Chief Justice Admits No Failure To File Income Tax Law Exists !

In Sullivan vs United States, Judge James C. Fox admitted in the court record that the 16th (income tax) Amendment failed to be ratified, then goes on to admit that judges all know this, but pretend the 16th Amendment is the law of the land, because their salaries, court rooms, staff, and those robes are all bought with money taken from the American people.
 
TDC Note – This is a bit of a challenge to read but well worth the effort. As our once proud nation continues to stumble and fall this could be one of the more important pieces of information to challenge the oligarchs and their reign of financial terror.
 
from APFN
I pledge allegiance to the States & the flag for which it stands , united as
if one nation, under God, w/equal Liberty & equal Justice for all.

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged
sword.  It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.  And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.  Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
partiotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know?  For this is what I have done.  And I am Caesar.”–Julius
Caesar.

Source:  From Paralegals:       [email protected]
It can all be found here:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2001/january.html#00-1831
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-1831.pd
f
Read all of page 5 & 6, lines 9 thru 24 of the oral argument!
Read the case here:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html

In the transcript of the Oral Argument:
He (Chief Justice Rhenquist) and the United States attorney (Kent
Jones) admit there is NO statute (LAW) that makes it a crime for “failure to
file” an income tax return!
 
QUOTE: “I’m not familiar with a statute that makes that a crime
by itself” …”but the fact that you didn’t file…frankly…it’s my
impression that that would not by itself be a crime”.

..then it says on pg. 6 lines 20-25 of the transcript, Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Rhenquist said:
“We’d better not let the word get out”…”We’ll keep it just
among ourselves”… and they have the nerve to laugh about it! The attorney
then defers all Title 18 (??) questions to Justice Kennedy.

UNITED STATES V. CRAFT (00-1831) Web-accessible at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. SANDRA
L. CRAFT No. 00 1831

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice
Scalia join, dissenting. “That the federal tax lien did not attach to the
Grand Rapids property is further supported by the consensus among the lower
courts. For more than 50 years, every federal court reviewing tenancies by the entirety in States with a similar understanding of tenancy by the entirety as Michigan has concluded that a federal tax lien cannot attach to such property to
satisfy an individual spouses tax liability.8 

This consensus is supported by the IRS consistent recognition, arguably against its own interest, that a federal tax lien against one spouse cannot attach to property or rights to property held as a tenancy by the entirety.9”
 
Footnote 8: See IRS v. Gaster, 42 F.3d 787, 791 (CA3 1994) (concluding that
the IRS is not entitled to a lien on property owned as a tenancy by the
entirety to satisfy the tax obligations of one spouse); Pitts v. United
States, 946 F.2d 1569, 1571 1572 (CA4 1991) (same); United States v. American Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 255 F.2d 504, 507 (CA5), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 835 (1958)

(same);
Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 622 623 (CA3 1952) (same);
United States v. Hutcherson, 188 F.2d 326, 331 (CA8 1951) (explaining that
the interest of one spouse in tenancy by the entirety property is not a
right to property or property in any sense ); United States v. Nathanson, 60
F. Supp. 193, 194 (ED Mich. 1945)
 
(finding no designation in the Federal Revenue Act for imposing
tax upon property held by the entirety for taxes due from one person alone);
Shaw v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 245, 246 (WD Mich. 1939) (recognizing
that the nature of the estate
under Michigan law precludes the tax lien from attaching to tenancy by the
entirety property for the tax liability of one spouse). See also Benson v.
United States, 442 F.2d 1221, 1223 (CADC 1971) (recognizing the Government s
concession that property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety
cannot be subjected to a tax lien for the debt of one tenant); Cole v.
Cardoza, 441 F.2d 1337, 1343 (CA6 1971) (noting Government concession that,
under Michigan law, it had no valid claim against real property held by
tenancy by the entirety).
Footnote 9: See, e.g., Internal Revenue Manual º5.8.4.2.3 (RIA
2002), available at WESTLAW, RIA IRM database (Mar. 29, 2002) (listing
property owned as tenants by the entirety as among the assets beyond the
reach
of the Government’s tax lien); id., º5.6.1.2.3 (recognizing that a
consensual lien may be appropriate when the federal tax lien does not attach
to the property in question. For example, an assessment exists against only
one spouse and the federal tax lien does not attach to real property held as
tenants by the entirety. );
IRS Chief Counsel Advisory (Aug. 17, 2001) (noting that consensual liens,
or mortgages, are to be used as a means of securing the Government s right
to collect from property the assessment lien does not attach to, such as
real property held as a tenancy by the entirety (emphasis added)); IRS
Litigation Bulletin No. 407 (Aug. 1994) (
Traditionally, the government has taken the view that a federal
tax lien against a single debtor-spouse does not attach to property or
rights to property held by both spouses as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS
Litigation Bulletin No. 388 (Jan. 1993) (explaining that neither the
Department of Justice nor IRS chief counsel interpreted United States v.
Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983), to mean that a federal tax lien against one
spouse encumbers his or her interest in
entireties property, and noting that it do[es] not believe the Department
will again argue the broader interpretation
of Rodgers, which would extend the reach of the federal tax lien to property
held by the entireties); Benson, supra, at 1223; Cardoza, supra, et 1343.
ICE – Investigating Curious Evidence http://iresist.com/ice/[email protected]
We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free.  Right?  Then visit:
http://www.trimonline.org  http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com   http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://www.jbs.org
Then take a look at these sites:       http://www.dixierising.com
http://www.dixienet.org  http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org   http://www.spofga.org
http://www.southern-style.com  http://www.nca.mybravenet.com
NOTE # 1: This is the THIRTY SIXTH doc in a string of about 39 regarding the
Income Tax, How it was illegally forced upon us, the collusion of various
nation banks, including The Bank of England, the Banks of Europe, the Banks
of the USA that make up the Non-Government organization known as the Fed and
the bankers themselves dedicated to making this a Socialist Nation. As David
Rockefeller reportedly said in 1973 when he and others formed the Trilateral
Commission, “We will have this a Socialist Nation by the end of the year
2000.”  Well, with the help of our past Communist President, he damned well
nearly did it.  If Comrade Gore had been elected, it would be now! The last
doc in this series is a plan that was presented to President Bush when he
visited Florida recently.  It was put directly into his hands.  He has not
acted upon it. We The People must initiate a campaign of letters, faxes,
e-mails, and phone calls to him and others in our otherwise corrupt
government letting them know of our displeasure.  For God and Country, Chet.
NOTE # 2:  [  Should you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please
send a message with the word remove in the subject line.  If you got this
from a mail list, such as [email protected]  or something like that,
then it is up to the moderator or owner of the list to remove my access
based upon complaints of my material, abuse, or removal of your access if
you request it. ]         Should you wish a copy of a numbered message
(this is the 36TH one)   that you may have missed, please e-mail me off net
for a copy of it and I will be very happy to provide it. Chet.
You may forward this to every member of Congress by using a Mail Blaster
application available on the Internet as follows:
Step 1.  Access your web browser.   Step 2.  Type in the search block:
http://www.mailblasterdot.com
Step 3.  Click on   Send Batch E-Mail which is on the left end of the
screen.
Step 4.  Type in your E-mail Address.   Step 5.  Click on Subject: Type in
the subject of your document.
Step 6.  Click on Message: Now here you can type in your message or you can
paste a previously copied file here.  You can also edit your message after
you finish with the message and before sending it.
Step 7.  Then click on   select a file.  Here you may click on:
demhouse.txt (Socialist Democrat House Members) or,
democsen.txt (Socialist Democrats Senate Members) or,
newsorg.txt (Many of the “anchor” news folks have their email address here
for you to use) or,
rephouse.txt (Republican House of Representatives Members) or,
repubsen.txt (Republican Senate Members) or,
senators.txt (All Senators).

Step 8.  After selecting the group to receive your message then click on
send batch. It will go to everyone listed in the batch.
Remember: Nothing beats a letter AND a phone call.
A
Chester L McWhorter Sr, 504 N. Brighton Rd, Lecanto, Florida. 34461. Ph:
352-344-9073. Fax: 352-344-9073. E-mail: [email protected]
36 of 39… 100.1.5.1.0       End.