parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 04:03 pm
Tryagain wrote:



Do I hear any dissenters?

Yes, everyone that has ever taken a course in economics and understood the material.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 05:19 pm
Tryagain wrote:
If our nation can issue a dollar bond (interest bearing) it can issue a dollar bill (interest-free). The element that makes the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: But one promise fattens the usurers (interest collectors) and the other helps the people."

Do I hear any dissenters?


Nope, Im in total agreement with Mr. Edison. He's right. If a nation can issue its own bonds, then it can certainly issue its own currency as well.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 01:08 pm
I wrote, "Do I hear any dissenters?" (against ideas and plans of past Presidents who were much loved and respected)

Richard as one might expect; evaluated the information and made an informed reply; "Nope…"

On the other hand Parados replied thus, "Yes…"

To my mind he has crossed the Rubicon and is now, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Article 9; declared: Persona non grata.


We now move onto a section where a fundamental grasp of economics would come in handy, and therefore do so sans Parados…


Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo said late last week that he expects firms to take another $10bn plus of write-downs in the fourth quarter, with Citi and Merrill Lynch likely to suffer the most.

Chucked Out - Another CEO Bites The Dust

Another week, another CEO falls on his sword. Hot on the heels of the departure of Merrill Lynch boss Stan O'Neal Tuesday, Citi CEO Chuck Prince officially resigned Monday after it emerged that Citi will need to take further asset write-downs of between $8bn - $11bn in the fourth quarter.

The New York Mercantile Exchange is reducing headcount by 120 staff through 2008, with 55 going immediately. The staff reductions are part of 'an efficiency plan'..... - Yeah! Right!

And news from across the pond of an obscure mortgage lender linked to the US sub prime market…

The Bank of England has agreed to give emergency financial support to the Northern Rock, one of the UK's largest mortgage lenders.

What it failed to say was the amount - 48 Billion dollars.


You might have read about it here first…but you ain't seen nothing yet!
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2007 11:31 am
Two days is a long time living with the FED…


With the US housing market continuing to weaken, and the economic outlook darkening by the day, there's not much hope for a lasting dollar rebound. After all, broadly speaking, a currency is just a reflection of the strength of a country's economy. Without a decent interest rate to prop it up, foreign investors will become less and less interested in holding onto dollars.

The dollar's decline has of course sent the price of oil and gold higher. Both are priced in dollars - if the supply of dollars rises, and the supply of gold and oil stays broadly the same, then the dollar price of each rises.

But neither commodities' strong gains are purely down to dollar weakness. The pundits have been out in force recently to carp about the oil price being fuelled purely by speculation. Oil cartel Opec said it has never seen the price so disconnected from the supply. And Goldman Sachs recently issued a report suggesting that the price is set to fall back.

All this downbeat speculation took its toll on the oil price yesterday - at least, until the latest US inventories data for last week was published. Everyone had been expecting crude stocks to rise by about 600,000 barrels - in fact, they fell by 3.9 million barrels.
This sent the oil price to a new high of over $96 a barrel in New York, while Brent headed above $90 a barrel once again. Most analysts reckon there's very little now to stop oil going to $100 a barrel.

High oil prices have a lot of knock-on consequences. Inflationary pressure is one. Expensive oil prices don't just have an impact in terms of energy use - they are also forcing up the price of food. Both corn and soyabeans rose in tandem with oil, on speculation that rising oil costs will drive up demand for biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

A side effect of that, of course, is that your breakfast, lunch and dinner also becomes more expensive - particularly as the supermarkets you buy them from also rely on trucks to transport the goods and energy to light and heat their premises.

So even with all the fiddling that politicians inflict on inflation figures it will be hard to hide the fact many aspects of our lives just continue to become ever more expensive. The rising gold price is evidence investors are coming to understand that.

What was the response of the FED to the crisis?

Given the choice between defending the dollar and saving the stock market, Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke did what you'd expect!!!




He ditched the dollar without a second's regret. The quarter-point interest rate cut took the greenback to a new record low against the euro, while the pound has hit a new 26-year high above the $2.10 mark.


Only Parados sees nothing wrong with the FED!
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2007 01:16 pm
After another week of financial turmoil, surly the American FED will look after the American people….won't they?


Well, the FED is owned largely by foreign banks that control the economy and Congress through the power of money and the media which they bought with profits generated; from profits generated by artificial debt. So, go suck on a lemon; if it's sweet…you will be ok!

If we can convert U.S. dollars that are debt and interest-free to interest bearing currency, we can change it back just as easily. The media, Parados and the banking system will probably claim that such a change will cause hyper- inflation.

The answer however, can be found in history. Lincoln printed debt and interest-free Greenbacks (cash) to finance an entire war. With added production you can add currency without having hyper-inflation. Lincoln proved it. John F. Kennedy - a President with vision! On June 4, 1964, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110. This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency - the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation.

This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free. Upon Kennedy's assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again. The media remained silent on how Kennedy would have eliminated the debt and interest payments, and therefore eliminated the FED.

Interest-free United States Notes do not result in hyper-inflation. By issuing United States Notes, interest-free, we have less interest expense, and less taxes. With less taxes people spend more and buy more. This result is added production, and therefore, you can add dollars without inflation. Either Rockefeller and his people will spend your tax money into the economy or you get to spend your own money by paying less taxes. The bankers want you to think you'll have mass inflation by changing the system. This is only true if you add dollars to the economy without added production.

For example, look what happened in post World War I Germany. They merely printed money without increasing production. The result was hyper-inflation. Another example: In the entire economy, if you have only 10 loaves of bread and only $10, each loaf would sell for $1. If you print an extra $10, now you have $20 and the 10 loaves which would sell for $2 each. This is only true if we don't have added production.

By cutting taxes, people will spend more and buy more bread. If we print more money and bake more bread, we have $50 and 50 loaves, so each loaf still sells for $1. As long as you monitor production with increased cash, inflation will not occur. Under the FED system, the price of bread has dramatically increased since 1913.

If we cut taxes and YOU spend your money instead of the BANKERS spending it, you will have more bread, cars, and wealth than the bankers. SOMEONE will spend your money - it might as well be YOU!


If you suffer from an excess of the stuff - consider making a donation to A2K!
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 09:46 am
For those of you who have been reading along…..Go get a life!


For all the rest; and I mean you mom:



A FED-like banking system has destroyed other governments. In five years the only thing taxes will pay is the interest on the debt. Clearly, the FED must be abolished before we're demolished! Already laws are set up to have a dictatorship when we have the economic crisis (Federal Emergency Management Act, or FEMA).

Under the FED system, when a new dollar is issued, we pay taxes to pay for the dollar as the principal (debt) plus interest on the dollar. We pay for each new dollar twice, and who gets most of the money? The bankers, who control this money. Taxpayers should only pay taxes for the paper, ink, and printing costs of new money. Why should we give bankers the right to print money on a printing press, charge them no interest on this money, and then let them exchange their "free" money for a government bond that pays them interest?

England never gave up on owning the United States. They are still silently fighting the same Revolutionary War. The Bank of England, through the Rothschilds, owns and controls the FED.

We have been robbed of our wealth, and in five years we will be bankrupt if there is no change. The FED bankers will LEGALLY OWN OUR NATION; just as Thomas Jefferson predicted.



Far too shocking to contemplate? Come back in five years, and tell me I was right!
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:36 am
Tryagain wrote:
For those of you who have been reading along…..Go get a life!


For all the rest; and I mean you mom:



A FED-like banking system has destroyed other governments. In five years the only thing taxes will pay is the interest on the debt. Clearly, the FED must be abolished before we're demolished! Already laws are set up to have a dictatorship when we have the economic crisis (Federal Emergency Management Act, or FEMA).

Under the FED system, when a new dollar is issued, we pay taxes to pay for the dollar as the principal (debt) plus interest on the dollar. We pay for each new dollar twice, and who gets most of the money? The bankers, who control this money. Taxpayers should only pay taxes for the paper, ink, and printing costs of new money. Why should we give bankers the right to print money on a printing press, charge them no interest on this money, and then let them exchange their "free" money for a government bond that pays them interest?

England never gave up on owning the United States. They are still silently fighting the same Revolutionary War. The Bank of England, through the Rothschilds, owns and controls the FED.

We have been robbed of our wealth, and in five years we will be bankrupt if there is no change. The FED bankers will LEGALLY OWN OUR NATION; just as Thomas Jefferson predicted.



Far too shocking to contemplate? Come back in five years, and tell me I was right!

YOURE MAKING STUFF UP!!!
THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT PAY FOR MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE.. PARADOS SAID SO!!!

AND BESIDES ITS OKAY EVEN IF IT DOES BECAUSE WE NEED TO BORROW MONEY SO WE CAN BORROW CURRENCY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE SO INFLATION WONT GO UP.. BECAUSE I READ IN A BOOK ONCE THAT AS LONG AS YOU BORROW MONEY WHEN YOU PRINT IT WE WONT HAVE INFLATION... SO IT MUST BE RIGHT.. IT WAS IN A BOOK..

ALTHOUGH NOW I CANT BUY AN ORANGE IN THE SUPERMARKET FOR LESS THAN $1. AND GASOLINE CANT BE HAD FOR LESS THAN $3 A GALLON BUT THE MONEY PRINTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT..

I KNOW IF WE STILL HAD SILVER OR GOLD BACKING OUR MONEY IT WOULDNT MAKE ANY DIFFERNCE, EXCEPT GASOLINE WOULD ONLY COST 25 CENTS A GALLON AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE WOULDNT BE ABLE TO PROFIT OFF OUR COUNTRY'S DEMISE...

BUT ITS OKAY BECAUSE WEVE GOT THE INCOME TAX TO PAY FOR IT ALL. YAY! YAY!.. HOORAY FOR THE INCOME TAX SO OUR GOVT CAN BORROW ITS OWN CURRENCY INSTEAD OF ISSUING IT ITSELF!!!

YAY!!!!!1
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 05:33 pm
Richard writes, "YOURE MAKING STUFF UP!!!
THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT PAY FOR MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE.. PARADOS SAID SO!!!"

Yeah, you got me!


The Federal Reserve today unveiled far-reaching plans to increase its transparency, adopting many of the features of an inflation targeting regime without actually stating a formal inflation target.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said the US central bank would start publishing more frequent, more detailed and longer-range economic forecasts, including for the first time forecasts for "headline" inflation including food and energy.

The forecasts, which will be published quarterly and span a three year period, will continue to be made by Fed policymakers individually. However, the "central tendency" of the inflation forecasts for the third year will constitute a de facto medium term inflation target.

Mr Bernanke said the forecasts would "provide a more timely insight into the committee's outlook," help households and businesses "better understand and anticipate how our policy decisions respond to incoming information" and "enhance our accountability."

Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, said the changes "amount to a regime of inflation targeting-lite".

Some members of Congress, including Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House financial services committee, had expressed their opposition to the Fed adopting a formal Bank of England-style inflation target. However, there were no signs of political hostility to Thursday's announcement. Charles Schumer, chairman of the joint economic committee, said "Chairman Bernanke should be commended." A spokesman for Mr Frank said the Congressman was "in favor of more openness".

Top officials hope that publishing projections for inflation including food and energy will make it clear that the Fed targets overall inflation, and emphasises core inflation only as a predictor of future headline inflation.

The first set of new forecasts, which will be released next week, will offer valuable insight into how the Fed views the current risks to the US economy.


I can't wait! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 06:36 pm
Tryagain wrote:
Richard writes, "YOURE MAKING STUFF UP!!!
THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT PAY FOR MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE.. PARADOS SAID SO!!!"

Yeah, you got me!


The Federal Reserve today unveiled far-reaching plans to increase its transparency, adopting many of the features of an inflation targeting regime without actually stating a formal inflation target.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said the US central bank would start publishing more frequent, more detailed and longer-range economic forecasts, including for the first time forecasts for "headline" inflation including food and energy.

The forecasts, which will be published quarterly and span a three year period, will continue to be made by Fed policymakers individually. However, the "central tendency" of the inflation forecasts for the third year will constitute a de facto medium term inflation target.

Mr Bernanke said the forecasts would "provide a more timely insight into the committee's outlook," help households and businesses "better understand and anticipate how our policy decisions respond to incoming information" and "enhance our accountability."

Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, said the changes "amount to a regime of inflation targeting-lite".

Some members of Congress, including Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House financial services committee, had expressed their opposition to the Fed adopting a formal Bank of England-style inflation target. However, there were no signs of political hostility to Thursday's announcement. Charles Schumer, chairman of the joint economic committee, said "Chairman Bernanke should be commended." A spokesman for Mr Frank said the Congressman was "in favor of more openness".

Top officials hope that publishing projections for inflation including food and energy will make it clear that the Fed targets overall inflation, and emphasises core inflation only as a predictor of future headline inflation.

The first set of new forecasts, which will be released next week, will offer valuable insight into how the Fed views the current risks to the US economy.


I can't wait! Rolling Eyes


Yeah but theyll simply lie by changing the components of the various indices theyre trying to track.. like they did back during Cluntons tenure... Steak is too expensive so they replace it with chopped meat for one of the cpi components...

Its like the Wizard of Oz... Inflation is only at 2%, economy is GREAT!!! everybody return to their homes.. nothing to see here!!

Ya know Try, people like you and I need to run for Congress.. The country needs more people with real understanding of these things..

Become Ron Paul!

YEAH!
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2007 12:02 pm
Richard wrote, "… people like you and I need to run for Congress. The country needs more people with real understanding of these things."



Richard, you have the Heritage, insight and drive to be able to do that.


Why not get in touch with the Ron Paul team and offer your services; and here are a few ideas to take with you:


Nationalize the FED. At the cost of a signature, return the currency to the nation. No compensation - the money already belongs to the nation.

Change the wording to: Government Issue.

This will restore confidence and pride in the almighty dollar!


Then while you are at it - Abolish personal income tax for earnings below 100,000.

Make up the loss with a increase in import Tax and a small rise in sales tax. That way people will be able to choose what they get taxed on.



SPECIFIC PLAN: HOW TO GET OUT OF DEBT

U.S. history proves that issuing debt and interest-free currency allows our economy to prosper, as long as Congress controls the amount of money created. You can add printed dollars into the economy as you add production, and there will be no inflation. With today's sophisticated computers, we can easily monitor the printing of money and inflation.

Congress needs abolish the FED. Any government debt they own would be automatically eliminated. All remaining debt could be paid as needed with the same type of currency Kennedy issued (debt and interest-free United States Notes). United States Notes are backed by the full faith of the best government in the world - The United States of America.

This is no different than the backing of today's Federal Reserve Notes. U.S. citizens collect only a small fraction of the interest income on Federal Bonds and Bills. Foreigners benefit from this interest, but we pay the tax so that they collect interest on our currency. This makes sense to bankers and Congresspeople who receive money from bankers and foreign lobbyists.

As we pay less interest, government spending will decrease and so will taxes. Less taxes mean that people buy more goods and services and our economy expands. An expanded economy means more jobs and higher profits for businesses. More profit means increased state/federal business taxes. Businesses continue to pay taxes while personal taxes decrease.

People will have more money to spend, will buy more, and therefore pay increased state sales tax. This allows the states to balance their budgets without raising real estate taxes. As history proves, we will prosper.

For 80 years the FED has destroyed our economy. It will take years to undo this damage. Just as Congress appoints a Postal Service, we will have Congress appoint an agency to monitor inflation as we exchange our retiring government debt for debt and interest-free United States Notes (cash).

We need to break up all Central Banks created by the FED and return to the Constitution of the United States. We have to return the power of the citizens' money back to the people.


Thank you for your time.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 01:41 am
I remember some years ago when somebody calculated what it would take to fund our governments; it was estimated at (about) 15 percent of all income. No more 300,000 pages of the tax codes, and everybody pays the same percentage no matter what income level. It's too simple and easy for our government to even consider it.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 07:37 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I remember some years ago when somebody calculated what it would take to fund our governments; it was estimated at (about) 15 percent of all income. No more 300,000 pages of the tax codes, and everybody pays the same percentage no matter what income level. It's too simple and easy for our government to even consider it.


Yep, just like our Constitutional guidelines for a direct tax on the people.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 01:01 pm
What is municipal law, and are the IRC's income tax provisions municipal law, or not?

The IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopaedias define "municipal" to mean "internal", and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.


A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled to prove that the IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law.


One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of "State" at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.


In other words, the term "State" in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.


So what does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?


The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.


If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.


Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.


The many different definitions of the term "State" that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.


If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term "United States" to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 03:21 pm
Tryagain wrote:
What is municipal law, and are the IRC's income tax provisions municipal law, or not?

The IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopaedias define "municipal" to mean "internal", and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.


A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled to prove that the IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law.


One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of "State" at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.


In other words, the term "State" in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.


So what does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?


The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.


If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.


Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.


The many different definitions of the term "State" that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.


If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term "United States" to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).

Isnt it amazing?
There are so many reasons that the IRC is nonenforcable that given all the information youd HAVE to be a conspiracy theorist to actually BELIEVE WE HAVE AN INCOME TAX!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 02:17 am
The only problem from ignoring those tax laws can garner a whole lot of extra legal problems.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 04:15 pm
The Revolutionary War was fought and the Constitution was written to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency.

In 1913, members of Congress committed treason and violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic by voting in the Federal Reserve Bank.

The ones who scream the loudest to keep the Federal Reserve Bank probably profit the most.



CI wrote, "The only problem from ignoring those tax laws can garner a whole lot of extra legal problems."



What Federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?

This question must be addressed. Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving. Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in Wonderland?

On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of the United States ("DCUS") to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.

It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts ("USDC"). The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause.

USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author's OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; (begin reading at section "7(e)".)

The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 04:21 pm
Tryagain wrote:
The Revolutionary War was fought and the Constitution was written to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency.


That is a claim without a shred of historical support, and one of the most ridiculous claims i've seen in these pages in quite some time.

At the same time, i can't believe this silly, silly thread is still alive . . . so, carry on.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 11:20 am
Au contraire monsieur:

It is accepted as the innate ability and process to invent partial or complete personal realms within the mind from elements derived from sense perceptions of the shared world; for the process of reviving in the mind percepts of objects formerly given in sense perception. One hypothesis being for the evolution of human imagination is that it allowed conscious beings to solve problems by use of mental simulation.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution.

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 angered colonists regarding British decisions on taxing the colonies despite a lack of representation in the Westminster Parliament.

The United States started as 13 colonies. King George, of England, ruled the colonies. The colonists did not like his laws. King George wanted to increase taxes. The colonists wanted a free country.

The colonists fought against English rule in the Revolutionary War of 1775. The Declaration of Independence said that the colonies were free from English rule.

From 1781 to 1789, the Articles of Confederation was the basic law of the country. It was a deal made by the 13 original colonies to set up a central government in the United States. The Articles of Confederation included a preamble and 13 articles. It was replaced with the Constitution of the United States in 1789.The Constitution was written in 1787 but was not ratified until 1789.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution says that the United States Government has the power to pass laws, collect taxes, print money, and form an army.

It omitted any reference to the FED a private corporation being able to do so!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 12:32 pm
Tryagain: It omitted any reference to the FED a private corporation being able to do so!

It's funny how facts get in the way of practice.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 04:04 pm
Tryagain wrote:
The Revolutionary War was fought and the Constitution was written to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency.


This was the drivel which you posted and to which i objected. Your response does not address at all the incredibly specious and idiotic claim it entails about "printing" money. Banknotes did not circulate in North America at that time, nor did they at the time the Constitution was adopted. In North America prior to the Revolution, the only "legal" mode of direct exchange was specie (coins of copper, silver or gold), of which there was a chronic shortage. Privately, people commonly exchange bills of indebtedness, letters of credit or drafts (promises to pay) of future in-kind productions (the most common being the drafts on hundred weights of tobacco which circulated in Virginia). At no time was there a "currency" in North America to be controlled as your statement implies, and at no time was the issue of specie or credit instruments of any kind an issue which motivated those who rebelled, or those who wrote the constitution.

Did you think you could just make sh*t like that up, and not be challenged?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 10:34:13