Thursday, September 22, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial update by Mark Yannone

29 Old Comments:

Listen to this segment and how badly Irwin trashes Larken, saying that Larken "mislead" all his followers.

So between Irwin and Larken, which one is telling the lie?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 2:00 AM  

Which one of you - Dale perhaps, will be the next Guru after Irwin goes to jail for the rest of his elderly life?

There's plenty of money to be made from eager followers who will buy the books you will write and "seminars" you will give. Don't forget to sell DVDs as well.

You can even dare the IRS to prosecute you and pull in more money from true believers for a short time.

Unfortunately for you, it won't last. The law always wins sooner or later.

Any takers?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:18 AM  

What a loser anonymous is. He loves a big beast of a government that is taking more and more of our money and freedom and doesn't have a problem with that. I have been silently following Mr. Schiff for over 10 years and haven't heard him tell a lie concerning imcome tax and big government fraud. anonymous loser go away, you freedom hating big tax lovin loser.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:22 AM  

You know you talk about the law. What law gives the government or the irs the right or ability to collect taxes on individuals.

Irwin has been asking for over 20 years one simple question. "Show us the law" Irwin has even offered large sums of cash to anyone that could produce a law that requires any individual to pay an income tax. SO "show us the law"

By Anonymous Concerned Conferderate Citizen, at 9/23/2005 10:40 AM  

Anon @ 3AM
So between Irwin and Larken, which one is telling the lie?

I wouldn't say either one is lying. They both believe their positions to be true, just like the IRS, DOJ, and Quatloos, for the most part, believe their positions to be true.

On both sides of the issues there are such a broad range interpretation of the law. When I was a taxpayer, I had several accountants prepare returns to see which one produced the lowest tax liability. Each one had different results.

What's important is that we debate on the law and not on dissent among us.

Anon @ 11:18AM
Unfortunately for you, it won't last. The law always wins sooner or later.

Its not the law that's winning, its jury nullification that is winning. No matter what your views on income tax liability are, this is true. If the law was admitted into the courts and it was actively debated through to course of the trial, I cannot see how Larken or Irwin could ever be prosecuted as they both are not WILLFULLY violating the law.

Anon @ 11:22:
What a loser anonymous is. He loves a big beast of a government that is taking more and more of our money and freedom and doesn't have a problem with that.

I can empathize with him to a degree. If he is a tax lawyer or CPA, his very ability to earn a living depends on the income tax staying the way it is.

If you sold asbestos in the 1900's, and people began to produce studies that it is dangerous to people, wouldn't your initial reaction be to discredit and disprove these poeple? Some people out of despiration may even lie and call people names. How can this be any different?

The nature of the average person is to resist any significant change in their lifesyle kicking and screaming.

By Anonymous 1patriot@gmail.com, at 9/23/2005 10:41 AM  

"I have been silently following Mr. Schiff for over 10 years and haven't heard him tell a lie concerning imcome tax and big government fraud."


George Costanza said:

"It's not a lie, if you believe it."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:41 AM  

The US Supreme Court ends all debates.
He that has ears to hear let him hear.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918) ruled that everything that comes in, cannot necessarily be included in "income":
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
In EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920), the High Court confirmed prior rulings:
"The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."
"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects…"
"…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and is not ‘income’, as the term is there used.."
"…we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909…(Stratton’s and Doyle)"
EISNER v MACOMBER also ruled that congress cannot change the definition of "income" in the Constitutional sense:
"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the compensation as being not subject to tax in EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245 (1920):
"If the tax in respect of his compensation be prohibited, it can find no justification in the taxation of other income as to which there is no prohibition; for, of course, doing what the Constitution permits gives no license to do what it prohibits."
EVANS further ruled that the 16th Amendment did not authorize new taxing powers over subjects and the government agreed that this was so:
"Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’."
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power."
INCOME In 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the definition of the word "income" in MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 518 - 519 (1921):
"The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word ‘income’ was so necessary in its administration…"
"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word ‘income’ has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific v Lowe…, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When we add to this, Eisner v Macomber…the definition of ‘income’ which was applied was adopted from Stratton’s Independence v Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909… there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."
The High Court, in SMIETANKA, seemed as if it had become exasperated that the question of the definition of the word "income" had repeatedly been raised.
The word "income" has been wrongfully used by the IRS as including the wages, compensation, or earnings of citizens, when not receiving such wages taxed as a corporate "privilege". In Doyle vs. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court made the clear and unequivocal statement:
"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).

Having eyes they see not, having ears they hear not lest they should be healed and come to the knowledge of the truth: The IRS is defrauding us people. Can't you see. The US Supreme court rulings is all you need. THE BUCK STOPS AT THE US SUPREME COURT. All lower courts must follow decisional law of the US Supreme Court. END OF DEBATE. IRWIN IS INNOCENT LET MY PEOPLE GO.

By Anonymous r wesley, at 9/23/2005 11:16 AM  

The U.S. Supreme Court regularly allows the convictions of tax protestors to stand, as well as frivolous penalties, and called tax protestor arguments "surely frivolous" in the Cheek case.

THAT is what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks about tax protestors and NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars disagree, the ravings of a self-admitted "delusional" twice-convicted felon and his moonbat follows not to the contrary.

BTW, tax protestors HATE AMERICA and want to see it overthrown, not that they would be any less losers then either.

Your regularly-scheduled firewood hauling may now continue. Thank you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 12:28 PM  

Anonymous said...

Which one of you - Dale perhaps, will be the next Guru after Irwin goes to jail for the rest of his elderly life?

Attempting to make it personal while cowering behind the shield of anonymity? Great respect you show for yourself and your position... Coward.

There's plenty of money to be made from eager followers who will buy the books you will write and "seminars" you will give. Don't forget to sell DVDs as well.

If I write books on this subject, it will be posted on the internet, FREE for anyone to download.

That won't stop the IRS from attempting to use section 6700 in heavyhanded violation of first amendment rights to quell the spread of the truth about what the law does, and does not show. 'Oh you made a website, that's selling an abusive tax shelter'. They tried that crap on Larken Rose... His site is still up. I can't remember if it was Dave Champion or Peter Macandless, Maybe it was both; They tried it on them.
Paraphrase from memory: 'You called me in on a section 6700 accusation, Let's look at what 6700 says.' IRS response: 'We are not going to discuss the law with you'.

The very concept of "an abusive tax shelter" is ridiculous. You can take these deductions... Wait, in taking these deductions, you are taking more than we think you should, that's an abusive tax shelter. But I digress.

You can even dare the IRS to prosecute you and pull in more money from true believers for a short time.

I dare to publish my findings on the web according to my RIGHTS under the First Amendment. That is enough these days in the new Amerika.

Unfortunately for you, it won't last. The law always wins sooner or later.

It will be later in this case... Because it will take time to educate the populous as to what the law actually says. Once they learn that, they can't unlearn that.

Once the populous learns the law, the lawless actions of the government will become VERY clear to them.
------------
1patriot, well said. I concur with your conclusions.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 12:38 PM  

Anonymous said..."BTW, tax protestors HATE AMERICA and want to see it overthrown, not that they would be any less losers then either."

LOLOLOL!!!! What's next? And The Tax Honesty movement goes poopie in their pants!

Insults...you have a million of them...maybe more...since that's all you have. You are wasting good electricity with your posts.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 1:37 PM  

This is the most important fact. We have been led like sheep as aour parents were. Remember the Boston Tea party? Those americans stood up, questioned and fought for us. We are too afraid to fight for ourselves today. That is how we were raised. Stay in line, do what your told.

"The nature of the average person is to resist any significant change in their lifesyle kicking and screaming.

9/23/2005 11:41 AM"

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 2:02 PM  

Frederick Douglas said in 1849, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they have resisted with either words, or blows, or by both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/23/2005 2:12 PM  

Anonymous said...
This is the most important fact. We have been led like sheep as aour parents were. Remember the Boston Tea party? Those americans stood up, questioned and fought for us.

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

That's right. Those patriots did not try to evade and cheat the legal taxes they were paying, they rebelled because they believed the taxes were immoral.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 2:13 PM  

"That's right. Those patriots did not try to evade and cheat the legal taxes they were paying, they rebelled because they believed the taxes were immoral."

If you say it enough, it becomes believable. The colonists did not rebel against taxes, they rebelled against taxes levied by a far away government. They understood the necessary requirement of taxation, but they wanted the taxes to be under local control. Truth is, if the King hadn't started cracking down on the widespread evasion of taxes, we'd probably still be part of the United Kingdom. This is historical fact, not tax protestor rhetoric, which is probably why you've never heard of it. Put down the cup of kool-aid and read for yourself on the origins of the War of Independence.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/23/2005 5:10 PM  

Frank,

No argument between us.

I am not a TP.

I was trying to point out the difference between cheating the legal system and working to change it altogether.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 5:17 PM  

The fact is that throughout the history of civilization those that question the right of the sovereign to enforce direct taxation have been regarded as heretics. The rulers make the laws to whatever benefits them for they have the keys to the jail cell....

However, when Queen Elizabeth began her war with Spain, she did not have the resources available at the time because she believed that the sovereign was to be absent in the affairs of the nation's commerce. Thereto, she was forced to ask (request) aid from her subjects. What was the response? Overwhelming. Why? Because before this she understood the proper role between the sovereign and its subjects and that is:

"To be taxed and loved is not to be." Queen Elizabeth I

Would U.S. Citizens and Residents come to the aid of its sovereign today? This sovereign in Washington, D.C. has much to learn from Queen Elizabeth I.

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

This is a Republic, we have no sovereign in D.C. It is a representative government, of, by and for the people, the citizens. The "Government" can and will become a collective Tyrant over the citizens. Direct taxation upon the citizens is the insidious way in which this government has assumed almost total control over the lives, business and activities, both public and private, of the citizens of this country. When an employer in the private sector takes money from the earnings of his employee and sends it to the I.R.S. it is a direct tax. Not constitutional nor statutory, it is illegal, if the employee does not consent to have it taken. That is the Law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:06 PM  

This is a Republic?! Hard to believe when even the very intent of apportionment of taxation in the U.S. Constitution has been repudiated for what the Founding Fathers loathed: direct taxation. Appears to be more of a democracy than a republic since the original intent of its own Constitution has been jeapordy for many years now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:26 PM  

Democracy:
The wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 10:58 PM  

Dagnabbit, tripped over my own ten fingers. That's supposed to be:

Democracy:
Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 11:00 PM  

What do you Quatloosers say about this Federal Judge's comments?

North Carolina USDC Sr. Judge Fox:

Continued Tyranny In America Has
Changed The Constitution

As you decide whether to become more pro active in defense of the Constitution, consider what a sitting federal judge recently had to say – on the record -- regarding the Constitution.

In March of 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Donald Sullivan, an active duty Lt. Colonel, and Jeffrey Sullivan, his nephew -- an active duty Sp4 -- sued the government to prevent the application of the armed forces in Iraq unless and until the Congress declared war, in keeping with the war powers clauses of the Constitution.

A hearing for a temporary restraining order was held before the Senior United States District Court Judge James C. Fox. Note: The hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2003, without the knowledge that the war would start on March 20, 2005.

An official transcript of the hearing can be obtained by going to this site.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf


Remarkably, at this point, Judge Fox says, on the record, that the President and the Congress have been in collusion violating the war powers for a long time and that this long course of history has changed the constitution. He said, “I think that it has occurred over a long period of time, and consequently, there is less hesitancy on the executive branch to preserve [the Constitution]. It’s just like kids who break a rule the first 200 times and after a while they don’t care; they don’t acknowledge that the rule exists…the course of conduct over a long period of time has advanced that collusion, if you will, between those two branches.” (page 20).

Judge Fox, completely on his own initiative, brings up the income tax and offers it as another example of collusion by the President and the Congress that, because it has occurred over a long course of history, has changed the Constitution.

Judge Fox says, “If you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment…And nonetheless, I think it is fair to say that it is part of the constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever set it aside.
Well, I’ve seen that – I’ve seen somewhere a treatise on that, and I think it was --- I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred…Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason…I think there may be something analogous there vis a vis the continued practice of the Executive to have incursions and police actions or to commit the country to hostilities without the formal declaration of war.” (page 22-24).


Acta Non Verba
These comments by an active senior judge are clear evidence that the American experiment in self-government is in serious trouble and America’s Constitution is approaching the same status as China’s "constitution" --- it reads well, but is meaningless.

Civic education, such as contained in this article is important, but education without civic action, especially when confronting governmental tyranny and constitutional torts, has never brought about the necessary reforms.

A Plan for Civic Education and Action to Restore The Constitution is needed.

If anyone hasn't seen Joe Banister along with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas speak truthfully about the income tax and the 16th amendment on CNBC's Special Report with Maria Bartiromo you need to see and hear their testimony for yourselves. You can view it here: http://hearliberty.com/highq.htm

How is it that a sitting Congressman can say that he agrees with Joe Banister (an ex IRS Special Agent) that most Americans don't have to file a form 1040? Don't you think the Congressman has access to information that most Americans do not have? Don't you think the Congressman and ex IRS Special Agent know a bit more about what the law says than the average American?

Quatlooser, what do you say to these 2 very credible men?

By the way we are all still waiting for your answer to Dale's simple 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...
Still waiting for your answer Quatlooser. Supreme court says "Silence equates to fraud where there is a moral duty to speak" Answer the simple yes or no question or go back into the pit you came from. All you can do is insult people by calling them pu**ys and hide when honest and credible questions are asked. You truly "have no game" so stop playing to people's emotions with fear and intimidation of standing up for the truth for what someone believes because that's what the law says.

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/24/2005 12:31 AM  

The address did not post correctly.

An official transcript of the hearing by Judge Fox can be obtained by going to this site.


http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/24/2005 12:42 AM  

Sorry still did not post correctly.

www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/24/2005 12:45 AM  

Let me help you out there Mike.

An official transcript of the hearing by Judge Fox can be obtained by going to this site.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/24/2005 12:49 AM  

OK last time, since I can't figure out why it's not posting correctly: This is the rest of the address. Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/24/2005 12:49 AM  

Thank you David

By Anonymous Mike Smith, at 9/24/2005 12:51 AM  

Admin, perhaps you could use this page?

HTML tag tutorial

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/24/2005 2:50 AM  

I submit the quote again.

Frederick Douglas said in 1849, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they have resisted with either words, or blows, or by both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/26/2005 6:53 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person led off this page with:

"Listen to this segment and how badly Irwin trashes Larken, saying that Larken "mislead" all his followers.

So between Irwin and Larken, which one is telling the lie?"

Irwin is mistaken about what Larken said.

Feel free to correct him.


r wesley said: "All lower courts must follow decisional law of the US Supreme Court. END OF DEBATE."

If only that were true! Unfortunately, the lower courts DON'T follow, and the people are too ignorant to see that and respond appropriately. Becraft has a good brief on this on his site, all about just the issue of whether the "income tax" is a direct or indirect tax. The USSC says indirect, yet most of the circuits say direct! Others do follow the USSC and say it's indirect, and at least one says it's a hybrid of both! Quatloos, of course, is very happy with this perpetual due process violation, and where are the people? Too busy to be bothered. So, no, the courts don't have to do anything. They are free to trample our rights. This is why we need JAIL4Judges.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/05/2005 4:18 AM