Tuesday, September 27, 2005

I'm compelled to comment, on all of the bickering that is taking place on the commentary areas of this blog.

First, let's understand our environment.

With a national debt around $8 trillion, this nation has become the worlds leading debtor. Loans from countries such as China, Korea, and Japan are all that is keeping us afloat.

In 1960, we produced and sold more products than we bought and this nation had a $4.5 billion trade surplus. Today, that is no longer true. We now have a trade deficit approaching $800 billion. Rising oil prices and natural disasters such as the two hurricanes that recently struck the gulf region assure matters will only worsen.

In 1930, expenditures by the federal government amounted to just 3.6% of the GDP. Today, it spends over 18% of the GDP. One big difference is that prior to 1930, there were virtually no social programs. Today social programs account for 59% of the national budget.

In 1948, the federal government took just 2% of the income from a family of four. Today, it takes over 25%. One source estimates that today's families, in all, are on the governments treadmills for 52% of their incomes.

Looking at historic graphs, you'll see that as taxes rise, savings fall. And as taxes fall, savings rise. So, it should come as no surprise that now when our taxes are at an all time high, our citizens have no savings and are struggling to provide for their families.

Now, you might think our elected officials surely are working to alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, they're not. In fact, I would say they're making matters worse. As a result of high taxes, over regulation, and international trade agreements, many of our manufacturing jobs have been forced to leave the country.

In the midst of this decline, the corruption of our court system has become intolerable. Numerous supreme court rulings make it clear that they no longer view the constitution as a ruling document. The courts have stripped us of our privacy, our gun rights, our property rights and more. We now lead the world in the number of our citizens that are incarcerated within our prisons. We have members of our society, including members of the bar, that have dedicated their lives to fighting judicial corruption at all levels, something I've seen first hand at all levels.

I hope all of you who are following these trials will recognize the failure of our system and the mean spirited nature of the oppressors who side with the government in these trials. The purpose of this blog is to help us form a better understanding of a judicial system that successfully prosecutes far too many innocent people.

The income tax honesty movement provides an interestingting case study. Here we have a group of people who have asked specific question which the government chooses to evade. They have asked the government to meet with them to settle grievances, but the government refuses. And, when they get people to trial, well you can see what is going on here.

The current trial of Irwin Schiff provides us with a example of how the system is failing the citizens of this nation. The judge and prosecution work in concert. The defendant is verbally and physically abused and hog tied as to what they can present in their defense. Observers are harassed and banned from the court. It doesn't get much worse than this folks.

Gerry Spence says the following about judges in his book, O.J. The Last Word beginning on page 170,

"Night after night on the talk shows, I heard criticism being leveled at Judge Ito. But I took a different position, born of years spent enduring the relentless abuse of tyrant judges, from having seen my clients' rights placed in severe jeopardy at the hands of blockheads in robes whose only claim to judicial excellence was their ability to scream and shout and intimidate everyone who came before them. Ask trial lawyers who have been around the block even once, and they will tell you that many judges mammal eating monsters that feed on lawyers and their cases, trample over justice, and spew their venom randomly over the courtroom because they do not possess the intelligence or judicial temperment to preside over a fair trial.

"Courtroom are frightening places. Nothing grows in a courtroom--no pretty pansies, no little children laughing and playing. A courtroom is a deadly place. People die in courtrooms, killed by words. If you wake up someday in a courtoom and long to tell your story to someone who can hear and understand you, someone who will give a damn, who will give you a just hearing, you will be shocked. You want to tell the jury that you are being railroaded? You aren't allowed to speak. Your lawyer isn't, either. Perhaps he can sputter. He can object. He can bow and scrape before the judge. If he's not too frightened of the despot up there, he can crowd into the half hour, arbitrarily allowed by the judge, an opening statement that should take at least two hours.

"I have seen those judges pace back and forth across that little stage up there, smirking, peering down, hollering, interrupting. I have seen them nail lawyers to podiums like goats tied to a stake, or banish them to counsel table like lepers. Your lawyer can't communicate tied to a stake or banished to a tabletop. I see judges who, the day before they ascended to the bench, couldn't ask the first intelligent question on voir dire, but who, the day after, sat up there as a judge, carrying on voir dire for the litigants that, if I had conducted it, would have been adjudged as gross malpractice. Often the result is the selection of a jury riddled with prejudice or jurors who predisposed to convict. I watch judges bully prospective jurors into saying what the judge wishes them to say. I hear them read instructions to the jury that are critical to justice but that no one, not even the lawyer who submitted the instructions, can understand. I, and every other lawyer who has practiced more than a few years, have endured their intemperance, which so often leads to error and pain and injustice. I see them rule one way one day and another way another day, depending on what they had for breakfast. God help you if you come before such a judge after he has had a bad night under the connubial covers."


Obviously, Gerry Spence holds a low opinion of judges, and obviously if judges treat Gerry Spence in this manner, you can imagine how they treat a citizen trying to defend themselves.

Another interesting aspect in following this trial are the comments coming from the pro government (quatloos) types. These are most likely IRS employees and CPA's. They are likely people whose livelyhoods are dependent upon the system in its current form. These oppressors portray themselves as elitist who insult anyone that disagrees with them using condescending and demeaning tones.

There are those that produce and then there are those that prey on those that produce. These folks are the latter. They apparently delight in the suffering of others because their livelyhood depends on it. That is the only explanation I can come up with to explain their perverse behavior.

Here is the bottom line. No one, innocent or guilty, should have to suffer through a trial like the one we are following here in Nevada. As Mark Yannone stated

"Once a society recognizes that justice is impossible in a court of law, violence will escalate radically, and no one will be immune from it."

What we are witnessing one case at a time is the ruin of a nation. Anyone that finds delight in these abusive trials is mentally suspect. Maybe they'll finally realize the error of their ways when fate puts them in front of one of these judges.

71 Old Comments:

Geeze waste alott of space to post nothing but nonsense!

Now most people won't realize they have to scroll down to hear the audios. Good job moron!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 10:56 PM  

You'll get over it.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/27/2005 11:13 PM  

Mr. Jahn said:

I'm compelled to comment, on all of the bickering that is taking place on the commentary areas of this blog.

Mea Culpa.

"They" won't let Irwin, Larken, et al. show them the law.

"They" won't show Irwin, Larken, et al. the law.

In the commentary areas, "they" won't (or more likely) CAN'T produce the LAW.

"I" can where I have examined and studied the law.

And I am composing a web site expressly to publish my findings and examinations of the LAW even as I bicker with "them".

Another interesting aspect in following this trial are the comments coming from the pro government (quatloos) types. These are most likely IRS employees and CPA's. ... These oppressors portray themselves as elitist who insult anyone that disagrees with them using condescending and demeaning tones.

They're the best members on our team.

THIS IS FOUR!: * * * *

When a lurker observes "them" calling us names because we don't see five, or three, or a fish, the lurker starts to get curious.

When a sideline observer says "their" lack of answers to the questions "peaks" [sic] his interest, I'm satisfied that my time has not been totally wasted in bickering with "them".

The "bickering" that you have noted, is actually mild and polite compared to some of the gloves off, no rules bickering I have been involved in, elsewhere on the net.

Since admin can, and has, pulled really abusive posts, there is a defacto limit on the abusiveness of the spew.

General note, Just as the Larken Rose juror, Mr. Baptista has abandoned discussion with me, So to has the person that was, briefly engaging with me on a specific debate of LAW.

JG.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 11:27 PM  

No, this is a good post!

I want to say that my experience with the U.S. income tax scheme is summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat:

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger."


I was dragged into the capital gains tax net by the massive stock crash of 2000-01. It is clear that the violation of property with the current income taxation scheme is driving capital out of the U.S. It is completely unacceptable, whether there is a law or not, that the current income taxation scheme violates the property rights of Americans while giving many Non-Resident Aliens tax exemptions on capital gains and interest income. Therefore, whether Irwin wins or loses or whether there is a law or not, the current income tax scheme in the U.S. will reinforce the coming deflationary collapse of an economy that now only exists via debt and consumption. So whatever happens here, I have news for all the CPA's, lawyers and Quartloos folks on this board: You better start looking for a new line of work and outside the U.S. for there will be no more capital and production in the U.S. thanks to the current U.S. income taxation scheme.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:30 PM  

Dale,

I take it that you are convinced you are right and the U.S. Courts have got it wrong.

So, I ask again, what is your plan to right this perceived wrong?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 11:38 PM  

[un]Reasonable Guy said...

Dale,

I take it that you are convinced you are right and the U.S. Courts have got it wrong.

So, I ask again, what is your plan to right this perceived wrong?


What do you care. You've already proven yourself to be a bootlicking sycophant.

I am right.

And so is Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, Pete Hendrickson, and a host of others that have read the @#$%!@#$ law.

Our numbers are growing. And as those numbers grow, so too do internet web sites dedicated to exposing the fraud of a corrupt and tyrannical government.

You know what the law is don't you? It's literally words... Words with specific meanings.

I've yet to see a post from you with any substance on... the law.

If you've got no words of law, you've got nothing to say on the matter.

At best you're just a boiler room disruption agent, and worst you're an agent provocateur trying to get juicy phrases into the public domain so the prosecutors can cherry pick the words out of context and villify somebody else so they can be F***** like Larken Rose.

At best or worst, you're a waste of time.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 12:45 AM  

"The numbers are growing"

To what, more than the six people interested enough in Irwin's trial to actually attend?

What happened to the Million Man March anyhow?

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:52 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Jay, at 9/28/2005 12:54 AM  

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf

The government HAS answered the questions, in considerable detail.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:56 AM  

Dale,

I think you have anger management issues as well. Are you Yo Mama?

I had a good conversation with Mikey this afternoon and even came to agreement. You apparently missed that one.

I agree with legality of the law but not the morality of it. Do you know the difference?

While you are deep in your tax evasion schemes and daydreams of someday overturning established case law, you are missing an opportunity affect real change.

What is your plan?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/28/2005 1:01 AM  

Quatloser said:
The government HAS answered the questions, in considerable detail.

BULLSHIT!

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 2:13 AM  

anonymous squatlooser says:

"http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf"answers the questions!

1 - this is a pdf file for pete's sake. it is not law; it is rhetoric posted on the web site of the federal mafia.
2 - it is not sourced, so therefore it is hearsay. there is no one that can authenticate it as truth.
3 - it has no government reference so its author is as anonymous as the anonymous squatlooser that posted it to this forum.
4 - many laws are imposed, but only certain people are made liable for obeying them.
5 - as for "tax imposed" vs. "liability":
IRC section 1 imposes a tax "on the taxable income ..."
IRC section 4001 imposes a tax "on the 1st retail sale..."
IRC section 4041 imposes a tax "on any liquid other than gasoline..."
IRC section 4051 imposes a tax "on the first retail sale..."
IRC section 4091 imposes a tax "on the sale of aviation fuel..."
IRC section 4121 imposes a tax "on coal from mines..."
IRC section 4131 imposes a tax "on any taxable vaccine..."
IRC section 4371 imposes a tax "on each policy of insurance..."
IRC section 4401(a) imposes a tax "on any wager authorized..."
IRC section 5001 imposes a tax "on all distilled spirits..."
IRC section 5041 imposes a tax "on all wines..."
IRC section 5701 imposes a tax "on cigars...cigarettes...etc."
IRC section 5801 imposes a tax "on 1st engaging in business..."
AND ON AND ON AND ON.

does any squatlooser see a pattern here? taxes are imposed on things; people are made liable. for example see section 4374 for liability on insurance tax, see 4401(c) for liability on wagering tax, see 5005 for liability on distilled spirits tax, see 5043 for liability on wine tax, etc.

the question that needs to be answered is what is the section that defines liability for the "income tax"? a pdf file is not a code section!!!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/28/2005 4:47 AM  

Well said David Jahn!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:17 AM  

NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar thinks there is an issue about income taxes. Where is the ACLU to combat this travesty? Where are the other civil rights groups?

When did a twice-convicted felon whose own psychiatrist says he is "delusional" get the monopoly on knowledge?

When is the Million Man March a/k/a will the spectators for Irwin's trial ever exceed 10?

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 8:45 AM  

It got quiet here all of a sudden.

It would be helpful if one of you TP's out there would propose a plan or strategy to change the system in favor of lower taxes and smaller government.

You must admit, people like Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff have not changed anything by advocating discredited frivolous arguments.

You have got to find a better plan to change the system. What are your ideas?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/28/2005 11:27 AM  

I am a CPA... and I take umbrage to the impuning of my profession. I would be the first to vote for any law that would help my country even if I had to change professions. There are plenty of things an intelligent person with ambition can learn to do... besides most of what I do is not tax related anyway, so the "discovery" of the fraud by the masses would not impact most of us anyway.

So please be careful with your broad brush painting of professions. I do not believe that people in the accounting profession are any more suceptible to evil than anyone else, and most CPAs I know have tons of personal integrity.

BTW, discussions on both sides of this issue would cary much more credibility without the "inflamed" language.

Pepper

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 11:41 AM  

Who is right? Schiff or Larken?

By Blogger PepperCPA, at 9/28/2005 11:49 AM  

"Who is right? Schiff or Larken?"

No, who is less wrong?

Perhaps the better question is whether Schifty will get a longer or shorter sentence than Lynne Meredith (10 years).

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:19 PM  

"I am a CPA... and I take umbrage to the impuning of my profession. I would be the first to vote for any law that would help my country even if I had to change professions."


Fine do that...in the mean while there will continue to be a flight of U.S. citizens capital out of the U.S. until this Gvt. decides to abridge the current income tax scheme in a way that results in uniformity and fairness whether you are a U.S. citizen, resident or non-resident alien....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:21 PM  

"So please be careful with your broad brush painting of professions. I do not believe that people in the accounting profession are any more suceptible to evil than anyone else, and most CPAs I know have tons of personal integrity."

They have tons of personal integrity?! While they are filing that income tax return for their U.S. citizen and resident clients, forcing them to cough-up money to pay taxes on capital gains and interest income. All the while, those with non-resident alien accounts are walking away 'tax-free' in the U.S. tax haven for foreigners.

You've got to be kidding....total hypocrisy here....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:27 PM  

The vitriol is in these comments is annoying.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 1:15 PM  

...tell that to the millions of Americans who are being stolen from...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 1:22 PM  

OK somebody asked for a plan so here is a plan:

We all keep doing what we are doing. To wit, those of us who know the truth and have courage can continue to speak up about the fraud loudly and often. Those of us who know or suspect the truth but who lack courage or are not in a position to rock the boat too hard can push for an alternative system (e.g. John Linder and Neal Boortz). Those of us who enjoy a parasitic existence due to the current system (e.g. K Street and Quatloos types) can continue to spew ad hominem attacks on the forementioned groups.

Eventually, something will give and we can be rid of the current nonsensical system once and for all. We will ALL be better off.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 1:29 PM  

It's about to get a whole lot virulent so all you Qautloos folks close your eyes....

Don't expect Americans to support this system with THEIR capital when they are being disriminated against by the own Gvt's tax scheme. Bye, Bye Wall St., Bye Bye Real Estate, Bye Bye Production and Savings, Bye Bye Capital Gains, Bye Bye Interest Income, Say Goodbye to the U.S. eCONomy!!!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 1:41 PM  

Reasonable Guy said...

It got quiet here all of a sudden.

Happens that way when you quatlosers got no game.

You have got to find a better plan to change the system. What are your ideas?

It would be helpful if one of you TP's out there would propose a plan or strategy to change the system in favor of lower taxes and smaller government.

Okay. I propose the federal government follow the Constitution as written. I propose the IRS follow the IRC as written, interpreted properly in light of the Constitution.

You must admit, people like Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff have not changed anything by advocating discredited frivolous arguments.

Don't interrupt me, I'm not done. I propose that instead of the crap you've been posting, you start answering the questions about the present law. The corrupt judge's didn't/won't let the law in the courtroom. (Imagine that. The law is not allowed in the courtroom.) There is NO SUCH RESTRICTION in this PUBLIC COURT on this blog.

I propose that YOU, [un]Reasonable Guy, explain to us "TP's" just exactly how questions about the law are frivolous.

You can start by answering these two questions that the government REFUSES to answer:
Should I use section 861(b) and regulation 1.861-8 (plus other sections) to determine my domestic taxable income. It requires a simple YES or NO.

If the answer is NO, please cite the statute or regulation that that says who should, or who should not use those sections to determine their domestic taxable income.

You can also explain WHY these QUESTIONS are "discredited frivolous arguments." Because the courts said so is NOT an answer, because the courts have NEVER explained WHY it is a "discredited frivolous argument."

court·room n. Law. A room in which the proceedings of a court are held.
court of law n. Law. A court that hears cases and makes decisions based on statutes or the common law.
stat·ute n. 1. Law. A law enacted by a legislature.
law n. 1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. 2.a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior. 3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law. 4. A piece of enacted legislation. 5.a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law. b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 1:41 PM  

Dale,

How's tricks?

Don't you know by now that since you are the one who is contrary to the interpretation of case law relating to the income tax, it is UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOUR CASE IN A COURT OF LAW?????

I am not the Court nor do I have any influence in changing the Court's interpretation. Therefore, I can choose to agree with you (or not) if I want to but it doesn't matter. Its the Court that matters, get it?

So I ask again, what is your plan to prove your case?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/28/2005 2:02 PM  

CPA Pepper said:

I am a CPA... and I take umbrage to the impuning of my profession.

Understandable. I will continue to impugn your profession, excluding you from such impugnment. In fairness to you and your not unreasonable statement, the reason for the general impugning should be given. That I will attempt to do.

I would be the first to vote for any law that would help my country even if I had to change professions.

How about you learn about the law that presently exists? Voting to change an existing law you don't understand is akin to a mechanic changing a carburetor on a mis-firing car when the real problem is a plug wire that has worked loose and disconnected from a spark plug.

There are plenty of things an intelligent person with ambition can learn to do...

CPA... Ambition?

Little dig aside, You are correct. And by stating such a thing, you have that ambition on tap if you need to use it. That one partial sentence has raised YOUR esteem in my eyes. I hope this initial opinion of you is well founded.

I don't really think CPA's are stupid, just ignorant - in the pure, unemotional sense of the word - Literally "unknowing".

besides most of what I do is not tax related anyway, so the "discovery" of the fraud by the masses would not impact most of us anyway.

Does this mean you have knowledge of what the fraud actually is?

So please be careful with your broad brush painting of professions.

The broad brush strokes come from a majority of interactions with CPA's doing, or saying things that earn them the impugnment.

I do not believe that people in the accounting profession are any more suceptible to evil than anyone else, and most CPAs I know have tons of personal integrity.

The issue is not integrity. The issue is about beliefs. When a CPA is shown evidence that contradicts his belief system, the CPA has the choice of admitting the new information or attempting to suppress and discredit the information. The terms Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Deception come to mind.

BTW, discussions on both sides of this issue would cary much more credibility without the "inflamed" language.

This is polite discourse compared to other forums. You are correct though, in regard to the need for less inflamed.

You seem reasonable. Where do you stand in regard to the "income" tax not applying to the domestic compensation for labor of a common Citizen?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 2:20 PM  

Looks like it is just Dale and a few other nutters.

The spectator gallery at Irwin's trial had only about a half-dozen people in it yesterday. Where's the love?

And what happened to the "Million Man March" scheduled for last Thursday? Did CNN fail to cover it?

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 2:22 PM  

PepperCPA said:
Who is right? Schiff or Larken?

Both. In the interview a couple of days ago, Mr. Schiff pointed out that when he read the 861 stuff, he knew the 861 law was written to confuse.

Attributing to Mr. Schiff, as if said by him based upon the many things I heard on that interview, his position is this: There's a quicker way to get to the truth of the fraud.

Mr. Schiff's knowledge prunes the tax law tree at the trunk.

Mr. Rose's knowledge prunes the tax law tree where the branches scrape against the house (a citizen's domestic compensation for labor).

Mr. Schiff is challenging the misapplication of law in a broad general way.

Mr. Rose challenged the misapplication of law with the details of the law hidden from general knowledge.

Either way you look at this, the federal government is corrupt.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 2:32 PM  

So why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar buys into either Larken's or Irwin's theories?

Otherwise stated, when did MulletBoy and "Mr. Delusional" get the monopoly on knowledge?

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 2:42 PM  

I have seen only one person even remotley suggest that the Govt. obey it's own laws as per the original intent of congress. Why are we arguing? Just DEMAND the Govt. obey the Constitution in it's origional context.......or is that just too simple?

By Blogger American Tax Slave, at 9/28/2005 2:44 PM  

OK somebody asked for a plan so here is a plan:

We all keep doing what we are doing. To wit, those of us who know the truth and have courage can continue to speak up about the fraud loudly and often.


Yep.

Those of us who know or suspect the truth but who lack courage or are not in a position to rock the boat too hard can push for an alternative system (e.g. John Linder and Neal Boortz).

Why? The system as originally intended is fine. The corruption gumming up the works is the problem.

Law is not allowed in the court room.

Might I suggest that instead;

Those that suspect the truth study it a little more;

Those that know the truth but lacking courage to speak LOUDLY about the truth then do so quietly;

Even if to do so, they say, "Can you believe what this guy says?" while pointing to those that speak LOUDLY and with courage.

Those of us who enjoy a parasitic existence due to the current system (e.g. K Street and Quatloos types) can continue to spew ad hominem attacks on the forementioned groups.

Which they will do with little encouragement, making them the MVP's on TEAM: TRUTH.

Eventually, something will give and we can be rid of the current nonsensical system once and for all. We will ALL be better off.

What gives is the concern.
Why
Because

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 2:50 PM  

"Just DEMAND the Govt. obey the Constitution in it's origional context"

So you want blacks to be slaves again, as per the original Constitution?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 2:51 PM  

According to the original Constitution, women should be allowed the right to vote.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 2:52 PM  

We already went through this on another post...its about whether a law is legal and moral. Yes, amend the Consitution to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, as it should have been to begin with. But what about amending the Constitution to allow for a direct-unapportioned tax on whatever source derived. What then? Is it legal and moral? This is where amending the Constitution becomes, in one word, dangerous.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 2:58 PM  

you sound like you want to cause division. The Constitution never enslaved any race of people. evil people did that!

By Blogger American Tax Slave, at 9/28/2005 3:04 PM  

"Quatloos" sounds like a loose-bowel syndrome. What is it, really? Is it an IRS affiliate?Does a Quatlooser pay dues? Is there a Board of Directors? Do they have a motto? Do they root for the Dallas Cowboys? Do they wear funny hats?

By Anonymous Curious, at 9/28/2005 3:15 PM  

Dale,

I belive you and your kind have the best argument on this blog, what with all your supportive links and Supreme Court cases. But I must admit, Resonable Guy makes one great point. The method that is being tried by Irwin and all just isn't really working. While it at least appears to be very brave to take on the government head on and such, the end result is that things seem to just plod along the same without anyone taking notice. I see no news reports about the trial, no articlles in even Las Vegas papers. You/Irwin seem to have a very strong conviction and from what I have seen, a very good argument, but if you don't get the masses to believe it, or at least start to question what is going on, you, Irwin, Kuglin, and everyone else are fighting in vein. Sort of like taking one Christian at a time to the lion's den. Until the whole damn group rises up, the government will keep up what its doing, and it will get even worse.

What is the plan? To just keep spouting off in blogs, websites, etc.? Seems to me that this needs to get mainstream somehow. But how? How do you get Joe Lunchbox's attention? How do we get substantial change?

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/28/2005 3:19 PM  

Yeah, ALL the amendments to the Constitution were totally bogus because they weren't not the original intent of the Constitution, and particularly the first ten.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 3:28 PM  

"Yeah, ALL the amendments to the Constitution were totally bogus because they weren't not the original intent of the Constitution, and particularly the first ten."

Those first 10 are legal and moral, but what about the 16th one?...

Hitler amended German laws that distorted the original legal and moral intent of the German Consitution.

Again, is it legal and moral? If the amendment only needs to have the prerequisite of being legal, then those at the Nuremberg Trial should have been acquitted...they were only following the Third Reich's amended law after all...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 3:48 PM  

American Tax Slave said:
I have seen only one person even remotley suggest that the Govt. obey it's own laws as per the original intent of congress. Why are we arguing? Just DEMAND the Govt. obey the Constitution in it's origional context.......or is that just too simple?

George Washington said:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled: "[T]he government does not have to listen or respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances."

Thomas Jefferson said:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas Jefferson said:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

George Washington said:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

Benjamin Franklin said:
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Voltaire said:
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"

Is it that simple?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 3:54 PM  

Nobody stops you from bringing a petition to repeal the 16th Amendment, but you'll have to get more than the half-dozen people watching Irwin's trial to support you.

What is so funny to the rest of us is how little real support Irwin really has, 900 posts by Dale notwithstanding.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 3:58 PM  

"Quatloos" sounds like a loose-bowel syndrome. What is it, really? Is it an IRS affiliate?Does a Quatlooser pay dues? Is there a Board of Directors? Do they have a motto? Do they root for the Dallas Cowboys? Do they wear funny hats?



Hey Quatloos, are you guys set-up offshore like all the other gvt. agencies in Washington? I'm sure it helps the finances to utilize all the loopholes in the current U.S. income tax scheme. Just don't let the dirty secret out to all your clients or you might have to file bankruptcy before Oct 17th.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 4:02 PM  

"Nobody stops you from bringing a petition to repeal the 16th Amendment, but you'll have to get more than the half-dozen people watching Irwin's trial to support you."

That's ironic that someone mention the word petition. Just last month, a Federal District Judge in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the U.S. Gvt. denying a request by the American people to petition their own Government. The Judge and the Government claim that the right no longer exists. So I wonder if the 1st amendment right to petition no longer exists, does the right to tax income exist any longer...maybe all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution no longer exist.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 4:11 PM  

Quatloser said:
Otherwise stated, when did MulletBoy and "Mr. Delusional" get the monopoly on knowledge?

When they read the law. You know, that thing which no quatloser will honestly discuss.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 4:15 PM  

My opinion on Eastman et al

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/28/2005 4:23 PM  

Dear clueless,

I don't know if you've thought about it, but wouldn't you think that most people who support Irwin and the law, may not live close enough to get to the trial. These blogs are read everyday by many people who care not to comment on your inability to think for yourself. As for myself, i am doing my part and passing the word on to anyone who will listen in my neck of the country.

ps: Excellent work Dale.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 4:26 PM  

"a Federal District Judge in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the U.S. Gvt. denying a request by the American people to petition their own Government."

Wrong, bucko. The court ruled that WTP had the right to petition, but that the U.S. government had no duty to answer -- even though it already has at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 4:35 PM  

Anonymous said...
All your answers are here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf

Really? Can you then please copy and paste the part where it points out who is "liable" so we can end all this!

"If it's all there" like you say...who would argue with you?

Liability PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hold on to your sets everyone...here it comes...the end of all this debate!

Go Quatloos...lets see it!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/28/2005 4:41 PM  

Mikey,

Right on! I think Dale and the others don't get that I am on their side in the larger sense.

I disagree with their methods, they are futile and wrong headed as can be. If one steps back and looks at the larger picture, if the goal is lower taxes and smaller government, there are many ways to help that goal along legally, without fear.

Rock on, Mikey!

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/28/2005 4:49 PM  

"Wrong, bucko. The court ruled that WTP had the right to petition, but that the U.S. government had no duty to answer."

Since the U.S. Gvt. has no responsibility to respond to the petitions of its own people, then it seems quite clear that the people have no responsibility to file a tax return and fund this unresponsive Gvt.

And if the document you mentioned earlier was a valid response to the petititon, wouldn't the U.S. Gvt. responded to the petition with that document rather than no response at all?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:01 PM  

Mr. Mike,

You correctly observe:
I see no news reports about the trial, no articles in even Las Vegas papers.

Did you know, rumor has it that ALL the media outlets are owned by only 6 entities.

The media is BIASED. The media does NOT tell the truth; neither does it lie; It simply IGNORES this issue.

I hesitate to use the word conspiracy, but if the shoe fits...

TANGENT: Have you noticed that no matter what amusement park you go to, the admission price is pretty much universal. If price is set based upon the cost of operation, that means every single amusement park must have exactly the same percentage gross receipt to expense, regardless of where located...
Or; they have decided to charge exactly what the competition charges. :/TANGENT

David Cay Johnston is the leading investigative tax reporter for the New York Times. He is a Pullizter prize winning reporter. He is also provably a liar. My interaction with the liar

Imagine that you are some arrogant (I'm better than my subjects) government official. What happens when irrefutable proof is shown to you that 82% of the government's funding is collected by common fraud (theft).

Now what is going to happen overnight if the truth of this is admitted by the government?

82% of your power, prestige, and inflated ego are going to evaporate... POOF!

Funding of all your pet projects of false philanthropy (Thank you Mr. Bastiat)... POOF!

Funding for all your pork barrel projects to buy your re-election... POOF!

Funding for all your Federal Grants to the States and the attached naked power grabbing strings... POOF!

Funding for all your machinations to achieve a police state... POOF!

TANGENT: My pet peeve of the police state is $500 million of the Citizen's money stolen by the Federal Maffia and given with all strings attached, to the States in Federal grants for the Click it or ticket program. This page illustrates the idiocy of such law quite well. Here's some more commentary on the subject. And I have not addressed the issue with my own comments :/TANGENT

Can you think of any other reasons the government might want and need to suppress this truth?

Then there is the uphill battle of getting people in general to look with their own two eyes at evidence of the unbelievable scope of this government perpetrated fraud.

The mindset is "this is so unbelievable that it can't be true, so there is no need to check the evidence...

Stated simply, The Citizen's domestic compensation for labor was NOT meant to be taxed.

NOR IS IT.

The proof is in the law. The proof has been in the law for over 90 years.

Will the quatlosers discuss that law? [yeah, that is a pretty silly question. Nevermind.]

The method that is being tried by Irwin and all just isn't really working.

Please elaborate, sir. The method to achieve WHAT in your mind?

To save one's one skin when the corrupt bastards want to nail it to a wall?

To show just how corrupt the system has become?

To show the truth to the unknowing?

from what I have seen, a very good argument, but if you don't get the masses to believe it, or at least start to question what is going on, you, Irwin, Kuglin, and everyone else are fighting in vein.

Am I correct in assuming that you are on the sideline, so to speak, observing? Am I correct in assuming that you didn't know about the issue until recently? Am I correct in assuming that, while not decided as to the truth of the issue, you have at least become a little curious?

If my assumptions are correct, what then are YOU going to do with your new found knowledge? Are you going to look deeper into the subject? Are you going to talk to friends and family about what you have seen, and your thoughts on the matter, even as and if you are undecided as to the truth of the issue?

What is the plan? To just keep spouting off in blogs, websites, etc.? Seems to me that this needs to get mainstream somehow. But how? How do you get Joe Lunchbox's attention? How do we get substantial change?

If my assumptions about you are correct, aren't you one Joe (or should I say Mike) Lunchbox whose attention has now been gained?

The question sir, is not what I am going to do, but what are YOU going to do?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 5:32 PM  

Frank Buckner said...

My opinion on Eastman et al

Opinions are like @55-O's, Everybody's got one; you're mine.

Especially the two posters going by the names of "dale eastman" and "hank".

They blather forth with, I have to admit, the sound of conviction,


con·vic·tion n. 2.b. The state of being convinced.

con·vince tr.v. con·vinced, con·vinc·ing, con·vinc·es. 1. To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action.

How do you get through to someone who believes that they're right, even despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Try producing some of that "overwhelming evidence" BY CITING THE LAW

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 5:48 PM  

[un]Reasonable Guy said...

I think Dale and the others don't get that I am on their side in the larger sense.

You're not on our side, Not even by a long shot.

If one steps back and looks at the larger picture, if the goal is lower taxes and smaller government, there are many ways to help that goal along legally, without fear.

Translation:
He wants you to believe the issue is "lower taxes and smaller government".
He wants you to believe the issue is NOT the ILLEGAL ACTIONS of the government.

I disagree with their methods, they are futile and wrong headed as can be.

Translation:
He disagrees with our goal of EXPOSING the corrupt actions of people in public office by discussing what the WORDS of the PRINTED LAW actually are.

He disagrees with our goal of EXPOSING the corrupt actions of people in public office that are contrary to the actual WORDS of the PRINTED LAW.

He disagrees with our goal of EXPOSING the corrupt, tyrannical government that has slipped the chains of the Constitution meant to bind men from evil.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 6:10 PM  

You are like a cartoon character, Dale. I can always count on your posts for a laugh. No original thought, but very entertaining.

I love you, Man! Keep up the good work.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/28/2005 6:18 PM  

Okay. I propose the federal government follow the Constitution as written. I propose the IRS follow the IRC as written, interpreted properly in light of the Constitution.

I also said:
The system as originally intended is fine. The corruption gumming up the works is the problem.

American Tax Slave said:
"Just DEMAND the Govt. obey the Constitution in it's origional context"

"They" replied:
So you want blacks to be slaves again, as per the original Constitution?

The Constitution is but a continuation of the Declaration of Independence. "All men are created equal" Very succinct. All men are created with the Natural or God-given RIGHTS. Is not a "Black" man a "Man"? The power elite ignored certain "inconvenient" truths even back then. Even the Supreme Court is not infallable and immune to political expedience. Dred Scott was not a "man" according to that case. Dred Scott was "property".
Cite

"They" replied:
According to the original Constitution, women should be allowed the right to vote.

American Heritage says:
USAGE NOTE: Traditionally, man and words derived from it have been used generically to designate any or all of the human race irrespective of sex.

In Old English this was the principal sense of man, which meant “a human being” regardless of sex; the words wer and wyf (or w÷pman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human being” and “a female human being” respectively.

But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for “a male human being,” while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for “a female human being.”

The result of these changes was an assymetrical arrangement that many criticize as sexist. Many writers have revised some of their practices accordingly.

But the precise implications of the usage vary according to the context and the particular use of man or its derivatives.

Man sometimes appears to have the sense of “person” or “people” when it is used as a count noun, as in A man is known by the company he keeps and Men have long yearned to unlock the secrets of the atom, and in phrases like the common man and the man in the street.

Here the generic interpretation arises indirectly: if a man is known by the company he keeps, then so, by implication, is a woman.

For this reason the generic interpretation of these uses of man is not possible where the applicability of the predicate varies according to the sex of the individual.

Thus it would be inappropriate to say that Men are the only animals that can conceive at any time, since the sentence literally asserts that the ability to conceive applies to male human beings.

This usage presumes that males can be taken as representatives of the species.

In almost all cases, however, the words person and people can be substituted for man and men, often with a gain in clarity.

By contrast, man functions more as a generic when it is used without an article in the singular to refer to the human race, as in sentences like The capacity for language is unique to man or in phrases like man's inhumanity to man.

But this use of man is also ambiguous, since it can refer exclusively to male members of the human race.

In most contexts words such as humanity or humankind will convey the generic sense of this use of man.


The "Original Intent" of the Constitution includes the amendments.

Anything to distract, eh, quatlosers, known and unknown by name.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 6:36 PM  

Wrong, bucko. The court ruled that WTP had the right to petition, but that the U.S. government had no duty to answer

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There was a very good reason for placing the words of the First Amendment first and the words of the Second Amendment second.

The Second Amendment is not needed until the First Amendment is ignored.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 6:42 PM  

Perhaps we need to turn up the volume on the petitioning!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 6:45 PM  

The anonymous that keeps bringing up the point about cap gains and interest income as being tax exempt for non-resident indiv's, whereas Americans are stuck should know the following:

The IRS demanded that the U.S. Congress make changed to allow them to tax the capital gains of non-resident indiv's, but the U.S. Congress refused their request and so here we are today with the inequity on the books....

So if you have a problem with the way this is currently set-up, your grievance is primarily with the U.S. Congress and the way they have crafted the laws or scheme, if you want to call it this.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 7:49 PM  

"The Second Amendment is not needed until the First Amendment is ignored."

Tax protestors always talk about this, but don't have the guts to do anything about it. It was like Gene Chapman's promise to set himself on fire in front of the IRS building. At the last second, he chickened out and they hauled him off to the looney farm for a couple of weeks.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 7:51 PM  

Mikey said:

"What is the plan? To just keep spouting off in blogs, websites, etc.? Seems to me that this needs to get mainstream somehow. But how? How do you get Joe Lunchbox's attention? How do we get substantial change?"

Mikey, please allow me repeat the plan (with Dale's additions).

We all keep doing what we are currently doing. To wit:

Those of us who know the truth and have courage can continue to speak up about the fraud loudly and often (e.g. Congressional town hall meetings).

Those of us who know the truth and lack courage talk softly about it (e.g. with those who know and love us).

Those of us who suspect the truth continue studying the law until we know it. (e.g Visit a law library)

Those of us in a position where we can't rock the boat too hard can push for an alternative system (e.g. John Linder and Neal Boortz).

Those of us who enjoy a parasitic existence due to the current system (e.g. K Street and Quatloos types) can continue to spew ad hominem attacks on the aforementioned groups.


Admitedly it will be a long slow process, but eventually one of three things will happen:

1. The fraud will be fully exposed.

2. The fraud will be changed to another fraud which we will be fully exposed.

3. The parasites will kill its defrauded hosts.

The income tax / federal reserve fraud will not survive any of these outcomes.

I personally would prefer the first outcome so that the problem and solutions may be properly documented for our posterity.

The second outcome will only further delay the ultimate solution.

The third outcome would probably be the most painful.

Again I remind you that it will take time. We must be patient and allow history to take its course. This story has been playing out since 1913.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 7:55 PM  

"The fraud will be fully exposed."

Larken promised that this would occur by April 15, 2004. As it is, he is heading to the Greybar, and Irwin only has four or five people watching his trial.

So much for the tax protestor movement.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 8:56 PM  

I wonder if Irwin et al lose the case, but then the income tax is abolished and replaced with the Fair Tax or VAT tax system, will that mean that they will be released from prison along with all the other political prisoners from the income tax in the U.S.?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:09 PM  

A change in the law will not invalidate convictions, not that there seems to be any real action under way to change the tax code.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:14 PM  

What the heck?! The President's Panel on Tax Reform is about to issue a report recommending to scrap the entire income tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax or VAT tax. Bush is looking at this tax reform proposal seriously since Social Security Reform is going nowhere....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:21 PM  

So I take it that Quatloos is pulling for the outcome where we wait for the parasite to destroy the host?

What will you do then?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:33 PM  

"A change in the law will not invalidate convictions, not that there seems to be any real action under way to change the tax code."

You state yet another great reason to work diligently toward exposing the fraud!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:36 PM  

What the heck?! The President's Panel on Tax Reform is about to issue a report recommending to scrap the entire income tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax or VAT tax. Bush is looking at this tax reform proposal seriously since Social Security Reform is going nowhere....

I disagree. The powers that be know this tax fraud is going to implode.

TAX GAP

Citizen's ARE learning what the law says.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 11:57 PM  

Dale,

I read with earnest your response (and other's) to my question of what is the plan. From what I gather, you think that a few blog sites and the few people that read them are enough. Well blog sites are pretty much preaching to the choir. People don't usually just stumble across them serfing on MSN. You made an assumption that I was one such "lurker", but I have been looking at this for a few years now waiting to see what direction it is taking, and it really hasn't gone anywhere. If you pull yourself away from it for a while, and just sit on the sidelines and observe, you'll see that there is very little movement in a positive direction, because the government does a VERY good job of silencing the small groups that form. And they have the WORLDS BEST propaganda machine. You state that the larger media outlets are at a minimum, biased toward big government. Which is my point, how do you get around that and still reach the same amount of people? Someone else said we have to be patient and let history takes it's course. Isn't 90+ years enough time? How many more Irwins will have to be sacrificed to the lions before real change occurs? I think if the cause is brought forward one at a time, where the Government can pick you off, sweep you under the rug, and cover thier tracks each time, you'll be in this for another hundred years. Do you really want to wait that long?

I have discussed this stuff with family and friends and you know what they say? They say the things that most people do (myself included) when they first hear of it. "Schiff's a tax cheat and has been for years." "You're crazy if you think we're gonna take on the governement - even if we had money." "Everyone pays income taxes. My dad/mom, aunts, uncles, grandparents - they never said anything but that the taxes were too high." "If this were true, then why don't we hear about it on TV?" and my favorite "Why would our reps in congress committ such a crime?"

The problem as I see it is that most people in this country are at the same time trusting of their reps and the large media outlets, ignorant of the law, and too lazy to discover for themselves. I said most people. You, Irwin, and let's say about 5,000 others have taken initiative and discovered the law, and know exactly why congress commits such crimes. But how are you going to get 5,000,000 people (about 5% of the adultsin this country) to take notice? This is what it will take to make any real change. Is the entire hope rooted in getting people one by one to spread the news by word of mouth? I'm not a historian by any menas, but I wonder what the founders did to get the people on their side? They had to be in the same predicament at one time. Early on I am sure the King and his men were arresting "insurgents" and imprisoning them or executing them, and there had to have been the same fear then as there is now, that we should all just do what he says and he'll leave us alone. So how did they get the message out to the people of the colonies? How did they get them riled up enough to decide to give their lives to the cause?

You noted the problem yourself when you said " Then there is the uphill battle of getting people in general to look with their own two eyes at evidence of the unbelievable scope of this government perpetrated fraud.

The mindset is "this is so unbelievable that it can't be true, so there is no need to check the evidence...""

Concerning my statement about Irwin, et al, not being effective. The point I was making is that if anyone thinks you can go into a corrupt court, in front of a corrupt judge, with a stacked jury, and come out with a win, well... maybe he is insane. Don't get me wrong, I greatly admire Irwin for his perserverance, tenacity, and his over abundance of courage. But then again, what other methods do we have? and even if he wins, where is the publicity going to come from? You already admitted the media is biased as evidenced in the lack of stories about those that have gone before (Kuglin, Banister, etc) and the present case. You know the spin will be that he got off on insanity, or some other sort of nonsense.

To echo Reasonable Guy - what is the plan?

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/29/2005 7:39 AM  

Mr. Mike.

Excellent post. And since you have clarified where you are in regard to the subject, I understand your "push" because I now understand your "from".

From what I gather, you think that a few blog sites and the few people that read them are enough.

I know it's not enough... Maybe... Run what ya' brung, to quote a phrase. It's what I brung. It's what I "got" for the moment. That and the skills of logic and communication.

...blog sites are pretty much preaching to the choir.

Yes... And no. With the new hosted website, the tool set contains traffic reports. I know the domains that look at my site. I've already had some interesting domains drop by.
Gif screen capture 8 kb
But I digress.

The point is, people are learning of the fraud. People are talking about the fraud.
As of today 2731 have voted with 82% convinced their income (compensation for labor, not 16th A income) is not taxable.

I've just sent an email asking Mr. Rose how to get to the survey results without taking the survey.

When I could get to the results without taking the survey, the answer to the question, Do you intend to tell others? tracked pretty close to the results of what the visitors to http://www.861.info/ said in regard to being convinced their income (domestic comp for labor) is not taxable.

Just in the Rose/861 corner of the THM here's the stats as I know them: The email list subscribers numbered about 2,600 in May, 2003. It was about 5,000 by October, 2004. Last Gleaning I had, it's up to 6,000. Keep those numbers in mind when you think about the 1,200 people that actually sent the letters to Snow/Everson (Treas Sec, IRS Commish).

A quick search of my collection of emailings from Mr. Rose finds these passages:

6/18/2003 For those who don't know, there are now about 13,000 copies of "Theft By Deception" in circulation (not including all the unauthorized copies). Well over 4,000 people are getting this e-mail. There have been well over 100,000 downloads of the "Taxable Income" report. (It may be double that by now; I haven't checked in a while.)

9/23/2004 There are a LOT of people who now understand at least the basics of the 861 evidence. (Last I checked, there are around 13,000 or 14,000 copies of "Theft By Deception" in circulation, there have been tens of thousands of downloads of my free "Taxable Income" report, and there are several HUNDRED THOUSAND mini-CDs of the 861 evidence presentation (see www.861.info) in circulation.

Getting back to the point being made in a roundabout way, How many people are represented by each person that takes the time to write a letter, or takes the time to fill out a survey? What is the ratio?

For each of us that 'preaches to the choir', how many people do we represent that don't voice the truth loudly but nevertheless, speak it quietly?

It takes me one hour to write a page I can read in one minute. (I have never lost a game of hot hands with any teen, and I'm pushing (gag) 50. In my thirties, I had a 1 second reaction time. 3/4 if I anticipated the event used to start the timer. Point is, I read fast, and retain a VERY large portion of what I read.) I digress about my self to point out that the quality posts I make, take time. Something the back biter's postings of insults and spew does not require. How many people do I represent when I take the time to post? How many people do I represent that know the truth? How many of them will speak, at least, quietly to their friends and family?

People don't usually just stumble across them serfing on MSN.

Correct. Now how many stumble across them when a friend says, check this out?

I have been looking at this for a few years now waiting to see what direction it is taking

If you don't mind, how many specifically is "a few"?

I'm only two years into this. You read what I post.

there is very little movement in a positive direction, because the government does a VERY good job of silencing the small groups that form.

So you think there is little movement? I question that conclusion in that I question the information you use to come to that conclusion. My response to your next quoted passage will clarify.

And they have the WORLDS BEST propaganda machine.

And in spite of that propaganda machine, I now know the truth. In spite of that propaganda machine, you know the truth. In spite of that propaganda machine, the choir knows the truth. And in spite of that propaganda machine, the novice lurker, upon stumbling across these blogs and web sites, will learn the truth.

You state that the larger media outlets are at a minimum, biased toward big government. Which is my point, how do you get around that and still reach the same amount of people?

By educating them one person at a time. Let us assume that each person with knowledge can get just 2 people in a month to understand what the truth is. Once those two people are with knowledge, the first person educates no other person, but the two new persons fall into the same pattern: Two new (4 total) persons each in one month, then no others person is educated. How long will it take for this knowledge to propagate?

27 months to propagate to 268 million.

Someone else said we have to be patient and let history takes it's course. Isn't 90+ years enough time?

Of those 90 years, it was totally hidden for how many of those years?
The Internet IS changing the propagation of information. Granted, on the internet nobody knows if you're a dog, Thus posting reference sources is critical. That is why you see so many supporting links in my posts (and webpages when I don't get lazy or forgetful.)

How many more Irwins will have to be sacrificed to the lions before real change occurs?

As many as it takes. In war, there will be casualties. Make no mistake, the Federal Maffia has declared war on the Citizens.

Presently it is a war of words and propaganda.

It is starting to turn violent, and it is the Federal goverment that is doing the violence by bludgeoning informed recalcitrant citizens (like Mr. Schiff and Mr. Rose et al.) with mockeries of the law, purporting to be law. Or as Terry Lemons has chillingly forcast, they are going to answer questions WITH FORCE.
Official notice and threat of violence to the Citizen's of the USA

When enough citizens start to realize the lack of lawfulness of our corrupt Federal Government because of these "legal" bludgeonings...

Fashion Magazine asks, Will high fashion of Tar and Feather wardrobe again be the vogue?

I have discussed this stuff with family and friends and you know what they say? ... "You're crazy if you think we're gonna take on the governement - even if we had money." ... and my favorite "Why would our reps in congress committ such a crime?"

Because they can, because you let them because your attittude is "You're crazy if you think we're gonna take on the governement - even if we had money." . In a word, dear friend or family member: coward.

but I wonder what the founders did to get the people on their side? ... How did they get them riled up enough to decide to give their lives to the cause?

If the colonists were treated with respect, if the colonists were treated fairly, if the colonists where heard, THEN there would have been no American Revolution. As Dave Champion pointed out on one of his programs, It took less than a year for majority sentiment to change. Critical Mass- KABOOM!

And please consider these words:

"accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

I'm sure most of the readers can figure out the source of that passage.

You noted the problem yourself when you said " Then there is the uphill battle of getting people in general to look with their own two eyes at evidence of the unbelievable scope of this government perpetrated fraud.

The mindset is "this is so unbelievable that it can't be true, so there is no need to check the evidence..."


All the more reason to stand tall and refuse to be silenced, don't you think? Even Mr. Buckner concedes I have to admit, the sound of conviction

So with the "sound of conviction" I'm telling you (friend, family member) that something stinks in D.C., Don't believe me, just humor me and take a look please.

The point I was making is that if anyone thinks you can go into a corrupt court, in front of a corrupt judge, with a stacked jury, and come out with a win, well...

A casualty of war. Sad, tragic for those blugeoned by the corrupt bastards, yet offering proof so that even the blind start to see something's wrong with the system.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/29/2005 4:11 PM  

Anonymous said...

Geeze waste alott of space to post nothing but nonsense!

Now most people won't realize they have to scroll down to hear the audios. Good job moron!

9/27/2005 11:56 PM

David Jahn said...

You'll get over it.

9/28/2005 12:13 AM

LOL!


Anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf

The government HAS answered the questions, in considerable detail.

Quatloos!

9/28/2005 1:56 AM"

Nope, as has been explained in considerable detail by Dave Champion.

http://americanradioshow.us/archive/20050402-2.mp3 (skip to 10 minute mark if you're in a hurry)

http://americanradioshow.us/archive/20040306-2.mp3 is a good one too. ;-)


Anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar thinks there is an issue about income taxes."

Accredited by whom/what? Joe Banister is certainly accredited by some pertinent entities (much to the eventual chagrin of some personnel within those entities), and he certainly "thinks there is an issue about income taxes." Many members of the bar association, like Bernhoft, Barnes, Becraft, and even some whose names start with other letters are coming to the same conclusion. They are accredited by the ABA. Do you have some more specific accreditation in mind or was this just another example of

"Quatloos!"

lying?


PepperCPA, my short answer to your short question is that Irwin is wrong about what Larken said. Dale gave a good longer, and longer-view, answer (although he didn't address Irwin's accusation that Larken had misled people).


Dale Eastman said:

"The "Original Intent" of the Constitution includes the amendments."

The first 10, yes.


And who squeaked this?

"Tax protestors always talk about this, but don't have the guts to do anything about it. It was like Gene Chapman's promise to set himself on fire in front of the IRS building. At the last second, he chickened out and they hauled him off to the looney farm for a couple of weeks."

Our brave, brave mouse. You know, that nonny one. What's worth noting is that anyone who DOES take up arms is, of course, not only *still* vilified by the tyranny defenders but is often also killed (and then vilified more). This enfeebles their verbal goads, IMO. What else is worth noting is that the brave, brave mousies "always talk like this, but don't have the guts to" come on Dave Champion's radio program, or Peter McCandless' radio program, or in any other way step up to the challenge and present their case vs. any tax honesty scholar. They just wave bogus documents (such as the oft-linked purported IRS document) around, squeak a bunch of names at us, and run away.

They behave rather similarly in court, other than sometimes not having to run away (yet).


Another anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"Larken promised that this would occur by April 15, 2004. As it is, he is heading to the Greybar, and Irwin only has four or five people watching his trial."

Correct, give or take a few people, and barring further developments in Larken's case.

"So much for the tax protestor movement."

LOL. Most of us don't live in Nevada, and most of us are not tax protestors. That term is defined, and does not include us. We are protesting tax fraud, not taxes. Feel free to keep lying about this, though; the more times you tell this lie and are corrected, the more obvious it gets that

"Quatloos!"

is nothing but liars supporting tax fraud.


Dale, you should have pointed out something else about this quote: "And they have the WORLDS BEST propaganda machine." That something else is: how do we -- any of us -- KNOW that the movement is not growing rapidly? Where does that impression COME FROM? The same propaganda machine that misleads us about everything else also misleads us about how we're doing. At least I would use it that way, were I one of "Them".

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/07/2005 3:06 AM