Actually The DOJ brought up a legal issue in not paying the insurance of soldiers killed in combat. Is your government lawful? Black’s definition: Lawful contemplates the substance of the law. Legal is the form of law. “The word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, which lawful is not. Thus legal fraud is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction” (Black’s Law Dictionary).
Actually, the question—refusing to pay the insurance of dead heroes—goes back my question before the U.S. Supreme Court in the October term of 1980. I acted as my own lawyer. Your Constitution allows this when you have a personal stake in the outcome. So keep that in mind as we proceed to distinguish the law from hogwash, as we determine whether our President is a fraud or constitutional.
My question before the Supreme Court was taken from Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. (1916), the case that declared federal income tax constitutional. The Department of Justice, the Respondent, had in rebuttal, “There is no basis for petitioner’s claim that the income tax is an unconstitutional confiscation of property. See Brushaber.”
Brushaber, with regard to turning tax into take, “Under the seeming exercise of the taxing power, the taxing statute is so arbitrary as to compel the conclusion that it was confiscation of property, or is so wanting in basis for classification as to produce such a gross and patent inequity to lead to the same conclusion,” the tax is confiscation of property.
In 1933, President Roosevelt: “While it isn’t written in the Constitution, it is the inherent duty of the Federal Government to keep its citizens from starvation.” In 1937 Roosevelt: “The balance of power between the three great branches of the Federal Government has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. We have reached the point where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court.”
Roosevelt packed the Court with frauds. Justice Brandeis, speaking for these frauds in control of our lives: “Property is only a means. It has been a frequent error of our Court that they have made the means an end.”
In my case, the DOJ told the Court that the IRS made an error. “Petitioner’s charges of fraud and harassment by the Internal Revenue Service are similarly without merit,” the DOJ claiming the error caused me no injury. The Court waved me off without one word.
The fact is that the IRS error was corrected by the Tax Court. The IRS ignored the Tax Court order, and the Supreme Court knew that. It had the record. The U.S. District Court, given the facts, decided to hear me. The DOJ admitted that the IRS had “wrongfully” taxed me. My property was refunded with interest. The IRS went to my bank, in defiance of a second court order, and confiscated every cent in my account.
Upon learning that there is no system of Justice in the United States, as far as taxpayers are concerned, “property is only a means,” I went to the free press with the issue. When questioned by the press, Public Relations officer for the IRS, Holger Euringer: “We did make numerous mistakes in the collection procedures.” With regard to the bank seizure, Euringer said the bank seizure was a mistake.
The DOJ claims that the law prohibits paying the insurance of soldiers killed in combat. The Supreme Court refuses to hear us. In Nazi Germany the courts refused to hear Jews. The same as German Jews the American people have lost our right to life, liberty, and property. Your government is controlled by a pack of lying gangsters. I’m not name-calling. This is a proven fact. Whose fault is it and what can we do about it?
In nature, nothing is certain. The cutting edge of science says that we humans are observers, and that we interact with matter; that we are co-creators in the foundry of creation. In the Constitution, we hear voices of the past. They gave the individual a Bill of Rights.
Our individual rights are honored only as long as we demand them. Rights and personal responsibility are antithetical to government entitlement.
“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and establish them as legal principle to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property…and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The current makers and keepers of the law, actually lawless gangsters, have resorted to Nazi law. In the Bill of Rights, we find in the Fifth Amendment the due process clause, which gives the individual the right to take the law to court if the individual has a personal stake in the outcome. This is not being done. Whose fault is it?
I’m a World War II veteran. I’m not about to sit and watch all that we’ve sacrificed to keep America free go up in smoke. I took the law to court. The makers and keepers of the law hung themselves with their own rope.