Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial update by Mike Golden

posted by David Jahn @ 9/28/2005 05:02:00 PM  

16 Old Comments:

It seems to me that ones who are attacking Schiff are proving and agreeing with the point of his whole defense. If the government refuses to uphold the constitution, then we as a country are governed by a "criminal" organization.

Also Quatloos, has his/her head up his bum. The tax code DOES exempt the "american citizens" from paying taxes. I would refer him to 2 documents

1.Treasury Decision 2313.
Which states:

Treasury Department
Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Washington, D.C., March 21, 1916


To collectors of internal revenue:
Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that INCOME ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations IS SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

NONRESIDENT ALIENS are NOT ENTITLED to the SPECIFIC EXEMPTION designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, BUT ARE LIABLE FOR THE normal and additional TAX upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS , who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return OF THE INCOME THEREFROM ON FORM 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in BEHALF of their NONRESIDENT ALIEN PRINCIPALS.

The person, firm, company, copartnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or association, and insurance company in the United States, citizen or resident alien, in whatever capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal, or payment of fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, profits, and income of whatever kind, TO A NONRESIDENT ALIEN , under any contract or otherwise, which payment shall represent income of a NONRESIDENT ALIEN from the exercise of any trade or profession within the United States, shall deduct and withhold from such annual or periodic gains, profits, and income, regardless of amount, and pay to the office of the United States Government authorized to receive the same such sum as will be sufficient to pay the normal tax of 1 per cent imposed by law, and shall make an annual return on Form 1042. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

You probably noticed that the document stated: NONRESIDENT ALIENS are NOT ENTITLED to the SPECIFIC EXEMPTION designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law.

Here is what that section states:

2. IRC Sec. 6654.

Which sais:

Sec. 6654. Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax.

(a) Addition to the tax. ....

(e) Exceptions.


(1) Where tax is small amoun ....
(2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.
No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection

(a) for any taxable year if -

(A) the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months,

(B) the individual did not have any liability for tax the preceding taxable year, and

(C) the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States
throughout the preceding taxable year.

If the judge, the IRS, or any prosecutor wants to make arguments about the "tax code", maybe we should use this play from the IRS's own playbook.

Did I mention that 2313 is the only document ever issued that assigns tax liability?

Have fun explaining this one away Quatloos. I hope this gets through to Schiff.

9/28/2005 6:00 PM

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:06 PM  

You got me on this one. I agree. I've also been looking through the index of the IRC and for the life of me I can't find where one is liable for income taxes, is required for payment of income taxes or where there are penalities for none payment of income taxes. I apologies to everyone for my ignorance.

We know you TP's are right, but we can't let you win. It would be devasting to the powers that be. Please give in and just pay your taxes. Thank you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:45 PM  

I suggest you read this regarding your 2313 post. It is in error.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/misunderstandings/td2313.htm

Read Pete Hendrickson's book, it will provide you with a lot of good info, instead of the erroneous stuff floating around the Internet.

This is why some people are losing court cases. Their defense is based on error.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:50 PM  

The link was cut off in the above post.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/misunderstandings/td2313.htm

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:51 PM  

The link keeps getting cut off.

http://www.losthorizons.com/
tax/misunderstandings/td2313.htm

td2313.htm should be on the end.

You may have to put the 2 lines together to get to the site.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 5:53 PM  

I just wanted to add what the word "quatloos" means and where it came from.

See below:

Quatloo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The quatloo is a fictional currency that featured in the Star Trek episode "The Gamesters of Triskelion". The currency was used by the disembodied Providers of Triskelion. Having grown bored with their supreme intelligence, "the Providers" were reduced to betting on the outcome of gladiatorial competition between their captives. Wagers were made in quatloos.

Quatloos have become an in-joke within fandom.

They have been mentioned in episodes of the Matt Groening created series The Simpsons and Futurama.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 6:17 PM  

The link keeps getting cut off.

READ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 7:14 PM  

If you start the Millions man march I will go and support you all. I get it now after looking in the Internal Revenue Code and seeing that the law listed liabilities, penalties and payment for other taxes but did not list liabilities, penalties, and payment for income taxes.

Sorry it took me so long to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now lets get to Las Vegas and support Irwin and company. Irwin is correct, the IRS need to have a delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury which must be published in the Federal registery in order for the IRS to collect income taxes. Since there is no listing in the Federal registry, which any of you can look up if you don't believe me, then the IRS has no statutory authority to do what they did to Irwin.

Who'd thunked it that I Quatloos would ever side with you TP's. I have to admit, your persistance and my willingness to check the IRC for myself, has now convinced me.

THANK YOU ALL, I LOVE YOU, and I apologies if I insulted anyone by my previous post that were submitted in ignornace. Much Love and peace.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 8:23 PM  

Yes, only by deception can the few remaining TPs make it appear like there are more. But of course NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar and NO major civil rights group supports any TP theory.

A few nutters from the lunatic fringe, pot smokers, and milita types, and that's about it. And pretty much all of them would be classified as losers in many aspects of their lives.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 9:20 PM  

Anonymous said...
Yes, only by deception can the few remaining TPs make it appear like there are more. But of course NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar and NO major civil rights group supports any TP theory.

A few nutters from the lunatic fringe, pot smokers, and milita types, and that's about it. And pretty much all of them would be classified as losers in many aspects of their lives.

Quatloos!

9/28/2005 10:20 PM

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

Agreed.

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

Dale and company seem to think their diatribes and name calling will somehow change court opinion.

Who will step up to be the next "guru" when Shifty is given a life sentence? How sad.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 10:09 PM  

Just a couple of facts to help clear up why there appear to be so few who understand the truth about the "income tax"...

First, the parasites in this country would be out of jobs post haste if their lifeblood (the tax the majority unknowingly pays) was cut off.

Second, the repercussions from admitting the truth behind the income tax (that it does not make the average person within any particular state liable for any tax) would reduce the federal government to nothing. Revealing such massive fraud might well lead to bloodshed against those who have carried on such massive fraud.

Third, reduced standards of education and propoganda make the majority of people in this country simply unable to comprehend the law as it is written. The propoganda/brainwashing they receive help to ensure that even when logic is used upon them, they refuse to hear it.

Fourth, the tight control of the media in this country makes it extremely difficult to even get a whiff of the truth out to enough people so that the truth can move beyond being percieved as crazy talk by fringe groups.

There are many ways to show exactly what the "income tax" applies to.

Understanding of indentured servitude and slavery makes is clear that it cannot apply as people believe it does.

Understanding who has the power of direct taxation, what direct taxation is, and what entity direct taxes can be levied against makes it clear that the income tax cannot apply as people think it does.

Understanding of the USC and CFR makes it clear that the income tax cannot apply as people think it does.

Of course, facing this truth is not for the faint of heart as it leads to a string of seemingly endless abuses by the federal government (debtors prison, property tax fraud, theft of property under color of law, concealment of the true powers of a jury, rules of evidence, ...).

The rabbit hole is deep indeed...and if one wants to spread the knowledge one soon realizes that one will quickly be dubbed as a tinfoil hat wearing freak if one is not very careful in the way information is spread.

Getting the average person in this country to see the truth is comparable in difficulty to convincing the average fundamentalist christian that one should not base arguments on faith, but rather on reason...or that laws imposing one persons views upon others are unjust.

Hopefully the revealing of some of the ugliness in our government that is currently going on will make people more capable in believing that the government can be wrong.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 11:26 PM  

You know when I was a little kid we lived in an apartment building on the first floor of a two-story building. Every Christmas my parents use to tell me that Santa Claus came down the chimmeney and placed gifts underneath the tree.

Since these were my parents, who loved me and nourished me and looked after my welfare, I believed them without question. They were my authority figures, why would they lie to me.

It never crossed my mind, that the chimmney taped to the wall was made of plastic, coupled with the fact that we lived on the first floor of an apartment building. For years, I believed SAnta came down the Chimmney and left gifts.

I also use to believe that if I left my tooth under the pillow, the tooth fairy would take it and replace it with money.

When I ws a child, I thought like a child, and I acted like a child, and I believed like a child. But after becoming a woman, I put away childish beliefs and began reading for understanding, truth and knowledge, and I put little faith in authority figures, without first doing some research.

I know a lot of you find it hard to believe that the authority figure in your life would lie to you. They do for various reasons.

Check things out for yourself and don't believe anything until you check it out for yourself. Irwin always said, "don't believe me, read the IRC yourself and see if you can find any listings for an income tax liabilities, or a listing for income tax payment, or a listing for inceom tax penalties. Then he would sell the IRC (The law) so you could be informed.

I have yet to see a criminal commit a criminal act and then use as his defense a penal code, or in this case the IRC.

But I have seen criminals run from the penal code, like a vampire running from a cross. The judge in Irwin's case readily comes to mind. WHo would ever believe, that a judge would stop an alleged criminal from using the law as a defense. What kind of judge would do such a thing?

Yo mama

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 11:47 PM  

The main point is that the 16th amendment is considered law at this point by many Americans. If the amendment was properly ratified, then it is legal law, but again people..is it moral law? If the 16th amendment is only legal, but not moral, then when the time comes that we have the Nuremberg Trials here on the income tax, there will be many questions presented to demonstrate that those who enforced the amended law were conscience of their actions that the law had violated property and privacy rights of Americans. If you enforce a law, even if it is considered legal law under the authority at the time, but is later determined to be immoral and to have impuned the functioning of society, then you can not claim to be innocent of such crimes commited enforcing the amended, immoral laws. The Nuremberg Trial in Germany clearly demonstrates this point.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 11:58 PM  

The main point is that the 16th amendment is considered law at this point by many Americans. If the amendment was properly ratified,

It wasn't, according to Mr. Benson.
The Law That Never Was

It doesn't matter anyway. The 16th Amendment ONLY acts upon the Supreme Court, and ONLY in regard to "income" which is gain or profit from corporate activities.

Sixteenth Amendment Income is...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 12:08 AM  

The Bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.
You are all right, there is no law that requires anyone to pay income taxes. All you have to do is lok in the index of the Internal Revenue Code under liabilities, payment, and penalties. If you find income tax listed then you are obligated to pay. Trust me you want find it.

Irwin even offered to pay $50,000 to anyone who could find the law that makes anyone liable for the payment of an income tax. No one has found the law to this day. Quatloos the offer is still on. If you don't want the money, post the findings and I will gladly show it to him.

Regarding the 16th Amendment:
In 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed once again that the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing powers in its ruling in STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103, 112 -114 (1916):
"Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollack… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment."
"…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.."
"…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business.."
Also in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed prior rulings on the 16th Amendment:
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…"
Yo Mama, yeah baby I'm back.
I think Yo Mama is gonna start herself a Million Woman March to Las Vegas, since you Punk-Ass men are to afraid to go.
Any of my sisters want to join me?
I'll be there on October 3, 2005. Bring a sign ladies. Any man wants to come (no pune intended) you are welcomed.

Yo Mama

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 1:17 AM  

"Anonymous said...
Yes, only by deception can the few remaining TPs make it appear like there are more. But of course NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar and NO major civil rights group supports any TP theory.

A few nutters from the lunatic fringe, pot smokers, and milita types, and that's about it. And pretty much all of them would be classified as losers in many aspects of their lives.

Quatloos!"

I totally agree with you, although I am sure there are more than just the few you named as "would be Tax Protesters". If a person has a "tax liability" and is not paying it or is protesting the tax "they know exist", this is not right. And I am glad that "NO accredited legal or constitutional scholar and NO major civil rights group supports any TP theory." That is a good thing.

Nice statement Quatloos...I believe everyone here agrees with you. However, what's your point?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:10 AM