Dan Riley, a supporter of Ed and Elain Brown, was arrested and charged with assisting Ed and Elaine in their stand against the Federal Income Tax fraud. This blog will be used to keep everyone up to date on the status of Dan's legal defense against these charges.
DJR Legal Defense Fund
Mailing Address
Daniel Riley 14528-052 FCI TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
AMENDMENT XVI Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes, we're all aware of the 16th Amendment. [You must be new to this battle.]
Are you aware that: 1. The purpose of the 16th was to correct a glitch in the 1909 Corporate Tax Statute? 2. Supreme Court rulings not long after the 16th concluded that: the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Govt; and "incomes" meant "gain from corporate activity"? 3. CONGRESS agrees (in HR 2525) that the Income Tax violates the "civil rights and privacy" of citizens?
By the way, on the Supreme Court rulings (above)--- do your own research. I charge $90 per hour for such research.
Sincerely, Scott http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
*sigh* its not just the ignorance its the ego. Your rulings are quote mines, I do encourage people to look up the original rulings and see why "no new power of taxation" is taken out of context. Daniel Evans does a good job dissecting this false claim and many others:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
And who the hell cites a bill in the house that got tabled a decade ago in committee as "proof" of anything. Christ.
Scott, My stop quoting Mr. Justice Butler's with only "no new taxing powers"? What about his other statements that "Congress already had the power to tax all incomes" and "income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."
Why stop in history there?
What about Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. where the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies. It was declared that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.". Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income.
I would have expected a litle more from someone that charges $90 per hour for research.
The path to freedom for Danny and the other supporters are not in Habeas Corpus. (unless they refused processing, and reserved rights at the common law. UCC 1-308 and 1-103.6 they are now volunteers ) At least it appears that is the direction they are trying. It is in the assistance of effective counsel that can have a grand monkey wrench effect. At this point a plea has been entered by an attorney, so the "Court" can overcome any jurisdictional attacks, along with collateral attacks concerning consent, United States Code 636. This also means no appeal will be "winnable" unless process in some way is found to be "defective". The issues of law have already been decided. At trial the "facts" will be weighed by the jury and a simple question posed. Did they or did they not do some act, done deal.
He can use 636 to prevent the Jurisdiction from being transferred to Maine. the case is transferred to a magistrate only to obtain the required "consent" then a judge assigned. This is why no ruling on dismissal of attorney, his "job" is not finished. He will appear and Consent will be given by power of attorney.
A wild card never used to my knowledge, is the Judge in N. H. has declared an emergency as no judge there can hear the case. If he denies Jurisdiction through lack of Consent at 636 he can then move for dismissal.
If you read the Attorneys Affidavit to withdraw the proper words are there "effective assistance of counsel"
The habeas was rejected because he "volunteered" so he can not demonstrate violation of rights, they did not take tem he waived them....
A revocation of signatures and power of Attorney must also be sent.
They must also not WAIVE the right to speedy trial, below find a very reliant case as to not "finding effective counsel"
4. Granting of Writ. - When, however, a sufficient case is made out for the discharge of the prisoner or petitioner, he has an absolute right to the writ, and the court or judge to whom application is made is bound to issue it.1 5. Mandamus to Compel Issuance. - When it is the duty of the judge to issue habeas corpus and he refuses to do so, mandamus will be granted in some jurisdictions to compel him.* 6. Penalty for Refusal to Issue. - In a number of the states the refusal of habeas corpus in a proper case subjects the judge to a heavy pecuniary penalty.
You do not get it, jail is not even an option for men. the concept is not even mentioned in the law Danny is a VOLONTEER to the housing of the state AND HE CAN NOT FILE A HABEAS, and non will be granted. Extraordinary writs are based on the fact that a man is held UNLAWFULLY. Legally a man can waive his rights and contract to the iron bar hotel just by registering at the gate. The claim becomes null and void before it is even made. People always claim the Judge is breaking the law, well the people do not know what they are talking about. He has one shot and that comes today, the man would not listen when I talked to him a while back,He just got smart with his mouth. Now he is paying for his ignorence and I will simply watch...
Awwwww George, now don't be like that! We need to help this guy, and we can't let ego's get in the way! Nice to see everyone throwing legal jumbo around, lets try and get a direction; we're talking about Danny right now. Not tax laws. Put all you're GREAT legal minds together, and let's do it right here, so the whole world can see it work! Obviously Danny wants to represent himself for obvious reason's. Give him the proper tools to get the job done. In this case, paper work! Writs whatever you call them!
If Danny wants out he will stop he anti-government rhetoric, recognize that the court system is legitimate and that refusal to work with it will mean failure. He then needs to either hire an attorney or accept one that is given to him. Most likely he will then want to work towards a plea bargain to lesser charges that will allow him out on bond. Probably will need to see a shrink, get a clean bill of mental health, start paying his taxes and give up on the pesudo-revolutionary bullshit.
I could not agree with Trent more. Danny just continues to buck the system and people are getting very tired of all of this. Why does he feel that this is worth the next 15-20 years of his life!! Who is winning here - Danny and the Browns or the government? Can do much for your cause sitting in a jail cell now can you?
Such a volume of legalese proficiency brandishing. For those of us less impressed by anonymous venting than by character, passion, integrity, caring, it is sad or worse to see the anonymously bravely strutting denigrating (as in the two entries prior to this) a man sacrificing to resist oppressors. Leo Olson
AMENDMENT XVI
ReplyDeletePassed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes, we're all aware of the 16th Amendment. [You must be new to this battle.]
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that:
1. The purpose of the 16th was to correct a glitch in the 1909 Corporate Tax Statute?
2. Supreme Court rulings not long after the 16th concluded that: the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Govt; and "incomes" meant "gain from corporate activity"?
3. CONGRESS agrees (in HR 2525) that the Income Tax violates the "civil rights and privacy" of citizens?
By the way, on the Supreme Court rulings (above)--- do your own research. I charge $90 per hour for such research.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
*sigh* its not just the ignorance its the ego. Your rulings are quote mines, I do encourage people to look up the original rulings and see why "no new power of taxation" is taken out of context. Daniel Evans does a good job dissecting this false claim and many others:
ReplyDeletehttp://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
And who the hell cites a bill in the house that got tabled a decade ago in committee as "proof" of anything. Christ.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteMy stop quoting Mr. Justice Butler's with only "no new taxing powers"? What about his other statements that "Congress already had the power to tax all incomes" and "income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."
Why stop in history there?
What about Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. where the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies. It was declared that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.". Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income.
I would have expected a litle more from someone that charges $90 per hour for research.
What's next?
The path to freedom for Danny and the other supporters are not in Habeas Corpus. (unless they refused processing, and reserved rights at the common law. UCC 1-308 and 1-103.6 they are now volunteers ) At least it appears that is the direction they are trying. It is in the assistance of effective counsel that can have a grand monkey wrench effect. At this point a plea has been entered by an attorney, so the "Court" can overcome any jurisdictional attacks, along with collateral attacks concerning consent, United States Code 636. This also means no appeal will be "winnable" unless process in some way is found to be "defective". The issues of law have already been decided. At trial the "facts" will be weighed by the jury and a simple question posed. Did they or did they not do some act, done deal.
ReplyDeleteHe can use 636 to prevent the Jurisdiction from being transferred to Maine. the case is transferred to a magistrate only to obtain the required "consent" then a judge assigned. This is why no ruling on dismissal of attorney, his "job" is not finished. He will appear and Consent will be given by power of attorney.
A wild card never used to my knowledge, is the Judge in N. H. has declared an emergency as no judge there can hear the case. If he denies Jurisdiction through lack of Consent at 636 he can then move for dismissal.
If you read the Attorneys Affidavit to withdraw the proper words are there "effective assistance of counsel"
The habeas was rejected because he "volunteered" so he can not demonstrate violation of rights, they did not take tem he waived them....
A revocation of signatures and power of Attorney must also be sent.
They must also not WAIVE the right to speedy trial, below find a very reliant case as to not "finding effective counsel"
http://tammybruce.com/2007/07/alleged_child_molester.php
HABEAS CORPUS.
ReplyDelete4. Granting of Writ. - When, however, a sufficient case is made
out for the discharge of the prisoner or petitioner, he has an absolute
right to the writ, and the court or judge to whom application
is made is bound to issue it.1
5. Mandamus to Compel Issuance. - When it is the duty of the
judge to issue habeas corpus and he refuses to do so, mandamus
will be granted in some jurisdictions to compel him.*
6. Penalty for Refusal to Issue. - In a number of the states the
refusal of habeas corpus in a proper case subjects the judge to a heavy pecuniary penalty.
You do not get it, jail is not even an option for men. the concept is not even mentioned in the law Danny is a VOLONTEER to the housing of the state AND HE CAN NOT FILE A HABEAS, and non will be granted. Extraordinary writs are based on the fact that a man is held UNLAWFULLY. Legally a man can waive his rights and contract to the iron bar hotel just by registering at the gate. The claim becomes null and void before it is even made. People always claim the Judge is breaking the law, well the people do not know what they are talking about. He has one shot and that comes today, the man would not listen when I talked to him a while back,He just got smart with his mouth. Now he is paying for his ignorence and I will simply watch...
ReplyDeleteAwwwww George, now don't be like that! We need to help this guy, and we can't let ego's get in the way! Nice to see everyone throwing legal jumbo around, lets try and get a direction; we're talking about Danny right now. Not tax laws. Put all you're GREAT legal minds together, and let's do it right here, so the whole world can see it work! Obviously Danny wants to represent himself for obvious reason's. Give him the proper tools to get the job done. In this case, paper work! Writs whatever you call them!
ReplyDeleteIf Danny wants out he will stop he anti-government rhetoric, recognize that the court system is legitimate and that refusal to work with it will mean failure. He then needs to either hire an attorney or accept one that is given to him. Most likely he will then want to work towards a plea bargain to lesser charges that will allow him out on bond. Probably will need to see a shrink, get a clean bill of mental health, start paying his taxes and give up on the pesudo-revolutionary bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with Trent more. Danny just continues to buck the system and people are getting very tired of all of this. Why does he feel that this is worth the next 15-20 years of his life!! Who is winning here - Danny and the Browns or the government? Can do much for your cause sitting in a jail cell now can you?
ReplyDeleteSuch a volume of legalese proficiency brandishing. For those of us less impressed by anonymous venting than by character, passion, integrity, caring, it is sad or worse to see the anonymously bravely strutting denigrating (as in the two entries prior to this) a man sacrificing to resist oppressors. Leo Olson
ReplyDelete