Tuesday, September 27, 2005

powered by Audioblog.com

19 Old Comments:

Defendants have never been allowed to argue the law during the evidentiary part of the trial.

A twice-convicted felon should know this by now.

Looks like the spin for Irwin's conviction has already started.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:28 PM  

Defendants have never been allowed to argue the law

And what law would that be, Quatloser?

Still waiting to see you guys post the law that Irwine is alleged to have broken.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 5:32 PM  

26 U.S.C. section 1.

No legal or constitutional scholar has trouble finding it, a twice-convicted felon and his pro wrasslin' supporters notwithstanding.

But you just keep on sticking your head into the sand and going "Woooo! Woooo! Woooo! It doesn't exist!"

Nobody who matters cares what you think, which is to say nobody outside the lunatic fringe that constitutes what is left of the tax protestor movement.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:35 PM  

26 USC 1 eh? ok. if anyone can talk to Irwin, they should remind him that the "judge" brought up 26 USC 1 when he asked one of the witnesses if he ever read 26 USC 1. Irwin should recall that witness and ask him to read it in court - specifically the sentence where it says that "so and so is liable for the tax on wage income".

By Anonymous hank, at 9/27/2005 5:56 PM  

The bucks stops at the US Supreme Court.

Do some homework BITCH and look in the index of the IRC AND post your findings on what you find regarding penalties, payment and liabilities for income taxes.

If you fail to post we will all conclude that you are a looser and is unable to support your position with any statue.

IRWIN will win this trial and all the IRS employees who illegally collect income taxes will have to go on welfare.

All the jury needs to see is that the IRC has no liabilities, and no penalities nor requires any payment for income taxes. If the jury was to take the IRC into deliberation, they would come out in about 2 minutes and acquit Irwin based on the fact that there are no penalties, payment or liabilities listed in the index under income taxes.

The corrupt judge will try to hide this information from the jury.

We may not win every battle, but we will continue to fight no matter what, unless you show us the law and cite the statue. IRC 61(A)only imposes a tax it does not make one liable for the tax imposed. If you can't figure that out then you are a lost cause. THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MINUTE.

tHERE ARE ALOT OF TAXES THAT ARE IMPOSED, but are you liable for every tax imposed? of course not. Think outside the box they've put you in and come and join the lawful group. US.

By Anonymous YO MAMA, at 9/27/2005 6:03 PM  

Haaank, I know you know better.

"Wage" is a statutorily defined term.

I think you meant to say:
26 USC 1 eh? ok. if anyone can talk to Irwin, they should remind him that the "judge" brought up 26 USC 1 when he asked one of the witnesses if he ever read 26 USC 1. Irwin should recall that witness and ask him to read it in court - specifically the sentence where it says that "so and so is liable for the tax on compensation for service gross income".

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 6:03 PM  

And what law would that be, Quatloser?

Still waiting to see you guys post the law that Irwine is alleged to have broken.

To which Anonymous replied:

26 U.S.C. section 1.

So my understanding is that Irwin, according to you, has broken the law in section 1?

What is the legal duty upon Irwin according to section 1?

A legal duty is a command to action or a command to refrain from action by law.

What is the action commanded to be done or not done in section 1?

What is the prEscribed or prOscribed action in section 1 that Irwin did or did not do?

Please quote the exact words outlining this duty.

26 USC section 1

If "Nobody who matters cares what you think, which is to say nobody outside the lunatic fringe that constitutes what is left of the tax protestor movement" then why are you here arguing with us?

Dinner time. I'll be back to discuss more details of section 1 in a bit.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 6:41 PM  

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/courts/cases.html

So where are we in the flow?

Thanks!

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 7:02 PM  

Heloooooo??? Anybody home? Read 26 usc 1. It only imposes something on married person or surviving spouse. I think irwin and Cindy are neither. So much for what the Referee knows.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 7:20 PM  

Where in the Constitution does it say that the magic word "liable" has to be used? It doesn't. That is just another of Irwin's follies.

Funny that there are only six people attending the trial. So much for tax protestor "loyalty"!

And what happened to that Million Man March that was to take place last Thursday, anyhow?

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 7:44 PM  

Returning to IRC section 1

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 8:17 PM  

fortunately there were tax protestors around 280 years ago so pathetic communist supporters(look up the 2nd platform of the communist manifesto...the income tax)can live here in the US and what's left of our freedoms

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 9:22 PM  

The Founding Fathers protected taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION and not the fact of the taxes themselves. Indeed, all of the colonies had their own taxes, and one of the first things the Founding Fathers did was to pass taxes to support the new government.

I'm sure that the Founding Fathers had to deal with deadbeat losers then too.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 10:33 PM  

Why, were you around back then too?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 10:43 PM  

The Laws Irwin Broke are:

18 U.S.C. 371 Conspiracy To Defraud The United States.

26 U.S.C. 7206(1) Filing False Federal Income Tax Returns

26 U.S.C. 7206(2) Aiding and Assisting in the filing of false Federal Income Tax Returns.

26 U.S.C. 7201 Attempt to evade and defeat payment of tax.

Apparently none of the so-called tax patriots know how to read a Grand Jury Indictment!

By Anonymous Ischiffbs, at 9/27/2005 10:51 PM  

How did Joe Banister (ex IRS Special Agent, CID) and Vernice Kuglin get aquitted? Did they have some magic jury or did they have a thinking jury and a fair judge who allowed them to present their case?

Tell me Quatloser, how does a sitting Congressman Ron Paul of Texas say to the American people on CNBC's Special Report with Maria Bartiromo cable news that Joe Banister is technically correct and that most Americans don't have to pay the income tax? Watch it for yourself.

http://hearliberty.com/highq.htm

Don't you think the Congressman knows what's going on here? Why else would he go on the news cast with Joe Banister? Why is he saying he has a problem with the way the 16th Amendment was ratified?

Instead of insulting so many people help us all understand why an ex IRS agent and a sitting Congressman would go on TV to spread their message if it weren't true?

Why

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:07 AM  

18 U.S.C. 371 Conspiracy To Defraud The United States.

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY


Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

-STATUTE-
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


Sure looks like this one needs more than the allegation that a conspiracy exists. Looks like it needs, oh, say, an OFFENSE stated. Like "did conspire to blow up some federal thingy" or "did conspire to defraud by doing X".

26 U.S.C. 7206(1) Filing False Federal Income Tax Returns

26 U.S.C. 7206(2) Aiding and Assisting in the filing of false Federal Income Tax Returns.


TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 7206. Fraud and false statements

-STATUTE-
Any person who -
(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury
Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or


Irwin doesn't believe he is liable. It says right in his court documents, show him the law and he'll plead guilty. In other words, His belief will change if he is shown the law.

(2) Aid or assistance
Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; or...


Again, show him the law and he'll plead guilty. Without the law, there is NO EVIDENCE that the return is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter.

If the judge proclaims it so, without placing his finger on the law that makes it so, then we have the arbitrary and capricious rule of despots, tyrants, and sycophants. This is NOT rule of law.


26 U.S.C. 7201 Attempt to evade and defeat payment of tax.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

-HEAD-
Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

-STATUTE-
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law...

The tax is imposed by and in Section 1. The tax is imposed and calculated upon "taxable income". No taxable income, no tax. No tax: No evasion.

No imposition of liability, no payment required. No payment required: No evasion.


Apparently none of the so-called tax patriots know how to read a Grand Jury Indictment!

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions

-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"

-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

INCLUDES

Apparently none of the so-called CPAs and EAs know how to read a statute.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/28/2005 12:23 AM  

Banister got acquitted because he argued that as a member of the tax bar he had a privilege to help his client (who was convicted and is in jail tonight and for the next five years) file a "protest return" -- the case did not involve Banister's personal tax liability, since according to his own lawyer's admission Banister had been paying his taxes all along.

Kuglin was acquitted because she showed that she sent three letters to the IRS which were unanswered. This was before the IRS started publishing its "frivolous arguments" notices on the internet; her defense would fail today. (Although she was acquitted, she later entered into an agreement to pay ALL of her back taxes, interest, and penalties to avoid her home being foreclosed upon, in addition to her criminal defense fees, i.e., she ended up much worse off than if she had just paid her taxes in the first place).

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/28/2005 12:29 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"The Founding Fathers protected taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"

I'm guessing you meant "protested", right? Obviously they didn't "protect" that.

"and not the fact of the taxes themselves. Indeed, all of the colonies had their own taxes, and one of the first things the Founding Fathers did was to pass taxes to support the new government.

I'm sure that the Founding Fathers had to deal with deadbeat losers then too.

Quatloos!"

Agreed with all but the implications I'm sure you intended these comments to carry.

To protest fraud is not to be a deadbeat loser, IMO (though a case could be made if the view is adopted that the present tyranny is unbeatable; I'll leave that argument for another time). Defending fraud, or attacking those who protest it, OTOH, is to be far worse than a deadbeat loser; it's to be an active supporter of evil.


Anonymous cowardly silly person also said:

"Banister got acquitted because he argued that as a member of the tax bar he had a privilege to help his client (who was convicted and is in jail tonight and for the next five years) file a "protest return" -- the case did not involve Banister's personal tax liability, since according to his own lawyer's admission Banister had been paying his taxes all along."

Actually, according to the juror whose letter is posted on Joe's site, that's not why he was acquitted. I would be interested to hear what Satan might be whispering to you regarding why Banister was prosecuted in the first place, though -- given that you apparently do recognize the frivolous nature of the gummint charges, even though you are loathe to admit the true depth of that frivolity.

Re: your assertion that Joe "had been paying his taxes all along", I'm sure he has. He's been diligent in determining which taxes those are.

"Kuglin was acquitted because she showed that she sent three letters to the IRS which were unanswered."

Well congratulations, you told the truth for once! You should have stopped there.

"This was before the IRS started publishing its "frivolous arguments" notices on the internet;"

Ohhh... stop... STOP!

"her defense would fail today."

Awww. You were doing so well for a moment there! I understand, though; truth which contradicts your lies can only be acknowledged if it's immediately "spun" somehow, even (especially?) with unprovable assertions.

"(Although she was acquitted, she later entered into an agreement to pay ALL of her back taxes, interest, and penalties to avoid her home being foreclosed upon, in addition to her criminal defense fees, i.e., she ended up much worse off than if she had just paid her taxes in the first place)."

And of course some celebration of tyrannical victimization, for good measure. Yep, that's the

"Quatloos!"

way!

And, they weren't *her* taxes, as I'm sure you well know (but will refuse to admit).

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/06/2005 9:01 PM