1) The IRS is not a U.S. government agency.

It is an agency of the IMF.
(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al.
CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I,
Public Law 94-564,
Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967,
Reorganization Plan No. 26,
Public Law 102-391)

2) The IMF is an agency of the U.N.
(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

3) The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921.
(41 Stat. Ch. 214 page 654)

4) The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF
(Presidential Documents Volume 29 -No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C 285-288)

5) The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States.
No more reorganizations.
After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over.
(Executive Order 12803)

6) The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government. Even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the various agencies.
(U.S. v. Strang, 254 US 491
Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)

7) Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The application for a Social Security # is the SS5 form. The Dep't of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of the Treasury
(20 CFR Chap. 111 Subpart B 422.103 ()

8) There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statues and Codes. Executive Adminstrators enforce Statues and Codes.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

9) There have Not been any Judges in America since 1789.
There have just been administrators.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

10) According to GATT you must have a Social Security number.
House Report (103-826)

11) New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World". For once, he told the truth.
(20 CFR Chap. 111, subpart B 422.103 ( (2) (2))

12) Social Security is not insurance or a contract.
Nor is there a Trust Fund.
(Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619
Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)

13) Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an agency of the United Nations.
(Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)

14) You own No property. Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours.
You are listed as a TENANT.
(Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st session)

15) The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
(42 Pa. C.S.A. 502)

16) The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary War.
(Treaty of Versailles- July 16, 1782
Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

17) You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it.
(Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Svannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

18) AMERICA IS A BRITISH COLONY. The "United States" is a corporation, not a land mass ans it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British troops did not leave until 1796.
(Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43,
Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116,
Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80,
IRS Publication 6209,
Articles of Association October 20, 1774)

19) Britain is owned by the Vatican.
(Treaty of 1213)

20) The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (vid on url) (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)

21) A 1040 Form is for Tribute paid to Britain.
(IRS Publication 6209)

22) The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.
(Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

23) The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of Millions of people.
(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)

24) The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone.
(Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii., n. 4. Patri, 1844)
(Syllabus prop 28, 29, 44)

25) WE ARE SLAVES AND OWN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOT EVEN WHAT WE THINK ARE OUR CHILDREN.
(Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62,
Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146,
Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st session,
Wynehammer v. People
13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

26) Military Dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) into Districts.
(Messages and Papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99
1828 dictionary for definition of Estate)

27) "The People" does Not include you and me
(Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)

28) It is not the duty of the police to prtect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers.
(Sapp vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff vs, City of Phila. 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

29) Everything in the "United States" is up For Sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc...
Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake??
(Executive Order 12803)

30) "WE" ARE HUMAN CAPITAL
(Executive Order 13037)

America filed bankruptcy in 1933.
According to the law, ALL NAMES IN CAPITAL LETTERS, IE DRIVER LIC. BIRTH RECORD, MORTGAGE, ECT, ECT, MEANS SUBJECT NOT NATURAL CITIZEN.
Slaves were subjects and property. When you sign a legal form and your name is in ALL CAPITALS you have agreed that you are a subject and NOT a citizen.

ALSO your SS# is traded on the stock exchange because you are the collateral for the bankruptcy.

"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."

It's not clear exactly what a data retention law would require. One proposal would go beyond Internet providers and require registrars, the companies that sell domain names, to maintain records too. And during private meetings with industry officials, FBI and Justice Department representatives have cited the desirability of also forcing search engines to keep logs--a proposal that could gain additional law enforcement support after AOL showed how useful such records could be in investigations.

Preservation vs. retention
At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

Government Power Grabs: 'Predicting' 2008

Monday , December 17, 2007

By Radley Balko

As the end of the year approaches, it's time for another column of government overreach predictions for the New Year. What outrageous, beyond-parody grabs at power and erosions of civil liberties will transpire in 2008? My predictions:

— The Bush administration will claim it has the power to kidnap citizens of foreign countries for violating U.S. law, and extradite them to the U.S. for trial and imprisonment—even for white collar crimes unrelated to terrorism, and even for acts that aren't illegal in the countries where the target is a citizen.

— Police will take enforcement of prostitution laws to a new level, by arresting and seizing the cars of anyone who merely talks to an undercover cop posing as a sex worker. Good samaratans, beware.

— The war on prescription painkillers will also reach new absurdities, as people will begin to be arrested and convicted of possessing painkillers for which they have a prescription . Prosecutors will weirdly argue that there is no "prescription defense" to possessing prescribed medication.

— How about sex crimes laws? I predict that here too, prosecutors will overreach. Watch, as some overzealous district attorney will charge middle school kids with sex crimes for such childhood shenanigans as slapping fellow classmates on the buttocks.

— While it continues to federalize crime and find new reasons to toss people in prison, members of Congress will simultaneously continue to attempt to put themselves above the law. I predict that the House of Representatives will attempt to prevent police from searching the computers of one of its members, even if that member is being investigated for soliciting sex with minors.

— Public schools will teach not just reading, writing, and arithmetic, they'll start teaching students to spy on their parents , and to report their parents to local authorities for minor violations of city codes, such as failing to recycle, or failing to keep their lawn trimmed.

— Pressed for revenue, at least one state in the country will pass draconian new traffic laws mandating fines of $1,000 or more for routine traffic violations, in a bald attempt to fill state treasury coffers. The bill will be sponsored by a lawmaker who, conveniently enough, also has a law practice that specializes in defending people accused of traffic violations. He will not disclose during the debate that the bill will almost certainly benefit him financially. He'll be reelected, anyway.

— A state governor will propose legislation calling for two-year prison terms for people who play online poker . Rather shamelessly, the proposal will come in the same bill that calls for allowing the construction of three new casinos in the same state.

— While we're talking about gambling, states will continue to crack down on the poker craze. Even VFW posts won't be immune. Soon, we'll see cops sent to break up $5 cribbage games, and SWAT teams to break up charity poker games. In fact, cops will raid bars where it merely looks like people are gambling, even if no gambling is actually taking place. Meanwhile, states will continue to spend millions promoting their own lotteries.

— Standing on the sidewalk will become a crime .

— Cities will begin seizing the cars of people who play their stereos too loud . In fact, they'll seize the cars based on the word of someone else that the car's owner was playing his stereo too loud.

— Proving there's no part of your life the Nanny State can't reach, states will begin asking bars to install talking urinal cakes , which will warn men as they relieve themselves that drinking and driving isn't cool.

— Another state's lawmakers will propose a bill that bans "eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, interacting with pets or cargo, talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device" while driving.

— Two years after banning traffic cameras in the name of "liberty," the Virginia legislature will decide that revenue is more important than liberty, and will revoke the ban .

—The FBI will imply to Congress that sometimes it has to let it's undercover informants get away with murdering American citizens so as not to disrupt drug investigations.

— Following up on the enormous "success" (that's sarcasm) of laws putting cold medicine behind the drug store counters because they can be used to make meth, legislators will propose putting baking soda behind the counter , too, because it can be used to make crack.

Too over-the top? Too paranoid? As you may have guessed from clicking the embedded links (of if you read either of my two prior year-end columns ), none of the bullet points above were actual predictions. Each of the above already happened in the past 12 months, in 2007.

Each year, government at all levels encroaches a bit more on our personal, economic, and political freedom. Here's one prediction that I'm pretty confident will come true: Come December 2008, there will be more than enough material for another column like this one.

Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
February 23, 2009
© NewsWithViews.com

While the mainstream news media are hyping President Barack Obama's election and the dismal economic downturn in the United States, more and more states are declaring -- or have already declared -- sovereignty.

According to political experts such as strategist Mike Baker, Americans are becoming disenchanted with the federal government's lack of perspective on issues of great concern -- illegal aliens, crime, economic turmoil -- while intruding into the private lives of citizens with gun-control laws and other intrusions.

"Many [citizens] are angry at federal government intrusion into their lives and into matters that were intended by our Founding Fathers to be relegated to the individual states," said Baker.

"Take, for instance, the police power. Since the beginning of our republic, police and law enforcement was considered a function of each state in the union. Now we have federal law enforcement agencies who are taking away police powers from states. Why does an agency created to oversee issues related to alcohol, tobacco and firearms need to have SWAT teams?" asks the conservative political strategist.

"I believe that because the federal government refuses to perform their duty of protecting US sovereignty that more and more state legislatures find it necessary to protect their own individual sovereignty. The feds are careful not to mistreat illegal alien criminals, for example, but they see no problem with wiping out an entire compound of American citizens as happened in [the Branch Davidian compound] Waco, Texas," warns former NYPD detective Sidney Frances.

"Look at California: they are preparing to release almost 50,000 convicts because of overcrowding. Why isn't the federal government providing funds to keep those criminals locked up? Instead, they provide billions of dollars for abortions overseas," he added.

Not only does the US Constitution provide for the sovereignty, the US Supreme Court also ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states.

So far, according to documents obtained by NewswithViews.com, nine states have declared soverignty with another 13 states considering legislation to do so. Some legislation addresses all aspects of states’ rights, while other legislation addresses certain actions such as abortion control and gun owners’ rights.

Washington State Declaring Total Sovereignty

In the state of Washington, house and senate bill HJM-4009 declares:

"The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, [T]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and... [F]ederalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science...."

HJM-4009 goes on to state: "Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States...."

And here's the resolution: "NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:
(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under HJM 4009 p. 2 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers."

"BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Washington."

"In other words, the state of Washington is telling Washington, DC and the other 49 states that the federal government should take a walk and not interfere in matters of that state," quips Mike Baker.

New Hampshire Tells Feds to Get Lost?

It's not only western and southern states that are seeking sovereignty. For example, in the northeast, long considered a bastion of liberal politics, New Hampshire has joined the fray. HCR-6 is a resolution "affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles."

The bill states: "[T]he Constitution of the State of New Hampshire... declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and... the Constitution of the State... declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire...."

HCR specifically addresses the police power in the resolution: "[T]he Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences (sic) against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...”

[T]herefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."

The bill goes much further than the one in Washington state in that it stipulates the nullification of certain federal acts:

"[N]ullifications include, but are not limited to:

"I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

"II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

"III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

"IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

"V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

"VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition... (emphasis added).

HCR-6 end this controversial statement:

"Should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government."

"What this bill is saying is that except for certain national interests, New Hampshire shall independently deal with many of the problems that arise. They wish to be free of federal government intrusion," explains Baker.

Missouri's Declaration of Sovereignty Regarding Abortion

Missouri's bill is more narrowly worded to address federal government interference in how that state regulates abortion.

Quite simply, HR-212 "declares Missouri's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and urges the United States Congress to reject the passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act which prohibits regulations on abortion" within that state.

Move to Limit Government in Oklahoma

"With a Republican-controlled Legislature set to convene next month for the first time in state history, chances are good the [sovereignty] measure will pass," Rep. Charles Key told the local news media

Key, a Republican from Oklahoma City believes that "many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states the powers not delegated to the federal government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the federal government.

"We, the people in the states, created the federal government,” Key said. "They act like they created us and we’re under their authority, and that’s really not the case.”

According to a news sources in Oklahoma, Key’s resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

"It’s to help try to get us back to following the Constitution and try to preserve our constitutional form of government,” Key told reporters.

"The federal government continues to violate it more and more. It’s gotten so bad that they pretty much do whatever they want and get away with just about anything they want to get away with,” he said.

According to news reports, the resolution, House Joint Resolution 1003, is similar to a resolution Key filed last year.

It sailed through the Republican-controlled state House, passing 92-3, but was not taken up in the evenly split Senate. Republicans picked up two Senate seats in November’s election to have a 26-22 majority.

Key said there’s a "much better” chance that the resolution will pass the Senate this year, but he said he and others "will have to work hard to get it heard over there.”

Georgia’s Sovereignty

Arguably, Georgia’s bill -- SR-308 – is the most comprehensive declaration of that state’s sovereignty, and it leaves little doubt that it’s citizens are serious about preventing federal intrusion in the state’s affairs as well an individual citizens’ lives.

Highlights of the resolution include:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the State of Georgia hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, each member of Georgia's congressional delegation, and the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”

Montana's Resolution

Montana's HB-246 is being applauded by gun owners across the nation. It specifically rejects the federal government's intrusion on how Montana controls -- or doesn't control -- firearms owner by private citizens.

The bill's preamble states that HB-246 is: "An act exempting [Montana] from federal regulation under the commerce clause of [the US Constitution] a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana."

In another section of the bill, the proposed law stipulates: "A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

The law would prevent federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from entering Montana and confiscating weapons legally sold in that state.

And just in case a Washington, DC bureaucrat decides to circumvent this Montana gun owners' sovereignty, the law states: "Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana."

"Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups are applauding this legislation," said former NYPD detective Frances.

"It's hoped more states will wake up and pass such legislation," he added.

J. Croft
freedomguide.blogspot.com
This article will start off assuming that the Reader (you) is already subject to MARTIAL LAW; that is, the "suspension" of the Constitution. Curfews, rationing of basic goods, enforced relocations, confiscation of firearms and supplies, and summary arrest/execution by soldiers, paramilitary police and other jack booted chumps in black wielding assault rifles. Basic survival tips will be followed by more detailed ideals on how to counter this coup against the American People.
The remainder will apply IF you're reading this before MARTIAL LAW is imposed by the current corrupt government. IF you are reading this while you still nominally under Constitutional Law, it's urgent you read from the beginning to end so as to appreciate the opportunities you currently have to not only protect yourself and yours, but to attempt to stop a coup.
SECTION ONE: SURVIVING MARTIAL LAW
Rule #1
Never take the government's word at face value-except when they tell you that they'll kill you.
Government-it's components of career politicians, bureaucratic vermin, and SS ninja wannabes live, have lied. For a lot longer than you'd think. It's the very job; being part of an empire wrapped in the cloak of American political traditions of Freedom, that corrupts. All that power, attracting the most venal along with the most patriotic to defend America. All that license under ever mutable law written by money whores to lie, steal, embezzle, blackmail, extort, poison, torture, enslave, murder.
Is it any wonder then that such human scum would get together and work "the system" to set themselves up as kings, dispensing with the pretty coverings of Constitutional limitations that trip their crimes like a prom dress? Taking as much as they can, while keeping YOU ASLEEP AS YOU LET YOURSELF BE SEDUCED AND PUT ASLEEP BY THEIR FELLOW TRAVELLERS IN THE MEDIA AND CORPORATE BOARDS?
Yes: a lot of the blame can be laid on your shoulders, American. You dropped the ball with going along with not finding the truth about JFK's assassination. Dropped the ball with MLK, RFK, Malcolm X. Dropped the ball with Vietnam, the air trafficker's strike that Reagan crushed, Iran-Contra. Dropped the ball with the 92 election-picking that drug runner and murderer Bill Clinton because he was charming� like a pimp. And boy did he pimp you out at the expense of Randy Weaver and his family, the 81 casualties at Waco, the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. You were too busy following Micheal Jordan and watching Friends.
Then you assholes really dropped it when George W. Bush STOLE the Presidency, with the media not even allowing a Ross Perot to run. If you would've elected him in 1992 in fact America could've been saved. BUT, you'd rather take government careerists at their word and plan your next outing to the mall than save your nation. Save your jobs, your freedoms, YOUR government.
Now it's gone. The criminals that've systematically taken over YOUR government they've removed the last vestiges of Constitutional law. Now it's law by the barrels of their assault rifles in your face-do ANYTHING other than obey in utter fear and you're dead. Or worse. You listened to their lies for over a century, you and your ancestors-where has it gotten you? Don't take their word on any "news" they have. Nor take their advice, their "assistance" their laws at face value because they manipulate everything they do to screw you.
What you can take their word on is, if you DON'T go along with them screwing you, they'll kill you for it.
Rule #2
KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Do NOT tell anyone anything that could get you in trouble. Assume anything can get you in trouble, because it probably will. Especially with any government official, but anyone looking to gaining a favor with the state can and will snitch on you. The rat who would sell you out for his thirty pieces could be:
*A small businessman looking for a in with the state so he can make money a little easier.
*A former friend who's looking to get some revenge.
*Someone desperate for even some food. Times are tough and will get tougher.
Again, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Review the remaining rules of surviving MARTIAL LAW with Rule #2 ALWAYS in mind. Because some rat on two legs you say the wrong thing to WILL snitch to the "authorities" in exchange for favors or even brownie points� and then you get to find out how ironclad Rule #1 is.
KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT!!
Rule #3
ANY AUTHORITY FIGURE IS THE ENEMY! Unless you are waging a war of liberation- gathering intelligence or spreading disinformation or infiltrating-have no relation with nor voluntary contact with any soldier, police officer, bureaucrat, or anyone in authority in private life cooperating with MARTIAL LAW. Review Rule #1: they're all liars, con artists, hustlers, thieves, murderers. Same goes to any fellow travellers in big business; they and government have been in the same bed for a century.
Stay away from them as much as possible. Tell them lies. Don't do any business with them. Unless they're sticking a gun in your face don't even acknowledge that they exist.
Shun them, their family and any sycophants that fawn over them for a few favors.
Rule #4
YOUR PERSONAL SURVIVAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBEYING ANY DICTATE! If you're prohibited from having an item that helps you survive, get the item, review Rule #2 AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
If you're prohibited from having extra food, medicine, guns (no brainer) then you will CACHE your prohibited items in a place where it won't easily be found. Foods, after properly sealed for storage, and medicines can be placed in hollow spaces in walls, floorboards, stairs, behind false walls in closets, or even in a hidden underground pantry dug underneath your foundation or basement.
Firearms are metallic; they can be detected by metal detectors unless you store them deep underground or in a place they won't think of looking right away� like sealed in wider metallic tubes, or away from your property. And if you by chance acquire or keep firearms knowing HOW TO USE THEM(sight alignment, trigger squeeze) and RELOADING AMMUNITION will be mandatory.
(IF YOU'VE NEVER USED A GUN BEFORE�
To use a gun, first find the PROPER AMMUNITION FOR IT. After loading, pointed end forward, the ammo into the magazine, cylinder, or chamber load the weapon. On semiautomatic pistols if the slide-that moving part on top-is locked back there's a small lever on the left side of the gun. Push on it and it will close. Otherwise you'll have to pull the slide back yourself.
Pistols are concealable, rifles and shotguns are for starting a fight. Shotguns you load from a port on the underside, behind the fore stock or it breaks open. Rifles come in several flavors; single shot, pump, bolt action, automatic, and feed from the chamber, a internal magazine or has a detaching magazine. The rifle you want first and foremost is a automatic rifle in a military common caliber. That coupled with proper marksmanship transforms you from a victim to a freedom fighter.
Here's the most important part: see what you're aiming at� put your FRONT SIGHT where you want the bullet to go� then WHILE YOUR FRONT SIGHT'S ON TARGET align your REAR SIGHT with your FRONT SIGHT. �When your FRONT SIGHT and REAR SIGHT aligned like this more or less:
O target
( ( I ))
IIIIII I GUN WITH FRONT AND REAR SIGHTS ALIGNED
�when you're aligned and aimed AT THE SAME TIME DO A SMOOTH, QUICK PRESS ON YOUR TRIGGER. The gun will go BOOM! and will push back in RECOIL. Don't be afraid; think of it like setting off a firework, only you're also sending a lead bullet at someone. If you did all the steps right you'll hit.
Dry firing a empty gun at a target is one way to practice. Even better is getting a air gun, paint some targets on a sheet of paper and going at it until you can aim and land every round in the black as fast as possible.)
Rule #5
While keeping the above rules in mind ALWAYS HELP OUT THOSE WHO ARE RESISTING! They, unlike you, have decided that there's nothing to lose and therefore deserve anyone's help who's willing to risk their lives. You think MARTIAL LAW is going away on it's own? Those bastards in black will have a sudden change of heart and do something worthwhile for a change and not oppress you? I like to dream too�
The VERY LEAST: have extra food, water for resistance fighters, basic medical supplies, ammo caches(hint, these should be concealed).
A secret room either built from some closet space or under the home can house a couple of fighting Patriots. Those who fight will need to keep hidden, yet able to communicate with fellow fighters. You can be a intermediary.
You have skills, like welding, machine tools, chemistry? You can take that secret room and make weapons, ammo, other things the resistance needs.
You have inside information? Share it. You have videography experience, tools? Make how-to videos on resisting the theft of your freedoms. You have medical training? Set up a underground hospital.
Not all Patriots can or should pick up a rifle and blow a traitor's head off. Riflemen need ammo, food, a place to rest, medical assistance, repairs for their weapons, intel on their next target. Most of all they and you need each other because a man alone doesn't stand a chance. Only by uniting in common cause with all one has to offer can the traitors be defeated, and Freedom restored to the land.
�If you're not at least giving aid to those helping to liberate you put this article down, go back to being a victim of government oppression; maybe you can get by being a pathetic lackey they'll thieve from and occasionally beat or take sex from.
Rule #6
With the utmost care develop a SURVIVAL NETWORK. This is a group of people with skills and/or resources who can help each other in areas they would be lacking on their own. It could be anything from extra food, medicine, repair parts, fuel, transportation-whatever.
In any given neighborhood you can have machinists(weapon makers), medical personel, drivers(good knowledge of local roads), gardeners(agriculture knowledgebase).
Petty bureaucrats secretly opposing martial law are prime candidates to spy, steal, or commit sabotage.
Computer technicians can hack government systems and create surveillance systems and guidence packages for missiles.
Construction workers can build secret rooms to hide anything from a arms cache to a secret factory. People in the media can smuggle cameras and work with computer techs to: bug enemy meetings, produce freedom media that documents sucessful means of resisting and present government atrocities for the reasons why.
Salesmen can "borrow" merchandise from their stores for use-anything and everything is useful.
Especially useful will be disgruntled cops and military who can provide everything from intel on raids to weapons to training.
Keep the numbers of your group "small": smaller cells are more difficult to penetrate by enemy agents and professional snitches. Keeping that in mind, a means of communication independent from wiretapped phones and audible eavesdropping devices must be developed amongst you.
Runners can be a athlete or a kid on a bike. They can carry small packages, or notes with a handy breakable vial of flammable liquid if discovered. With a sealed packet of potassium chlorate taped to it the gasoline(preferable) will automatically ignite; otherwise you'll have to actually light that incriminating evidence.
A mail drop can be a home, a hollowed out tree trunk, a hole in the ground, a open fence pole-anything. Just be sure it's discreetly out of sight of surveillance.
If God's really liking you, one of your group will be a SMART SURVIVALIST. This will be a exceedingly rare breed, because most in this group were smart enough to begin preparing for the collapse to begin with. They WEREN'T smart enough to avoid detection of their awareness and distrust of government. They signed form 4477 registration forms for their firearms, used credit cards and checks for their weapon and ammunition purchases, registered for weapons permits, or registered themselves with gun clubs and shooting organizations. These people more than likely got swept up in pre-dawn raids or got blasted resisting.
No the SMART SURVIVALIST prepared-and kept his mouth shut about those preps. He or she never signed federal permit forms for purchases or carry license. He or she presented a "average American" profile or totally disappeared. Get or find one in your group and you'll have a literal treasury of knowhow and resources to survive� maybe even start taking back a little?
Rule #7
AVOID GOVERNMENT MONITORING AND CONTROL! Know where the cameras are and how to avoid them. Know who patrols where, and what routine they follow so as to avoid contact. Know your snitches and always feed them b.s. if you can't avoid them.
Find ways around checkpoints. Side streets, forest paths, neighbor's yard, railroad tracks, tunnels; whatever go arounds to getting from point a to point b without a pack of government troops searching you, checking your ID. I can't and won't go into detail; how you find your ways is up to you.
Rule #8
AVOID A GOVERNMENT ROUNDUP. It could be from a disaster, a attack, or even because they've decided to end the pretense and show you what they really think of you and your "rights". You'll just wind up in a detention camp where your freedom of movement and resources will be strictly controlled. That means having a place to go away from your area, a means to get there, and supplies.
Very difficult to do in a martial law situation, with shortages and rationing at gunpoint. Remember the victims of Hurricane Katrina; how they were set up to be stranded in New Orleans by the government? How they were constantly baited with false hope of rescue for a week after the catastrophe? How they eventually were herded by FEMA into concentration camps?
You disregard Rule #1, you'll find out.
Get a safe house of your own-a friend or a abandoned home, a empty storefront or even a patch of woods. When the troops start going street to street, house to house have escape routes by lesser used streets, trails, whatever. You may have to go on foot, so have a light backpack with a few days worth of nonperishable food, portable water purifier, a first aid kit, a light sleeping bag-and your weapon. A mountain bike may be a more optimal and versatile escape mode than your road-dependent car. Better to be on the run, desperate-and have your freedom-than be imprisoned in a FEMA slave camp.
Rule #9
Find a way you can successfully resist. Probably not with guns or bombs unless you have the training, but there's plenty of ways you can monkeywrench the basic functioning of the state during MARTIAL LAW.
If you work for the state you have plenty of opportunities to mess things up, but even private firms are subcontracted by the government. You know who's just earning a paycheck, who's backing this war against the people, and who's getting off on "just following orders". If you can take action, great; concentrate most of your planning on getting away with the job. Otherwise, get contacts with Patriots and be the most reliable source of intelligence you can be.
Every bit of drag on the government beast helps-perhaps in botching that paperwork, breaking that surveillance camera in disguise, or misdirecting that bureaucrat or soldier cop that act might be the beginning of a butterfly effect of bringing down the state of MARTIAL LAW and restoring Freedom to our nation. Always keep that in mind. You must find your own way, but find it you must if you want what was stolen from you back.
SECTION 2: HOW DO YOU TAKE A NATION BACK THAT'S UNDER MARTIAL LAW?
To be honest it's probably the most difficult challenge anyone can face. Because you're starting a conflict from scratch inside the belly of the beast. You can't fight for territory when you've only got a few guns against divisions of enemy troops equipped with automatic weapons, armor, air support, the pitiful acquiescence of a "people" who long ago gave up Liberty for the trap of existence of a childlike, cushy debt slavery.
So the smart coup leaders that prosecute a martial law takeover will do it against a population that's already been pacified in one way or another. Now with the gilding stripped off their chains they're as frightened hostages willing to go along with ANYTHING massah state wants so long as they have some semblance of their former "lives". Aside from sickened, disgruntled vets, the American People; untrained in the military arts or even basic survival have been pacified-or the coup would never have taken place.
It is simply fear of loss after being so coddled, so divorced as a culture from personal responsibility -although enough exposure to fear and the human psyche has a way of becoming psychologically inured to it� which can lead to anger, and then revenge.
No: better way to pacify is to bring it on in a overwhelming torrent onto a population unprepared for it, unprepared for hardships. Take away their culture, their moral cores, their connections to God. Ply them with trinkets and baubles and other junk-get them to find solace in material things, in distractions like spectator sports, television. "Our" junk culture.
Keep them hypnotized by a junk culture while their means of sustenance-their jobs-are shipped overseas piecemeal, so they don't wake up.
Keep them hypnotized by a junk culture while their rights are legislated into impotence, irrelevance to the state's enforcers.
Keep them hypnotized by a junk culture, as even the know how of being able to survive outside the system; basics like growing food, repairing stuff, marksmanship is slowly stifled.
And all the time tell them they're free and prosperous. Eventually you'll have a people much like modern America's dumbed down materialistic debt slave. Such a people as ours, fed lies about our evil corrupt system as you find on TV are ready for a fall now as I write this. All that's needed is a plausable pretext, a cover story for the sheeple to accept the loss of their freedom in exchange for a impression of security in a land where the plenty of food and goods has been taken away.
Now some will see through the b.s.; but Humans can be stubbornly stupid when it comes to misdirected hope. These slaves, in every sense of the word, will actually defend the system that has enslaved them. Such is the enemy's genius at their social engineering. All those slavishly obeying the state in a martial law enviroment for some forlorn hope that their lives will somehow go back to the false paradise of the late 20th century will in effect be the enemy themselves.
You won't be alone. The enemy's genius is formidable, but not perfect. Quite frankly they're overconfident-and even if they weren't they're not God. They can't see all and will make fatal mistakes. The question will be, will you be man enough to exploit those mistakes to bring their downfall and save the Human Race?
How to beat the state when it has all the cards; can't take on an army with a pistol� but you can take on one of it's soldiers when you sneak up on him when they're not looking for it. If you're skilled with a rifle you can kill at distance and sneak off� if you have a supressor on your weapon you can do a whole lot of killing and not be detected. If you know chemistry, you can come up with all sorts of nasty stuff that can do damage to the enemy's expensive stuff.
If you have friends or fellow travellers you can do a lot more damage, even recruit if you have a video camera, editing system, and dvd duplicators(get someone skilled in video production) to advertise your victories and how others can duplicate your efforts, plus why they should fight in the first place.
If you're successful your area of operations will be overflowing with Patriots looking to bag as many jack booted thugs, bureaucrats and other traitors as they can get at. The excess Patriots can then spread out to other areas of our country, replicating as best they can what you've done.
With whole regions of the country infiltrated and secured secret industry can develop. Light weapons can be constructed at first, but eventually heavy weapons will be designed and made, and distributed. Ammunition, food, fuel, medicine-all can be manufactured on or made with basic machine tools and chemistry.
The time will come� if the enemy still clings to their forlorn hope of defeating the American People with the brainless thugs and sheeple that lick their boots� the time will come that OPEN WARFARE can begin and territory openly liberated.
After that� it'll probably devolve into a stalemate. The enemy isolated in their city/prison states unable to retake the surrounding countryside, but the Patriots not having enough strength to retake the cities. Or perhaps enough time because either the enemy develops some funky new superweapon, or their continued control of military assets overseas causes a outside power to intervene� on whose side� who knows?
BUT LET'S NOT LET THIS SCENARIO PLAY OUT!
Because a MARTIAL LAW will lead to CIVIL WAR� and national destruction� what I just described to you.
Let's NOT have a civil war, and spend the next century rebuilding. Much better to organize right now, as I write in October, 2005! We still have a political process we can use if we learn how to use it effectively. We can together find a small town and take it over-like the Libertarian's Free State Projects, only focused onto one town. Take that over, free it, and spread out from there. We as Americans need a standing example of what a Free State is; since we don't have the numbers to take over a state, we have to take over a town� so we can get the numbers to take over a state.
Even some in the traitorous elite don't want to see MARTIAL LAW because they recognize the exquisite control and enslavement the current American political system has over Americans, and want to keep their power. They can be used, then abused.
Individually, if you have guns, bury spares of your fighting arms, or sell them privately to new Patriot recruits. This will get easier as deteriorating conditions bring the reality of our situation home, and the government's conduct in New Orleans make personal preparation a priority.
Buy lots of ammo, food, medicine, reloading supplies. Get these at gun shows for CASH ONLY. Go to gun shows while they're still legal!
Find books on basic manufacturing processes-that's vital!
If you have EVER joined a gun group, bought guns and ammo with credit cards, checks, and/or signed registration forms and permits HIDE AND/OR SELL YOUR EXCESS GUNS TO MOTIVATED PATRIOTS! You WILL be searched first on "The Day", and if so much as a empty shell casing's found you can count on being starved, beaten and raped to death in a internment camp. Or maybe they'll take you anyway for being on record.
Start driving around: look for abandoned homes, businesses, and roads or trails that'll get you to them. Caves, forest haunts, old barns, the nastiest trailer in that tired old trailer park.
When you recruit, don't let them put their names on any forms that could implicate them in the eyes of the government. Keep their profile low-Patriots will need infiltrators, safe houses, spies� can't do that if you're still running around openly displaying a "I'm the NRA" sticker or a Gadsen Flag. Sorry.
Take your Recruits and:
*Toughen them up. Camping, survival courses, hand to hand combat courses. Even getting them to let their TV gather dust to do� anything will be of benefit. Demonstrations, projects, meetings, find places to hole up like anything without people around�
*Shooting, and lots of it! Paintball to teach tactics. A range of some sort for battle rifle practice. Airguns and required turning in of targets for their own practice-the airsoft guns are coming along as viable training tools and as soon as they perfect a paintball that'll cycle through them you should splurge a couple hundred bucks and get some guns and paintballs.
*Group buy ammo, parts, food, knowledge, a legal fiction to acquire property not under your own name, nor any connection to you. Have your stashes in several small units throughout the area you figure you're going to operate. The more the better, and, no one person should have knowledge of where all the caches are at. A cache should have ammo for the standard weapon/caliber your group should standardize on. I recommend a military pattern rifle in 7.62NATO, along with spare parts because they'll break down with all the shooting and abuse you're gonna heap on them. Enough ammo to refill all your carry mags for a mission. Also, nonperishable food. Should have lots of calories, carbs, protein. Medical supplies.
�No you're not going to get a lot of recruits. The enemy's cultural weapons are pretty damn powerful, and their mind control of Americans is exquisite-but not foolproof! On occasion a event will occur that will defy their spin control and b.s.-like the live coverage of Hurricane Katrina and their criminal abandonment of the Black Community to die in that open sewer so they'll abandon the city to foreclosers wanting a "Las Vegas on the Gulf". Point out the criminal abandonment of the government of their People. A lot of eyes were opened by that hurricane, and not all of them are going to shut again by the system's lies. Take your opportunities as they come.
I have a plan of peaceful political action that can be used, so here's a excerpt of my essay, "Message to Mr. and Mrs. America" at my blog freedomguide.blogspot.com:
Taking back the government-peacefully!
This is the preferable manner of us as groups reclaiming our Freedom. To be effective, one must have a understanding of America's political system as it relates to our cause. We have a president, a vice-president and their agents, a congress, a federal judicial system, and the duplication of this political layout among the states. Beyond that you have the many thousands of county and local governments. So what will work?
Take over the presidency?
It's long been proven that unless you have the blessings of the two official parties of this nation, you cannot seriously run for president. The closest independent candidate was Ross Perot back in 1992, and even being a billionaire didn't shield him from getting shredded by the media.
So, assuming the voting machines are honest(not)and the media's fair(not) you need the machine of a major party backing you(won't happen).
And the president can only do so much; America's system of government is extremely compartmentalized, so that unless you have a common ideology and party mechanism guiding and controlling the various components, it's impossible for one man to dictate policy. So a independent party president, one lone person against the rest of the hydra headed federal monstrosity is not only impossible, it's retarded even planning such a thing.
Congress?
Congress is made up of 540 members-100 senators and the rest in the house of representatives. All are elected in staggared election cycles so it would take approximately a decade of successful nationwide campaigning to create a majority party. Yes, congress writes the laws and taking it back is essential in our struggle, but even factoring out the two official parties and their political machines the structure of this body demands a massive political machine of our own.
Massive organizations that have a heirarchial structure have been penetrated, subverted and corrupted by our enemies since the beginning of time. It's a process that to them is a natural as breathing. Then there's all the fundraising that will be needed and we're not rich-the only ones with money in America are the same pack of vampires who've been sucking us dry. So a singular, national organization will not be sucessful.
Independent and rogue candidates however do have some success. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul of Texas, and at one time James Trafficant of Ohio sadly represent the successes. Most candidates are attorneys who've long ago prostituted themselves. They whore themselves to the political machine that will take them where they want to go. All they want is power and in exchange have legislated the monstrosity American government has become. The democrats and republicans, their bosses for all practical purposes appoint these elitists their congressional seats and they're prepared to spend whatever cash it takes to take or retain that seat. Vote fraud of course is part of their arsenal.
There are no rich left in these times who would willingly sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor-they're either sold out or scared. So any candidates for congress will have to be raised and funded by us. That means we have to do it in a grass roots manner. We have to build not one political machine, but a army of political machines that are independent of one another, yet cooperative.
Many small parties, one common agenda
This form of political resistance lends itself naturally to our groups. It will go like this:
The group helps other groups form. They in turn during the next local election cycle turn out and get the candidates they choose elected in town and county governments. Much of the oppressive laws plaguing us are drafted and enforced locally. Taking over local governments will not only give the freedom groups relief from local law enforcement harassment, it will give us the tools to revoke and repeal such things as:
Property taxes that allow the government to sieze that home you're working a lifetime to pay for if you miss one "rent" installment. Those in power whine that property taxes are for the schools and the children-isn't that what their gambling rackets known as the lotto are for? And they're willing to make you and yours homeless for the children� such evil makes me just want to shoot them. But let's try not to go there yet.
All those damned zoning restrictions, regulations, speed trap traffic laws designed to churn up "tax" revenue, laws criminalizing all sorts of things and actions that bother nobody. Think of any local ordinance that seems to have been drafted by a neurotic control freak� the list would be endless really!
Un-Constitutional, pro criminal gun control legislation. A big part of their program's disarming us so that we're helpless and have to rely on them exclusively for protection, establishing dependence. Not that the cops are legally obligated to your personal protection of course.
Anything that pledges cooperation with state and federal authorities, at least until we take our nation back!
Another book recommendation: HOW TO WIN A LOCAL ELECTION. Should be in your local bookstore.
When we take back a local government and bring that jurisdiction back into line with the classic tenants of American government, it will be a beacon of light, an example of successful peaceful resistance. It will immediately inspire and launch similar efforts in neighboring communities. Each composed of small, decentralized groups working together on the big problem, so that one day they can afford to bicker on the small stuff-that the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Christian Patriots and Conservatives currently do. So together, with control of enough cities and townships, the combined efforts of those groups can take over counties. With control of enough counties, an entire state can be taken over by our groups.
Why take that next step? The list of things we can do when we take back our local governments is vast, but then there would be the call to centralize governmental control with state and federal authorities. So when this begins we must be as aggressive as possible-being examples to others, advising, and most importantly WE MUST NOT FIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES OVER STUFF WE CAN DEBATE AFTER WE RETAKE OUR LAND! Backbiting will be exploited by our enemies, it will be our biggest downfall.
And if we can take the nation back�
There are many things we must do immediately, as soon as we can take back control of America's destiny.
(1)Secure our borders from any further infiltration. Whatever that takes, whatever manpower's available, we must find a way to seal up thousands of miles of hinterland border, and many thousands of miles more of coastline. This will take bringing our troops and ships home, and in effect end America's era of being used as a tool of global empire. It will be good, as being number one just makes you the one everyone else wants to take out.
At the same time, a heightened state of alert must be maintained if another power were to take advantage of our transistional phase and attempt some economic or military adventure against our interests. America will be painfully contracting from it's global economic empire as we attempt to revive a self-sufficient free republic and the last thing we'll need is for Muslims seeking revenge against the Empire, or China rolling the dice on a military adventure against us.
(2)Impose a flexible series of tariffs so that no matter where on Earth a imported good is made, it's cost after going through customs is just a few percent more than one made in America-with all the taxes still imposed. This must be implemented by law for I'd calculate twenty years; because this is the minimum time required to rebuild America's manufacturing economy. The rest of the world's just going to have to learn to live economically without the American consumer, and the American consumer is going to have to learn basic economics. It will be a horrifically shocking adjustment, and lead to a economic collapse-of the megacorporations. It's the bitterest medicine, but America and Americans have become almost terminally sick with the current system imposed upon us and those that don't immediately take steps to save themselves will need some hard lessons quick to bring them back to reality.
AND WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO?
Most important thing you can do? Pray. I'm serious. Don't do it in some gay mega-church and tithe to some blowdried huckster-do it like Jesus taught. Find a quiet place, quiet your mind, and open your heart. God WILL talk to you , or at least convey some feeling. You can't listen because you're out of practice listening so, practice. Eventually God will talk to you, and it's in your best interest to listen because God does love you!
He isn't looking to burn you for eternity for your petty imperfections. He's looking to liberate His People-all of us. Can't liberate a people if they're dead from some "bible prophecy" going on as scripted: wouldn't the events of Revelation carried out as written be a victory for the devil� wanting to possess and destroy? Humanity's all but destroyed in the end of that book. Why not fight to derail that outcome?
RESOURCES
Lindsay's Technical Books-basic knowhow and such.
Gun Show-to buy guns and ammo, but also camoflage, gun books. Look in the paper in the classifieds. Bring cash for discreet purchasing.
Google-start googling terms like militia, patriots, martial law.
RWVA.ORG-Revolutionary War Veterans Association; these people are working hard to resurrect rifle marksmanship in America, and you WILL need to be able to shoot straight if you want your meager supply of ammo to be effective.
Rense.com, rumormillnews.com, infowars.com, fromthewilderness.com-these are independent news media and also popular nexus points to web search and find out the truth.

Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.

The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Text of the New Law

HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

Ernest Hancock
Website: www.ernesthancock.com
Date: 05-03-2009
Subject: Gun Rights

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence.

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

()

were described by family and friends as a "clean-cut and faithful couple---good kids." Channon was a senior at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, where she met Christopher. She and Chris went out on a Saturday dinner date, after which Channon called her mom and told her that they were on the way to visit friends. But Channon and Christopher never arrived at their friends' house---or returned home. The next day, the mutilated and burned remains of Chris Newsom were found along a railroad track. Two days later, Channon's battered and burned body was recovered from a trash bin. Channon and Chris had been kidnapped after a carjacking, then brutally gang-raped and murdered. According to reports, they were subjected to lengthy torture in each other's presence, injected with chemical disinfectats to destroy DNA evidence, then strangled and shot. This appalling attack is more than a case study in sociopathic evil. It is also a case study in journalistic malpractice. Unless you tune in to the local Knoxville news, you are most likely hearingabout this heinous crime for the first time---even though it took place last January. True, there are some 17,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year, but this double murder was clearly far more barbaric, far more monstrous than most. I spent six years in law enforcement and have seen my share of war-ravaged third-world nations, but the deliberate and abject inhumanity of this case, and what it says about our culture, certainly got my attention. Yet, this story has failed to attract the attention of the national media. Could it be because the two victims were white and the five defendants are black? Regrettably, there is nothing new about the racial aspect of this story. Although blacks represent just 12 percent of the U.S. population, black perpetrators are convicted by their peers in more than half of all murder and manslaughter cases. And, per-capita black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than the inverse. The underlying social factors contributing to such racially unbalanced crime statistics have been delineated by many conservative black leaders and academicians. However, their solutions---most notably promoting individual responsibility and accountability rather than reliance on the nanny state and subscription to the "victimization" mentality---contradict liberal politicalobjectives, which seek to maintain black folks' status as wards of the state. I draw your attention to this case not only to mourn the loss of a beautiful young couple, but also to call attention to a despicable double standard in our mainstream media. In 1998, three white men in Jasper, Texas, beat a black man, James Byrd, then chained him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him three miles to his death. Not surprisingly, Byrd's murder received national media atention---as it should have. Of course, when the Left media jumps on a racial issue, especially in the run-up to a presidential election, Democrat politicians will be rushing the podium---in this case, opportunistically calling for "hate crimes" legislation. Then-Governor of Texas George Bush said there was little need for such legislation---after all, two of the defendants were sentenced to death and the third received a life sentence. That did not stop the NAACP from producing a political ad featuring the following voice-over from Mr. Byrd's daughter: "My father was killed. He was beaten, chained and dragged three miles to his death, all because he was black. So, when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimeslegislation, it was like my father was killed all over again." Clearly, hate was a motivating factor in Jasper, but it was also a motivating factor in Knoxville, which leads us to ask: Why do white-on-black hate crimes invariably result in a media feeding frenzy, while black-on-white hate crimes receive nary a mention? It is notable that both the Jasper and Knoxville crimes occurred at about the same period in presidential-election cycles---which perhaps explains the deafening silence of the national media's coverage of the Knoxville case. On the other hand, for the last year, the Left media was busy convicting three white Duke University lacrosse players for another "hate crime" ---the alleged gang rape of a black woman named Crystal Gail Mangum. Millions of dollars in defense-lawyer fees later, it turns out that Mangum was a liar and the real victims were in fact the accused: David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty. Egg still fresh on their faces, the national media quickly moved on to Don Imus and his racially insensitive remarks. In fact, the only black-on-white crime given as much media attention as the Byrd and Duke cases was O. J. Simpson's murder of his ex-wife and her companion---but that story was an MSM mainstay not because of Simpson's race, but because of his celebrity status. So what about Channon and Christopher? News of their murders was briefly posted on the AP wire by Knoxville news outlets, but major media outlets such as CNN, CBS, The New York Times and The Washington Post have yet to mention it, much less headline it. Clearly, there's a double standard when it comes to the media's coverage of interracial crime. What about the double standard when it comes to race-hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (who fabricated the Tawana Brawley rape hoax)? The only difference in racists such as Jackson and Sharpton and those in the KKK is that the latter are not Leftmedia celebs. Is the NAACP ready to crank out some political ads on hate crimes? Are Teddy Kennedy and all the congressional race-baiters calling for additional hate-crimes legislation? Not for this case they're not. The five men charged with the rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom will make their next court appearance on 17 May. It's safe to say that they will do so without a satellite news-link truck anywhere in sight. --------------------------------------------------
Doc

Reader Walter passed along this distressing sighting from Chris Floyd’s blog. American civil liberties were gutted last week, and the media failed to take note of it.

The development? If the president or one of his subordinates declares someone to be an “enemy combatant” (the 21st century version of “enemy of the state”) he is denied any protection of the law. So any trouble-maker (which means anyone) can be whisked away, incarcerated, tortured, “disappeared,” you name it.

Floyd’s commentary:

After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.” They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever — save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this horrid decision. The fact that the Supreme Court authorized this land grab says we no longer have an independent judiciary, that the Supreme Court itself is gutting the protections supposedly provided by the legal system. Per Floyd:

In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

Now Floyd saw this mainly as an issue of the treatment of enemy combatants and Obama hypocrisy about torture, which is bad enough:

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of “national emergency.” And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.

And yet this is what Barack Obama — who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer — has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution….let’s be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand — in court — that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities.

Yves here. The implications are FAR worse. Anyone can be stripped, with NO RECOURSE, of all their legal rights on a Presidential say so. Readers in the US no longer have any security under the law.

Roman citizens enjoyed a right to a trial, a right of appeal, and could not be tortured, whipped, or executed except if found guilty of treason, and anyone charged with treason could demand a trial in Rome. We have regressed more than 2000 years with this appalling ruling.

            Despite the heroic efforts of Sen. Bob Smith to turn it back, the latest batch of irrational and servile restrictions on the Second Amendment continues to ooze its way through that allegedly deliberative institution, the Congress. Perhaps because the gun control debate is now so entirely drenched in the emotive sludge that is the principal intellectual food of our political establishment, this seems a good moment to recall the deep reasons, the fundamental context, that must inform any responsible deliberations on the question of an armed citizenry.

            I believe that underlying all of the prominent issues of the day -- abortion, the breakdown of the family and of our educational institutions, the betrayal of our national sovereignty and military readiness, and the ongoing expansion of government's tyrannical claims to tax and regulate -- we can discern what is essentially one moral challenge which manifests itself in many areas. Simply stated, that challenge has to do with the corruption of our understanding of freedom, which leads to the abandonment of respect for law and individual responsibility, the twin pillars which ought to under-gird true freedom.

            As a free people, our way of life depends upon certain moral ideas. As a matter of personal conscience, I believe that Christianity most perfectly embodies those ideas. But since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with issues of public policy, we must derive these ideas from sources that are open to support from all the people.

            Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the principles and logic of our own Declaration of Independence, so American citizens and statesmen should make it the explicit basis for dealing with the moral crisis we now face.

            The Declaration is fundamentally a statement of the principles of justice that define the moral identity of the American people. It presents a certain concept of our human nature and draws out the political consequences of that concept.

            All human beings are created equal. They need no title or qualification beyond their simple humanity in order to command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their "unalienable rights." The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.

            But the Declaration is more than just an assertion of rights. It also makes a clear statement about the ultimate source of authority which commands respect for those rights. God, the Creator, the author of the laws of nature, is that source.

            Thus the effective prerequisite for human rights is respect for God's authority and His eternal laws. This is also the prerequisite for the idea of government based upon consent, which includes free elections, representation, due process of law, etc. If we accept the logic of our Declaration of Independence, this reverence for God is not just a matter of religious faith. It is the foundation of justice and citizenship in our republic.

            Therefore, our freedom is derived from our respect for law, especially the highest law as embodied in the will of the Creator. Thus freedom, rightly understood, cannot be confused with mere licentiousness. It first of all involves the duty to respect its own foundations in the laws of nature and nature's God. That's why our rights are "unalienable," which means that we do not have the right to surrender or destroy them by our choice or actions.

            Indeed, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have the duty to resist and overthrow the power responsible. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral and material capacity to resist tyranny. These principles constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain.

            It is in the context of these principles that we must understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the duties that it implies. The Founders added the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover those rights.

            If we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. It is very hard to do this if the government has all the weapons, something that our Founders and the generations before and after them knew from repeated and  first-hand experience, as well as from a study of history. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

            The claim that the Second Amendment is principally concerned with the maintenance of state militias -- military bodies under the direction and control of state governments -- is not just historically false, it is also fundamentally incoherent. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses. The gun control movement is incompatible with the sovereignty of the people, because it aims to eliminate one of the key material supports of that sovereignty.

            This is not the principal danger of the gun control movement, however. Perhaps more important than the physical disarmament the government is attempting is the moral disarmament that accompanies it. If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?

            The advocates of gun control take as their first principle that the American people are morally incompetent creatures of passion. The America they envision for us is, accordingly, more like a national 24-hour day-care center than a self-governing republic of free men and women. If we agree to accept this apparently comfortable arrangement, we will have to check our citizenship at the door along with our guns.

            If, on the other hand, we intend to exercise the duties of self-government and justice that are our patrimony as free and rational creatures, then we will need to think clearly and coherently about securing the means necessary to do so. We must defend the moral self-confidence of America by reasserting the capacity of our people to make the most important decisions and bear the most important responsibilities themselves. And we must retain the material means necessary to shoot the windows out of the national day-care center, if it comes to that.

            Second Amendment rights are sacred because of their connection to higher rights and higher duties, which are the very substance of liberty and justice, and to the God that America has always acknowledged as the source of both. We cannot surrender our guns without surrendering the vision of human dignity under God which is our national soul. The slow erosion of our national understanding of this fact is continuing in the Congress. Only a citizenry armed with a clear understanding of what is at stake can ultimately save us from the civic imbecility to which the gun control movement leads. By disarming, we will confess to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty, and wish our rulers to take up this burden in our stead. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves --  and slaves, at least, we will soon become.

            The terrible history of the 20th century should make clear enough that subjection to unlimited government is not desirable. But a clear and thoughtful examination of our national principles teaches us also that it is our duty to shun such servitude. It is our right, and it is our duty, to remain free.

******************************************

Mr. Keyes has also stated: "If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects [firearms] necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself."

******************************************

This was an article in the LA Times for Sunday, November 7, 1999

The Last Line of Defense
The right to bear arms is a matter of individual safety and,
ultimately, freedom. The issue goes far beyond gun nuts.

By ROBERT J. COTTROL

The central premise of the gun control movement is that society becomes more civilized when the citizen surrenders the means of self-defense, leaving the state a monopoly of force.

That this premise goes largely unchallenged is the most remarkable feature of our gun control debate. We are ending a century that has repeatedly witnessed the consequences of unchecked state monopolies of force. University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, one of the leading students of democide (mass murder of civilian populations by governments), has estimated that nearly 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in our century. The familiar list of mass murderers--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot--only scratches the surface. The mass slaughter of helpless, unarmed civilian populations continues in Sudan, Rwanda, parts of the former Yugoslavia and East Timor.

The reluctance of outside forces to intervene is well documented. And yet the obvious question is strangely absent: Would arms in the hands of average citizens have made a difference? Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000 to 70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2 million to 3 million armed Cambodians? The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable that they are not being asked.

Need Americans have such concerns? We have been spared rule by dictators, but state tyranny can come in other forms. It can come when government refuses to protect unpopular groups--people who are disfavored because of their political or religious beliefs, their ancestry or the color of their skin. Our past has certainly not been free of this brand of state tyranny. In the Jim Crow South, for example, government failed to protect blacks from extra-legal violence. Given our history, it's stunning that we fail to question those who would force us to rely totally on the state for defense.

Nor should our discussion be limited to foreign or historical examples. The lives and freedoms of decent, law-abiding citizens throughout our nation, especially in our dangerous inner cities, are constantly threatened by criminal predators. This has devastated minority communities. And yet the effort to limit the right to armed self-defense has been most intense in such communities. Bans on firearm ownership in public housing, the constant effort to ban pistols poor people can afford--scornfully labeled "Saturday night specials" and "junk guns"--are denying the means of self-defense to entire communities in a failed attempt to disarm criminal predators. In many under-protected minority communities, citizens have been disarmed and left to the mercy of well-armed criminals.

This has led to further curtailment of freedom. Consider initiatives in recent years to require tenants in public housing to allow their apartments to be searched. First, police failed for decades to protect citizens in many of our most dangerous public housing projects. Next, as the situation became sufficiently desperate, tenants were prohibited from owning firearms for their own defense. Finally the demand came, "Surrender your right to privacy in your home." The message could not be clearer: A people incapable of protecting themselves will lose their rights as a free people, becoming either servile dependents of the state or of the criminal predators who are their de facto masters.

All of this should force us to reconsider our debate over arms and rights. For too long, it has been framed as a question of the rights of sportsmen. It is far more serious: The 2nd Amendment has something critical to say about the relationship between the citizen and the state. For most of human history, in most of the nations in the world, the individual has all too often been a helpless dependent of the state, beholden to the state's benevolence and indeed competence for his physical survival.

The notion of a right to arms bespeaks a very different relationship. It says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but also that of his community.

This is a serious right that takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of life and ultimately of freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless and that without the means, the right to self-defense is but an empty promise.

Our serious thinkers have been absent from this debate for too long. The 2nd Amendment is too important to leave to the gun nuts.

What Is a Structured Settlement?

A structured settlement can provide for payment in pretty much any schedule the parties choose. For example, the settlement may be paid in annual installments over a number of years, or it may be paid in periodic lump sums every few years.

Benefits of a Structured Settlement

A structured settlement can protect a plaintiff from having settlement funds dissipated, when they are necessary to pay for future care or needs. Sometimes a structured settlement can help protect a plaintiff from himself - some people simply aren't good with money, or can't say no to relatives who want to "share the wealth", and even a large settlement can be rapidly exhausted. Minors may benefit from a structured settlement as well, such as a settlement which provides for certain costs during their youth, an additional disbursement to pay for college or other educational expenses, and then one or more disbursements in adulthood. An injured person who has long-term special needs may benefit from having periodic lump sums with which to purchase medical equipment or modified vehicles.

Potential Disadvantages of Structured Settlements

Some people will do better by accepting a lump sum settlement, and investing it themselves. Many standard investments will give a greater long-term return than the annuities used in structured settlements.

Selling a Structured Settlement

Keep in mind that companies which buy structured settlements intend to profit from their purchase, and sometimes their offers may seem quite low. You may benefit from approaching more than one company in relation to the sale of your settlement, to make sure that you obtain the highest payoff. You also want to be sure that the company which wants to buy your settlement is established, well-funded, and reputable - you don't want a fly-by-night outfit to obtain the rights to your annuities but to disappear or go bankrupt before paying you the buyout money. You may have to go to court to get a judge to approve the buyout. It is usually a good idea to consult with a lawyer before entering into an agreement to sell your settlement.

Special Considerations

Excessive Commissions - Annuities can be highly profitable for insurance companies, and they often carry very large commissions. It is important to ensure that the commissions charged in setting up a structured settlement don't consume an inappropriate percentage of its principal.

thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"

By Naomi Wolf

Posted October 8, 2008.

Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.

 Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. … Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"

"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

"But these orders are now legal?'"

"Correct."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"

"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"

"Nothing."

"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"

"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"

"They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

"Does Congress have any military of their own?"

"No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."

"Who can arrest the President?"

"The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."

[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]

"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"

"Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"

"Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?"

"Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President."

"But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?"

"Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."

"But it's a coup already."

"Yes."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/?page=entire

by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A while back, my decision to avoid – or at least postpone – paying tribute to the state for the "privilege" of operating my car on the roads I helped pay for, put me face-to-face with a uniformed member of the government''s Department of Useless and Costly Rules Enforcement. This resulted in my getting a $180.00 ticket for my delinquent payment of tribute. Salt to the wound.

After dragging things out as long as I could with a couple of continuances, I finally had to go to something they refer to as "Traffic Court." But traffic court where I live bears no resemblance to anyplace you might expect plaintiffs and defendants to argue their positions in hopes of securing some sort of justice. It’s merely where the sheep line up to get fleeced.

At the end an hour-long ride through morning rush hour traffic I arrived at the courthouse about ten minutes early for my nine o''clock court time. Along with what appeared to be at least 200 other people with the same court time. After placing my watch, keys and other personal property in a basket, and removing my boots, I made it through the metal detectors without need for a strip search and took my place the end of a line so long I couldn''t see the front of it. By government standards, this was a fast-moving line. It took a mere fifteen minutes to make my way to the front where I came face-to-face with the uniformed, gun toting paper checker.

As luck would have it, I was missing a piece of paper no one told me would be necessary to dispose of the matter. "Now what do I do?" I asked the uniformed gun toter with a big, protruding doughnut belly. Ten seconds after telling me I absolutely had to have the missing paper, he informed me I didn''t really need it; I just needed to go out into the hall, find my name on a list and make note of the number beside it. I found the list. It was in front of another long line. This line was populated by other people who apparently were also not told to bring this necessary – but not necessary – piece of paper with them to their nine o''clock court time.

After making my way to the front of the line, I thoroughly checked the list of hundreds of names without finding mine. So I got back into the original line to make my way back to the uniformed checker of necessary but not necessary papers.

"Your name''s not on the list? Well, then, you''ll have to go see the DA."

In traffic court, the District Attorney is a person living an occupational nightmare after all those years in law school. He (or in this case, she) sits on a chair behind about two inches of bullet-proof glass with a little slit at the bottom, just big enough for a little air to pass through, but not enough sound to make any meaningful conversation possible. In front of the bullet-proof glass is another long line. A line I stood in for forty-five minutes, until it was finally my turn to shout through the tiny slit under the glass.

"You need a copy of your original ticket," the DA shouted at me. "You''re in the wrong line. You need to be in that (long) line over there."

At this point, I''ve been in the courthouse long enough to be an hour late for my court time, still trying to get a copy of the necessary but not necessary paper. Finally at the front of the paper acquisition line, I''m told the charge for the paper would be two dollars. I had no cash with me; I only had credit cards. So I placed a card on the counter, at which time I was told I would have to present my card to the cashier.

"Where''s the cashier?"

"Outside," she told me, pointing to the door. After roaming around for about ten minutes, looking for the cashier, I learned that "outside" meant on another floor. Fortunately, the line in front of the cashier moved a little faster than the others. Unfortunately, the cashier didn''t accept credit cards.

"You''ll have to go to the ATM and bring back cash."

"Where'' the ATM?"

"Out there," she said, pointing to the door.

In govspeak, "out there" apparently translates to "another floor." Yes, the ATM was on yet another floor. After visiting the ATM, returning to the cashier and paying the two dollars, I went back to the line for the acquisition of the necessary but not necessary papers, and then back to the line to shout at the DA. While standing in that line for the second time, I noticed no one was sitting behind the bullet-proof glass. A small sign informed me that the DA takes a fifteen minute break every hour. Apparently sitting behind bullet-proof glass, shuffling papers, is grueling work that necessitates a smoke and coffee break every hour. Meanwhile thirty or forty people are obediently cooling their heels in a now stationary line.

By now I''d been in the courthouse more than two hours, just trying to acquire a necessary but not necessary piece of paper. Finally. My turn to shout through the glass. Again. I showed her the necessary but not necessary piece of paper I''d spent more than two hours to obtain. And I showed her the paper that proved I''d paid the mandated thirty dollars to confirm that my tires had tread and my headlights worked. I then told her that I hadn''t yet paid the taxes or bought the current permission-to-be-on-the-road sticker for my license plate.

She stared at me through the thick bullet-proof glass for what seemed like an eternity. Then she scribbled something on that necessary but not necessary piece of paper and said, "Go!"

"Jeeeeeeze. Go where this time?"

"Go. Just go."

"Go?"

"Go. Case dismissed."

I wasn''t about to argue with that. As I turned to walk away, I heard the DA shout through the glass, "Next!" And I''m asking myself, "What that was all about?" I did pay the thirty dollars to prove my late model German car was indeed safe enough to be on the government''s roads. But I readily admitted that I didn''t pay the roughly three hundred dollars in annual taxes for the privilege of being on those roads. And there was the matter of the $180.00 fine for failing to do so.

No pleading my case. No arguing. No pissing, moaning and begging. Just case dismissed. Was I living in some weird Lewis Carroll story?

On my way out of the courthouse, I passed by the room I would have been in had I had my necessary but not necessary paper, at least half of the people with nine o''clock court times were still there. It was now just shy of noon. The cost for leaving my car in the courthouse parking garage was four dollars. But on my way back the garage, I noticed the adjacent sandwich shop would validate my parking ticket if I spent two dollars on a really bad sandwich. So I got a cheap sandwich and free parking, which negated the two dollars I spent on the necessary but unnecessary paper.

While trying to make myself eat the two-dollar sandwich, I wondered what my morning-long experience was all about. First and foremost, I figured, it was about job security. From the security goons, to the paper checkers, the cashiers and the DA, to the dozens of people wandering around with guns, none of these peoples'' jobs had anything to do with public safety, justice or anything else one would consider useful in normal times or a normal country. But I would expect even the lowliest of them make more money than I do for doing real work.

But it was also about bullying and control. "Cross us and this is what you get." The whole experience was irritating at every turn, but what was more discomforting to me was looking at all the other people in "court" for some meaningless infraction. They were so docile. Glassy eyed. Obedient. Like sheep. Shuffling their feet and looking straight ahead like characters in a George Romero zombie movie. Like all this was okay. As if the whole circus actually made sense and they deserved the aggravation and humiliation they were getting for violating one of the state''s silly, arbitrary little rules.

My experience in the courthouse wasn''t scary; it was irritating. What was scary is all those other people who apparently weren''t irritated. The enablers.

The enablers of government waste and corruption, from the District of Criminals, all the way down to the local courthouse. They don''t even care; they just accept it all as if it makes sense. To me, the enablers of government abuse are scarier than the governments they enable.

April 6, 2011

J. Paul Henderson [ This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ] lives in Charlotte, North Carolina. See his site.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

    For several years now, a variety of high public officials have openly declared that the federal income tax laws are incredibly complex and need to be either substantially revised or scrapped. But after making such statements, these officials invariably fail to identify what specific parts of the tax laws suffer from this condition, choosing instead to conceal them. Are the objectionable parts of the federal tax code secretly and quietly discussed behind closed Congressional committee doors? If they are, why doesn't someone inform the American public of these deficiencies so that they may likewise participate in this debate? Is it possible that it is the major and not various minor features of the tax laws which are complex, even uncertain? Is it possible that these major features are so fundamentally flawed that they simply cannot be repaired? If so, what is the legal consequence of this complexity?

    It is alleged that the legal duties arising from the tax laws are clearly known to all, but there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, in United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160 (4th Cir. 1974), at issue was the validity of the conviction of an Indian for tax evasion. Here, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had informed Mrs. Critzer that the money she derived from real property located within a reservation was not taxable; Mrs. Critzer relied upon this advice and failed to report such income. But, the IRS maintained a contrary position and indicted and secured her conviction for tax evasion. This conviction was reversed on the grounds that the unsettled nature of this field of law precluded any conviction:

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax?

    To determine whether and to what extent there is any uncertainty or conflict of authority regarding the nature of the federal income tax requires at least a short review of the fundamental decisions concerning it. In 1894, Congress adopted an income tax act which was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912 (1895). The Pollock Court found that the income tax was a direct tax which could only be imposed if the tax was apportioned; since this tax was not apportioned, it was found unconstitutional. In an effort to circumvent this decision, the 16th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 and allegedly ratified by the states in 1913. As a result, various opinions arose regarding the legal effect of the amendment. Some factions contended that the 16th Amendment simply eliminated the apportionment requirement for one specific direct tax known as the income tax, while others asserted that the amendment simply withdrew it from the direct tax category and placed the income tax in the indirect, excise tax class. These competing contentions and interpretations were apparently resolved in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916).[1] Rather than attempt a determination of what the Court held in this case, it is more important to learn what various courts have subsequently declared Brushaber to mean.

    A little more than a week after the opinion in Brushaber, similar issues were present for decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916), which involved the question of whether an inadequate depletion allowance for a mining company constituted a direct tax on the company's property. As to Baltic's contention that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," the Court rejected it by stating that this contention:

    However, the victory of defining what the 16th Amendment meant was short lived and later decisions commenced a course which appears to have changed the meaning of Brushaber, or at least provided fertile grounds for an entirely different and opposite construction of it. In William E. Peck and Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-73, 38 S.Ct. 432, 433 (1918), which involved a tax imposed on export earnings, the Court seemed to indicate that what was accomplished by the amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax, an argument rejected in Baltic:

    From a study of Brushaber, it is thus possible for someone to rely upon those portions of the two phrases at the beginning and ending of 240 U.S. 19 to believe that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment." If one fell into that error, this belief would be magnified by the above highlighted portions of Eisner. Confusion abounds as to the correct interpretation of Brushaber, and this is obvious because various courts of this nation have relied upon this line of authority to reach diametrically opposing results.

    The state courts have been particularly split over the nature of an income tax and whether it constitutes a direct property tax or an indirect/excise, which is not imposed on property. A small number of them hold that an income tax is a direct property tax; see Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, 204 Ala. 492, 86 So. 56, 58 (1920); State v. Pinder, 108 A. 43, 45 (Del. 1919); Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909 (1932); Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 108 N.E. 570 (1915); Trefry v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 116 N.E. 904 (1917); Maguire v. Tax Comm. of Commonwealth, 230 Mass. 503, 120 N.E. 162, 166 (1918); Hart v. Tax Comm., 240 Mass. 37, 132 N.E. 621 (1921); In re Ponzi, 6 F.2d 324 (D.Mass. 1925); Kennedy v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747 (1926); In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Mass. 583, 165 N.E. 900, 902 (1929); Hutchins v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N.E. 605, 608 (1930); Bryant v. Comm. of Corps. & Tax'n., 291 Mass. 498, 197 N.E. 509 (1935); Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81, 82 (1933)[2]; Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936); State ex rel Manitowoc Gas Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 161 Wis. 111, 152 N.W. 848, 850 (1915); and State ex rel Sallie F. Moon Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 166 Wis. 287, 163 N.W. 639, 640 (1917). A far larger number of state courts disagree with the cases noted above and have held that an income tax is not a property tax but an excise; see Purnell v. Page, 133 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 534, 535 (1903); State v. Frear, 148 Wis. 456, 134 N.W. 673, 692 (1912); Opinion of Justices, 77 N.H. 611, 93 A. 311, 313 (1915); Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 339, 205 S.W. 196 (1918); Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4 (1921); Stanley v. Gates, 179 Ark. 886, 19 S.W.2d 1000, 1001 (1929); Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga. 370, 153 S.E. 58 (1930); Diefendorf v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 619, 10 P.2d 307, 313 (1932); O'Connell v. State Board, 95 Mont. 91, 25 P.2d 114, 119 (1933); Maxwell v. Kent-Coffey Mfg. Co., 204 N.C. 365, 168 S.E. 397, 400 (1933); Reed v. Bjornson, 191 Minn. 254, 253 N.W. 102, 109 (1934); Opinion of the Justices, 133 Me. 525, 178 A. 621, 623 (1935); Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, 209 Ind. 172, 199 N.E. 372, 377 (1935)(citing Brushaber); Marshall v. South Carolina Tax Comm., 178 S.C. 57, 182 S.E. 96, 97 (1935); Hunton v. Commonwealth, 166 Va. 229, 183 S.E. 873, 876 (1936); Reynolds Metal Co. v. Martin, 269 Ky. 378, 107 S.W.2d 251, 259 (1937); Vilas v. Iowa State Bd. of Assess. & Review, 223 Iowa 604, 273 N.W. 338, 342 (1937); Oursler v. Tawes, 178 Md. 471, 13 A.2d 763, 768 (1940); California Co. v. State, 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382 (1959); and Burns v. State Bureau of Revenue, 79 N.M. 53, 439 P.2d 702, 706 (1968).

    This split of authority evident within the state cases also manifests itself in the federal appellate courts. For example, in the First Circuit it is difficult to determine the meaning of the 16th Amendment because in United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986), that court held that the "16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income." Next door in the Second Circuit, there is uncertainty revealed by three completely inconsistent cases. In Jandorf's Estate v. Commissioner, 171 F.2d 464, 465 (2nd Cir. 1948), that court declared, "It should be noted that estate or inheritance taxes are excises * * * while surtaxes, excess profits and war-profits taxes are direct property taxes." Surtaxes are the graduated taxes of the income tax, so this court holds that the personal income tax is a direct tax. But in Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2nd Cir. 1984), that court stated that the personal income tax was an indirect tax: "[T]he Supreme Court explicitly stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and are not subject to the necessity of apportionment." But compare United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 46 (2nd Cir. 1988)(citing Parker, infra, for the proposition that the tax is direct). In the Third Circuit, it has been held in one case that all income taxes are direct, but in another that only some are direct; see Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894, 897 (3rd Cir. 1943)("[A]n income tax is a direct tax upon income therein defined"); and Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d 16, 19 (3rd Cir. 1960)("Pollock * * * only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier").

    In the remainder of the Circuits, the difference of opinion as to whether the federal income tax is a direct or indirect tax is likewise as profound and confusing. In the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, the income tax has been held to be an excise tax; see White Packing Co. v. Robertson, 89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937)("The tax is, of course, an excise tax, as are all taxes on income * * * "); and United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723, 725 (6th Cir. 1992)("Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt do indeed state that for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an excise tax"). However, in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, arguments that this tax is an excise have been squarely rejected and determined to be frivolous. For example, in Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984), the court clearly rejected the contention that this tax is an excise:

    A direct tax applies to and taxes property while an indirect, excise tax is never imposed on property but usually an event such as sales; see Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 50 S.Ct. 46, 47 (1929).[4] Those courts which hold that an income tax is a direct property tax believe that income is property, yet those which hold that this tax is an excise declare that income is not property. If the courts of this nation cannot identify what is the nature of this ephemeral item known as income,[5] then how can the American people? While in Critzer the difference of opinion existed between two government agencies, here the difference of opinion is among many different courts, a situation far more serious than that presented in Heller. Aren't we being subjected to a monumental due process problem far bigger than that to which Mrs. Critzer was subjected?

    The question of what constitutes property is an issue governed by state law; see Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13, 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1280 (1960), and United States v. Baldwin, 575 F.2d 1097, 1098 (4th Cir. 1978). The definition of the term "property" is very broad; see Samet v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank, 247 F. 669, 671 (4th Cir. 1917)("Property is * * * everything that has exchangeable value or goes to make up a man's wealth"). It includes money, credits, evidences of debt, and choses in action; see State v. Ward, 222 N.C. 316, 22 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1942). Income is property according to St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States, 617 F.2d 1293, 1301 (8th Cir. 1980). Accrued wages and salaries are likewise property; see Sims v. United States, 252 F.2d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 1958), aff'd., 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959); and Kolb v. Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 1966). Accounts receivable are property; see In re Ralar Distributors, Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993). Even private employment and a profession are considered property; see United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 798 (5th Cir. 1975).

    There appears to be no dispute about the plain requirements of the Constitution that direct taxes must be apportioned and that indirect taxes must be uniform. Likewise as shown above, there is a line of decisional authority regarding the generally accepted proposition that income is property, although there are courts which deny this. In James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, 756 n. 11 (10th Cir. 1992), the 10th Circuit made it clear that income is property. Pursuant to United States v. Lawson, supra, the Tenth Circuit declares that the property known as income is subject to tax under the view that the 16th Amendment eliminated the apportionment requirement for a specific class of property known as income. However, there is ample contrary judicial authority which demonstrates that this construction of the 16th Amendment is erroneous and that the purpose, intent and meaning of the amendment was the opposite construction and that the amendment did not free this one type of property tax from the regulation of apportionment. An error in a logical argument involving a single premise affects the ultimate conclusion. If the Tenth Circuit accepted the proposition that the meaning of the 16th Amendment was contrary to that asserted in Lawson, but adhered to its decision in James, a valid legal argument would logically follow that property known as income could not be taxed because the current income tax is not apportioned.

    This same problem, but from an opposite perspective, is evident within the Fourth Circuit where the existing authority of Sims v. United States, supra, declares that income is property. Since that Circuit holds that the federal income tax is an excise via White Packing Co. v. Robertson, supra, and since the definition of an excise tax appearing in that Court's opinion in New Neighborhoods, Inc. v. West Virginia Workers' Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714, 719 (4th Cir. 1989), excludes a tax on property, does it not logically follow that there is a tremendous gap in the decisional authority within the Fourth Circuit which presents a view of the law that the property known as income might not be taxed? Based on these cases, is this tax clearly imposed?

    Review of the above noted authority in other circuits and states only demonstrates how profound this problem is. In the Sixth Circuit, United States v. Gaumer, supra, declares the income tax to be an excise; via Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960), the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that an excise tax cannot be used to tax the right to earn a living. Which authority do the people living in Tennessee follow? If they follow the word of their own state court, they might be charged with a tax crime, yet they have a right to rely upon the word of the courts, even when erroneous; see United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1987). A different problem emerges in the Eighth Circuit where United States v. Francisco, supra, holds that an income tax is a direct property tax. Missouri is within the Eighth Circuit, but the Missouri Supreme Court held in Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, supra, that an income tax is an excise; if income is not property under Missouri state law,[6] then how does this federal property tax operate as to this "non-property"? Iowa is also in the Eighth Circuit, but in Hale v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review, 223 Iowa 321, 271 N.W. 168, 172 (1937), that court held that "income is not property within the law of taxation." If state law holds that income is not property yet the federal appellate court for the same state holds the exact opposite, is not a serious uncertainty of the law, due process problem clearly evident?

    The decisional authority within the Fifth Circuit, Parker v. Commissioner, supra, holds that this tax is a direct property tax, but a contrary view prevails in Mississippi where its citizens are told that an income tax is an excise; see Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, supra. The courts in Wisconsin and Indiana, via State v. Frear, supra, and Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, have found this tax to be an excise, yet the federal appellate court which encompasses these two states has an entirely different view of the object of the tax; see Coleman v. Commissioner, supra. The Tenth Circuit, which sits in Denver, held in Lawson, supra, that the income tax is a property tax, yet a state court in the same city has declared that such a tax is an excise; see California Co. v. State, supra.

    In Alabama, income is property via Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, supra; but next door in Georgia via Featherstone v. Norman,[7] it is not. While the Eleventh Circuit appears not as yet to have passed upon the question of what type of tax the federal income tax is, consultation of Supreme Court decisions still doesn't resolve the question. By following the rationale of Brushaber and Bromley, supra, which declare the federal income tax to be an excise tax which is not imposed on property, are the people of Alabama exempt from this tax while those in Georgia are not? But by reversing the choice of Supreme Court decisions to follow in an effort to resolve this controversy merely changes the results but not the problem. By following Eisner which seems to hold that the tax is imposed on property, do the people of Alabama owe the tax while those in Georgia do not? These differing conclusions plainly reveal a serious uncertainty about what is taxed, and no attempt is made herein to offer any explanation for all of this inconsistency; but it is clear that this uncertainty of the law creates a serious due process problem.

    The problems created by the failure of American courts to determine what is the nature of an income tax are very broad. Any particular federal tax must fit within one of the two constitutional tax categories and once the category is known, it may be determined whether the tax in question complies with the constitutional regulation for imposition of that type of tax. A direct tax which is uniformly imposed would still be unconstitutional as one imposed in the absence of apportionment. An indirect tax imposed via apportionment would likewise be unconstitutional since it would not be uniform. But if it is impossible to determine which class any given tax falls within, then it is likewise impossible to determine which constitutional regulation, if any, applies to that tax. If the courts of this nation hold that an income tax is both an excise tax and a direct one, it cannot with any degree of certainty be determined what constitutional restrictions might or might not apply to this tax or what is even the meaning of the 16th Amendment. What's more, it cannot be determined what is income, whether property or non-property.

    But this is not the only fundamental problem for the federal income tax. Additionally, the question of which statute controls the duty to file income tax returns is subject to judicial dispute. In Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219, 222, 64 S.Ct. 511, 513 (1944), the Court noted that §54 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor for Internal Revenue Code §6001, related to the filing requirement; see also Updike v. United States, 8 F.2d 913, 915 (8th Cir. 1925). In True v. United States, 354 F.2d 323, 324 (Ct.Cl. 1965), United States v. Carlson, 260 F.Supp. 423, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 1966), White v. Commissioner, 72 U.S.T.C. 1126, 1129 (1979), McCaskill v. Commissioner, 77 U.S.T.C. 689, 698 (1981), Counts v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 426, 427 (11th Cir. 1985), Blount v. Commissioner, 86 U.S.T.C. 383, 386 (1986), and Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), these courts held that Internal Revenue Code §6011 related to the filing requirement. In United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 1980), United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1192, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1991), and United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991), those courts held that Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011 and 6012 governed this duty. In contrast, the cases of Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992), held that only §6012 governed this duty. But in United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982), none of the above sections were mentioned and it was held that §7203 required returns to be filed. It is very apparent that there is even a diversity of opinion among judges regarding which sections of the Internal Revenue Code govern the requirement to file income tax returns.

    The observation of the dissenting judge in Culliton v. Chase, 25 P.2d at 89-90, that this "disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," is particularly appropriate here. If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that a serious due process problem exists within the federal income tax laws.

    If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that the problem with this tax involves these basic questions. Since even the courts are split over these questions, shouldn't we just scrap the whole thing since the condition which exists is incapable of repair?

    In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law:

END NOTES:

[1] In this decision, there is a very lengthy sentence which contains the following phrase: " * * * by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class," 240 U.S., at 19. This phrase and the one at the very end of this paragraph are almost identical. This language was used to describe the contention the Court was rejecting, not approving.

[2] The dissent in this case noted the wide divergence of the authority as to whether the tax is a direct property tax or an excise. It commented: "The disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," 25 P.2d, at 89-90.

[3] It is interesting to note that this court relied upon those portions of the Brushaber decision quoted previously where the Court noted the argument it was precisely rejecting. If the judges who are legal scholars are capable of completely misunderstanding this opinion, is it not also probable that the American people and even lawyers can make the same mistake?

[4] The Court defined these two types of taxes in the following manner: "While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct * * * a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned * * * "

[5] At least one court has declared that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code; see United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976).

[6] The Court in Ludlow, 205 S.W. at 198, declared that income is not property: "It is apparent therefore, that when the Constitution of 1875 was adopted, the word 'property' as the basis for taxation, proportioned to value, had acquired a fixed and definite meaning preclusive of personal incomes, occupations, privileges and similar sources of revenue."

[7] See 153 S.E. at 65: "Hence a man's income is not 'property' within the meaning of a constitutional requirement that taxes shall be laid equally and uniformly upon all property within the State."