35 votes

Ex IRS Auditor says There is No Law To Pay Income Taxes

Sherry Peel Jackson, Certified Fraud Examiner and Ex-IRS agent. She Challenges all citizens to demand answers from congress about the legality of Federal Income taxes and the Federal Reserve.
This is a 2 hour lecture about some of the inner secrets of the IRS, and the fundamental lack of juridical framework that supports it. Unfortunately I believe she is now serving a prison sentence because we don't have honest trials in this country. That is how brainwashed the people are that they would sentence the very woman that was trying to protect them!

http://youtu.be/btJtIImmGfw

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can someone please explain to

Can someone please explain to me the 16th amendment?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

When people say there is no law, are they talking about the IRS tax code, or the constitution? How is there no law saying we need to pay an income tax?

meekandmild's picture

$50,000 reward to show a law requiring to pay federal Income tax

USA Today July 7, 2000

http://www.dailypaul.com/162136/10000-reward-to-show-a-law-r...

Aaron Russo exposes IRS fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MdDOX1OM0Q&list=PLB2E12C4F9F...

another former IRS agent who quit and challenge the Federal Income Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vrtmBNTPHI

Pilot Beat the IRS in Court - Vernie Kuglin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTl4dvXh_zg

More importantly...

What ever exists in legislated powers probably doesn't apply to you. Unless of course, you are employed by the feds. Read the eye opening e-book on SEDM.org The IRS Hoax. The book details how the feds pull a rabbit out of the hat...or is that money out of my back pocket?

The law isn't there, but the money is

and you give a Rothschild control of a nations money who cares who writes the laws

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Explanation of the general understanding of the tax...

Here was my response below to other poster to my previous comment:

The IRS Cheifs know the truth, the Executive Branch knows the truth the Judicial Branch knows the truth and the Congressional branch also knows the truth about what the tax is and who it applies to under what circumstances!!!!!

THEY WILL NOT STOP MIS APPLYING THE LAW BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THE FRAUD TO CONTINUE THE CONTROL GAME!

You said:

"if you don't comply with their publications, then don't you go to jail?"

My response is:

It's right in the IRS Manual that you CAN NOT... never ever ever ever USE THE IRS Publications and Pamphlets to, in their own words, "sustain a position"., which anyone can access online at WWW.IRS.GOV (here's the link to the exact page on their site: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007.html and go down to section 4.10.7.2.8 entitled publications and read it for yourself)

Which means the IRS publications and Pamphlets ARE NOT THE LAW. They NEVER HAVE BEEN THE LAW! Because they aren't the law!! The are like little newsletters posted by the IRS to the "tax professional community" that then those "professionals" accept as the word of God, except they are "NOT TO BE USED TO SUSTAIN A POSITION" and the "professionals" ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT!!! Most professionals don't even read the law to determine squat about the tax or the nature of the tax. They start off from the beginning with the myth that everyone just owes the tax.

Here's an example. The IRS says that "tax protestors" claim wages are not taxable. That can be true or false, depending on how you understand the law.

For instance, Wages, as defined under section 3401(a): (This is the actual statutory definition, ready.... here we go.... )

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

++++ (Note: (other than fees paid to a public official) is correct because fees belong to the government, not the "employee" receiving "wages"... that's why they are called fees.

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word means... where it says "wages" means. Now watch, here's the definition of "employee" for purposes of Employment taxes... same general section except it's 3401(c)...READY!!! Here we go

Section 3401(c) Definition of Employee:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

++++ (Note: This definition enumerates federally related workers. And that last line, The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation., is referring to federally related corporations. Like a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc..) And that would make sense since congress DOES have the authority to legislate on it's OWN "EMPLOYEES"!!!! Where do any private sector people fit into that definition and also where can u make the jump from federally related subjects to private sector from that definition????

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word INCLUDES... which has an entirely different meaning than the word means. The word includes and including are defined under section 7701(c)... and here's that DEFINITION: READY AGAIN.....

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

ALL THAT IS SAYING IS THAT ANYTIME YOU ENCOUNTER A DEFINITION WITH THE WORD INCLUDES OR INCLUDING YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD FIT THE LIKE CATEGORY OF WHAT HAS JUST BE ENUMERATED IN THE ACTUAL DEFINITION.

For example. If congress defined the word "Food" for a certain section wherever and the definition said, "Food: For purposes of this chapter the term food includes apples, pears, oranges"

What that then means since it would use the word Includes is that I cannot exclude like minded things. So I can't exclude strawberries, apples, peaches, pears, papayas, mangos, etc... because they are of the same general class of what has been defined which are "Fruits". But I can't include eggs, milk, bread, etc... because even though those items are food for how WE WOULD refer to them in private conversation, that's NOT what the law is referring to!!!!! Get it yet???!!!

But to be making STATUTORY "WAGES", as defined, you would first have to meet the requirements of the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). Its a word game.

So technically, you are most likely NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" as defined by law earning "WAGES" as defined. Because for you to be earning "Wages" as defined you MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST... did i say that enough, MEET THE STATUTORY requirement of the definition of "EMPLOYEE".

Congress can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. So they can take a word YOU and I are familiar with and use in private conversation to describe getting paid, like the word "WAGES" and REDEFINE it for purposes of the law.

Now, once Congress has provided it's own definition, OUR PRIVATE CONVENTIONAL definition NO LONGER APPLIES!

So when the IRS says "Wages" are taxable, technically yes, Statutory "WAGES" as defined by the code are... BUT HERE's the catch, Statutory "Wages" is NOT the same thing as Wages as you get paid in the private sector. But when an IRS publication mentions "WAGES", it's talking about the staturoy definition, not the conventional definition.

Here's what the court said:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term");"

So, when we encounter a word, that you and I are familiar with, BUT, it has a definition that strays from the "ordinary meaning", we are to use the definition in place of the traditionally defined word!

GET IT YET!!!

So, im not saying that the "Beast" will just leave us alone because there is some magic silver bullet argument, that's NOT what Im saying at all. All im pointing out is what the law says and why it says what it says.

Income tax is an Excise. The law clearly shows the application to be in the nature of an excise. Not that congress didn't want to include you and I and the entire private sector world as those who are required to pay the tax on our own domestic source monies, it's that they DID NOT HAVE THE POWER or Authority to write such a requirement into the law because, get this, .... IT WENT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF TAXATION THE CONGRESS WAS DELEGATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if challenged at that point containing that language, which to this date is NOT there, THEN, THEN YOU COULD challenge the Income Tax as unconstitutional. But as long as you continue to sign W4's and W9's, neither of which have anything to do with the average guy in the private sector earning his/her own domestic source monies, then the IRS is going to ACCEPT your STATEMENT under Penalty of Perjury that YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX!!!! The IRS does NOT have to prove that you were NOT the person who was to sign such a form, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVE YOU DID!! AND THE SIGNING OF THOSE FORMS ARE THE STARTING POINT FOR OWING THE TAX! IT'S THE STARTING POINT FOR THE REPORTING PROCESS AND THE LIKE! STOP SIGNING THOSE FORMS!!!

NOW DO U GET IT???? !!!!

Hope this helps.

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Great Post

Always go to the terms & definition pages with any contracts

Kathleen Gee's picture

The problem isn't the law, it's The Matrix

When I read up on all this a lot of years ago, I came to the same conclusion...although I had dutifully paid taxes for years and years, I had never been liable for the "income tax." Although I have acquaintances who did the whole "sovereign person" thing and dropped out of the system I never went that route. I believe they were right...almost no regular person is liable for the "income tax"...and I never have been...but the problem is that 99.999932% of those who enforce those bogus laws are true believers. They are still in The Matrix.

So, while you may be perfectly correct by not paying the tax, others' mistaken/uninformed belief in The Matrix will still probably throw your butt in the Grey Bar Motel. So I think of it as a "protection racket." It's not an "income" tax, it's a "pay them to leave you alone" tax.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

Income Tax is an Excise Excise Excise Excise Excise!!!

There are LAWS that require people under CERTAIN circumstances to file a tax return and pay an income tax....

IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Income tax is an excise.

It has NOTHING to do with anyone who just earns money.

If you want to stop 1099's and W2's, then DONT SIGN W9s and W4's. Yes, people will get all huffy and puffy and claim you are required to sign that form or you can't work for them or get paid. They "claim" the "law requires you to" yet when you ask these same people what the law says about WHO IS and under WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES is to sign that federal tax form, they draw a blank and usually don't know how to respond.

BEST BOOK IS DAVE CHAMPION'S INCOME TAX: SHATTERING THE MYTH'S

The book describes in THOROUGH detail what the income tax is, who it applies to and under what circumstances.

By the way, the ONLY use for the form W9 for example is the following:

To track the flow of US domestic source income through its US domestic source pipeline to the foreign owner - - - - - THATS IT... That's the only use for that form. And that is also an excise tax. So the law is inline with it being an excise as well.

Here's another one of my statements from a while back. Hopefully this will give you a very general overview to get you started:

______________________________________________________________

The 16th amendment is a moot point. All it did was to confirm Congress' taxing power concerning income tax as an indirect tax!

Income Tax is an INDIRECT tax. It is NOT a direct tax as others here have suggested. 2 US Supreme Court Cases in 1916 settled this very question. They are:

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

AND

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

The Court said specifically in the Stanton case the following:
" it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, "

And as a side note, most tax professionals do NOT read the law to determine who is liable for the tax. Most tax professionals read IRS publications and just ASSUME anyone who makes money now owes an Income Tax.

IRS Publications are sort of like "New Letters" put out by the IRS to the tax industry, including mostly ALL CPA's and Tax "Professionals". The IRS has a manual available on their website which any one can go read. Here's what THEIR OWN manual says about their own publications:

4.10.7.2.8 (01-01-2006)
IRS Publications

"IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position."

The IRS has plainly stated in their OWN manual that Publications are NOT to be cited to sustain positions about the LAW even though that is what all tax professionals do anyway. This is because IRS publications and pamphlets are NOT the law. The IRS has already vindicated themselves from people who WRONGLY use publications like law.

So hopefully this has gotten you on the proper path to actually understanding what the "Income Tax" actually is and especially what it ISN'T!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Yes, but...

...if you don't comply with their publications, then don't you go to jail?

Like Ms. Jackson or Irwin Shiff.

Are there people who aren't going to jail?

Are you not paying income taxes, and staying out of legal trouble and jail?

Thank you for your remarks btw.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Reality is....

The IRS Cheifs know the truth, the Executive Branch knows the truth the Judicial Branch knows the truth and the Congressional branch also knows the truth about what the tax is and who it applies to under what circumstances!!!!!

THEY WILL NOT STOP MIS APPLYING THE LAW BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THE FRAUD TO CONTINUE THE CONTROL GAME!

You said:

"if you don't comply with their publications, then don't you go to jail?"

My response is:

It's right in the IRS Manual that you CAN NOT... never ever ever ever USE THE IRS Publications and Pamphlets to, in their own words, "sustain a position"., which anyone can access online at WWW.IRS.GOV (here's the link to the exact page on their site: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007.html and go down to section 4.10.7.2.8 entitled publications and read it for yourself)

Which means the IRS publications and Pamphlets ARE NOT THE LAW. They NEVER HAVE BEEN THE LAW! Because they aren't the law!! The are like little newsletters posted by the IRS to the "tax professional community" that then those "professionals" accept as the word of God, except they are "NOT TO BE USED TO SUSTAIN A POSITION" and the "professionals" ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT!!! Most professionals don't even read the law to determine squat about the tax or the nature of the tax. They start off from the beginning with the myth that everyone just owes the tax.

Here's an example. The IRS says that "tax protestors" claim wages are not taxable. That can be true or false, depending on how you understand the law.

For instance, Wages, as defined under section 3401(a): (This is the actual statutory definition, ready.... here we go.... )

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

++++ (Note: (other than fees paid to a public official) is correct because fees belong to the government, not the "employee" receiving "wages"... that's why they are called fees.

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word means... where it says "wages" means. Now watch, here's the definition of "employee" for purposes of Employment taxes... same general section except it's 3401(c)...READY!!! Here we go

Section 3401(c) Definition of Employee:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

++++ (Note: This definition enumerates federally related workers. And that last line, The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation., is referring to federally related corporations. Like a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc..) And that would make sense since congress DOES have the authority to legislate on it's OWN "EMPLOYEES"!!!! Where do any private sector people fit into that definition and also where can u make the jump from federally related subjects to private sector from that definition????

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word INCLUDES... which has an entirely different meaning than the word means. The word includes and including are defined under section 7701(c)... and here's that DEFINITION: READY AGAIN.....

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

ALL THAT IS SAYING IS THAT ANYTIME YOU ENCOUNTER A DEFINITION WITH THE WORD INCLUDES OR INCLUDING YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD FIT THE LIKE CATEGORY OF WHAT HAS JUST BE ENUMERATED IN THE ACTUAL DEFINITION.

For example. If congress defined the word "Food" for a certain section wherever and the definition said, "Food: For purposes of this chapter the term food includes apples, pears, oranges"

What that then means since it would use the word Includes is that I cannot exclude like minded things. So I can't exclude strawberries, apples, peaches, pears, papayas, mangos, etc... because they are of the same general class of what has been defined which are "Fruits". But I can't include eggs, milk, bread, etc... because even though those items are food for how WE WOULD refer to them in private conversation, that's NOT what the law is referring to!!!!! Get it yet???!!!

But to be making STATUTORY "WAGES", as defined, you would first have to meet the requirements of the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). Its a word game.

So technically, you are most likely NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" as defined by law earning "WAGES" as defined. Because for you to be earning "Wages" as defined you MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST... did i say that enough, MEET THE STATUTORY requirement of the definition of "EMPLOYEE".

Congress can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. So they can take a word YOU and I are familiar with and use in private conversation to describe getting paid, like the word "WAGES" and REDEFINE it for purposes of the law.

Now, once Congress has provided it's own definition, OUR PRIVATE CONVENTIONAL definition NO LONGER APPLIES!

So when the IRS says "Wages" are taxable, technically yes, Statutory "WAGES" as defined by the code are... BUT HERE's the catch, Statutory "Wages" is NOT the same thing as Wages as you get paid in the private sector. But when an IRS publication mentions "WAGES", it's talking about the staturoy definition, not the conventional definition.

Here's what the court said:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term");"

So, when we encounter a word, that you and I are familiar with, BUT, it has a definition that strays from the "ordinary meaning", we are to use the definition in place of the traditionally defined word!

GET IT YET!!!

So, im not saying that the "Beast" will just leave us alone because there is some magic silver bullet argument, that's NOT what Im saying at all. All im pointing out is what the law says and why it says what it says.

Income tax is an Excise. The law clearly shows the application to be in the nature of an excise. Not that congress didn't want to include you and I and the entire private sector world as those who are required to pay the tax on our own domestic source monies, it's that they DID NOT HAVE THE POWER or Authority to write such a requirement into the law because, get this, .... IT WENT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF TAXATION THE CONGRESS WAS DELEGATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if challenged at that point containing that language, which to this date is NOT there, THEN, THEN YOU COULD challenge the Income Tax as unconstitutional. But as long as you continue to sign W4's and W9's, neither of which have anything to do with the average guy in the private sector earning his/her own domestic source monies, then the IRS is going to ACCEPT your STATEMENT under Penalty of Perjury that YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX!!!! The IRS does NOT have to prove that you were NOT the person who was to sign such a form, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVE YOU DID!! AND THE SIGNING OF THOSE FORMS ARE THE STARTING POINT FOR OWING THE TAX! IT'S THE STARTING POINT FOR THE REPORTING PROCESS AND THE LIKE! STOP SIGNING THOSE FORMS!!!

NOW DO U GET IT???? !!!!

Hope this helps.

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

I will read, and re-read your comments.

I appreciate your time. You're very well-read on the subject. The logic makes sense. Thank you.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Im Glad, I hope you do...

It's VERY important to understand how "the government" allows people to come to an improper conclusion about what the tax is and who actually owes it and under what circumstances.

Knowledge is potential Power... The exercise of knowledge is the actual power.

It's like gasoline. Gasoline is potential power, the burning of the gasoline is the actual power.

So, when it comes to the law, don't just assume that someone asking you to sign a W4 or W9 knows what they are talking about. 99.9% of the time, the person asking you to sign such a form HAS NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS because THEY NEVER READ ONE WORD OF THE LAW TO DETERMINE THE USAGE OF THOSE FORMS FOR WHOM AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES they actually apply!

BECAUSE THEY WERE TRICKED LIKE DODO BIRDS TO THINK EVERYONE WHO EARNS ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THEM... NOT TRUE !!!!! People have become so dumbed down to accept any old argument why you are "required" to pay "your taxes" when it comes to Income Tax except that those arguments are irrelevant to what the law actually says.

Such a tax, if it did exist, would be so unconstitutional to the point of absurdity.

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Here is a letter that can be sent to collection agencies

possibly the IRS as well?
http://www.dailypaul.com/267690/letter-to-send-the-irs-and-a...

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

What are laws?

Laws are excuses the government uses to make people do as the government says. The IRS has plenty of excuses. They have plenty of police, prosecutors, and prisons. Ask Peter Schiff's father.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

I know

Ask Sherry. She was an auditor for crying out loud and STILL went to jail! Glad Ron Paul was there for her but I wish he had made a big loud stink about it at the colleges.

skippy

Now, if only the cops they

Now, if only the cops they send to arrest you for not paying believed that.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I had the honor and privilege

I had the honor and privilege to meet her in 2007. It was a brief encounter, but the strength and courage that radiated from her even then was extraordinary. There are few others I feel as fortunate to have met so far in my life. Long live Sherry Jackson. She is a true hero.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I say...

End the Fed, Abolish the IRS, Disband the EPA, Eliminate the DOE, and bring our troops home to protect our borders.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Geez You Sound Just Like

RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

skippy

Sherry Jackson Peel

is alive and well and still out there peaking out. She has a Blog at

http://www.sherrypeeljackson.org/

I think I may buy one of her books as a way to hep support her and thank her for her sacrifice.

Anyone know how Irwin Schiff is doing?

This woman is a national treasure.

To see her still in there swinging... I am truly in awe of her strength.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Joe Banister

also an ex-IRS agent has done the same; exposing the fraud and Illegality of Income Taxes. There are quite a few good video's of him, I even think there's one with him and Dr.Paul. He introduced me to the book that shows the 14th amendment was never legally ratified: "The Law That Never Was". Good stuff.

26 USC 7806

It says "This title is NOT law" basically.

Also if you look up the definition of "income" in Black's Law Dictionary (5th) it specifically says that income is "money."

Money is NOT "evidences of debt" which is what a FED NOTE is. Therefore if all you are ever paid in is debt notes... never in MONEY... then how can you make any income?

She was released last yer

If I remember correctly, Dr. Paul was able to get her medical

care for a serious illness while in prison. I remember reading the horrific story and seeing a picture of the two together after she was released.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix