Tuesday, July 22, 2003

jeremy freese is not JEREMY FREESE

Today's NYT has a story on the government bringing suit against three employers who refuse to withhold taxes; the employers are part of a movement that believe in an interpretation of American legal history that leads to the conclusion that the government cannot tax wages.

Indeed, they believe things a good deal more farfetched than this, as the Times article reveals: [One of the defendants] "is part of a movement that contends that court actions in which names are typed in all capital letters, as the case filed yesterday was, are not valid."

I have some familiarity with this movement as the result of a relative getting mixed up with it, but I didn't know what their argument was here. Anyway, Google to the rescue. From an interview in Tax Truth News, a publication of this movement:
In his book, Mr. McLeod talks about how the Social Security Administration (SSA) is a sub-part of the private corporate U.S. Government. He says when we applied for a social security number (SSN) the government set us up as a trust in the SSA. The issuance of an SSN by the SSA created this "trust" for us and made an account number for that "trust" in the SSA's General Trust Fund. The SSA made the applicant (you) the trustee for this "trust". Then they named this "trust" entity with a title that sounds like your name, but it is your name spelled in all capital letters. This entity name in all capital letters is being referred to today as your "strawman". This "strawman" is the name that you will always see others use in all your commercial affairs, such as on your licenses, bank accounts, property deeds, etc.

So, JEREMY FREESE is the "strawman" for the flesh-and-blood Jeremy Freese. The "private corporate U.S. Government" issues decrees over JEREMY FREESE but does not have the same authority over flesh-and-blood Jeremy Freese. So the defendent in the NYT story is quoted as saying: ""They can take a hike," Mr. Molen said. "I do not intend to abide by any command of me, flesh and blood, to do anything."

The movement believes that the sinister web of p.c.u.s.g. legal maneuvering to gain authority that they don't have goes far deeper than this. The Tax Truth newsletter contains many stories of the persecution of those who have challenged the right of the government to collect taxes:
"Our other featured person this week is Dave Hinkson who said he discovered how the IRS has been turning people into political prisoners. To give an example, Mr. Hinkson made reference to a man that this happened to when appealing an adverse court decision. At some point during the trial, the judge shouted, 'Shut up! If you mention Jesus, God or the Constitution again, then you are in contempt of court.' The hapless man stood there unable to defend himself and in the end the government threw him in prison for six or seven years. The disturbing thing about this case is that the government never charged him with a crime.

"For the longest time, Mr. Hinkson said he couldn't figure out why the judge would say such a crazy thing like that until he learned about the motion of alimni. A motion of alimni is an instrument that the government uses to bar, cancel or eliminate common law from being heard in a court case. Evidently, few people have ever heard of this thing although if they have, they don't understand what it's all about.

Anyway, when the man appealed his case the attorneys for the government and the IRS attached a copy of a motion of alimni to his appeal. Due to the man's ignorance of what had been done, he never objected to it, which meant that he couldn't challenge it on appeal. Well, all Constitutional arguments are based upon common law. That means once the government had their motion of alimni in place, the man on trial couldn't mention Jesus, God or the Constitution. "

There are many interesting things about this story that your humble blogger could comment on, but, alas, time is short. Note the equivalence drawn between invoking Jesus and God in a legal argument and invoking the Constitution. Note also the idea that there is a stealthful mechanisms that keeps the judicial system from being able to raise constitutional issues in their defense.

(BTW, the "motion of alimni" is apparently so secret that nothing about it can be found anywhere on Google, except in the Tax Truth newsletter.)

No comments: