from the Congressional Research Service.

A dollar is a monetary unit equal to 100 cents. It is not tied to a standard, it acts as a medium of exchange to facilitate transactions.

It is not tied to a standard until Congress imposed it's duty regulate money via the Constitution.

Your call to "define" what the dollar is is asinine and non-sensical and a completely quixotic, frivolous waste of yours and everybody elses' time.

The dollar can not be refined due to the Constitution. Dollar is the name of the fix valuation of what Congress puts on money, cents is a subset of dollars.

[Pottapaug1938]

If you support a graduated income tax you are at least 1/10th a Marxist.

This reminds me of a lesson in logic which I learned over 40 years ago, which had its origin even further back. Let's say that the Pope supports world peace. So does Joseph Stalin. Thus, either the Pope is a Communist or Stalin is a Roman Catholic. It also reminds me of the saying, "a stopped cleck is right, twice a day". Chemnor couldn't care less, I'm sure; he'd much rather use distorted, inflammatory and politically myopic labels to try to game the political debate. What a waste of electrons....

[Quixote]

I split the last page of the thread over to Flame Wars as "Chemnor's History of the Twentieth Century".

[Noah]

Brushaber clearly stated the value of the 16th amendment...it gave no new powers....

But removed restrictions on existing powers. Nice try.

Thanks Arthur,
Your making me think As you see it, which restrictions was removed ?
Nevertheless, It seems to me that adding or removing restrictions would create a new power.

It was specifically written to override Pollack; the restrictions removed were the restrictions that income taxes, to the extent declared direct under Pollack, must be apportioned.[/quote]

As I see it the 16th does not overide Pollack. If Brushaber was ruling on the same income tax law as Pollack, even with the 16th amendment, it would rule the same as the Pollack Court.

If Pollack was ruling on the current income tax it would uphold its constitutionality just as every Court since Brushaber has.

The Income Tax Acts considered by Pollack and Brushaber were different.

[Famspear]

As I see it the 16th does not overide Pollack [sic]. If Brushaber was ruling on the same income tax law as Pollack, even with the 16th amendment, it would rule the same as the Pollack Court.

If Pollack was ruling on the current income tax it would uphold its constitutionality just as every Court since Brushaber has.

The Income Tax Acts considered by Pollack and Brushaber were different.

You see it wrong.

It's "Pollock," not "Pollack."

All income tax acts are "different" from each other -- in some way or another. For purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, the "differences" between the 1894 Act that was the subject of the Pollock rulings and the current Internal Revenue Code are not important.

The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.

You are quite wrong.

Citations provided upon request.

EDIT: If you believe that the Court that rendered the Brushaber decision would have agreed with the Court that ruled in Pollock had the Brushaber court been interpreting the 1894 Act (even with the Amendment), you are completely confused.

[Thule]

It's "Pollock," not "Pollack."

I'm prette sure he was referring to Academy Award winning director Sydney Pollack...

[Arthur Rubin]

It's "Pollock," not "Pollack."

I'm prette sure he was referring to Academy Award winning director Sydney Pollack...

Quite possibly. It's hard to keep these people straight, as I don't have them in my macro list.

[Noah]

As I see it the 16th does not overide Pollack [sic]. If Brushaber was ruling on the same income tax law as Pollack, even with the 16th amendment, it would rule the same as the Pollack Court.

If Pollack was ruling on the current income tax it would uphold its constitutionality just as every Court since Brushaber has.

The Income Tax Acts considered by Pollack and Brushaber were different.

All income tax acts are "different" from each other -- in some way or another. For purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, the "differences" between the 1894 Act that was the subject of the Pollock rulings and the current Internal Revenue Code are not important.

EDIT: If you believe that the Court that rendered the Brushaber decision would have agreed with the Court that ruled in Pollock had the Brushaber court been interpreting the 1894 Act (even with the Amendment), you are completely confused.
(/quote)

The "differences" are very important. A opinion that the differences are not important reminds me of the statement "...they are exactly the same but only different....."

In my opinion there is a major difference that is decisive in each case.

I may be confused but how many injunctions have you, or anyone you know, obtained against the United States of America ?