Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Cindy Neun

63 Old Comments:

Funny!

After years of claiming that he wanted to take the government to court and prove that he is right, when he gets there Irwin now tries to argue the insanity defense!

More funny that Cindy and Larry are now trying to argue it too!

Yeah, they ARE crazy, there is no doubt about it, but not legally crazy enough to keep them all from going to the Grey Bar Hotel for a long, long time.

I'm sure the jury is amused too at both trying to argue their position and claiming they are crazy at the same time.

Another TP courtroom fiasco!

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 8:47 AM  

There is no insanity defense taking place in this courtroom.

There is some insanity on this blog however, coming from those cowardly government agents at Quatloos who continue to hide behind annonymous posts while amazing us with their fictional tales and continued desires to oppress the American public.

I'm left with the impression that these statist won't be happy until we have completed the transition to total communism.

They sure seem threatened by people who value freedom and independence. Why is that?

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/13/2005 9:03 AM  

Which trial are you watching? Irwin, and now Cindy and Larry too, are trying to call Hayes, who was one of the psychiatrists who found Irwin to be "delusional".

Remember, Irwin himself unsuccessfully argued that he was delusional when he trial without success to get the federal tax liens released.

Typical tax protestors: Talk about freedom of expression, but try to cover up the truth. You'll be banning people next for expressing their opinions, just like Doug Kenline and Michael Badnarik do on their blogs. TALK about freedom is particularly cheap in TP circles.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 9:35 AM  

How come nobody ever wants to look at the !$@#!@#$ LAW?

Without a LEGAL duty, THERE CAN NOT BE A CRIME FOR NOT DOING THE DUTY!

So anonymous Quatlooser, I've a few questions for you about.... THE LAW.

1. Is the U.S. Income tax an excise (indirect) or a direct tax?

After you answer this question, there are a several more. Feel free to go away, like you and your ilk always do, whenever my questions start to expose your ignorance, bias, and willful refusal to believe what the law clearly states.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 9:53 AM  

Why do you think that it makes any difference under Article I, Sections 8 and 9, and the XVI Amendment, why it is a direct or indirect tax?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 10:27 AM  

quatloos OR IS IT(Quarter-loosers MEANING(Four loosers), add an "S" and you get squat loos; reverse it and you get loose squat.
Quatloos, what side are you on. We are trying to get are freedom back from this out of control government. How can you be on their side when they are ripping you off, and ripping your mamma off, and you children and your posterity. I don't get it. Why are you on their side. They don't care about you. Heck, they're taking your money too. Where's the love.

Irwin, CIndy, and Larry are great people and are fighting a tremendous battle which will benefit all of us, even you Quatloo, should they prevail.

How can anyone with half a brain not see that Irwin and company are right? The judge and the DOJ know they cannot win this case without placing illegal hurdles in the trial.

Even if the outcome goes against our super-heroes, It won't shake my faith or belief that their is no law that makes me liable for the payment of income taxes.

Is the income tax an excise (indirect) tax or a direct tax. Mr/Mrs quatloos?

By Anonymous R. WESLEY, at 9/13/2005 10:31 AM  

I believe Schiff wanted the doctors report entered into evidence because it shows no one is delusional, but on the contrary, quite sane and backs up that Irwin Schiff firmly BELIEVES what he says. The government doesn't want it allowed. Even though they are the ones that mandated that Irwin have the exam

By Blogger Angela Stark, at 9/13/2005 10:31 AM  

"Irwin Schiff firmly BELIEVES what he says."

Yeah, because he is delusional.

Let us not forget that Irwin is a twice-convicted felon who couldn't even his federal tax liens lifted.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 11:05 AM  

YOU KNOW WHAT IF YOU ARE SO SURE HE IS GUILTY THEN DO WHAT NO OTHER JUDGE,LAWYER,IRS AGENT,OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO IN ABOUT 30 YEARS STATE THE "FEDERAL LAW" THAT REQUIRES A PERSON TO PAY AND INCOME TAX IF YOU CAN'T STATE THAT "FEDERAL LAW" THEN KEEP YOUR NEGATIVE OPINIONS TO YOUR SELF

By Anonymous ALSKN3, at 9/13/2005 11:10 AM  

It is Section 1 of the tax code.

They put it right up front so that morons can't miss it, though they still do.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 11:36 AM  

TAX CODE? IRS'S TAX CODE HAS NEVER BEN ENACTED INTO LAW BY CONGRESS AND YOU HAVE NOT STATED AND "FEDERAL LAW" THAT MAKES A PERSON LIABLE TO PAY AND INCOME TAX!
"FEDERAL LAW" GET IT !!

By Anonymous ALSKN3, at 9/13/2005 11:46 AM  

I would love to know what quatloos thinks of the FEDERAL RESERVE system? Do u know how money is created in America?
Please answer.
Thanks

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 12:09 PM  

Robert Moore M P EnenKio
The Quatloos Website is a FRAUD Dave Champion thrashes Jay
Wed Jan 12, 2005 16:10
209.240.205.60


The Quatloos Website is a FRAUD
Dave Champion thrashes Jay D. Adkisson on American Radio Show, March 6, 2004
Beware, tax honesty advocates! There is a lot of snake oil out there, and the most prominent source of anti-tax protester snake oil is the Quatloos website at http://www.quatloos.com . This website is run by a verbally abusive and arrogant lawyer named Jay Adkisson. Below is the picture of him submitted by one of our readers:
That website has been around for at least the last three years and has been in existence ever since this website stood up. It has become famous for trashing absolutely EVERYONE who wants an accountable and law-abiding government so far as taxation is concerned. From now on, we will refer to Mr. Adkisson in this article as AssKisser (or Ass Kisser's Son, in its long rendition), and the favorite Asses he kisses and brown noses are those of the Senate Finance Committee and the Illegal Robbery Squad (IRS). We use the derogatory term "AssKisser" only because we think Divine Justice ought to operate on him, where he reaps exactly what he sows. His whole website slanders people so he, and only he, definitely ought to get a BIG dose of his own medicine. We don't, however, have to tell untruths in order to discredit him, because the truth about his misdeeds is more damaging than the kinds of deception and lies that he practices. If it's truth, it isn't slander, but simply "news". He is among the few people who deserve this kind of negative attention.
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.....

By Blogger wolfgangsmutz, at 9/13/2005 1:04 PM  

The Government loosers (QUATLOOS) -- keep saying " it is in the Code ".
Really--- show us. If that is really true --- then Why have the judges ( in this case and in others--including Larken's ) CONTINUALLY --- have said the Defendents -" Can't site the code " as it will " confuse the jury ".
If it is really in the code ---then why would this confuse the jury ?!?!?!
QUATLOSS-- you guys are obviously government employees - and like the fact that most of you guys/girls are lazy f______-- that like taking the money of the earners and living off our labor and getting benefits-- medical, retirment etc.
HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT ??!!

By Anonymous Jeff CPA, at 9/13/2005 1:16 PM  

Uh, excuse me. I have a question standing, and quatloser didn't answer it.

Before I decimate quatloser's cite of section 1 as "the law", we need to deal with first things first.

Authority to tax in the first place comes from the Constitution. Congress can reach EVERY subject, IF the tax is applied by the rules.

In order to know which rule is to be applied, we need to know if it is a Direct Tax or an Indirect (excise) tax.

The Constitution is "Fundamental Law". It is THE law by which every, and I mean EVERY, other law in the United States comes into existance.

Now make the choice quatloser, Direct or Indirect.

(If he has any inkling, even a tiny smidgen, he will now spew some ignorance about the 16th. Amendment. That position will be decimated as soon as he/she has the testosterone to raise it.)

My appologies for hijacking the thread, but in the end, the problem is to understand what the LAW says, and that means putting the law before the lurkers and readers of these comment lines, now and in the future.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 1:35 PM  

ALSKN3!

Go to court and fight with the argument that the title 26 was not acted into positive law. Then while your in prison tell buba that nonsense argument!

Although Congress did not pass the Code as a title, it did enact the Internal Revenue Code as a separate Code, see Act of August 16, 1954, 68A Stat. 1, which was then denominated as Title 26 by the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to 1 U.S.C. s 202(a). Finally, even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that does not mean that the laws under that title are null and void. A law listed in the current edition of the United States Code is prima facie evidence of the law of the United States. See 1 U.S.C. s 204(a).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 1:49 PM  

Why do you think that it makes any difference under Article I, Sections 8 and 9, and the XVI Amendment, why it is a direct or indirect tax?

9/13/2005 11:27 AM


Because it does.

You tell us why you think it doesn't, then I'll post the link to the page that proves you wrong.

ALSKN3! please stand down for a few posts, I'll decimate this section 1 B.S. in a bit, AFTER the Constitutional part of the law is explained.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 1:58 PM  

Here is hoping that justice prevails!

Assertion:
The labor of US Citizens conducted within the united states is not liable for income tax.

Facts
1. A tax on labor is a direct tax. If it were an excise, that would make US citizens property (slaves or involuntary servants) of the US Congress by the definition of excise tax (a tax on certain commodities, as tobacco, levied on their manufacture, sale, or consumption within the country - Random House).

2."Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1)

3. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.. (US Constitution, Amendment 10)

4. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (US Constitution, Artical 1, Section 2)

The argument:
Since a tax on labor is a direct tax (see Fact 1) and cannot be construed to be an excise unless the US people are owned by the government (which would be unconstitutional as per fact 2), and direct taxes can only be laid by the federal government upon the states (see Fact 4), a direct tax cannot be laid directly on the People (see Fact 3).

Unless the constitution is wrong (facts 2-4) or a tax on labor can constitutionally be construed to be something other than a direct tax, these facts speak for themselves.

Note to those who think we are tax protestors:
The income tax rules and regulations are entirely legal, however they are believed by the general public to make them liable for tax on their labor. A full reading of the US Code Title 26 agrees with the above argument (when one properly follows the Code of Federal Regulations Title 26 to apply them)...but it is a long argument and has already been made by Larken Rose.

Caution:
While one may not be liable for income tax, failing to pay such will likely have severe penalties due to underhandedness by the federal government.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 2:25 PM  

The income tax is an indirect tax.

“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)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 3:08 PM  

(chuckling annoyance) Ya' guys gotta let them set the joke up before you tell the punch line.

Since ya' let the cat out of the bag, so to say, I have to join in with your chorus.

A dialog about direct unapportioned taxes

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 3:21 PM  

"A tax on labor is a direct tax"
Maybe; but it is clear that a tax on income, from whatever source, is an indirect tax.

jg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 3:40 PM  

jg said, "it is clear that a tax on income, from whatever source, is an indirect tax."

jg, you are exactly 200% correct. Every word in the excerpt above exactly true. However, you are still wrong because your 200% correct words are 0.0% (zero point zero%) correct if the wrong definitions of the words are used in your 200% correct sentence.

Income is gain or increase arising from corporate activities
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)

Be it gain or profit DERIVED from capital, DERIVED from Labor, or DERIVED from both combined, Which would also include the income (rents) DERIVED from capital invested in real property that has nothing to do with the corporation's principle activities.

A tax on this gain derived from capital, meaning the rent from property, is what the Pollock court ruled unconstitutional. Pollock has never been reversed or overturned. A tax on property, or returns from property (itself property) is a STILL a DIRECT tax.

The 1909 corporate tax act measured this very same "income" that Pollock ruled unconstitutional. The 1909 tax act paid heed to the Pollock ruling and when challenged was found to be constitutional. This is because that very income in question WAS NOT TAXED. It was the MEASURE of the PRIVILEGE of doing business in the Corporate or quasi-Corporate form.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 4:01 PM  

Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Comment: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the “Power To law and collect Taxes” without further restriction in this Section. Note that the uniformity requirement only applies to “Duties, Imposts and Excises” and not to taxes. This means that “Taxes” are treated differently than “Excises” under the Constitution, since Taxes are not required to be uniform. Those who would equate “Taxes” and “Excises” are simply wrong, and demonstrably so.

Article I, Section 9.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Comment: Article I, Section 9, does not ban direct taxes, but merely says that such taxes must be “in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration”.

Amendment XVI.

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.

Comment: Whether or not Article I, Section 9 applies to income taxes, its requirement that such taxes be “in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration” is eliminated.

At this point, it is clear that the plain text of the Constitution authorizes an income tax without regard to either apportionment or the census. It is thus totally irrelevant whether such taxes are “direct” or not – it simply makes no difference whatsoever from the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Congress passes the tax laws according to:

Article I, Section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Summary: It is crystal clear from a reading of the Constitution that Congress has the power to tax (I.8), that “Taxes” are not the same as “Excises” (I.8), and that income can be taxed without regard to either apportionment or a census (Am.16). Congress is also authorized to draft income tax legislation (I.8). The “direct” versus “indirect” argument is simply a red herring, and not found in the Constitution itself.

The bottom line is that challenges to the income tax based on the Constitution are bogus, and demonstrably so.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 4:34 PM  

The income tax is not a tax on labor. It is a tax on income. You can labor all day for free and not be liable for a cent in taxes.

The notion that the income tax applies only to gains arising from corporate activities is hogwash. The Doyle case is off-point, since it didn't even deal with the income tax. And Mr. Eastman is wrong: the result in Pollock was overturned by the 16th Amendment.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 4:40 PM  

"Income is gain or increase arising from corporate activities
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)"

What's with the italics, Dale? Are you trying to make people think that is a quote from the case instead of your misinterpretation of something the Court actually said?

By Anonymous Steve, at 9/13/2005 4:53 PM  

Anonymous 9/13/2005 3:25 PM said:
... direct taxes can only be laid by the federal government upon the states (see Fact 4), a direct tax cannot be laid directly on the People (see Fact 3).

This is not quite correct. It is my understanding that was one of the things considered by the Constitution's drafters as covered in the Pollock case.

However, that is not the case in regard to a direct tax apportionment under the present Constitution.

link


How apportionment works

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 5:09 PM  

"Income is gain or increase arising from corporate activities"
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)"

Steve said...

What's with the italics, Dale? Are you trying to make people think that is a quote from the case instead of your misinterpretation of something the Court actually said?

9/13/2005 5:53 PM


Findlaw
Search for "Yet it is plain, we think,", half way down the linked page.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 5:21 PM  

Except that the XVI Amendment did away with the requirement of apportionment.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 5:32 PM  

The XVI did not do away with the apportionment provisions. That is the problem with the patriots they don't understand how to read the laws and mis-constue everything to what they want them to say.

Again! The Supreme Court was very clear in plain English:

“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)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 6:10 PM  

Still if it did away with Apportionment" then it would have said to cancel out the section in the const.

Seconldy the supreme ct already said it gave it NO new taxing powers...

With that being said, the apor. for direct tax still exsists!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 6:17 PM  

Dale, I only noted what the constitution specifically stated.

- US Constitution Artical 1 Section 2

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union...
-
If one removes "among the several states" like everyone seems to claim should be done then one gets the following:
"Representatives shall be apportioned."
"Direct taxes shall be apportioned."

One cannot simply ignore the part of the law that one wants. All of it must be considered.

If direct taxes can be placed upon the people, then representatives can be placed directly upon the people...making everyone a representative?

...
As to direct/indirect, the simplest way to see what kind of tax an income tax is would be to see what it was in England (since we broke off from england). England clearly notes that an income tax is a direct tax. Did we arbitrarily declare that once we broke away, we decided that an income tax was the opposite of what it was considered to be in England? (e.g. indirect instead of direct)

I doubt it. If so, did we change the meaning of every other word in the English language overnight? Even if it has been changed over time, one must use the definition at the time that the constitution was written to know for sure what the constitution states.

So, taking the full wording of the law and knowing that income tax is, by definition, a direct tax, it is painfully clear that US Citizens are (for the most part) not liable for an income tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 6:23 PM  

Anonymous 9/13/2005 7:10 PM said...

The XVI did not do away with the apportionment provisions.

Correct.

The Supreme Court was very clear in plain English:

“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)


Correct.

So what's your problem?

Direct taxes must still be apportioned.

A tax on the "income" of a corporation is a tax on the "income" of an entity that exists BY privilege, and operates WITH privilege.

That is why the correct definition of "income" as used in the 16th Amendment is stated in the Doyle case.:

"Income is gain or increase arising from corporate activities"
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 6:26 PM  

anonymous 9/13/2005 7:23 PM, I'm not sure which posts of yours are threaded together.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union...
-
If one removes "among the several states" like everyone seems to claim should be done then one gets the following:
"Representatives shall be apportioned."
"Direct taxes shall be apportioned."

One cannot simply ignore the part of the law that one wants. All of it must be considered.


Law must be as specific as possible, speech is not always that specific. Example: If it burdens property, It must be apportioned.

You know what IT is, because you have read the same very long Court opinion I have. (pollock). For those not conversant with this undertone communication, IT, needing to be apportioned, can't be the representatives because they don't burden property, That leaves taxes to be burdening property, and thus the IT referred to which MUST be apportioned.

If direct taxes can be placed upon the people, then representatives can be placed directly upon the people...making everyone a representative?

Check my link explaining apportionment of federal taxes in very simple terms. 4:21 pm, 9/13 post.

As to direct/indirect, the simplest way to see what kind of tax an income tax is would be to see what it was in England (since we broke off from england). England clearly notes that an income tax is a direct tax. Did we arbitrarily declare that once we broke away, we decided that an income tax was the opposite of what it was considered to be in England? (e.g. indirect instead of direct)

I am aware of the passage you refer to.

If the question had related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct taxes.

I'm the choir here.

I'll chat off board if you want to risk giving up your anonymity to me. Just put something in the subject line to make it stand out above the viagra spam... (Epiphany-give the post some viagra before sending).

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 6:47 PM  

Correction, bad time reference.
Here's the link.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 6:51 PM  

Quatloos......more sideline bums. They will mindlessly cheer the opressors until it becomes their turn to burn.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 7:03 PM  

In the meantime, you can clean our pools and keep our firewood stocked.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 7:10 PM  

Dale, I do not contest apportionment, only that "apportioned to the several states" means that the taxes are assigned to the states by apportioning them, not to the people individually.

e.g. From your example, if the tax were apportioned to the states, you would stop at the 3rd record (apportioned tax per state) and the state would then be responsible for paying the tax out of the wealth they had accumulated via their powers of taxation.

If "among the several states" had no meaning, it would not have been written...which would have made the "Representatives " part of the sentence a bit strange...denoting that it would be conceivable to have X representatives per person.

Indeed, if it was to be laid directly on the people, it would have noted "among the several states or among the people".

To me, it seems that all of this has come about due to propoganda and mis-education by the public schools and the fact that in our past, most people either did not have access to the law themselves or had no interest in it and relied on the powers that be to tell them what it meant.

Notice that the act you mention here ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720 ) places the tax directly on the states (as the constitution states it must). They had it right.

I can see no logical explantion as to how a tax on the payment received for ones labor could be anything other than a direct tax...unless one contests that labor is a luxury...which would be to contest that life itself is a luxury.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 7:21 PM  

Dale, I do not contest apportionment, only that "apportioned to the several states" means that the taxes are assigned to the states by apportioning them, not to the people individually.

e.g. From your example, if the tax were apportioned to the states, you would stop at the 3rd record (apportioned tax per state) and the state would then be responsible for paying the tax out of the wealth they had accumulated via their powers of taxation.

If "among the several states" had no meaning, it would not have been written...which would have made the "Representatives " part of the sentence a bit strange...denoting that it would be conceivable to have X representatives per person.

Indeed, if it was to be laid directly on the people, it would have noted "among the several states or among the people".

To me, it seems that all of this has come about due to propoganda and mis-education by the public schools and the fact that in our past, most people either did not have access to the law themselves or had no interest in it and relied on the powers that be to tell them what it meant.

Notice that the act you mention here ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720 ) places the tax directly on the states (as the constitution states it must). They had it right.

I can see no logical explantion as to how a tax on the payment received for ones labor could be anything other than a direct tax...unless one contests that labor is a luxury...which would be to contest that life itself is a luxury.

By Blogger Nekogami, at 9/13/2005 7:33 PM  

Ack (sorry for the double post).
I also wrote the (Assertion/Facts/Argument), the (Dale, I only noted what the constitution specifically stated...), and the (Dale, I do not contest apportionment) pieces (so it can be a bit clearer as to who is arguing what.

Again, best wishes to all involved in this trial...they are going to need it when they have what amounts to gag orders on them.

By Blogger Nekogami, at 9/13/2005 7:36 PM  

Can people please refrain from arguing the tax law in this venue? I wanted to catch up on news of Mr. Schiff's trial, and after seeing one posting of that nature, I had to wade through 35 or more argumentative postings.

By Anonymous Arthur Farnsworth, at 9/13/2005 7:36 PM  

Notice that the act you mention here http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage) places the tax directly on the states (as the constitution states it must). They had it right.

You missed this:

Sec. 2 And be it further enacted, That the said tax shall be collected by the supervisors, inspectors and collectors of the internal revenues of the United States, under direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and pursuant to such regulations as he shall establish; and shall be assessed upon the dwelling-houses, lands and slaves, according to the valuations and enumerations to be made pursuant to the act, intituled "An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and the enumeration of slaves within the United States," and in the following manner:… etcetera on the action of assessing the value.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That so soon as the aforesaid assessment shall have been completed, the said supervisors shall, by special warrants, under their hands, respectively, cause the surveyors of the revenue within their respective districts, to make out lists containing the sums payable, according to such assessments, for every dwelling-house, tract or lot of land, and slave, within each collection district, respectively; which lists shall contain the name of the proprietor or occupant of each dwelling-house, tract or lot of land and slave within the collection district, or of the person having the care of superintendence of them, or any of them, where such proprietor, occupant, or superintendent is known, and the whole sum payable by each person within said district; distinguishing what is payable for dwelling-houses, what for slaves, and what for lands. Etc.

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That each of the said collectors shall, immediately after receiving his collection list, advertise, by notifications, to be posted up in at least four public places in each collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable and the times and places at which he will attend to receive the same; and, in respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such person; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector to proceed to collect the said taxes, by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects of the persons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, that it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, arms, or the household utensils, or apparel necessary for a family.

Sorry sir, Direct taxes act upon the citizens of the several states directly. It is the amounts to be collected from each state grouping of taxpayers that is apportioned. The example is correct as stated according to this law cited. (Whether the law is done correctly is another discussion, what with the liar's shenanigans these days.)

Mr. Farnsworth,
Sorry, my apologies.

As to Mr. Schiff's trial, this blog thread is pretty light to begin with.

Do you want the jurors to have an inkling on the law or not when the tyrants line you up in their sights to screw you?

With your complaint noted, and me being one of those you are annoyed with, plus the fact that the quatlosers went away when faced with the words of the law, I'm done here except for this plug: PLUG

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 8:19 PM  

Mr. Farnsworth et. al.

This link was posted elsewhere, but it didn't have the proper href.

irwinschiff.blogspot.com/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 8:24 PM  

Dale Eastman

Income is not nor has it ever been the subject of the tax. This is the problem with the patriots they just cannot understand.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 9:41 PM  

Income is not nor has it ever been the subject of the tax. This is the problem with the patriots they just cannot understand.

Income WAS the subject of the tax. The 1894 tax that Pollock ruled unconstitutional.

The problem is the "income" tax is not properly called the "gain or profits from corporate activities" excise (privilege) tax.

Ask anyone unaware of the raging pre-revolution argument on this issue what the "income" tax taxes, and 99% of the time they will say "income". Then ask them what "income" is and they will say "what I'm paid for working".

Other than some nits, we don't have a disagreement of substance. The question is how to educate the masses against the backdrop of deceptive names like "income tax".

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/13/2005 10:23 PM  

Dale Eastman.

Typical patriot nonsense believing and not researching.

This has nothing to do with 1894 tax that Pollock ruled unconstitutional.

Income has never been the subject of the tax period.

"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]

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 11:17 PM  

Man, it's funny that you guys can't even agree why you think it is unconstitutional, sort of like the Irwin vs. Larken dispute, which I'm guess they will soon have a few years together to discuss . . .

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/13/2005 11:22 PM  

Million-Man March at the Court House. You are invited. Read bottom of this comment.

Does anyone know how Irwin's opening statement went? or how the kangaroo proceedings are going?
I have looked at both sides of this issue with an open mind, but all the information that I have ever read and studied, including government publications, IRS literature, the IRC and manual, Supreme Court decisions, and discussion group forums, including Quarterloo's input, or misinformation, call it what you will, but I still come to the same conclusion, there is no law that makes me or you or quarterloo, liable for paying income taxes. Section 1 OF THE IRC does not make anyone liable Quarter-loos. It just says ... the tax imposed etc.. Well they impose a lot of taxes, but that doesn't mean that I'm liable for that tax just becasue they impose a tax.

Enough if this. If you don't get, you don't get. He that have ears to hear, let him hear.

I have had liens and levies placed on my property all illegally of course, and after I contacted the Secretary of States office, I was informed that they I had no liens filed against me for any year. Therefore, my conclusion is that the IRS's letter "Notice of Lien" constituted fraud and mail fraud, among other illegal acts.

If the IRS is so above board, why do they issue fraudently notices of Liens.

The only people that should be on trial in Irwin's case is the IRS agents and the corrupt judges and DOJ lawyers who obstruct justice in order to see that the government's revenue flow doesn't stop no matter what our Constitution says. That is what this trial is all about. They know Irwin is correct. In fact, he schooled them in all of his pleadings and motions, and revealed the criminal nature of our courts and DOJ. How sad. I thought we were such a great country. I also use to believe in SAnta Clause and the tooth fairy.

If Irwin wins this case it will reverberate throughout the nation.
Notice how the media has shunned this case; however, if Irwin looses, the MEDIA will put him on FULL-BLAST! I can see the headline and ticket taper on CNN -Long time tax protestor, IRWIN SCHIFF was sentenced today etc.. However, If he prevails, the Media won't be anywhere to be found. Irwin's case will receive the same amount of media coverage that Joe Bannister got- NONE. To this date, I still can not find Bannister's victory in any large Media outlet. WHy Not? Why not?

This aint no conspiracy theory, this sh&t is real. WAKE UP PEOPLE, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING RIPPED AWAY FROM YOU RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. QUARTER-LOOS YOU GOT TO GET IN THIS FIGHT WITH US, There are more of us than them. They cannot put us all in jail. Who would they get their revenue from if they did?
A MARCH ON THE COURT HOUSE
A Peaceful Million-man/woman/worker March on the Las Vegas Court House is needed.
The date for the march is SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 beginning at 8:00AM. Bring signs and please no threats or violence. Let Irwin, CIndy and Larry know we care. PLEASE WEAR ALL RED AS A SHOW OF UNITY and to ILLUSTRATE the hemorraging of our U.S. Constitution. We are U.S. citizens.

By Anonymous R WESLEY, at 9/14/2005 12:50 AM  

Million-Man March? LOL!

I heard that there were a whopping eight (8) spectators at Irwin's trial today, and that the bailiff had to prod one of them because he was snoring too loud.

It is about the same number who showed up the first few days of Lynne Meredith's trial, and by the end there were basically no spectators other than a few curious IRS agents.

Million-Man March, LOL! Even Bob Schulz could only get about 200 for his Petition of Right lawsuit filing, and about 20 of those were little kids that people brought along.

LOL! Tax Protestors talk-the-talk, but certainly don't walk-the-walk.

Are there ANY of you commenting here who are attending? If so, let's have your view.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 1:09 AM  

I can't understand why these tax cheats (and those deluded folks who support them) continue to try convoluted and just plain wrong arguments to avoid paying taxes.

Please folks, direct your energies to supporting candidates that campaign to lower your taxes LEGALLY.

You are wasting your time and money supporting the likes of these deluded charlatains.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 1:35 AM  

If Irwin was wrong about all of this they wouldn't have put a court order to remove his book their have been way worse books published that have not had their freedom of speech rights infringed on so the government is affraid of him because he is right or they wouldn't even have bothered with him even news people have published way worse things and have never had their freedom of speach taken away from them real soon we will just be another Russia and be told what we can or can not say or do or publish and what time we can eat or go to the bathroom!
Every one needs to open their eyes up because it is getting to that way faster then you all think!

By Anonymous alskn3, at 9/14/2005 2:23 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/14/2005 2:30 AM  

Sparky Mike said:

"David Jahn, and the rest of you "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" "COMMIE" loving jerks writes like you know "Cynthia Neun"."

Sir, before you use terms like "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" and "COMMIE" in the same breath, please take the time to educate yourself as to what you are talking about.

Go read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It lays out a plan for converting capitalism into communism. The very second step of the plan is to implement a heavily progressive income tax. (i.e. Mr. Jahn and "the rest of us" are not "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" and we certainly are not "COMMIE"'s).

Though there may be some anarcho-capitalists among us, most of us are "PRO-CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 3:25 AM  

Sparky,

Lets all attack Cindy now because of a few words allegedly provided by

that brother-in-law sleeping on the couch always in between jobs never putting in a dime to help but would mow the lawn once in awhile so I wouldn't have to get my own place and a job that paid better than beer money.

The depths to which some people go absolutly amazes me.

Then you write

David Jahn, and the rest of you "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" "COMMIE" loving jerks writes like you

This sentence tells me you fail to comprehend the dynamics of the world in which you find yourself.

The communist ceased this nation years ago. Myself and others would like to see it returned to the great nation it once was. The worlds leading producing nation is now the worlds leading debtor nation, largly due to socialism and the failure of people like you to see it for what it has become.

Lastly,the purpose of this site is to follow the justice system in an effort to identify where it is failing and why so many innocent people are being imprisoned.

Is there anything wrong with asking for fair trials? Or, are those that are dedicated to fair trials unwelcomed in this country you claim as yours as well?

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/14/2005 8:38 AM  

Dave, Quatloosers have nothing better to do with their lives. Why give them the time of day? They are the kids that nobody liked in school. They just grew up into bigger assholes. I've never seen so many hits on the web site from them, till now. They must be drooling as they slither in their pit. No matter. They are what Darwin referred to as botched jobs. In otherwords they never evolved out of their reptilian brain.

Angela

By Blogger Angela Stark, at 9/14/2005 9:15 AM  

And what kind of name is Sparky? Sounds like one of the seven dwarfs.

Angela

By Blogger Angela Stark, at 9/14/2005 9:25 AM  

While you are all praying for a good result with Irwin et al, save some of your prayers for whomever is behind Quatloos.

Pray to Jesus, or Allah or God, that this person gets a nice case of leukemia, or testicular cancer. Pray that they suffer horribly.

A slow lingering cancerous death. Really, it's what they deserve.

Oh yeah, pray also that his children are afflicted with Aids or something. Or hit by a bus. Try the power of prayer.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/14/2005 9:29 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/14/2005 1:15 PM  

I screwed up and I'm sorry Angie, Messages ran together and I thought you those terrible things. I WAS WRONG!!! I'm sorry....

ANONYMOUS..... Get some help

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/14/2005 1:22 PM  

anonymous 9/14/2005 12:17 AM said:

"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]

Okay! I understand what your line of thought is. I had forgotten all about reading that particular passage. I actually have a scan of that page that I found somewhere out on the net.

I've uploaded it. Big file 350 kb.

As to quatloser's 9/14/2005 12:22 AM post, We both agree on the end result. The discussion isn't the big deal you think it is. Now that he has cited his source and quoted it, I can say I have no disagreement with his statements what so ever.

In fact, if you notice above, now that I know what he was referring to, I've supplied the scan of the page to which he is citing.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/14/2005 1:46 PM  

Mike said:

"Slam me as you will if it makes you feel better."

It was not my intention to slam you, Mike. My point was that we who are opposed to the taxation of income are not "COMMIES". It is those who are in favor of it who are "COMMIES".

It appears that you were attempting to slam us by calling us "COMMIES". I was simply pointing out the irony in that.

I have no idea who the other anonymous is, but I agree that they might need help. If so, I hope they get it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/15/2005 12:10 AM  

Correction:

Upon a more careful reading of your origninal post, I see now that you were not calling us "COMMIES". You called us "COMMIE loving jerks". Regardless, it appeared to me that we were the ones being slammed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/15/2005 12:20 AM  

Okay, point taken... "Commie" may have been a poor choice of words. My point was I sure wouldn't want to live in a country where I had to work for a governed state just to overcome paying income tax. Most of us that work in this country, which makes up the backbone of the work force, pay more taxes than any other, and probably more than the other groups combined.
It's worked for me and maybe you'd call me a settler, follower or a sheep. Maybe I am. Look at other countries that the population relies on the government for thier needs. Eventually it falls apart or as we're seeing now, we go in with our military and try to convert them and we end up in another war we can't win. Not because our way is bad, but they've been on welfare so long they don't know any other way to live. We're seeing that here. Once the state starts paying for your needs, why try to better your life?
You all must have gotten together and figured out a way we can all live in harmony without paying taxes and also figured out how to convert all us sheep that just figure it's working and we don't know any better, without causing a war here in our country, brother against brother, (in this case, brother against sister).
I believe in the rights we have and would be willing to lay down for them. I guess us, the un-educated simple folk of this world are just too stupid to see where stop paying taxes could make my, or my childrens lives any better. Maybe we should stop paying our police, firefighters, military...
Yes, I can see now how that would make this a better, stronger country.
Instead of running a revolution, why not run for office and change it the "AMERICAN" way?

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/15/2005 11:46 AM  

I'm late to the party! Sorry. A few comments on the comments here:

The repeated phrase "the Census of Enumeration" had me puzzled until I read the rest of the post and realized it was from our anonymous Quatlooser friend, LOL. (The Constitution says "census *or* enumeration")

"Man, it's funny that you guys can't even agree why you think it is unconstitutional" - anon. Quatlooser again. Yes, isn't a massive due process of law violation *hilarious*? Just a scream! At least, it is when empathy is removed.

Like Mel Brooks said, tragedy is when I cut my finger, and comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die.

Art Farnsworth is right; let's keep this blog all about the trial itself and argue the law elsewhere.

I do not agree that we should pray for ill to befall the Quatloosers. While it might feel therapeutic, it is not the Christian way, to my knowledge.

Sparky - Your comments are often heard from folks who begin looking at the tax fraud issue. Most of us have absolutely NO objection to TAXES. We object to FRAUD, though. Please look into the matter further before concluding anything about us. If you don't have time/inclination to do that, at least bear what I've said in mind and realize there's more to the picture than you're aware of yet.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/02/2005 8:58 PM