Time: Sun Nov 24 18:56:31 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: IRS attacks (again)
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Frank R. Brushaber was a free White State
Citizen, and he still had to pay federal
income taxes on the dividends he earned
from stock he purchased in the Union
Pacific Railroad Company.  See Brushaber
v. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 04:14 PM 11/24/96 EST, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:36:34 -0800 (PST) BEHOLD! Newsletter
><behold@teleport.com> writes:
>
>Saturday, November 23, 1996, 5:17 p.m.
>
>Hello Mr. Wangrud,
>
>Wangrud:
>You have missed the point. The issue is what makes a
>Free White State Citizen liable to the Federal
>individual income tax. Being an employee or employer
>does not of it self make any one liable to the income
>tax. For example:  A free White State Citizen can be an
>employee or employer and not an individual as defined
>in the SS Act. Now in all of your court cases show
>me where the courts have decided this issue? 
>
>Freeman:
>There is nothing which makes anyone, liable to a fraud, except ignorance
>or cravenness!
>
>                         FRAUD
>
>     An intentional perversion of truth for the
>     purpose of inducing another in reliance upon
>     it in part with some valuable thing belonging
>     to him or to surrender a legal right;  a
>     false representation of a mater of fact,
>     whether by words or by conduct, by false or
>     misleading allegations, or by concealment of
>     that which should have been disclosed, which
>     deceives and is intended to deceive another
>     so that he shall act upon it to his legal
>     injury.
>     See:
>          Brainerd Dispatch Newspaper Co. v. Crow Wing
>          County, 196 Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780.
>
>     Any kind of artifice employed by one person
>     to deceive another.
>     See:
>          Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of
>          U.S., 160 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067.
>
>     A generic term, embracing all multifarious
>     means which human ingenuity can devise, which
>     are resorted to by one individual to get
>     advantage over another by false suggestions
>     or by suppression of truth, and includes all
>     surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and
>     unfair way by which another is cheated.
>     See:
>          Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P. 2d
>          150.
>
>     "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and
>     also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity,
>     faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc..
>     See:
>          Joiner v. Joiner, Tex. Civ. App., 87 S.W. 2d
>          903, 914, 915.
>
>     It consists of some deceitful practice or
>     willful device, resorted to with intent to
>     deprive another of his right, or in some
>     manner to do him an injury.  As distinguished
>     from negligence, it is always positive,
>     intentional.
>     See:
>          Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 67 N.Y. 292;
>          Alexander v. Church, 52 Conn. 561, 4 A. 103;
>          Studer v. Bleistein, 115, N.Y. 316, 22 N.E.
>          243, 7 L.R.A. 702;
>          McNair v. Southern States Finance Co., 191
>          N.C. 710, 133 S.E. 85, 88.
>
>     Fraud is also classified as "fraud in fact"
>     and "fraud in law."  The former is actual,
>     positive, intentional fraud.  Fraud disclosed
>     by matters of fact, as distinguished from
>     constructive fraud or fraud in law.
>     See:
>          McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. 356, 3
>          Am. Rep. 588;
>          Cook v. Burnham, 3 Kan. App. 27, 44 P. 447.
>
>     It comprises all acts, omissions, and
>     concealments involving a breach of a legal or
>     equitable duty and resulting in damages to
>     another.
>     See:
>          Coppo v. Coppo, 163 Misc. 249, 297
>          N.Y.S. 744, 750.
>
>     And includes anything calculated to deceive,
>     whether it be a single act or combination of
>     circumstances, whether the suppression of
>     truth or the suggestion of what is false,
>     whether it be by direct falsehood or by
>     innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of
>     mouth, or by look or gesture.
>     See:
>          People v. Gilmore, 345 Ill. 28, 177
>          N.E. 710, 717.
>
>     Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause
>     of an error bearing on a material part of the
>     contract, created or continued by artifice,
>     with design to obtain some unjust advantage
>     to the one party, or to cause an
>     inconvenience or loss to the other.
>     See:
>          Civil Code La. Art. 1847;
>          Strauss v. Insurance Co. of North America,
>          157 La. 661, 102 So. 861, 865;
>          Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Gibbon,
>          Tex. Civ. App., 180 S.W. 1185, 1187.
>
>     Fraud, in the sense of a court of equity,
>     properly includes all acts, omissions, and
>     concealments which involve a breach of legal
>     or equitable duty, trust, or confidence
>     justly reposed, and are injurious to another,
>     or by which an undue and unconscientious
>     advantage is taken of another.
>     See:
>          1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 187;
>          Howard v. West Jersey & S.S.R. Co., 102 N.J.
>          Eq. 517, 141 A. 755, 757.
>
>     Fraud is either actual or constructive. 
>     Actual fraud consists of deceit, artifice,
>     trick, design, some direct and active
>     operation of the mind;  it includes cases of
>     the intentional and successful employment of
>     any cunning, deception, or artifice used to
>     circumvent or cheat another;  it is something
>     said, done, or omitted by a person with the
>     design of perpetrating what he knows to be a
>     cheat or deception.  Constructive fraud
>     consists in any act of commission or omission
>     contrary to legal or equitable duty, trust,
>     or confidence justly reposed, which is
>     contrary to good conscience and operates to
>     the injury of another.
>
>     Or, as otherwise defined, it is an act,
>     statement or omission which operates as a
>     virtual fraud on an individual, or which, if
>     generally permitted, would be prejudicial to
>     the public welfare, and yet may have been
>     unconnected with any selfish or evil design.
>
>     Or, according to Story, constructive frauds
>     are such acts or contracts as, through not
>     originating in any actual evil design or
>     contrivance to perpetrate a positive fraud or
>     injury upon other persons, are yet, by their
>     tendency to deceive or mislead other persons,
>     or to violate private or public confidence,
>     or to impair or injure the public interests,
>     deemed equally reprehensible with actual
>     fraud.
>     See:
>          1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 258;
>          Code Ga. 1882, Sec. 3173 (Civ. Code
>          1910, Sec. 4622);
>          People v. Kelly, 35 Barb., N.Y., 457;
>          Massachusetts Ben. L. Ass'n. v. Robinson, 104
>          Ga. 256, 30 S.E. 918, 42 L.R.A. 261;
>          Allen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
>          Co., 269 Ill. 234, 109 N.E. 1035, 1038.
>
>     Fraud in law is fraud in contemplation of
>     law;  fraud implied or inferred by law; 
>     fraud made out by construction of law, as
>     distinguished from found by a jury from
>     matter of fact;  constructive fraud (q.v.).
>     See:
>          2 Kent Commentaries 512-523;
>          Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N.Y. 691,
>          49 N.E. 65;
>          Lovato v. Catron, 20 N.M. 168, 148 P. 490,
>          492, L.R.A. 1915 E., 451;
>          Furst & Thomas v. Merritt, 190 N.C. 397, 130
>          S.E. 40, 43.
>
>     Fraud is also said to be "legal" or
>     "positive."  The former is fraud made out by
>     legal constructive or inference, or the same
>     thing as constructive fraud.
>     See:
>          Newell v. Wagness, 1 N.D. 62, 44 N.W. 1014.
>
>     Positive fraud is the same thing as actual fraud.
>     See:
>          Douthitt v. Applegate, 33 Kan. 395, 6 P. 575,
>          52 Am. Rep. 533;
>          Nocatee Fruit Co. v. Fosgate, C.C.A. Fla., 12
>          F. 2d 250, 252.
>
>                   STATUTE OF FRAUD
>
>     This is the common designation of a very
>     celebrated English statute, (29 Car. II.
>     c.3,) passed in 1677, and which has been
>     adopted, in a more or less modified form, in
>     nearly all of the 50 United States.  Its
>     chief characteristic is the provision that no
>     suit or action shall be maintained on certain
>     classes of contracts or engagements unless
>     there shall be a note or memorandum therefore
>     in writing, signed by the party to be charged
>     or by his authorized agent.  Its object was
>     to close the door to the numerous frauds and
>     perjuries.  It is more fully named as the
>     "statute of frauds and perjuries."
>     See:
>          Smith v. Morton, Okl. 157, 173 P. 520, 521;
>          Housley v. Strawn Merchandise Co., Tex. Com.
>          App., 291 S.W. 864, 867;
>          Norman v. Bullock County Bank, 187 Ala. 33,
>          65 So. 371, 372;
>          Garber v. Goldstein, 92 Conn. 226,
>          102 A. 605, 606.
>
>Since, it is a matter of public record, that the Social
>Security Act was pass due to fraud, anyone signing up,
>can very easily volunteer out of it!
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Steadfastly,
>John Freeman
>
>For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over
>a wall.  As for God, His way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried:
>He is a buckler to all those that trust in Him. - Psalms 8:29-30
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail