All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 1999 - Bill Cooper
59:33
Legality of Taxes #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Light hour of the hour.
The easy hour of the star.
Light hour for the good things.
I am the one who will destroy you.
I am the one who will save you.
I'm William Cooper.
the you're listening to the power of the time i'm william
cooper evening ladies and gentlemen
others are a couple of things i've got to uh... let you know about right now
We are once again able to get the scanners.
Now these are the best there are.
There's the BC 235 XLT, which is a handheld trunk tracking scanner.
And it has all of the frequencies and bands on it.
Nothing is cut out.
And we talked about that once before.
These are the top of the line.
These are the very best.
These are the trunk trackers.
These are the ones that you can even track and listen to the conversations if they change frequency in the middle of the conversation or if one party to the conversation is on one frequency and the other one answers on another and they change frequencies back and forth.
Pretty often that's called trunking.
Well these scanners can track that.
These are the best scanners available.
They're Uniden Bearscat scanners.
Uniden Bearcat scanners.
The top of the line.
A number one.
They are trunk trackers.
They're the ones that you've all been asking for.
We had them for a while and then we couldn't get them.
And the base scanners were on back order since before December.
Since before December, we just now managed to get 13 of the base scanners.
We can get as many of the handheld as you need.
Now listen to me very carefully.
If you want to purchase the handheld trunk tracker scanner, it's $260 postpaid to your door.
$260 postpaid to your door.
If you want them, order them now.
Also, we have 13 of the base stations.
These are the ones that nobody in the whole world could get.
They've been backordered everywhere.
We've been backordered since before December, ladies and gentlemen.
We just now got 13 of them.
This is the BC, the Bearcat 895 XLT 300 channel programmable scanner with trunk tracker technology.
Now, listen to me.
Since the introduction of trunk systems, tracking a conversation on a conventional scanner was impossible.
Absolutely impossible.
Now, with the trunk tracker system, you can search, lock on, and track a conversation even if the channel changes between replies.
This is the advanced trunk tracking technology.
With this base scanner, the BC-895XLT, You can stay on top of everything as it happens.
It's a full-featured scanner, has 300 channels with integrated trunk tracker technology, plus 800 megahertz, trunk scan, trunk search, trunk lockout, trunk delay, one-touch weather, turbo scan, built-in CTCSS tone board, an RS-232C port so that you can control it with a computer, and much, much more.
This is a full-featured base scanner, top of the line.
It also has conventional scanning, allowing you to scan and track almost every single conversation on the air.
This is an incredible piece of equipment.
And it scans everything from 29 MHz all the way up to 956 MHz.
So if you want one of these, we've only got 13, send us $280 post-paid right now.
If you want one of these, we've only got 13, send us $280 post-paid right now.
We can ship them as soon as we get your money.
$280 postpaid to your door.
To your door.
That's $280 postpaid to your door.
Let me tell you some of the frequencies it covers.
10 meter amateur band.
VHF low band.
6 meter amateur band.
Aircraft band.
Military land mobile.
2 meter amateur band.
VHF High Band, VHF High Band, UHF Air Band, Federal Land Mobile 70 cm Amateur Band, UHF Standard Band, UHF T-Band, and the Public Service Band between 800 and 956 MHz.
but between 800 and 956 megahertz, also all of the trunk frequencies.
So if you want one of these, it's 800 and... excuse me, that's backwards, it's $280 post-paid
to your door.
The handheld is $260 postpaid to your door.
The handheld will do almost everything that the base station will do.
So if you want to save $20, order the handheld.
If you want the top of the line, the very best scanner that money can buy right now, today, The 895 XLT Base Station.
Okay folks, that's all I had to tell you.
So we'll pick up right where we left off on Thursday.
And I backed this up ten minutes because I didn't want you to miss any single bit of Attorney Lowell Beedcraft's talk.
I backed it up ten minutes because after all, it's been over the weekend.
You've probably forgotten what he said.
I backed it up ten minutes so you can get right back into his talk and we will continue from there.
This tape may run out during this broadcast.
If it does and the broadcast goes silent, if all of a sudden you hear nothing but silence on the radio, just hang loose, stay there, chill out.
As soon as I can, I will change the tapes and you'll pick it right up where it left off.
Because I didn't miss anything when I taped all of this.
Got it all, folks.
Okay, get your pen and paper ready and stand by for stuff that will just absolutely curl your ears.
Post it to her web page.
I really invite you to study those particular webpages.
Now, it's been mentioned that our organization, the Wallace Institute, we have Jeff Metcalf, host of one of the radio talk shows at KSO.
We have General Ben Parton, my fellow Virginian, sitting over here in the room with us.
He's a board member of the Wallace Institute.
We named the organization, the Wallace Institute, not after some former governor in Alabama.
We named the Wallace Institute, Dee Dee's the one that picked the name, Because my favorite movie, as well as hers, is Braveheart.
And I think that the objective and purpose of the Wallace Institute is much like the words of William Wallace.
If you're watching the movie, the first scene of the battle, you know, you have some people that are trying to desert.
Oh, we don't want to fight.
What does William Wallace say?
He says, well, you fight and you may die.
Run and you'll live.
At least a while.
And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom.
And those words kind of bring up into me a They make me choke a little bit.
And I think that the other people that are involved with the Wallace Institute agree with those words.
Ours is a quest for freedom.
Now, we've assembled today for the purpose of objecting to at least one thing that I think is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, and that is the federal income tax.
And I would like to comment, make a few comments this morning regarding some of the Things I have learned by engaging in an almost 20-year study of the federal income tax.
And I would like to repeat the words of Senator Elihu Root back in 1913 when they were arguing about the very first federal income tax, which, you know, I've made copies of all of the acts regarding the income tax.
And that first income tax couldn't have been 20 to 25 pages long.
Today, this is half of it.
But back then, Senator Elihu Root made a comment, which I think is particularly appropriate.
He was talking about the complexity of a first income tax, and this is what he said.
Well, I guess you will have to go to jail.
If that is the result of not understanding the tax laws, I shall meet you there.
We shall have a merry, merry time because all of our friends will be there.
It will be an intellectual center for no one, no one has sufficient understanding of the income tax laws except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.
Now let me just tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I think that that is the apt description of both the law then as well as today.
Now let's talk about a couple of legal principles that I think that you need to understand in order for you to comprehend the argument that I would like to present for you today.
First, how many people here believe, this may be an outstanding proposition, you may have never heard of it before, but how many of you believe that you can rely on the word of the Yeah.
We should be able to rely on the government, as astounding a proposition as that may be.
Let me give you an example, a case that illustrates that legal proposition.
Reverend Cox, back during the Civil Rights era, was leading a protest in Shreveport.
He had a whole bunch of his followers.
Something happened the night before.
Some of his people were arrested.
They were jailed.
They were going to be arraigned this early morning at the state courthouse.
And he's leading a band of his followers down to the courthouse to demonstrate.
Well, he was told by the chief of police that he could not demonstrate near the courthouse, and then the chief of police proceeded to tell him where he could hold his demonstration.
Well, the prosecutor must have been looking out of the second floor of the courthouse and said, hey, I want to nail Reverend Cox.
Proceeded to do so.
The charges against Reverend Cox were Demonstrating near a courthouse.
But what's wrong with this picture?
Reverend Cox had been told by the chief of police where to hold his demonstration.
Reverend Cox went to trial, was convicted.
Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but the United States Supreme Court reversed and said, hey, look, It is reprehensible conduct on the part of the government for the government to tell you something and then turn around and deny it.
And in this situation, Reverend Cox had been subjected to conflicting authority from the government.
One said he could hold a demonstration at a spot where he did, and then he was accused by another government official of violating the law.
Let me give you another example.
Mr. Albertini.
Albertini was a fellow that liked to, out in the 9th Circuit, protest against nuclear power.
Out there in Hawaii, they do have those nuclear subs that pull into the Honolulu Harbor.
And he didn't like nuclear subs.
Well, he would protest against them.
One time, during a protest, he was convicted.
Charged and convicted for violating some law regarding an anti-demonstration event.
He appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit came out and said, well, gee, he has a First Member right to do that.
Albertini immediately, once he gets his decision from the judges, what do you suspect that he does?
He goes out and engages in another protest against nuclear power on the submarines.
In the interim, the United States government says, well, gee, we need to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
The government did.
The United States Supreme Court reversed.
And now, Albertini, having relied upon the word of the government, having relied on the word of the courts, finds himself back in trouble again.
Well, he was prosecuted, convicted.
But this time, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court said, well, gee, he relied.
Even though we were wrong.
He could rely on the word of the courts.
Now, those two cases, a part of a line of authority that says you can definitely rely on the word of the government, leads into this next proposition.
What happens when the government gives you two conflicting voices?
What happens when the government says yes, and what happens when the government says no?
Well, a demonstration of this is the case of Miss Critcher in the Fourth Circuit.
Miss Critcher, an Indian that lived down there, obviously, on one of the reservations in North Carolina, she was told by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that she could rely on their advice, and their advice was that she not file income tax returns to report the income that she made on the Indian reservation.
Well, naturally, Ms.
Crixer relies on this advice, but the IRS comes along years later and disagrees with the advice that she had gotten from the government agency, and she was prosecuted and convicted.
And on appeal, the Fourth Circuit said, it is amazing!
Look at this fact situation!
We have the government saying on one hand that Ms.
Crixer, this little lady caught in the middle, wasn't required to file returns, and then a government agency On the opposite end of the spectrum saying that she was required to file income tax returns and this poor little old lady is caught in the middle and because she received conflicting advice to prosecute her, constituted a due process violation.
Now let me just tell you, ladies and gentlemen, with these legal principles, what I would like for you to understand is that based on what Bill Benson's discoveries have shown, That the American people are in fact being subjected to a monumental due process problem.
It is far larger than the due process problem that was presented to Ms.
Crutcher.
Let me explain my position.
As Bill told you, he checked out the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
The government says, and we can rely on the word of the government, the government says that 38 states ratified the 16th Amendment.
Well, the constitutional threshold, since we had 48 states in the Union back in 1913, the bare constitutional threshold to adopt the 16th Amendment was 36 states.
It appears to me that if we merely eliminated three states, we would have a valid position that the 16th Amendment had failed to be ratified.
Well, let's go over those quickly.
I will kind of recover some of the grounds that Bill was talking about.
One of my favorite states to show that a As an example of a state that failed to ratify the 16th Amendment is that of Kentucky.
You heard Bill a few moments ago talking about what Kentucky did.
February 8, 1910, the proposition.
Now the House had, before that time, had adopted the 16th Amendment and obviously they had mailed evidence of the ratification by the House in Kentucky Took land or knots in Washington, D.C.
Why do we know that?
Because that is part of the documentation that Bill discovered down at Archives, just down the street.
Well, what did the Kentucky Senate do?
Well, the Kentucky Senate, on that date, voted on the amendment.
And the government claims the Kentucky Senate adopted the 16th Amendment on that date.
But when you go to the legislative journals, you see, as Bill said, there were nine votes in favor.
22 opposed.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think that we can definitely consider that it is quite obvious and crystal clear that Kentucky did not ratify the 16th Amendment.
So now we're down from 38 to 37.
Well, let's take another one of my favorite states that I like to talk about.
Oklahoma.
What did Oklahoma do?
Very similar to Kentucky.
One house of the Oklahoma legislature Ratified the 16th Amendment and it was perfect.
However, when the action of that body, the resolution, was sent over to the other body, maybe the Senate, what they did is they deliberately changed the wording of the 16th Amendment.
Now, the 16th Amendment had a very clear purpose.
In 1894, the United States Supreme Court had struck down, as unconstitutional, the 1894 Federal Income Tax.
Because of the decision in this, what we call the Pollock case, the 16th Amendment had been proposed to kind of circumvent the constitutional problem created by this decision.
So in 1913, it was alleged that the 16th Amendment was ratified.
It reads, there's 30 carefully drafted words, Congress will have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source Without apportionment among several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Now that's a whole bunch of words.
That's 30 words.
They have a very specific meaning.
However, the Oklahoma legislature came out and changed the amendment to read the exact opposite.
Rather than requiring or eliminating the apportionment requirement for income taxes, the Oklahoma legislature demanded that income taxes be imposed.
And subject to the regulation of apportionment.
That's kind of complex language.
But it clearly demonstrates that you cannot consider, a rational person cannot consider that Oklahoma ratified the amendment because it means the exact opposite of what the 16th Amendment itself says.
Now we're down to what?
36 states?
Let's deal with, let's just pick another state out of the blue.
California.
California deliberately engaged If you sit down and read what they allegedly adopted, besides the defects that Bill's talking about, there's no evidence of a vote by the California legislature, you cannot make sense of what the California resolution allegedly adopting the 16th Amendment means.
It appears to be the product of a drunken sailor.
Now, that brings us down to 35 states.
Do we not have an argument?
Remember, the government says it's not some flaky idea I concocted.
It's not a wild theory that Bill Benson concocted.
But the government says the power to tax incomes is predicated upon the 16th Amendment.
Well, let's accept their proposition.
If they say that the taxing power is predicated on the 16th Amendment, then if we have evidence that discloses the failure of the American people, the failure of the states to ratify the 16th Amendment, wouldn't it be logical to argue that there is no power to tax?
Yes, very logical.
Well, now I have just shown to you very quickly that three states failed to ratify the Amendment.
And it looks like to me we've got a very solid legal argument that we can go to court with and say, hey, you can't convict these people.
You can't impose taxes on these people.
Well, that's exactly what we did.
Bill Benson finished the state of Washington December 22nd, 1984.
We assembled He and I and another friend of ours assembled on December the 28th, 1984 in Kokomo, Indiana, and we made a decision.
The first case we're going to raise this issue in is a Danny Ferguson case, which was then set for trial January the 15th of 1985.
New Year's Day, 1985, I draft the first motion to attack the Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.
We go to court on January the 15th, 1985.
Bill comes to court with eight or nine states that are defective.
And we present our evidence to the judge, and between that date of January 15th, 1985, all the way up through the next three years, in a variety of cases across the country, we raised this question of the non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and guess what we had in the way of a response from the American federal judiciary?
Before I tell you what they did, let me tell you what the states have done with similar issues.
Like in Alabama.
If we have an argument, a legal argument, that an amendment hadn't been ratified, we can march into court and our courts will consider that question.
We did it back in 1983, this case called Alabama v. Manley.
Alabama against Manley, we attempted back in 82 to totally redraft the Alabama Constitution
with an amendment.
And the issue was raised in Alabama at the time.
Can we do that?
Is it legal?
And the Alabama Supreme Court said, no way, Jose.
Well, you know, it's just there's a wide variety of state courts that have likewise similarly handled questions of this nature.
So the states obviously can tell you that they can consider judicially The question of an amendment to a constitution.
Well, that was, we received the exact opposite answer from the federal courts.
The federal courts disclaimed any authority to deal with this question of the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Now, I can obviously understand the reasons why.
When you take a look at the amount of receipts that the federal government derives from the income tax.
You know, it takes a very brave man to sit there and say, this power is out the window.
And of course, that was the reception that we received in a wide number of cases where we raised this issue.
The courts said, oh, we can't do anything about this.
In essence, what the courts told us to do is take this silly little problem down the hall to Congress.
They are the guys that will resolve this question.
Well, Bill Benson, Happened at the time to live two doors down from a lawyer by the name of Marty Russo.
At that time, that lawyer, Marty Russo, was a representative in Congress.
He was Bill Benson's representative in Congress.
And Bill one evening went down and knocked on Marty's door.
And Marty came to the door and said, Well, Bill, what can I do for you?
And Bill proceeds to outline his whole argument in his book.
He says, I've got all this evidence here.
Marty, we've been to court.
Guess what?
You as a lawyer should know what this means.
The courts are saying that this is a political question.
And Marty thinks about it for a minute.
And he acts like the courts.
Whoa!
I don't want to have to resolve this question.
This is not a political question.
It's one for the courts, and they must decide the question of whether or not we have an amendment.
Now, I don't know about you, ladies and gentlemen, but I find that this situation that we've got here in America to be deplorable.
Not only has Bill been told by his congressman that it's a political question, I mean, it's a judicial question, one for the courts.
This man right over here with the gray beard, John Justice, back in 1987, And Bill, they sent out volume one of Bill's book to all congressmen, all federal judges, all U.S.
attorneys, all the governors.
He asked them, under our right to petition the government for address of grievance, he asked for action from the political branch on this question.
Do something about it.
And the voice that we received back, the replies were, We won't do anything about it.
It's a question for the courts.
Now, I ask you this.
You know, the United States Supreme Court says that we have a right to know whether a law exists.
Only makes sense.
We have the evidence that can prove That the 16th Amendment was not adopted as required by the amending provisions of the United States Constitution.
You can rely on that.
And we presented this issue to the courts, and they point their fingers to Congress, and Congress points their fingers back to courts, and those are the only two branches that have anything to do with ratifying an amendment to the United States Constitution.
And I ask this simple question.
Aren't we, if we are entitled to know whether or not a law exists, are we not being subjected to a monumental due process problem, very similar to that faced by Ms.
Critzer?
Remember the lady that was told she doesn't have to file any confessional terms by the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
A couple years later, the IRS says, no, she was wrong.
She was required.
Are we not being subjected to an identical Is this not a monumental due process problem that is being presented to all of the American people as a result of the acts of Congress and the federal courts?
But not only does the American people face this monumental problem, let me kind of really quickly summarize another problem that we all have.
You know, there's two types of taxes that the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to impose.
One's a direct tax, one's an indirect tax.
It's only logical that the income tax should fall within one of those two constitutional classifications.
The amazing proposition is that if you sit there and read the decisions of the federal courts, what do they say?
Where does the income tax fit constitutionally?
Well, some federal courts say, well, gee, it's a direct property tax.
Other federal courts say the exact opposite.
It's an excise tax.
When you get down to the state level, the states are the exact opposite, but you still see the same problem.
Most of the state courts say an income tax is an excise tax, but, again, that's a rule subject to interception, because the minority view is that it's a direct property tax, which, incidentally, is the majority view at the federal level.
Now, doesn't that make sense?
But the only thing that makes sense is this, that here in America, our system has told the American people that if you look into the constitutional foundation for this particular tax, the only thing that you will confront is uncertainty of the law, and uncertainty of the law creates a due process problem.
Now, I guess my time is approaching A conclusion here in a moment.
But I want to ask you this simple question.
You know, the folks that have formed the Wallace Institute, we want to do something.
You know, the folks that have formed the Wallace Institute, we want to do something to correct the ills in America.
I think that there are a tremendous number of problems that are created By the government.
And if we want to increase liberty and freedom in this country, we're going to have to get up off of our comfortable rear ends and do something about it.
But I've taken my own personal survey.
People call me up.
They might have a tax problem or they're contemplating, you know, gee, these questions regarding the income tax.
And the majority opinion or view or goals of the people with whom I talk are these.
I just want the IRS to leave me alone.
You know, I just don't want to be bothered by our government.
Well, you know, there's a class of people that these classes of individuals were best described by one of our founding fathers back at the time this country was founded.
Those are the people that want basically something for nothing.
They don't want to protect their liberty.
They want somebody else to do it.
And they are best described as those individuals that match this description.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Now, those are the people.
Once you go out and identify who they are, the best thing to do is move on.
If we identify an opposite class of people, those who are willing to help us correct the ills of America, we can do it.
And I would suggest there's the great potential that within the next five years, if the American people will exercise their political power, if they will confront government and they will do it actively, We can change America.
And we need to become people like Patrick Henry.
You remember what Patrick Henry had to say.
Is life so dear a piece of sweet as to be purchased at the price of change or slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God.
I ask not what course others may take, but ask for me, ask for me, ask for the other members of the Wallace Institute.
Give us liberty or give us death.
Now if we go out with that same attitude of Patrick Henry, we can change America for the better.
Thank you very much.
So what I'm going to do is open the phones at 520-333-4578.
What I'd like to do is I'd like to hear two things.
I'd like to hear from people who've been receiving their orders, because we've been shipping out a lot of orders.
Lots and lots and lots of orders have been going out the door.
So I want to hear from some of you who have received your orders.
And I want to know, you know, if you got them in good shape and, and, uh, and what do you think about them?
And, uh, number two, I would like to hear if anybody out there, uh, is interested in purchasing the, uh, base station trunk tracker scanner, the 895 XLT.
Uh, we have 13 of them in stock.
If there's a big enough demand, then we'll order more.
If not, we're not going to order more.
So I need some input from, from you.
To find out whether or not we should order more of these scanners while we can get them.
Remember, these things are almost impossible to get.
We've been back-ordered since before December.
If we need more, while they're available, we'd better get them right now.
So, I need to hear from you.
you at 520-333-4578 right now.
Number one, if you've received your order, I'd like to hear from you.
If you'd like to, uh, if you're interested in, uh, in, in any of these scanners, we need to know that too.
You don't have to, uh, buy it over the telephone.
I just need to know about how many, um, we should have, because so many people have wanted these over the last, uh, six months, and we haven't been able to, to get them for anybody.
And, uh, our price is on the money.
7-8 is the number.
The phones are open and we'll be taking your calls for the rest of this hour.
Also, if you want to talk about what you've been hearing, you can talk about that too.
520-333-4578 is the number.
Now, let me see here.
333-4578 is the number.
Now let me see here.
M-I-N-T.
333-4578.
333-4578.
If you come in 6'4", I'll have a place to put it.
Take your phone.
Take this back!
If you want a lover, oh, do anything you ask me to.
If you want another kind of love, oh, wear my little mask for you.
If you want a partner, take my hand.
Well, that fell through.
Number one, it's the wrong selection on the CD.
I thought I had selected number six and number eight came up.
And number two, Pauline brought the phone in here ringing like crazy when it's not supposed to be in the studio.
So we had to get that squared away.
And we've got somebody on the line.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Mr. Cooper.
Yes, sir.
Captain Audio from outside the nation's capital.
How are you, sir?
Great.
Very good.
I enjoyed Mr. Becraft's presentation tonight.
I've heard him speak before.
I am seated in front of a young lady right now that is having a very hard time acquiescing to the fact that the federal income tax law is non-constitutional.
Well, not only is it non-constitutional, but I defy her to find a law passed by Congress that requires Me or her or you to file the income tax.
Well, I agree with you fully.
However, this young lady has spent 30 years in the banking community.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
She wouldn't run her bank without knowing what the laws are, would she?
Oh, well, I couldn't speak for her.
I can only speak for myself.
Would she run her bank without knowing what the laws are?
Well, I wouldn't think so, but... It's a sure recipe for trouble, isn't it?
Well, I would agree, yeah.
Then why would she fill out a form and pay one-third of everything that she makes through the sweat of her brow every year without even verifying that there's such a law that requires it?
Well, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.
I call that stupid!
Well, I wouldn't call her stupid, could you?
No, I didn't call her stupid, I said I call that action stupid!
Yes sir, I agree with you.
In other words, that's like me showing up at your door one day and saying, hey, there's a law that says you have to give me $400,000 every 10 years.
And without ever looking for the law or verifying it or anything, every 10 years you give me $400,000.
Same thing.
Well, I agree.
I agree.
It's a very interesting thing.
We are converting yet another sheeple into a thinking person.
And by the way, the young lady wanted to compliment you.
We were listening earlier to Mystery Babylon 1, about the 2001 broadcast that you once did, and it was on the net, and it was quite good.
She enjoyed that quite largely.
And I suppose, in closing, I just wanted to know if you could tell me, does that Bearcat scanner also cover the cellular frequencies?
I... That would be in the 800 megahertz, uh... It's, uh... It's, uh...
This full-featured scanner offers 300 channels with integrated trunk tracker technology, plus 800 megahertz, comma, trunk scan, comma, trunk search, comma, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, is that manufactured in the United States?
I have no idea.
It's made by Uniden.
It doesn't say made in the USA anywhere on the box, but it doesn't say made in anywhere else either.
Okay, because the FCC I know all about that, but, you know, who gives a damn?
Well, yeah.
Well, on that note, I just want to thank you for a lovely broadcast and we look forward to many more, sir.
It's up to each individual what they listen to or don't listen to.
Not up to me.
Absolutely correct.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Good evening, sir.
520-333-4578 is the number.
If you've received your order, I'd like to hear from you, if you're listening out there, at 520-333-4578.
Also, if you're a person who's interested in these Bearcat scanners, I'd like to hear from you also.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Bill, what kind of battery does that handheld scanner use?
It comes with one battery that's rechargeable, and it comes with a charging unit, and you can purchase A second or two or three or four extra batteries by ordering them from the company so that you can always have charged up batteries.
They used to come with two, but now they come with only one.
Okay, well, I'm apparently kind of ordering one.
I'm one of the people that called you a few weeks ago asking about it.
Well, I've received dozens of calls from all kinds of people because you just couldn't get them.
For months and months and months, you couldn't get them.
I haven't been able to find a deal that good, you know, and I've gone out and looked.
Yeah, well, it's a great deal.
I've got to tell you that.
Uh, the factory suggested retail price, the Uniden suggested retail price on the base station is over $700.
I'm going to get the handheld, but I'm not sure the base is great, too.
I also have a question for you about your, you know, these shows we've been hearing, you know, about the income tax.
Uh-huh.
Ladies, have you ever read a book entitled, um, No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority by Leichmander Spooner?
Oh, come on.
You don't believe that, do you?
If the Founding Fathers represented the states, and they created it as a compact contract, okay?
They created it as a contract amongst themselves, but the moment that the states adopted it, it became a contract adopted by the states, which represented the people in the states, and binds them.
Yes, absolutely.
Lysander, Spooner is up a creek with that old argument.
It don't work.
It don't wash.
Now, until the states adopted it, it had no power over the people or the states at all.
It was only a contract binding the members of that constitutional convention.
Well, I just wanted to ask you.
I've never heard you mention him before.
That's why.
We only talk about facts.
Good, valid facts on this broadcast.
We don't go off into tangents and things that will confuse people or mislead them.
The Constitution is binding upon the states.
The states represent the people within the states who elected that government to represent them and conduct their business.
And when the states Ratify the Constitution.
It binds the people who live in that state.
I understand that.
Bill, I was just asking, you know, I just wanted to hear, you know, hear your thoughts, but I'm definitely going to order one of these scanners in the next few days.
OK.
We appreciate your show a lot.
Great.
And I'll talk to you later.
Thank you.
Thank you.
520-333-4578.
It's not so.
Now, if the people did not elect their Republican government of their state, and that Republican government did not adopt or ratify the Constitution, then no, it would not be binding.
But that's what they did.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
And that binds the people.
But only so far as the particular clauses In that Constitution, bind them!
The Constitution for the United States of America mainly has really nothing to do with the citizens of the state except where it gives the federal government the power to interfere.
That mostly is over counterfeiting, interstate and international commerce, piracy, and just a few other things.
That's about it.
You really come under the purview of your state constitution.
The federal government has no jurisdiction except in those areas granted to them in the constitution, granted to the government, within the territorial boundaries or borders of any of the Union states or over any of the citizens of any of the Union states.
It forms a union of states and most of what the Constitution has to do with is between that central federal government and the states and in their conduct in commerce.
And that's really the reason it was created.
The Articles of Confederation did not give the central government enough power to regulate commerce between the states and between the states and other nations or countries.
So, you've got to really get into it.
You just can't read a book and go off half-cocked and think that you've got the answer because just because it's written in a book does not make it so.
Just because it's written in a newspaper does not make it so.
Just because I say it on this broadcast does not make it so.
Make sure you understand that.
Listen to everyone.
Read everything.
Believe absolutely nothing unless you can prove it.
I mean prove it in your own research.
Okay, 520-333-4578 is the number.
If there are any of you out there interested in these trunk tracker scanners, let me know.
If I don't get any calls saying somebody's interested, we're not going to get any more.
And this is all we're going to keep on stock.
Despite all the calls we've had over the last few months, we don't know what you've done, whether you went out and bought another scanner or what.
We've got to get some feedback from you.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi, Bill.
Yes.
When is our Supreme Court going to get back to the Federalist Papers and why our Constitution and Bill of Rights was written the way it was?
Because they're playing games with everything from guns to business to personal rights, etc., etc., etc.
ad nauseum.
If you'll study the history of the Supreme Court, you'll find that that's not true.
Oh, I know.
In most instances.
A hundred years ago.
No, no.
I'm talking today.
In most instances, when a constitutional question comes before the Supreme Court, they rule in favor of the Constitution.
What you're talking about is United States district courts and appellate courts.
Yeah.
The Supreme Court only hears a few cases every year.
Well, I didn't hear that.
And most of the terrible things that are done by the judicial system are not done by the Supreme Court, but are done by the lower courts.
I understand that somebody is pushing a case about the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court.
They can push it all they want to.
The Supreme Court has a record of never listening to Second Amendment questions.
Well, I know in the Jed Scott case, a hundred years or more ago, where he was a freed slave, and they said that he was allowed Second Amendment privileges, rights, Not privileges.
He was allowed the right and title to all citizens to keep and bear arms.
And he was not a member of the militia or anything else.
He was one of the people.
But they granted it to him.
They didn't grant it to him.
It was always his right.
Yeah, yeah.
But they allowed that he... They did not allow.
They upheld the right.
Get your terminology right.
You're doing the same thing all the enemies are doing.
They say, it's not a right.
We allow it.
It's a privilege.
We're gonna let you.
No.
Bullshit.
It's a right and you cannot take it away.
You cannot let me.
It's not a privilege.
You cannot allow me.
And if you try to take it away from me, I'll give it to you.
All bullets first.
And when all the bullets are gone, you can have my gun.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
It's wrong terminology on my part.
I'm sorry.
But, I mean, why don't they look at what Jefferson and... Who?
Washington's... Who?
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court doesn't need to!
It's a right!
They've already ruled!
Yeah.
They don't... Why do they have to rule on it again?
Well... They've ruled on it in many instances in the history of this country.
Yeah.
And guess what they said?
Yeah.
What?
It's a right of the people to keep and bear arms!
And, you know, I know...
I don't feel that the military or the police have any more right to own their weapons or the type that they use than the civilians.
They don't.
They don't.
It's a right of everybody.
They don't have more right or less right.
It's their right just as it's my right and your right.
And I'd like to own an M60 tank, you know, with a 120mm cannon on it and, you know, a .50 caliber machine gun on it.
If you're a member of an armored division of the militia, you can.
Supreme Court has ruled on that, too.
How do you get there?
You join a militia that's an armored unit, and you get a tank.
And when they come and arrest you and haul you into court, you prove that you're a member of an armored unit of the militia, and you must have a tank to fulfill your duty.
That's how you do it.
Where do I sign up?
I don't know where you live.
I don't know who's in your area.
You go figure it out for yourself.
Yeah.
You want me to tie your shoes, too?
No.
Okay.
No.
Hey, Phil.
Nice talking to you.
God bless.
You, too.
Wish you the best.
5-2, and thanks for calling.
5-2-0-3-3-3-4-5-7-8 is the number.
You know, you can't call me and ask me how come the Supreme Court's confused when you're confused.
And I'm not talking personally about the caller, I'm talking about everybody.
Because I hear that kind of language not just from him, I hear it from everybody.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi there, Mr. Cooper, Captain Audio yet once again.
I have a young lady here that's asking me why you are not on television.
And I did hear about a television project that you had going on at one time.
Could you update us all, please?
It's still going on, but that's not the subject of tonight's broadcast.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay?
Well, very good, sir.
We'll talk about it some other night.
Yes, sir.
Bye now.
Why am I not on television?
Well, you'll have to ask the networks about that.
Why isn't anybody who tells the truth on television?
That's what you ought to be asking.
5-2-0-3-3-3-4-5-7-8 is the number.
The only people you ever see on television are people who either are promoting the politically correct ideas that they want us all to believe, or the Hegelian dialectic that plays the Patsy that you know all the time is going to lose the argument.
Like Pat Buchanan on What's that thing he's on?
I can't remember.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Chicken Plucker.
Folks, if you're not going to do it, don't dial.
That only rang twice before he hung up.
That's what you call it.
Chicken Plucker.
Got cold feet.
520-333-4578 is the number.
By the way, you're going to hear a lot of other interesting talks in this series that we're doing now.
And you're going to hear one idiot stand up and propose that the answer to all of this is either a flat tax or a national sales tax, both of which are unconstitutional.
Incredible!
And, you know, he's supposed to be a patriot, but he doesn't understand the Constitution.
You're going to hear it for yourself, because we're going to let you hear it all.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Good evening, Bill.
I'm on the same wavelength that you are as far as the tax goes, but how do you get the people... I have to work for a state university.
It's not a wavelength, it's the law.
I understand that, but this guy will not take the law.
He just says whatever the IRS tells him.
Well, then he's a fool, isn't he?
Well, I've told him that to his face, and he gets all offended and huffy, but he's the guy that's in charge of withholding for everybody that I work with.
Well, sue him.
He has not the authority to withhold one single penny from your paycheck.
I know that.
No, no, no.
Forget getting him to believe it.
He's never going to believe it, because he's afraid that if he goes along with what you're showing him, he'll get in trouble with the IRS.
You have to show him.
You have to get the law, and then the next time, and you have to deliver to him in writing a warning that he's in violation of the law when he takes money out of your paycheck that you have earned.
And that if he continues to do that, you will be forced to sue him personally and the university separately.
Okay?
And then, then you get in the law and discover, because I'm not going to tell you here, you discover for yourself why it is not lawful for him to do that.
And then when you just... Sue him!
Listen, you're not listening to me!
What do you want to do?
Go in there and argue with him for the rest of your life?
He's a chicken plucker!
He's scared!
He's a coward!
He's not going to do anything that goes against what he has been directed by the IRS because he's a coward!
He's a sniveling little clerk bureaucrat who's going to make your life miserable because he's got no guts!
You have to show them!
Sue him, but don't do it in federal court, do it in state court.
In state court?
Yes.
Okay.
Alright, well, I guess I have to use the resources of their law library.
Anyway, I'm out of time.
Okay, thank you.
Gotta go.
Okay, goodnight.
Goodnight.
Oh boy, almost ran out of time here.
Goodnight, folks.
God bless each and every single one of you, and Annie, Pooh, and Allison, I love you,
I miss you, God bless you, and God watch over you.
God bless you.
Everybody knows that the good guy's lost.
Everybody knows that the plague, it was fixed.
The poor are single and the rich get rich.
That's how it goes Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the cold is weaker than the fire
when you set the capital on fire Everybody out there has spoken
even the liquor bottle the dog just had Everybody's walking to their pockets
Everybody wants the box of chocolates and the dog skin roast
Everybody knows Everybody knows you love me again
Everybody knows that you really do And everybody knows it, but you've been with people before.
Babes who made love to you.
Everybody knows that you've been very sweet, but devil, so may I keep putting it just next to you?
How's your clothes?
Everybody knows.
Everybody knows.
We're not going to order any new supply of C-scanners, folks.
So if you want one that we've got on hand, get your money in quick, because when they're
gone, we're not ordering anymore.
▲
Export Selection