• There's a fine line between the American dream and the American nightmare.

    Don Henley

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Re Ralphie's poorly written briefs

Hey Crackpot Ralph,

In your grossly deficient brief that you prepared for MacAlpine, you raised some undefined argument regarding tax assessments and make some references to a lack of assessment, but because of your complete inability to explain anything legal, a reader cannot follow any argument you make. Reading your briefs indicates that you scream and holler alot, but it is all hot-air and useless words.

Anybody who has studied IRS regs fully understands that the published regs are deficient in listing the origins of specific regs through references; this just means that a researcher must do more work.  The assessment regs for federal taxes pursuant to the '54 Code were first proposed in December, 1954, and finalized in Jan. 1955. Attached are the first pages of these regs, and I do not include the full Treasury Decisions because the files are large and may not make it through the 'Net via email.  The assessment regs were slightly changed by TD 6425, 24 FR 9193 (11-11-59); and 32 F.R. 15241, 15274 (11-3-67). Studying these old issues of the Federal Register enables a researchers to follow how the regs developed. Of course, the IRS is sloppy in that its regs do not have this historical development available in them, but that just means that you have to work harder,  which is beyond your skills.

I have on my harddrive all of the Federal Register issues from 1936 through 1994. Anything I need after 1994 I simply obtain from the Net. I make these files and more (300+ gigs) available to lots of researchers, but hell will freeze over before I make this work available to a misfit and liar like you.

Larry, Your Nemesis

The blatant lies of “Fake Judge” Anna

Hey Wolf,

Another party pointed me to a recent post by “Fake Judge” Anna posted on Crackpot Arnie’s website.

She made in that post the following baseless claim, among numerous others:
Look up the word “constitution” in any legal dictionary.  That would be a real good place for any “constitutional scholar” to start. There are “constitutions” all over the planet—- they all revolve around indebtedness. That’s why it was called a “Constitution”—  It’s a business contract—- an equity contract—-a commercial contract, nothing more or less, split into two distinct parts—- a public trust indenture and a commercial services agreement.
She obviously DID NOT look up this word in any law dictionary. I attach PDFs of the definition of “constitution” as it appears in Black’s Law Dictionary (4th) and Webster’s dictionary of 1828. As usual, she fabricates contentions trying to mislead the gullible.

The “everything is admiralty” argument has been around for years, and “Fake Judge” Anna is promoting it all over again. Those who promote the admiralty argument are nothing but liars and I address that argument here.

The top of the Washington Monument in DC, according to a popular admiralty argument, is the high water mark for admiralty jurisdiction, but this contention is nothing but an utterly false assertion. Admiralty promoters are very interested in misleading people rather than educating them about the real problems.

Larry, Nemesis of the Crackpots

Changing a republic into a monarchy

After the American Revolution, Philip Freneau, poet of the revolution, wrote a very interesting article that virtually predicted the future, and he titled that article published in the National Gazette as follows: "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one." I posted the HTML of his article here.

You are invited to read it. Is his prediction accurate?

Land Patents

When Uncle Sam got lots of land from some of the original 13 colonies, as well as when he acquired more thru the Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases, and from Mexico and Russia, he eventually sold large parts of those lands. The name of the deed used to transfer title to the first purchaser was “land patent.” Once this land was transferred to the first owner and was no longer owned by the feds, it was subject to the law of the State wherein it was located. The States are constitutionally prevented from “impairing the obligation of contracts”. See Art. 1, section 10, cl. 1. Consequently, the States cannot enact some law impairing the contractual rights possessed by parties having an interest in real property, such as a mortgagee.

Back in the early ‘80s, Carol Landi started an argument about land patents. She used old, no longer effective federal laws to build an argument that a party facing foreclosure could get a copy of the original land patent for his land, “update” it by transferring the patent to himself, and by this simple process of “bringing the land patent up into your own name,” defeat all mortgages, including those given by the property owner. This is a wild, baseless legal argument.

Read more ...

Liability for FRNs

The United States is "liable" for the Treasury notes and bonds it issues.  It is not "liable" for FRNs and is not required to pay them.

Art. 1, § 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This means that all debt instruments on which Uncle Sam is "liable" must be authorized by some law enacted by Congress.  This is the constitutional provision requiring what is commonly called the debt ceiling, and if the debt ceiling is reached, no more debt instruments may be issued.

Read more ...

Payment of the Revolutionary War Debt

For years, there has been a baseless contention floating around like the below: the United States was bankrupt as a result of the Revolution. This assertion completely ignores history and conflicts with historical documents, particularly the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury.  And proof that the above contention is erroneous is available on the Net for ready downloading.

Years ago, I obtained PDF images of the Journals of the Continental Congress. I have provided those files to Jon Roland, a good friend of mine who built the Constitution.org website. He has posted those journals here.

These files cover the years 1774 thru 1789. If you wish to read first hand accounts of the Revolution, study these journals.

After ratification of the US Constitution and the meeting of the first Congress, the Treasury Department was created, and the act so creating it required annual reports from the Secretary. Years ago, I found that Google had scanned and posted all of these reports, and I downloaded them and provided them to Jon, who has posted them on his website.

These files cover the years 1789 thru 1980.

Here is what history and these documents conclusively show.

Read more ...

That false argument about the "Act of 1871"

Hey Bob,

More than 13 years ago, Lisa Guiliani posted an article on the Net which asserted that some unspecified federal law enacted in 1871 created “USA, Inc.” or another corp with similar name. Sometime later, advocates of this contention noted that the law in question was the act of that year related to the form of govt Congress was creating for Washington, DC. Because I knew this contention to be completely incorrect, I posted the below on my website. Simply put, that particular act was in effect for only a few years before Congress repealed it, and a reading of that act shows that it did not created any corporation named “USA, Inc.” or anything similar.

This argument has mislead too many people for more than a decade. It causes this movement to appear to be composed of crackpots, idiots and flakes, and I have some serious reservations and concerns regarding those who continue to advocate this baseless argument. I would appreciate it if you could help in stopping the spread of this fake argument.

Larry

Read more ...

Description of Federal Reserve Note: confederate currency!

The United States is "liable" for the Treasury notes and bonds it issues.  It is not "liable" for FRNs and is not required to pay them.

Art. 1, § 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This means that all debt instruments on which Uncle Sam is "liable" must be authorized by some law enacted by Congress.  This is the constitutional provision requiring what is commonly called the debt ceiling, and if the debt ceiling is reached, no more debt instruments may be issued.

Read more ...

Sources for the Common Law

What is the best source for learning about the common law? In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the Supreme Court noted that “Blackstone's Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England.  At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.” See this.

Read more ...