Re: Who is the Real Newt Gingrich?
Quatlosers Hall of Shame
Devvy Kidd
These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors
Devvy Kidd
Keeping with our 100Q collection that commemorates famous and infamous tax scam artists, we have minted a chip for de-tax dame Devvy Kidd.
You know, if you start to think that most of these leaders of the "tax protestor" movement have a screw loose which is rattling around in only half a brain, you only have to look as far as Devvy Kidd for confirmation. Devvy buys into about every far-right-wing conspiracy theory, including that the world is actually illegally controlled by Freemasons. New World Order, United Nations, buying Chinese products -- if it is a stupid theory the odds are good that Devvy has bought into it whole hog.
Of course, not having half a brain doesn't mean that you can't cash in like the other tax scam artists. For a mere $24.95 you can get the whole Devvy collection of conspiracy theories and her "proof". But wait! Selling CDs is small pickin's compared to Devvy's other gig, which is endorsing "El Dorado Gold Discount" which deals in gold coins over the internet.
At one point, Devvy apparently tried to form the "Wallace Institute" (named after Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart) but was unsuccessful in getting 501(c)(3) charitable status, so that went by the wayside.
Devvy's theory regarding taxes is that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Of course, she didn't do any significant research on her own but merely refers to ex-felon and fellow Quatlooser Bill Benson's "The Law That Never Was". In January of 2000, Devvy proclaimed that the Wallace Institute was preparing to file a lawsuit in Oklahoma City to declare the 16th Amendment illegal. The case of course went nowhere. Devvy also has put our flyers declaring the income tax to be "voluntary", although the courts have regularly sanctioned, fined, and convicted those who have raised this ridiculous argument.
Devvy has also been implicated in the "We the People" scam, which has had its greatest publicity recently with Lynne Meredith's indictment. We can only hope that Devvy is soon able to spend long hours chatting with her comrade-in-scam.
___________________________
Devvy Kidd 's Claims Exploded
Devvy Kidd 's premise is that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.
The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
See also http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification
Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further exposed as scam artists at http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html
Thurston Bell says Devvy Kidd is a Scam Artist
from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm
Notice of Academic Deficiency
5.12.2001
There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.
I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over the World Wide Web.
When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.
A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;
B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.
C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues.
So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails.
If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem.
This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.
Thurston P. Bell
Founder
PLEASE NOTE:
NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: What Immigration Problem?
Let me help you grasp your folly.
Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution, Note that this has NOTHING to do with Court decrees; compounded errors of centuries or more nor mob belief.
Consider ...
Congress makes a law "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The President chooses NOT to prosecute anyone who participates in "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person". Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The supreme Court issues a decision proclaiming "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
ALL of the above 'policies' are continued/perpetrated/followed for 200 years. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution,
Read AIS2C1
- The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
If this process is followed for over 100 years ... will it be constitutional?
If the supreme Court decrees that this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?
If 78% of the people polled (margin of error of 1%) believe this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?
Do explain how a Court Ruling is 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mob wishing a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
You do realize that by your absurd assertion the constitution itself is meaningless (just as it has proven to be with this idiotic idea that government is to determine its own limitations).
Regard$,
--MJ
"[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)
At 02:40 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:
Apparently, Michael, YOU miss the point the rulings I referred to are well over 100 years old and have never been questioned... quite the opposite they have actually been upheld by the populaces they effect.... by popular vote.....several times.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.
- "Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate."
- The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.
- The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.
- The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran
- At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:
- Michael,
- One of my points, and you obviously missed it.
- Whether you like it, or you don't like it, the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict. It becomes law. The law of our Land. We are a Nation of Laws. You can disagree, you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with, to be legislated, but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.
- Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law) doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful. "It Is, What It Is".
- On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.
- The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
- AIS9C2
- The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
- There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.
- As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)
- At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:
- Good Morning Michael!
- A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.
- First, it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails, message boards, or Groups like Political Forum. I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!) that I intended. (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)
- Second, I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum, have one or two things in common: (1) We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs; (2) We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers. It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s), but in general, we are looking to be either (A) affirmed in our beliefs, or (B) proven incorrect.
- Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus; especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens. A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike.
- Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens"; personally, I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years. Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional, and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances.
- KeithInTampa
- On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:
- Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity" refer to?
Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?
I agree with you, that the term, "The People" sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference "[t]he People" (or are non-specific) apply to say, folks in China, or Iran?
AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.
OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally? Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?
Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.
In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.
Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?
Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?
If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.
I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions, are victims of our "interventionist" policies, and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- "Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."
- =======
- No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking.
ROTFLMAO!
The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.
Never see:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...
,,, the right of the people to keep and ...
... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...
The right of the people to be secure ...
No person shall be held to answer for a ...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?
Regard$,
--MJ
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.