Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

38 Old Comments:

It's not up to the Judge to teach Irwin the Court Rules and Procedures.

Irwin is responsible for knowing them.

Irwin wants to represent himself but take the time to fully understand the rules is his fault and his fault alone.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 2:03 PM  

The "RULES"!!!! @#$%!! Irwin is on trial effectively for his life and facing a corrupt piece of slime lawyer in a robe!

He has nothing to lose! He should make them duct tape his mouth shut and chain him to the defendents chair!

I would tell the judge I am going to speak my piece and my mind or I am walking the hell out of here!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 2:16 PM  

Welcome to communist AmeriKa!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 2:27 PM  

Then Irwin should have prepared and studied allot better as he is showing what a true FOOL he really is and how little he cares that he is taking others with him.

By Anonymous ?, at 9/14/2005 2:33 PM  

Why should the People allow the arrogant govenment to harrass and charge innocent members of the public for "voluntary compliance" and other non sense (non crimes). Who did Irwin Schiff harm. What a bunch of BS.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 8:55 PM  

Show one law that says a tax is voluntary!

You can't. IRS publications are not law and hold no weight in a court of law.

So show where in any law or regulation it says a tax is voluntry!

By Anonymous ?, at 9/14/2005 9:46 PM  

Taxes are all mandatory. The voluntary compliance claims are nonsense and have no weight.

By Anonymous BS, at 9/14/2005 9:47 PM  

BS said...
Taxes are all mandatory. The voluntary compliance claims are nonsense and have no weight.


An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof, You are wrong.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 10:26 PM  

Irwin has been under tremendous pressure from the IRS and DOJ over the past four years. I would challenge any American Citizen to step into his shoes.

Shiff has not violated the law. His research has been impeccable. Read his "banned" books, if you can get a copy. You may be able to secure one at the Public Library, on E-bay, Amazon.com, or a second hand book store. Then research the material.

His business was raided, and thousands of his documents were removed in violation of the US Constitution, which states:

'Article 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Many years of Irwin's research and documentation were removed, which was a major set back for him, and made it difficult for him to prepare for his trial.

Irwin certianly is not a lawyer, and at nearly 80 years of age, it would be difficult for any individual to complete law school and take the bar exam, while preparing to defend himself against criminal charges, which actually have no basis in law.

Why does Irwin want to represent himself?

In the past, Schiff was forced to fire, on the spot, his attorney Noel Spade because she openly admitted before the court that she could not argue the merits of Schiff's legal defense before the court out of fear of court ordered punishment.

Schiff is a brilliant man, but under tremendous pressure, and advanced in years.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 7:28 AM  

Anonymous

Go read black law dictionary and look up the word TAX. It is a Mandatory matter when laid.

Typical patriot when asked to prove up with a law or reg they can't.

By Anonymous BS, at 9/15/2005 7:47 AM  

Show me one Law that says the average American citizen has to pay an income tax!

Show me the regulation accompanied by the statute, which states that the average American citizen has to file and pay an income tax.

I have been writing the IRS for may years now, yet they have never shown me such a law.

Remember, the law is expressed by the U.S. Constitution, court ruling, statute, and regulation.

In order for a statute to have the force and effect of law, there absolutely must be an accompanying implementing regulation.

A legislative regulation has the force and effect of law by the citation of a statute or ruling on which it is based.  

The regulation must cite a statute in order to have the force and effect of law and application to the general public.

Got it?

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 7:54 AM  

A typical IRS employee, which BS probably is, when asked to show the law, cannot cite that law.

As mentioned before in my earlier post, a legislative regulation has the force and effect of law by the citation of a statute or ruling on which it is based.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:02 AM  

What is voluntary compliance?

The phrase is an oxymoron meant to confuse most American citizens who are "nontaxpayers" into thinking that they are "taxpayers".

Voluntary implies that it’s not compelled and that there is no punishment for not doing it.

The IRS adds the word compliance as a way to confuse the citizens into thinking that they have to do it, or that they will be punished for not doing it.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:16 AM  

What is voluntary compliance?

The phrase is an oxymoron meant to confuse most American citizens who are "nontaxpayers" into thinking that they are "taxpayers".

Voluntary implies that it’s not compelled and that there is no punishment for not doing it.

The IRS adds the word compliance as a way to confuse the citizens into thinking that they have to do it, or that they will be punished for not doing it.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:16 AM  

Regarding voluntary compliance claims being "nonsense."

"The mission of the Service [IRS] is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Service." Federal Register, Volume 39, #62 (11572), March 29, 1974.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:28 AM  

c) "The tax system is based on voluntary compliance." Federal Tax Regulations, Section 601.602.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:29 AM  

d) "Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against themselves and pay them voluntarily. This system of assessment and payment is based on the principle of voluntary compliance." Internal Revenue Manual, Section 20:123 (7/15/96).

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:31 AM  

e) "Of course, the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint ~ if he does not split his action ~ but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary measure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." US Supreme Court, Flora v. United States, 362 US 179, 80 S.Ct. 630 (1960).

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:32 AM  

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply." Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means Committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 8:34 AM  

gail in sc likes having chats with herself? Perhaps she isn't even aware that she's posting, I've heard that delusional minds will do things like that. You my dear have drunk so much kool-aid that you're beyond redemption. Please put a bullet in your head and get it over with, ok?

By Anonymous Neo, at 9/15/2005 11:17 AM  

Proceedures! Court Proceedures! OH, How Convenient for you, and the rest of the traders of this great country, liars hypocrites. You set the rules in the game and then step on the truth. You better pray the real america does not discover the truth, pray and repent. I did not know the truth a til few years ago, now I know. NOW I KNOW. The question who am I? One more of many, many!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/15/2005 11:44 AM  

Re: gail in sc likes having chats with herself?

Guess I have to inform you to which "blog" I am replying, since you are apparently too simple minded to figure it out. Just the same, it's my first time blogging, and will do my best to follow blof etiquette.

Re: It's not up to the Judge to teach Irwin the Court Rules and Procedures posted at 9/14/2005 3:03 PM and Re: Then Irwin should have prepared and studied "allot" (spelling?) better posted at 9/14/2005 3:33 PM. To that was my comment which was posted at 9/15/2005 8:28 AM

Re: "The voluntary compliance claims are nonsense and have no weight," I posted the following messages.
9/15/2005 9:16, 9:28, 9:29, 9:32, and 9:34 AM

Re: Tax is a mandatory matter when laid. Typical patriot to prove up with a law or reg they can't. I posted the following messages at 9/15/2005 8:54 and 9:02 AM, to ensure that you can discern the difference between a law and a regulation.

By the way, have you found that law, you know, the regulation accompanied by a statute that says the average American citizen has to pay an income tax? I'm still waiting..............

I never drink "kool-aid," and would never harm my wise and well educated mind with a bullet.

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 1:19 PM  

Neo spews...
gail in sc likes having chats with herself? Perhaps she isn't even aware that she's posting...

Ad hominem in the face of citations of law, and court decisions. Neo, Ya' "got no game" as Dave Champion would say.

Gail, you go girl. EXCELLENT lecture. To which I would add:

Sec. 6201. Assessment authority

-STATUTE-
(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.
(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp

Sec. 301.6201-1 Assessment authority.
(a)... The authority of the district director and the director of the regional service center to make assessments includes the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return. The district director or the director of the regional service center shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the district director or the director of the regional service center and disclosed on a return or list.
(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp. (i) If without the use of the proper stamp:...

Now lest the no gamers jump upon the italicized portion above, The IRS employees can NOT determine taxes and execute a return without AUTHORITY to do so.

Sec. 6020. Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary

-STATUTE-
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

Sec. 301.6020-1 Returns prepared or executed by district directors or other internal revenue officers.

(b) Execution of returns--(1) In general. If any person required by any internal revenue law or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return ... fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

But these IRS employees can not just go make returns, the MUST have delegation orders which prescribe, circumscribe, and authorize their actions by law. The authority to execute returns must be delegated via a "Delegation Order".

That delegation of authority is found in, "Delegation Order" Number 182 (rev. 7), dated 5/5/1997. As found in the online Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) in section 5.1.11.6.10, paragraph 1 DO 182 states: "The following returns may be prepared, signed and assessed under the authority of IRC 6020(b):

A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
C. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
D. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
E. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return
F. Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
G. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.”

Form 1040 seems to be missing from the returns the IRS employees are allowed to execute. I won't get into the outright fraudulent nature of the SFR's.

Cite 26 USC 6201
Cite 26 CFR 301.6201-1
Cite 26 USC 6020
Cite 26 CFR 301.6020-1

Until they change the anchor points again, this is the cite right to the IRM paragraph: Cite Online IRM

Otherwise, this cite goes to the page, then scroll down Cite Online IRM

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/15/2005 1:30 PM  

Gail in SC

It is clear you have no clue as all the other patriots out there.

Again IRS statements, IRS publications none have the force and effect of law and hold no legal weight as they are opinions ONLY!.

"Interpretations such as those in opinion letters--like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law"
[Christensen v. Harris Co. 000us98-1167]

Now as stated all taxes are mandatory exactions. If you don't voluntarily comply they will exact it on their own. Whether it is alchohol, tobacco or income.

Tax: A tax has been defined as a “Mandatory exaction for the support of government.” “A ‘tax’ is a statutory liability
IMPOSED upon all inhabitants of the state defined as taxable, so that they may contribute their just share to expenses
of government.” [People v. Chenango County, 30 N.Y.S. 2d 785,791,792.] (Emphases added)

See the word IMPOSED?

IMPOSE: "To levy or exact as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge" [State v. Nickerson, 97 Neb. 837, 151 N.W. 981, 982]

26 USC 1 IMPOSES the tax! ie levies by authority! ie Makes liable!

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income..a tax" [26 USC 1]

Now before you go there, there is no ase law or statutes which states that a the person liable cannot be named in the same statute as the tax IMPOSED. There is no case law or statute that says there has to be a seperate liabilty statute nameing the person the tax is IMPOSed upon.

26 USC 1 states who the tax is IMPOSED upon ie "Liable".

"(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses..(b) Heads of households...(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)...(d) Married individuals filing separate returns [26 USC 1} etc.!

So you go argue in court your theries and join the great Mr. Schiff in jail!

Typical Patriot BS.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/15/2005 3:10 PM  

My apologies to all for the length of the post. Blogs are for sound bites, and the issue can NOT be covered in a sound bite.

Anonymous 9/15/2005 4:10 PM posted:

Now as stated all taxes are mandatory exactions. If you don't voluntarily comply they will exact it on their own. Whether it is alchohol, tobacco or income.

Prima Facie correct statement. It's the definitions that tell the story... The TRUE story.

Tax: A tax has been defined as a “Mandatory exaction for the support of government.” “A ‘tax’ is a statutory liability IMPOSED upon all inhabitants of the state defined as taxable, so that they may contribute their just share to expenses of government.” [People v. Chenango County, 30 N.Y.S. 2d 785,791,792.] (Emphases added)

Again, absolutely correct. As I have highlighted with bold text, the answer starts to appear. The question, and definition is, "Just who is a taxable person and under what conditions.

See the word IMPOSED?

IMPOSE: "To levy or exact as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge" [State v. Nickerson, 97 Neb. 837, 151 N.W. 981, 982]


Article 1, Section 2 states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...

See the words, direct taxes - APPORTIONED?

Article 1, Section 9 states:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion...

See the words, No direct tax laid unless in proportion?

Class B.
Under this class these propositions are relied upon:
(1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.
As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the 16th Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view.
(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.
As to the second, ... , a brief analysis will serve to demonstrate that the distinction is one without a difference, and therefore that the proposition is also foreclosed by the previous ruling.

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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...
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

See the words, no new powers of taxation. That means NO unapportioned direct tax.

... the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

... the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced ... to support it, as follows:
(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment...

... it clearly results that the proposition [The "erroneous assumption above] and the contentions under it, if acceded to, WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER;...

...the [erroneously assumed] tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states.

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

26 USC 1 IMPOSES the tax! ie levies by authority!

Correct. Imposes the tax on taxable income, Which is gross income minus the deductions allowed (sec. 63). BUT, using your own definition from above, quote"liability IMPOSED upon all inhabitants of the state defined as taxable

Section 1, contrary to your misreading of the words Single Person, Married Person, etc, DOES NOT DEFINE WHO and WHEN a Person is taxable. Section 1 without the context of other parts of the IRC imposes a tax on chinese nationals working in China. And that is not the only context missing that defines who and when the liability for the tax is actually imposed.

ie Makes liable!
Is WRONG!, Section 1 IMPLIES LIABLE.

The only person "made liable" for ANY subtitle A tax is a "withholding agent" (sec. 1461 - Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax...)

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. GOULD v. GOULD , 245 U.S. 151 (1917)

So who does section 6011(a) address?
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return...

Draw a line through section 6011 and scratch if off the list. It does not apply to section 1 unless you are a withholding agent.

And then, there is that definition of just exactly WHAT is "income".

A look at "income"
Cite US Constitution
Cite STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO
Cite BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.
Cite IRC section 1461
Cite GOULD v. GOULD
Cite IRC section 6011

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/15/2005 8:49 PM  

Re: Gail in SC (Post # 24 by anonymous)

Concerning your statement:"Again IRS statements, IRS publications none have the force and effect of law and hold no legal weight as they are opinions ONLY!."

...true but I also cited a court decision and a statement made by Dwight Avis Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Service while testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).

Impose does not mean liable, nor does it make one liable.

Impose: To levy or "exact" as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty, or charge. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 755]

Exaction. The wrongful act of an officer or other person in compelling payment of a fee or reward for his services, under color of his official authority, where no payment is due. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 557]

Extortion. The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A. § 871 et seq.; § 1951.

A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely obtains property of another by threatening to:
(1) inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or
(2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or
(3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or
(4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action; or
(5) bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
(6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or
(7) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor. Model Penal Code, § 224.4.

See also Blackmail; Hobbs Act; Loan Sharking; Shakedown. With respect to Larceny by extortion, see Larceny. Compare Coercion [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 585]

The income tax system is big business, and people are scared that they will lose their jobs and salary if America returned to a lawful status and there was no direct taxation of any kind.

What do you think would happen if direct taxation ended? First, our economy would see rapid growth. Americans could go into business for themselves, creating more jobs. And America would again become a country that produces her own goods.

Oh, and I have a question. Can you show the law, a regulation accompanied by a statute, that says the average American citizen has to pay an income tax?

By Blogger Gail in SC, at 9/15/2005 11:40 PM  

Gail in SC

again you are a typical patriot spewing nonsens. Governmet executive statements hav not force and effect of law and bind no-one. They are strictly opinion. You did not state a case that says otherwise.

And again the Income tax is: 1 Not a tax on income and 2 not a direct tax as shown before and you fasil you understand:

1) "that the income tax is not a tax on income as such and that it is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce, and that the income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." [House Congressional Record, 3-27-43]

2) “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 being placed in the category of direct taxation.”
See: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)

Now again go back and re-read my previous post: 26 USC 1 Imposes the tax and make those liable.

Your claims of extortion, Larceny etc. are un-founded and will have no merit in a court of law.

As I said keep arguing patriot trash and lose.

This is the problem with the so-called patriots. They either cannot read properly or they read things for what they want hem to say.

Typical!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 9:45 AM  

This post by Dale Eastman. The name Me 5000 is to make a point, explained in this post.

Anonymous 9/16/2005 10:45 AM,

When you are filling in the "Leave your comment" box, look just below it. There you will see three radio buttons labeled; Blogger; Other; and Anonymous. Click the one that says "Other" and make up a name and enter a name in the Name field to use when you post so that the rest of us know when it is you.

I suspected that it was you taking Gail to task, but I wasn't sure. In fact, I'm not sure that you aren't an IRS Collaborator just attempting to sow mayhem and dissent.

If your purpose is to rag on people, GO AWAY. If your purpose is to educate, THEN DO SO.

Dump the vitriol, it's not needed. If you are such the expert you claim to be, then post a link to your web site where you EXPLAIN.

You argued with me when we really have no argument. After I understood what you had to say, I posted a scan of the page you were talking about SO THAT OTHERS MAY LEARN.

Do you think it is only "Patriots" that read these blogs? If this stuff stays up long enough, it gets stored in google caches. (Must be one heck of a memory system on the google servers.)

If I describe my hand as I offer it to you in a handshake, I see a hand on the right side of my body, with a thumb on top and four fingers extending away from my body. What to you see? (rhetorical) You see a hand on the left side of your body, with a thumb on top and four fingers extending toward your body.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Neither? Both?

The issue of the "income" tax is complex. It is complex because it was made that way ON PURPOSE. The complexity does not mean impossible to understand. It just means, like a jigsaw puzzle with ornate cuts and lots of monotone colors, that the pieces are harder to 'snap' into place. Yet once they do, there is no doubt as to how the individual complex pieces interconnect. The devil is in the details, and there are zillions of them.

If one is not aware of the house record, page 2580, the truth of the matter can still be discerned, albeit with more effort, in the statutes and regulations themselves.

I will respond to the actual points you make in another post. Getting back to the point of this post, If you have knowledge, TEACH IT, openly, without rancor, and you can start on the openly by choosing a 'handle' so we know which posts are yours.

By Anonymous Me 5000, at 9/16/2005 1:47 PM  

Me 5000

I am not gail.

The points have been made very clear, concise back with actual facts of case law, congression transcript and stsutes.

It cannot be any clearer.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 2:13 PM  

Me 5000

I am not gail.


You totally MISSED the point of the post you replied to.

The points have been made very clear, concise back[ed] with actual facts of case law, congression[al] transcript[s] and st[at]utes.

NO, they and you HAVE NOT MADE your points with ANY clarity. You are forgetting WHO your audience needs to be and what they NEED TO READ.

Unless I get tired and lazy, I attempt to cite what any scholar would cite to substantiate their assertions. Look how long it took you to cite WHERE your MANTRA originated. Once you did, I SUPPORTED that statement.

It cannot be any clearer.

Maybe in your mind. Again, who is your audience, for whose benefit are you posting?

What exactly is the purpose of your posts?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/16/2005 3:32 PM  

Anonymous 9/16/2005 10:45 AM said...

Gail in SC

And again the Income tax is: 1 Not a tax on income and 2 not a direct tax as shown before


Joe Sixpack, ignorantly furnishes his SSN to his company, because Joe Sixpack and his company 'believe' that is what the law requires. (It's not. Proof linked below.)

The company 'certifies' that it has paid Joe Sixpack a "wage" ("Wage" is a statutorily defined term which actually does NOT include Joe's "compensation for labor or services") The company then withholds from Joe, a portion of his compensation.

We'll stop this story right here, because as soon as that property (money) exchanged for labor (property) {Compensation for labor or services} is confiscated, a direct taxation has happened.

The only way a direct unapportioned tax can happen is if a sovereign citizen volunteers to pay such tax.

Thus the TRUTH of what Gail said: The mission of the Service [IRS] is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations...

The tax system is based on voluntary compliance." Federal Tax Regulations, Section 601.602


And this one is LITERALLY the truth:
Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against themselves and pay them voluntarily. This system of assessment and payment is based on the principle of voluntary compliance. See my post above in regard to assessment authority of the secretary in section 6201.

and you fasil you understand:

1) "that the income tax is not a tax on income as such and that it is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce, and that the income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." [House Congressional Record, 3-27-43]


I can not speak for Gail on this point. I can speak for myself, and I am aware of the point you make. I posted a link verifying it with what proof I had, such as it is.

I think you miss Gail's point. Though the above excerpt from page 2580 explains the truth, the OTHER truth is that the IRS calls compensation for labor "income" and then attempts to "tax" it. PLUS, (and I'm not going to dig up the link) I have read in the IRS' web site somewhere, that "an income tax is a DIRECT tax."

2) “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 being placed in the category of direct taxation.”
See: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)


The reality is that "income" has multiple definitions, and using the proper definition is critical and key to resolving this dispute between the both of you.

Now again go back and re-read my previous post: 26 USC 1 Imposes the tax and make those liable.

In making the above statement, you sound just like an IRS Collaborator. You are totally ignoring the rest of the code which supplies CONTEXT of WHEN and under WHAT CONDITIONS a "married individual filing jointly" or a "unmarried individual" is taxed.

You give the appearance of contradicting yourself because Joe Sixpack; reads section 1 sees that his taxable income is taxed; Reads section 63 and sees that taxable income is gross income minus deductions allowed; Reads section 61 and sees that except as otherwise provided... Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including, but not limited to, compensation for labor or services.
Joe Sixpack then concludes, 'Yep, law says I gotta pay taxes right here', so without any further study, Joe concludes that what he makes at work he's gotta pay taxes on.

Joe has never seen page 2580 of the House report. Nor has Joe ever seen section 7806, Construction of title, (b) Arrangement and classification, Which states: No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. Section 7806 is the required 'between the lines' admission that the order of statutes is not inline with the statutory path, so to speak, of how one must go through the code to understand the CONTEXT.

The path so far: Section 1; section 63; section 61. Are there more sections? Yes. But for this post, these three suffice. They are NOT IN ORDER, just like 7806 warns us.

Now consider this: Section 1 IS THE VERY LAST ACTION in calculating the tax imposed. Where is it found? At the very front of the code. For those of you computer geek types, I'm plugging this guy's web site. Especially as to a computer search of the Codes and Regulations relate to; "determining taxable income".
Plug: http://whatistaxed.com/

Your claims of extortion, Larceny etc. are un-founded and will have no merit in a court of law.

Neither will your monotonous mantra of that passage from page 2580 if the court only looks at section 1, section 63, and section 61.

And this:
As I said keep arguing patriot trash and lose.

This is the problem with the so-called patriots. They either cannot read properly or they read things for what they want hem to say.

Typical!


Serves NO PURPOSE to educate and get your point across.

Regarding Joe Sixpack's SSN above: What the LAW says about submitting SSN's to your companies:

6109.wps

This is a MS Works 6.O file. Right click; Save as; virus scan (for those concerned about MS Crappy security); then open and read.
I have not yet converted this page into an html page. There is a longer winded version spread across a few html pages here here and here.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/16/2005 3:36 PM  

Dale Eastman

You gave the link: http://whatistaxed.com/

Go and argue 861 as larken and thompson, and Bell all have. Bell has ben enjoined, Thompson and Larken are both in prision.

It is and always will be a loosing argument.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 5:00 PM  

Anonymous 9/16/2005 6:00 PM said...

Dale Eastman

You gave the link: http://whatistaxed.com/

Go and argue 861 as larken and thompson, and Bell all have. Bell has ben enjoined, Thompson and Larken are both in prision.

It is and always will be a loosing argument.


It is not an argument, it is THE LAW.

Pick a handy pseudonym so I know which posts are yours. Let's see how your assertions stack up against THE LAW

Q.1. Is the tax imposed upon taxable income?
Q.2. Is taxable income gross income minus the "deductions allowed"?
Q.3. Is gross income all income from whatever source derived?
Q.4. Is the phrase "all income from whatever source derived" the Constitutional meaning of the word income?

Your move.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/16/2005 6:48 PM  

Well, it'll "always be a losing argument" - unless you hold your breath until you're blue in the face and say it's "not a loser" over and over again until the party forced to listen to the crap spewed forth by those such as eastman, begins to bleed from the ears. See, that's not hard. I wonder if Shifty's prison number will be all zeroes?

By Anonymous neo, at 9/16/2005 6:50 PM  

Download a word document from a tax protesting loon? That's rich...he he he he he

By Anonymous frigging un real, at 9/16/2005 6:52 PM  

Q.1. Is the tax imposed upon taxable income?
Q.2. Is taxable income gross income minus the "deductions allowed"?
Q.3. Is gross income all income from whatever source derived?
Q.4. Is the phrase "all income from whatever source derived" the Constitutional meaning of the word income?

Well? Yes or no?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/16/2005 11:40 PM  

IRS drone says: It is and always will be a loosing argument.

Neo says: Well, it'll "always be a losing argument" - unless you hold your breath until you're blue in the face and say it's "not a loser" over and over again until the party forced to listen to the crap spewed forth by those such as eastman, begins to bleed from the ears

frigging un real says: ... from a tax protesting loon?

None answered specific questions about THE LAW. This is exactly how the IRS answers when a citizen challenges them to prove authority and law.
DEAFENING SILENCE or Resort to ad hominem or threats of incarceration or unsubstantiated assertions. Anything but have a discourse on what the #$%@% LAW says.

Here we have all four: ad hominem; threats of incarceration, unsubstantiated assertions and then in all cases: DEAFENING SILENCE.
What's a matter? They keeping the boiler room where you work too hot for you?

By the way, your absence of response means the answers are:
Q.1. Yes
Q.2. Yes
Q.3. Yes
Q.4. Yes

Please, please, say they are not, so I have a reason to link cite the appropriate law for the lurkers to study.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/17/2005 1:41 PM  

{{crickets}}

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/02/2005 10:32 PM