Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Irwin Schiff Interview with Mark Yannone

66 Old Comments:

When does the "Million Man March" start on Thursday?

I heard that Irwin only had six supporters in court yesterday.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 8:39 AM  

Anonymous,

You must really have nothing better to do with your time. You criticize people who are fighting for their interpretation of the law...this should be commendable, rather than an opportunity for individuals like you to take shots at. Why don't you go back to the forums of cowards that like to criticize until it becomes convenient to do otherwise.

By Anonymous Richard, at 9/21/2005 9:32 AM  

For those who have listened to Irwin's audioblog of 9/21 @ 09:17 and are interested in the "two documents" that he mentions as being required by the Code but have not been produced by the government and are called for in his 12 page motion, you can find them in the file named: 252_reply_to_gov_refusal_to_produce_delegation_order_to_answer.pdf

This is his 6 page reply, but it contains the info. 1)The Secretary is authorized: 26 USC 6201(a) which is supported by the definitions at 26 USC 7701(a)(11)and 26 USC 7701(a)(12) AND 2)Delegations of authority must be published: 44 USC 1505 (Chap 15).

By Anonymous hank, at 9/21/2005 11:16 AM  

...and this is interesting... I didn't know this, but evidently if you post a comment on this blog, and the blog administrator doesn't like or approve of your comment, it will be deleted almost immediately. I went back to find certain comments that I had read previously, and found the message "comment deleted" by blog administrator. Hmmm... must be some coaching going on...possibly by the defense or something, but it is interesting that the same people that are crying out for supposed fairness and justice are now censoring comments. I thought censorship was against the constitution that these supposed "Patriots" are fighting to "uphold". The definition of censorship is "... to remove or suppress what is considered objectionable." Who is to say what is objectionable? Shouldn't all posts be allowed to stay so that the people can have their right to choose?
I just thought that was interesting...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 1:21 PM  

And I find this ineresting. Anonymous, you've hit it right on the head!! Everything I've posted to date has been scrubed / censored. I expect this also will be gone within hours if not minutes. What are you afraid of? My pen isn't poison but honest. It appears your cause must fear the truthful facts and feeds on the fairytales and yarns this whole matter seems to be built on.. Have a nice day....

Yep!!! Sparky again

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/21/2005 2:19 PM  

I'm not the blog administrator, but this I know. The blog administrator "owns" the blog. S/he possesses the right to run the bog as s/he chooses within the terms and conditions of the ISP. If you start a blog, you have the same right. So, what is your problem? Do you prefer to have someone else dictate to you how to run your business? If so, stick around; that day is coming.

"I thought censorship was against the constitution ..." I need some help here. Which provision of which constitution would that be? Please don't say "freedom of the press". Even you know that that provision (as is the case with all provisions) applies to censorship by the government!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/21/2005 2:51 PM  

thanks hank....here's the link....

http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/252_reply_to_gov_refusal_to_produce_delegation_order_to_answer.pdf

link also posted at

http://irwinschiff.blogspot.com/

dk

By Blogger Doug, at 9/21/2005 2:55 PM  

i guess the link doesn't show up good here....see

irwinschiff.blogspot.com

for link to "two documents" mentioned by irwin schiff in this audioblog report......

dk

By Blogger Doug, at 9/21/2005 2:58 PM  

i guess html works here.....

see link here

dk

By Blogger Doug, at 9/21/2005 2:59 PM  

For the purposes of this post these brackets:[ ] will be used in the place of the greater/less than signs used to bracket the html tags.
To place a hypertext link use this format:

[a href="the long url"]the clickable link text[/a]


This example uses exactly the above format:

[a href="http://triallogs.blogspot.com/"]example[/a]

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 3:32 PM  

Why doesn't Irwin call an IRS Prosecution witness as a Defense witness?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 4:38 PM  

So where is the "Million Man March"?

Looks like Irwin Schiff has been pretty much forgotten, just like Lynne Meredith was. At the end of the day, tax protestors have very little loyalty.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 8:44 PM  

Again, Quatloos comes through with flying colors of beautiful insults. Tyranny at its finest. Nice job guys. Wow! Impressive!

No law that makes you liable, though? Only insults? Come on guys...you can do better than that. We ALL totally understand your greatness in insults and fear...now, please...can we move on to something more important, the law?

If you can break from your insults for just a few post (at least) and DIRECT US ALL to the LAW that makes the average American LIABLE for the "INCOME TAX" we can put an end to all the "TP" theories, Schiff will plead guilty like he said he would, the "Tax Honesty Movement" will end, and all the "TP's" and just your average American "living" for TRUTH in the American Way can sleep a little sounder tonight. (speaking of "living" for TRUTH in the American Way...I'm not too sure what you're doing?)

So, the LAW...please guys. Where can we find, in the law, "Income Tax Liability" for your "Average American"? ...or is that too much to ask for?

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 10:13 PM  

Ant,

I have concluded that you and Dale are clearly incapable of reading and comprehending the law when it presented to you.

"Show me the law" is clearly the cry of a blind man who will not see.

Here's one for you straight from the IRS:

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Argument
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

I fully expect one of you to twist it as the blind lead leading the blind will do.

I dare you to publicly challenge the IRS to come after you like Larken Rose.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 10:24 PM  

Anonymous,

Obviously the LAW is too much to ask for when it DOESN'T exist, isn't it? Only insults and fear is what you have....you just proved that again. I guess it's an addiction...you just can't stop, can you?

I concluded that a long time ago. But anyone could make a conclusion of whether they have an "Income Tax" liability or not if they spend a little time studying what is required of them BY LAW.

Okay, bring on your insults if that's all you have.

...back to the Schiff Trail and the "liability" that doesn't exist.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 11:39 PM  

As expected, when the law is presented, it is dismissed.

I've had my fill with your like. I only posted for the benefit of those lurking who are in danger of falling for your bull.

The converstation goes something like:

TP - show me the law
person - here it is
TP - show me the law
person - here it is
TP - show me the law
person - here it is


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

Check it out folks. Don't be fooled by people who cannot comprehend what is in front of their face.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 11:49 PM  

Anonymous,

By the way...

26 U.S.C. 5005(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by subsection 5001(a)(1).

26 U.S.C. 5002 Definitions
(a) In general
For purposes of this chapter—

(4) Distiller
The term “distiller” includes any person who—
(A) produces distilled spirits from any source or substance,

I was capable of reading and comprehending the law when it was presented to me. I don't seem to have a liability for distilled spirits.

On a side note: I hope you are not going to tell me I am already "included" as a "distiller", as well as any person who produces distilled spirits from any source or substance.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/22/2005 12:20 AM  

What?? You wouldn't want anyone in danger of falling for the bull of asking for the law? That's bull? Are you kidding?

I have to say...your insults are becoming quite weird.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/22/2005 1:13 AM  

Quatlooser said:

I have concluded that you and Dale are clearly incapable of reading and comprehending the law when it presented to you.

"Show me the law" is clearly the cry of a blind man who will not see.

Here's one for you straight from the IRS:

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Argument
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf


I'm still waiting for you to present the law. That smelly, squishy excrement you cite is certainly NOT THE LAW.

The document has no document "ID" number, no author, no publication date and is not listed as an official publication of the U.S. Government or U.S. Department of Treasury.

SMACK DOWN rebuttal of that excrement you posted. 688 kb pdf file.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 1:22 AM  

Tony Jibilian v. United States
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Decided June 6, 2005

Plaintiff also appears to argue that there is no law that makes him
liable for income tax. However, I.R.C. section 1(a) imposes an income tax upon the income of United States citizens and resident
aliens. "Gross income" is defined in I.R.C. section 61 as "all income
from whatever source derived," and "taxable income" is defined in
I.R.C. section 63 as being "gross income minus" allowable deductions.

Pursuant to section 1(a), Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1(b) states
that "all citizens of the United States . . . are liable to the
income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from
sources within or without the United States." Finally, the Code
requires that taxes shown to be due on the return be paid with the
filing of the return. I.R.C. section 6151(a).

In United States v. Drefke, the court, while discussing section 6151, stated that "when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required shall pay
such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is
filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal
Revenue Code imposed a duty on [the taxpayer] to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax." 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983) (emphasis in original).

Congress has expressed its intent that plaintiff be liable for income
tax by asserting that "[u]nder the Federal individual income tax
system, an individual who is a citizen or a resident of the United
States generally is subject to tax on worldwide taxable income."
H.Conf. Rep. No. 108-126, at 26 (2003), reprinted in 2003
U.S.C.C.A.N., 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 2, at 736. The courts are also in agreement that "all individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax . . . ." Lovel v. United States, 755 F.2d 517,
519 (7th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff, as a citizen of the United States, is subject to tax upon his worldwide income, and has therefore failed to state a claim on the theory that no law makes him liable for income tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 8:13 AM  

When somebody who matters agrees with you Dale, be sure to let us know.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 9:07 AM  

Anonymous said...
When somebody who matters agrees with you Dale, be sure to let us know.


Define "somebody who matters."

Quatloos!

War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 9:31 AM  

Hey Quatloos guy, can you explain your meaning behind this statement? I'm feeling a little unsettled by it.

War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 10:04 AM  

Anybody outside the irrelevant lunatic nut fringe that constitutes the tax protestor movement.

Pool needs cleaning . . .

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 12:07 PM  

This is FOUR!: * * * *

Any judge that decrees otherwise is ignorant, lying, or an outright tyrant.

So anonymous sycophant posts the following:
Tony Jibilian v. United States
U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Plaintiff also appears to argue that there is no law that makes him liable for income tax. However, I.R.C. section 1(a) imposes an income tax upon the income of United States citizens and resident aliens.


Lets parse that quote of section 1 with the PROPER use of the word "income".

First, we remove this ignorant judge's misuse of the word income in the first instance and replace it with the proper descriptive word:

However, I.R.C. section 1(a) imposes an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) tax upon the income of United States citizens and resident aliens.

Citation of supporting proof

Then we snap the proper definition of income into the parse in place of the word income:

However, I.R.C. section 1(a) imposes an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) tax upon the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities of United States citizens and resident aliens.

Citation of supporting proof

Gross income" is defined in I.R.C. section 61 as "all income from whatever source derived,"...

And likewise, we'll snap the proper definition of income into this phrase:

Gross income" is defined in I.R.C. section 61 as "all gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities from whatever source derived,"...

Citation of supporting proof

Pursuant to section 1(a), Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1(b) states that "all citizens of the United States . . . are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."

Again, putting the correct meanings in the statement:

Pursuant to section 1(a), Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1(b) states that "all citizens of the United States . . . are liable to the EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) taxes imposed by the Code whether the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities is received from sources within or without the United States."

Note also, that the regulation says liable TO, not liable FOR.

It's the Definitions, Dummy

Finally, the Code requires that taxes shown to be due on the return be paid with the filing of the return. I.R.C. section 6151(a).

If no return is filed or a zero return is filed, then no taxes are required to be "paid with the filing of the return". End of discussion of 6151.


This is FOUR!: * * * *

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 12:51 PM  

I want to ask a serious question, I really want to know the answer to this question, I don't want people heading off into rants about "Show me the law". Here goes:

He can't complete a coherent sentence, he can't remember a point from one minute to the next. Can you honestly believe he's anything other than someone suffering from a mental disorder?

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/22/2005 12:59 PM  

PS,

Doug Kenline is a p**sy.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/22/2005 1:01 PM  

Some questions for anonymous sycophant:

1.Is "compensation for labor" "income in the constitutional sense" or is it merely an item of gross income?

2. Is a tax upon "compensation for labor" a direct tax or an indirect tax?

3. Anticipating an ignorant reply about the 16th amendment and some spew about direct-unapportioned taxing powers; Do the Stanton and Brushaber cases support or contradict such assertion that the 16th amendment allows congress to lay a direct-unapportioned tax?

4. Returning to my prior message: If there is no tax assessed, how can there be a liability?

You don't have state property tax liability until the property tax is assessed.

5. Can the Secretary (of treasury) or any delegate assess a tax based upon compensation for labor if such tax is not shown on a return?

(For the Schiff followers, I recognize what Mr. Schiff has stated, so just assume the delegations have been made. This brings the discussion to what section IIRC 6203 allows.)

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 1:02 PM  

Agreed, Frank.

You show them the law and they ignore it. What else can you do?

It's like have a conversation with a 5 year old.

Show me the law

Here is the law

That's not the law, show me the law

Here is the law

That's not the law, show me the law

And on and on and on we go...


If you think of the dialogue taking place in an operatic setting, it's actually quite humorous.

If reason and common sense holds no power in their minds, there is no point in continuing.

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

It's only fair that your highness deigns to explain to us dumb TP's how your superior education tells you the law works. You want to be the dictator, er, leader, then lead.

Pease massa' 'splain to me 'gin, how liability is created when no tax is assessed?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 1:58 PM  

I decided to not hold my breath waiting.

Sec. 6201. Assessment authority

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

Simple logic. If it ain't on a return, and it ain't a stamp tax, there ain't any authority to assess.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 2:07 PM  

Cool...now we're getting somewhere...and with no insults...excellent Anonymous.

I.R.C. section 1(a) imposes an income tax upon the income of United States citizens and resident
aliens. ...very cool...this imposes an income tax. Okay I read that and comprehend it. Now, what section makes you liable for the imposed tax? Or are you saying impose and liability are the same thing? Why does a "distiller or importer of distilled spirits" get to have it so simple and easy...I mean who can argue with "26 U.S.C. 5005(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by subsection 5001(a)(1)."? But your average American doesn't get that? WE can't just open up Title 26 to code section so and so and see "Liable for the taxes imposed for income tax"? We have to get to a "liability" from a million different ways? Again, does that code section really exist? I don't want to say "law" because I will receive insults that I am blinded or that is "bull" to ask for the law.

Section 1(a), Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1(b) - that you mentioned seems to be the only one that says "liable to the income tax". This Treas. Reg has the force and effect of law? This is where every American can see the law that makes us Liable for income tax? This is it? This is the "LAW" that makes us liable for income tax? It's safe to say "law" here right?

Section 6151 is irrelevant until you determine "if a return of tax is required". We haven't got there yet. We're still looking for an "income tax liability".

So let me get this straight, in one code section (ONE sentence) a person can read "liable for taxes imposed" in regards to "distilled spirits"...I mean that is a done deal...no arguments there, but even from this little bit Anonymous put out still there's no mention of "liable for taxes imposed" in regards to "income tax" (minus a Treas Reg...waiting to here back from Anonymous to state whether or not that is the law for "liability of income tax" WE ALL are looking for...and if so, why didn't Anonymous just say that in the first place, WHY DIDN'T THE COURTS JUST SHOW SCHIFF THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? What's the reason for all this other crap?).

Am I wrong in thinking that you should have a LIABILITY for ANY tax before you should concern yourself with paying said tax? And is "imposed" enough, and looking for a "liability" not necessary? Is it that with a Distiller it's right there in black and white but for your average American looking to see if we have an "income tax liability"...we need to go through every color of the rainbow? If that's the case, sounds like something is wrong with the way the "income tax" is being administered to me, sounds like there is something to hide. We don't get it in a one liner in black and white. It shouldn't be that hard to find a "Tax Liability". I guess I'll get insults if I say, "void for vagueness".

Now I guess you will say I'm blinded. No, blinded is where you can't see anything. When something doesn't exist, therefore you can't see it...doesn't qualify you for blindness. It could be that the wool is being pulled over our eyes, though.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/22/2005 3:19 PM  

NO - treas regs are not law. law is produced by the legislative branch, and Treasury is not in the legislative branch. now, Treasury might be able to write regs that apply to Treasury employees. I'm sure those Treasury employees are a bit pissed that they are subject to the regs and we are not. maybe that is why they fight so hard - discrimination!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/22/2005 3:36 PM  

Thanks Hank!

I knew that. I was only hoping Anonymous would admit it.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/22/2005 4:02 PM  

So when is that Million Man March starting? I thought it was today . . .

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 6:05 PM  

hank said...

NO - treas regs are not law. law is produced by the legislative branch, and Treasury is not in the legislative branch.

I was right there with you Hank, to the end of that sentence.

Properly Promulgated Regulations are NOT the law. They only "have the full force and effect OF law".

Federal Register Act

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/22/2005 6:56 PM  

Who would be liable for an income tax? Well, there are only two parties: The one paying and the one receiving. It is only INcome to the one receiving; the other party usually gets a deduction for paying it.

Certainly, neither the courts nor the legal scholars have had any trouble figuring out who is liable, the professional wrasslin' crowd notwithstanding.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 7:35 PM  

Eh? What law did you say just say makes one liable?

Oh, you didn't... Again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 8:59 PM  

So what happened to the Million Man March that was scheduled for today?

I didn't see it on CNN.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/22/2005 9:45 PM  

Lovell v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals
Seventh Circuit
November 28, 1984

Plaintiffs argue first that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government." This is not a basis for an exemption from federal income tax. See Holker v. United States. All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they received any "privileges" from the government. Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment. They are wrong; it does not. U.S. Const. amend. XVI; Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir.1984). Finally, plaintiffs' assertion that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable has been rejected by numerous courts. See, e.g., Davis, 742 F.2d at 172; Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam). Cf. United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n. 1 (7th Cir.1984). Plaintiffs' other arguments against the income tax are equally frivolous. This court recently warned taxpayers who put forth frivolous arguments in bad faith that we would not hesitate to impose sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 38. Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir.1984). See also Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Ekblad, 732 F.2d 562 (7thzCir.1984). Other circuits have imposed sanctions in s 6702 cases, see Martinez v. IRS, 744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Davis, 742 F.2d at 173; Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975, 977 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir.1984), and we believe sanctions are appropriate in this case. Accordingly, theUnited States shall recover, from plaintiffs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this appeal. The government shall file with this court, within 15 days of the date of this order, a submission as to the fees and costs it has incurred on appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 8:45 AM  

The US SUPREME COURT ENDS ALL DEBATE REGARDING INCOME TAXES.

BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 11 (1916):
"…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…"
In BRUSHABER, the Court remarked on the confusion that would multiply if the contentions of radical new taxing powers were acceded to:

BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 12 (1916):
"… the contentions under it (the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 12, 18 (1916): went on to rule on the purpose of the 16th Amendment and the necessity of maintaining and harmonizing the 16th Amendment with the "apportionment" requirements:
"…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…"
"…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."
In 19 18, the High Court confirmed prior decisions in PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165, 173 (1918):
The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…"

END OF DEBATE- NOW COME JOIN US IN GETTING OR REPUBLIC FORM OF GOIVERNMENT BACK AND STOP FIGHTING THE "TAX-PROTESTERS"

THE IRS IS DEFRAUDING ALL OF US AND OUR CHILDREN. HE THAT HAS EARS TO HEAR LET HIM HEAR.

HAVING EYES THEY SEE NOT.

By Anonymous r wesley, at 9/23/2005 10:57 AM  

Deliberately distorting the Supreme Court's holding in "Brushaber" seems to be a passionate pastime for the tax-protester crowd. The "Brushaber" argument, as expounded on countless tax-scam websites, claims that the federal income tax is not applicable to wages and salaries because it is an "excise" tax and excise taxes do not apply to wages and salaries. This is clearly nonsense; see the Pollock case cited below.

Clearly, the courts have had enough. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals not only sanctioned the taxpayer, but also his appellate attorney for making a frivolous argument, noting specifically the constitutionality of the 16th amendment granting Congress the power to tax incomes "from whatever source derived," noting:

In Brushaber, the Court found the 1913 income tax law to be constitutional. The Court also noted that in Pollock [v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), a case that pre-dated the establishment of the federal income tax in 1913], it had previously found the taxing of income from professions, trades, employments or vocations to be constitutional in the form of an excise tax. In light of the sixteenth amendment, however, all taxation of income, "from whatever source derived," was found to be constitutional in Brushaber.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 12:07 PM  

My thanks to Mark Yannone for having posted the audio book, "The Law by Frederic Bastiat" on his blog page.

Well worth the time to listen to.
flogcast.blogspot

Scroll to the very bottom. I listened to the two part version.
10.7 & 10.8 mb.

To that excellent treatise, I suggest this Shock Wave Flash video as a followup:

What is liberty? 1.01mb

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 1:21 PM  

Anonymous 9/23/2005 1:07 PM spews:
Deliberately distorting the Supreme Court's holding in "Brushaber" seems to be a passionate pastime for the tax-protester crowd.

Oh great Omniscient One, we supplicate you please deign to mutter a yes or no to each of the following questions.

1. Is a direct tax still subject to the rule of apportionment?

2. Is labor property?

3. Is compensation for labor property?

4. Is a tax on income derived from property still a direct tax?

5. Is any tax in title 26 laid by rule of apportionment?

6. Is any tax in title 26 a direct tax?

7. Is an excise tax equivilent to a privilege tax; are the to terms used interchangably?

Tick... Tick... Tick...

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 9/23/2005 1:40 PM  

"Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned." Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).

"It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional." Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:56 PM  

Connor v. Commissioner, and Stelly v. Commissioner were (obviously) originated in the so-called "Tax Court". "Tax Court" only gets involved when the so-called taxpayer assesses himself and the IRSS disagrees with the assessment.
That happens when the IRSS believes that the so-called taxpayer was not truthful in his self-assessment. You see, it was the so-called taxpayer who told the IRSS (under penalty of perjury)on his tax form that his wages were taxable, not the other way around!

By Anonymous hank, at 9/23/2005 3:25 PM  

Miller v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals
Seventh Circuit
August 30, 1988

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The present appeal is a patently frivolous one that has generated additional costs for the defendants and this court. Five years ago we warned plaintiffs like Miller that while the doors of the courthouse are open to good faith appeals, "we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments ... Inthe future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax appeals and will not hesitate to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances." Granzow v. C.I.R., 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir.1984). This is such a circumstance. Although Miller is acting pro se, he knew or should have known that his position was groundless. Coleman, 791 F.2d at 71 (a court may and should impose sanctions if a person knows his position is groundless). Each of the three district judges before whom Miller has appeared have taken pains to explain the meritlessness of his position. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir.1984) (reassertion of issues disposed of in prior proceedings is sanctionable). In conformity with our policy for such tax protester cases, Coleman, 791 F.2d at 73, we hereby sanction Miller $1500 in lieu of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rule of App. Procedure.

The judgment of district court is affirmed, with double costs and $1500 in damages imposed against the plaintiff-appellant. Miller is ordered to make payment to the Clerk of this court within thirty (30) days by a check made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 3:42 PM  

dale eastman said:

"Properly Promulgated Regulations are NOT the law. They only "have the full force and effect OF law".

well dale, you do have a great web site, but just because you say so don't make it so.

there are several (3, I think) different kinds of regulations. the only kind that has the "full force and effect of law" are classed as legislative regulations. and they will be so noted in the CFR by the references to the statute or code section from which they were written. other regulations may apply to Treas employees to tell them how to do their job, how to intimidate the so-called taxpayer, and when to back off. a legislative regulation, by definition, cannot expand on the requirements of the statute from which it was written. if it does it does not have the force of law.

By Anonymous hank, at 9/23/2005 3:42 PM  

Anonymous 9/23/2005 2:56 PM attempts to obfuscate by stating:

"Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property...

"Wage" is a statutorily defined term. Only "Employees", another statutorily defined term, have wages. Only government workers are statutorily defined "employees"
examine 3401(c) definition of employee here

A statutorily defined {"wage"} is a subset of the main set {compensation for labor or services}.

A "wage" is compensation for labor, But compensation for labor is not always a "wage"

and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned

Well let's see, You post this lower court ruling that ignores the Supreme Court. I post the Supreme Court's ruling. Hmmm. Who should the lurker believe?

Now, answer the question:
1. Is a direct tax still subject to the rule of apportionment?

Yes or No?

Three letters or two... It's not like you'll wear out your fingers typing the answer.

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 9/23/2005 3:49 PM  

Hank correctly observes:

there are several ... different kinds of regulations.

From the online IRM
4.10.7.2.3 (05-14-1999)
Code of Federal Regulations

1. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register (F.R.) by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into fifty titles which represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Each title is divided into chapters usually bearing the name of the issuing agency. Each chapter is subdivided into parts covering specific regulatory areas. Title 26 comprises the Internal Revenue Regulations and is cited 26 CFR.

4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations

1. The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code and follow the numbering sequence of Internal Revenue Code sections.

4.10.7.2.3.2 (05-14-1999)
Types of Regulations

1. Legislative and interpretative regulations are issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. If the code states "The Secretary shall provide such regulations . . ." , then the regulations issued are legislative. Interpretative regulations are issued under the general authority of IRC section 7805(a) , which allows regulations to be written when the Secretary determines they are needed to clarify a Code section.

the only kind that has the "full force and effect of law" are classed as legislative regulations.

Okay.

and they will be so noted in the CFR by the references to the statute or code section from which they were written.

More specifically, the table of parallel authorities.

Text 1 mb.
pdf 286 kb.

other regulations may apply to Treas employees to tell them how to do their job, how to intimidate the so-called taxpayer, and when to back off. a legislative regulation, by definition, cannot expand on the requirements of the statute from which it was written. if it does it does not have the force of law.

However, an "interpretive" reg will tell when to apply a statute, how to apply a statute, who the statute applies to.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 4:18 PM  

Bravo to Dale and the other so called "TP"ers who have shown/proven the facts and law to back their debate. I am still waiting for the answer to Dale's simple yes or no questions. The are only two reasons why a person or agency wont answer another persons honest legitimate credible questions and that is: 1)They don't know the answer themselves or 2) They don't want you to know the answer. Reading the ongoing debate I seriously doubt the person does not know the answer. Judge for yourself. I wanted to finally chime in, break my silence to ask a couple of questions and biefly tell my story, so others would not FEAR to enter the discussion and ask questions.

Could somebody help me understand this: Some people question whether there is such a thing as a “nontaxpayer”. The federal courts say there is and the U.S. law recognizes “taxpayers” and “nontaxpayers”.

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws”. (Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

Since tax law comprehends numerous types of taxes, it is incumbent upon all persons to determine the nature of the tax at issue. In other words, not one word of the tax code applies to a nontaxpayer.

A well-settled point of law, needing no citation, is that taxes must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language. This doctrine is re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court’s holding in Gould v. Gould [245 US 151 (1917)] wherein the Court stated [at 153]:

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the Citizen.”
Citing United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.

There can be no question that the Court’s choice of words does not permit specious and frivolous arguments such as, “This is how we’ve always done it” or “Our accountant says we have to….” The Court’s message is clear: The law is to be followed “as written” and if any ambiguity is found, the citizen shall not be burdened with the tax.

How does one become a "nontaxpayer" as defined in the court case? Does one have to never get a SS#, never voluntary comply or self assess, never fill out a government contract W-4 or is there a section of code/statue that enables one to "revoke their election"

To make a comment on someone "distorting the words" in hopes to have you believe something that is not true or correct is never more evident than in the IRC. Take the term "person", why would you give it so many definitions? Why does the IRC define "person" as a trust, corporation, estate, etc?
It seems they don't want the average reader to understand the IRC code or they want to try to confuse the reader or have them believe something different. For example: Does anybody remember seeing in the past a road construction sign saying "Your fuel tax dollars hard at work" know I see the same sign but the word "fuel" is eliminated, so it know says "Your tax dollars hard at work" which when the average person thinks of tax dollars they immediately think of Income Tax dollars. When I saw that for the first time I thought how deceptive the government has had to become to continue brainwashing the masses. Why take the word "fuel" out if it's really that fuel tax that pays for the roads to be fixed?

I've been a real fan of Dave Champion of http://www.americanradioshow.us/
From what I've heard nobody will debate him from Quatlooser because as he says "they have no game" He has invited them on the radio show but they constantly refuse to participate in an honest debate, probably for the same reason Dale's simple questions wont be answered. If anybody hasn't heard Dave's archived March 27,2004 show it's a must hear. Dave Champion discusses the moral imperative behind proper tax administration.
Which "tax" are we talking about?
16th Amendment: What did it really do?
Federal courts say that the Tax Code “relates to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers”.
Dave breaks down Subtitle ‘A’ (entitled “Income Tax”) of the Internal Revenue Code so you can understand it.
Who is “made liable” for Subtitle ‘A’ tax?
What do the regulations say about who is required to the use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers?
Form W-9: What force and effect, if any; and for whom?
Dave points out how certain parts of the Code have to be “reverse engineered” to understand what is truly intended.
What is the proper role of Information Reporting, and upon whom?
These questions answered, and more!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 9:53 PM  

Wow...what a beautiful rainbow.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 9:54 PM  

Dave Champion's other educational website is Original Intent

And as a courtesy so you don't have to cut N paste, here's the American Radio Archive

The following are the links to the March 27, 2004 show about income taxes:
hour 1 real audio
hour 2 real audio
hour 1 mp3
hour 2 mp3


The following are the links to the April 3, 2004 show about subtitle C taxes:
hour 1 real audio
hour 2 real audio
hour 1 mp3
hour 2 mp3

Dave answers questions toward the end of the first hour regarding the previous show, and gets into the Subtitle C taxes in the second hour.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 10:38 PM  

How does one become a "nontaxpayer" as defined in the court case? Does one have to never get a SS#, never voluntary comply or self assess, never fill out a government contract W-4 or is there a section of code/statue that enables one to "revoke their election"

If you find out, let me know.

If the only tool you own is a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail.

Guess what everybody looks like to the IRS?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 10:55 PM  

Could somebody help me understand this: Some people question whether there is such a thing as a “nontaxpayer”. The federal courts say there is and the U.S. law recognizes “taxpayers” and “nontaxpayers”.
________________________


Similar to the idea that the income tax is "voluntary" is the claim that a federal income tax return is a form of contract and is therefore voluntary, or invalid if entered into under duress. This claim is also uniformly rejected:

"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation by, despite McLaughlin's protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts." McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).

"Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is 'immune' from the Internal Revenue Service's jurisdiction as a 'nontaxpayer.'

"This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit. 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes upon 'every' individual a certain rate of income tax depending on their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. § 6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 'shall' file tax returns for the taxable year. Considering Drefke's gross income for 1979 and 1980, he was clearly required to file tax returns for those years.

"26 U.S.C. § 6151 states that when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required 'shall' pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the appropriate rate of income tax, a duty which he chose to ignore." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. den., sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942 (1983).

"Furthermore, Olson's attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as 'cost of labor' and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege." Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/24/2005 1:40 PM  

Similar to the idea that the income tax is "voluntary" is the claim that a federal income tax return is a form of contract and is therefore voluntary, or invalid if entered into under duress. This claim is also uniformly rejected:

Is a direct tax still subject to the rule of apportionment?

If yes, the only way a direct-unapportioned tax can be constitutionally collected, is if the Citizen at Liberty consents to become a "taxpayer" and "voluntarily" assesses, (which is to say) "voluntarily" determines an amount of tax due, and signs a Form 1040 under penalties of perjury that such citizen is a "taxpayer".

Is a tax on income derived from property still a direct tax?

If yes, the only way such a direct-unapportioned tax can be collected is if the Citizen at Liberty "volunteers" to pay such tax.

Is any tax in title 26 a direct tax?

If yes, such a tax would be unconstitutional for want of apportionment.

I have not yet set up a webpage showing the evidence that there is no way for the Secretary to assess any tax upon compensation for labor unless it is shown on a return. (see my other posts in various threads of this blog.)

I have not yet set up a webpage showing what limited evidence I have found, which only shows delegation of authority under section 6020(b) to execute a list of forms that does not contain Form 1040.

Did I ask...
Is a direct tax still subject to the rule of apportionment?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/24/2005 2:52 PM  

Yes you did Dale and we are all still waiting for the Quatlooser to answer your simple question. Gee why do you think he can't or will not answer? Again 2 reasons: He does not know or he does not want YOU or ANYBODY else to know. I seriously doubt he does not know.

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/25/2005 12:20 AM  

I know the answer. And I now know how to explain it.

So he's got a BIG problem.

He can't say no because he will be proven wrong.

He can't say yes because it follows that the answer exposes the lawless actions of the IRS even to him.

So he says nothing and looks like he knows nothing.

It's called Cognitive Dissonance

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/25/2005 2:49 AM  

Or maybe he has life on the weekend?

LOL

I'll take my leave so you may talk to yourselves again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/25/2005 4:40 PM  

Or maybe he has [a] life on the weekend?

Or perhaps the IRS Dis-info agents leave the boiler room for the weekend.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/25/2005 6:03 PM  

Have you ever noticed that when people have no evidence or facts supporting their positions, they are generally hesitant to talk about their position or answer questions in depth. When you scrutinize in depth it brings out the truth. Maybe the Quatlooser would comment on this from the IRS.

A Privacy Act request brought this answer from the IRS. "The Internal Revenue Code is NOT POSITIVE law, it is SPECIAL law. It applies to SPECIFIC persons in the United States who CHOOSE to make themselves subject to the requirements of the "special laws" in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government. The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under Subtitle "A" of the Internal Revenue Code."

What's interesting is when you learn what the definitions of the terms "positive law, special law, and trade or business" mean. In addition to which use of the term "United States" is being referred to. When I read this for the first time I couldn't believe what I was reading until I learned how the terms were defined and then it made perfect sense. Maybe someone could help with posting links for those definitions. The terms "Trade or Business" are not what most think. It refers to a government office. Why does the IRS say "specific persons. . . who CHOOSE to make themselves subject" if everyone who earns a living is suppose to be liable for the tax?

I agree Dale with your prediction of one having Cognitive Dissonance. What an excuse he uses to evade answering the question. Having NO GAME must just burn him up. Why else would someone just use insults and hide behind excuses when a legitimate question has been asked of him?

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/26/2005 8:59 AM  

In re Lowell H. BECRAFT, Jr.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Kenneth W. NELSON, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 88-1113.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 1989.

Notwithstanding Becraft's insistence that his argument regarding the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to resident United States citizens raises numerous complex issues, his position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws.

We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non- apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens. See, e.g., Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916); Ward, 833 F.2d at 1539; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir.1984); Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir.1981).

Indeed, in Lovell, one of the more recent cases explicitly rejecting a Sixteenth Amendment argument virtually identical to Becraft's position in this case, the court sanctioned the pro se appellants for raising this and other federal tax exemption claims on appeal. See Lovell, 755 F.2d at 520. If a claim is sufficiently frivolous to warrant sanctions against a pro se appellant, it unarguably supports the assessment of sanctions against a seasoned attorney with considerable experience in the federal courts.

******

Notwithstanding the legitimate countervailing concerns that accompany imposing sanctions against defense counsel, we nevertheless believe that when a criminal defense counsel reasserts an argument in a petition for rehearing which was summarily rejected on direct appeal, and which flies in the face of unambiguous, firmly established law, that attorney exposes himself to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 38. Accordingly, we order Becraft to pay $2,500 in damages. With so many worthy claims waiting to be adjudicated, we are not obliged to stand by silently when an attorney repeatedly breaches his professional responsibility to the court.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 9:27 AM  

...when an attorney repeatedly breaches his professional responsibility to the court.

In other words, F*** the client.

Thine duty is to me, thy dictator, er Thy LORD. Thy LORD reigns supreme so far as thy eye can see, verily I say, thy LORD reigns supreme to the four walls of thy LORD'S courtroom.

Thy LORD hereby declares that thou shalt not expose thine jurors to the actual words of the law. Thou shalt not interfere with thy LORD'S Grand Design.

Thy LORD'S will and purpose be done. Thy LORD'S purpose shall not be approached nor interfered by a mere mortal seeking to expose thy truths other than what I, thy LORD shall decree. For I am thy GOD and thou shalt worship thy LAW as I proclaim.

Clerk Moses, see to it that mine decree be known beyond my universe.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 12:27 PM  

...his position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and ...

We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition.


In a word: bu115hit

I've seen your Ninth Circuit and raise you the Supreme Court.

Lurkers, please compare the statement cited by anonymous and the Supreme Court cases cited on the linked page.

Ask yourself why and how is this lying @55-0 of a judge getting away with ignoring not just one, but TWO Supreme Court decisions that CLEARLY show him to be wrong.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/26/2005 12:42 PM  

"Lurkers, please compare the statement cited by anonymous and the Supreme Court cases cited on the linked page."
_____________

Gee, hadn't you better tell Beecraft, so he can get his $2,500 back? He probably needs it after the Rose conviction.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 3:40 PM  

Sparky said...

And I find this ineresting. Anonymous, you've hit it right on the head!! Everything I've posted to date has been scrubed / censored. I expect this also will be gone within hours if not minutes. What are you afraid of? My pen isn't poison but honest. It appears your cause must fear the truthful facts and feeds on the fairytales and yarns this whole matter seems to be built on.. Have a nice day....

Yep!!! Sparky again

9/21/2005 3:19 PM

Reading you loud and clear on 10/3/2005, Sparky! Hmmm, looks like your cynical assessment was frivolous. Have a nice day, yourself. ;-)


Dale: I'm glad you caught that "liable TO" wording in 26 CFR 1.1-1(b); a lot of people zip right on past that (which was, I'm sure, the plan).


"WHY DIDN'T THE COURTS JUST SHOW SCHIFF THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? What's the reason for all this other crap?" That is a very good question, Mr. ant.


Anonymous cowardly(?) not-silly person 9/23/2005 10:53 PM rightly encouraged people to listen to Dave Champion's archived program from March 27, 2004 wherein he dissects Quatloos/IRS dishonesty. I STRONGLY endorse that suggestion. Do it right now.


Mike Smith referenced a letter from the IRS, which I found also referenced here: http://www.koaa.com/community/listens/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2462&whichpage=6 but I couldn't find the actual letter or any other reference to the author, which according to that page is a Cynthia J. Hill of the Philly IRS office. Any additional info about this would be very welcome.


Anonymous cowardly silly person at 9/26/2005 10:27 AM cited a 9th Circuit Court case decision which falsely asserted that the Brushaber decision held that the 16th Amendment authorized a direct unapportioned income tax. That 9th Circuit decision also invoked the earlier-cited Lovell case, which also made the same false assertion about Brushaber. The second dishonest decision used the first dishonest decision as support for its own false assertion. This is a classic example of the now-sadly-ubiquitous judicial S.O.P. "one judge lies and the next judge swears to it". Yet, notice the lack of concern about this shown by the next (or same?) ACSP in the post immediately preceding this one. A *third* corrupt case (Larken Rose's) is referenced, and where is the ACSP's heart? With tyranny, not truth. If they can lie and get away with it, ACSP is 100% supportive of them continuing to get away with it.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/04/2005 4:48 AM