A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel. Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Justice David Souter

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site – "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

Souter has claimed Weare as his home since he moved there as an 11-year-old boy with his family.

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.
 
 

February 8, 1999
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division
55 South Market Street, Suite 815
San Jose, California 95113

Dear XXXXXX:

This is undoubtedly the most difficult letter I have ever written in my life. Still, my duty as a citizen, my duty as a federal law enforcement officer sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and my adherence to the Old TestamentÕs 9th Commandment which prohibits me from bearing false witness against my neighbor requires that it be written. As you know, I have been employed as a Special Agent for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, since 1993. My education, training, and experience gained prior to being appointed as an agent with the U.S. Department of the Treasury includes:

o Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration, Concentration in Accounting. San Jose State University, 1986
o 3 years with KPMG Peat Marwick as a senior tax specialist and staff auditor
o 4-5 years as Accounting and Tax professional in private industry and later as a self-employed Certified Public Accountant (California license CPA 57875).

The most important day of my career as a federal law enforcement officer was probably the first day, when I swore an oath to God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have always taken that oath very seriously. With members of my family watching, I swore to the following words:

I, Joseph R. Banister, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

The above oath is very powerful. I have always relied on it to guide me in my responsibilities as a federal law enforcement officer. I have also been mindful of maintaining my ethics and moral standards as a public servant. The importance of these standards is summarized in a paragraph from the Introduction contained in Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Service Rules of Conduct (Document 7098 (7-86)):

Confidence in the Service and faith in its dependability and integrity are factors having a vital impact on our ability to carry out our purpose. We can maintain the public confidence only to the extent that every one of our contacts with the public reflects the highest ethical and moral standards.

Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965, the language of which is included in the Department of the Treasury, Minimum Standards of Conduct, at 31 CFR Part 0, Subpart A, Section 0.735-3, states:

Where government is based on the consent of the governed, every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of his government. Each individual officer, employee, or advisor of government must help to earn and must honor that trust by his own integrity and conduct in all official actions.

Further, throughout my career in public service, I have remained cognizant of the Internal Revenue Service Mission Statement:

The purpose of the IRS is to collect the proper amount of tax revenues at the least cost to the public, and in a manner that warrants the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and fairness. (Emphasis added)

. . . which was recently revised to state:

Provide AmericaÕs taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. (Emphasis added)

The previous excerpts are but a small sample of the principles promulgated by Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the government in general. Adhering to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, morality, impartiality, ethics, trustworthiness, and loyalty to the United States of America are clearly a necessity for public servants working in a government which derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

In 1997, I was presented with an opportunity to determine whether or not I was really serious about abiding by those standards. I was presented with allegations relating to the very profession I had chosen and the very agency I was employed by, namely the public accounting/income tax profession and the Internal Revenue Service, respectively. Among the allegations presented to me was that (1) the federal income tax is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required, that (2) the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified, and that (3) federal income taxes are not used to operate the federal government. Needless to say, these allegations were not only unbelievable but they were contrary to everything that I had been taught and contrary to everything I believed to be true. Notwithstanding the unbelievable nature of these allegations, they came from a source that I had found credible in the past. The credibility of this source was so strong that I felt more investigation was warranted.

I assumed from the beginning that I would have trouble convincing top officials in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division that government resources should be committed to investigating these allegations, serious though they were. This assumption is due to the ridicule that is commonly laid upon anyone who speaks of such matters. Most people espousing such beliefs about the federal income tax are usually dismissed as being crazy, a racist, a militia member, or a tax protester. I do not fit into any of those categories and neither does my source. Therefore, in order to both seek the truth and avoid ridicule, I made up my mind to investigate the allegations off-duty and at my own expense.

As I said previously, these allegations were contrary to everything I knew to be the truth. Therefore, I was prepared for the possibility that upon closer investigation, these allegations might prove to be just another scheme to distort the facts or the law, as the Internal Revenue Service has claimed in the past. I believed that my background in the areas of income tax law, income tax compliance, and income tax enforcement would enable me to separate fact from fiction. The results of my personal investigation were far from what I expected.

In short, based on my education, training, and experience, I believe that the allegation regarding the voluntary nature of the income tax does have merit and it is therefore immoral and illegal to fine, prosecute, or otherwise penalize those who do not volunteer. I also believe that, contrary to public perception, the income tax is not used to supply the federal government with needed operating revenue. I fully realize that my conclusions regarding these issues may have far-reaching consequences. However, based on the obligations and duties I described previously, I believe I must bring these matters to your attention.

I continue to have the utmost respect and admiration for those I have worked with not only in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division but all federal and state law enforcement officers and prosecutors. I have found these officials to be of the highest character and talent. I would like to continue to work with these officials but due to the nature of the allegations and evidence contained in my report, I am strongly considering resigning from the Service. Ultimately, my decision will hinge upon the ServiceÕs response to this letter. If the Internal Revenue Service will commit Ð in writing- to conduct its own point by point answer/analysis of the allegations and evidence set forth in my report, I will consider remaining in my position. If the Service declines to conduct its own analysis, or dismisses the evidence in this report without proper review, then I must tender my resignation. My oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States was made to God and I can not serve two masters.

I have enclosed a copy of a report I prepared called Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report, which summarizes the allegations and the evidence supporting them. I respectfully request that you simultaneously review this report and forward it to your superiors up to and including Commissioner Rossotti. I respectfully request that the Commissioner or his designee respond to the evidence in my report within 30 days. I am certain that IRS management will have questions and I will do my best to answer them. Please advise them that my email address at work is XXXXXXXXXXXX and my office telephone is XXXXXXXXXX. Written inquiries can be sent to Special Agent Joseph R. Banister, IRS Criminal Investigation Division, XXXXXXX, San Jose, California 95113.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Banister
Special Agent
IRS Criminal Investigation Division
 
 

The government plans to release new rules for controversial car black boxes this summer, according to a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Contrary to expectations, the rules don't require automakers to install the boxes in every car, but they do require the boxes to record a minimum of 29 pieces of data, more than most black boxes currently record.

In a nod to privacy concerns, the rules require automakers to disclose in the owner's manual when a car has a black box and why it's there. But privacy advocates say they're disappointed that the rules don't limit the amount of data the boxes can record or address concerns about how recorded data can be collected or used.

In New York this year, a defense attorney challenged the admissibility of information gleaned after police removed data from a defendant's black box before obtaining a search warrant.

A judge ruled, however, that the seizure was legal and that the driver had no reasonable expectation of privacy since he'd been on a public highway and exposed his driving behavior to anyone watching.

"Essentially what (the NHTSA) has done is encourage more data collection without a corresponding increase or concern for privacy protection," said Chris Hoofnagle, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's West Coast office.

Car black boxes, also called electronic data recorders, or EDRs, have a computer chip that records data about a car and driver's actions before and during a crash. EDRs generally begin recording when the device detects an abrupt deceleration in the car, signaling that a crash may occur. Currently, the data captured varies among EDRs. Some record only vehicle speed and data about air bag deployment. Others also log whether the driver braked before impact, used turn signals or was buckled in.

EDRs were designed to help automakers build safer vehicles. But manufacturers have used the data to defend against product liability claims. Police investigators have also increasingly been using the data to charge drivers with speeding violations and serious crimes. And insurance companies want the data to dispute unwarranted claims and tie policy rates to driving behavior.

Privacy advocates and consumer groups oppose allowing data collected for safety purposes to be used for other purposes, especially when most drivers are unaware that their cars have boxes that can be used as evidence against them. They also question whether the data is accurate, since few tests have been conducted to establish its reliability.

EDRs use proprietary technology, so car owners can't see the software code to determine if the devices are doing more than manufacturers say they're doing. Automobile owners can't access the recorded data without a $2,500 software kit.

Black boxes have been in cars since 1974, when General Motors installed them to help deploy air bags. In 1994, GM began installing more sophisticated EDRs to record data. Now 15 percent of light cars and trucks have EDRs, including 65 percent to 90 percent of 2004-model light vehicles, according to the NHTSA. But not all automakers disclose the presence of EDRs in their cars.

Researchers and automakers say EDRs are invaluable for improving the safety of cars, roadways, bridges and guardrails.

About 6 million crashes occur annually in the United States, according to the NHTSA. The leading cause of death in children and young adults, they cost the country an estimated $230.6 billion a year.

"From a research point of view, there is absolutely no question in my mind that (the data) will lead to safer air bags and cars," said Clay Gabler, professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech's Center for Injury Biomechanics, which began examining car black box data in 2001. Gabler said the data has already helped engineers rethink how highway guardrails are constructed to protect people who crash into them.

But Eric Skrum, spokesman for the National Motorists Association, questions the safety justifications for EDRs.

"If they really were doing this for safety research, they wouldn't have to have it in every vehicle or in vehicles where the owner isn't even aware it's in the car," Skrum said.

EDR proponents also say the devices help victims' families seek restitution against reckless drivers, especially when there are no witnesses to a crash.

When a 77-year-old woman in Texas drove her Cadillac through a post office's plate-glass window and killed an occupant inside, she claimed the car accelerated on its own. Her car's black box belied her story and helped the victim's family win a wrongful-death suit. Similarly, when two cars collided in Montreal in 2001, killing one driver, the surviving driver blamed the deceased driver for speeding. But data from the survivor's black box revealed that he'd been the one driving 80 mph in a 50-mph zone.

Despite the value of EDRs, few tests have been conducted to establish the accuracy of the data. In at least one case, an EDR seems to have recorded faulty information.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci was involved in an accident in his state-owned SUV when the car, driven by a state police detective, hit an ice patch while passing a slower car and caused both vehicles to spin off the highway.

Although the EDR indicated the SUV was traveling 71 mph before the air bag deployed, the detective driving the car claimed the speedometer showed 55 mph, a number that was closer to the 55-65 mph that police investigators estimated based on physical evidence at the scene.

The EDR also indicated that the governor wasn't buckled in, although Baldacci and his driver disputed this. Medical personnel who treated the governor also said his injuries, which included a broken rib, were consistent with someone wearing a seat belt.

Limited tests of EDRs have indicated that if power to an EDR is lost during a crash the device may not record all data or could falsely record seat belt data. The vehicle's speed can also be recorded inaccurately if the car is airborne during an accident, rolls over or loses a wheel from the drive axle. And in at least one case, researchers discovered a programming bug that caused an EDR to falsely record brake information in a particular car model. EDR download reports now include a warning about the glitch for crash inspectors.

Robert Breitenbach -- director of the transportation safety training center at Virginia Commonwealth University, which conducted a study of EDRs -- said investigators should never rely solely on EDR data.

"You really need to do a thorough investigation of the physical evidence and just use it as another tool," Breitenbach said.

He added that people who argue against using EDR data for privacy reasons forget that a lot of information they record can already be gleaned from a car without the driver's permission.

"I can look at your headlights and taillights if you're involved in a crash," he said. "Those lights will tell me whether your lights were on or off in a crash. If they were off and it was dark, that could lead you to a conviction of reckless driving."

Regardless, last July, California became the first state to address questions about access to EDR data when it passed a law that prohibits anyone from accessing EDR data without a car owner's permission or a subpoena. The law contains a loophole, however. If an insurance company assumes ownership of a car wrecked in an accident, the company gets possession of the EDR data as well.

About a dozen other states have introduced similar legislation regulating how EDR data is used or requiring car makers to disclose the presence of EDRs.

Rae Tyson, spokesman for the NHTSA, said his agency recognized the privacy concerns over EDRs, but said the agency didn't have the authority to rule on them and that Congress or the courts would have to resolve them.
 
 

 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

High Courts Property Decision Stirs Anger
Seen as 'slap in the face' to American homeowners
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44958

[COMRADE.  It is NOT your land or property.  Get it through your head.  You are crazy if you think you own anything.  Have not been paying attention to zoning rules, to emanate domain, to condemnation, to all these slick maneuvers used by public SERVANTS to take land and property from people?  Sure you have, but it is always the other guy and of course there must be some details of which you are not aware that makes the taking of "their" stuff justified.  Get your head out of the sand.  Pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. Your turn will come, then who will you expect to help you?.  In Little Rock, Arkansas, the city now has signs you can get to put in your neighbors yard to announce the neighbors yard is unsightly.  DUH, do you think people traveling past the neighbor's yard can tell for themself that the yard is unsightly? Do they really need a sign to tell them what they can see for themselves?  --  Tribble]

Property-rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's split decision yesterday allowing a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.

The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of New London, Conn., homes targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex.

The American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest and largest conservative grass-roots organization, noted many of the affected citizens have deep roots in their community, including a married couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

"It is outrageous to think that the government can take away your home any time it wants to build a shopping mall," said ACU Chairman David Keene. "[The] Supreme Court ruling is a slap in the face to property owners everywhere."

Keene believes "liberal, activist judges will continue to violate the rights of individuals in favor of big government and special interests."

"To help protect property rights, Americans must push for a fair, originalist judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy arises," he said.

Susette Kelo was among several residents who sued the city after officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

"I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country," Kelso said. "I am very disappointed that the court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."

The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But New London officials argued that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.

"It's a dark day for American homeowners," said Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the group of Connecticut residents in the case.

"While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected," Berliner said. "Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."

California state Sen. Tom McClintock, who ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the Supreme Court "broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans' most fundamental rights."

"Their decision nullifies the Constitution's Public Use Clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," he said. "The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens."

McClintock announced he plans to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights.

"This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property," he said. "In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceases to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action."

Writing in dissent of yesterday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The American Family Association noted Justice Clarence Thomas' addition to O'Conner's dissent: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."

Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, said America's founders "held that government was instituted to protect property as much as persons, but today's high court no longer respects private property."

"There is a world of difference between taking private property for a legitimate public use, such as the building of a road, and some private developer's get-rich-quick scheme," he said. "In effect, the Supreme Court has written over city hall: 'The government giveth, and the government taketh away.'"

Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, said both the majority and the dissent recognized that the action in this issue now turns to state supreme courts where the public-use battle will be fought out under state constitutions.

"Today's decision in no way binds those courts," he said.

Mellor said his group will work to ensure the property owners in New London keep their homes.

"This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those courts," he said.

Another homeowner in the case, Mike Cristofaro, has owned property New London for more than 30 years.

"I am astonished that the court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money," he said. "Although the court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."

The Institute for Justice says more than 10,000 private properties have been threatened or condemned in recent years.
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

Tax Activist Wins in Federal Court
Ex-IRS agent says Congress has no power to collect levy on income
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
contributing editor to   - Crystal and Bill and Rodger

[Many a people have told me in the past that they did not believe things I say, because they had not heard/read it in the mainstream press.  This is just one such example.  But, in today's world, it has become easier to show those disbelievers by way of the internet.  --  Tribble]
 

A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government. Joseph Banister, a certified public accountant in San Jose, Calif., had been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified. A leading figure in the "tax honesty" movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.

Joseph Banister

A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found him not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client. Banister's attorney, Robert Bernhoft, told WorldNetDaily the result has no direct bearing on the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment, but he insisted the implications are bigger than the issue of taxes. "The outcome shows that average, law-abiding, hard-working citizens are not going to criminalize speech -- they're not going to send a man to prison for asking the federal government serious questions about a serious subject," he said.

Last fall, IRS spokesman Anthony Burke insisted Banister's arguments against the federal income tax already had been thoroughly vetted. "Many constitutional or legal arguments have been tried in the courts, and without fail, they have been held to be without merit," he told WND. Banister's website offers a defense of his views, including an 85-page report titled "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report." The federal indictment accused Banister and co-defendant Walter A. Thompson, of Redding, Calif., of conspiring to defraud the United States of approximately $259,669 in income and employment taxes. In a separate trial, Thompson was acquitted of conspiracy and found guilty on charges unrelated to Banister.

If Banister had been convicted of all counts, he could have been sentenced to 14 years in prison and a fine of $1 million. Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 to become an armed, criminal investigator in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. But he says he resigned after six years because he was "unable to resolve conflicts" between the way the IRS administered the federal income tax and his oath of office. As WorldNetDaily reported in March 2004, Banister claimed the IRS was illegally using "enforcers" to monitor his political activities and build its case against him. The IRS filed a complaint March 19, 2003, and began what he calls the agency's "mission to silence and discredit me."

In 1996, while working for the IRS, Banister says his view of tax law was jolted when he heard radio talk host Geoff Metcalf interview activist Devvy Kidd on KSFO in San Francisco.

After receiving information from Kidd, Banister used his spare time over two-and-a-half years to compile a report for his superiors, telling them that if they cannot find anything wrong with his analysis, he would have to resign.

Banister said his superiors refused to respond to his report and told him they would facilitate his resignation.

Related stories:
Tax activist faces charges
   IRS 'enforcers' target ex-agent
      Fed 'strike force' targeting tax reformers?
         IRS colluding with states
           'Ghosts' group threatens IRS employees
            The Tax Man is hiring
               IRS special agent challenges system
 

Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy
Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing
contributing editor to   - Crystal and Bill

Sacramento California -- On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.

During the trial the Department of Justice was unable to put forth any evidence that Banister had either engaged in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he shared legal research with business owner Al Thompson concluding that he had no legal obligation to withhold taxes from his workers or when he (Banister) prepared corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under U.S. law, zero.

During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS’s San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.

Banister, who was forced to resign in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson’s worker’s a presentation in 2000 which reviewed his detailed investigative research of U.S. tax law which concluded that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on the workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the worker's paychecks.

Banister is part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the U.S. Government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. Last summer, the We The People Foundation initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions.

The Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in history that U.S. courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment.

Court documents for the RTP lawsuit and scholarly research regarding the Right to Petition can be downloaded from the Lawsuit Information Center on www.GiveMeLiberty.org.

Following the verdict, Banister was greeted by a throng of WTP supporters and members of his family.

Tomorrow, WTP will publish additional details of this important news and stream video of post-verdict interviews of Banister & several of the jurors.
 
 

More is available at   http://joebanister.blogspot.com/
contributing editor to   - Rodger
 
 

Walking can add minutes to your life. This enables you at 85 years old to spend an additional 5 months in a nursing home at $5000 per month.

My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was 60. Now she's 97 years old and we don't know where the hell she is.

The only reason I would take up exercising is so that I could hear heavy breathing again.

 I joined a health club last year, spent about 400 bucks. Haven't lost a pound. Apparently you have to go there.

I have to exercise early in the morning before my brain figures out what I'm doing.

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

I have flabby thighs, but fortunately my stomach covers them.

The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.

If you are going to try cross-country skiing, start with a small country.

And last but not least:

I don't exercise because it makes the ice jump right out of my glass.

You could run this over to your friends but why not just e-mail it to them!
 
 

[Now just a minute.  I thought Israel was our buddy and friend and as a "Christian" nation, we were suppose to back up and defend "God's chosen people" at all cost.  Looks like Israel is just looking out for Israel and scamming the rest of the world.  Israel better watch out.  They're letting their true colors show.  --  Rodger]

[There are many who do not understand the distinction between "Israel" as God or as His People, and the newly created (1948) country.  The country is not the Israel of prophecy.  The people there do not even call themselves Israelites, but rather IsraeLIES.  --  Tribble]

Beijing, June 21: China today opposed US interference Sino-Israeli bilateral ties, especially in defence relations, rubbishing Washington's concerns as "groundless and unreasonable".

"I want to point out that mutually beneficial cooperation and development of relations will not undermine the interests of third parties. The concern of relevant party is groundless and unreasonable", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said when asked to comment on US Secretary of State Condoleezza's statement in this regard.

Liu said that Beijing attached importance to the mutually beneficial cooperation with the Israeli side, which he said was in the interest of the two peoples as well as the peace and stability in the region and the world.

"We think that when the two countries are developing their relations, they should overcome external interference", Liu said even as Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing met with top Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Liu's comment came after Rice, who visited Israel ahead of Li's visit, pressed the Jewish state to be prudent in its defence ties with the Communist giant.

The top US diplomat last week indicated her unhappiness with the Israelis over their transfer of military equipment and technology to China despite rounds of what she called "very difficult discussions."

Rice reiterated Washington's "rising concern" about China's military build-up and said Israel "has a responsibility to be sensitive to that, particularly given the close defence cooperation between Israel and the United States."
 
 

[This tactic is very common these days.  It works like this:  when the power people (money people) want something and they know they need public support to make their agenda go smoothly, they put it to a vote of the people.  You might think that when the people say NO, that would end it.  Not so in this modern world.  In this world, a "NO" vote by the people only means that the agenda be put to another vote.  It might be modified slightly or given a new name, or the time to quit is extended.  This has the obvious effect of NEVER ending till the money people get their way, no matter what the people want.  Ultimately, the people are bullied or manipulated into thinking they (or at least a small majority of people) want the measure.  --  Tribble]
 

BRUSSELS (AFP) - A "very large majority" of EU leaders agreed to extend a deadline to ratify the bloc's embattled constitution beyond the target date of November 2006, sources said. During the period EU states would be free to vote on the EU charter if they wanted to, but there would be "no decision on the final fate of the treaty," said an EU official. "We must not declare the death of the constitution today," he said, as EU leaders sought to draw back from an all-out crisis after French and Dutch voters dealt crushing referendum rejections to the EU charter. There was some debate over exactly how to describe the extension, another source said. "It will probably be more a period of reflection than a pause ... to give member states the flexibility to choose what they want to do" on ratification, she said.

French President Jacques Chirac (L) chats with Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende (R) during the round table at the beginning of the two days EU summit in Brussels. A 'very large majority' of EU leaders agreed to extend a deadline to ratify the bloc's embattled constitution beyond the target date of November 2006, sources said.(AFP/BELGA/Benoit Doppagne)

Under the terms of the constitution, which was signed by EU leaders in Rome last October, it must be ratified by all 25 member states within two years to come into force.

The deal to extend the ratification process was struck as EU leaders negotiated on the first evening of a two-day summit, clouded by uncertainty over the future of the charter.

The constitution was hammered out over four years, and was designed in part to prevent decision-making gridlock in the bloc, which grew from 15 to 25 members last year with five or more still waiting to join.

An EU official reiterated a claim that many people who voted against the constitution in France and the Netherlands did so for reasons other than the content of the charter itself.

"The reasons for the 'no' are not linked directly to the text of the constitution," he said.
 
 

DES MOINES - Cecilia Beaman is a 57-year-old grandmother, a principal at Pacific Middle School in Des Moines, and as of Sunday is also a suspected terrorist.

"This is not right," she told us. It's not right!"

This past weekend she and several other chaperones took 37 middle school students to a Heritage Festival band competition in California. The trip included two days at Disneyland.

During the stay she made sandwiches for the kids and was careful to pack the knives she used to prepare those sandwiches in her checked luggage. She says she even alerted security screeners that the knives were in her checked bags and they told her that was OK.

But Beaman says she couldn't find a third knife. It was a 5 1/2 inch bread knife with a rounded tip and a serrated edge. She thought she might have lost or misplaced it during the trip.

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and that she would have to pay a $500 fine.

"I'm a 57-year-old woman who is taking care of 37 kids," she told them. "I'm not gonna commit a terrorist act." Beaman says they took information from her Washington drivers license and confiscated and photographed the knife according to standard operating procedure.

She says screeners refused to give her paperwork or documentation of her violation, documentation of the pending fine, or a copy of the photograph of the knife.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point ... you don't have any'."

KOMO News did reach a spokesperson with the Transportation Security Administration for comment. They said they did not have record of Beaman's confrontation but did admit that TSA screeners are, by design, becoming more strict.

Despite continued warnings to passengers, TSA screeners say travelers continue to bring banned items in their carry-on luggage. Knives, guns, and other weapons are found and confiscated daily.

Fines issued for knives and other sharp objects range from $250 to $1,500. Fines issued for firearms discovered in carry-on luggage range from $1,500 to $7,500.

The TSA web site also indicates firearms violations will be referred for potential criminal prosecution. The same site does not propose the same criminal referral for knives like the one Cecilia Beaman was carrying.

"This is not the way my country should be treating me," she said. My concern is that if that's the way they're treating American citizens I would hate to think how they're treating other people. It's crazy."

The TSA reminds travelers that is has the authority to impose civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

"TSA needs the help of the traveling public in reducing the number of prohibited items brought to airport screening checkpoints," reads the Sanction Guidelines section of the TSA web site. "TSA recognizes that most passengers who carry prohibited items do so without any ill intent. TSA does not impose fines on the vast number of passengers who inadvertently carry prohibited items. Dealing with any prohibited item, however, adds time to the screening process both for the traveler who brought the item and for other travelers as well."

You can find a complete list of banned items, range of fines levied for violations, and information on how to plead your case with the TSA at www.tsa.gov.
 
 

The day started out with the government's 7th witness - Thomas DiLeonardo who is currently an assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

During the fall of 1997 he was a trial attorney and worked with Joe on a fraudulent tax return case.  The defendant in that case owned three gas stations/convenient stores and was accused of underreporting income.

This witness stated the following:

    * Joe was a competent Special Agent who did exemplary and superior work.

    * During the investigation of the above mentioned case Joe did not ask him questions about the 16th amendment, 861 or any issues about the legality of the Federal Income Tax

    * He, Thomas DiLeonardo, did receive Joe's report on the Federal Income Tax, but he thought it was just the same old tax protestor arguments that the courts years have ruled against for the last 10 or 15 Years.

    * Before doing the Amended returns that Joe did for Al Thompson, Joe knew how to do the regular/traditional kind of return that most people do.

 When Joe's attorney, Jeff Dickstein, cross-examined Thomas DiLeonardo, he admitted that:

    * Joe knows what is fraudulent and willfulness.

    * In spring of 2000 Joe tried to contact and meet with Thomas DiLeonardo, but he was out of town (D.C.)

    * On April 9, 2001 in Washington, D.C., Thomas DiLeonardo saw Joe marching around the IRS building and had a conversation with him trying to find out what these people were doing.   He admitted that Joe asked him to address the demonstrators, but he declined.

    * Thomas DiLeonardo never studied Subchapter N of the IRS Code and does not know what it covers.

    * DiLeonardo came to California in April 2001, and had a conversation with Joe.  Joe told him why he resigned from the IRS, and asked him to help get some answers by arranging meetings with  DiLeonardo's superiors, to discuss his questions about the legality of the Federal Income Tax.

    * Mr. DiLeonardo agreed and sent an e-mail to three individuals. The first one was Ron Semino, who was the Chief of the Western Division of the U.S. Department of Justice's Tax Division. The second and third one's were Melissa Shriebman and another DOJ Tax Division lawyer who were involved with tax protest issues and have handled a lot of tax protest kind of arguments.

    * Jeff asked "Are you still friends with Joe?"  Special Agent - Shawn Breslin responded, "I have no reason not to." Obviously these Special Agents and DOJ lawyer who worked with Joe still had high regard for Joe and were not willing to lie to hang their old friend.

When DiLeonardo said that Joe's arguments were frivolous Dickstein responded "Frivolous?  Doesn't frivolous mean without case law to back it up?"  and DiLeonardo replied yes. Then Jeff said, "frivolous, isn't that what the government calls things that they don't want to answer/understand". However the government objected and the judge sustained.   [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Then when Jeff started asking this witness about the tax law and regarding the 16th amendment the judge objected on his own!    [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]   The judge said that he would not let the jury decide whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not.  This witness was dismissed and they gave the jury a 10-minute break while they all decided whether to let Al's California Franchise Tax Board tax returns into evidence.   The judge said it was not relevant. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Witness number 8 was an IRS Special Agent - Shawn Breslin, CPA.  He had been a special agent since 1991 and he started investigating Al Thompson in September of 2000.   There were some exhibits that the government had where calculations were made on what Al supposedly owed.  These exhibits had "for criminal purpose" on them and Jeff objected so that government had to do all the exhibits over again.   While the special agent testified the jury got corrected copies of these schedules.  When the government asked the special agent questions he testified to the dollar amounts.

On cross examination Jeff asked him over and over and over whether anyone impeded, impaired, obstructed or defeated the IRS from calculating, assessing or collecting the tax on Cen Cal (Thompson or his company or employees) and he said no every time.   Jeff asked whether Joe impeded, impaired, obstructed or defeated the IRS from calculating, assessing or collecting the same alleged taxes and he said no.   The Special Agent - Shawn Breslin noted that he has been with the IRS for 13 years but does not know the civil side of the IRS.

He Special Agent - Shawn Breslin did not know whether Al Thompson's 1040's had been audited.  Jeff asked if Joe Banister had an obligation to file the 941's for Al's company and he said no.   Jeff said, "It's Al's responsibility not Joe's, not the employees and not Al Thompson's payroll tax preparer Susan Special Agent - Shawn Breslin answered: yes, it's Al's responsibility. In response to Jeff's question. *This ended Government's case against Joe and concluded the prosecutions' presentation to the Jury*.   The jury was dismissed for the day and told to come back Friday at 9am.  There was a break from 11:40 to 2:30 because the judge had another brief matter to handle.   Then at 2:30 the sparks started flying.  [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Joe's lawyers made a motion to dismiss the charges against Joe under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which REQUIRES a dismissal of the charges, if the Government fails to produce ANY evidence in the trial that could possibly show guilt of the defendant.

Jeff cited on point U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. Galletti, 541 U.S. 114, 121 (2004), Caldwell case (from the 9^th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal) to show that Joe's speech does not and cannot constitute conspiracy and that there was A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PROOF by the Government.   The judge asked the government to rebut that, and they did a poor job, since they did not have a case in the first place.  The judge did not want to dismiss the case. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Jeff stated again that the government did not prove an underlying tax liability.  The judge asked the government why they did not better prepare the IRS Special Agent when being asked about conspiracy to impair, impede, obstruct or defeat the IRS.   *The judge agreed that none of the government's witnesses proved willfulness or conspiracy.*  The judge continued to argue with Jeff about it.   Jeff told the judge that Rule 29 requires the judge to dismiss the charges because of lack of ANY proof. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Judge did not want to dismiss the case, because if he did so, the U.S. Government could not reverse his decision by going to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal. But if he ruled against Joe, then he could get the judge reversed by the 9^th Circuit. Jeff reminded the judge that the law REQUIRES dismissal when the Government fails to provide ANY proof.   The judge stated that he felt that Rule 29 is not fair to the Government and that there is some talk in the Congress to change Rule 29, so that the Government could appeal the dismissal of their case. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Jeff reminded the judge that AT THIS TIME and until Congress changes the law, the judge must dismiss the charges! However, Judge Schubb did not want to embarrass his fellow government officials, who had successfully got a Federal Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich (Indicted Joe) and wanted to convict the ham sandwich of the non-existent crimes (Joe's alleged conspiracy and false statements.) The judge argued a fair amount about this with Jeff and eventually made the political decision of going against the plain language of the law and against the evidence in the case by refusing to dismiss any of the charges. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Next, both sides took out portions of the Deposition (under oath videotaped and transcribed testimony) of Joe' boss at the IRS, Mr. Gordini. The government wanted 7 items extracted and the judge let them extract 6.5.  The defense wanted 1 item extracted and the judge let them extract it.  It was a very insignificant item.   Joe's lawyers are having the video edited for the jury's view in the morning.. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Judge Schubb, attempted to prop up the government's case by letting all of the charges hang in there, for now, when the government did not provide any proof of the charges, but by letting them all go by the defense will be able to present all the evidence they want to bring in.  With the conspiracy charge intact, Joe will be able to fully explain his story before, during and after his career with the IRS for the jury to see and evaluate for themselves.   So all in all we believe the trial is going over well for Joe, as expected. [Shubb is not a judge;  he's a pig.  Ed.]

Friday the Video of Mr. Gordini and 2 of Joe's witnesses and then Joe will testify later on Friday or on Monday. We expect the trial to be over around the middle of next week.

At the end of the day upon coming out of the courtroom, Joe motioned for about 15 of us to come together in a huddle.   We could see he was filled with emotion and did not know what to expect.  About 30 feet away was his Mother, Aunt, his wife and youngest son.   He quietly told us of his burden of the difficulty all this has been on his wife and sons.  He asked us not to respond to his wife in any way because for now it would not be good.   She would only receive it in a negative way.  Special prayers need to be offered up for his wife and sons.  The oldest is 17 and would not come.  We all hurt for them and realize how serious this is and how great a sacrifice has been made by this family.  We appreciate so much what Joe is doing for all of us and this is something we can do for him.

Yours in truth, freedom and justice,
Sherry,Ken, Ross, Peymon and Harry
 
 

CHILDREN as young as three should be targeted as potential criminals, a secret Government study suggests.

The Home Office said they, could be singled out from evidence of nursery school bullying or whether they have a criminal history in the family.

The leaked report says those who are not 'under control' should be targeted by parenting classes or, in extreme cases, placed in foster care.

The 250-page Home Office report, titled Crime Reduction Review, was ordered on the instruction of Blair and backed by crime victims' groups.

It said children who were not under control by the age of three were four times as likely to be convicted of a violent offence.

Eighty-five per cent of inmates in young offenders' institutions had been bullies at school, while 43 per cent of male prisoners had children with a criminal record. This made the argument for intervening 'overwhelming,' it said.

Anti-crime measures such as CCTV, increased street lighting and longer custodial sentences were judged in the report to have been expensive failures.

But if potential criminals were spotted early enough, better results could be achieved by 'soft measures' such as improving their reading, language and social skills.

The report went on to state that bullies, who can start intimidating others from a very young age, do not suffer from low self-esteem but act as gang leaders who recruit others to commit crime.

As they, graduate to being juvenile Offenders, aged eight to 15, they act as magnets by drawing in followers one or two years younger than themselves.

Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: 'If we can find out who is likely to be involved in crime at an early age it is to everyone's benefit.'

Richard Garside, director of the Crime and Society Foundation, said it was sensible to identify problem youngsters at an early age, as their behaviour may be masking problems at home such as abuse.

But he said many may not go on to do anything wrong and monitoring them would use up an awful lot of resources for a potentially small benefit.
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

Identify Future Criminals at Age Three
by Michael Clarke, Daily Mail 19th April 2002
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=110461&in_page_id=1770

Nurseries must try to identify the criminals of the future among toddlers as young as three, David Blunkett said yesterday.

The Home Secretary claimed it was never too early to start targeting children put at risk by their family background.

Their first day at nursery was an ideal opportunity to begin assessing whether a child had behavioural difficulties or family problems which might lead to trouble in later life.

Staff could point such children towards Government schemes designed to help parents bring up their children properly.

Mr Blunkett, who was speaking at a conference on adolescents, painted a bleak picture of too many estates effectively ruled by teenage tearaways from a band of families whose parents had given up trying to control their offpsring.

He added: 'If dysfunctional families are to be helped we have to face reality.

'On many of our housing estates, in many of our most disadvantaged communities, there are a handful whose lifestyle and behaviour so disrupts the wellbeing of others it is creating, literally, havoc. We know it's true.'

Mr Blunkett told ParentChild2002, an international meeting in London hosted by organisations including the National Family and Parenting Institute and the Open University, that 'moderate interventions' with problem families, such as social worker visits, sometimes made no difference.

That meant the Government had to try 'both tough and tender policies'.

'We have got to provide the support where it can be most effective,' he added. 'We have got to be able to pick up on behavioural reactions at school very quickly, from the moment a child enters nursery education.'

The Home Office has set up schemes such as Sure Start - which helps the babies of the poor get a better start - and On Track, which targets youngsters judged likely to end up in jail because of their background.

Both offer 'mentors' to struggling mothers and extra help with bringing up their children.

Mr Blunkett is also considering using parenting orders - designed as a punishment for the mothers and fathers of tearaways - even if their offspring have not been convicted of any crime. He believes parents who let their children out at night unsupervised, or allow them to dabble in drink or drugs, are as guilty of child abuse as those who beat their young.

Mr Blunkett's message will cheer family values campaigners but risks angering Left-wingers who fear his stance could lead to branding toddlers as criminals.

Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, also warned that it took great skill to pick up early signs of criminal behaviour at such a young age.

'It is possible to say certain factors are present in this child and in this family, at this age and therefore this child has a greater chance of offending,' she said. 'But you can't say that all these kids will be criminals.'
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of Parental Rights
Nancy Levant
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/16/24_209_102_203_25370.htm
contributing editor to   - Rodger

In the 2005-2006 school year, all parents will receive written notice of new policies from your children’s schools. Many schools will ask you to sign permission slips, allowing school counselors or “advocates” to have conversations with your children. You will be told how your local schools are now involved in vision and dental screenings, learning disabilities and speech impediment screenings, and other acts of kindness, but watch for the small print or the extra little blurb, which states that your children will also be evaluated for emotional wellness. Watch for wording like “happiness indicators” or “family participation.”

The fact is that our president has mandated that every American child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered to be evaluated for mental health issues and to receive “enforced” treatment. Welcome to President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative and New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug addictions, New Freedom-style.

52 million students and six million adults working in schools, according to this commission, will be tested and should flush out at least 6 million people, or shall we say new customers, who will then be mandated to receive “treatment.” What treatment does our president’s commission have in mind? The newest drugs in the pharmaceutical pipelines, of course. The commission recommends “specific medications for specific conditions.”

One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive, is an implanted capsule – yes, that’s right, implanted. The capsule delivers medication into a child’s body without the child having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.

The New Freedom Commission named the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) a model treatment plan. Medical algorithms are a flowchart-style treatment indicator. If you have A symptom and B symptom, take C medication. TMAP began with the University of Texas, big pharma, and the mental health and corrections system in Texas. The American Psychiatric Association concurs that TMAP is brilliant.

However, the New Freedom Initiative and Commission is a political-big pharma marriage. Many companies who supported TMAP were also major contributors to Bush’s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine - one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan, and furthermore, George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly’s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly’s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party. Do tell…

Texas Algorithm grossed over 4 billion dollars in 2003 and olanzapine is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris claims that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And lo and behold, guess who is now able to bill Medicaid for health services? Public schools, of course, as they are now under the big pharma-political profits/pay-back umbrella once they adopt screening policies. Public schools can now be paid to screen and drug your kids.

Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for our president’s campaign. Favors are now returned to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health, and their future drug addictions.

But wait, there is more. The New Freedom Commission also calls for enforced treatment. That means that parents have no rights to refuse the treatment recommenced by TMAP and other drug dispensing corporate-bureaucratic apparatuses. And as the mental health bureaucracy is also involved in this financial game of insidious cruelty, parents and families are also to be investigated via the result of their children’s screenings in schools. In other words, schools are now the across-the board, or shall I say nation, diagnostic tool for big pharma and child control.

And there’s more. The U.N. Agenda 21 has also called for total intrusion into schools and children lives. No more religion, no more individuality, no more real education, no more real grades, no more real teaching, no more teacher respect for parents, and no more truth from teachers or principals. This sounds very familiar and very political to me. And I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: if you are of a religious ilk and you refuse to allow your children to be abused by our “educational” system, the stage is being set for you to lose physical custody of your children. I suggest that you read this: Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century by Richard McKenzie, ed

Still got your kids in public schools? Shame on you, and may God bless your poor children and forgive you.

Websites for Wisdoms:

www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd64.htm
www.newswithviews.com/Eakman/beverly26.htm
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

Joe Banister is scheduled for trial June 14-17, 2005
You can be witness to a historic event on June 14-17 (or longer) in Sacramento, California IRS will be dealt a major defeat.
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/46554.html
contributing editor to   - Rodger

more can be found at  http://proliberty.com/observer/20050105.htm

Ex-IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent Joe Banister will be going to trial for exposing IRS' unlawful and unconstitutional activities. You can watch and be a part of Joe Banister's victory over the IRS later this month.

Joe Banister from 1997 till 1999, on his own time and money investigated the legality of the Federal Income Tax . In early 1999 he submitted his 90 page report, which outlined why the Federal Income Tax has been enforced on the American People in violation of American's Constitutional protected rights to the IRS to refute. Rather than answering what appears to many to be very easy answers (just show him the law), the IRS encouraged his resignation.

Banister quit the IRS, which was paying him close to $80,000 per year, with a wife, 2 kids, home mortgage payment to support and no job in the wings. Banister went on a personal crusade to expose the lies and fraud of the Federal Income Tax to the American People. He spoke to groups of citizens, on radio and other forums and shared his story and findings whenever he could. One of the groups he spoke at was the employees a company in Northern California.

The IRS is calling Banister's speech before these an act to "impede, impair, obstruct and defeat the IRS in ascertainment, computation, assessment and collection of [various] taxes owed by this company and its employees to the IRS! So, the IRS, in violation of the heart of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech, is trying to paint the political free speech of Banister as an act of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government.

This kind of trials belong to Nazi Germany, the Former Soviet Union, China, Cuba or Iran, NOT AMERICA!

Banister also prepared amended tax returns for the owner of this company, which were factually accurate and complete. This return disagreed with the IRS' interpretation of the LAW. Based on Banister's interpretation of the LAW, this company owner was due a refund of overpaid taxes. By law, the company owner HAD TO fill out and submit these form to the IRS if he had a disagreement over the interpretation of the laws that applied to his refund claim.

IRS did not give a refund to the company owner, yet the IRS claims that it was "defrauded" by Banister and the company owner to the tune of about $250,000! For doing the above, the U.S. Government is now charging Banister with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government and filing a false claim with the U.S. Government!!

So based on this case, if you blow the whistle on IRS' unlawful conduct, you will be criminally charged by the U.S. Government!If you disagree with the IRS' interpretation of the law and submit a claim based on your understanding of the law, you will be criminally charged by the U.S. Government!!

IS THIS THE AMERICA THE GREAT FOUNDING FATHERS OF THESE GREAT UNITED STATES FOUGHT THE BRITISH KING AND RISKED THEIR LIFE AND LIMB FOR? IS THIS THE AMERICAN YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?? IS THIS THE AMERICA YOU WISH TO LEAVE TO YOUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN???

Now, here is the good news:

Joe Banister had done his homework very well. He can properly and fully explain his action to a jury of fellow American Citizens. Joe Banister has some of the best lawyers in the Freedom Law Movement representing him. Jeffrey Dickstien has a very good track record of beating the IRS; even for defendants who were far less prepared and knowledgeable than Joe Banister.

Here is what YOU can do:

1) Attend the Trail on June 14, 2005 in Sacramento. The trail will last a few days and may be up to 2 weeks. Come as much as you can. Come for a full day half a day if that is all you can take off from work. But most importantly, COME, SEE AND SUPPORT JOE BANISTER! You want to be present and watch history in the making by watching Joe Banister beat the IRS in court in Sacramento at the court room of Judge William B. Shubb at 9 AM.

Please remain very polite and courteous in the courthouse, as Joe Banister has always been. We need to be examples of fine citizen conduct when observing the Government at work.

2) Donate generously to Joe Banister's Legal Defense Fund. Good legal help is not free, nor is it cheap. It takes a LOT of work and preparation to battle the Government lawyers that practically have unlimited funds to throw in to nail their intended victim. The Government will try to use every technicality in their favor and Joe Banister needs to be able to do the same in this battle for freedom.

Joe Banister's victory will be a LOUD BOOM heard all over America. A loud BANG that WE the People are masters of our public servants and they will NOT get away with abusing the legal process to silence their critics. Banister's victory will be a historical event you can tell your kids and grand kids about, years from now. If you want Joe Banister to beat the IRS, support him by donating to the Joe Baister defence fund.

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

Bill Kristol and Israel Want to Draft Your Kids
by Kurt Nimmo   June 14, 2005
 www.dissidentvoice.org
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[If you are still under the blind assumption that the State of Israel and the Israeli's are God's chosen people, then you just might like this. --  Rodger]

Are you ready to suit up or suit up your kids (and the kids of your kids) in body armor and die for Israel? Before you dismiss me as an anti-Semitic crank, consider the following:

“Ephraim Halevy, the former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service and the current national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, says plans have been made for a substantial U.S. military presence in the Middle East lasting decades,” al-Jazeera reports. “High-ranking U.S. policymakers have ‘raised the idea of establishing an American trusteeship regime in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, if it should turn out that the Palestinians are not ripe for self-rule. That arrangement would require an American operational military presence along Israel’s border with the Palestinian territories.’”

Of course, if Israel has its way, the Palestinians will never be “ripe for self-rule” (many Israelis even refuse to consider the word “Palestinian” and believe most Arabs are recent immigrants to Palestine, or instead of Palestine Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew biblical names for the land stolen from the non-Palestinians) and since the Arab demographic trend is against the Israelis (Arabs have more kids than Israelis) and there is no way the Israelis will ever have enough soldiers to muster an “operational military presence” on the so-called border, it will be up to your kids and your kids’ kids (since Halevy says this will last decades) to keep the Arabs in check (and suffering from malnutrition and disease).

But wait. It’s worse.

“U.S. entanglement in the Middle East in the name of ‘democracy’ has further destabilized the region and made more likely violent revolutions to occur, especially in countries such as Saudi Arabia,” notes al-Jazeera. “In [an early April] visit to the United States,” remarked Halevy, “I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia” (emphasis added).

“Speaking in a semi-closed forum during a visit to Israel a few months ago,” continued Halevy, “Bill Kristol, one of the most influential ‘neocons’ in the United States, noted in this connection that the American presence in Europe after World War II lasted for nearly 60 years. Israelis who are trying to promote a role for NATO in the region, in one form or another, are actually promoting a generation-long American presence” (emphasis added).

“The war-strained all-volunteer U.S. military has a growing manpower problem and a cross-section of Washington policymakers has proposed a solution -- increase the size of the regular military by 30,000, 40,000 or even 100, 000 or more,” the San Francisco Chronicle opined in April. “The military draft, which coughed up its last conscript in 1973, could make a comeback if recruiting doesn’t pick up and if America’s commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan turn into long-term occupations or if the Bush administration’s tough-minded foreign policy means military action in places like Iran or North Korea,” or Saudi Arabia and “Israel’s border with the Palestinian territories,” as indicated by the straight talking Ephraim Halevy. In January, Bill Kristol signed a Project for the New American Century letter addressed to Congress demanding the government takes “steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps,” in other words a return to the draft since dangling paltry bonuses and go-to-college-free tickets in the faces of high school students does not do the trick. The PNAC, of course, are the folks who brought us the invasion and occupation of Iraq, predicated on lies and dissembling.

Like I said, suit up the kids in body armor -- or move to New Zealand.

“Stratfor accurately predicted in October 2002 that a war in Saudi Arabia would erupt between al Qaeda and the ruling House of Saud. That war is under way. Al Qaeda’s tactics have become all too clear, with killings and kidnappings of Westerners having become a common event…. Al Qaeda’s endgame is simple: complete control of the oil-rich kingdom. It hopes to establish a transnational empire. At the heart of this pan-Islamic Ummah (nation) would be Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, and the world’s top oil exporter. This pan-Islamic state -- with the Arabian Peninsula as the seat of sovereign authority -- would serve as both the political and the religious leader of the Islamic world.”

It would also make it a prime target since no way will the United States allow the world’s largest pool of oil to be controlled by al-Qaeda -- even an intel op al-Qaeda.

“On December 15, 2004, in an audio recording, bin Laden said ‘oil prices should be at least $100 a barrel,’ and called upon Persian Gulf militants to exert themselves to prevent the West from getting Arab oil by attacking oil facilities all over the region. This was the first time that al-Qaeda’s leadership had openly divulged its strategy of hitting the Western economy by disrupting oil supplies and causing prices to skyrocket. The following day, NYMEX crude spiked by 5 percent to $46.28 a barrel,” writes Mordechai Abir for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an Israeli think tank headed by Israel’s former UN ambassador Dore Gold. “Bin Laden’s call for an ‘oil jihad’ was followed by a web site message from the Arabian Peninsula al-Qaeda to all the mujahidin in Arabia, wherever they are, to focus on oil targets in their struggle against the infidels and their Saudi allies.”

Bill Kristol and the neocons have Saudi Arabia in their gun sights -- and have for some time now. According to veteran investigative reporter Bob Dreyfuss, the neocons are using al-Qaeda (or what passes for al-Qaeda) as a blunderbuss to buckshot through their anti-Islam, pro-Israel agenda. “Before the war in Iraq, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, told me that by invading Iraq the Bush administration would accelerate the spread of Al Qaeda-style movements in Saudi Arabia, and it’s happening. The country is said to be in a state of incipient civil war, and the royal family is apparently unable to stem the spread of the bin Ladenite poison. Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States has called on the kingdom to conduct an all-out war against the terrorists, but it could be too little, too late. Make no mistake, however: if Saudi Arabia falls to radicals, U.S. forces will occupy that country’s oil fields faster than you can say ‘imperialism’. And if that happens, it will be Phase 2 of the neocons’ expanded plans for the Middle East: first topple Saddam and ‘flatten Iraq,’ as another former ambassador to Saudi Arabia described the essence of the neocon Iraq strategy, and then move on to Saudi Arabia.”

“In sum, we should not be attempting to preserve our past relationship with Saudi Arabia but rather forging a new approach to the greater Middle East,” Kristol told the House Committee on International Relations. In 2003, Kristol wrote The Neoconservative Persuasion, where he declared “it [is] necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” Of course, Israel’s survival is not threatened -- but the survival of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the lives of your kids (or your life if you are 20-something) are at risk.

It may be time to start looking for real estate in Auckland.

Kurt Nimmo is a photographer, multimedia artist and writer living in New Mexico. He is author of Another Day in the Empire: Life in Neoconservative America (Dandelion Books, 2003). To see his photo work and read more of his essays, visit his excellent “Another Day in the Empire” weblog.
 
 

from 12/19/2004 of 

100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

-- Grace commission JANUARY 15, 1984, under the Reagan Presidency

The next question is to whom is the interest paid?  Wait till next time.
 

from 12/20/2004 of 

[There is much reported on the trust accounts of the Port of the Rich (aka Puerto Rico - Trust #62), where the IRS collected funds are sent first.  But a study on that is very in depth, but available.]

If 100% of tax collections are dispersed to interest on the federal debt, and contributions
to transfer payments (e.g. Social Security), then a massive amount of money must be leaving
the country, destination:  overseas banks and off-shore money laundries like Trust #62 in
Puerto Rico.

Is there anything wrong with this hypothesis?

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
 

from 10/28/2004 of 

click here to hear and/or download a short wav file of President Ronald Reagan telling the people about government being the problem.
 

NOW, we look at what are some of the purposes for the moneys you voluntarily gave these people.

[You may recall other report in   which have shown you that the income tax does NOT go to anything in this country, here is a look at what are some of the purposes for the moneys you voluntarily gave these people.
 ow the funds are spent and NEVER recovered.  --  Tribble]

LONDON (AFP) - The world's richest nations struck an historic deal to write off immediately all multilateral debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, mostly in Africa, amounting to 40 billion dollars (33 billion euros).

Uganda, Rwanda and Ethiopia gave a cautious welcome to the cancellation of their debt by the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in London, while aid groups called for much greater efforts to tackle global poverty.

"Eighteen countries will have their debts cancelled immediately worth around 40 billion dollars," British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown told a news conference after the meeting of G8 finance ministers.

The decision taken by the G8 -- the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia -- concerns debt owed to the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the African Development Bank (ADB).

Brown said the G8 was "fully committed to meet the full cost" borne by the three institutions, though he did not disclose how this would be achieved.

The issue had divided members ahead of the deal being struck.

US Treasury Secretary John Snow said an "historic moment" had been reached, clearly delighted that the G8 had backed US-British plans.

The agreement was an endorsement of proposals which arose from White House talks between US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last Tuesday, ahead of July's G8 summit in Scotland.

"Working with the finance ministers... we have been able to implement the vision of George Bush and Tony Blair on this extraordinary important issue," Snow said.

The ministers also agreed nine other countries would become eligible for 100 percent debt relief totalling an extra 11 billion dollars over the next 12 to 18 months.

Thereafter 11 nations could receive similar debt cancellation of 4.0 billion dollars, bringing the total amount of debt relief to 55 billion dollars, added Brown.

The ministers are "presenting the most comprehensive statement that finance ministers have ever made on the issues of debt, development, health and poverty", Brown said.

Blair and his finance minister have put tackling poverty at the heart of Britain's tenure this year of the G8 presidency, alongside battling climate change.

Aid groups and analysts gave a cautious response to the debt package.

"The debt deal is very good news for people in the 18 countries that will immediately benefit, and who will now see all their multilateral debts written off," ActionAid policy officer Romilly Greenhill said.

"But it will do little to immediately help millions in at least 40 other countries."

The 18 nations to benefit immediately comprised: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

They are the first to qualify for eligibility for a debt relief joint initiative backed by the three financial institutions.

The HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative offers debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations that agree to undertake economic reform.

Global Insight analyst Andrea Bohnstedt was reluctant to call the deal historic.

"The devil will be in the details... to find the mechanism to ensure the savings on debt are spent wisely" on things like health, education and infrastructure, she said.

"Corrupt and inefficient governments are such a huge problem, and that's actually in my opinion the main factors why these countries remain very poor."

Brown said the G8 ministers have asked the World Bank and IMF to prepare a report on improving transparency and intensifying efforts to root out corruption.

G8 ministers used their meeting to focus also on global economic concerns.

"Growth is expected to remain robust, although at a more moderate pace, in 2005," according to an official statement from the finance chiefs.

"Challenges remain, especially persistent global imbalances and high and volatile oil prices," it added.

The decision to cancel debt was one component of the "Marshall Plan" for Africa that Britain launched earlier this year.

The United States has yet to agree to the other component -- a call to double annual development aid to 100 billion dollars by 2015.

Brown said early Saturday support within the G8 was growing for a key part of the blueprint -- the creation of an International Finance Facility (IFF) to help bankroll improvements in education and health care.

But Blair conceded earlier in the week that he had given up trying to get Washington to back the ambitious British plan to raise extra aid money for Africa on the international money markets.

The agreed debt relief deal would likely be the centrepiece of the G8 summit in the Scottish resort of Gleneagles that runs from July 6-8.
 
 

duh

New Element Discovered - Heaviest Known
http://www.freelythinking.com/msd.htm
contributing editor to   - Wendell

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. This new element has been tentatively named "governmentium".

Governmentium has 104 protons, 120 neutrons, 121 assistant neutrons, 240 deputy neutrons, and 480 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 1065.

Governmentium particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton like particles called peons.

Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay but instead, it undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypocritical quantity is referred to as "critical morass." You will know it when you see it.

When catalyzed with money, governmentium becomes administratium, an element which radiates just as much energy since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
 
 

The Flat Earth Report

FOUND: Europe's Oldest Civilisation
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent  11 June 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
contributing editor to   - Rodger

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050611/sc_afp/sciencebritain_050611223536
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D005B986-02DF-4D20-8846-C9CD580710FD.htm

[Many of use of studied the evidence of worldwide civilizations that pre-existed contemporary civilization.  The evidence is they existed at least 12,000 years ago and migrated to the now known parts of the world, when a flood rose the waters 150ft-500ft worldwide.  It is interesting that most academia (schools) and news and government agencies do not acknowledge the existence of indisputable evidence of prior civilizations.  We can obviously know why some religions will not make such an acknowledgment, as it would not be good for business.  For those in the dark on this matter, we are talking civilizations with global and celestial knowledge and at least worldwide travel.  There is more information on this and some can be found on the web.  --  Tribble]
 

Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids. More than 150 gigantic monuments have been located beneath the fields and cities of modern-day Germany, Austria and Slovakia. They were built 7,000 years ago, between 4800BC and 4600BC. Their discovery, revealed today by The Independent, will revolutionise the study of prehistoric Europe, where an appetite for monumental architecture was thought to have developed later than in Mesopotamia and Egypt. In all, more than 150 temples have been identified. Constructed of earth and wood, they had ramparts and palisades that stretched for up to half a mile. They were built by a religious people who lived in communal longhouses up to 50 metres long, grouped around substantial villages. Evidence suggests their economy was based on cattle, sheep, goat and pig farming.

Their civilisation seems to have died out after about 200 years and the recent archaeological discoveries are so new that the temple building culture does not even have a name yet.

Excavations have been taking place over the past few years - and have triggered a re-evaluation of similar, though hitherto mostly undated, complexes identified from aerial photographs throughout central Europe.

Archaeologists are now beginning to suspect that hundreds of these very early monumental religious centres, each up to 150 metres across, were constructed across a 400-mile swath of land in what is now Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and eastern Germany.

The most complex excavated so far - located inside the city of Dresden - consisted of an apparently sacred internal space surrounded by two palisades, three earthen banks and four ditches.

The monuments seem to be a phenomenon associated exclusively with a period of consolidation and growth that followed the initial establishment of farming cultures in the centre of the continent.

It is possible that the newly revealed early Neolithic monument phenomenon was the consequence of an increase in the size of - and competition between - emerging Neolithic tribal or pan-tribal groups, arguably Europe's earliest mini-states.

After a relatively brief period - perhaps just one or two hundred years - either the need or the socio-political ability to build them disappeared, and monuments of this scale were not built again until the Middle Bronze Age, 3,000 years later. Why this monumental culture collapsed is a mystery.

The archaeological investigation into these vast Stone Age temples over the past three years has also revealed several other mysteries. First, each complex was only used for a few generations - perhaps 100 years maximum. Second, the central sacred area was nearly always the same size, about a third of a hectare. Third, each circular enclosure ditch - irrespective of diameter - involved the removal of the same volume of earth. In other words, the builders reduced the depth and/or width of each ditch in inverse proportion to its diameter, so as to always keep volume (and thus time spent) constant .

Archaeologists are speculating that this may have been in order to allow each earthwork to be dug by a set number of special status workers in a set number of days - perhaps to satisfy the ritual requirements of some sort of religious calendar.

The multiple bank, ditch and palisade systems "protecting" the inner space seem not to have been built for defensive purposes - and were instead probably designed to prevent ordinary tribespeople from seeing the sacred and presumably secret rituals which were performed in the "inner sanctum" .

The investigation so far suggests that each religious complex was ritually decommissioned at the end of its life, with the ditches, each of which had been dug successively, being deliberately filled in.

"Our excavations have revealed the degree of monumental vision and sophistication used by these early farming communities to create Europe's first truly large scale earthwork complexes," said the senior archaeologist, Harald Staeuble of the Saxony state government's heritage department, who has been directing the archaeological investigations. Scientific investigations into the recently excavated material are taking place in Dresden.

The people who built the huge circular temples were the descendants of migrants who arrived many centuries earlier from the Danube plain in what is now northern Serbia and Hungary. The temple-builders were pastoralists, controlling large herds of cattle, sheep and goats as well as pigs. They made tools of stone, bone and wood, and small ceramic statues of humans and animals. They manufactured substantial amounts of geometrically decorated pottery, and they lived in large longhouses in substantial villages.

One village complex and temple at Aythra, near Leipzig, covers an area of 25 hectares. Two hundred longhouses have been found there. The population would have been up to 300 people living in a highly organised settlement of 15 to 20 very large communal buildings.
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition
By Greg Szymanski   June 12, 2005
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1350
contributing editor to   - Rodger

related article is at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."

Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."

After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."
 
 

[Everyday, more people are learning that the income tax does not apply to them, AND does not go to support this country.  With ever growing numbers of people learning and even doing something about it (quit contributing), the power elite in the banks and gubment are preparing some new avenues to get the revenue.  A national sales tax (levied on what your purchase) is about to start and it morph into a graduated system (each person pays a different rate of tax), which will require a means for you to tell the clerks what your tax rate is (an ID card or implanted RFID chip).  Shades of the mark-of-the-beast.  This article is an example of the ways to phase out the income tax and make ready for the sales tax.  --  Tribble]

    How happy would you be if the IRS announced tomorrow that you were no longer responsible for filing a tax return by April 15? Mildly happy? Exceedingly happy? My guess is "overwhelmingly happy." Tax time is an awful time of year when all of us struggle with memories, receipts, forms, numbers, and other extraneous piles of paper.

    That's why I was intrigued by the minutes of the May 17 meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, where the topic was return-free filing.

    Under a return-free system, individual taxpayers would no longer be responsible for filling out the dreaded 1040 form and sending it to the IRS. Instead, the IRS would generate an itemized liability form using an individual's W2, 1099, and other relevant data, then send it to the taxpayer. The taxpayer would then accept or contest the IRS assessment, with refunds or further payments made accordingly. Ideally, such a system would reduce the burden on taxpayers; the IRS estimates that complying with the tax code cost citizens $156 and 26 hours of their lives in 2002.

    I don't think any of us would mind having that time and money back, but the question is: Do we trust the IRS?
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

Desperate for Terror Arrests, FBI Turns to Entrapment
by Paul Craig Roberts  June 7, 2005
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=6237
contributing editor to   - Rodger

The U.S. has a vast and very expensive Homeland Security bureaucracy with nothing to do. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 2001. There has been a vast quantity of terror alerts, the purpose of which was to scare Americans into supporting an unnecessary and illegal aggressive attack on Iraq.

As very few, if any, real terrorists have turned up, the FBI has resorted to creating terrorists by soliciting Muslim-Americans and appealing to them with schemes to aid "jihadists." Recently, two American citizens were caught in a FBI sting. One, an Ivy League-educated physician, is charged with agreeing to provide medical care to wounded holy warriors in Saudi Arabia. The other, a famous jazz musician, is charged with agreeing to train jihadists in martial arts.

According to the Washington Times of June 1, the FBI began its sting in 2003, so it took two years of work and cajoling to manufacture the case against these two Americans.

What the FBI has done to Dr. R.A. Sabir and Tarik Shah was once known as entrapment. Judges would throw out entrapment cases, because crime was believed to require intent. If the intent was given to the accused by the police through enticement or threats, it was not regarded as criminal intent on the accused person's part.

Unfortunately, "law and order" conservatives used fear of crime to "give our police more effective measures to clear criminals off our streets" and managed to eliminate the entrapment defense.

Some years ago, the FBI, posing as Arab oil sheiks, entrapped U.S. representatives in a sting operation. The FBI handed out large bundles of cash to congressmen who accepted the offer to represent the fake sheiks' interests. Film footage of the congressmen stuffing their pockets with money was all the FBI needed to convict the members. The fact that campaign contributions come from interest groups that expect to be represented did not count in the stung U.S. representatives' favor.

Note that the two latest victims, Sabir and Tarik, could not have offered their services to jihadists, because no jihadists were present. Note also that Sabir and Tarik are not accused of actually performing an act of service. Sabir and Tarik had no contact with real jihadists, and they committed no act of service to jihadists. Yet both face $250,000 fines and 15 years in prison.

All that happened was that two productive American citizens were deceived by government agents for no other purpose than those agents having to show "results" in the "war on terror."

How does it make us safer to put a medical doctor and a jazz musician in prison? Why did the FBI spend two years entrapping these two American citizens?

Both men have wives and children. Suppose both men agreed to provide some service to jihadists. (We don't know that they did. We only have the FBI's word for it, a word that is not worth much.) The reason could easily be fear of reprisals.

Suppose you are a Muslim-American and FBI agents misrepresenting themselves as dangerous jihadists demanded services of you? Neither of the accused agreed to participate in a terrorist act: no bombs, no shootings, no hijackings. A doctor agreed to keep his Hippocratic oath if presented with wounded people in Saudi Arabia. A jazz musician agreed to teach martial arts. When was the last time a terrorist attacked with judo or karate?

Many years ago, there was a movie, Captain Blood with Errol Flynn, about a British medical doctor who treated a man wounded in an act of rebellion against England. The English judge, portrayed in the movie as unjust in the extreme, ruled that being humane was tantamount to being a rebel, and the doctor was sold into slavery to the Spanish.

In the movie, the doctor did actually treat the wounded man. The charge against Dr. Sabir is that he agreed to treat a wounded man if presented with one in Saudi Arabia in the future. There is no way of knowing if he would have done so. But if the U.S. is prepared to deny medical treatment to its opponents, why does anyone doubt the torture stories?

The FBI is so desperate to capture a terrorist that it spent two years setting up a doctor on this specious charge.

Like the police who find it easier to frame people than to convict them on the evidence, the FBI will find it easier to manufacture "terrorists" with entrapment than to catch real terrorists.
 
 

[First off- what the hell is this? Believe it or not, this is a "Homeland Security" poster that's being posted on MARC train between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington DC.

Uhh- lemme tell ya- I'm a BIG fan of russian constructivism- it's one of my favorite schools of art (despite it being spawned from the tyranny that eventually became Stalinist Russia,) but who approved this freaking design? Chiseled, steadfast faces looking skyward against billowing crimson waves- I have to wonder- who designed this?

Was it some savvy guy within the official propaganda channels, seeing what he could get past his idiotic superiors, who had no knowledge of art history, or was it a conscious decision on the part of security bigwigs who knew EXACTLY what they were doing? (Truth be told, I believe it's the former, rather than the latter- if homeland security made the mistake of hiring me, I'd do my utmost to "own" the boss.)  --  Rodger]

[Regardless of whether this image is a true poster, it clearly shows the truth of the situation today.  Someone with an artistic flair has appropriately characterized way of the nation today.  Just listening to/watching the news, you are told that people are being encouraged to report behavior.  It is not at all a stretch to foresee this poster as the overt future.  --  Tribble]

http://www.mdrails.com/images/marc_marshal.jpg
http://www.bushflash.com/

Suspicious MARC Poster
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005

David Emery gave me a heads up about this soviet-style poster that has supposedly been sighted on the MARC trains that go between Baltimore and Washington DC. It urges passengers to: "Report any unusual activities or packages to the nearest conductor. WATCH, RIDE, AND REPORT."

The poster seems so Big-Brother-like that a lot of people suspect it must be a hoax. David Emery comments: "the logo on the poster reads "MARC Marshals" which, as far as I can tell, don't exist. MARC trains are patrolled by MARC Police. Folks are speculating it's probably some sort of guerrilla art project."

The photo caught the attention of bloggers when it appeared on the Articulatory Loop blog. However, I think it appeared earlier on MDRails, which is a website of photos taken by Maryland train enthusiasts (although when I checked the Wayback Machine, I could see that the poster wasn't on there as of October 2004).

It actually wouldn't surprise me if the poster was real, but the only way to confirm this is if (1) other MARC riders report seeing this poster, and (2) MARC confirms that they put this poster up.
 
 

[The above link takes you to the article and audio on the "prisonplanet" site.  You can also download the audio from the   site at  http://tellme1st.net/rockyview/index.html  and specifically at this link  http://tellme1st.net/rockyview/common/20050512 -alex jones and police schmidig -rfid.mp3  --  Tribble]

AJ: It’s exciting to get this guest on. This is an interesting story. It’s covered by Business Wire, Associated Press, you name it. Back on April 22nd, Bergen County Chief of Police, they have a chief of police for the county, Jack Schmidig leads regional rollout of VeriChip by receiving a VeriChip. Now remember last year, the Mexican attorney general told 160 plus of his employees, or even more, they had to take this microchip to get into secure areas. The Chief is not making his employees take it. Though I guess he might be recommending it. But joining us to talk about this important issue is Chief Jack Schmidig. Chief, good to have you on with us.

JS: Thank you.

AJ: Tell us how this happened, why you got the idea? What you’ve done? You’ve got the chip. Tell us about it.

JS: It started with a dear friend of mine, Mr. Nicholas Minicucci, who is the founder of the Molly Foundation. It's a foundation for diabetes research. His daughter Molly has had the disease for twenty years. And I’m a member of the board of trustees on the Molly Foundation. He, Mr. Minicucci, came up with the idea, through the VeriChip company, of implanting a chip in your - mine is in my arm – I don’t know if it can be located anywhere else. But it is readily available to obtain your medical information. When you have the chip implanted, they ask you a series of questions. Are you allergic to anything? Next of kin? Who you want to have this information? All kinds of series of questions. And by scanning the chip in my arm, they have immediate access to my medical history.

AJ: When were you implanted?

JS: April 12th

AJ: And it got a lot of attention. Are you aware of what the Mexican attorney general did?

JS: No, not at all.

AJ: Yeah, it’s getting big in a – also I’ve heard from Special Forces that some of them have been getting the chip.

JS: I can tell you as maybe a sidelight to this that my German shepherd had a chip implanted for identification. Mine isn’t for identification. It’s not like a tracking device that emits a – you know a transponder that’s going to follow you around. The protocol here in New Jersey will be, if you’re admitted to a hospital, if for some reason you’re incapacitated and can’t provide that information, they can scan that chip in your arm and through the computer access your medical history. So they potentially can find out what’s wrong with you.

AJ: Well, Applied Digital has now bought software in a company dealing with cell towers. And they are saying that with a bigger chip, they are going to be able, since you brought that up, with RFID (radio frequency identification devices) to use it as a tracking system. Were you aware of that?

JS: No, but how big must that chip be to follow you around or have RF signals emanating from your body?

AJ: [crosstalk] scan it and get the data number and then check it in the databases. They are saying, right now, one about an inch long and about a quarter of an inch wide or even smaller, will be able to work up to a couple of hundred feet.

JS: Wow. Well, the chip I have in my arm is about the size of a grain of rice.

AJ: I’ve seen the current version. We’ve interviewed the scientist that invented it. We’ve interviewed the CEO a few years ago. We’ve interviewed the Tipson family, you know the family that a – the Jacobsons, I believe, that got the chip. But what did the other, the officers under your command think about this?

JS: To be honest with you, I don’t think it’s gotten the recognition that it should have. I think it’s an exceptional idea and I know of one other officer who had the chip implanted and my secretary, who’s hypoglycemic. This initially started here as a result of the diabetes research and the Molly Foundation. She’s made an appointment to have the chip implanted also.

AJ: Well, they’ve got the chip mobiles. You’ve seen those?

JS: No, this is – we’re in the very early stages of it here in New Jersey. I don’t know of any other venue that is providing or …

AJ: VeriChip has these chip mobiles that go around chipping. They have Mr. Chip. You haven’t heard about that?

JS: No

AJ: Yeah, they gave the readers to some hospitals in Florida but only a few. Have they given readers to the hospitals in New Jersey?

JS: There is only one hospital in the state and that’s the North County doing it right now.

AJ: Interesting. Well did you hear about in Miami and also in Spain and now Germany and England and other areas that the chip, the same chip to get into the VIP area?

JS: No, they scan your arm to get into selected areas? It may potentially down the line, I can see limited access events like maybe an inauguration ball or something like that for the president where you might need one of these to get in. But I think we are way ahead of ourselves.

AJ: Were you approached by VeriChip to do this? Or did you and your friend just spontaneously want to get a chip?

JS: I wanted it and while I’m on the board of trustees for that foundation, the information was brought to a trustee meeting. And I thought it was an exceptional idea and I said put me in. And, like I said, I had the chip implanted the 12th of April. And there’s no residual affects.

AJ: So are you waiting then for the readers to get into the local hospitals. Because what use will it be if they’re not in the local hospitals?

JS: That’s true. It’s going to take some time. But I’m on the cutting edge.

AJ: Is your foundation lobbying the hospital?

JS: Yes. All hospitals.

AJ: You know we found a lot of the people like the Jacobsons and others and some of the hospitals that accepted the chip readers in the Miami and Palm Beach area actually had employees there that were investors or even part of Applied Digital and that’s why they were doing this. Are you an investor in Applied Digital?

JS: Not at all. I have no stock in this at all.

AJ: What about – I’m just curious – what about the individual that’s on the foundation with you?

JS: The president of the foundation, Mr. Minicucci?

AJ: Yes

JS: I don’t believe he’s a stock holder either.

AJ: So basically somebody just approached the foundation and you guys said hey this is a good medical bracelet basically implanted.

JS: Absolutely, that was my logic behind getting mine.

AJ: Well, look chief, I’m going to be honest with you on my views of this.

JS: Sure

AJ: You know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. To people like you, this sounds good. Hey, you can lose a medical alert bracelet. Who wants a tattoo with all your data on it? This sounds good – or for people with Altzheimers or now the California Bureau of Prisons signed a contract – Reuters reported it but then it got dropped under public scrutiny – to implant prisoners, maximum security prisoners. That was two years ago. That got cancelled. There is all these arguments for it but when you go on down the road, it sounds like Revelations. I mean people getting the microchip. Applied Digital says – I have had Applied Digital executives on and they say yes, you will have this for buying and selling. And everyone in the future will take the chip. I mean they said it. I’ve got the transcripts on my website.

JS: Well right now, I think that is a matter of opinion. I don’t believe it’s Big Brother watching me.

AJ: But I’m talking about the company itself. I mean you can type in Applied Digital and it says it will be used for tracking. It will be used for prisoners. Applied Digital will be used for cashless transactions. Type it into Goggle, Chief, and you’ll find it.

JS: I’m sure those potentials are there. My intention was to protect my life. Hopefully, if something happens to me where I’m incapacitated and I get taken to a hospital, I want the people to know that I’m not allergic to penicillin and my next of kin is my wife. Contact her immediately. Things like that. That’s what I was looking at.

AJ: If you were in a car wreck, wouldn’t they know all that from your car and your plates and your…

JS: Potentially, sure. But I think it’s a great back-up system. Another thing is what sold us on some of this was the, especially for the foundation, if a person goes into diabetic shock, sometimes it can look like they’re drunk and people don’t understand what potentials..

AJ: No, there have been a lot of cases of police thinking somebody is resisting when they are in shock – and then tasering them.

JS: All that stuff, so if you can get that scan, you know that this person has the propensity toward diabetes and it’s a problem [crosstalk]

AJ: I’m sure you’ve heard about the plan for national toll roads?

JS: Yes.

AJ: I mean that’s been in Time, Newsweek and USA Today. In Texas, it’s about to pass the legislature. Next year with our inspection stickers, we’ll all get tracker chips that are very small that are read by radio readers. We’re going to be taxed by the mile down the road. You see how this chipping of all products – RFID, the chipping of people. It is going to the extreme right away.

JS: In New Jersey, we have a system called Easy Pass and it gets you down the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway and as you pass through the toll booth, you have a reader in your car – a transponder in your car. And you get the bill on a monthly basis. And they can tell you – right now it’s almost 12:45 here – at 12:45, I passed through exit 159 on the Garden State Parkway. And that information comes to you.

AJ: Man, going across from New York to you guys, when I was there this summer, it was like 7 smackers.

JS: Yeah, and the Easy Pass works on the George Washington Bridge and when you come…

AJ: Why should we turn all our roads into this? Now it’s not going to be the size of a tiny matchbox, you know that you get at elegant martini bars…

JS: Right

AJ: about an inch and a-half long and a half-inch wide. Now it’s going to be a little bitty chip. Sir, that’s what I’m getting at.

JS: Well, I’ve got that little bitty chip. I guess I’m not, I don’t see the downside for me and those people who are looking at Big Brother. I don’t find that.

AJ: Well, that’s what I find. I want to shift gears – just because a listener emailed this to me this morning. This is not why I got you on the show but I find it incredibly intriguing. And again my friends, we are talking to the chief of police in the country of Bergen in New Jersey. And he’s taken the implantable microship. But I was sent this by several listeners. It’s still a hot topic. I have Fox news here in front of me. I have the New York Post and I have the Bergen Record. Bergen Record, the town you’re in.

“Five Men Detained as Suspected Conspirators,” by Paula Lima, staff writer. And in there, it’s got a quote from you. You got an alert to be on the look-out for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side.

JS: Oh, that was during 9/11.

AJ: I know it, this is a totally separate issue. This is interesting. Suspicious Middle Easterners cheer terror attack from moving van. And then it turned out in Fox News that it was Israelis. What actually happened with that sir?

JS: We turned those people over to the FBI. They were thoroughly checked out and released. No charges were ever filed against those people.

AJ: Well, what about the witnesses that said they saw them jumping up and cheering and videotaping?

JS: That was the information reported to us. We couldn’t confirm through the witnesses – no one would identify themselves. They said that they saw this white van with several people applauding or cheering the attack on the Trade Center. And when we finally found the van, located the van, no one would step forward to verify that they were in fact celebrating.

AJ: Well, I’ve got Israeli national news here. It says “suspicious Middle Eastern movers were Israelis.” The box cutters, European passports and $4000 cash. Is that accurate?

JS: I’m not sure. I don’t remember all the details of that particular case. Like I said, when we first located the van, we notified the FBI and they came and scooped them up. Ask the guy in the New Jersey State police.

AJ: How did that happen? You pulled them over and what happened …?

JS: We had a ‘be on the look-out’ for a particular type of van. We notified patrol officers, found it, located it, we pulled them over, and we detained them. And then we notified the state police and the FBI who work in the joint terrorism task force.

AJ: Were you aware of the hundreds of Israeli art students that were really spies and they were (quote) following al Qaeda. This was even on Fox News and the Associated Press. And then they grabbed them and then they were ordered to release them to Israel. Did you hear about that?

JS: No

AJ: Did they have any video cameras on them. And then secondarily, how many days after 9/11 was this arrest?

JS: It was…I believe it occurred the night of 9/11. I’m not sure.

AJ: Did you find any video cameras on them?

JS: No. I don’t recall any video cameras on them but like I said, being in an administrative position, I don’t do the road work anymore and it gets passed down to my detective captain and, unfortunately, he’s not here today.

AJ: What’s his name?

JS: Capt. Kevin Hartnet.

AJ: Can I get Kevin Hartnet on about that?

JS: If he’s willing to come on, I’m sure. I don’t have an objection.

AJ: Well this issue just keeps coming up over and over again.

JS: It was a hot button issue. After 9/11, they wanted any kind of attention they could get. And they kept re-running and repeating those catch-phrases there. And if I goggle my own name, it comes up with that quote about four or five times.

AJ: But it’s true that they wouldn’t talk to you – that shows some pretty serious training. How many people do you pull over… how many were arrested?

JS: I thought there were three or four but I’m not sure.

AJ: I mean if you have four people and none of them talk – boy, that’s pretty – do you see that a lot?

JS: No

AJ: Yeah, you don’t see that a lot, do you? I mean you’re usually, according to criminology – and I took a little bit of it in college. I don’t have a degree in it but when you end up with one person who won’t talk, you end up with two, three, four. Usually when you end up with four people, it means there was some pretty serious training going on.

JS: Once again, I don’t know their background. We received some information. We stopped them and then we turned them over to people more interested in them [crosstalk]

AJ: How long did they interrogate them?

JS: than a local police department in New Jersey.

AJ: How long did you interrogate?

JS: We didn’t participate in the interrogation. They were turned over to the State Police.

AJ: You talked to them and they didn’t..

JS: Well, we talked to them at the road stop.

AJ: And then were they brought into the jail or were they just given right over to the FBI?

JS: I think they were taken to the FBI’s field office in Newark but I’m not sure.

AJ: What did the FBI say?

JS: I don’t know.

AJ: Did you ever ask them what came of it?

JS: Mr. Jones, you know you’re talking – we started on one subject, now we are on another.

AJ: I know but I didn’t put two and two together when I saw your name, getting the microchip. And then I started getting emails about it. And I go oh yeah, I remember this article. It’s an interesting topic.

JS: This was a very interesting day, September 11th, 2001. And a lot of ..

AJ: Did you see the towers smoking when it happened?

JS: Absolutely.

AJ: What was that like?

JS: It was terrible. It was terrible.

AJ: I wish we would control our borders, that might keep us safe.

JS: (laughs) You have to talk to another agency on that.

AJ: No, I know you’re not even near the border. So I understand that.

JS: I’m on the border with New York.

AJ: Yes. Well, I really appreciate you spending time with us. And I hope that you wake up and see the real ramifications of the implantable microchip. Will you say no to the chip if in ten years, the government says that you’ve got to use this for identification when you pay for goods and services?

JS: No

AJ: You won’t go along with that?

JS: No, I’d go along with that. Sure. Rather than carrying my credit cards? I want them to put all my information on my chip, as I’m walking out the grocery store with a loaf of bread and a quart of milk, you know they just ….

AJ: Chief, we’ve got to break – quick three-minute break. Stay right there. Just do five more minutes with us. This is just amazing information. Stay with us. We’ll be right back, ladies and gentlemen, with our guest.

BREAK

AJ: Fighting the culture war right here, my friends. Just a few minutes left with the county police chief up there in Bergen County. Sir, the music was playing. So folks might not have heard what you said. I want to state that again for the record. I said if in ten years, and the army documents say this is the plan, by 2020, that’s the January 1, 2000 report by the Army War College, that everybody is going to have a chip. I’ve had the CEO on of Verichip. That’s the plan. I had their distributors on from Spain, from Miami. They’ve said the same thing. We are all going to have chips. We are going to buy and sell with these. And the chief was saying that he’s not for Big Brother. He’s not worried about Big Brother. But then I said, in ten years if they say you’ve got to use this to buy and sell, you said you’re happy with that, Chief.

JS: I wouldn’t object to it.

AJ: If they say we have to take the chip, you wouldn’t object.

JS: No. Like I said before the break, if I went into a grocery store and brought a loaf of bread and a quart of milk and walked out and it read my chip, and debited my bank account, I don’t have a problem with that.

AJ: Chief, it’s either two separate things. Either you are a really nice guy who totally trusts the government and society…

JS: I am the government.

AJ: So, well hold on..

JS: You bet your life, I trust the government because I am part of government.

AJ: Either it’s that you’re naïve or you’re demon possessed.

JS: If you want to think that I’m naïve, that’s certainly your opinion.

AJ: Well Chief, I appreciate your coming on the show but I totally disagree with you.

JS: You can and that’s your right.

AJ: Well wait a minute – so if the government says everybody has got to get chipped ten years from now and it’s the law, you’ll start arresting people that don’t have it.

JS: I won’t be here ten years from now. How’s that sound? I’ve got a short time to go before I take my retirement and leave.

AJ: Of course, I mean that as a joke, figuratively. But I mean that sounds pretty scary and …

JS: People look under rocks for scary things, too

AJ: The founding fathers, chief, said that we should not trust our government; we should keep it small; keep control of it. You’re just saying, I am the government; I trust it. And if they say we’ve got to have chips, we’ve got to have them.

JS: Is that my opinion?

AJ: Yes

JS: Well then thank you.

AJ: You just said that, sir. Are you saying….

JS: Exactly. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to my opinion. And Mr. Jones, you’re entitled to yours. And I think sir that it was nice of you to have me on.

AJ: Are you a Christian?

JS: Yes I am.

AJ: And you have to have this mark to buy and sell but – but you’re saying if that happens, you don’t have a problem with it.

JS: I don’t.

AJ: So, maybe you are just naïve.

JS: That’s your opinion, too.

AJ: I’m not picking up from you that you’re evil.

JS: I’m not evil.

AJ: I don’t pick that up from you. I’m picking up that you’re just totally trusting and naïve, chief.

JS: Okay, Mr. Jones, I think your interview with me is over.

AJ: Hey, I’m going to pray for you.

JS: Thank you so much.

AJ: Go with God, take care. There you had it, ladies and gentlemen, that’s how deep the rabbit hole goes. We’ve got to have a transcript of that. That’s the all time, most out of control, in you face – you see? You see what we’re facing? You understand what we’re facing now?
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

Major US Retailers Gathering Data On Applicants For Feds?
From Anonymous  6-6-5
http://www.rense.com/general65/majorUSretailersgathering.htm
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[Sadly, the writer of the letter is anonymous, but the information is verifiable, even by you by simply applying for a job.  --  Tribble]

Jeff,

I am a daily reader of your site, and admire the hard work you do to assemble the information gathered there in almost real-time.

Recently, I experienced something that I think would be of great interest to you and your readers.

I went looking for a part-time job recently, and was spooked beyond the pale at the following discovery:

Almost ALL of the major retailers, food stores, grocery stores, etc. are all using an online application process now.

I went to apply for a pt job at Borders Books, and the clerk directed me to an internet site www.bordersgroupinc.com/jobs.

For a part time job stocking books on shelves, the online application walked me through a THIRTY SEVEN PAGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE.

Needless to say, I felt this was a bit excessive.

Continuing my search for part time employment, I walked into a grocery store called Whole Foods. The clerk directed me to a kiosk in the store where I could "apply online"... "just make sure you answer all of the questions" he said, and he left me at this computer terminal.

When I clicked on the first page, I saw the same logo in the lower corner of the application as I had at the Borders site. Unicru.

Needless to say, I didnt bother applying. I went home and visited Unicru.com and was chilled to the bone by what I saw.

You need to pay this site a visit, and maybe check out the "online application" at Borders under a fake name.

If my understanding is correct, Unicru is assembling a national database of psychological profiles of middle to lower income earners.

Exactly what happens to that information is anybody's guess.

I just wanted to share this information with you and perhaps your readers.
 

Comment
From Wayne M. 6-8-5

Dear Jeff -

About two months ago my daughter applied at Borders book store in Chicago on Michigan avenue and was referred to an online application process as well.

While I cannot remember all of the prying questions they asked for this small paying position, I do remember my daughter ending the application process early, of her own decision and with my blessing.

Just a small tidbit to add to what your other reader sent you.

http://www.rense.com
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

Dupped By The IRS?
Schiff: When Will The Government PROVE that the IRS is Authorized to Collect Taxes?
Tribune Media Group
http://www.lasvegastribune.com/headline1.html
contributing editor to   - Rodger
 

On March 24, 2004 the federal government persuaded a grand jury to indict Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun and Larry Cohen to a 33 Count indictment charging various violations of the income tax and Social Security laws. Count 1 charged Schiff, Neun and Cohen with a conspiracy for "impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating, through deceitful and dishonest means, the lawful government function of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States." Count 17 charged Schiff with actions that "were designed to hide his income and assets from the Internal Revenue Service." However on March 25, 2005 Schiff filed a motion to dismiss both counts, since Schiff claimed the IRS was given no authority in the Internal Revenue Code do anything. Schiff also claimed: "While the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of July 1, 1862, Congress never passed a law establishing the Internal Revenue Service as an agency or department of the federal government." Therefore," Schiff argued, "how could the defendants have "impaired or obstructed" an agency that does not legally exist from doing anything?"

The Schiff motion pointed out that while earlier laws gave direct enforcement authority of income tax laws to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue "all such authority was removed from the 1954 Code, when Congress sought to bring the 1954 Code in line with the Constitution and what early Supreme Court decisions specifically held was the legal significance of the 16th Amendment - which was that it gave no new power of taxation to Congress." It is Schiff's view that in revising the 1939 Code, Congress essentially repealed the income tax - and removing any mention of the Commissioner in the 1954 Code was one-way Congress sought to achieve that objective.

Therefore, Schiff pointed out, "The Secretary of the Treasury is the only party given any authority in the Internal Revenue Code to assess and forcibly collect internal revenue taxes, however, sections 7701(11) & (12) of the IR Code authorize him to delegate his authority to any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department." "However," claimed Schiff, "this requires that the Secretary: (1) make a formal delegation of his authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and (2) publish that Delegation Order in the Federal Register. Without its 'publication' [in the Federal Register], claims Schiff, such a Delegation Order would have "no legal force and effect." It was Schiff's claim that since "The Secretary…never delegated any authority to the Commissioner ...and the government will not be able to produce any such delegation of authority" nor can it produce proof that any such delegation of authority "was ever published in the Federal Resister"; therefore all charges as contained in counts 1 and 9 "were fraudulently alleged by the Justice Department just on this ground alone."

Schiff even argued out that Section 6201(a) of the Internal Revenue Code bars the Secretary from even assessing income taxes, and attached an exhibit that he claimed proved his argument. In any case, Schiff argued that unless the government produced the two documents requested, "counts 1 and 17 must be dismissed for fraud and lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Waiting approximately 4 weeks, the government on May 24, 2005 filed what was essentially a one-page response that claimed that Schiff's motion was "redundant" "frivolous and unsupported by law" and was that it was filed "untimely." Consequently the government stated it had "not addressed the argument in his motion point by point" and that, "If the court wishes a more detailed response, the government would request a reasonable opportunity to respond."

In his Reply, filed on May 27, 2005, Schiff pointed out that since his motion goes to the jurisdiction of the Court; it cannot be 'untimely.'" In addition, Schiff noted that he believed, "the government 'Doth protest too much,'" because supplying the requested two documents would take up far less of the government's and the court's time than "explaining to the court why it doesn't have to produce them," in a "more detailed response." In any case, Schiff argued, "However, if the government cannot produce the documents at issue - than clearly the court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction especially to counts 1 and 17 (for the reasons already stated), and with respect to all other counts as well."

Schiff essentially argued that if the government cannot produce the documents requested than counts 1 and 17 were obviously "steeped in fraud," and since "Fraud vitiates everything" (quoting several Supreme Court decisions) - "the entire indictment must be thrown out."

In ending his Reply, Schiff reminded the Court that it still had not ruled on Schiff's prior motions challenging its jurisdiction on four other grounds. Schiff stated, "In filing this motion Defendant is not conceding that this court has any jurisdiction to limit the motions he can file on jurisdiction or even set up schedules of any kind in connection with this action, since this court has yet to rule on whether of not it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case to do anything, other than to decide the issue of jurisdiction. As far as this pro se litigant knows the Supreme Court stated in The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 709, that once the question of jurisdiction is raised, 'it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one step further.' Therefore, since this court has not "decided" the issue of "jurisdiction, how can it legally move 'one step further' on anything? However, since this defendant is untrained in the law and court procedure, he does not know what to do about this situation, since he has so much other litigation to attend to."

For greater insight into this issue, the Tribune refers readers to www.paynoincometax.com to read: Schiff's motion, the government's opposition to it, and Schiff's reply.

Schiff's criminal trial is scheduled to begin August 29, 2005 before District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson - that is if Judge Dawson does not first dismiss all of the charges against Schiff and the other defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 
 

duh

A Simple Test
contributing editor to   - Rodger

    Do not scroll down UNTIL you have  answered the question!

    1. How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

    The correct answer  is:
    Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe, and close the  door.
    (This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an  overly complicated way.)
 

    2. How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

    Did you say,  "Open the refrigerator, put in the elephant, and close the  refrigerator?"  --   Wrong Answer.

    Correct Answer:
    Open the  refrigerator; take out the giraffe put in the elephant and close the door.
    (This tests your ability to think through the repercussions of your previous  actions.)
 

    3. The Lion King is hosting an animal
conference. All the  animals attend......except
one.  Which animal does not attend?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

    Correct Answer:
    The Elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator. You just put him in there.     (This tests your memory.)

    Okay even if you did not answer the  first three questions correctly, you still have one more chance to show your true abilities.

    4. There is a river you must cross but it is inhabited  by crocodiles, and you do not have a boat. How do you manage it?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

    Correct Answer:
    You jump into the river and swim across. Have you not been listening?  All the crocodiles are attending the Animal Conference.
    (This tests  whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.)
 

    According to Anderson Consulting Worldwide, around 90% of the professionals they tested got all questions wrong, but many preschoolers got several correct answers.  Anderson  Consulting says this conclusively disproves the theory that most professionals  have the brains of a four year old.

    Send this out to frustrate all of  your smart friends.

    PS: Just the fact that I sent it to you should make  you feel good, just carefully read the last statement  above!!
 
 

["Since the agency carrying out the search is going to be the one issuing the subpoena, one wonders why they even bother with a subpoena at all."  That about sums it.  --  Tribble]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

by Steven LaTulippe

05/27/05 " LewRockwell.com" - - In the most recent episodes of Star Wars, George Lucas takes his audience on a journey through the process of political decay. He illustrates the ironies and absurdities inherent in the collapse of a limited, republican form of government. He portrays the defenders of the republic as confused and impotent while he exposes the vile and conspiratorial nature of their imperial adversaries.

In what surely must be one of the fascinating examples of life imitating art, the typical observer of American politics ought to be awestruck by the events unfolding around him on a routine basis.

Hardly a day passes now without some new outrage being perpetrated on our republic by those in the halls of power. It is happening with such regularity that one could almost excuse the concerned citizen for simply throwing in the towel and tuning out.

But occasionally something so egregious occurs that even the most jaded and cynical among us have to stand up and take notice.

Just such an event unfolded in the halls of the United States Senate this week in the form of a hearing concerning the FBI’s quest for new investigative powers included in the latest Patriot Act.

Alan Eisner at Reuters reports:

The FBI on Tuesday asked the U.S. Congress for sweeping new powers to seize business or private records, ranging from medical information to book purchases, to investigate terrorism without first securing approval from a judge.

Valerie Caproni, FBI general counsel, told the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee her agency needed the power to issue what are known as administrative subpoenas to get information quickly about terrorist plots and the activities of foreign agents.

In essence, the FBI wants the power to issue "administrative subpoenas" to execute searches without the annoyance of having to show probable cause in a court. (Since the agency carrying out the search is going to be the one issuing the subpoena, one wonders why they even bother with a subpoena at all. Why not just ransack wherever they please and dispense with the fiction altogether? Can anyone envision a circumstance where the FBI would refuse to issue a search warrant to itself?)

The Republicans, who have discarded their previous concerns for the Bill of Rights like a snake shedding its skin, are the primary supporters of this scheme.

Committee chairman, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, noted that other government agencies already had subpoena power to investigate matters such as child pornography, drug investigations and medical malpractice. He said it made little sense to deny those same powers to the FBI to investigate terrorism or keep track of foreign intelligence agents.

One has to admit certain logic in his argument. After all, if other government agencies are already disregarding the constitution, then why can’t the FBI?

But the really fascinating parts of the testimony came later. The first example was when the FBI counsel claimed that these powers were needed to prevent terrorist attacks such as car bombs. When challenged on that point, she responded:

Caproni said she could not cite a case where a bomb had exploded because the FBI lacked this power, but that did not mean one could not explode tomorrow.

Whether she appreciated it or not, this is the pure, undiluted logic of a Sith Lord. In essence, she contends that we should discard our constitutional protections here and now in the theoretical hope that we can avoid a terrorist attack at some undefined point in the future.

We are, in short, to abandon our freedom for the mirage of security.

While the advocates for the empire are obnoxious and tragically predictable, their odiousness is petty compared to the nature of the bill’s opponents. If anyone dares look down upon the defenders of Lucas’ Republic as being ineffectual and spineless, I give you the junior Senator from West Virginia:

"I am not aware of any time in which Congress has given directly to the FBI subpoena authority. That doesn't make it right or wrong. It just needs to be thought about," said West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller.

An agent of the executive branch paraded into the Senate Chamber with a proposal that directly trashes one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights, and the esteemed legislator’s only reply was that he cannot say if it is "right or wrong".

With friends like these, liberty hardly needs enemies.

Patrick Henry, he is not.

In better times, any government official openly agitating for the evisceration of our constitution would be immediately relieved of his job. After all, are not members of our security forces sworn to protect and defend our freedoms? And how has our system degenerated so badly that those advocating authoritarian policies are outspoken and arrogant while those supporting our freedom are wishy-washy and pathetic?

Truly, we are seeing the visions of Yeats come to life before our very eyes.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

A glance at the structure of our government in this late era of republican governance demonstrates a variety of oddities and ironies. The most interesting is the observation that each branch of our government is now ignoring those areas where its actual responsibilities lie while simultaneously intruding into areas where it was once explicitly forbidden.

Thus, we have a judiciary that is meekly turning over its responsibility to scrutinize warrants to various elements of the executive branch. Meanwhile, these same judges have abandoned the constitution’s moorings and are dictating social policy to the nation far in excess of any powers envisioned by our Founders.

The congress, in a cowardly and cynical attempt to avoid responsibility, has abrogated its constitutional mandate to make declarations of war to the executive branch. Thus, presidents now take America into conflicts without the necessary debate and scrutiny that the Founders intended. Meanwhile, these same legislators have constructed a myriad of bloated and corrupt programs that are found nowhere in their powers enumerated by the constitution (i.e. retirement Ponzi schemes, prescription drug programs, Byzantine agricultural subsidies, etc. etc.).

The executive branch now reigns supreme over foreign policy with almost no checks or balances whatsoever. The result has been the repeated abuse of the military in a variety of undeclared wars that have almost no relationship to the well-being of the people of this country. This same executive branch, meanwhile, refuses to enforce federal laws that it finds objectionable, such as defending our own borders from the hordes of illegals crossing on a daily basis.

Thus, we have a judiciary that wants to be a legislature, a legislature that wants to be a sugar daddy, and a president who wants to be an emperor.

It is a sorry sight to behold, and one that will probably make for a great tragic adventure series someday.

Unfortunately, we are all cast in the role of the "innocent bystanders."

And everyone knows what usually happens to them.

Steven LaTulippe [send him mail] is a physician currently practicing in Ohio. He was an officer in the United States Air Force for 13 years.
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

People are Only Cattle to be Bought and Sold
by Owners of the Prison System in America
Research and excerpts from LETTERS FROM JAIL
From: Lynn Schmaltz
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/money/prison_owners.htm

http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/2004-October/009432.html
http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/04-US-gov/2004/05C4-10-24-04-owners-of-the-prison-system-in-america.html
contributing editor to   - Rodger

    I had many opportunities to educate women on the monetary system of jail. The moment an order is written, whether it’s a warrant or a traffic ticket, or whatever, the money machine is activated. Every prisoner has a monetary value to our government whether its local, county, state or federal. Bonds are written based on the person’s name and social security number and are sold through a brokerage firm such as AG Edwards or Merrill Lynch who has the contract to sell all the prison bonds for the city, county, state or federal prisons. Over 50% of the money market bonds right now are purchased in Japan or China. I’ve been told by researchers that Walmart and, used to be, Kmart also purchase these bonds, Walmart mostly doing so by emptying out bank accounts at night. Both companies are fronts for enormous money machines.

    The way the bond works is that a monetary value is placed on the alleged crime and then factored the way banks factor their money. In other words if a person is convicted of a felony the ‘value’ would be $4 million. The county/city/ state then multiplies it by ten, so the bond that goes out for sale with the prisoner’s name and social security number is a short-term ‘promissory’ note. It’s offered at $40 million. Perhaps an investor will offer 40% of the $40 million, or $16 million. Once this ‘promissory note’ of the face value of $40 million reaches the banks it is then multiplied again by 200 to 300% and sold as bank securities. For those of you who wonder why the US has more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth, you’ll begin to understand how we can have a weakening economy and still fund wars overseas. It’s all based on prisoners....in other words, prison for profit.

    Knowing all this and knowing that a prisoner can have a ‘net worth’ of say, $10,000 per day in the money markets, helped me explain to many bewildered women why they were in jail. We were only merchandise in a warehouse. The storage was pretty cheap; one woman while in jail researched the cost of feeding prisoners per day which ranged from 74 cents to $2.72 per prisoner per day.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    From: "Lynn Schmaltz"
    Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:46 AM
    Subject: Re: Paine Webber

    "OWNERS OF THE PRISON SYSTEM IN AMERICA"

    *Owners of the Prison Systems in America* CORRECTION CORP OF AMERICA headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee owns all private prison systems in AMERICA and are selling the commercial paper. How it Works: A bid bond is done on Form 24, which comes out of the GSA Office (General Services Administration which is out of GAO (General Accounting Office} which is under the Comptroller General. This Blake Bond Bid Bond is promulgated at the time the social security card is issued. When you are arrested the bond is filled out and they issue a Performance Bond, which is done from Form 25, and then they do a Payment Bond, which is a Form 25A.

    The Bonds are being underwritten by the Banks. This is where the PAINE WEBBER GROUP comes in. The Plaintiff in all criminal tax cases in the USA is the PAINE WEBBER GROUP as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The PAINE WEBBER GROUP is a group of international businesses. The PAINE WEBBER GROUP is providing the Securities for the prisons and is selling the Bonds, and the Banks, The ABA (AMERICAN BANKING ASSOCIATION) like LEHMEN BROTHERS, in New York City, are the underwriters on the Bonds. The Banks (the underwriters) is where the money is originally coming from.

    A six digit tracking number is issued for the Certificate of Stocks in the Commodity and Security Exchange in the USA by CUSIP (see www.cusip.com and www.cjts.com the law enforcement tracking software) and a nine digit number (called Ordnance Number) is issued for the Certificate of Stocks going internationally to ANNA (Lynn's note: see link for ANNA which is in Brussels, Belgium at www.cusip.com ). These Securities are sold through the Commodity and Security Exchange. The bottom line is they are selling stocks in the prison system. The jails are referred to as Warehouses and the prisoners are called Goods (oops, Lynn had it 'wrong'....she told the ladies in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center that we were in the Warehouse and we were the 'Merchandise' which explained the many flimsy reasons many of the ladies were in the prison.....it was just business, and just revenue). They are selling the Goods or the Account as Chattel, and as Commercial Paper on the Stock Exchange. Reminds one of the days when slaves were bought and sold on the auction block!

    The PAINE WEBBER GROUP is the prime stockholder in this CCA (Correction CORP of America). (Lynn's note: the transport company who transported her to Colorado in a van with 16 other prisoners being transported about had the words "Transport Corporation of America....Nashville, Tennessee." Transport rides are also called 'diesel therapy' by those who know about them.} However twenty of the largest companies such as WAL-MART; EXON; GENERAL MOTORS; FORD MOTORS; CHEVY; TEXICO; CITY CORP; IBM; EXPHILIP; HEWLETT PACKARD; VERIZON; UNITED POSTAL SERVICE (UPS); and etc. are also involved as well as other stock holding corporations (There are sixteen pages of the names of corporations that hold these stocks amounting to billions of [dollars].) Of course the monies generated is all off budget with no accounting to the People, even though the CORRECTION CORP OF AMERICA through the PAINE WEBBER GROUP is acting in the capacity of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL: Promotes Privatization of the Prison System. Paul Weybrick (may be miss spelled) runs what is called the FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION, which owns the AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL. THE REASON FOUNDATION and THE CORNELL COMPANY are involved as well.

    The following are notes I wrote after Paul and I were released from Colorado on August 20, 2004. Right now there are many forms of jail in the US--actual jail, CCP ankle bracelet, transport jail, probation, parole.........they all generate income:

    Paul and I were released on Friday on personal recognizance and allowed to go to New Mexico. We have a hearing in CO on Sept 13, 04. We got home Sat. night and have been doing catch up here at home today. I'll write an update on Monday or Tuesday. I will especially have some words about the very heinous prison transport system in our country. For now suffice it to say that it took 20 hours in a prison van with 16 prisoners to get from Albuquerque to Hot Sulphur Springs, normally a 8 or 9 hour trip. All of us rode in hand cuffs and shackles the entire trip. There were 3 stops for McDonalds' 'food.' No one but the officers got off the van unless they were being dropped off. No exercise at any point. No movement allowed but to use the porta potty on board. Cattle being transported across country are generally treated better. I talked with a man who'd been on transport from California to Colorado since July 8, 04. My transport date was August 11, 04. Someone in the Midwest told me he knew of a prisoner being transported for six months and occasionally dropped off in a county jail somewhere to await a different transport van. It's my understanding that once you're a prisoner in the system, the county/agency holding you is floating bond for $10,000 per day with your name and your bar code (Soc. sec. #) and these bonds are bundled periodically and sold through Merrill Lynch, AG Edwards, etc. for each state.

    Prison for profit........it's not just baloney and white bread. More later and thanks for keeping up your daily news. Paul was released from CCP (ankle bracelet) in Albuquerque and allowed to drive up to Hot Sulphur where he spent another 3 days in jail (my time over the summer has been 5 days in May, 18 days in June-July, 15 days in August and on house arrest, bond from May 24 to June 25, and ankle bracelet from mid-July to August 5, 04). Thankfully, Paul with all his transplant medications, diabetes medications, was in from May 19-24, 04. The rest of the time he was on bond or ankle bracelet house arrest. I doubt he'd have survived a prolonged transport situation. The alleged crime? "Influencing a public office" and "filing a false document." This is what they called our UCC1 financing statement sent when we informed public officials there would be a fee for using our copyrighted property (PAUL SCHMALTZ and PATRICIA SCHMALTZ), which they did anyway.

    And, of course, there were no repercussions for those officials when they held a fraudulent, unpublished sale our home/business on the court house steps, etc. As you well know there is no remedy in the courts of any kind. They completely ignored our sovereign status with Little Shell Pembina and Apostille with the sovereignty filed by cancellatura.

    Lynn Schmaltz

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I just found the notes on Jack Smith and Gene Keating’s research on prisoner bonds (not the kind you bail out with). www.cjts.com is the criminal justice tracking system software which shows the software that metro police departments use. Go to the user manual and it takes to 2% appearance bond fees. Then go to special operating software for courtrooms and it shows you how the 2% appearance bond fees are tied to the defendant's account. Go to the bottom in the original user's manual and it says, "Fine accounting." Further up the page is assessments. it shows how it's all tracked from beginning to end. FONTDIV

    A caller wrote to a court once and send, "Send me a complete accounting of my case." It came back showing a $90,000 active security and they said, "Your paperwork has been forwarded to the Department of Justice." The caller wrote a week later and said, "Send me a final pay-off amount for all my money. What would there be after 18 years without any fees, fines and interest."

    They said, "We sent all your stuff to the Department of Justice. Go to GOTOBUTTON BM_3_ www.cjts.com and you'll see all there is to see about a public witness. The caller downloaded it. Roger Elvick had written something about stock exchange transactions.

    Once you get the bond you are creditor in fact. Alan comes on the phone call with Jack Smith who had studied Roger Elvick's stuff intensely. He understands marketing accounts and the courts. Roger had said, "We have to find a way to track the account." The caller on Jack's program grabbed the phone book and just randomly picked a brokerage company .......

    AG Edwards. He called up to talk to a broker. Caller says he's trying to figure something out. If there was someone trading bonds in the bond market in the caller's name without his permission could he track the account. AG Edwards broker says they would have to have a social security number or a driver's license number. Caller says he knows someone who was trading in Roger Elvick's name. Broker asked if it was a friend, family member or corporation? Caller said to the broker it was a corporation. Broker then said every bond has a cusip #........Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Process Number.

    You can go to www.cusip.com. There are two main outlets -- Chicago and New York. You'd have to find out who their transfer agents are and then you could track the trade. You can even find out if funds are being embezzled off the account.

    When the cop gives you a ticket and you go into court, the judge is using this as a credit item to trade in the markets and he's doing calls. What if someone went in and caught them short on the margin call?

    The broker at AG Edwards knew what the caller was talking about. He said, "IF you want to follow this up anymore, you'll have to go to the Securities Exchange division in your state. So, the next thing the caller did was check the Department of Financial Institution of his state on the web and looked up securities exchange division. The advisory committee showed AG Edwards was the transfer agent for the state, making all the bond trades.

    The cop does all the paper work in the car. He is creating the assessment and the paperwork in his car when he makes out the ticket by using name, social security number, and driver's license number. They assume you voluntarily gave it to the cop and make the trade. Every cop is a private business contractor working for the corporation. If this is true then you can follow up on every trade made in your name on your exemption. Find the bond written on your birth certificate. Use that and access your exemption through the stock market that way.

    Roger Elvick knew this. The transfer and transfer agent and the number with social security number and every case number will be listed. Every traffic ticket will be listed. Broker says if Ameritrade had a trade he could track it, but he can't track AG Edwards, and others. It's going to take someone higher up. The brokers are enslaved by their industry. When you have a job your company is using your social security number.

    They'll keep taking your exemption even if you leave that company. AG Edwards sells the prisoner/traffic bonds for several states. How does this correlate with admiralty? Jack Smith says that in admiralty the vessels are carrying commodities and goods. So they carry invoices, packing slips and bills of lading. Warrants and securities back up the goods. Lag--goods that float on the water. Gene Keating says that Title 46 is the shipping code in admiralty. Secretary of Transportation is the receiver of the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES -- section 1247 Title 46--he's the receiver and trustee. He's talking about the carriage of goods sea act which is Title 46 in the appendix. Bills of lading are all documents of title--warrants and documents are all under the UCC and deal with documents of title. Title 46 Sections 181-189--admiralty is very complex. Even judges are taught on a need to know basis. Appellate judges often don't know all this.

    This all leads to different aspects of admiralty/maritime law, both inside and outside the courtroom. The carriage of goods act, Title 46, is all governed by the Secretary of Transportation--the Coast Guard, Secretary of Commerce and the treasury are all under Secretary of Transportation and it's all in commerce. The Secretary of transportation is the head of the maritime commission. All vessels are registered under Title 46, Section 31-301 which talks about maritime liens that arise by operation of law. There's a maritime lien commission. The Secretary of Transportation is running everything because we are all on the 'highway of commerce'--the water came inland, so to speak, and now it's here under the law of trust. Everyone who comes into the courtroom is a ward in admiralty--a ward of the court. We're in an "in rem" proceeding in admiralty in a title dispute and we have to come in as the title holder or have interest or claim in the subject matter of the complaint, or we are the 'vessel' and they have arrested 'the vessel.'

    We're not in common law in the courts, we're in admiralty and they get jurisdiction by arresting the vessel. They (lawyers/district attorneys/law enforcement) don't use the proper process and they need to trick, cajole, deceive, pressure us to do whatever they need to do and have us make a mistake to give them 'in personam jurisdiction' over us when we take on the attributes of a general appearance to the subject matter of the pleadings against the defendant "in rem" and we start acting in any capacity on the merits of the charges or by taking on the persona of the defendant vessel 'in rem.' There's lots more to this, but I think you get the gist about 'prisons for profit.'

    In tying this all together it would appear that there are many laggard souls, some are incarcerated in prison and some are working in the prisons. And many, many more are indifferent to what is going on in our country as far as prisons and prisoners are concerned. When I explained my case to women, many said, “Why do you bother trying to change things? To stand up to the system?” I’d always explain to them the concept of our earth trying to ascend to higher consciousness and take all the souls along, even the laggard souls. I’d explain how we could use the light of the angels, masters and God through us as flashlights .....

    The source for this bulletin is Ed Brannum of Texas and this message was appended to his email:

    I do not have a problem you with giving out my EMail address. All the Feds have known it for years. It’s hard trying to teach those PERSONS while they are monitoring me.

    "The following message is for any/all Corporate Agents/informants/investigators et. al. working in collusion by monitoring my mail and any other communications without my permission."

    "I sui juris, a republic of Texas National American Sovereign neutral non-combatant by law declare to all Corporate combatant FEDERAL and/or STATE Agents and/or 3rd parties that I am not a Corporation and/or UNITED STATES/STATE Created Fiction and I am accepting all Oaths and Affirmations declared Under Penalties of Perjury "so help me God" and returning any/all actions from the same being brought/sought against me for want of Geographical Jurisdiction and Venue."

    "I bless God my creator and ask His blessings and Protection for the Land of Texas against all trespassers."
-- Ed: Brannum rep777@dctexas.net
 

*  What does "do not drink the kool-aid" mean? [click this line]  or goto this link http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/kool-aid/do not drink the kool-aid.html

**  As the ‘Great And Powerful Oz’ once said to Dorothy, “Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!” because appearances can be deceiving.  You HAVE TO look behind to curtain to learn the truth.

goto top .....mailto: rockyview@tellme#&1st.net
The above addresss is NOT correct.  For security reasons, the "#&" characters must be removed to be a correct address.  This reduces the possibility of a hacker autosearching for address links.
Simply copy and paste this address in your mail program, BUT remember to delete the "#&" characters.