To make a long response short, does all of this mean that it's now safe to stop filing my tax returns? The Constitution says that the president may not go to war without a declaration from congress but tell that to the people of Falluja.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rocky Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Libertarian] omb - IRS 1040 found not legal in Court --- Sam Bouman wrote: Subject: re: ombIRS 1040 found not legal in Court Once and for all the truth in court has prevailed regarding the infamous 1040 form. As the email below this article will state, the 1040 form was never validated by congress by correctly formatting or creating statutes or any other regulations to validate the 1040 form as the absolute correct form for us as citizens of the United States of America to have to mandatorily use. Our government has let the IRS get away with this violation of law for decades. WHY??? What else the almighty TAX DOLLAR.!!!! (Pull up Grace Commission Report on internet to validate no taxes we pay goes to the US Treasury, it all goes to the Federal Reserve Bank, a private bank). If the truth as it has finally been brought to light had been known by our forefathers as well as ourselves, we would of course refused to use an illegal document that requires us to sign under duress because of the penalty of perjury signature. Now that this has been put on Public Record we all can use it to better our position of validating that we as Citizens of the States, living in the United States of America, are not required to file using the 1040 form. So, since this is true and if we really are required to file, what form are we to use???????? The simple secret is we are not required to use any form because our source of income is not a taxable source, if it is, then what form are we to use since the 1040 form is not a legal form for us to use??? Can we be compensated for the illegal use of this form forced upon us by the strong-arming of the IRS with the permission of our own government?? Yes, we can. Please see Title 26 sections 7214 and 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code. Of course by using these codes we would be required to have to go to court so the big question is, is there an administrative remedy that can get us our just compensation for the illegal actions of the IRS??? YES THERE IS !!!!!!!!!!!! Since the IRS is a foreign corporation from Puerto Rico and by forcing us to pay taxes by illegal liens, levies, and garnishments and the now illegal 1040 form, according to the Supreme Court Case of Cleopatra Haslipetal. v Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Inc,(See attachment) compensatory damages and Punitive damages can be acquired. For further information call 480-558-3346. There is one statement I have always adhered to and now with this new case coming to the forefront ha been confirmed " THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE". It is truly wonderful that by the true due diligence of the fine people in the article below, this statement has magnified itself. Always the true truth can and does provide you with the freedom we all deserve. May the Lord continue to allow the truth to be resurrected and discovered so that the creators of our governments wonderful Constitution of our Rights can continue to validate that government is to be used to help the people not to rule and destroy them. Les H/ Father of 10 .Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: [citizens of the USofA] In case you've not seen it. Add Yourself to Our e-Mail List! May 21, 2005 Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis In Law IRS Withdraws Criminal Allegation, Tax Convict Walks Free Although the People's war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse has been lengthy and daunting and has left many freedom fighters across our nation battered and bankrupt, there are continuing signs that the tide of tyranny may finally be meeting effective resistance. On April 12th 2005, William Wallace Lear of Muskegon Michigan appeared in federal District Court in Grand Rapids to face IRS charges claiming Lear had violated the terms of his probation. William Lear had served one year in a federal detention facility in Minnesota following his conviction in 2002 for Willful Failure to File income tax returns (a misdemeanor). His probation began in March, 2004. The basis for the probation violation hearing was an IRS claim that Lear failed to abide by the strict terms of his probation which included the requirement that he file all his delinquent tax returns and pay all back taxes and penalties owed. Just as the hearing before Judge Gordon Quist began, the DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the IRS's probation violation claim against Lear that would have sent him back to prison. Although Lear had filed his missing returns signing them "under duress" (which IRS does not allow) and failed to pay the taxes owing on those returns, Judge Quist signed an order, completely releasing Lear from federal custody. As of April 12th, Lear has been a free man. An important question remains: Why? Why would the IRS and DOJ walk away from a golden opportunity to make headlines and send a convicted tax protester back to prison? Before answering the question, let's review some of the key developments leading up to the April 12, 2005 probation violation hearing. After serving his 1-year sentence and after his return to his home in Michigan to fulfill his probation, Bill Lear and his wife Rose "dug back in" and continued to review the extensive body of legal research that had originally caused Bill Lear not to file. During the summer of 2004, they constructed a "Challenge of Authority" document relying on legal material from various sources including comprehensive research posted by WTP in May 2004 and that has since been sent repeatedly by the Foundation (and others) to various officials of the U.S. government, including the President's current Advisory Panel on Federal Tax reform. This research conclusively documents that IRS has no legal authority to impose taxes on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans. Particularly damaging in the challenge was recently archived documentation from the government itself clearly showing that IRS Form 1040 is a "proposed" information form and that there is no legal authority cited for its use. On October 4, 2004, during a meeting in the offices of their Congressional Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Lears formally served their Challenge of Authority on three IRS agents and engaged in a significant discussion about the limits of their authority. The IRS agents refused to respond to the challenge document simply stating that it is not the "practice" of IRS to respond to such requests. What the agents did not know, however, was that two weeks earlier, on September 24th, the Lears had also filed the same document as a formal public legal record in their local county courthouse at the Registrar of Deeds. On February 28, 2005, after additional contacts with IRS officials in which Bill Lear repeatedly asked for IRS to provide specific legal guidance to him so he could know which tax form the law required him to fill out, and thereby comply with the terms of his probation, the Lears again confronted the IRS agents in a meeting in Rep. Hoekstra's office. At that meeting, and after a heated discussion with IRS agents, confronting them with government documents and evidence clearly showing Form 1040 has no authority in law, IRS ended the discussion and told Lear that the law required him to use "Form 1040" to file his returns. Frustrated into agitation with the exchange, IRS Agent J. McWilliams finally stated that Lear "wasn't cooperating with the IRS", and that Lear was "going back to prison." On March 2, and just days before Lear's probation was due to expire, IRS filed a probation violation complaint with the federal probation office. Lear was promptly served Notice of the hearing that could send him back to prison. On March 4, the Lears filed a Habeas Corpus regarding the original conviction. On March 9, Lear filed a pleading answering the alleged violation of probation. On March 10, Lear also decided to "hedge his bet" and filed the delinquent tax returns, but signed the tax forms "under duress." On March 14, 2005 - Lear appeared before Magistrate Joseph G. Scoville who found cause for the violation and sent the case to Judge Quist for a formal hearing. It should be noted that IRS routinely rejects tax returns signed "under duress" due to the obvious due process implications related to the use of force, threat of force, or other intimidation to coerce an individual to swear to a statement made under "penalties of perjury." It should be further noted that although required by the terms of his probation, Lear did not make any payment toward the alleged taxes or penalties due for the returns he was convicted for willfully failing to file. Finally, on March 21st, the Lears filed a Motion to Quash the Release Revocation Hearing. Contained within this motion was the formal "Challenge of Authority" document that had been previously recorded in their local county courthouse as a legal public record. On April 12, Lear and his wife Rose appeared in court for Bill's probation violation hearing. Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged probation violation and asking the court to send a "recalcitrant tax convict" back to prison, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdraw their complaint alleging the probation violation. WHY? Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting of certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be self-authenticating and valid as evidence. Here is the text of Rule 902, sub-paragraph (4): Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (4). Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification. In other words, in facing a public criminal hearing where the contents of Lear's "Challenge of Authority" were, without argument, directly relevant to Lear's alleged violation, and knowing the District Court could not deny their admittance as evidence, the DOJ was faced with two unpleasant alternatives: either A) produce IRS witnesses to explain away government documentation clearly showing IRS Form 1040 is not a legally authorized form, or B) walk away from the probation violation hearing. IRS walked. Rather than take a potential headline-making opportunity to publicly chastise and send a convicted tax protester who had dared - even after conviction -- to continue questioning the legal authority of the government back to prison, the IRS and DOJ instead withdrew their criminal complaint, thereby avoiding having to confront - on the record - the damning evidence contained in Lear's formal "Challenge of Authority" document. By withdrawing the IRS complaint against Lear, DOJ avoided having to publicly rebut Lear's legal research and avoided being forced to cite the government's legal authority to enforce the federal income tax. On April 25th, despite the facts that Lear had filed defective returns signed "under duress" and also failed to pay the taxes and penalties owed for the returns he was convicted for failing to file, Judge Quist signed a formal order completely freeing Bill Lear from the terms of his probation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio is currently considering whether to certify Lear's most recent Habeas Corpus motion to vacate his conviction. That motion is also based upon the new legal research contained in his "Challenge of Authority." The Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has No Legal Authority In their "Challenge of Authority" document, the Lears provide hard documentary evidence that IRS Form 1040 has NO legal authority. This evidence was presented by contrasting archived government documents that have been filed pursuant to the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Under the PRA, each and every government form that is used to collect information from the general public under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations and have a valid Office of Management and Budget "OMB" Form number. This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes, regulations and forms are related. As one item of evidence, the Lears produced a stamped copy of a 1987 Treasury Department document entitled, "Request for OMB Review" which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was for IRS Form "1040-NR", the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to report their "income". Several things about this document are noteworthy: The form used for the request is OMB Form "83" On line 5 of Form 83; the administrative requester is required to cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited. On line 27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the regulations actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited. Click Here to See the "OMB Form 83" Treasury request for IRS Form 1040-NR for use by Non-Resident Aliens Here's where it gets very interesting: The "Challenge of Authority" document also contains a similar Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the "regular" IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year. This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB "Form 83" ---- but rather using an alternate OMB form, "83-1" titled, "Paperwork Reduction Act Submission". Several very important differences between the OMB request forms need to be noted: OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of statutory authority. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of regulatory authority. In the "Certification" box found on page 2 of Form 83-1, there are specific references to both PRA Regulations "5 CFR 1320.9" and "5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)." The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily of a list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are merely (quoting) "associated" with IRS Form 1040. Click here to see the Treasury request using OMB Form 83-1 for the IRS Individual "Form 1040" Here's the punch line: IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as complying with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8. In its request to the OMB for IRS Form "1040-NR", the Department of Treasury (IRS) clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory authorities authorizing the use of the form to collect information and certifies its request as such. Click Here to read the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) form disclosure requirements found at 5 CFR 1320.8. Please specifically note that for the Treasury's request using alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the Treasury has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, which is explicitly reserved for "PROPOSED" government forms. Printed just below is the title header for federal regulation "5 CFR 1320.9": [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 5, Volume 3] [Revised as of January 1, 2005] >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9] [Page 155] TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--Table of Contents Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information. As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official, or their designee) shall certify and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information [...] In short, if IRS Individual Form 1040 were actually authorized under U.S. law, the Department of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB certification using OMB "Form 83" which requires explicit citation of the form's authorizing statutes and regulations. Instead, the IRS used alternative OMB Form "83-1" -- which is designated ONLY for "proposed" government forms - and which does NOT require any formal citation of legal authority allowing its use. Furthermore, even though an attachment to the Treasury's request for IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form 83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes and regulations, and "Box 12" on the form is marked indicating the form is "mandatory", a careful reading of the submission to OMB will make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY certifying that: Form 1040 is a "proposed form" and that, IF authorized, it would meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, and That Form 1040 is only "associated" with the statutes and regulations cited in the 1040 request, and If Form 1040 were actually authorized by law, it would be "mandatory". As a final observation, it should be noted that both the 1987 Form 1040-NR request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed by the same IRS officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer and one Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental Reports Management Officer. Lear's pleadings contain additional OMB certifications, also signed by Shear & Holland. In short, the Department of Treasury's clear and willful intent to use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling proof establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form, and that there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use. A Nation of Law? Who is going to Police the federal judges to see that they do their duty? Do you think that 'JAIL' (Judicial Accountability, etc.) will ever pass? Subject: FW: States & Agents NOT Immune To Suit... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: edj To: Allen Metzger Subject: States & Agents NOT Immune To Suit... Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:43:05 -0400 Message: 2 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:44:55 -0000 From: "John Hughes" NOT Immune To Suit I found the following on www.landrights.com Normally, a state asserts the "11th Amendment" immunity privilege against lawsuits, and walks away from almost every conceivable type of action for violating common sense and people's rights, there by continuing the myth that there's really not much that can be done about the horrors of social injustice, except lobbying, petitioning, and other types of slow, lame, and tame methods that account forvery little change, if at all... NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE *REAL* TRUTH OF WRITTEN FEDERALLAW! Here's the gist of the real truth: States ARE typically immune from suit, but they are expressly NOT immune from suits involving situations related to incidents involving ANY program that receive sassistance in federal funding!!! (In other words, virtually everything associated with "family courts", including judges, social workers, agencies, and the entire processes themselves...)See the first paragraph of 42 USC 2000d to learn the TRUTH! Below is a large list of federal laws that specifically WAIVE state immunity whenever there is discrimination on race, color, religion, age, sex, handicap, national origin, and other forms, and/or violations of civil and/or constitutional rights, and/or violations against their own duties under law... and still, there are even more such "exceptions". The below is only a sampling... These laws provide TWO things: (1) they establish a federal *right*,and (2) they open a door for suit.The wide-open definition of what state "programs or activities" are open to suit is 42 USC 2000d-4a (Note: all of the following hyperlinked constitutional amendments, laws, and US Supreme Court case decisions come from:http://www.law.cornell.edu and http://www.findlaw.com When state officials, officers, and/or employees have violated your civil rights, they have committed a breach of 18 USC 242 (the individual criminal act against civil rights); If they acted together in any way, then it has become a breach of 18 USC 241 (the criminal conspiracy...); Violation of 242 is punishable by up to ONEYEAR in fed prison, while violation of 241 is punishable by up to TEN YEARS in fed prison... (i.e., it really IS a *federal crime* to violate, deprive, or interfere with ANY civil rights, ORany "regular" rights secured by ANY federal law) This includes violating not only your more commonly known "Constitutional Rights", but also the various civil rights and "regular" statutory rights that are sampled below for you...(AGAIN, there are MORE of them, and they were meant to protectyou!). See also 28 USC 1652 IMPORTANT TO KNOW!: Since WE are not official government prosecutors, WE cannot directly file charges against those way ward government officers ourselves... BUT, under federal law, we COULD force federal judges to have them arrested and prosecuted! After anyone violates any of your civil rights (see 18 USC 241 and 242above, and this entire page...), YOU do your duty to report the crime directly to (any) federal judge, under 18 USC 4, then the federal statute 42 USC 1987 legally forces the federal judge to ensure criminal prosecutions. Note: this federal statute has been revised several times over the years, so to the average layman there would not readily appear to be any so-called "right" to actually enforce such prosecution, but click on the "Notes" link to the right of the main statute body, and see the (last sentence of the) "References in Text", which confirms that the "Revised Statutes" discussed in the main statute do INDEED mean guaranteed prosecution for crimes under 18 USC 241 and 242 - i.e., for ALL crimes against (i.e., ANY deprivations of) our various rights!!! But, seeking criminal prosecutions are remedies that are in addition to the option of personally suing for monetary damages under any and/or all of the following civil laws (and - again - there are others...): 42 USC 1981 Equal rights under the law 42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights (the typical "1983" action comes from this statute) 42 USC 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 USC 1986 Action for neglect to prevent (i.e., to prevent interference with civil rights) 42 USC 1988 Proceedings in vindication of civil rights 42 USC 2000b-2 Personal suits for relief against discrimination in public facilities (like state courts!!!) 42 USC 2000d Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin (NOTE: the US Supreme Court has added "sex" [gender] to the list of discrimination types this law prohibits... NOTE: "federally assisted programs" are all over the place within every state's systems, with matching funds being paid to the states for all kinds of things for courts, prosecutors, and virtually all state agencies!!! Get the picture? Legally, they're ALL on the hook!) 42 USC 2000d-7 Civil rights remedies equalization this is what is quoted at top... NOTICE the "all-encompassing" part that says: "or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance." of course, the rights to press criminal charges, and the rights to file suit for damages, also includes ALL of your rights guaranteed under the US Const, especially: the 1st through 10th Amendments plus the 14th Amendment the 5th Amend and adds more, [i.e., Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection] plus - ANY and ALL rights existing just under federal law (US Code),including, but not limited to just the various rights sampled for you below (again, and again - there's a LOT more...!), regarding your rightful treatment by, and lawful behavior by, a state court, virtually ANY state agency, CPS and other forms of caseworkers/social workers, prosecutors, and just about every other state employee of the types that we don't especially care for... All that is required is to determine which TWO federal statutes apply to particular situations (our arguments) - the statute(s) that provide federal funding for the questioned "program or activity", and the related statute that prohibits discrimination in that "program or activity"... Part of our complaints are "global" actions for, essentially, instant removal of all state family court cases to the jurisdiction of federal courts (based on the numerous common civil rights violations), under 28 USC §§ 1441 and 1443, while another large partof our complaints are our solid constitutional arguments regarding all "fit" parents' natural, and equal, fundamental rights to the "care, custody, and management" of their children. Here are some examples of the various rights that we all have under federal law (US Code) - again, this does NOT include all of the various Constitutional Rights, which will also be used, of course:1. Petitioner's Class have inherent federal question rights, under the guarantees of 42 USC § 2000a, to full and equal lawful treatment in a state court of law, and according to the various protections under the U.S. Constitution.2. Petitioner's Class have inherent federal question rights, under the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000d, et seq., and as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include prohibitions against discrimination based on sex or gender, to now remove all suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§1441 and 1443, in order to be free from the denial of such equal civil rights and treatment established by the above allegations. See also 42 USC § 2000d-7.3. Petitioner's Class have inherent federal question rights, under the protections of 42 USC §§ 3617 and 3631, which include prohibitions against discrimination based on sex or gender, to remove all suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§ 1441and 1443, in order to be free from the denial of such equal civil rights and treatment established by the above allegations. See also42 USC § 2000d-7.4. Petitioner's Class have further inherent federal question rights, under the protections of 42 USC § 5891, which include prohibitions against discrimination based on sex or gender regarding other matters and allegations expressed supra, to remove all suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§ 1441 and 1443, in order to be free from the denial of such equal civil rights and treatment established by the above allegations. See also 42 USC §§ 5106a(Grants to States for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs), 5106c (Grants to States for programs relating to investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases),10406 (Discrimination prohibited in Family Violence Prevention and Services), 10420 (Safe havens for children pilot program), 10701(Definitions - regarding state activity in domestic violence, false imprisonment, and abuse of a minor), and etc.5. Petitioner's Class have further inherent federal question rights not to be discriminated as articulated according to the above allegations, and against the expressed public policy of the United States of America, by and through certain Acts of Congress strictly specifying the critical value of protecting children, youth, and family bonds, and the joint responsibilities of federal courts therein. See 42 USC §§ 12301, 12351, 12352, 12371, 12635, and etc.6. Petitioner's Class have further inherent federal question rights to ensure that their minor children are free from experiencing abuse and/or neglect, due to unlawful sex or gender discrimination in awards of child custody, and to ensure that any involved state judicial systems have met or exceeded their required corresponding duties under 42 USC §§ 13001, 13003, 13021, 13031, andetc.7. Petitioner's Class have further inherent federal question rights, under 42 USC § 14141, to be free from unlawful violations of civil rights committed by any parties, government or otherwise, involved in such state proceedings. The common result ?There are many wide-open doors to sue the states for violating their duties and our rights, and there is absolutely NO immunity for the states, in ANY way, shape, or form... Thomas "Rocky" Costanzo 888-848-8781 Voice / 561-450-5546 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.95% fixed payment loan that pays off in 25 years. DROP your payments, get CASH out and REDUCE the term! "Predicting the future is easy to do, Tom...it's the WHEN that's the hard part" Larry V. Thomason "One Idea 10% better is worth a Million Dollars" Brian Tracy Politics: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'. "Those that seek the truth are more than friends. They are brothers." WHO IS JOHN GALT? "In order to be a great man first you got to be...a MAN" --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian SPONSORED LINKS E <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=E+government&w1=E+government&w2=Liberta rian&w3=E+government+strategy&w4=American+government+and+politics&w5=E+gover nment+procurement&c=5&s=130&.sig=vuMN7PrrC9gdezlyaNCs9w> government Libertarian <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Libertarian&w1=E+government&w2=Libertar ian&w3=E+government+strategy&w4=American+government+and+politics&w5=E+govern ment+procurement&c=5&s=130&.sig=yXubLk0SlDJJrsVpm--_LQ> E <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=E+government+strategy&w1=E+government&w 2=Libertarian&w3=E+government+strategy&w4=American+government+and+politics&w 5=E+government+procurement&c=5&s=130&.sig=StPn7EoMnlhRtajTZ5qS0Q> government strategy American <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+government+and+politics&w1=E+g overnment&w2=Libertarian&w3=E+government+strategy&w4=American+government+and +politics&w5=E+government+procurement&c=5&s=130&.sig=MMxPTnLokPwDqjfvGm8XQw> government and politics E <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=E+government+procurement&w1=E+governmen t&w2=Libertarian&w3=E+government+strategy&w4=American+government+and+politic s&w5=E+government+procurement&c=5&s=130&.sig=IRmSJyNld4J9soDqc1ljtQ> government procurement _____ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "Libertarian <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian> " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/X6CDDD/lzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
