Greetings John Hutchison:
As you may know, Dr. Judy Wood asserts that a form of directed energy weaponry are a likely causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York on 9/11/01.
See: drjudywood.com.
I represent Dr. Wood as her lawyer in certain legal challenges that are ongoing at present. A summary of the legal challenges can also be found on her above mentioned website.
Your impressive and important work has come to her attention and to my attention. I write to request an opportunity to discuss in greater detail how the legal challenges that are now pending and your work may intersect and overlap.
Would you please either telephone my office, or send me a telephone number and suggested time to call you? In the initial telephone conference, I would expect to have on the line with us, Dr. Judy Wood.
Thank you,
Jerry Leaphart
Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood
8 West Street
Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
USA
203-825-6265
Monday, November 19, 2007
Dear Sirs,
Strong Challenge to the Jurisdiction.
What's the case all about?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: October 19th 2007 was a Friday.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
To: Assembly of the Church of the Universe
Cc: Legal Self Defence Work Group
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: R. vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro - Notice of Motion - November 19, 2007
Reverend Tucker: Information No. 04-1252-02
Reverend Baldasaro: Information No. 04-1252-01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(South Central Region Hamilton, Ontario)
B e t w e e n:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecution
(Respondent to Motion)
- and -
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
Defendant
(Moving party)
- and -
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
Defendant
(Moving party)
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Returnable, November 19th, 2007)
TAKE NOTICE: that the Defendant, REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, and the Defendant Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, will make a Motion to this Honourable Court, on MONDAY, october 19th, 2007, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, at the John Sopinka Court House, 45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The Hearing of the Motion will take approximately 1 hour of the Honourable Courts time.
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order issue quashing these proceedings, directions and such further and other relief as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
The grounds for the motion are as follows:
2. This will be the second illegal trial we have been subjected to upon these same charges. We believe that is against the law and our constitutional rights and freedoms to be tried twice upon the same charges.
3. Parts of the evidence are in question, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, from the orders of Mr. Justice Ramsay, as introduced before him upon the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Lou Strezos in the Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener.
4. The Hamilton Police Service violated Section 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada and our constitutional rights and freedoms when they invaded the sanctity of our Church and homes.
5. Mr. Justice Weseloh violated our constitutional rights and freedoms when he knowingly put us on trial on his own hook, on March 1, 2005, at the behest of the Attorney General’s Agent who misled him into the violation, without jurisdiction by denying us the exercise of our statutory right pursuant to Section 536. Of the Criminal Code of Canada, to elect our mode of trial, ab initio.
6. Mr. Justice Weseloh did not have the jurisdiction to violate the orders of The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich and the Court of Appeal for Ontario who ruled that he continue the Trial Proper and therefore could not change his decision at a later date and rule he had no jurisdiction. The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich was never quashed by the Court of Appeal and therefore stands to this day as law.
7. All evidence obtained in the proceedings commenced March 1st 2005 before Mr. Justice Weseloh, as misled by the Crown, was obtained without jurisdiction to hold an “absolute jurisdiction trial” and a violation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. It remains an open question before this Honourable Court, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Ontario “moot” in light of the flip flop Ruling of Mr. Justice Weseloh of March 25th 2005 when he ruled that Crown Counsel had misled him into a jurisdictional error and thereby caused the Honourable Court to err in jurisdiction in embarking upon the absolute jurisdiction trial in the first place which he was ordered to continue (sic).
8. Mr. Justice Weseloh lost jurisdiction over the Defendants by trying both accused upon a summary and indictable offence at the same time.
9. Refusal of this Motion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute again. R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3.
a) Lack of jurisdiction in this context means, not merely lack of initial jurisdiction but loss of jurisdiction which can occur where the justice presiding at the preliminary hearing fails to observe a mandatory provision of this Act or where there has been a denial of natural justice. R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268, 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225, 15 C.R. (3d) 280 (7:0).
10. The Defendants are entitled to constitutional relief. The Courts must apply a sanction to the Charter violation.
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Commentary by Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin
A Carswell Student Edition
[T]he Courts must apply a sanction. We would not be justified
in simply ignoring the breach of a declared fundamental right or in
letting it go merely with words of reprobation.
11. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and this Honourable Court admit.
The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the MOTION:
12. All documents, evidence and materials filed herein these proceedings in
Court File No. 04-1252-01 and Court File No. 04-1252-02 and such further and other materials as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
All of which is respectfully submitted
this 19h day of November, 2007 at Hamilton
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #2
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Voice: (905) 522-3247
Defendant
(Moving party)
Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #3
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Defendant
(Moving party)
TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT
AND TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
c/o The Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Lou Strezos, Outside Counsel
130 King St., W, Suite 3400, Box 36
The Exchange Tower, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
Prosecution/Respondent
__________ NOD32 2666 (20071119) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Strong Challenge to the Jurisdiction.
What's the case all about?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: October 19th 2007 was a Friday.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
To: Assembly of the Church of the Universe
Cc: Legal Self Defence Work Group
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: R. vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro - Notice of Motion - November 19, 2007
Reverend Tucker: Information No. 04-1252-02
Reverend Baldasaro: Information No. 04-1252-01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(South Central Region Hamilton, Ontario)
B e t w e e n:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecution
(Respondent to Motion)
- and -
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
Defendant
(Moving party)
- and -
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
Defendant
(Moving party)
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Returnable, November 19th, 2007)
TAKE NOTICE: that the Defendant, REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, and the Defendant Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, will make a Motion to this Honourable Court, on MONDAY, october 19th, 2007, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, at the John Sopinka Court House, 45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The Hearing of the Motion will take approximately 1 hour of the Honourable Courts time.
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order issue quashing these proceedings, directions and such further and other relief as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
The grounds for the motion are as follows:
2. This will be the second illegal trial we have been subjected to upon these same charges. We believe that is against the law and our constitutional rights and freedoms to be tried twice upon the same charges.
3. Parts of the evidence are in question, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, from the orders of Mr. Justice Ramsay, as introduced before him upon the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Lou Strezos in the Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener.
4. The Hamilton Police Service violated Section 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada and our constitutional rights and freedoms when they invaded the sanctity of our Church and homes.
5. Mr. Justice Weseloh violated our constitutional rights and freedoms when he knowingly put us on trial on his own hook, on March 1, 2005, at the behest of the Attorney General’s Agent who misled him into the violation, without jurisdiction by denying us the exercise of our statutory right pursuant to Section 536. Of the Criminal Code of Canada, to elect our mode of trial, ab initio.
6. Mr. Justice Weseloh did not have the jurisdiction to violate the orders of The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich and the Court of Appeal for Ontario who ruled that he continue the Trial Proper and therefore could not change his decision at a later date and rule he had no jurisdiction. The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich was never quashed by the Court of Appeal and therefore stands to this day as law.
7. All evidence obtained in the proceedings commenced March 1st 2005 before Mr. Justice Weseloh, as misled by the Crown, was obtained without jurisdiction to hold an “absolute jurisdiction trial” and a violation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. It remains an open question before this Honourable Court, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Ontario “moot” in light of the flip flop Ruling of Mr. Justice Weseloh of March 25th 2005 when he ruled that Crown Counsel had misled him into a jurisdictional error and thereby caused the Honourable Court to err in jurisdiction in embarking upon the absolute jurisdiction trial in the first place which he was ordered to continue (sic).
8. Mr. Justice Weseloh lost jurisdiction over the Defendants by trying both accused upon a summary and indictable offence at the same time.
9. Refusal of this Motion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute again. R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3.
a) Lack of jurisdiction in this context means, not merely lack of initial jurisdiction but loss of jurisdiction which can occur where the justice presiding at the preliminary hearing fails to observe a mandatory provision of this Act or where there has been a denial of natural justice. R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268, 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225, 15 C.R. (3d) 280 (7:0).
10. The Defendants are entitled to constitutional relief. The Courts must apply a sanction to the Charter violation.
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Commentary by Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin
A Carswell Student Edition
[T]he Courts must apply a sanction. We would not be justified
in simply ignoring the breach of a declared fundamental right or in
letting it go merely with words of reprobation.
11. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and this Honourable Court admit.
The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the MOTION:
12. All documents, evidence and materials filed herein these proceedings in
Court File No. 04-1252-01 and Court File No. 04-1252-02 and such further and other materials as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
All of which is respectfully submitted
this 19h day of November, 2007 at Hamilton
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #2
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Voice: (905) 522-3247
Defendant
(Moving party)
Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #3
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Defendant
(Moving party)
TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT
AND TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
c/o The Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Lou Strezos, Outside Counsel
130 King St., W, Suite 3400, Box 36
The Exchange Tower, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
Prosecution/Respondent
__________ NOD32 2666 (20071119) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Australia's "2nd Amendment"
Dear John, your stickers have arrived thank you.
The definition you give below, will be allright, if that is upheld by a Jury, who throws out John Howard's gun laws. But today people are still being raided and having weapons (both registered and unregistered) confiscated (read STOLEN). The only rights you have are the ones being upheld - you do not have those that are being trampled on; and once trampled on, how do you get them back. Remember, when you go to court, the judge/magistrate orders the sheriff or police officer to throw you out, or detain you, and they do so by the power of the gun. The only way to oppose the gun, is with a gun. That's why they took them away - they know that too. How about Maryland, forcibly injecting the children and throwing the parents who object in jail? Isn't it time to fight?
Cheers
xxxx
From:
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Australia's "2nd Amendment"
Dear John, your stickers have arrived thank you.
The definition you give below, will be allright, if that is upheld by a Jury, who throws out John Howard's gun laws. But today people are still being raided and having weapons (both registered and unregistered) confiscated (read STOLEN). The only rights you have are the ones being upheld - you do not have those that are being trampled on; and once trampled on, how do you get them back. Remember, when you go to court, the judge/magistrate orders the sheriff or police officer to throw you out, or detain you, and they do so by the power of the gun. The only way to oppose the gun, is with a gun. That's why they took them away - they know that too. How about Maryland, forcibly injecting the children and throwing the parents who object in jail? Isn't it time to fight?
Cheers
xxxx
November 19, 2007
heffect@infinet.net
Dear Friend:
On Tuesday I voted to end the war in Iraq. Finally, the House of Representatives passed a bill that provides money solely for the purpose of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Though the bill, HR 4156, must leap high hurdles in the Senate and again at the White House, I am proud to have cast my vote to get out of Iraq and bring home our troops.
The bill passed 218-203 and joining me in this vote were my strong anti-war colleagues such as Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. The majority of 'no' votes were cast by Republican members. During debate the dividing line between the opponents of the bill and the proponents were clear: this vote meant the difference between staying in Iraq with no exit strategy or getting out. I voted to get out and I was pleased to see the bill pass. If you are interested in viewing my participation in the floor debate, click here.
In addition to providing funds to pay for bringing home our troops, the bill requires
- That troops begin to leave Iraq in 30 days, and all troops be brought home no later than December 31, 2008.
- That no troops be sent to Iraq unless they have proper equipment and training.
- That no torture shall be employed by any American personnel.
Though this bill has a tough road ahead, I want to assure you that I am committed to ending the war in Iraq and bringing home our troops. The House vote on Tuesday night, in my mind, is a step toward making that happen.
Sincerely,
SAM FARR
Member of Congress
SF/rd
Please be sure to visit my website at www.farr.house.gov.
heffect@infinet.net
Dear Friend:
On Tuesday I voted to end the war in Iraq. Finally, the House of Representatives passed a bill that provides money solely for the purpose of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Though the bill, HR 4156, must leap high hurdles in the Senate and again at the White House, I am proud to have cast my vote to get out of Iraq and bring home our troops.
The bill passed 218-203 and joining me in this vote were my strong anti-war colleagues such as Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. The majority of 'no' votes were cast by Republican members. During debate the dividing line between the opponents of the bill and the proponents were clear: this vote meant the difference between staying in Iraq with no exit strategy or getting out. I voted to get out and I was pleased to see the bill pass. If you are interested in viewing my participation in the floor debate, click here.
In addition to providing funds to pay for bringing home our troops, the bill requires
- That troops begin to leave Iraq in 30 days, and all troops be brought home no later than December 31, 2008.
- That no troops be sent to Iraq unless they have proper equipment and training.
- That no torture shall be employed by any American personnel.
Though this bill has a tough road ahead, I want to assure you that I am committed to ending the war in Iraq and bringing home our troops. The House vote on Tuesday night, in my mind, is a step toward making that happen.
Sincerely,
SAM FARR
Member of Congress
SF/rd
Please be sure to visit my website at www.farr.house.gov.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
LEGAL
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This coming Monday night their will be an Update Conference Call at 7:00 PM. (central). Your call in number is 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#.
We met with Burt Wise in Washington and he is sending an Recommendation Memo to the full Judiciary Committee and we will receive a copy when he is finished. It sounds that he has reviewed our information that we left their March 26th and at his request ask that we not send any more info at this time. I guess they are running out of fax paper? It sounds positive but we will see? Taffy has also been working tiredly the Committee Members and she will give an Update on that progress. We also were invited to the March around the Justice Department Building Friday where thousands of people gathered for Justice for the people in our Courts! There were no empty spots in the streets around the building! Pictures and Videos are being down loaded for the next email notice because the so called Main Stream Media refuse to cover the Truth!
We are preparing an email blast so please send out on your end!
Justice is around the corner!
See you their!
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM
This coming Monday night their will be an Update Conference Call at 7:00 PM. (central). Your call in number is 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#.
We met with Burt Wise in Washington and he is sending an Recommendation Memo to the full Judiciary Committee and we will receive a copy when he is finished. It sounds that he has reviewed our information that we left their March 26th and at his request ask that we not send any more info at this time. I guess they are running out of fax paper? It sounds positive but we will see? Taffy has also been working tiredly the Committee Members and she will give an Update on that progress. We also were invited to the March around the Justice Department Building Friday where thousands of people gathered for Justice for the people in our Courts! There were no empty spots in the streets around the building! Pictures and Videos are being down loaded for the next email notice because the so called Main Stream Media refuse to cover the Truth!
We are preparing an email blast so please send out on your end!
Justice is around the corner!
See you their!
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2007
john wison for liberty
Dear David,
When the Internet is gone...and there is an end to discussion......so goes any possiblity of avoiding bloody violence....who, in their right mind, would want that????
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: dav a
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
At this point in history John, I have to honestly say, the sooner USA goes down, the better.
What may come form that for Australia (i realize the military ramifications very well) so be it, because the way it is right now (Iraq, 911, hoax terrorism, corporate media censorship etc etc) is worse than anything.
By the way, forget Indo attacking us, you must realize, even with a million man army, they have no ships, tanks nor aircraft to do any real damage.
David B
p.s- did you know that Youtube is now censoring any content it deems 'controversial'. So anything referring to the New World Order etc is now removed. We are loosing the internet, bit by bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhwilson@acay.com.au
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Subject: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:27:20 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: Australian Citizens Community Forums
To: info.accf@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Liberty is brewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kll9-nR4uVs
Watch this and spread the word.
Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1
------ End of Forwarded Message
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Fellow Australians,
Yesterday, in the Blacktown Local Court, a familiar scenario took place. Magistrate Dr. Brown kept me till almost last. At about 11:45am he called my name. I went to the table and opened my briefcase. He asked how did I plead and I said, "I will not plead anything until there is a Court of Proper Jurisdiction. I demand that there is a Jury. I do not consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily." He said there will be no Jury. I said, "I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court. Once the Jurisdiction of the Court is Challenged there is a peremptory Stay of Proceedings until a Jury can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court." Dr. Brown kept talking while I was talking. Neither of us would back down. I said, "You are a criminal and a traitor. He ordered that I be arrested and the Police Prosecutor came over and grabbed me by the arm and a Sheriff garbbed me by the other arm. I said , "This is assault." The two chaps could not move me and begged me to go with them. Only when I was ready, did I allow them to manhandle me out of the Courtroom. They were more physically exhausted than I was. Stopping outside the side door and in the passage way, the Police Prosecutor went back into Court and the Sheriff was trying to explain that he had to do what the Magistrate told him to do. After a little while a Police Officer came over and said I had to be taken to the Police Station (which was through a side security door and across a concrete yard). When we got there (nothing physical), the Police (one girl and some four young men) wanted to know what was going on. The escorting Officer said that the Magistrate wanted me charged with "Offensive Language". I laughed and said, "I don't talk that way." The Police Officers were polite and a bit confused. They took me through the proceedure of going into "Custody". I chatted with them and gave them a very short lesson in the Right to Trial by Jury and what is a Kangaroo Court. They asked me to sit down and, after a few more minutes, more young Police Officers turned up. The the girl called me to the desk and said, "The Magistrate wants you charged. If he wants to do that, he's going to have to do it. You can go.". Another Officer said that he would get the audio tape from the Court and have a listen. They gave me back my briefcase and one Officer walked with me back to the street while we talked. We shooked hands and he went back into the Station.
In the Police Station, I had told the girl Police Officer that they can expect a repeat performance on the 10th of December when I'm back there, again.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear Hank,
It's in our Bill of Rights 1688..."That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condidtions and as allowed by law."......... a Constitutional Enactment since 1828 and a Common Law since 1899.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Roelofs
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Where is our 2nd amendment though?
Your money for the bank stickers is in the mail
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Jack Bauer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 9:50 PM
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Hal,
Dead right, there.
Len Clampett is the one who has championed that issue....and now the High Court Registry demands that lower Court Judgments, etc, must have the SEAL of that Court before they'll accept them for filing for Appeals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Reynolds
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
All documents must have the SEAL of the Court or else they are not valid.
On 14/11/2007, at 2:28 PM, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Debra,
This denial of the Right to Travel is pretty important....if anyone has to be punished that way, it's going to have to be done by a Jury.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Bentley
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
I am looking forward to learning the outcome of your matter - it affects all us drivers - good luck, God bless.
Since first talking to you and Pedro, I have learned soooo much - I have a conference with a Barrister tomorrow on my Loss of Identity, Common Law Rights etc... will let you know how I get on there - it's been an exciting journey of discovery about what I can do to rectify this 'Tyrannical' situation to me and my kids and in this country too - who would have thought!!!!
Cheers
Deb
On 11/14/07, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Fellow Australians,
I will be in the Blacktown Court House, 1 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW 2148 at 9:30am for a Court Attendance Notice re: "Drive while license cancelled", "Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle" and "Use uninsured motor vehicle".
I've read their "FULL FACTS" - which are a long way from relating the full story ..... and part is not true.
I have written to the Police Commissioner on 22 Oct asking for the "POLICE IN-CAR VIDEO" but with no response.
So, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Of course, I'll be demanding Trial by Jury and Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court when it is denied.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: The license and registration were cancelled by the State Debt Recovery Office because I refused to pay Court Costs when denied the Right to Trial by Jury for another case.
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
When the Internet is gone...and there is an end to discussion......so goes any possiblity of avoiding bloody violence....who, in their right mind, would want that????
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: dav a
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
At this point in history John, I have to honestly say, the sooner USA goes down, the better.
What may come form that for Australia (i realize the military ramifications very well) so be it, because the way it is right now (Iraq, 911, hoax terrorism, corporate media censorship etc etc) is worse than anything.
By the way, forget Indo attacking us, you must realize, even with a million man army, they have no ships, tanks nor aircraft to do any real damage.
David B
p.s- did you know that Youtube is now censoring any content it deems 'controversial'. So anything referring to the New World Order etc is now removed. We are loosing the internet, bit by bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhwilson@acay.com.au
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Subject: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:27:20 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: Australian Citizens Community Forums
To: info.accf@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Liberty is brewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kll9-nR4uVs
Watch this and spread the word.
Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1
------ End of Forwarded Message
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Fellow Australians,
Yesterday, in the Blacktown Local Court, a familiar scenario took place. Magistrate Dr. Brown kept me till almost last. At about 11:45am he called my name. I went to the table and opened my briefcase. He asked how did I plead and I said, "I will not plead anything until there is a Court of Proper Jurisdiction. I demand that there is a Jury. I do not consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily." He said there will be no Jury. I said, "I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court. Once the Jurisdiction of the Court is Challenged there is a peremptory Stay of Proceedings until a Jury can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court." Dr. Brown kept talking while I was talking. Neither of us would back down. I said, "You are a criminal and a traitor. He ordered that I be arrested and the Police Prosecutor came over and grabbed me by the arm and a Sheriff garbbed me by the other arm. I said , "This is assault." The two chaps could not move me and begged me to go with them. Only when I was ready, did I allow them to manhandle me out of the Courtroom. They were more physically exhausted than I was. Stopping outside the side door and in the passage way, the Police Prosecutor went back into Court and the Sheriff was trying to explain that he had to do what the Magistrate told him to do. After a little while a Police Officer came over and said I had to be taken to the Police Station (which was through a side security door and across a concrete yard). When we got there (nothing physical), the Police (one girl and some four young men) wanted to know what was going on. The escorting Officer said that the Magistrate wanted me charged with "Offensive Language". I laughed and said, "I don't talk that way." The Police Officers were polite and a bit confused. They took me through the proceedure of going into "Custody". I chatted with them and gave them a very short lesson in the Right to Trial by Jury and what is a Kangaroo Court. They asked me to sit down and, after a few more minutes, more young Police Officers turned up. The the girl called me to the desk and said, "The Magistrate wants you charged. If he wants to do that, he's going to have to do it. You can go.". Another Officer said that he would get the audio tape from the Court and have a listen. They gave me back my briefcase and one Officer walked with me back to the street while we talked. We shooked hands and he went back into the Station.
In the Police Station, I had told the girl Police Officer that they can expect a repeat performance on the 10th of December when I'm back there, again.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear Hank,
It's in our Bill of Rights 1688..."That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condidtions and as allowed by law."......... a Constitutional Enactment since 1828 and a Common Law since 1899.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Roelofs
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Where is our 2nd amendment though?
Your money for the bank stickers is in the mail
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Jack Bauer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 9:50 PM
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Hal,
Dead right, there.
Len Clampett is the one who has championed that issue....and now the High Court Registry demands that lower Court Judgments, etc, must have the SEAL of that Court before they'll accept them for filing for Appeals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Reynolds
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
All documents must have the SEAL of the Court or else they are not valid.
On 14/11/2007, at 2:28 PM, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Debra,
This denial of the Right to Travel is pretty important....if anyone has to be punished that way, it's going to have to be done by a Jury.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Bentley
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
I am looking forward to learning the outcome of your matter - it affects all us drivers - good luck, God bless.
Since first talking to you and Pedro, I have learned soooo much - I have a conference with a Barrister tomorrow on my Loss of Identity, Common Law Rights etc... will let you know how I get on there - it's been an exciting journey of discovery about what I can do to rectify this 'Tyrannical' situation to me and my kids and in this country too - who would have thought!!!!
Cheers
Deb
On 11/14/07, John Wilson
Dear Fellow Australians,
I will be in the Blacktown Court House, 1 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW 2148 at 9:30am for a Court Attendance Notice re: "Drive while license cancelled", "Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle" and "Use uninsured motor vehicle".
I've read their "FULL FACTS" - which are a long way from relating the full story ..... and part is not true.
I have written to the Police Commissioner on 22 Oct asking for the "POLICE IN-CAR VIDEO" but with no response.
So, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Of course, I'll be demanding Trial by Jury and Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court when it is denied.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: The license and registration were cancelled by the State Debt Recovery Office because I refused to pay Court Costs when denied the Right to Trial by Jury for another case.
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)