Here we go again!!!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-...tax-challenge/

This one is interesting because he is directly challenging the CODE on the basis of private contract between 2 parties for an exchange of energy (money).

Too bad he does not know it is not a 2 party contract and that BOTH parties have contracted endorsements of Federal Reserve Notes (private property) to value that energy transfer.

No demand for lawful money creates the taxable event, even in BARTERING energy for energy at a 1:1 ratio, no demand, presumption is for the use and endorsement of private credit from the Federal Reserve.

Of course, the Court (if the case is tried) will find some other way to express this so as not to reveal the nexus. They will simply "not agree" with the standing of the endorser of Federal Reserve Credit.