Thursday, September 29, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial update by Mike Golden

20 Old Comments:

SECTION 6331 INFO LINKS

My current 6331 web page

Supporting links for my page not presently on my page:
IRC Sec. 6331
Sec. 301.6331-1 Levy and distraint.

I have additional information which will be incorporated when I re-write the 6331 page and move it to my new web site.

Some of that info is here

Some other info
here (77 kb pdf) and
here (70 kb jpg)

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/29/2005 4:49 PM  

§ 61. Gross income defined

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services,
including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

Title 26 USC

§ 63. Taxable income defined
Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

Since I apparently don't own a pair of "THM" cross-eyed glasses, I don't see the wiggle room that you "TC[heater]M" types see. Seems rather straightforward.

But, please let your insanity rule the day and show me the workings of several deluded minds. Please.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/29/2005 5:31 PM  

Hey, Dale, why can't you get any law professors to agree with your argument?

Or are you smarter than they are?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 5:35 PM  

Dr. Ward Dean can't find his income tax liability either! Too bad, Ward, nobody who matters agrees with you.

Quatloos!
______________________

Next, Defendant asserts (doc. 71) that he is not required to pay income tax because no statute makes Defendant “liable” for the income taxes at issue. On the contrary, it has been repeatedly held that the tax code imposes a tax on personal income such as Defendant’s,and the federal statutes referenced in the indictment properly impose criminal penalties based on failure to pay taxes. See Coleman v. C.I.R., 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986); Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Sansone, Stone, supra. As well, it is a crime to corruptly endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of the taxation laws. See United States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Popkin, 943 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s motions to dismiss (docs. 67, 71) are DENIED.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 6:10 PM  

At least Irwin will have a supporter who can give him medical care during his last days at the Greybar!

Maybe they can get Steve Swan to come over too and it can be like old home week.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 6:28 PM  

So while Americans continue to battle over Cecil Rhodes successfull institution of socialism in Amerika via the 16th Amendment, thousands of other Americans know the Republic is lost forever. Just today, while they battle in court in Las Vegas over Cecil Rhodes legacy, thousands more talented and wealthy Americans have already packed-up and moved-out to new destinations that spell individual liberty. Say Goodbye to the U.S. economy and its Gross Domestic Product....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 7:39 PM  

Frank,

If you actually took the time to read and understand ALL of Title 26 USC, you would see that "income", "employee" and "employer" are actually defined, otherwise it would be unconstitutional, so they buried the definitions in the code. The government has you fooled you along with millions of others. Lucky for you they did, or psychopathic misanthropes like you and the quatloos mob wouldn't be able to satisfy their perverted pleasures!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 7:55 PM  

But why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars agree with tax protestors?

Hell, not even the ACLU will give tax protestors the time of day.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 8:11 PM  

No one will go on the record, becuase they know the courts are corrupt, any court case will be rigged, as anyone with an IQ over 1 would be able to see as to what is going on at Irwin's trial, and they know that IRS gestapo will make their lives a living hell too!

Not too many people will go to battle with a giant when they know it will be the fight of their lives, and they will probably lose.

That's what the irs and government rely on...FEAR and INTIMIDATION!

I say the emperor has no clothes, unlike most of the US ctizens!

As long as Mr and Mrs Johnny Sixpack can put food on their tables, and pay their mortgages and SUV payments, they will obey the status quo.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:54 PM  

Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

Hmmm, still sounds pretty straightforward, still waiting for a pair of super-dooper tax protesting glasses so that I can see the "real" truth behind the words.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/29/2005 10:26 PM  

Taking things out of context is a sure way to derive at any conclusion that you want.

"Wages" of whom?

Whose wages are taxable?

Yes, there is an income tax law in this country, BUT to whom does it apply?

Seems straight forward?

Yes of course! Everyone from idiot to scholar is surely confident that the government goes out of its way to be straight forward, so everyone can understand every law. That way there will never be any reason for lawyers to try cases, nor any reason to have any precedents for the laws.

If only there were cases in this country that show that the government and its representatives and its employees never lied, or committed fraud.

If only!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:04 PM  

"But why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars agree with tax protestors?

Hell, not even the ACLU will give tax protestors the time of day."

How do you know that there are none who agree? I believe that many know the truth...but are either afraid to speak it or complicit in the fraud.

Try this: Go up to someone you know and tell them that the income tax does not apply to them. When one claims such, one steps into "fringe nut-job" territory in the eyes of those they they state such to.

Convincing someone of something opposite to what they have been conditioned to believe their entire lives is hard.

Take the 10 planks of communism (used to tell if a country is communist or not):
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
...do you have to pay property tax to keep your land?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
...sounds kind of like our income tax to me.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
...the death tax is a strong step towards this.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
...levies and liens by the government against those they go after under color of law for disobediance.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
...we call this the federal reserve.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
...can we say FCC and DOT?

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
...control through subsidy and regulation along with various branches of government.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
...others know more on this than I do...

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
...government planning, suburbias

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
...We call this public education.

However, tell your average person that the U.S.A. is well on its way to being a communist country and they will look at you like you just grew a second head.

Another problem is that the truth is ugly indeed. Most people are to terrified to even look at the truth...but we must if we want to regain our freedom.

As to Frank, either you do not understand that both "employeer" and "employee" are legal definitions that make so that the average american does not have "wages" or you intentionally left that part out to confuse those reading here. Reading the law without understanding of what a legal term is results in misunderstanding of the law.

By Anonymous KiteKaze, at 9/29/2005 11:44 PM  

Reading the law without understanding of what a legal term is results in misunderstanding of the law

Which sums up tax protesters to a "T".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/30/2005 12:40 AM  

hmm

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/30/2005 12:51 AM  

Frank Buckner said...

Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash


Here's the rest of what you didn't post Mr. Buckner.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/30/2005 1:01 AM  

psst, dale. I'm going to let in you in on a secret, gather round.

I really don't care what you "think" is right. How's that for a secret. I'm not trying to "convince" you that your tortured reading of the law is incorrect and plain stupid. I want you to continue to believe what you believe. The amusement factor that you generate is beyond description. So, please continue to pontificate as to how the entire legal community is wrong and dale eastman is right. Love this stuff.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/30/2005 12:03 PM  

So, please continue to pontificate...

Thankee Mr. Buckner.

[Brings hand to chin and resting chin in hand says] Hmmm. Whatever shall I pontificate about in my command performance for Mr. Buckner...

[Dropping hand from chin in a start] A HA! I know what I shall educate Mr. Buckner upon.

[Turning to face Buckner]
Mr. Buckner, Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

Lurkers, please note the following silence from Mr. Buckner proving he's got no game. (The purpose is to leverage him into interaction if only to make my statement about his silence incorrect.)

And even if he does reply to this one, please go back through the prior blog threads and notice the times Mr. Buckner has ignored specific posts directed at him.

Mr. Buckner, I'll even extend the same offer I extended JG to you.

buckner.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/30/2005 3:52 PM  

Mr. Buckner said:
But, please let your insanity rule the day and show me the workings of several deluded minds. Please.

As you wish.

buckner.html

Mr. Buckner only please

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/30/2005 4:31 PM  

Blog thing changes my mailto command to something else.

Your link to my email address in on your page.

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 9/30/2005 4:35 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person asked:

"But why is it that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars agree with tax protestors?"

Tax protestors? Like whom? Or are you referring to tax fraud protesters, like me? Joe Banister is an accredited legal and constitutional scholar who agrees with me, but neither of us is a tax protestor. Maybe if you began using accurate terminology, your point would become clearer. You do want your point to be as clear as possible, don't you?

BTW, according to dictionary.com, "protestor" isn't a word.


Frank sure got quiet. Not that he was really saying anything anyway, of course, but he's about the only flying monkey here who *isn't* anonymous so it's sort of nice when he chimes in, if only to post things like a link to his blog page that contains... nothing but a link back to this page. Well, and some frivolous derogatory remarks, but then that *is* his "value-added content", eh?

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/07/2005 8:09 AM