Sunday, August 14, 2005

I wanted to give everyone some idea of where Trial Logs is headed from here.

One goal is to bring attention to the some of the injustices citizens are forced to endure through our legal system. You'll notice we added "Larken" at the beginning of each audio segment. That is step one in preparation of covering more of the upcoming trials. Future audio segments may lead with "Tessa","Arthur", "Erwin" and whoever the government targets next. So rest assured, Trial Logs is just getting started.

We also hope to bring you a responsible analysis of the trial of Larken Rose, a man who wanted to bring his findings of years of legal research to the attention of our nation.

The goal of a fair and just trial should be to expose the truth. It would allow Larken to present his findings and permit a jury to evaluate the man and his work. But that is not what we witnessed.

How does a fair trial deny Larken the right to show the jury his "Taxable Income Report" or his "Theft by Deception" video or to simply afford him the opportunity to walk the jury through his interpretation of the law after years of exhaustive research? The absurd restrictions imposed equate to sending a boxer into the ring with their hands tied behind their back, and certainly prevented the jury from getting a true glimpse of the man whose future they would ultimately decide.

The purpose of our courts should be to get at the truth. Yet, anyone that followed this trial is left with the impression that the governments goal throughout this trial was to evade the truth. The governments case as presented by Floyd Miller lacked substance. His closing focused on portraying Larken as an "Anarchist" who didn't even like our own "Constitution" because it gave to much power to the federal government. Then he went on to suggest that the jury should focus on all of the circumstantial evidence.

So, when broken down the governments case looks like this:

1. Deny the defendant the right to present an effective defense.
2. Portray him to the jury as a villain
3. Point to circumstantial evidence much of which was misrepresented.


I hope the government is satisfied with their conduct, because we will be analyzing and dissecting the transcripts and courtroom audio recordings of the trial with the hope of posting relevant portions here on Trial Logs for everyone's consideration. We need to bring national attention to what our court system and government has become.

All we ask is that these defendants be given a fair trial. I don't believe we have seen that in Larken's case and we believe the analysis of the trial records we hope to post here will make that apparent for anyone that takes the time to look it over.

This is far from over.

19 Old Comments:

I suggest a "What went wrong and what to do next" blog.

Can someone tell me why we can't use Marc Steven's appoach to impeach witnesses and judges?

Why can't the defense call an IRS agent as a witness (hostile)?

etc...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 11:16 AM  

Dear David, You must realize by now most federal judges are corrupt cowards in black dresses. There may always be the rare exception, such as the that which appeared to be a fair judge in the Vernice Kuglin trial. Most of us will never receive a fair trial. We are already oppressed with a mostly corrupt legislative brance, executive branch and judicial branch. The Constitution is dead: the only document we have at our disposal and use is the Declaration of Independence. It is time to start shooting these corrupt bastards. Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

By Anonymous joseph sugarman, at 8/14/2005 11:16 AM  

Thank you very much for the Trial Logs blog. I am a big believer that blogs are a very powerful tool that we need to use as much as possible in the fight for freedom, truth, liberty, and justice. Good work.

Doug Kenline
Atlanta, Georgia
http://dougkenline.blogspot.com/

By Blogger Doug, at 8/14/2005 11:37 AM  

"The Constitution is dead: the only document we have at our disposal and use is the Declaration of Independence. It is time to start shooting these corrupt bastards."

While I can certainly sympathize with that sentiment (if not now, when?), I don't necessarily agree. The tactics must be evaluated in context of the overall war. At this time, shooting anyone is likely to result in exactly 2 things: arrest/killing of the shooter, and public outcry for a crackdown on those dangerous extremist wackos (oh, and the inevitable gun-grabber shrieks). Those 12 jurors Larken had represent a LOT of our fellow Americans! That is the real battlefield, IMO: the minds of Americans. Until we win some ground there, I don't think bloodshed (theirs OR ours) will do anything much for our cause. And the best way to win that ground is to remain true to what is right and set a shining example of contrast to the corruption of the gummint and its' sycophants.

Don't react out of emotion. I believe that is what "they" want.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/14/2005 12:44 PM  

Dear Jamie, I have been involved in trying to educate my friends and others since 1967. I have had no success in getting others to read the founding documents, statutes, or court cases; let alone get up off their backsides and do anything. I think, based on your previous wiritngs, you have tried to educate others. Have you had any success? The great unwashed, admirably represented by Larkin's jury, will never learn or understand. But assuming some might, what is you specific plan to open those minds? What is your plan to open the minds of all the corrupt federal employees? Respectfully yours, Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

By Anonymous joseph sugarman, at 8/14/2005 1:19 PM  

Just admit that you all Hate America with a passion.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, Comrades.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 1:38 PM  

Questions:

When the judge instructed the jury:
"if you have income, you must file and pay your tax..etc"

Could Larkin have objected?

This is clearly an incorrect statement, what can he do now?

Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor read Larkin's emails?

Could he have pleaded the 5th?
Why didn't he?

Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor repeatedly vilified him?

Did Larkin ask to see the law that made him liable:

From the Judge?
From the Prosecutor?
From the Jury?

Prosecutor: "Mr Rose thinks he is the only one who knows the tax code..."

Larken: "ok, you're a lawyer and so is the judge; show us the law that not only makes me liable but most working Americans.."

Did Larken ask to see the law that make him liable from any of the IRS agents present?

thanks..

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 2:12 PM  

Just admit that you all Hate America with a passion.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, Comrades.


Comments like these amaze me. Of course the poster is likely a pin head who couldn't find a law library much less the comprehensive skills required to digest the material therein.

All of the love it or leave it types should consider this.

You walk around with a ssn that might as well be tattooed to your head. You can't get an internal passport (drivers license) with out it. You'll find it difficult getting health care without it. You'll find it difficult to open a bank account without it. You'll find it difficult to get credit without it. And, you'll find it difficult to get employment with out.

So, rather then confront all of those obstacles, most people submit to a slave surveillance number. Today's children don't even get the chance to decide as their parents are duped into selling children into the system at birth.

From there, throughout your life, the government tracks all of your earnings and banking arrangements. They are notified immediately of any sizable deposits or withdraws and it doesn't stop there. Try buying anything of value with cash and you will find that the companies where you are dealing with are also required to report your sizable cash expenditure.

At the end of the year, you are required to declare all of your earnings and deductions in a sworn statement which can be used against you in a court of law after which you wait to see if the government will choose to examine your books this year. IRS audits are such a grand exercise of freedom.

While you're exercising your right to travel, be prepared to stop at any check points to show your internal passport (drivers license), let them sniff your breath, check your seatbelt and kick your tires. One of these stops makes you really appreciate your freedom.

Want to improve your house, replace a toilet or repair your sidewalk? Make sure you get permission (permit) so that your government representatives (code enforcement officers) can stop around and assure the work is done to their liking. Of course, if they deny you a permit, you can always submit a grievance to the zoning hearing board and after that to the courts. Gees, you can whine all the way to the Supreme Court if you have enough money.

And make sure the paint on your house isn't peeling, because that needs to be your number one priority or your local governmental agency will start fining you daily until the deficiency is corrected. You need to tend to that peeling paint before you worry yourself with educating your children or providing healthcare for a loved one.

Should I go on? All of you love it or leave types fail to recognize that your freedoms have all but vanished and the people you are critisizing are the very folks working to restore what ever hope there is left.

Consider this. The government has a host of revenue streams available to it under our constitution. It can legitimately tax all of the things it regulates, foreign trade and interstate commerce for example.

The 2002 federal budget was based upon $1.853 trillion in net receipts. Only $.858 trillion of that came from income tax.

So, it seems to me that if the government raised taxes on legitimate revenue streams by 86% they wouldn't have to touch our incomes at all.

They won't do that though. After all, the income tax affords them the opportunity to probe into every Americans life. Because of the income tax, we are all an open book to the government who gets to review our financial records whenever they choose simply calling our name for the next audit.

Lastly, I'd point out that many affluent people are already expatriating and leaving this country. At some point, I suppose us dumb loyal tax slaves will be all that is left behind.

You'll only learn that if you put down the sports page and turn off American Idol.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/14/2005 3:38 PM  

This is the bottom line.

Freedom belongs to those willing to fight for it. Those who don't, that follow individuals like DCJ are willing SLAVES to a totally corrupt system.

The truth is a stranger to DCJ. He is one of those domestic enemies doing the bidding for the FRB henchmen.

Larken Rose spent numerous years studying the Tax Code. It is gross and despicable that he was denied the opportunity to make his case in front of a jury. His hands were tied behind his back and he was made out to be something he is not. And jackasses like DCJ see that as justice served. Larken Rose is a student of the tax code while DCJ is a hack for the NYT.

DCJ, being forced to sign a document under "penalty of perjury" makes us SLAVES to the Federal Reserve which is foreign owned by private bankers. Furthermore, IRS agents do not have to file 1040 forms like the rest of us slaves are told we must do or face the plight of many railroaded citizens of this once great nation.

We are slaves DCJ because of people like you who can't tell the truth to save your soul.

I would rather die fighting for FREEDOM than be guilty of perpetuating the greatest hoax and scam ever perpetrated in history. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are America's domestic enemy, they have forced all of us into slavery.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 3:40 PM  

Let's see if I can answer some of these.

When the judge instructed the jury:
"if you have income, you must file and pay your tax..etc"

Could Larkin have objected?


Maybe. Probably be overruled since the judge rules on questions of law.


This is clearly an incorrect statement, what can he do now?


Well, it's not an incorrect statement, and if it were he'd have to convince an appellate court that it was incorrect. Good luck.


Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor read Larkin's emails?


On what grounds would he object?


Could he have pleaded the 5th?
Why didn't he?


You can only take the 5th to avoid testifying against yourself. The government didn't call Larken as a witness, Larken called himself. Once he does that the 5th no longer applies. The government gets to cross-examine.


Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor repeatedly vilified him?


Again, on what grounds?



Did Larkin ask to see the law that made him liable:

From the Judge?
From the Prosecutor?
From the Jury?


This was not the time or place for that. He had a chance to challenge the underlying law and he didn't. He chose to defend himself by saying he honestly misunderstood the law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 5:35 PM  

"Dear Jamie, I have been involved in trying to educate my friends and others since 1967. I have had no success in getting others to read the founding documents, statutes, or court cases; let alone get up off their backsides and do anything. I think, based on your previous wiritngs, you have tried to educate others. Have you had any success? The great unwashed, admirably represented by Larkin's jury, will never learn or understand. But assuming some might, what is you specific plan to open those minds? What is your plan to open the minds of all the corrupt federal employees? Respectfully yours, Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com"

Thanks for the comments and question, Joseph. Other than "keep on keeping on" I don't have a singular answer for you. I wish I did. You've been at this far longer than I have. About all I can say is that it is in God's hands to provide us with results; we need to stand on His promises. My view is that this particular mess is too severe for human remedies alone. While a specific problem -- the 861 controversy alone, for example -- might be fixable by our own efforts, not a whole societal breakdown. That's just too much for us.

Since I already believe it will take a miracle to get us back to the rule of law, this verdict doesn't really faze me; I don't see our situation as having changed significantly!

I also am confident that the truth will win, and the lies will lose... eventually. As to how long that could be... ask the Israelites in Egypt. (I'm hoping it will not take THAT long, of course, but that's not the point.)

Yet another anonymous cowardly silly person thought this worthy of posting:

" Anonymous said...

Just admit that you all Hate America with a passion.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, Comrades."

Comrades? That is communist talk. Communists believe in income taxation, which the Founding Fathers of our great country did not. So, you first, "comrade". :-)

Another anonymous -- but not silly -- person said:

"IRS agents do not have to file 1040 forms like the rest of us slaves are told we must do or face the plight of many railroaded citizens of this once great nation."

Actually IIRC they *are* required -- at least according to "conventional wisdom" -- to file 1040s... but a lot of them don't. You might want to look into that.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/14/2005 7:30 PM  

IRS employees file tax returns the same as all other honest citizens. Each year, the IMF accounts of all IRS employees are checked to verify they filed returns and paid all their tax. If they didn't and don't have a damned good reason for not doing so, they're fired, unless they appeal to Everson and are allowed to get off with a lesser sanction.

Steve in Houston

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 9:01 PM  

Did Larkin ask to see the law that made him liable:

From the Judge?
From the Prosecutor?
From the Jury?


""This was not the time or place for that. He had a chance to challenge the underlying law and he didn't. He chose to defend himself by saying he honestly misunderstood the law.""



ok, but, I am under the impression they did not answer his questions and that is reason he wanted to be prosecuted...so he could present his case to the people in a trial setting. The IRS Commissioner has noted that the 'response' is; "we'll answer you in court"..so I am confused here...

...what was this trial about? He could not present evidence or discuss 'the law'...seems to me he was railroaded. Bob Graham who has been through this feels the same: http://bobgraham.blogspot.com/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 9:19 PM  

"IRS employees file tax returns the same as all other honest citizens."

Well Steve, it sure didn't take you long to make a false statement. At least you have the bravery to attach your name to it, though; congratulations! You're in a minority of 1 so far here.

Ahem: Honest Americans (and any others, for that matter) who have no tax liability have no obligation to file a return. (Even the IRS agrees with that.) Unless you're prepared to argue that there are no Americans in that category, you must stand down from your statement. IMO it was made purely as yet another slimy attempt at psychological intimidation, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

"Each year, the IMF accounts of all IRS employees are checked to verify they filed returns and paid all their tax. If they didn't and don't have a damned good reason for not doing so, they're fired, unless they appeal to Everson and are allowed to get off with a lesser sanction."

Such tough words! They really run a tight ship over there at the IRS, eh? Real sticklers for the rules, those revenooers. Upright and honest as the day is long, just like Floyd "Larken didn't take his questions to H&R Block" Miller. ;-)

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/15/2005 12:19 AM  

The jury believed Floyd Miller, and not Larken, who in fact abandoned his 861 argument entirely and tried to proceed on the Cheek defense.

Assuming that he starts time in November right after sentencing, he should be out of jail in time to enjoy Thanksgiving with his kids ... in 2010.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/15/2005 9:09 AM  

Irwin Schiff on 861:

The 861 Argument

The 861 argument is a totally erroneous argument. But what is amazing is the convoluted lengths to which its advocates go in seeking to explain why this irrelevant Regulation was worded in such an obscure manner.

In presenting the 861 argument as they do - its advocates reveal that they haven't a clue concerning numerous characteristics of the income tax. The advocates of the 861 argument present it as if it were the very foundation of why people don't have to pay income taxes - since they supposedly do not have income from those sources or items that allegedly fall within the meaning of "gross income" as that term is "defined" in Code Section 61 and as allegedly listed in Treasury Regulation 861. .

The fundamental and glaring flaw in the 861 argument and overlooking all of its other flaws - is that it is based on the assumption that the income tax is imposed on "sources" or "items" of revenue that one might receive and therefore it is important to determine where that revenue comes from, or who received it.

Also the advocates of the 861 argument attempt to make a distinction between "sources" of revenue and" items" of revenue as referred to in Code Section 61 - where no distinction exists.

(Code Section 61, of course, uses the term "income" when it should more correctly use the terms "revenue" or "profit." It falsely uses the term "income" to hide the true character of the "income" tax and what Section 61 purports to tax).

Since the "income" referred to in Code Section 61 means a corporate profit those "sources" or "items" mentioned in Code Section 61 merely refer to those "sources of revenue" or "items of revenue" which go to make up a corporation's "Profit and Loss" statement as constituting its gross revenue.

So any attempt to create a distinction between "items" of revenue and "sources" of revenue as those terms are used in listing a corporation's total (or gross) "income" is "a distinction without a difference."

And it is ludicrous to see the extent to which 861 advocates go in trying to conjure up such a distinction. What Code Section 61 purports to tax is "Income" (or revenue) FROM "whatever source derived" which would include all manner of income (and revenue) regardless of where it comes from- either from domestic or foreign sources.

However, note that Code Section 61 doesn't attempt to put a tax "ON" anything (except profit) - and the legal significance of the distinction between "ON" and "FROM" as used in this Code Section seems to be totally lost on 861 advocates.

The alleged definition of "Gross income" as used in Code Section 61 attempts to be all-inclusive, and that is what the courts will rule. No court is going to rule that the phrase "from whatever source derived" excludes some "sources" of income.

If one accepts the fallacy that what Section 61 purports to tax are "sources" or "items" of revenue (and not "profit"), then the revenue from all "sources" would be taxable.

Read the law. That's what it says - if you accept its basic fallacy. Once you understand that Section 61 only purports to tax corporate profit (which advocates of the 861 argument appear not to understand at all), you realize that it makes no difference where your items of revenue come from, either foreign or domestic sources - since the tax is only allegedly imposed on "profit," not on the individual "items" or "sources" that produced it.

As long as you do not have a "profit" (and individuals can not have a profit) you have received nothing that can possibly fall within the meaning of "Gross income" as that term is used in Code Section 61.

That is what the Brushaber Court (240 US 1) said was the whole purpose of the 16th Amendment. (See page 198 of "The Great Income Tax Hoax") The Supreme Court said in that decision, "The whole purpose of the 16 Amendment" was to separate a tax on income "from a consideration of the source" that produced the income.

However the whole basis of the 861 argument is to focus on, and consider the "sources," that allegedly produced your revenue. Therefore the advocates of the 861 argument admit to not knowing what the 16 Amendment and the Brushaber decision were all about.

What is also incredible is that advocates of the 861 argument believe that argument is more fundamental as to why we don't have to pay income taxes, than the fact that no statute exists that makes anyone (American citizens or resident aliens) even "liable" for the payment of income taxes - regardless of where their revenue comes from.

And while the Code provides a different definition of income for Americans living abroad than those living here, it is my claim that even Americans living abroad don't have to pay federal income taxes.

So advocates of the 861 argument close their eyes entirely to the fundamental fact that there are no provisions making Americans liable for income taxes regardless of where their revenue comes from.

In addition to everything else, 861 advocates also overlook that the income tax is still - legally - based on "self assessment."

This means that if you don't assess yourself with an income tax liability, under the law - you can't owe any income taxes regardless of where your revenue comes from or what produced it. So in addition to everything else, 861 advocates admit to not even knowing about the "self-assessment" basis of the income tax.

In addition to that, 861 advocates claim that according to par. 8f of 861, I would have to file a return and pay income taxes on revenue I might have received from the extraction of foreign oil and gas; and certain other types of revenue the character of which I can't even begin to understand.

The point is, I don't care where anybody's revenue comes from, they don't have to file returns and pay income taxes on any of it for a variety of reasons - which apparently the advocates of the 861 argument know nothing about.

For example: Since all information on a tax return can be used against you, how can the law require you to file and pay income taxes even on sources of revenue allegedly reportable under 861? The answer is no law requires you to do so - for that very reason.

And lastly since all Americans have a constitutional right not to pay a federal tax which is not imposed either pursuant to the rule of apportionment or the rule of geographic uniformity (read the Brown decision posted on my web site where this is explained in detail), and since the income tax is not imposed pursuant to either rule, its payment can not be made mandatory - regardless of where your revenue comes from.

And an understanding of this simple concept is far more valid and relevant than all the complicated gobbledygook upon which the 861 argument is based.

It is also obvious that pursuant to the wording of Code Section 61 only a corporate profit can fall within the meaning of "Gross income" - and "wages" "salary" and "compensation for personal services" simply do not fall within that definition.

As a matter of fact, these items were specifically removed from Code Section 61, even though they specifically appeared in Code Section 22 (the forerunner of Code Section 61) of the 1939 Code as shown in Exhibit G of "Schiff Report" 6-2.

And your understanding of this is far easier to use in explaining why "wages" and "compensation for personnel service" can not be taxable as income, rather than seeking to explain why such items do not fall into the items of allegedly taxable "sources" supposedly listed in Treasury Regulation 861.

However, there is yet another reason why the 861 argument is nonsense. Code Section 861 occupies 2 pages in the Code - but its alleged Regulation runs to 92 pages. Frankly, I get lost trying to understand it. But why do I have to understand it?

The law itself is very simple to understand and it tells me that nothing I receive in the form of revenue falls within the meaning of "Gross income" and is not taxable for a variety of other reasons. So why do I have to bother digesting 92 pages of complicated legalese?

The Regulation itself does not have the force and effect of law anyway. If you check, you will see that the support for Treasury Reg. 861 is always shown to be T.Ds (Treasury Decisions), not Code Section 861.

So the Regulation, not being legislative, is not even binding on the public (Though it is binding on the IRS, but who cares?).

In addition to everything else, the language of 861 is so complicated that I don't even believe that it says what its advocates say it says - that only 12 or so items fall within the sources of income that can be taxable to Americans.

As I read the Regulation, there seems to be a whole list of items in 861-1 that appear to be taxable to Americans as "income from domestic sources."

But apart from 861 there is 862 and 863 and 864 all complicated gobbledygook, and all focusing on the alleged taxability of various "sources" of revenue - when "sources" of revenue are not even made subject to the tax in the first place and no law requires anyone to pay income taxes in the second place - so why bother trying to decipher all that legalese.

Try reading Reg. 861, 862, 863 & 864. So if anybody seriously believes in the fundamental importance of Treas. Reg. 861 they are admitting to being ignorant concerning a whole range of issues involving income taxes.

Now having said that - I am aware that some people who have made the effort to understand the 861 argument and present it so it does makes some sense have been able to confuse IRS agents with it. Fine.

Maybe, in some cases making an erroneous argument can be more effective than making a valid one - based on the fact that "income" means a corporate profit.

However, those who use my material don't bother arguing "the law" to IRS agents anyway. Our approach is based on merely asking the agents to show us the law that authorizes them to do whatever it is they are trying to do, and we will pay the tax.

We are not going to waste our time explaining or debating the meaning of "income" with IRS agents. For those who want to do that, maybe the 861 argument is effective - but such people shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that they are making a legally valid argument. But if it works for you, fine - be my guest.

Now, while some may be able to confuse IRS agents with the 861 argument, I believe it will not fly at all in any court. The fact that it won't fly in court doesn't necessarily mean that the argument is invalid.

The fact that the law doesn't authorize a tax on wages also doesn't "fly" in our courts - as of today. But it certainly will fly and prevail some day, since it is a correct statement of the law, while the 861 argument is not.

I believe that those making the 861 argument will find themselves in Tax Court (a make believe court, I know), either in connection with challenging a "Deficiency Notice" or appealing a Collection Due Process "determination" - and they will base their position on the 861 argument.

And the Tax Court will hold the 861 argument, in both cases, "frivolous," and may even impose sanctions on those who raise it. I hope I am wrong in this, but this is what I expect will happen.

In the end, the 861 argument will fade away, as will those who have based their reputations on it.

More On the 861 Argument
by Irwin Schiff

When I first came across the 861 argument, I didn’t pay much attention to it because its erroneous character was immediately apparent – as covered above.

I also never sought to expose the fallacy of the 861 argument, because I don’t have time to address all of the erroneous arguments that are advanced in the anti-income tax movement. I was only motivated to do so when I did the piece on Thurston Bell, since his reliance on the 861 argument merely underscored how little Thurston Bell actually knows about income taxes.

However, yesterday, in cleaning out my files (in connection with our move to new offices), I came across an article entitled “Taxable Income” by Larken Rose.

Since it was only 6 pages long, I though I’d read it. I didn’t have to read very far to discover where Larken Rose (who, I believe, was the originator of the 861 argument) went wrong.

Under the caption “13) Cover-Up of 1954,” he writes,

“In 1954, the Code underwent a major rearranging and numbering (and to some extent, rewording). This change-over did not substantially change the law itself, but simply rearranged. it.”

Larken Rose couldn’t be more wrong. Congress, in going from the 1939 Code to the 1954 Code, fundamentally and significantly changed the income tax “laws.”

For one thing, Section 11 of the 1939 Code provided that income taxes had to be “paid. ” Such a provision was removed from the 1954 Code, and nowhere in the 1954 Code does the law require that income taxes have to “be paid.”

If this one fact alone does not constitute a “substantial change” in the law, then I don’t know what would.

In addition, all of the numerous references to the IRS (actually the Commissioner) that were in the 1939 Code were removed from the 1954 Code, and consequently the IRS was given no authority or power to enforce the provisions of the 1954 Code as it had been given such authority in the 1939 Code.

In addition, Section 22 of the 1939 Code listed “sources” or “items” which presumably were to be taxed as “income.” No claim was made in the 1939 Code that it sought to “define” the meaning of “Gross income.”

By contrast, Section 61 of the 1954 makes no attempt to list items that were to be taxable as “income.” Instead, Code Section 61 of the 1994 Code claimed to “define” the meaning of “Gross income,” (but failed to do so, for reasons I need not get into here, but which are fully explained in my books and tapes) and gave examples of items that presumably fell within that meaning.

But remember, the tax was to be imposed ON “income” (whatever that meant), but not on the listed items themselves. If the tax were to be imposed directly on those listed items, the tax would have to be apportioned – in order not to run afoul of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the Pollock decision, which, remember, was not repealed by the 16th Amendment.

Another big change between the 1939 Code and the 1954 Code is how they treated the meaning of a “deficiency.” The 1939 Code allowed the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to determine a “deficiency” even when no return was filed and no tax due was shown on any return.

No such authority is given to the IRS in the 1954 Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 6211 of the 1954 Code, only the Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate, and not the Commissioner) can prepare a “deficiency” and only “if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon.”

And since 6211 is not supported by a legislative regulation, Section 6211 is really a benign statute. According to the actual provisions of the 1954 Code, if you do not file a tax return or if you file a return and show no tax due, you actually fall outside the provisions of the 1954 Code, and the income tax “laws” can not apply to you. Not so according to the provisions of the 1939 Code.

The 1939 Code allowed the IRS to subject you to the provisions of the 1939 Code, even if you didn’t file a return or show a an income tax due.

Basically in changing the Code as it did, Congress sought to bring the Code into conformity with a number of early, Supreme Court decisions that had held, among other things, that: 1) the 16th Amendment did not “amend” the Constitution, nor give the government any new taxing power, and 2) the effect of the Amendment was merely to allow the government to put an excise tax on corporate profit – a power Congress always had.

In changing the “law” as it did, Congress sought to make the 1954 Code constitutional, whereas the 1939 Code was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

And Larkin Rose bases much of his 861 argument on the provisions (and regulations) that apply to the 1939 Code – laws that Congress repealed when it went to the 1954 Code.

It is understandable how Larken Rose missed these changes. Neither Congress nor the billion-dollar tax industry that feeds on the preparation of income tax returns and the payment of income taxes wanted these changes publicized.

In summation, the 861 argument rests on Larken Rose’s mistaken belief that there was no “substantial change in the law” as between the 1939 and 1954 Codes. How wrong could an assumption be? If this doesn’t put the final nail in the coffin of the 861 argument, then I don’t know what would.

~ Irwin Schiff

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/15/2005 9:16 AM  

Cockroaches, here, your masters now offer you the privilege of an IRREVOCABLE ELECTION TO BE SUBJECT TO A TAX...HURRY!!!!


Freedom Flat Tax Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1040 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1040
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide taxpayers a flat
tax alternative to the current income tax system.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2005
Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. HALL, Mr. BONILLA,

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia,
and Mr. MCCAUL of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1040:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/15/2005 8:34 PM  

"The jury believed Floyd Miller, and not Larken, who in fact abandoned his 861 argument entirely and tried to proceed on the Cheek defense."

Challenge.

"Assuming that he starts time in November right after sentencing, he should be out of jail in time to enjoy Thanksgiving with his kids ... in 2010."

Another cowardly anonymous appeal to fear. Thanks for the info though.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/16/2005 4:34 PM  

Anonymous at 9:34 PM said...
Cockroaches, here, your masters now offer you the privilege of an IRREVOCABLE ELECTION TO BE SUBJECT TO A TAX...HURRY!!!!

Freedom Flat Tax Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1040 IH


Don't you mean "our masters". It's very interesting that you obviously somehow place youself above the rule of law.

I'm very much aware of the Flat Tax proposal along with it's strengths and weaknesses.

That you think it is news or somehow relevant to what we just witnessed evidences your failure to comprehend the issues at hand.

In my humble opinion, at current spending levels, this nation may be headed for economic collapse. But, that is a topic for another web site, and a distraction from our purpose here.

Right now, I'm left wondering exactly where you fit in to the master/slave relationship you have eagerly defined.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/23/2005 6:27 AM