| You are here: Patriot Saints > News > Rose Lear > Feedback > inflammatory language | |||||
|
Lear Language is Inflammatory, Begging Controversy
Rose Lear's reply follows.
From: TPK
To: "'Bradley Jordan'" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:02 AM
Subject: RE: Hunger Strike Day 30; Congressman's Answer Inadequate
Sterling,
I realize you've been pretty close to this issue, and I understand that the 16th Amendment has been controversial since its inception. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on this. I basically agree that there are some serious discrepancies in how the tax code has been handled, and they could invalidate it, and it would be nice if they did. But I do have my own serious problem with how the tax revolt people have been going about their campaign, and Rose is a case in point.
When I read her press release and those 8 questions (I haven't got time to read the 537 others.), I was simply appalled, not at what she was saying, but at how she was saying it. She may be correct in her assertions, but the way she states her questions predisposes people, especially people who think of themselves as official, like Congressmen and lawyers, to be hostile to her and to treat her as a parent might treat an angry 4-yr old who was upset because she missed her supper.
Here's what I'm talking about. Let me paste in her 1st 3 questions of those 8.
1. Why are U.S. Attorneys deceiving Grand Juries to return indictments against U.S. Citizens for violating a penalty statute (26 U.S.C. §7203) instead of revealing the specific law alleged to have been violated?
2. Why are Federal Trial Judges proceeding to trial on Grand Jury Indictments and U.S. Attorney Informations for Tax Crimes which fail to specify the law alleged to have been violated, instead of throwing the actions out of Court as the government does not know how to bring forth a specific charge of a violation of law?
3. Why have Federal Trial Judges allowed so many U.S. Citizens to go through the financial and emotional brutality of criminal prosecution for violation of 26 U.S.C. §7203, which only sets forth the Penalty for violation of tax laws?
Ok, she cites the codes and has lots of legal jargon, so obviously she's done some research. That's good, at least. But look at what she says: "Why are US Attorneys deceiving Grand Juries." Who says that they are doing that? She talks as if that were common knowledge. Perhaps one or two might be doing that, for personal reasons, which one might assume based on human nature, but to make such a grand generalization without offering specific proof is ridiculous. Her proof should be in the form of a long series of court decisions on things like perjury and contempt of court, but if she doesn't have that, at least she could come up with some newspaper articles alleging things like that and offering specific instances. But even if she were to come up with a few specific instances, that's still not enough to show a consistent trend that would indicate something like conspiracy. She'd have to find a lot of instances, over a long period of time, to assert that.
Then she uses words like "brutality" to describe the process of going through criminal prosecution for violating the tax code. Granted, I'm sure it's not fun. But I think that common usage, as well as the dictionary definition of that word, would show that she's misusing the word. I realize she's doing it to emphasize a point, but her emphasis there, along with the actual misuse of the word, exposes her as being unreasonably emotional on the one hand and attempting to taint the discussion with that emotion on the other hand.
Both of these items that I've brought up are logical fallacies, and lawyers will jump all over you for making logical fallacies. If you have to resort to logical fallacies during some kind of legal argument, you're going to lose. You're setting yourself up for a fall. It's exactly that type of thing that causes the System to label the tax revolters as "frivolous." Of course they're frivolous. If they can't figure out how properly to use the English language and conduct a rational debate over the issue, how else should they expect to be treated? These agencies and Congress see the tax revolters as puerile, childish, and frankly, given the way that the tax revolters have been presenting their arguments, they deserve it.
The only way we're ever going to win this battle, at least within the system, is by becoming more shrewd than the system itself, but the way that Rose has been going about it merely serves to discredit the cause. Yes, a hunger strike, in today's politically correct atmosphere, will definitely get attention, but given the wording that she's using, it will be the wrong kind of attention.
So if you've got any influence with her at all, could you please show her how damaging her logical fallacies are? Perhaps you could find a high school or college English teacher or math teacher, or lawyer, out there who is sympathetic to the cause, and have them proof and edit her press releases. I know one guy, Dr. George Gillen, the head of the Oral Roberts University Undergraduate Business Dept., in Tulsa, OK, who's an expert on logical fallacies. He was my teacher and introduced me to this concept. I'm not sure what his beliefs on the 16th Amendment are, but as a matter of pride, he might be willing to proof and edit her press releases. His criticism can be excoriating, but if Rose can stand the heat, she'll have a logically perfect document to release, and if her references are accurate, and exhaustive, she'll be practically unbeatable.
Thanks,
TK
Lear's Reply
It seems that TPK has a problem with the way I phrased my 8 questions to Congressman Hoekstra. TPK starts out with the 16th Amendment issue which isn't my issue. I really don't care if it was properly ratified or not. I know it doesn't pertain to me so why dispute the point. I'm not responsible for the articles that were written and the only one that states my issues is the one containing the 8 questions. So lets move on the TPK's comments about those.
TPK seems to have a problem with how the 8 questions were phrased. I wonder, has TPK ever been indicted and had to defend himself/herself (sorry, I can't tell gender from initials) on a statute that does not specify the law, statute or code that specifics the crime alleged to have been committed? This would be question 1.
Why are U.S. Attorneys deceiving Grand Juries to return indictments against U.S. Citizens for violating a penalty statute (26 U.S.C. Section 7203) instead of revealing the specific law alleged to have been violated?
If TPK has a problem with this question that I would suggest that TPK look up Cole v. Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201 (1947) The Supreme Court again reversed a conviction of a crime that was not charged in the indictment. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of Section 1 {and convicted of section 2}, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.
Bill Lear was indicted on the charge of 7203, yet during trial, when he pointed out to four IRS agents on the stand that 7203 clearly stated, "any person required", and asked them, "can you tell me what law, statute, or code makes me a person required". Not one of the IRS agents could or would answer the question under oath. It was after this question was asked 17 times and the forth IRS agent was unable to answer the question that the U.S. Attorney (not under oath) stood up and told the judge that 6012(a) was the statute that made Mr. Lear liable. 6012(a) was not sited in the indictment and if the U.S. Attorney knew this to be in fact the statute that required Mr. Lear to be "a person required" than why did he not present this to the Grand Jury and state 6012(a) in the indictment so Mr. Lear could adequately defend himself?
If TPK had an ounce of common sense he/she would know from the questions and the way they were phrased that they opened the door for more debate on the subject matter. The only reason that I am even responding to TPK is that others felt that I should. I read TPK's response several days ago and discarded it an another not fully educated remark by a person who cannot see that progress has been made. Life is like a football game, there are two teams within each team. Offense and Defense. I will always take the Offense and let the other side Defend.
Rose Lear
See also
Page posted by SDA, Tuesday
April 7, 2003.
Last updated April 13, 2003
visits since April 13, 2003