Detroit police executing a search warrant for narcotics and weapons entered petitioner Hudson’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment ’s “knock-and-announce” rule. The trial court granted Hudson’s motion to suppress the evidence seized. The appellate court rfeversed and allowed the evidence to be used agaisnst Hudson.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained can be used.

The opinion can be read at Cornell Law School at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html

Abusive government agencies and the law enforecment community will benefit greatly from this ruling as we move closer to the advancing police state. Once again, citizen rights are deminished.

Folks,

By all appearances, those in the tax honesty movement have achieved a significant win.

The Dept. of Justice obviously picked on the wrong guy when they indicted Robert Lawrence during March of this year. It would appear they weren't prepared for the legal arguments brought forward by Mr. Lawrence. As a result, they dropped all charges two months later.

3/16/06 Indictment

5/12/06 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice

What happened in between March and May to change the DOJ's mind regarding Mr. Lawrence? Well, inquiring minds want to know as does Mr. Schulz of the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. He is asking Alberto R. Gonzales, the Attorney General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, for an explanation of what has just transpired in this highly unusual case. Mr. Schulz's letter along with all of the documents related to Mr. Lawrence can be found at:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

Note: There is another interesting case coming before the courts as well brought by Mr. Lindsey Springer. He has posted a video and information about his case at http://www.penaltyprotester.org


What Does this Mean

Lacking any other plausible explanation, this case smacks of legal stonewalling. In other words, by withdrawing the charges, it appears our government is willing to let Mr. Lawrence go free in order to avoid an unfavorable court ruling and precedent that would essentially shut down future IRS collection efforts.

By dismissing this case and the possibility of a negative precedent, the DOJ assures and preserves its ability to continue to abuse other citizens who challenge or otherwise fail to comply with the income tax system. The government also avoids validating the legal arguments advanced by those currently incarcerated. Should we say wrongfully incarcerated?

This dismissal of all charges against Mr. Lawrence combined with the conduct of our government and the courts in the trials we have witnessed here over the passed year further raises suspicions supporting those in the tax honesty movement.

Mr. Lawrence and the citizens of this nation are entitled to an explanation. A prompt response to Mr. Schulz's letter to Mr. Gonzales would be a good start.