one good sheriff

[Large Sarge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJgPuNAh60

[youtube:2tc11g0p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJgPuNAh60[/youtube]2tc11g0p]

[Tomas O'Crohan]

Large Sarge: Thanks very much for the link. If this sheriff is real (he certainly appears to be) this is a piece of mighty fine news. On his web site it was revealed that a Minnesota woman sent a copy of his book to all 83 county sheriff departments in Minnesota. His message is STOP COMPLYING with the criminal cartel and this message is from a "law enforcement officer" no less. It appears to be catching on at long last that the "lawmakers" are part of the criminal cartel and that unconstitutional law is no law at all. This sheriff appears to be deadly serious and we know that the U.S. military is filled with people just like him. When the shooting starts, there are going to be a surprising number of people on our side, including this righteous sheriff and great number of the U.S. military as well, not to mention our army of civilian "amateurs" (the criminal English plutocracy used this term against apprehended volunteers in Ireland as an interrogation technique, trying to belittle them). The obvious response to this charge is that George Washington commanded an army of "amateurs" as well, amateurs who had knack for shooting straight! This is a great link and I found this news very encouraging. Merci for sending it along.

[Large Sarge]

Large Sarge: Thanks very much for the link. If this sheriff is real (he certainly appears to be) this is a piece of mighty fine news. On his web site it was revealed that a Minnesota woman sent a copy of his book to all 83 county sheriff departments in Minnesota. His message is STOP COMPLYING with the criminal cartel and this message is from a "law enforcement officer" no less. It appears to be catching on at long last that the "lawmakers" are part of the criminal cartel and that unconstitutional law is no law at all. This sheriff appears to be deadly serious and we know that the U.S. military is filled with people just like him. When the shooting starts, there are going to be a surprising number of people on our side, including this righteous sheriff and great number of the U.S. military as well, not to mention our army of civilian "amateurs" (the criminal English plutocracy used this term against apprehended volunteers in Ireland as an interrogation technique, trying to belittle them). The obvious response to this charge is that George Washington commanded an army of "amateurs" as well, amateurs who had knack for shooting straight! This is a great link and I found this news very encouraging. Merci for sending it along.

I think he is sincere

and yes there are a number of military folks "aware" of the problem.

you have to believe the majority of law enforcement & military are decent folks

some percentage get into it for power, to kill, to intimidate, etc

but a lot of folks get into it for the right reasons, and these folks are going to be receptive to the message.

this is the only viable peaceful solution I have found to date.

if enough sheriff's get on this, then the whole "zio new world order" collapses.

just like if enough U.S. troops wake up to 9/11, and understand the enemy is not some muslim.

But I plan on buying a nmber of his books, and giving them to sherrifs in my county and adjacent ones.
 
the reason I could see this working is that it appeals to the sherrif on a noble level "fighting tyranny"

and it empowers him

all the best,
sarge

[targa2]

I admire the spirit of the mans message but he is wrong about the Constitution. This is an issue of private law versus public law or "public policy " as they like to refer to it.  No.... I am not siding with the enemy here.  I am trying to clarify distinctions here.  Read my previous post " The Constitution has not been violated "  By the way, I did not cut and paste this post from a news article, I wrote it myself from my own legal knowledge. It's not a perfect explanation but it gets one thinking correctly about the subject.

[Large Sarge]

I admire the spirit of the mans message but he is wrong about the Constitution. This is an issue of private law versus public law or "public policy " as they like to refer to it.  No.... I am not siding with the enemy here.  I am trying to clarify distinctions here.  Read my previous post " The Constitution has not been violated "  By the way, I did not cut and paste this post from a news article, I wrote it myself from my own legal knowledge. It's not a perfect explanation but it gets one thinking correctly about the subject.

(I have not read your thread yet)

no law that is unconstitutinal is legal.

and anything not covered in the constitution specifically given to the feds, is covered in the 10th ammend "states rights"

Sheriff mack went to the supreme court and won on this premise.

http://www.potowmack.org/pzamic.html

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/03 ... -sheriffs/

[Large Sarge]

@Targa2

is this the other thread you were talking about?

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4790

[Large Sarge]

Tale of two Courageous County Sheriffs
March 22, 2009 · No Comments
Ads by Google
Free Court Records
Obtain Criminal & Court Records - On Anyone ! Takes 2 Seconds.
Criminal-Info.com/CourtRecords




By Ron Ewart Sunday, March 22, 2009

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9528
All around us, the power of the federal government is manifested by hundreds of presidential executive orders, thousands of un-read legislation emanating from the U. S. Congress and millions of bureaucratic rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances, issuing forth from the government's massive bureaucracy ..... laws, rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances that in most cases, bear no resemblance to constitutional law, much less constitutional authority. These people don't seem to care about constitutional law or constitutional authority, they just do it, because they can and it takes an alert citizenry to challenge them.
How do you fight such a monster? The following story depicts one way.

No doubt all of us over 45 will remember that infamous day in March of 1981, when a love-struck John Hinkley tried to assassinate President Reagan, but was only successful in wounding him. At the same time, Hinkley's bullets also entered the body of James Brady, Reagan's Press Secretary, leaving him severely injured and in a wheel chair for life. Sara Brady, James' wife, was instrumental in pushing for the passage of the original Brady Bill, requiring background checks for hand gun purchasers. President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law in 1993.

The impact of the Brady bill was to force the chief law enforcement officer of each county in the United States to be responsible for conducting the background checks of each hand gun purchaser. As a result, over 3,000 lawsuits were brought against the government in state courts objecting to the new law. Seven of those lawsuits were from county sheriffs who had to bear the burden of background checks, without so much as a farthing being offered from the federal government to pay for the sheriff's troubles.

A couple of those lawsuits were by a sheriff in Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack and another in Montana, Sheriff Printz. Sheriff Mack filed his case on the same day that the Brady bill went into effect, February 28, 1994. As the cases wound their way through the lower courts, the Mack and Printz cases made it to the 9th circuit. A case by a Texas sheriff made it to the 5th Circuit Court. The decision from the 9th circuit court ruled that the Brady Bill was constitutional. The 5th Circuit Court ruled just the opposite, making it virtually impossible for the U. S. Supreme Court to ignore the case.

On December 4, 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to review the two cases from the 5th and 9th circuit courts, to adjudicate the different outcomes. Ultimately, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against the 9th Circuit Court (no surprise there) and for the 5th Circuit in a 5 to 4 decision. As did the recent decision by the U. S. Supreme Court regarding the right to keep and bear arms belonging to each citizen of the United States, the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court in the Mack/Printz decision, poked a very large "finger" in the "eye' of the federal government. The majority opinion by Justice Scalia bears repeating. The following is excerpted from an article about the case, by the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association and contains some of the language out of Justice Scalia's written opinion:
In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty."
What we can take away from this story is that the backbone of the U. S. Constitution is still in tack and upon occasion the U. S. Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the actual intent of the Framers of that Constitution. But it took two brave sheriffs of the great state of Arizona and the great state of Montana, both Western States who still believe strongly in states rights, to "esplain" it to the federal government, whom apparently does not think that they are governed by that famous document of liberty, or falsely believes that their "rule" supersedes it. It doesn't!

The second thing we can take away is that we can still fight "city hall" and use the very constitution that our government ignores, against them and be victorious. It is not necessary to resort to civil war or revolution, to upset the "apple cart" of an arrogant, out-of-control federal government that has lost all allegiance to the Supreme Law of the Land. We only need use the most important tool of all, that the Founders gave us, our Constitution. With it, we can challenge the "bully" and win.

Finally, throughout our history, from even way before the ratification of our Constitution, the County Sheriff was the ultimate law for his jurisdiction. He is the only law enforcement officer in America elected by the people and answerable only to the people. He swears on solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and most sheriffs take that oath very seriously. The County Sheriff, operating under the authority of the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, could very well be the last line of defense of the God-given, unalienable, individual rights of the people and the protector of the Constitution, as well as American sovereignty.

Sheriff's Mack and Printz paid a very heavy price for their courage but it was that courage and their sacrifice that scored a victory for all citizens of the United States, proving that we are still a Constitutional Republic under the rule of law and we have not morphed into an Absolute Democratic Monarchy, under the rule of the mob ..... yet!

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF!

He, or she, could very well be the key to the defense and restoration of America's freedom and liberty.

[targa2]

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

This is article 1  Sec 10.  It states clearly that they will pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract.  This is the key to all of their power.  The Fed Res ....all of it.  It is a private contractual obligation .

Judge Felix Frankfurter gave us a clue to this when he stated.

                  " Equity ( contractual obligations ) is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements "

No sheriff has the authority to break a private contract. The Constitution does not apply inside of a private contractual agreement. Neither should it. I realize this is a hard concept for people to grasp initially.  It was a hard learned lesson for me personally. However .....argue as you will, I am still correct and the Supreme Court has weighed in on this subject at length.

[Large Sarge]

the county sheriff can legally override all executive orders, signing statements, etc

these are not "private contracts"

this includes forced vaccinations, FEMA camps, (use your imagination)etc

no a sheriff cannot get you out of your mortgage payment/contract. (a private contract)

lawsuits and private contracts are far different...

[targa2]

An individuals entire relationship to the state is a private contract. Birth certificates, S S N 's, use of public infrastructure, use of the banking system, use of the public school system etc.....these are contractual in nature and have many hidden attachments and obligations that come with them.  If you are deriving a benefit from these relationships then the Constitution is not applicable as a defense.

Give me a specific example of something you think is unconstitutional and I will tell you why it is not.  Eg; the IRS or whatever.

[Large Sarge]

@targa2,

I am ordering a number of sheriff macks books,

I have already sent the oathkeeprs video to a few local sheriffs, and got surprisingly very warm responses from them.

I told them I intend to send them a copy as well.

regarding what is not constitutional, paper money is not constitutional.

the income tax was never ratified by the states.

When I get and read my copy, we can talk more on this.

sheriff Mack states he uses "case law, common law, and the constitution"

he did win at the supreme court, against a sitting president.

I think the 9th ammend is often overlooked

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

[targa2]

I will let this guy explain it to you. This a letter from a court recorder to the leader of a tax protest group ( Armen Condo ) from the 1980's.



Dear Mr. Condo:



  I just received your periodical "YHPA" for March, 1984, which

  I had requested from your organization for the purpose of

  contemplating subscribing to it.



  In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found that the

  United States is apparently trying to:



  1.  Get a restraining order to shut down your operation;



  2.  Trying to get some incarceration out of you as well.



  In trying to get a feel for your sentiments towards the United

  States for doing these things to you, I detected underlying

  feelings of anxiety and some resentment on your part.

  Therefore, what I have to say will only be of value to you to

  the extent that you are in a teachable attitude.  I know that

  I am taking a shot in the dark by telling you things which

  follow, but I think it is important that someone inform you

  why you are on the "left side" of the issues and why and how

  the United States is on the "right side" of the issues -- and

  that the Federal Judge is merely enforcing private agreements

  that you continue to maintain in effect with the U.S.

  Secretary of the Treasury.



  By the time you receive this letter in August, the Judge may

  already have taken some action on the government's petition

  for a restraining order against you -- I do not know the

  present status of that action, but the information you need to

  know will be important to you either way the Judge rules.  If

  the restraining order has been granted, I can show you how to

  get it reversed next January.



  Before I identify the private agreement you continue to

  maintain with the Secretary of the Treasury (which agreement

  places you into a written, equity relationship with the United

  States), there is a fundamental principle underlying American

  jurisprudence you must be aware of as background material to

  understand what follows.  This principle is a hybrid corollary

  and consistent extension of the evidentiary doctrine that

  specificity in evidence will always overrule generalities in

  evidence, even when they are in direct conflict with each

  other.  For example, the statement by one witness to a crime

  that...



    "I saw a woman run around the corner, it wasn't a man..."

    (and therefore the defendant, who is a man, isn't the

    criminal).



  that statement would be overruled by this statement from

  another witness...



    "The person I saw run around the corner had long hair, a

    beard, and something like a tatoo on his neck..."



  Hence, conflicts in testimony are always resolved by giving

  the greater weight to the most specific statements.  This is

  also the way equity grievances in contract disputes are

  settled -- the most specific, detailed clause governing the

  disputed circumstance is construed to be the statement meant

  to govern the disputed circumstances -- even though broader,

  more general statements can be found in the contract and may

  favor the other party.



  The principle that applies to your relationship with the King

  (the King being the United States -- the Constitution being

  essentially a renamed enactment of English Common Law as it

  was at that time, with only additional restrainments being

  placed on the King) is the principle that private agreements

  will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  Thus, specific agreements governing individual circumstances

  will always overrule broad general clauses found in the

  Constitution.  Or expressed in other words, it is irrational

  to allow someone to enter into a private agreement with

  someone, and then allow him to take a clause out of the

  Constitution -- off point and out of context -- and allow him

  to take that clause and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his

  way out of the agreement, all while retaining the financial

  gain the agreement gave him in the first place.  This is

  irrational, and judges won't allow it.



  For example, let's say that I hired you to come work for me as

  a computer design engineer for my computer company.  When you

  started work for me you signed an agreement agreeing that all

  company information that you were exposed to while employed

  here, and all knowledge you acquired regarding impending new

  products and technologies being worked on here -- you had

  agreed not to disclose, release or disseminate any such

  confidential information to any other person for a five year

  period after you left my employ for any reason.  So let's say

  that you have now left my company, and you start publishing

  and disseminating information you learned while here to my

  competitors.  Your excuse for violating the agreement you

  signed earlier with me is that...



    "Well, the First Amendment says I got freedom of speech

    and press..."



  So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a

  restraining order.  Question:  Does the First Amendment apply?

  The answer is no, it doesn't.  Restraining order granted.

  Reason:  Private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.  In

  other words, one does not get to use the Bill of Rights to

  weasel out of private agreements, while retaining the gain

  that the agreement gave him in the first place.  In the back

  of the judge's mind is the following logic:



    "Well, Mr. Condo... you entered into an agreement with Mr.

    Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which you

    experienced financial gain or profit.  Now that you don't

    feel like honoring the agreement any longer, you want to

    take a clause out of the Bill of Rights to work your way

    out of your agreement with Mr. Mercier, all while keeping

    the money he gave you under the agreement by working for

    him.  This is irrational.  Restraining order will have to

    be granted."



  Another example is this:  Say that you are a convict sitting

  in a prison.  The warden calls you upstairs and offers to let

  you go free if you sign an agreement.  That agreement calls

  for parole checking, warrantless entry of your residence at

  any time, and you agree not to carry any guns.  You sign the

  agreement and clear out of prison.  A month later your car is

  stopped for speeding and a gun is seen half covered in the

  back seat.  The officer charges you with possession of a

  concealed weapon.  You argue Second Amendment rights during

  pretrial motions.  The trial judge ignores your motions and

  sets a trial date.  Question:  Is the judge a fifth column

  commie pinko?  No, he isn't; he is merely enforcing private

  agreements.  Here you signed an agreement and you experienced

  a gain (premature freedom).  Now you want to take the Second

  Amendment, and use that to weasel and twist your way out of an

  agreement, all while retaining the gain (freedom) that the

  agreement gave you.  This is irrational, and judges will not

  allow it, properly so.



  You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges will tell

  defendants and counsel in Section 7203 -- Willful Failure To

  File criminal trials that...



    "...the Constitution does not apply here."



  That statement shocks most people up a wall -- but it is an

  accurate and correct statement.  The Judge will never tell you

  why, though.  Of all of the different Judges that I know who

  have blurted out that statement, none of the criminal

  defendants have ever pressed the Judge for an explanation as

  to why the Constitution does not apply.  The reason why the

  Constitution does not apply is because the Judge is merely

  enforcing private agreements the defendant signed with the

  Secretary of the Treasury.  The Judge is not a fifth column

  commie pinko.  The agreement the Judge has in front of him is

  not the defendant's 1040 or the defendant's W-2/4; those are

  merely declarations of facts and no profit or gain is

  experienced by them.  The real reason is as follows:



  When new Federal Judges are hired (nominated by the President

  and later confirmed by the Senate after hearings by the Senate

  Judiciary Committee -- after they go through that hiring

  procedure in Washington -- they are taken back to Washington

  and are taken into private seminars that are sponsored by the

  United States Department of Justice.  It is in these seminars

  that new Federal Judges are taught and trained "how to" manage

  their criminal proceedings so as to avoid reversible error,

  i.e., absence of counsel and trial procedure, etc.  They are

  taught and trained what the Supreme Court of the United States

  wants for perfecting due process.  They are given Supreme

  Court cases to study -- and sitting next to that new Judge in

  these seminars is their Appeals Court Justice (who will be

  auditing appeals coming out of their trial court), confirming

  that the information being taught and presented by Justice

  Department lawyers is true and correct and that "Things will

  be done this way."



  They are given a "Bench Book" to take with them, giving the

  new Judge guidance on handling problems as they arise on the

  bench.  Finally, the interesting part comes:  They are taught

  how to manage "Tax Protester" trials -- violations of Title

  26.  Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme

  Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings,

  161 U.S. 275 that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress.

  In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private

  property of the King.  This means that any profit or gain

  anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit

  union -- any regulated financial institution carries with it

  -- as an operation of law -- the identical same full force and

  effect as if the King himself created the gain.  So as an

  operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or

  a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings,

  CD's, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc.,

  are experiencing profit and gain created by the King -- so

  says the Supreme Court.



  At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts

  (because you accept checks as payment for books and

  subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY

  RELATIONSHIP with the King.



  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:



    "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing

    agreements."



  Or in other words, Judges don't like the idea of being thought

  upon as being mean gestapo agents -- doing the dirty work for

  the King.  They consider themselves as being struck between a

  rock and a hard spot -- being asked to enforce agreements and

  without being given any valid reason as to why you should be

  let out of it -- other than you just don't feel like being

  incarcerated.



  So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is

  that:



  1.  The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local

  banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies

  of the protester's signature card and financial transactions

  statements from the bank.



  2.  At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign

  the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank

  account information.  So now during the prosecution the

  Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your

  agreement with the King in front of him while the tax

  protester argues:



    "Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."



    "Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."



  Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience

  frustration and blurt out "the Constitution does not apply

  here!"?



  Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally related

  arguments and denying all motions.



  If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show

  you your signature card again, in small print you will see the

  words:



    "The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the

    Rules of this Bank."



  Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules?  If you

  have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by

  all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the

  Treasury, among many other things.



  What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File

  prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal

  clause to a civil contract.  And since you have agreed to be

  bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not

  Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress?  A contract does

  not have to be enacted by Congress -- in whole or in part --

  in order to make it enforceable.



  As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the

  King creates a "juristic personality" at the time you open

  your bank account.  And it is that juristic personality (its

  income and assets) that the King's Agents are "excising" back

  to the King.  But in any event, the taxing power of the

  Congress attaches by contract or use of the King's property.

  The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police

  powers to raise revenue.



  That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way

  actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which

  Federal Judges are enforcing the law -- not by ruling over

  gestapo Star Chambers.



    (I have some reservations on the modus operandi of Federal

    Judges to the extent that the Supreme Court mentions over

    and over again that:



    "Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice."  [Offutt

    vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11] and that when a man is thoroughly

    convinced that he is on the right side of an issue -- a

    man like Irwin Schiff -- that justice has not satisfied

    the appearance of justice unless the criminal defendant is

    aware that he did wrong.  And on these tax protester

    trials, that requires a sentencing hearing lecture by the

    judge to the defendant on why and where the defendant did

    err.  So I disagree with the modus operandi of Federal

    Judges to this extent).



  I am not going to spend any more time on this subject just

  right now -- other than you should be cognizant by this point

  in the letter that you are on the left side of the issue --

  and that the King's Agents are not working a great evil by

  going around the countryside asking people to stop defiling

  themselves by dishonoring their own agreements with the King.



  So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16th Amendment were

  somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am -- it would not

  change a single thing (other than the IRS would have to start

  giving people a correct presentation of the law to justify the

  taxes).  The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would

  continue on as usual.



  As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the King's

  Agents are trying to get against you and your alter ego,

  please get a copy of the Complaint filed by U.S. Attorney

  Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984 -- and turn to page 9.

  Examine the last five words in paragraph "b":



    "...under the Court's equity powers."



  This petition by the United States for a restraining order

  against you is legitimate to the extent that you are in

  written contractual equity with the King.



  When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on your

  bank card, you will find that you agreed to be bound by Title

  26, and under Section 7202 you agreed not to disseminate any

  fraudulent tax advice.  And the concept that Federal Reserve

  Notes are not taxable instruments of commerce -- for any

  reason -- when the person has a written agreement with the

  King saying that FRN's are taxable -- this concept is in fact

  fraudulent.



  I would encourage you, Mr. Condo, to prove me wrong.  You can

  prove me wrong by asking the Judge:



    "Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which

    creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the

    United States and me."



  The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to disclose

  what document it is that you executed which created the

  attachment of equity jurisdiction.  They have been asked not

  to let the cat out of the bag.  The IRS handles this "bank

  account = equity relationship" on a military style

  "need-to-know" only type basis.  You can file a Mandamus in

  the Circuit Court of Appeals or petition for a Subpoena Duces

  Tecum returnable against the U.S. Attorney to compel discovery

  of what it is that you signed that created the attachment of

  equity jurisdiction the King's Agents are now acting under in

  trying to get a restraining order against you.  This type of

  equity jurisdiction always attaches by written consent.



  If this restraining order has already been granted by now --

  then get rid of your bank accounts and file a petition for

  reversal next January -- your arguments being then that you

  are not in an equity relationship with the King anymore.  Then

  the First Amendment would apply then, but it does not apply to

  you now since you are in an equity relationship with the King

  -- and private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.



END OF LETTER