Thursday, August 8, 2013

"James Tim Turner's innocence"

Reader: "James Tim Turner's innocence"
Posted By: hobie [Send E-Mail]
Date: Wednesday, 7-Aug-2013 17:05:13
(Thanks, E. :)
Your message included a derogatory remark about our own Susoni. I've removed that, not only because it was absurd on its face but because there's a "no ad hominem attacks" rule here in the RMN Reading Room.
In all likelihood, Turner's sentencing was a matter of commerce and contract, an administrative matter within Corp. US, rather than a matter of justice within the original jurisdiction Constitutional government.
If that's the situation, Constitutional arguments will be of little effect, as the commercial administrative courts lack jurisdiction to give hearing to Constitutional matters. It's a catch-22.
But here's the good news: If certain strongly persistent rumors are true, we may soon see the end of Corp. US and the Federal Reserve as we have known it and the IRS as we have known it. It's possible that a great many folks presently behind bars will be freed from incarceration when that happens or shortly thereafter.
Reader E. writes and/or send us:
=====
***************************************************************************
James Tim Turner's innocence
CONSTITUTIONALIST JAMES TIM TURNER IS INNOCENT
?@
We know that the IRS has been targeting political dissidents and James Tim Turner looks at spending 18 years in a federal prison for violating IRS rules.

Some in America ... are aware that the IRS is acting illegally. "Is the IRS, clearly acting illegally, itself legal? and the answer is "no", it is not. The Constitution forbids direct non-apportioned taxation of the people. An earlier version of the Income Tax was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on those grounds.
"The Federal Reserve (itself a clearly unconstitutional usurpation of the money-creation authority vested in Congress by the Constitution) and the IRS claim that the passage of the 16th Amendment allows an income tax, but there are several problems with that claim. First and foremost, the 16th Amendment failed ratification! The necessary 3/4 of the states did not ratify the Amendment. Requests for proof that this Amendment was actually ratified are ignored. The IRS considers their enforcement actions the only legal reply they are required to make. And judges in tax courts (who are funded from tax revenues) inevitably refuse to examine the issue and simply declare from the bench that the Amendment was ratified, a power and authority not granted to judges under the Constitution.
"There is one notable exception to this judicial legerdemain, and that is judge James C. Fox, who stated quite clearly in the court record for Sullivan Vs United States that the 16th Amendment, on examination, failed ratification. Sadly, however, that was not a tax case, and the judge mentioned the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment as justification for the enforcement of laws that may not halegally [sic] been passed, but were presumed valid through long use (i.e. we got away with it this long, so why should we change it now).
"Yet another problem with the 16th Amendment is the United states Supreme Court, which ruled in Stanton vs Baltic Mining that the 16th Amendment, even if ratified, did not actually grant any new tax authority to the US Government. For one thing the original Constitutional prohibition against a direct non-apportioned tax is still in effect because it was not explicitly repealed by the hastily-contrived 16th Amendment.
"So here we are, with the IRS clearly breaking the law, acting illegally, for all America to see, which is why this is a great time for activists to take the public discussion to the next level and ask if the IRS itself, and its master, the Federal Reserve, are actually legal under the Constitution."
COULD AN ALABAMA GOVERNOR FREE TIM TURNER BY PARDON? jamesturner.20fr.com
(this website was mentioned in threatening tones on the White House blog of Feb 5 2013)

***************************************************************************
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=284139


No comments: