Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update, Doug Kenline interview with Angela Stark

posted by David Jahn @ 9/27/2005 12:09:00 AM  

40 Old Comments:

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court. Thjis what the Supremes said regarding income taxes, which is good to know:

As late as 1960, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):
"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, "to seize a person’s goods as security for an obligation."
In 1976, in U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400: "Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…" BALLARD gives us two useful explanations:
At 404, "The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." At 404, BALLARD further ruled that "… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources."

Once again in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170, 175 (1926):
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."
In TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929), the Court ruled:
"The Sixteenth Amendment provides:
"'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.'
"Income is the thing which may be taxed-income from any source. The amendment does not attempt to define income or to designate how taxes may be laid thereon, or how they may be enforced.
"Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income."

The word "income" has been wrongfully used by the IRS as including the wages, compensation, or earnings of citizens, when not receiving such wages taxed as a corporate "privilege". In Doyle vs. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court made the clear and unequivocal statement:
"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).
The general public, being unaware of the legal definition of "income" in the constitutional sense, has been misled into a wrongful use of the word and has been also misled into believing that they had "income’, although not participating in a government conferred corporate benefit. The Supreme Court ruled that the word "income" is defined in its constitutional sense, as meaning a derivative of a corporate activity, and is not a tax on the corporation’s income, but a tax measured by the size of the corporation’s income.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918) ruled that everything that comes in, cannot necessarily be included in "income":
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."

HE THAT HAS EARS TOP HEAR LET HIM HEAR.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 10:29 AM  

yo mama,

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

He who has eyes, let him read.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 10:55 AM  

Despite tax protestors' attempts to read excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court out of context, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately allowed to stand the convictions of literally hundreds of tax protestors, and called tax protestor arguments "surely frivolous" in the Cheek case.

Moreover, the tax protestors cannot get a single, accredited legal or constitutional scholar to agree with their goofy theories. As it is, the tax protestor movement is not a collection of any great legal minds, but rather of failed computer programmers and those working cash jobs who have deluded themselves into believing they are right and will not listen to anything to the contary.

But does anybody care? No. The average person thinks that tax protestors are a bunch of fringe idiots, as shown by the jury verdicts in Simkanin, Thompson, Rose, Meredith, and many other cases this year -- which will include the Schiff case, though why somebody thinks that "three times will be the charm" for this twice-convicted felon is beyond reason.

We've got the champagne iced and waiting for the expected news of Irwin being convicted on all counts!

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:05 AM  

The irs document is full of lies and deceptions. Look in the index of the Internal Revenue Code under liabilities, penalties, and payments, and my friend, income tax is playing hide and go seek. Its just doesn't exist. This is what Irwin has been telling everyone far and wide.

Reasonable Guy, were you able to locate the liability, payments and penalties in the index section of the Internal Revenue Code for incoem taxes?

Just like I thought, you're a government brainwashed stool. I might add, a smelly one at that. He that has fingers let his fingers do the walking in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IN THE INDEX TITLED: LIABILITIES, PAYMENTS, AND PENALTIES.

If you fail to identify the above requested information, I suggest, you go pound sand and stop leaving your uninformed comments on this blog. In fact go and creat your own blog, you add nothing to the intelligent people that post and cite Supreme Court decisions and statues.

How can you believe the IRS. They send out fraudently NOtices of liens and when one checks with the Secretary of States Offices, they find out that no lien has every been filed. Yet the County recorders office still files the "Notice of lien anyway because they like you, "trust the IRS." What a bunch of loosers.

Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter and chose to suffer affliction with the people of GOD than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.

All lies are sin. The IRS are liars. YOu support liars and thieves. GOD have mercy on your soul. Hopefully, you'll repent and join us. We need you too.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:23 AM  

Yo Mama,

You are cleary another frustrated TP who fails to see the difference between LEGALITY and MORALITY.

If you choose to challenge the legality of existing laws, you will lose, every time.

Time for a new plan.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:32 AM  

Quatloosers arise, assess yourselves, fill out the forms you are commanded to complete, pay your assessment and go to sleep. why do you waste your time here? we have no interest in what you say because you have nothing to say.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:32 AM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

You stated: "Despite tax protestors' attempts to read excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court out of context, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately allowed to stand the convictions of literally hundreds of tax protestors, and called tax protestor arguments "surely frivolous" in the Cheek case."

My friend, I posted nothing out of context, you can read the decisions for yourself. You have been brainwashed by the position you hold in government and cannot see the truth even though its sitting in front of you. I am not familiar with the cheeks case, but if you would provide the cite where I can look it up, i will read it and maybe get a different prospective. I am not opposed to learing.
You my friend are and will not help those of us that have asked you to go to the index of the Internal Revenue Code and point out for us where in the index under liability, payment and penalties income tax can be found. Without this information, we can only conclude that the Supreme COurt was correct in FLora v. US, 362 US 145 (1960): Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.

Now where did I take this case out of context?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:35 AM  

You are cleary another frustrated TP who fails to see the difference between LEGALITY and MORALITY.

If you choose to challenge the legality of existing laws, you will lose, every time.

Time for a new plan.
_____________________________

You are correct again...many Nazi leaders tried to challenge the legality of Hitler's preversion of existing German law and were then promptly liquidated. The law should be obeyed no matter what the morality. By the way, that means that those Nazi leaders in the Nuremburg trial should have been acquitted of all charges even if they committed murder and genocide. After all, they were only obeying the laws in Germany at the time. It should be of no consequence whether the laws were moral. Ironically, they were charged on the reason that their conscience should have understood what is morally just versus moral acquiescence to the legal authority at the time.

So if the law violates property rights and civil liberties, is it moral? Should individuals blindly follow the supposed law without question? OR should they have a conscience to examine the supposed law and determine whether the law is injust and must be challenged in whatever form necessary.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 12:03 PM  

You are on the right track my anonymous friend.

If a law is legal but immoral, how does one change the law?

By cheating and arguing frivolous cases that put you in prison? That has not proven to be a successful strategy.

Time for a new plan.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 12:23 PM  

"Time for a new plan."

I would really like to know what the new plan could be? You have a legislature who won't even begin to argue the morals of the law as it is written, a Supreme Court that won't even hear cases on the issue and an Executive Branch that won't accept petitions on the matter from the American public etc.etc...so I guess there is no plan other than moral acquienscence by the masses until the day we have a Nuremberg trial in this country.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 12:34 PM  

The Bucks stope at the US Supreme Court.

Not one of us is challengingthe existence of the legality of the law. As quiet as its kept we all embrace the law so does Irwin and company. Irwin has always said that the law is good and he's right. You still have failed to go to the index of the IRC like you were instructed.

You are a bad bad bad teacher. now go sit in the corner and write one hundred time: I will look in the IRC index under penalties, payment, and liabilities and I will post my findings. we all know you won't Bitch!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:18 PM  

Yo mama said...
The Bucks stope at the US Supreme Court.

Not one of us is challengingthe existence of the legality of the law. As quiet as its kept we all embrace the law so does Irwin and company. Irwin has always said that the law is good and he's right.

****************************

What are you talking about? Why do you think he in in court today?

Irwin has (allegedly, for now) violated the law and is in court defending his (incorrect) interpretation of the law.

He's not defending himself for fun, you know. This is serious.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:28 PM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

Hey stupid, the law is good and he is not challenging the law. Why do you think this Judge refuses to allow him to show the jury the law. It aint that difficult. The judge keeps refering to the IRC 1. Anyone with half a brain knows that becasue a tax is imposed does not make one liable for the tax that is imposed unless one is liable for that tax that is imposed. The IRC imposes a lot of taxes, so by your lame brain, does that make one liable for alcohol, liquor etc taxes. NO it does not.
NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM and pull out the IRC and look in the index under LIabilities, payment, penalties and come back and report your findings. BITCH. W e know you won't. Becaus it will expose you for the fraud you are perpetrating.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:42 PM  

Reasonable Guy,

The first plan is to educate.

Aside from that we can take a SERIOUS look at third parties such as The Constitution Party, The Libertarian Party, etc. Those that support and run on the premise that governement is too large and needs to be more adherent to the Constitution.

Another avenue is to support groups such as DownsizeDC, The Liberty Committee, and other conseravtaive lobbyists/caucuses that want smaller constitutional government.

There are several other "plans" supported by several different conservatives, TPers not withstanding. I believe all of these must be persued diligently and supportive of each other in each other's mission as they all have one ultimate common goal.

Schiff deserves the support of all those that think the government is too large, unconstitutional, tyrannical, etc.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:44 PM  

mikey said...
Reasonable Guy,

The first plan is to educate.

Aside from that we can take a SERIOUS look at third parties such as The Constitution Party, The Libertarian Party, etc. Those that support and run on the premise that governement is too large and needs to be more adherent to the Constitution.

Another avenue is to support groups such as DownsizeDC, The Liberty Committee, and other conseravtaive lobbyists/caucuses that want smaller constitutional government.

There are several other "plans" supported by several different conservatives, TPers not withstanding. I believe all of these must be persued diligently and supportive of each other in each other's mission as they all have one ultimate common goal.

Schiff deserves the support of all those that think the government is too large, unconstitutional, tyrannical, etc.

9/27/2005 2:44 PM


Mikey,

Believe it or not, I largely agree with you. Dale Eastman must be having a heart attack about now. :-)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:57 PM  

"Aside from that we can take a SERIOUS look at third parties such as The Constitution Party, The Libertarian Party, etc. Those that support and run on the premise that governement is too large and needs to be more adherent to the Constitution."

...You mean the same parties (Constitution and Libertarian) that get less than 1% of the total vote in each election and have 1/10 the amount of financial support of the two party system juggernaut. In other words, we'll be long gone and dead and our property will be violated-destroyed by then. At least we have something to look forward to!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:13 PM  

This is total heresy...in other if you guys are saying there is no hope in the courts, the legislature, the executive to reform, then this basically proves the point that the current institutions can not be used to scrutinize the morality of the system (the law itself). Therefore, one can only conclude that the laws have been distorted-plundered and the system then has been preverted. LOL with the Constitution and Libertarian parties!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:21 PM  

So if Irwin wins, what happens then? Do Americans continue to file an income tax return that the law that requires them to do so can not be identified in a U.S. court of law?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:28 PM  

Schiff will not win. He will be convicted on all counts. The only count he may possibly be found not guilty of would be conspiracy. But he will be found guilty on all other accounts definitely. Another loss and another conviction for for the grand daddy of frivolity .

Schiff Famous quotes:

"Noboby knows this except me, apparently, but I'm educating the public."

"That's all I have been doing all my life is litigating. One of these days I hope to get it right."

Schiff hasn't got it right and he never will.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:46 PM  

Yeah, but you still didn't answer the question...what happens if Mr. Schiff prevails on all counts....What then?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:51 PM  

Anonymous said...
Yeah, but you still didn't answer the question...what happens if Mr. Schiff prevails on all counts....What then?

9/27/2005 3:51 PM

********************

It's just not within the realm of possibilities. It's like asking what if pigs could fly.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:57 PM  

If anyone out there thinks it would be easier to change Democrans and Republicrats rather than start a grass root support system for Libertarians and Constitution party, you need your head examined. Ross Perot proved that third parties can be an influence. If you think Republicans are conservative, please open your eyes. Like I said, first and foremost is to educate Americans that there are choices and that the two parties we have now are NOT a choice.

And yes, we ARE at the point that "the laws have been distorted-plundered and the system then has been preverted" beyond recognition! hence this case that Schiff is presenting.

We need to attack the problem at ALL available angles. Just like Schiff is presenting everything he can and not picking just one avenue, all of these groups need to step up the effort in order to effect real change.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 2:58 PM  

It's just not within the realm of possibilities. It's like asking what if pigs could fly.


It appears that you answering the question is not within the realm of possibilities either. It must be too hard for to fathom the idea of Mr. Schiff walking away unscathed....we shall see...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 3:04 PM  

It doesn't matter whether Schiff is found not guilty or guilty, any more than it mattered whether Banister, Kuglin, Simkanin, Thompson, or Rose were convicted or acquitted.

Criminal convictions or acquittals don't set any precedent whatsoever for future criminal cases.

Schiff isn't arguing the law; he's arguing whether or not he had a good faith belief in his interpretation of the law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 3:16 PM  

Boy! Adolph Hitler would have loved the IRS Quatloos.....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 4:25 PM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

Well you well intelligent tax gurus who believe Irwin will be found Guilty, you are soo wrong. I know you know the truth, you just can't embrace it because you are a stooge for the system.

Anyway, why haven't you done your homework and looked up the index to the IRC under liabilities, payment, and penalties and presented your findings to us you BITCH?

You know you have no leg to stand on and irwin is correct and will be found innocent.

This is all the jury needs to see to acquit Irwin and company. I know this bias and corrupt judge will do everything within his power to prevent the jury from looking in the IRC. If the jury got to see the law (which is what they should base their decisions on-what law did Irwin violate) it would be a slam dunk victory for Irwin and for everybody else, Even you BITCHES who refuse to look up the index of the IRC and report your findings.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 4:31 PM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

Well you well intelligent tax gurus who believe Irwin will be found Guilty, you are soo wrong. I know you know the truth, you just can't embrace it because you are a stooge for the system.

Anyway, why haven't you done your homework and looked up the index to the IRC under liabilities, payment, and penalties and presented your findings to us you BITCH?

You know you have no leg to stand on and irwin is correct and will be found innocent.

This is all the jury needs to see to acquit Irwin and company. I know this bias and corrupt judge will do everything within his power to prevent the jury from looking in the IRC. If the jury got to see the law (which is what they should base their decisions on-what law did Irwin violate) it would be a slam dunk victory for Irwin and for everybody else, Even you BITCHES who refuse to look up the index of the IRC and report your findings.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 4:31 PM  

Yo mama!

Shows how intelligent you are you posted your same comment twice in a row.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 4:58 PM  

Supposedly, there is no way that Irwin can win according to the schills over at Quatlose so now I have a reason to go to Vegas and that is to make a bet on this.....those guys at Quatlose told me I can't lose my money...it's a guaranteed win that Irwin will lose. These Quatlosers must have been buying Cisco at $80/share in March,2000..its a sure things, riiighhhttt!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:03 PM  

Yeah, and Larken Rose was a a slam-dunk acquittal.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:13 PM  

Supposedly, there is no way that Irwin can win according to the schills over at Quatlose

I wouldn't take that bet. You forget that if the prosecutor wasn't in the courtroom the case wouldn't even slow down.

The judge knows he's guilty. He'll direct the jury to that end just as soon as they get done with the charade, er, trial.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:18 PM  

The bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

IRWIN CAN'T BE FOUND GUILTY UNLESS THE JUDGE stacked the jury. Even if they do find him guilty he'll win on appeal because the judge had no jurisdiction to even begin holding this trial.

What statue gives the judge jurisdiction? CITE the statue BITCH!

How can anyone be guilty of a tax that is voluntary BITCH?

Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau of Internal Revenue testified under oath before Congress (2/3/53 – 2/13/53):
“Let me point this out now. This is where the structure differs. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax and your liquor tax (A.T.F.) is a 100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules simply will not apply.”

irwin is innocent and will prevail. The IRS IS HISTORY after this trial. There is no way IRWIN is going to lose. He has the law on his side.
After he wins, lets use the IRS' buildings to house victims of Hurricane Katrina.

To underscore that the laws conform to the constitution and are being misapplied by the IRS, look at the definition of “employee” is given in 26 USC 3401 as:
(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.
That definition applies to 26 USC 3401 through 3406 of Chapter 24. Those code sections are fraudulently cited by the IRS as the “requirement” for all private companies to have a W-4 form (certificate by employee) filed by “employees”
In a letter sent out by P. Rogers Operations Manager, IRS Collections, dated 07-05-2005, P. Rogers falsely states :
“What Laws and Regulations Give Us Authority for the Withholding Compliance Program?
The following are the cites for the laws and regulation that give us the authority for our Withholding Compliance Program. Section 3402 and 3403 of the internal revenue code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. Sections 31.3402(a)-1 through 31.3402(f)(6)-1 of the Treasury Regulations, Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 31, as amended by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 9196, effective April 14,2005”.
This is a perfect example of the IRS agents’ inability to properly administer the law as written. See note 2. It would necessarily follow that if the private employee was not required to file a W-4 form with the employer, then there would be no basis for a withholding from the employee’s paycheck. The laws can therefore be said to be in conformity with the Supreme Court rulings on the word “income” and the 16th Amendment.

These cases and code sections are all a person would need to be exempt from the income tax if he didn’t volunteer. It can be shown that the statutes reflect the voluntary nature of the income tax. The mandatory nature of the statutes, which are listed in the Internal Revenue Code, are missing and have been missing since 1954. There is no statute that causes the average individual to be liable for the income tax and no regulation that implements any such alleged statute.

A final court ruling is in order at this point.
"(A) statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926).
Now go and do your homework and pull out the IRC and look up in the index, liability, payment and penalities for income taxes and tell us what you find BITCH.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:34 PM  

Yo Mama,

You have anger management issues.

I feel sorry for you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:38 PM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

I guess I'll keep posting this until the BITCH goes away or give us a response. Remove the tail from between your leg and go do your homework BITCH.

THE IRC INDEX lists liabilities, penalties and payemnt for taxes. Have you found any liabiliteis, payment or penalties for income taxes listed in the index of the IRC BITCH? if so post your results.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:41 PM  

The Buck stops at the US Supreme Court.

Yes I have an anger management problem, especially when I know that millions of families have been devasted by this corrupt system, and thousands have committed suicide from the pressure of the IRS. hOW MANY HOMES HAVE BEEN taken away and families put on the streets by a law that doesn;t even exist.

The Bibke says, be ye angry and sin not. Hell yeah I'm angry, but I will not commit any sin.

What wrong with you are you happy that millions of your brethren are suffering at the hands of corruption and you can see it displayed in the "halls of justice"

Now go do your homework and bring us your results of your findings. The IRC index lists liabilities, penalities and payment for taxes. But it does not list any for income taxes. Did you find anything contrary in your IRC BOOK. show us your findings and cite the statue, which you run from BITCH.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:48 PM  

Yo Mama,

I know that feeling.

From one type A to another, He wants you to get rattled.

BTDT.

It's tough to let go, I know, but just think about all the lurkers who are reading these blogs.

With my new hosted web space, I can tell how many people read each page.

Since I have not yet submitted the site to the search engines, I know that all the present traffic is from links on this blog. People are reading the blog, even if they are not posting to it.

Blog Admin What type of traffic are you getting. Can you get info in terms of visits?

Always remember, you are not having a dialog with the IRS Collaborators, you are having a dialog with the lurkers and the Collaborators are merely props, about as important as a chalk board is to a teacher. Real useful for displaying examples if you get my drift.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 6:24 PM  

All the lurkers are seeing from Yo Mama is a semi-literate fool with an unnatural fixation for the word "bitch". Classy.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 7:21 PM  

The bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

Excuse me for using the word Bitch. They use it all the time at the Westminister Abbey dog pageant.
Spritz said:
All the lurkers are seeing from Yo Mama is a semi-literate fool with an unnatural fixation for the word BITCH.

I hope thats not all they see, but in reality I'm not fixated on the word, I am fixated on the fact that not one of you losers have yet done your homework and gone to the index of the IRC and looked up LIABILITIES, PAYMENT AND PENALTIES for income taxes and posted your findings. If it doesn't exist then IRWIN will be acquitted. If it exist, then he should be found guilty. If you post it, I will come on over to your side as a born again law abiding citizen. If you can't find it, then you need to come on over to our side as a born again law abiding citizen and get these criminal out of the seat of justice.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 7:51 PM  

It seems to me that ones who are attacking Schiff are proving and agreeing with the point of his whole defense. If the government refuses to uphold the constitution, then we as a country are governed by a "criminal" organization.

Also Quatloos, has his/her head up his bum. The tax code DOES exempt the "american citizens" from paying taxes. I would refer him to 2 documents

1.Treasury Decision 2313.
Which states:

Treasury Department
Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Washington, D.C., March 21, 1916


To collectors of internal revenue:
Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that INCOME ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations IS SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

NONRESIDENT ALIENS are NOT ENTITLED to the SPECIFIC EXEMPTION designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, BUT ARE LIABLE FOR THE normal and additional TAX upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS , who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return OF THE INCOME THEREFROM ON FORM 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in BEHALF of their NONRESIDENT ALIEN PRINCIPALS.

The person, firm, company, copartnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or association, and insurance company in the United States, citizen or resident alien, in whatever capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal, or payment of fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, profits, and income of whatever kind, TO A NONRESIDENT ALIEN , under any contract or otherwise, which payment shall represent income of a NONRESIDENT ALIEN from the exercise of any trade or profession within the United States, shall deduct and withhold from such annual or periodic gains, profits, and income, regardless of amount, and pay to the office of the United States Government authorized to receive the same such sum as will be sufficient to pay the normal tax of 1 per cent imposed by law, and shall make an annual return on Form 1042. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

You probably noticed that the document stated: NONRESIDENT ALIENS are NOT ENTITLED to the SPECIFIC EXEMPTION designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law.

Here is what that section states:

2. IRC Sec. 6654.

Which sais:

Sec. 6654. Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax.

(a) Addition to the tax. ....

(e) Exceptions.


(1) Where tax is small amoun ....
(2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.
No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection

(a) for any taxable year if -

(A) the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months,

(B) the individual did not have any liability for tax the preceding taxable year, and

(C) the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States
throughout the preceding taxable year.

If the judge, the IRS, or any prosecutor wants to make arguments about the "tax code", maybe we should use this play from the IRS's own playbook.

Did I mention that 2313 is the only document ever issued that assigns tax liability?

Have fun explaining this one away Quatloos. I hope this gets through to Schiff.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:00 PM  

I here people talking back and forth. But Joe Banister was found not guilty, of both not filing and assistanting other in filing corrected and lawful ammended returns, because there was no law. The jury asked for the judge to provide the actual liability statute, and couldn't. Then it was asked of the ex. boss of Joe's when he worked at the IRS as a CID agent, and he could not provide it either. It does not exist guys, so why are you bothering to bicker. There is no need. Joe Banaister Won! That is proof alone. Get the point there is no liability statute. They can quote anything that is in the IRC. But without a liability statute, it is irrelevent.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 8:55 PM