Monday, September 26, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

68 Old Comments:

Dr. Dentist?, No it's pronounced "Denteest". Reminds me the Mel Brooks movie character Count DeMoney. That's De "Monay"!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 1:12 PM  

Angela, how come you didn't mention that Dr. Dentice (a San Diego chiropractor) was sentenced to 15 months in prison after filing a Schiff zero return?

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/26/2005 4:27 PM  

Thanks for the profound insight!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 4:29 PM  

Jack spitz said: "how come you didn't mention that Dr. Dentice (a San Diego chiropractor) was sentenced to 15 months in prison after filing a Schiff zero return?"

and what does that have to do with this case?

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 4:32 PM  

"and what does that have to do with this case?"

If it has to be explained to you...

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/26/2005 4:36 PM  

well Jack, humor me

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 4:49 PM  

"well Jack, humor me"

I don't humor people who don't have the natural curiosity to think for themselves.

Have you even bothered to read the indictment?

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/26/2005 4:51 PM  

OK Spitz, I'll humor you. I am quite aware of the bogus indictment. the issue was: what does Dr. Dentice's past have to do with Irwin's case in which the government claims that Irwin violated INCOME tax laws of the US when in fact there are no such laws.

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 5:21 PM  

You can repeat your question all you want, but my answer remains -- if it has to be explained to you, you won't understand.

This site is nothing but a bunch of ignorant cheerleaders who only hear what their leaders tell them to hear.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/26/2005 5:29 PM  

no Spitz, I won't repeat my question to you; you don't have the answer. I don't blame you; there IS NO logical answer. to say that "if it has to be explained to you, you won't understand" is no different than the irss answer to the questions posed by We The People: their answer is "enforcement"! you SHOULD leave "this site of chearleaders" for tax truth.

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 5:41 PM  

You can lead a jackass to water but you cannot make hime drink.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 5:51 PM  

Amen!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 5:54 PM  

Actually hankie, wasn't the jackass remark aimed at you?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 6:11 PM  

Oh, anonymous! why don't you ask anonymous.

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 6:14 PM  

OH MY GOD!. The judge is FORCING Irwin to comply with the rules of the court. What nerve! The judge is FORCING Irwin to comply with the rules of evidence. What a government plant! The judge is FORCING Irwin to follow the proper procedures on direct and cross examining witnesses. What a government stooge!

Ain't it funny when the only side you hear is Irwin cheerleaders? Some might say that the posters are biased in favor of Irwin, sorta like the judge is biased in favor of the law and following court procedures. Yeah yeah, I know, if it was up to you, Irwin would be on the jury as well. Start spinning away - the verdict will be guilty - you heard it here first!

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/26/2005 6:20 PM  

hello Frank,
it's good to hear another opinion. of course, you realize that it IS ONLY an opinion.

since you bring it up, what is the law to which you are referring?
(please provide legal citation).

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 6:27 PM  

Hank,
It wouldn't matter to you if God himself strode down from on high and told you that the IRS was right and the zero return is bogus. You would find some nuance in the way he said it, or some small typed word to see exactly what you want, I don't know at this point maybe it's need to see. I'm not a legal scholar and I strongly suspect neither are you - so why bother pointing out a law, if you're hell-bent on it being something else?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/26/2005 6:32 PM  

Hello Frank,
It is remarkable that you bring God into the discussion. I am a beliver, and if God were to say that the "zero return is bogus", I would say "I believe". But, God has not said that. however, God has said "render unto Caesar what Caesar's, and to God what is God's." I know God. My question is: WHO IS CAESAR"?

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 6:47 PM  

The IRS and the government cannot cite a Statute or a Code section that makes individuals liable for a income tax. The term "income"
was given a limited meaning by the Supreme Court so as not to be in conflict with the Constitution, and that meaning is the same as income as used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. Income as defined by the Supreme Court is corporate profit. Hence a zero return because Irwin and most Americans to not have a corporate profit.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 7:56 PM  

Good evening Mr. Buckner.

Are these your words: "I'm not a legal scholar and I strongly suspect neither are you - so why bother pointing out a law, if you're hell-bent on it being something else?"?

Now about that "income in the constitutional sense"?

You sure seemed to be "hell-bent on it being something else" last time we crossed words.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 8:07 PM  

Anonymous said...
The IRS and the government cannot cite a Statute or a Code section that makes individuals liable for a income tax. The term "income"
was given a limited meaning by the Supreme Court so as not to be in conflict with the Constitution, and that meaning is the same as income as used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. Income as defined by the Supreme Court is corporate profit. Hence a zero return because Irwin and most Americans to not have a corporate profit.

9/26/2005 8:56 PM

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

If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

Maybe you can get Larken Rose to help you.

LOL

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 8:22 PM  

Mr. Spitz,

You have shown up and done nothing but slung fecal mud balls;

To Wit:

This site is nothing but a bunch of ignorant cheerleaders who only hear what their leaders tell them to hear

Let us proceed to probe the limits of your ignorance.

Please explain to us all how one can file a form 1040 "under penalties of perjury" without waiving one's 5th amendment right to not be forced to testify against themselves?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 8:23 PM  

"If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

Maybe you can get Larken Rose to help you.
LOL"

LOL:
of course that would be a stupid thing to do - akin to daring an armed mugger to rob you. just because he can doesn't mean he is right.
IMHO

By Anonymous hank, at 9/26/2005 8:30 PM  

hank said...
"If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

Maybe you can get Larken Rose to help you.
LOL"

LOL:
of course that would be a stupid thing to do - akin to daring an armed mugger to rob you. just because he can doesn't mean he is right.
IMHO

9/26/2005 9:30 PM

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

Then how can you ever hope to prove yourself? Seriously, what is your plan?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 8:35 PM  

Anonymous says

The IRS and the government cannot cite a Statute or a Code section that makes individuals liable for a income tax. The term "income" was given a limited meaning by the Supreme Court so as not to be in conflict with the Constitution, and that meaning is the same as income as used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. Income as defined by the Supreme Court is corporate profit. Hence a zero return because Irwin and most Americans to not have a corporate profit.

A poster purporting to be a Reasonable Guy says:

If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

He also drooled this:
Then how can you ever hope to prove yourself?

Easy. Show the written law to the people. Let them read the written law. Something you need to do.

THIS IS FOUR!: * * * *

Regardless of what some judge retches to the contrary.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 9:04 PM  

Dale Eastman said...


A poster purporting to be a Reasonable Guy says:

If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

He also drooled this:
Then how can you ever hope to prove yourself?

Easy. Show the written law to the people. Let them read the written law. Something you need to do.

THIS IS FOUR!: * * * *

Regardless of what some judge retches to the contrary.

9/26/2005 10:04 PM

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

Some plan, chicken. The Court's opinion is everything. The dare stands. Prove it in court.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 9:15 PM  

Some plan, chicken. The Court's opinion is everything. The dare stands. Prove it in court.

That's real impressive in a puerile prepubescent way.

Now about that law that makes one liable for subtitle A income taxes?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 9:32 PM  

Dale Eastman said...
Some plan, chicken. The Court's opinion is everything. The dare stands. Prove it in court.

That's real impressive in a puerile prepubescent way.

Now about that law that makes one liable for subtitle A income taxes?

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

The Court's rulings on the law are already established. If you want to change the Court's interpretation to match your own, your are going to have to prove it.

So what's your plan?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 9:39 PM  

To those who have little to no knowledge of tax law, statutes and regulations, I recommend you shut your ignorant mouths unless you can PROVE your point by backing it up with statutes.

Many people have in fact defeated the IRS in a court. The main stream media of course keeps these victorys hidden from the masses.

IRS v. Kuglin. IRS lost this very big case. In this case, the Federal Express pilot claimed 99 exemptions. IRS went nuts claiming Kuglin owed 954,000.00. The DOJ failed to provide the law and prove their case. The jury acquited. Kuglin is free.

State of Illiois vs. Whitey Harrell. Charged with "willful failure to File" was found not guilty. The governments (DOJ) high profile attorney failed to furnish the LAW that was violated. A very smart jurror requested the judge provide them with the the law the accused violated. The judge twice refused the jury request and that is simply because he could not provide the jury with the law. Mr. Harrell is a free man.

Former IRS CID agent Joe Bannister is another high profile case. The jurry acquitted Bannister of all counts.

Bottom line. If the law is written and can be found in the Federal Register than I am requesting you big mouth losers who come in this blog room attacking the rest of us for daring to stand up to the bully IRS-Federal Reserve scammers, CITE THE LAW. You can't because it doesn't exist. The challenge is simple enough. Cite the law then we can all move on.

IF IT DOES EXIST PROVE IT! Show us the law compelling us to involutarily file under penalties of perjury and pay what we do not owe. Then I will concede. Until then, the losers are the people who blindly follow IRS's intentional misdirections like sheep being lead to their own slaughter.

ALL it takes for evil to triumph in this world is for good men to do nothing. Those wimp sheep who blindly place all their faith in corrupt government are the biggest fools we must deal with.

Remember, a tax protestor is an indivdual or a corporation owing a tax but refuses to pay the tax.

Tax VICTIMS are, 95 percent of us Americans living within the 50 states that are forced to pay a tax we never owed.

Hitler said "it is a good thing for governments that people do not think." That statement applys to you who can't furnish the law but claim it exists. YOU ARE NOT THINKERS. YOU ARE SHEEP!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 9:53 PM  

Anonymous said...
To those who have little to no knowledge of tax law, statutes and regulations, I recommend you shut your ignorant mouths unless you can PROVE your point by backing it up with statutes.

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

You are the one who has to change the Court's opinion. Larken Rose was convicted because his case was frivolous (he wasted the Court's time). Irwin Shifty will be convicted as well.

So what is your plan to convince the Court? Do you have one? I dare you to go public and prove yourself to the Court.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 10:02 PM  

State of Illiois vs. Whitey Harrell. Charged with "willful failure to File" was found not guilty. The governments (DOJ) high profile attorney failed to furnish the LAW that was violated. A very smart jurror requested the judge provide them with the the law the accused violated. The judge twice refused the jury request and that is simply because he could not provide the jury with the law. Mr. Harrell is a free man.

Here's a link to a transcript of a speech by that juror.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 10:39 PM  

The fact is that the 16th amendment (which is still in question to whether the amendment posseses substantial authority to justify the collection of the income tax by the U.S. Gvt.) has led to 'legalized plunder' in the United states. The amendment preverted the original intent of the U.S. Constitution which demanded for an apportioned tax. Thereto, the choice after 1913 was to lose respect for the new law (16th amendment) and its enforcement or to lose moral sense by trying to profit from it by 'legalized plunder'. The American people, its politicians and judges chose 'legalized plunder' and mob-rule democracy....shame on you all for ruining this once great nation.


Frederic Bastiat

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 10:41 PM  

Dale Eastman said...
State of Illiois vs. Whitey Harrell. Charged with "willful failure to File" was found not guilty. The governments (DOJ) high profile attorney failed to furnish the LAW that was violated. A very smart jurror requested the judge provide them with the the law the accused violated. The judge twice refused the jury request and that is simply because he could not provide the jury with the law. Mr. Harrell is a free man.

Here's a link to a transcript of a speech by that juror.

9/26/2005 11:39 PM

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

Great, so when is your court date?

Feeling lucky?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 10:45 PM  

The Founders created the right to amend the Constitution.

If you don't like it, either gather enough votes to change it, or get the hell out.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 10:45 PM  

Steve Swan got 16 years for following Irwin's method. That means he will be out in 2021.

What a fool.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 10:50 PM  

(un)Reasonable Guy said...

1.If you truly believe that, I dare you to go public and ask the IRS to kindly take you to court.

Maybe you can get Larken Rose to help you.

LOL


No law there.

2.Then how can you ever hope to prove yourself? Seriously, what is your plan?

No law there.

3.Some plan, chicken. The Court's opinion is everything. The dare stands. Prove it in court.

No law there.

4.The Court's rulings on the law are already established. If you want to change the Court's interpretation to match your own, your are going to have to prove it.

So what's your plan?


No law there.

5.You are the one who has to change the Court's opinion. Larken Rose was convicted because his case was frivolous (he wasted the Court's time). Irwin Shifty will be convicted as well.

So what is your plan to convince the Court? Do you have one? I dare you to go public and prove yourself to the Court.


No law there.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 10:54 PM  

This is exactly what Bastiat explained. The deviation from the previous law becomes so entrenched in the minds of the public, that they become confused to what is now "just". The public must choose: to question-lose respect for the change in the law or lose moral sense and resort to legalized plunder. Of course, America chose plunder...

"The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 10:54 PM  

"The Founders created the right to amend the Constitution."

They didn't make that right to substantially change the laws in a way that resulted in destroying their original intent.

What's next? 1st amendment, 5th amendment..how about the whole U.S. Constitution?

I'm sure the mob-rule democracy of present day Amerika has that planned already.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 10:58 PM  

Dale Eastman,

I happen to agree with the Court, so convincing you of the Court's opinion is not necessary.

You however, disagree with the Court and therefore must prove your case.

So what is your plan to do that? If you really believe your frivolous arguments, you will dare the IRS to prosecute. What are you waiting for?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/26/2005 11:00 PM  

I'm sorry dale, did I inadvertently pull your chain? If so, please forgive me. I haven't the stamina to attempt to speak to a wall today. But gee, thanks for playing.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/26/2005 11:29 PM  

Dear "Reasonable Guy",

You say that you agree with the court, however, I think it is Dale that agrees with the court. He has cited several Supreme Court rulings as to what the 16th amendment was all about, what Constitutional income is, etc. They all support Schiff's position. If these lower courts would just allow the evidence to be submitted before the jury, they would be able to make an honest and fair judgement. But that will never happen as the government knows what would follow. So in that vein, you are correct, Mr. Schiff will probabaly be convicted, but it will be more due to the judge holding his hands behind his back, rather than letting the two parties have a fair fight.

By the way, I think the plan, from what I gather here, is to EDUCATE the people as to what the law really says, and I think there should also be a focus on educating juries as to their duty and responsibilities. They ARE the law in every trial. Lawyers present cases and judges are supposed to be like referees and assure everyone is playing by the rules. But it is the juror that makes the decision and they have a duty to review the laws that are being transgressed, not to just take a lawyer's or a judge's word for it. Same applies to shop lifting as it does to income taxes, as it does to murder.

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/27/2005 7:06 AM  

Mikey,

There is plently of case law here. Being able to convince a few people that twisted arguments hold water as your plan won't change the Court's opinion.

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

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 8:26 AM  

"They didn't make that right to substantially change the laws in a way that resulted in destroying their original intent."

Uh, yes they did. The original Constitution allowed for slavery. Under your *logic* such as it is, slavery could not have been abolished.

The Founders set no limits on what could or could not be amended -- and of course the Bill of Rights were 10 "Amendments".

The TPs utter lack of knowledge of history continues to amaze, though they still cut-n-paste passages which they have no ability to comprehend.

And now you can get back to rotating tires.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 8:46 AM  

"They didn't make that right to substantially change the laws in a way that resulted in destroying their original intent."
"Uh, yes they did. The original Constitution allowed for slavery. Under your *logic* such as it is, slavery could not have been abolished."

.....Certainly, you are right...the U.S. Congress can also amend the Constitution to violate property rights and destroy civil liberties.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 9:21 AM  

Anonymous said...
"They didn't make that right to substantially change the laws in a way that resulted in destroying their original intent."
"Uh, yes they did. The original Constitution allowed for slavery. Under your *logic* such as it is, slavery could not have been abolished."

.....Certainly, you are right...the U.S. Congress can also amend the Constitution to violate property rights and destroy civil liberties.

9/27/2005 10:21 AM

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

Ah, now you are on to something of interest. What you TP's generally fail to grasp is the difference between the LEGALITY and MORALITY of the law. I will continue to point out the frivolous arguments related to the interpretation of the law, but I believe that not all laws are moral. I keep asking TP's about a plan, and they never look past tax evasion as the solution. What is your plan?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 9:31 AM  

I'm not in any manner implying I know a lot more than anyone else on this subject, but I thought case law takes second seat to Supreme Court decisions. Besides, I think Dale also mentioned several cases where "TP's", as you call them, were found not guilty. So wouldn't they kind of nullify each other?

And I don't think Irwin is agruing the LEGALITY of the law (although he has questioned it as he appears to be using everything he has since his life is on the line - can't blame him there) as much as he is trying to establish the law that holds him liable for the income tax. To me, imposition of a tax does not establish liabilty, otherwise we would all be liable for every tax, no matter if we are involved in that field or not. This is why the IRC is very specific in all those other areas of taxation. You can go to sections for alchohol taxes, fire arms taxes, gambling taxes, etc. They impose a tax, clearly define who is liable, and then cite the legislative regulation (law) that holds one liable. Whereas the income tax there is only an imposition of the tax. NO WHERE IS A LIABILTY OR LEGISLATIVE REGULATION (LAW) FOUND FOR THE INCOME TAX.

At least you, the quatloos guy, Buckner, and the government have not identified one. All your side ever does is first offer insults, say "I don't have to show a law because of other cases people are found guilty", and keep citing the imposition section of the IRC. The government, for their part, just calls arguments frivolous and never even tries to cite the law. (surely they know the differenbce between a imposition and liability).

It seems Dale, Irwin, and those on that side have the Supreme Court on their side and have very credible arguments using the giovernements own documents to prove their case. I know that if I were a jury member and all I had to view to decide my case was the arguments found on this blog, Irwin would have to be let free, and I might even start writing my congressman to find out if he knows where this law might be. Your failure to answer simple questions with simple answers has definitely peaked my interest.

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/27/2005 10:09 AM  

A cheerleader wrote:

"IRS v. Kuglin. IRS lost this very big case. In this case, the Federal Express pilot claimed 99 exemptions. IRS went nuts claiming Kuglin owed 954,000.00. The DOJ failed to provide the law and prove their case. The jury acquited. Kuglin is free."

Kuglin never argued the law, and she's currently having her wages garnished down to point of poverty to pay off all those taxes. And by the way, you lied about the about of taxes involved in the case.

Rah rah. Sis boom bah.

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

A cheerleader wrote:

"State of Illiois vs. Whitey Harrell. Charged with "willful failure to File" was found not guilty. The governments (DOJ)"

This is a state income tax case not a federal income tax case. It's really sad you don't know the difference. The DOJ, for example, is a Federal agency, the State of Illinois is not.

More lies from the cheerleaders.

Rah rah. Sis boom bah.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/27/2005 10:31 AM  

A cheerleader wrote:

"Former IRS CID agent Joe Bannister is another high profile case. The jurry acquitted Bannister of all counts."

And Banister's attorneys never argued the law.

Those lies just keep piling up. I guess when you're desperate, lies are all you have.

Rah rah. You know the rest.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/27/2005 10:32 AM  

The Founders created the right to amend the Constitution.

If you don't like it, either gather enough votes to change it, or get the hell out.

+++++++++++++++++

That's interesting...the last point "Get the hell out". That appears to be the right plan when dealing with total corruption at the highest levels...but guess what? Getting the hell out isn't so easy..the U.S. Gvt. income tax is a worldwide income taxation scheme and they have also made an assortment of laws starting in 1995 to deter individuals from leaving the U.S. with THEIR money---remember it's not your property after all (even if it's after tax dollars). They (U.S. Gvt.) have even gone around the world trying to impose themselves on foreign governments to keep their banks and financial institutions from opening accounts for persons with U.S. passports. All the while, the U.S. Gvt. allows non-resident individuals, with no trade or business in the U.S., to open bank and brokerage accounts that have no capital gains tax or tax on Treasury interest and corporate bonds after 1984. There isn't even any formal reporting to the U.S. taxing authority other than interest and dividends. Thereto, Americans continue to pay their taxes while massive loopholes and corruption is inherent throughout. Good luck arguing the morality of this fiasco.

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

"Ah, now you are on to something of interest. What you TP's generally fail to grasp is the difference between the LEGALITY and MORALITY of the law."
_________________________

Well there it is...the morality vs. legality of the law. 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 change in law is justice or injustice....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:48 AM  

Anonymous said -- And now you can get back to rotating tires.

And you have talked down to people who clean pools and Walmart employees.

Who's next?

Why don't you just say, "All you hard working Americans should just shut up and do what the master says!"

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/27/2005 1:12 PM  

Reasonable Guy said...

Mikey,

There is plently of case law here. Being able to convince a few people that twisted arguments hold water as your plan won't change the Court's opinion.

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


Please cite the document number, author, and page number with the IRS logo for this piece of dreck or admit that is NOT an official IRS document.

We need to know who to sue for posting that malodorous, malevolent, muscid meal.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 2:34 PM  

(un) Reasonable Guy said...

Dale Eastman,

I happen to agree with the Court, so convincing you of the Court's opinion is not necessary.

You however, disagree with the Court and therefore must prove your case.


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

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 2:49 PM  

mikey said...

Dear "Reasonable Guy",

You say that you agree with the court, however, I think it is Dale that agrees with the court. He has cited several Supreme Court rulings as to what the 16th amendment was all about, what Constitutional income is, etc.


Mike, he's like the church officials that refused to look through Galileo Galilei's telescope.

He's nothing but an IRS dis-info and disruption agent. He's actually good for the truth, because the lurkers can see what's up with his tripe.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 2:53 PM  

(un) Reasonable Guy said...

Mikey,

There is plently of case law here. Being able to convince a few people that twisted arguments hold water as your plan won't change the Court's opinion.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf


To bad what you cite is not case law, nor is it a liability statute.

Who's the author of the document you cite? What's the document's official number? Why is there no IRS logo anywhere on that document?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 2:56 PM  

I will continue to point out the frivolous arguments related to the interpretation of the law,...

Yeah, And what law is that, (un)Reasonable Guy?

Unless you can point out "the law", you can't point out jack squat in regard to anything related to such law.

Now about that liability statute?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 3:01 PM  

NO WHERE IS A LIABILTY OR LEGISLATIVE REGULATION (LAW) FOUND FOR THE INCOME TAX.

Not quite Mr. Mike.

I haven't addressed it yet. The only person "M_A_D_E__L_I_A_B_L_E" is a "withholding agent".

Cite IRC 1461

And since it is a specific person "M_A_D_E__L_I_A_B_L_E" for subtitle a income taxes, that is the only person that section 6011 can act upon in regard to a required return under subtitle a.

Cite IRC 6011


Go to the page linked below, insert "26" in the title box. Insert single quote 'made liable' in the Search Word(s) box, click search. This returns six hits of the phrase "made liable" in the IRC.
Search the Code

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 3:14 PM  

Jack Spitz Sputtered something about the Kuglin case.

Mr. Spitz, I have read the Court Transcripts of the Kuglin case. Have you? I doubt it by the nature and tone of your posts. To read a document of the length of that trial transcript requires time, patience, and focus.

Kuglin was acquitted on the criminal charge of failing to file and income tax return.

If you take the time to read the transcripts, you will find out that #1, the judge was honest. #2, it wasn't a Cheek Defense. Your ilk in other forums spew crap about the Cheek Defense being the 'too stupid to understand the law' defense.

Anybody that reads the Kuglin transcripts knows Ms. Kuglin is anything but stupid.

She flys jumbo jets for a living.

As for her indentured servitude, There has been NO civil case proving Ms. Kuglin has a debt to the Federal thugs. The IRS is simply ILLEGALLY STEALING her money. Eventually I'll get those laws transcribed onto my web site also.

I have a 43,000 word document I wrote that steps from the illegal levy under color of law back through the procedures. It ain't about "interpreting" the law. It's about what the law clearly says.

Kuglin transcripts can be downloaded here.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 3:28 PM  

Jack Spitz Sputters:

This is a state income tax case not a federal income tax case. It's really sad you don't know the difference. The DOJ, for example, is a Federal agency, the State of Illinois is not.

It's really sad that you don't understand that the Illinois income tax is based upon what is shown on a Federal income tax return. Shows you didn't read the transcript of the juror.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 3:32 PM  

"As for her indentured servitude, There has been NO civil case proving Ms. Kuglin has a debt to the Federal thugs."

Except there has. Why do you feel the need to lie yet again?

According to the Tax Court documents filed by Ms. Kuglin in August and September of 2004, she has agreed to pay almost $300,000 in back taxes plus more than $235,000 in interest for the six-year period.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/27/2005 3:55 PM  

Anonymous 9/27/2005 12:48 PM

Well there it is...the morality vs. legality of the law. 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... After all, they were only obeying the laws in Germany at the time.

WARNING!

THESE LINKS ARE GRAPHIC


They were only following lawful orders
And so were they
Him too
Them also.

This is where the United States is headed. Some might provably argue we are there already.

And to any that would think to argue that we would never...

You have NEVER read about the Milgram Experiment...

Milgram Experiment(short, concise)
Milgram Website
Wikipedia Milgram Experiment
Google Milgram Experiment
AltaVist Milgram Experiment
And let us not forget the Stanford Experiment
AltaVista Stanford Experiment

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 4:10 PM  

Jack Spitz Sputtered:
According to the Tax Court documents filed by Ms. Kuglin in August and September of 2004, she has agreed to pay almost $300,000 in back taxes plus more than $235,000 in interest for the six-year period.

I'll reverse my statement and acknowledge my error just as soon as you provide the links.

Until then, the best you get is I acknowledge there might have been a civil case.

BTW. Tax Court is not a real court.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 4:14 PM  

Kuglin later cut a deal with the IRS where she agreed to pay ALL her back taxes, penalties, and interest so that the IRS wouldn't foreclose on her home. Oh, that's in addition to her criminal defense attorney fees.

In other words, even though Kuglin avoided jail, she ended up a LOT worse off than if she had just paid her taxes in the first place.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:16 PM  

In other words, even though Kuglin avoided jail, she ended up a LOT worse off than if she had just paid her taxes in the first place.

In other words, even though Irvink avoided getting both legs broken, he ended up a LOT worse off than if he had just paid his protection money to Vinny 'da Vise and Don Corleone in the first place.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:28 PM  

Yeah, the funny thing about paying the Mafia for protection is that they keep coming back again and again for more and more until you're either broke and dead. Hey, that sounds like our present day income tax system.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 6:16 PM  

You also pay the Mafia for "protection" so they won't break your knees in and set your business on fire....hey that sounds like our present day income tax system...millions of Americans paying the Mafioso in Washington for "protection".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 6:19 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"Larken Rose was convicted because his case was frivolous (he wasted the Court's time)."

How has this been determined?


Excellent Bastiat quotations on this page. Screamingly applicable.


jack spitz, I'm glad to see you are willing to attach your name -- or, at least, A name -- to your sneerings. I'm also glad you offer some kind of substance to go with your name-calling. However, I'm unable to take you seriously due to your persistent pro-tyranny bias.


Anonymous cowardly cynical person said: "Good luck arguing the morality of this fiasco."

Nicely put!

Rather than getting the hell out, I'm personally hoping to plant seeds of doubt regarding the benevolence of the state and the wisdom of big government -- essentially, I'm arguing the *immorality* of the fiasco. Hopefully we'll have a little better running start on post-crash rebuilding if a significant chunk of the populace understands WHAT the fundamental problem WAS. Even if not, I still believe it's my duty to sound the alarm.


Dale, thanks for setting everyone straight on Kuglin. You know the cockroaches will come crawling back, but you sure do send 'em scurrying. Speaking of crawling back, have you gotten any response yet from jack spitz on your Kuglin trial question? I notice there wasn't one yet on this page.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/05/2005 6:31 AM