America - Freedom to Fascism

[coolgeee]

Aaron's work in the realm of activism proved to be invaluable and selfless. He will be perpetually revered as a true patriot and tireless fighter for our freedom. We must continue to venerate Aaron's legacy as we move forward by honoring his great words: "There are no boundaries one must adhere to when preserving one's liberty".

watch it now:
Editorial Digest: Keeping You Informed!

 

[editec]

Here are Aaron Russo's

Primary Objectives

• Stop the polarization of America - Good luck with that
• Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system - And that, too.
• Shut down the Federal Reserve system - And replace it with what?
• Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited - Where is it now?
• Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.- I preume they meant rePeal that law?
• Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states - YES
• Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions - It is already in control of large organziations, but keeping it free is a grand idea.
• Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card - Papers? We don' need no stinkin' papers!
• Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings -Throw in free online access and I might be inclined to accept that chip
• Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case - Grand idea
• Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge - Grander idea
• Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government - Ya' think?
• Protect our borders - Yes
• Restore the environment - Of course.. to the best of our ability
• Put an end to the Patriot Act - And the War on Drugs from whence most of it stemmed
• Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives - Millions of Americans are already on board with some or most of those goals. Nobody in power much cares.

 

[sealybobo]

Here are Aaron Russo's

Primary Objectives

• Stop the polarization of America - Good luck with that
• Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system - And that, too.
• Shut down the Federal Reserve system - And replace it with what?
• Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited - Where is it now?
• Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.- I preume they meant rePeal that law?
• Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states - YES
• Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions - It is already in control of large organziations, but keeping it free is a grand idea.
• Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card - Papers? We don' need no stinkin' papers!
• Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings -Throw in free online access and I might be inclined to accept that chip
• Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case - Grand idea
• Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge - Grander idea
• Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government - Ya' think?
• Protect our borders - Yes
• Restore the environment - Of course.. to the best of our ability
• Put an end to the Patriot Act - And the War on Drugs from whence most of it stemmed
• Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives - Millions of Americans are already on board with some or most of those goals. Nobody in power much cares.

What did we do before 1913 when the Federal Reserve took over?
JP Morgan, Rockafellor and Carnege took the gold

 

[editec]

What did we do before 1913 when the Federal Reserve took over?
JP Morgan, Rockafellor and Carnege took the gold

We saw people lose everything they had in the bank when PRIVATE BANKS went belly up, for one thing.

Hey, I'm all for changing the Federal Reserve system, Seal, I just want to know what system we're planning on changing our into.

If you believe what we had before is better, I'm here to tell you it was not.

 

[wayne]

What did we do before 1913 when the Federal Reserve took over?
JP Morgan, Rockafellor and Carnege took the gold

I don’t believe that we have enough gold to support all the currency we have in circulation. I am not sure there is enough gold in the world to do that.

 

[Diuretic]

Juries have a right to determine the law in a case? Hang on I know where they dreamed that one up - they cocked up the idea of jury nullification. Okay, since I've had this little argument elsewhere I know where this bloke is coming from and it's way over there on the right

 

[editec]

I don’t believe that we have enough gold to support all the currency we have in circulation. I am not sure there is enough gold in the world to do that.

We don't, Wayne.

That's why moving off the gold standard made sense, frankly.

If all currency was linked in some formal way to the amount of gold sitting in some central bank, and we lived in an growing economy, then the price of everything would have to continually be going down to balance the value of the GDP else against the bsically finite amount of gold.

 

[jillian]

Juries have a right to determine the law in a case? Hang on I know where they dreamed that one up - they cocked up the idea of jury nullification. Okay, since I've had this little argument elsewhere I know where this bloke is coming from and it's way over there on the right

Of course a jury doesn't have the right to determine the law to be applied to a case. Nor do they have the right to ignore the judge's instructions.

 

[Diuretic]

Of course a jury doesn't have the right to determine the law to be applied to a case. Nor do they have the right to ignore the judge's instructions.

That's what I thought. I think someone somewhere has misunderstood Blackstone's famous remarks about the "pious perjury of the jury".

I have had this particular little blue elsewhere, where I've been told a US jury is entitled to "strike down" a law if they disagree with it.

I countered with what is probably an apocryphal story from western Queensland here in Australia (warning, long shaggy dog-type story coming up).

A pastoralist (rancher) from western Queensland was arrested by the Stock Squad (detectives who investigate offences in the rural industry such as cattle/shee/horse theft) for stealing cleanskins (unbranded cattle) from neighbouring properties. You have to understand that pastoral properties here are big. There's one in my state that's the size of Belgium (Anna Creek). Anyway, this pastoralist is on trial in front of judge and jury in a western Queensland town. His jury is indeed a jury of his peers. They are all pastorialists. And as pastorialists they know they have all knocked off cleanskins from one another at times. It's just this time this pastoralist was greedy and took too many from too many people. But the pastoralists saw themselves standing in the dock as well.

Time came for the jury verdict. The jury trooped back in from the jury room and the Clerk of the Court asked for the verdict. It was a straightforward case of cattle duffing (rustling). Imagine the shock in the courtroom when in response to the Clerk of Court's request the jury foreman said:

"Not guilty your honour".

The judge stared, the prosecutor went crimson, the defence counsel smirked and the defendant's jaw dropped open.

But the jury foreman hadn't finished,

"Provided he hands the cattle back, your honour"

 

[editec]

Of course a jury doesn't have the right to determine the law to be applied to a case. Nor do they have the right to ignore the judge's instructions.

Then why bother having them?

 

[Diuretic]

Then why bother having them?

Because they are triers of fact. The idea is that simple logic that we all use can be exercised by a jury. They listen to all the (admissible) evidence, they get to look at the exhibits, importantly they get to watch and listen to witnesses and they can work out who's lying and who's telling the truth.

They're not lawyers. The judge is the lawyer they listen to on points of law. Prosecution and defence can present their evidence but it's the judge who directs the jury on the law and where I am it's the last thing the jury hears in a trial before they retire to consider their verdict. To try and expect a jury to interpret the law that requires four years of university study (here) and a further year of study whilst in practice and that's just for a very new lawyer (judges are usually very, very experienced senior lawyers who have been practising for many years) is ridiculous. It's also handing over the legislative authority to - I have to say it - untutored people. It's not their job. It's not why juries exist. This bullshit about juries overturning a law is delusional. Heck, why bother with statutes? Why not just work on public opinion?

No, it's delusional rubbish.

 

[indago]

editec edicted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.- I preume they meant rePeal that law?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal what law?


-

 

[editec]

Because they are triers of fact. The idea is that simple logic that we all use can be exercised by a jury. They listen to all the (admissible) evidence, they get to look at the exhibits, importantly they get to watch and listen to witnesses and they can work out who's lying and who's telling the truth.

They're not lawyers. The judge is the lawyer they listen to on points of law. Prosecution and defence can present their evidence but it's the judge who directs the jury on the law and where I am it's the last thing the jury hears in a trial before they retire to consider their verdict. To try and expect a jury to interpret the law that requires four years of university study (here) and a further year of study whilst in practice and that's just for a very new lawyer (judges are usually very, very experienced senior lawyers who have been practising for many years) is ridiculous. It's also handing over the legislative authority to - I have to say it - untutored people. It's not their job. It's not why juries exist. This bullshit about juries overturning a law is delusional. Heck, why bother with statutes? Why not just work on public opinion?

No, it's delusional rubbish.

yeah?

What happens when the jury doesn't believe the "admissible evidence"

I can tell you my first hand experience in a court of law...the judge tells them they HAVE to believe it.

Which makes me wonder, again, why bother with a jury if they do not have the right to decide for themselves what is or is not relevant?

 

[indago]

jillian jested:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course a jury doesn't have the right to determine the law to be applied to a case. Nor do they have the right to ignore the judge's instructions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Attorney Tom Cryer testified before a jury, charged with Wilful Failure to File an Income Tax Return:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I reached the belief that income is not what is received, that not only comes in as income, that not -- that it's not what is received, it's the gain that is realized, the profit or gain that is the income, that what is totally -- the total received is your gross receipts, or is gross receipts. I also believed as a result of reading these Supreme Court cases that in order to be income, the income -- you first must determine whether there was a gain by deducting the capital or what was exchanged back out of the price or what was received, and that only then could you determine if there was a gain; and if there was a gain, then that difference would be the gross income. I also formulated a belief from reading these cases that it is -- in order for there to be income from a conversion, or a receipt, that the portion that is income must be distinguishable, severable, identifiable from, and separate and apart from, so that it could be expended without diminishing the capital that was deducted. And I also formed a belief that in the absence of any of these particular conditions or qualifications as income, then the receipt is not income.

Q Now, with that in mind, can I use just for illustration, let's say in some times -- you don't admit during the years 2000 and 2001 -- you know, if we added up all your bank deposits and we looked at Government Exhibit 40 or 42 in this case, that top line for 2000 and 2001 gross deposits was what you took in those years, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. Now let's take a situation during, like, 2000 and you had a client that came in and paid you $1,000 for services that you provided. Is that something that happened during that year?

A I imagine it did, yes, sir.

Q Okay. Now, based on what is your definition of what is income, can you explain to this jury about what you, when you received a $1,000 check, why and how you would believe or reach the conclusion that was not income?

A Well, to begin with, it's my belief and was my conclusion that that fee was gross receipts in exchange for which I had given services that were received by the client and delivered, that those services were at the cost of my human capital, I call it, were at the cost of my time out of my lifespan, time out of my working lifespan, my knowledge, my skill, my experience, and my labor, all of which I consider to be my property. I have exchanged my property or expended my property in order to provide services to another in exchange for that fee. Now, I cannot evaluate my labor and how much of my life is worth. I don't even know how much of it I have left. So I don't know whether an hour is 10 percent, 1 millionth of a percent, or 50 percent of the rest of my life. But it's worth something, and it's mine. It's my property. And I cannot distinguish, I cannot separate, I cannot make a clear line defining what part of that $1,000 is for the lifetime and the effort and the labor that belongs to me that should be deducted according to my belief on how we arrive at whether or not a gain or income was arrived, because only the gain, only the profit, is income. Not the $1,000. That's gross receipts. The income is only the gain. And I cannot ascertain that. I can't -- I have no way of determining the value of that. And based upon my belief regarding the rules of application on basis as well as my belief regarding the distinguishable nature of income, that where the amount or value of what is exchanged is uncertain, that there's a presumption that the exchange is for equal value. And so what I gave would have been worth whatever it was I was willing to take for what I gave.

Q Now, let's imagine in our minds, put $1,000 up here on kind of a screen. Okay?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you say that that's gross receipts?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you believe that income is a gain or a profit, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q So there is something to be subtracted off from that $1,000?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. Describe for us what you believe must be deducted off from that $1,000.

A What must be deducted off of that $1,000 is the value of however many hours of my life it cost me to deliver that service. That's property, in my belief. I believe it's my life, and it's whatever the value of the labor, the energy that I expend. That's my property. And I've exchanged it for that. So that should be backed off before we can arrive at determining whether or not any gain or income even existed. Since it's not clear and severable, I can't separate the two, then it's also my belief that if it's -- if it can't be separated, can't be severed, then it's not income, because it's my belief that that is one with distinguishing aspects of determining whether or not something is income and can be included in gross income or is not income and cannot, as the Code says and regs say, be included in gross income.

Q Now, on our example of the $1,000, you're saying that there should be subtracted off something from that to arrive at a gain or a profit?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. What is it that you would subtract off? If you took in $1,000, what is it exactly that you would subtract off to determine what the gain or profit is?

A I can't determine a number, but the name of the, what would be subtracted off would be the capital or the principal or the basis, depending upon which term you want to use.

Q Would that be similar to labor?

A That would be similar to labor. That would be -- labor would be a big component of that. And again, my labor is my property.

...No. 2, it occurred to me that because of that, the question might come up that although it was my opinion and it's my belief that my labor belongs to me and not anybody else, that it's my property -- I wasn't willing to put my head on the block on a belief, on my opinion that my, just without any authority, that my labor is my property, so I went and looked again to Supreme Court cases. Because in the Code and in the regulations, I could not find anything that said that a hundred percent of earnings, what somebody earns with their labor, that a hundred percent of that is a profit and taxable. I couldn't find any law to justify that. I couldn't find any regulation to justify or to say that a hundred percent of what you trade for your labor is profit and, therefore, taxable. I couldn't find that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In instructions to the jury, the judge declared:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I instruct you as a matter of law a single person under 65 years old was required to file a federal tax return for the year 2000 if he had gross income in excess of $7,200. A married individual was required to file a federal income tax return for the year 2000 if he had separate gross income in excess of $2,800, and a total gross income when combined with that of his spouse in excess of $12,950 where both are under 65 years old.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The jury found Mr. Cryer NOT GUILTY

 

[editec]

The jury found Mr. Cryer NOT GUILTY

A miscarriage of injustice if I ever saw one.

 

[jillian]

A miscarriage of injustice if I ever saw one.

and just because the jury ignored their sworn charge doesn't mean they were allowed to or should have.

 

[Diuretic]

yeah?

What happens when the jury doesn't believe the "admissible evidence"

I can tell you my first hand experience in a court of law...the judge tells them they HAVE to believe it.

Which makes me wonder, again, why bother with a jury if they do not have the right to decide for themselves what is or is not relevant?

That's what appeals are for. If a judge pulls something like that then defence should appeal. But where I am a defendant can elect for trial in front of a judge without a jury (it's a tactical matter for the defence to use if it suits them). A judge (here at least) can't direct the jury to do anything, he or she can only "suggest" and they have to be very careful with their words.

 

[editec]

There's noble theories of the law, and then there's what happens in most courts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

editec edicted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.- I preume they meant rePeal that law?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal what law?


-

We have had this argument and you failed to prove that the current laws do not allow for income tax. In fact you claimed you never said that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yeah?

What happens when the jury doesn't believe the "admissible evidence"

I can tell you my first hand experience in a court of law...the judge tells them they HAVE to believe it.

Which makes me wonder, again, why bother with a jury if they do not have the right to decide for themselves what is or is not relevant?

Depends on what the evidence is and whether or not one side or the other can make that evidence less than beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt a Judge tells a Jusry they have to take at face value every piece of evidence. A picture for example does not tell much other than the mere moment it was taken, Nor does some document prove much with out further information.

A jury DOES decide what the evidence means.