Friday, September 16, 2005

There is a break in the trial with no hearing today. I'm sure all of the parties can use the rest. Court will resume on Monday September 19th.

75 Old Comments:

Looks like its time for another 'weather underground' to surface for this movement. Too bad they didnt succeed in the 70's

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 10:18 AM  

If the government claims there is a law providing that individuals must file and pay income tax why don't they state the law?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 1:26 PM  

If the government claims there is a law providing that individuals must file and pay income tax why don't they state the law?

Was that question rhetorical?

By Anonymous Rhetorical Questioner, at 9/16/2005 1:59 PM  

"If the government claims there is a law providing that individuals must file and pay income tax why don't they state the law?"

"Was that question rhetorical?"

I do not think that the question is rhetorical.

By Blogger BOBT12, at 9/16/2005 8:51 PM  

Really want to ask that question?
Or are you simply having trouble figuring out what "income" means? If you fall into one of these categories, the Quatloos! Tax Protestor Forum is for you!
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/

jg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/16/2005 9:33 PM  

It all boils down to this: a tax on what a man earns from his labor is a direc tax upon a basic right--the right to labor. The United States Constitution protects citizens in the states from such a tax being levied on them by the Federal Government--both BEFORE and AFTER the 16th amendment. While a tax upon foreign or corporate earnings may be constitutionally legitimate, it is otherwise an imposition of servitude to the government to force a man to give up a portion of the fruits of his labor.
We have the absolute RIGHT to keep all of the fruits of our labor, because they are our PROPERTY. Every American MUST wake up to this.
In my opinion, when every American realizes this, and acts on it, then we will have truly realized the "American Dream".

By Blogger The Tarquin King, at 9/16/2005 9:49 PM  

So is Irwin crazy crazy or just crazy wrong?

Funny how little support he has gotten for his trial, and how quickly the interest in it has evaporated.

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/17/2005 8:57 AM  

The first time I posted on here, I said some of you sound like a bunch'a "commies". I took a bit of crap. I read your comments and conceded. Okay, maybe it was a little too much for some of you. I'm pretty open minded and when I'm wrong, I can admit it. It seems to me I may not be as school educated as some of you. I am however, well educated in life. I am still able to remember way back to my world affairs class in school. Maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between what's going on here and communism.
The way I'm seeing this, it's starting to look more like I was right calling you "commies" and I shouldn't have wimped out. Not only do you want to live in a free country for free, but you must belive censorship is okay for you but screem like hell because the government stops Erwin and Cindy from publishing books that clearly are anti-American. I post a message on this board and my opinion differed from yours. Just like the book burnings, if it isn't they way you think, burn it. Hmmmmm... Sounds pretty close to me but like I said before, Y'all have all that big school learnin'.

Maybe a little double standards thing?

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/17/2005 12:40 PM  

Now delete that one, this one and the next 50 I write... I have plenty of time and I love staying up writing to you all. Kinda' makes me feel good you must see me as someone that could do Cindy harm. Not my intentions nor would I want to.
I have plenty I could be saying if I wanted to cause her trouble, so go ahead delete delete delete.

By Blogger Sparky, at 9/17/2005 1:05 PM  

The public does not like tax cheats.

Your time would be better spent supporting candidates to lower your taxes LEGALLY.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/17/2005 2:33 PM  

Is it cheating to pay zero taxes if that is what THE LAW says you must pay?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/17/2005 2:47 PM  

But neither you nor I, at the end of the day, are the ones with the authority to say what the law does say. The Constitution gives judicial authority to the courts.
There have been so many attempts to claim the income tax is a direct tax on wages that the courts rejected they no longer even consider that argument worthy of commment and just call it frivolous; since it is without legal merit.

If you want to discuss what the law does say, the Quatloos! Tax Protestor Forum is for you!
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/
(so this blog can stay on topic about the current trial)

jg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/17/2005 5:36 PM  

You are a very funny person.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/17/2005 5:57 PM  

I'll stay right here, thank you.

If you want to "discuss the law" here's my email
dalereastman at sprintmail dot com.

I will post the discussion on my own web space, edited for clarity. If you complain of the editing, I will show the complaint and link off page to show what the pre-edit words were.

You got the cajones to discuss the actual written words of law?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/17/2005 6:31 PM  

JG.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/17/2005 6:46 PM  

But neither you nor I, at the end of the day, are the ones with the authority to say what the law does say.

When a tyrant in a black robe decrees there are five lights, except when he decrees there are three lights, and simply by looking I see this many lights:
| X X X X |
THEN THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS! Regardless of the syphilitic spew of a reading impaired clown in a black dress.

Well JG, I'm still waiting for your email. I've got the web page set up for our discussion. All I need is your input.

Tell you what, I'll start. See JG.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/18/2005 11:29 AM  

"Is it cheating to pay zero taxes if that is what THE LAW says you must pay?"

Tell that to Larken Rose. I'm sure he will touch his palm to his forehead and say, "Duh, why didn't I think of that?"

The world is not flat, my deluded friend, and wishing it were does not make it so.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 1:42 PM  

Your failure to show the the law is noted.

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 9/18/2005 6:10 PM  

Dale,

No one here needs to show you anything.

If you follow the "advice" of tax cheats and charlatans long enough, the U.S. Justice System will show you how the prison system operates.

Why don't you invest your energies into supporting candidates that promise to lower your taxes legally instead of following schemes to cheat?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 6:29 PM  

Gee Dale,
I see your lack of imagination extends to using TNG analogies to make your "point".

www.irs.gov has all the regulations and laws you need, should you refrain from reading them with a cup of tp kool-aid in your hand. Heck, I don't like paying taxes, but just because you don't like a law, isn't an excuse to find reasons to not obey it.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

§ 61. Gross income defined



Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) General definition
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;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/18/2005 6:34 PM  

Mr. Buckner quotes a section 61(a) phrase, highlighted with bold font: gross income means all income from whatever source derived,

Any American working in America, exchanging labor (property) for money (labor) does NOT have income.

Income is a constitutionally defined term. The use of the phrase "gross income means all income from whatever source derived" applies only to corporate privileges.

Free clues, read this page and the next three.

Come back when you have more knowledge than you presently do.

Free hint, you need to start your argument from the position of the phrase that follows the one you highlighted. The one you highlighted does not apply. Neither does the one that follows, but it fits better than what you have just highlighted.

If you haven't responded before I eat dinner and watch a show, I'll make a post to help you...

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 9/18/2005 7:11 PM  

Frank,

Don't try to argue. Save your common sense for those who will listen.

He will continue to claim black is white all the way to prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 7:20 PM  

Quantloos: (definition)
A bunch of frothing government agents incapable (as usual) of stating the law that makes the average person in the US liable for income tax.

Not really worth debating such cretins as first they shout that you aren't following their rules, then they shout that you are stupid. Never do these rabid authoritarian lackeys refute the law (which they would have to do to show tax liability where it does not exist) or respond in any meaningful manner other than personal attacks.

If the government was actually trying to enforce the law rather than coerce and defraud those that pay taxes (via threats, misinformation, and illegal prosecution), this trial would not even be taking place.

If anyone doubts it, go to paynoincometax.com and read the court documents for yourself. Irwin clearly trounces all accusations (by using the law), but is still somehow in court...

If you are on the fence, ask yourself this:

Do you want to have due process of law when someone in the government comes after you for some reason?

Irwin and those like him are not getting such. What makes you think you will?

Ignore the fact that it would be unconstitutional for the income tax law to make the average person in the US liable for income tax.

Should due process be followed?
Or should the government be allowed to lock up anyone it wants for any reason?

If the government does not have to show the law that they claim you violate, then they are effectively able to lock up anyone at any time for any reason.

~KiteKaze

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 7:35 PM  

See what I mean?

KiteKaze is a perfect example of "black is white".

One can cite the Constitution and www.irs.gov until one is blue in the face. They will still come back with this "show me the law" nonesense as if you cited blank pages. Reason and common sense is something they lack.

Let the tax cheats get what's coming to them for their deluded beliefs.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 7:56 PM  

Mr. Buckner,
In view of the posts that followed, I Apologize for calling you buckyboy. You at least post under your own name, so unlike the gnats and mosquitos nipping at my heels.

You at least have made an attempt to answer my challenge. Thank you.

Now, I said I would help you.

First, a replay of section 61, abridged:

(a) General definition
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;


There are two parts to the above sentence. Part 1: Gross income means all income from whatever source derived.

Part 2: including (but not limited to) the following items;

Gross income means all income from whatever source derived. means gain or profit derived from corporate activities. See this page and the three pages that follow it.

I do not have corporate gain or profit, I do not have corporate privilege, thus, the first part does not apply to me. Nor does it apply to most American Citizens.

In simple terms, the first part of the statute says
A means B. That part stands by itself.

Adding the second part, the form is A means B including C, D, & E. This can be parsed so that the section can read just like the following, without changing the meaning:
A means B
A means C
A means D
A means E

When it is put back together,
Part 1: Gross income means 16-A "income."
Part 2: Gross income means "compensation for services."

Compensation for services is NOT (16th Amend.) "income".

Compensation for services IS "gross income."

That is what you should have made a point of.

Once you concur with that inevitable conclusion, I'll make the next point.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/18/2005 8:36 PM  

Dale,

When is your trial?

Have you been caught yet?

Will you dare the IRS to prosecute you like Larken Rose?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 8:45 PM  

The
trial is expected to go on for six weeks and I think most people that
live out of state that are planning to be there will come down for the
finale, the last week. Irwin is respected and loved from coast to
coast for his steadfast efforts to expose the government fraud
purpetrated on Americans for the past 77 years.
Irwin spoke at the 2004 We the People convention in front of 350
experianced tax honest proponents, and he recieved a standing ovation.
I hope that someone close to him at this moment will convey these
sentements to him, so he can just focus on winning his case.
It is very important that Irwin get some council on board ASAP.
Without an orderly, systematic presentation, he stands to loose the
attention of the jury. The jury is made up of just average people that
have never heard of "the income tax fraud", and will have a huge pill
to swallow just understanding that issue alone. The jury also needs to
be focused on one of the most important eliments of this case, the
element of "willfulness".
In my opinion, a defense attorney in a hostile court, is somewhat
like a violinist playing an unknown concerto. He's got one shot to
convince the audiance (the jury)of the beauty (truth)of the piece (the
case). Why doesn't the composer of the piece just play it himself?
Because he's a composer, not a violinist!!! Irwin is a genius at what
he does, but he's not an attorney!!
Oh, I know all about pro per representation, and there IS a great
time to do that, but not in a criminal tax case. Every tax honesty
case , especially ones involving "heavy hitters" Like Irwin Schiff,
must be won, not only for Irwins sake, but for everyone that is
currently holding the IRS at bay.

By Blogger Quince Eddens, at 9/18/2005 10:22 PM  

Dale,

You misunderstand. There's nothing you can say that would allow my mind to convolute enough to except that black is white and vice versa.

Your (Schiff's really, you just regurgitate his tripe) interpretation of the tax laws is wrong. You see a word and look deep into it attempting to find a hidden meaning - there is none.

In the words of the famed Dr. Freud - Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Or if you prefer:

"Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces."
Sigmund Freud

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/18/2005 10:38 PM  

That's okay Mr. Buckner. You just keep posting as you are. I see you for what you are. Others will too.

Section 61 (a) provides that gross income includes `all income from whatever source derived.'

Specific and singular challenge to you: Admit or deny that this definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word `income' is used in its constitutional sense."

That's the challenge, Here's the goad:

I don't have income in its constitutional sense.

That's because I don't own corporate stock, and I am not a corporation.

You have a choice to make.

Admit or deny that "income" is used in its constitutional sense in section 61(a).
1. Make the wrong choice, and I cite specific authority to contradict you.
2. Make the right choice and I move to the next point.
3. Fail to admit or deny, and you show the world you "got no game".

Your move.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/18/2005 11:38 PM  

Dale,

He answered your question.

You didn't answer mine, however.

Why don't you invest your energies into supporting candidates that promise to lower your taxes legally instead of following schemes to cheat?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/18/2005 11:50 PM  

There is no such thing as "income in it's constitutional sense".

Same way there is no such thing as "income in it's Christian sense" or "income in it's Muslin sense" or "income in it's Thursday sense". Income is income and income is taxable.

But, I did do some research for you and here you go:

Nations with no personal income tax:

Andorra
Bahamas
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
Vanuatu

Have a safe trip.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/19/2005 12:17 AM  

"There is no such thing as "income in it's constitutional sense." -- Frank Buckner

Hook, line & Sinker

Would you like a napkin for that egg on your face.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/19/2005 12:22 AM  

Your footnote also says:

"While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby."

And how does this help your argument?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 12:35 AM  

You seem to be a little confused as to what the challenge was about:

"Admit or deny that "income" is used in its constitutional sense in section 61(a)."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 1:09 AM  

You seem confused.

It is clear from the footnote that income in the "constitutional sense" remains unchanged in its all-inclusive nature.

As Frank wisely put it, "income is income and income is taxable".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 1:17 AM  

I love this mindset:

Nations with no personal income tax:

Andorra
Bahamas
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
Vanuatu

Have a safe trip.


What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

You should recognize the communist have taken over by all of the tell tale signs. Ever growing national debt, huge deficit spending, and the largest trade deficit in the world.

What was the worlds leading producing nation is now the worlds leading debtor nation.

The last thing these commies need are free thinkers. YOu'll just muck up the works. It would be much better if you just left the country.

In today's world, if you don't think like a communist, you're anti-American. Imagine that.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/19/2005 1:36 AM  

David,

You've got it all wrong. These are the laws we live by in our society. If you don't like the laws, you may exercise your right to vote to change them. Those who violate the law must live with the penalty.

Maybe you can answer the question:

Why don't you invest your energies into supporting candidates that promise to lower your taxes legally instead of following schemes to cheat?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 1:45 AM  

-------------------------
You've got it all wrong. These are the laws we live by in our society.
-------------------------

From what I see, the government isn't bothering itself with laws. They just do whatever they want. From what I have witnessed, the government evades question, and asserts authorities they don't have. 6020b is a good example. Or, how about the way they fraudulently access liens.

They were able to prosecute Larken Rose without ever addressing the findings of his years of research. They prevented him from showing the jury his research, had the prosecution devote its efforts to villifying the man and then had some lacky in a black robe declare his findings as wrong without offering one single explanation.

That's a clever tactic, but It seems to me that our government had a perfect opportunity to diffuse the matter by finally addressing the issues. Instead, they have thrown fuel on the situation.

Clearly the laws are being used to oppress the people. The government uses its unlimited resources to do whatever it wants. It won't even recognize petitions for redress of grievances. Moreover, there have been numerous request for the government to sit down and address the issues in an open meeting, but they refuse.

Why is it that people are bound by the law, but the government can do whatever it pleases?

-------------------------
If you don't like the laws, you may exercise your right to vote to change them. Those who violate the law must live with the penalty.
-------------------------

This statement needs correcting. "Citizens" who violate the law must live with the penalty. Judges, prosecuters, IRS agents and everyone else on the side of the government are free to violate the law and go unpunished and unrefrained.

Regarding your dream of implementing changes through elections, that is easier said than done. Prior to ballot access laws, changes in power occurred with regularity, but today's ballot access laws put an end to that. We haven't seen a change in the major parties since they have been enacted.

-------------------------
Maybe you can answer the question:

Why don't you invest your energies into supporting candidates that promise to lower your taxes legally

-------------------------

What makes you think I don't already invest my energies into supporting candidates that would lower taxes?

-------------------------
instead of following schemes to cheat?
-------------------------

Sounds like a conclusion of law. I don't know of any schemes to cheat. I know there are a number of people that have come to differing connclusions about the meaning of our income tax laws, and I know we have a government that will do everything it can to evade the questions they ask. It won't answer them, it won't meet with them, and it ignores their petitions for redress of grievences. That should concern every citizen in this nation.

Does that concern you?

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/19/2005 7:21 AM  

Again, I am going to laud Mr. Buckner for having the stones to stand up for his position, argue it, and use his own name. I don't have to respect his position, and I don't because it is wrong. I DO have respect for Mr. Buckner for is attempt, under his own name, to defend his belief.

As to the lurker that nipped at my ankles in the post following the post with the "hook, line, and sinker" link stating:""While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby."

And how does this help your argument?
"

What argument? I'm showing you what the law says and what the law means, by showing 'official' documents that support my statements.

Let me attempt to make this clear (sigh) again.

Section 61(a) contains TWO (2) concepts. You have focused on the second concept, asking me "...how does this help [my] argument?"

Just like the original drafters, you are trying to blend the two concepts to obfuscate and confuse the novice to the subject.

I am showing what those two concepts are, and how they are merged. I am SEVERING them from each other so they can be examined SEPARATELY.

They are merged much like how a chicken leg and thigh are blended into a quarter piece of a chicken. You want to discuss that quarter piece of chicken because you need to not have the average person understand that the quarter piece of chicken is composed of a leg and a thigh.

"CHOP!" Two pieces, a leg... and a thigh. I'm discussing the thigh right now with Mr. Buckner, and you are attempting to bring the leg back into the discussion. It requires its own SEPARATE discussion, AFTER I prove the thigh is of no consequence.

Moving from the chicken analogy to an algebraic analogy of section 61(a):
A means B including but not limited to C, D, E, & F.

Since C is actually 61(a)(1) Compensation for services.

"CHOP!"
I'm SEVERING sections 61(a)(2) through 61(a)(15) as unessential to the two concepts I am showing. They are set aside as unnecessary for this discussion. This leaves Compensation for services as the important point for your side's position that what everybody gets paid for working is taxed.

"CHOP!"
A means B including but not limited to C

"CHOP!"
A means B
and
A means C
Where:
A is gross income;
B is all income from whatever source derived;
C is compensation for services (labor)

THUS:
Gross income means (is) all income from whatever source derived;
Gross income means (is) compensation for services (labor)

Returning now to Mr. Buckner's statement, "There is no such thing as "income in it's constitutional sense."

Mr. Bruckner is provably wrong on that specific statement. Cite

Since Mr. Bruckner is provably wrong, and it has been shown that there IS such a thing as "income in it's constitutional sense" it behooves a prudent person to find out what income in it's constitutional sense actually is. This will be done before I return to your observation that "the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby".

Since you can't be bothered to make up a pseudonym to use in posting here, I have to assume that this post is yours also: As Frank wisely put it, "income is income and income is taxable".

Your statement, or more correctly, your attribute to Mr. Buckner, is exactly 201.5% correct... And meaningless.
Income has a specific constitutional meaning. What I receive in exchange for labor is not income within the definition of the "constitutional sense" of the word "income".

Once the importance of that point is made, and all the points that follow because of that point, we can return to your issue of "the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income". I'll even give you a little teaser; I have not claimed that I don't have "gross income".

Apologies to all for the length of my post. The devil's in the details, and the details MUST be explained, MOST IMPORTANTLY for any novice that happens across these blogs, and secondarily, so the tyrants in (nasal) official positions of authority (/nasal) can observe the inevitable reality of more people learning the truth.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/19/2005 12:26 PM  

"Income has a specific constitutional meaning. What I receive in exchange for labor is not income within the definition of the "constitutional sense" of the word "income". "

I'm sorry. but this is an incorrect understanding.

What is it with you people? Tax revenue, however undesired, is part of our society.

Just because you don't want to pay doesn't make any of your straw grasping "arguments" true.

Yes, the 16th Amendment was ratified and legal. Yes, income is income in every sense of the word. Ditto for every other loophole you think you have found.

Quit trying to find some loophole to cheat. You will end up in prison.

Why don't you invest your energy in supporting legal ways to lower the American people's tax burden?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 1:51 PM  

Anonymous said...
It is clear from the footnote that income in the "constitutional sense" remains unchanged in its all-inclusive nature.

Notice to the novice:

See how subtle these liars are. See the sleight of hand; The anonymous LIAR swapped income in the "constitutional sense with statutory gross income.

A cut-n-paste from this cite states:

"While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22 (a)."

Statutory gross income is the items listed in section 61(a)(1) through 61(a)(15). Stated differently; The items listed in section 61(a)(1) through 61(a)(15)ARE statutory gross income.

Income in the constitutional sense is NOT the items listed in section 61(a)(1) through 61(a)(15). And also stated differently; The items listed in section 61(a)(1) through 61(a)(15) are NOT income in the constitutional sense.

Statutory gross income is income in the constitutional sense. HOWEVER, statutory gross income is NOT income in the constitutional sense.

Leg and thigh. "CHOP!"

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/19/2005 1:54 PM  

Dale,

As usual, your comments are twisted and wrong.

I will take my own advice and not spare with you any longer as you will indeed continue to argue that black is white all the way to prison. I suspect that you are in reality an upstanding citizen who pays his taxes but loves to twist logic into a pretzel for enjoyment.

If, on the offchance, you are not paying your taxes due and truly believe what you have been posting, I pity you and wish you the best. I hope you get the help you so clearly need.

I leave it to the readers here to evaluate your references to chopping chickens as sane or not.

Good luck with your life...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 2:27 PM  

"Income has a specific constitutional meaning. What I receive in exchange for labor is not income within the definition of the "constitutional sense" of the word "income". "

Anonymous replied...

I'm sorry. but this is an incorrect understanding.

An assertion made without proof may be refuted without proof. Your statement is wrong.

Just because I don't have to give proof to refute such blatant misrepresentation doesn't mean I won't give proof. Proof is HERE and HERE and is best understood if the lurker starts reading HERE

Anonymous reply continues...

What is it with you people? Tax revenue, however undesired, is part of our society.

Power to tax is prescribed, authorized, and circumscribed BY LAW. Thus "LAWFULLY" collected "Tax revenue ... is part of our society."

Just because you don't want to pay doesn't make any of your straw grasping "arguments" true.

I cite the law, supreme court rulings, and Congressional records and you say I am making "arguments".

What then does that make your unsubstantiated assertions?

Yes, the 16th Amendment was ratified and legal.

Bill Benson is alleged to have proof refuting your unsubstantiated assertion. I say alleged because I have not read his book.

It doesn't matter if the sixteenth was properly ratified or not. The sixteenth amendment does NOT apply to anything but "income, in its constitutional sense", and the sixteenth amendment acts ONLY UPON THE SUPREME COURT. (Brushaber, Stanton, et al.)

I suppose you want me to copy every word on my web page to the blog, since my experience with your ilk is 'don't confuse me with what the law and don't confuse me with what the supreme court has said'.

Yes, income is income in every sense of the word.

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong. (by the way, the link above has the proof refuting your tripe.)

Ditto for every other loophole you think you have found.

And your citation of the law the closes this (alleged and contrived on your part) loophole is?...

Quit trying to find some loophole to cheat. You will end up in prison.

Resort to threats of force if I don't think the way you tell me to. GFYS.

Why don't you invest your energy in supporting legal ways to lower the American people's tax burden?

I am. It's called reading the "Constitution" and it's called reading the "Internal Revenue Code" and it's called reading the "Treasury Regulations".

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/19/2005 2:31 PM  

There you have it folks. What the law says versus what some anonymous coward asserts backed not by logic, reason, and quotations of the law, but by threats of resort to violence.

That is not "rule of law". That is tyranny and dictatorship in every StarWars Evil Empire sense of the concept.

I'm 10-7 this channel.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/19/2005 2:41 PM  

Not sure how to use the blogger to create an identity, but I am NOT the anonymous that has been posting in reply to Dale, et al. I am just an observer.

Reading the 40+ posts here and the rest of them on the other update blogs it sure seems to me that the Schiffites seem to at least have some foundation in their position, what with Supreme Court rulings and such. But the other anonymous guy/gal just keeps repeating code sections and insults, without once stating the implementing regulations that hold a person liable for the income tax (asked for by Schiffites early on). That anonymous and others that defend the government position don't seem to have anything to back up their claims other than "geeze, everybody pays taxes, so we should just pay them and forget about it" and "your just a cheater". Schiffites on the other hand (for whatever their reason) have decided to question at least this one tax and seem to have stumbled across a smoke a mirrors game that is played out perfectly by those like the other anonymous who do not question anything.

I agree, that it sure seems like nowadays every body pays an income tax and it is really just part of our culture. Just like many other things that go against the Constitution like waging war without formal declarations (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), and invading privacy rights with motions like the Patriot Act, but that doesn't make them right. The question is posed why not support changes in other ways? Well, many people support alternate parties (Green, Libertarian, Constitutional Party, and remember Ross Perot) and I am sure many write their reps, but unless you have a lot of money, you are pretty much out of luck.

The question really just comes down to showing an actual law, implemented by regulation (or whatever is required). Evene Schiff (read his many motions) has agreed to plead guilty if they just show him this law. You the what the answer would be if he were being tried for murder, rape, robbery, assault, speeding, etc. The law would be noted in plain english by chapetr/section/verse. But why does the governement and those on this blog that defend them not do the same?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 3:14 PM  

i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here

By Blogger philflynn70558665, at 9/19/2005 4:26 PM  

Not sure how to use the blogger to create an identity, but I am NOT the anonymous that has been posting in reply to Dale, et al. I am just an observer.

Click Radio button other and insert a "handle" in the name box. Doesn't even need to be your own name.

By Anonymous Your handle goes here., at 9/19/2005 5:58 PM  

Any word on the trial today?

Lots of argument here, but no updates yet.

Thanks

By Anonymous Ben, at 9/19/2005 9:16 PM  

Lets not forget about the revolutionary war... George Washington and all the others that signed the Declaration of Independance were declared by the existing govt. to be traitors and to be hanged/shot/jailed we are the decendants of the victors and they are patriots and heroes... But at the time they were ciminals accused of treason, theft and murder...

Just a point to consider, sooner or later it is all going to go bust...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 9:17 PM  

One more thing...
The Term Voluntary Compliance

If the drafters meant to comply they would have left the work voluntary out of the sentance...

Also it is akin to the 2nd amendment "the right to keep and bear arms" that right is what made us free, there were no ifs, ands, buts or except...

Thr current court system is only protecting the corporate interests of the supposed 2 horse race... doesnt matter really which one wins its all the same outcome...

$3 gas who would have even dreamed that.... perot was laughed out of the presidency in part due to his wanting to balance the budget with a addl gas tax of 5 cents a year for 10 years... now we give it all to opec and loose our children in the fight to keep them free so they can raise fuel costs...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/19/2005 9:35 PM  

What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

In a word Jahn, Bullshit.

Dale - since you choose to use the Glenshaw to "prove your point", you have to use it all.

" SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power."

"And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

Income is taxable, no matter how you choose to believe.

But, truly speaking, I don't give a jahn's ass if you pay your taxes or not. The "thm", all hundreds of you, don't amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis. Choose to live in a state of paranoid delusion if that is what makes you happy.

Schiff will be found guilty and will be sent to jail. If your cash job pool cleaning income manages to catch the attention of the IRS, I promise - if the drive isn't too far - to attend your trial to see you prove your "case" to a jury.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/19/2005 11:44 PM  

--------------------------
What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

In a word Jahn, Bullshit.
--------------------------

Bullshit you say...

That's interesting Frank. You defend your love it or leave it statist attitude through vulgarity and denial.

What I'm trying to understand is why you care so much. What are you so worried about?

If Irwin fails to prove his case in a corupt court system, he goes to jail. If he wins, he walks and nothing much changes.

Why are you in such a huff?

Are you concerned about what would happen if we abolished income tax? I can tell you. Basically nothing. The government would simply raise taxes on all of its other remaining legitimate revenue streams by about 25%. After that, it would have no reason to track our incomes and banking habits. Gee, it sounds awful.

What is it you embrace about the income tax? Why are you so compelled to defend it? Do you enjoy having the government prying into every aspect of your financial life? Do you take pleasure in filling out your annual financial declarations?

Will you throw a party when the government is ready to implant little tracking devices in your grandchildren?

Tell us about all of the things you love about your big government and its social programs. Is it the deficit spending? Is it the burgening national debt that we can pass onto our children? Is it our inability to produce products and maintain our stature in the global market as evidenced by the foreign trade deficit?

It seems to me that our whole nation is headed to economic collapse and our government and courts are totally corrupt, and all you can do is whine about a few folks who raise question about the oppressive income tax system.

You really need to take a look around a put things into perspective.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/20/2005 12:20 AM  

I have a taker on the invite. I know not who he is.

His post was on point.

JG.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 12:45 AM  

Mr. Buckner said: Dale - since you choose to use the Glenshaw to "prove your point", you have to use it all.

Before I procede to excoriate your attempts at obfuscation; Just a reminder for you and the lurkers as to what that point and several others are:

Section 61 (a) provides that gross income includes `all income from whatever source derived.'

This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word `"I_N_C_O_M_E"' is used in its constitutional sense.

So point 1: "I_N_C_O_M_E" is a Constitutionally defined term. The dictionary meaning no longer applies.

Point 2: The items of (assumed) gross income listed in sections 61(a)(1) through 61(a)(15) are NOT Constitutionally defined "I_N_C_O_M_E".

Point 3: This Constitutionally defined "I_N_C_O_M_E" becomes common gross income via the action of the first phrase of 61(a); "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived".

Point 4: The item in section 61(a)(1), specifically "compensation for services" is NOT constitutionally defined "I_N_C_O_M_E"

An apple (16th A income) is a fruit (gross income) however a fruit (gross income) is not always an apple (16th A income) sometimes it is an orange (compensation for services).

"INCOME" and "GROSS INCOME" are two separate terms. You can NOT squish them together willy-nilly.

" SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power."

"And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

Income is taxable, no matter how you choose to believe.


Yes. Income is taxable.

Income is used in its constitutional sense. I don't have income in its constitutional sense, therefore, I don't have income.

So when are you going to quit trying to make into income, that which is not income?

It's the Definitions, Dummy

And I remind you again, I have NOT denied having "gross income".

Here's another SCOTUS citation for you:
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 [16th] 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 [in the 16th A] 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.

Perhaps you should read this page and rethink your position, because I assure you, the lurkers are.

Also note:
Income DERIVED from "salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service" is not "salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service"

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 1:54 AM  

Don't fooled by scam artists!

"Gross Income Defined"
"Sections 61(a) vs 22(a)" Irwin Schiff is Wrong!

Many believe because of Irwin Schiff that wages, salaries & tips are not income and are not taxable as such. Why? Because Irwin Schiff says so that's why and "he's the Self-Proclaimed leading authority on the income tax" self-proclaimed I mind you. He takes completely out of context what was actually said so it would say what he wanted it to say and mean instead of what it actually really says and means. Now it is a well, known fact that courts give great attention and importance to what the actual intent was of Congress regarding statutes they enacted.

Schiff has always contended that Congress removed the enforcement provisions from the code when they went from the 1939 code to the 1954 code by removing wages, salaries and tips from the list in section 22a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1939 code when they changed it to and became section 61a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1954 code. Irwin Schiff now has proved his own theory on "Gross income Defined" of the 1939 Section 22a vs 1954 Section 61a code wrong.

Schiff is now using a footnote not a part of the actual decision of C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass 348 US 426 (1955) and "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No.1622" to back his theory that he does not have income in its "Constitutional Sense" because in the Glenshaw Glass case they refer to "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622" in the footnote. His new contention is that what was meant by the intent of Congress in this report is that "income" in its "Constitutional Sense" means only corporate profit even though that is not what they said. Corporate profit is mentioned nowhere in either the "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622 or in the "C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass" case.

Now here is why you must verify everything and not take some Self-Proclaimed Guru's word for anything. In the 1939 code they listed wages salaries and tips as items of income. When they changed to the 1954 code they removed these items but added "not limited to" to the statute meaning that gross income was not just limited to the items listed and added "and similar items" to Compensation for services. Now even thou they removed wages, salaries and tips from the listed items that does not mean they are not considered Gross income. Of course Schiff ignores this fact.

Schiff further ignores the implementing regulation 26 CFR Section 1.61-2, which specifically adheres to the intent of Congress regarding Section 61a of the 1954 Code as recorded by "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622":

26 CFR 1.61-2
Section 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.

(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law.

But here is where Schiff proved his own theory to be incorrect. Schiff as usual only reads what he wants the evidence to say instead of reading what the evidence actually says as he does with all case law and statutes.

Congress stated their intent very clearly in "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622".

Section 61. Gross income defined
This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a). Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever SOURCE derived." This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income" is used in its constitutional sense. Therefore, although the section 22(a) phrase "in whatever form paid" has been eliminated, statutory gross income will continue to include income realized in any form. Likewise, no change is effected by the elimination of the specific reference to compensation of the President and judges of courts of the United States, and the compensation of such individuals will continue to be taxed in the same manner as that of other taxpayers. In view of the fact that certain types of income are excluded from gross income by other sections of the income tax subtitle of the new code, section 61(a) contains a clause excepting such income from the general definition of gross income. After the general definition there has been included, for purposes of illustration, an enumeration of 15 of the more common items constituting gross income. It is made clear, however, that gross income is not limited to those items enumerated. Thus, an item not named specifically in paragraphs (1) through (15) of section 61(a) will nevertheless constitute gross income if it falls within the general definition in section 61(a).

You can read the report as contained in Westlaw here. It is clear that using the statement that wages are not taxable since they are not listed in Section 61a would be an incorrect stance. This is why Section 61a says "Gross Income from whatever SOURCE derived". So that is why you must find out whether your income comes from a taxable SOURCE. Why do you think under the index "INCOME" "SOURCES of Income" is listed in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)? SOURCES within the US and SOURCES without the US. You can have wages salaries and tips and unless they come from a taxable SOURCE then your income is not taxable.

This is not complicated. If you argue that "Gross Income" in its "Constitutional Sense" does not include wages, salaries and tips you will be Wrong and you will lose every time as Irwin Schiff has done repeatedly. So it is evidently clear that Irwin Schiff has missed the point and he has many believing and doing the same.

Irwin Schiff Self-Proclaims himself to be the Nations leading authority on the "income tax". Does that make him so? NO! Schiff claims to have written and self-published more books on the "income tax" then any other author. This may be so. Does this make him an expert? NO! Does this mean his theories are sound and based on logic and solid evidence? NO! I am not a doctor nor have I ever gone to medical school. So if I proclaim to be the Nations leading authority on heart surgery does that make me so? NO! I can write 10 books on heart surgery. Does that make me an expert? NO! Would you want me operating on you? I bet the answer is NO!!!!

You must never take some Self-Proclaimed Guru's word for anything. You must always look at the "Evidence" yourself for what it is, not for what you want it to be or some Guru says it is. You must always read Court decisions i.e. "case law" yourself for what they say and refer to, not for what you want them to say and mean or some Guru says they mean.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/20/2005 10:04 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 12:02 PM  

Blog Admin
Please delete my previous post.
The spam trap screwed me up and it got posted before it was complete.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 12:04 PM  

Anonymous said...

Ad hominem ignored.

"Gross Income Defined"
"Sections 61(a) vs 22(a)" Irwin Schiff is Wrong!


An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.

By the way, Mr. Schiff is busy elsewhere (duh!) so your innuendo regarding Mr. Schiff has no bearing on what I am posting.

Many believe because of Irwin Schiff

Irrelevant to what the law says.

Many believe ... that wages, salaries & tips are not income and are not taxable as such. Why?

Because "income" is NOT defined anywhere in the IRC. The Supreme Court has defined it under the Constitution and Congress can NOT change that meaning.
Sixteenth Amendment Income is...

Anti-Schiff rant ignored.

Now it is a well, known fact that courts give great attention and importance to what the actual intent was of Congress regarding statutes they enacted.

Yes, the non-corrupt courts do.

Now take a look at what is on Page 2580 House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943 regarding that 'income' tax.

Schiff has always contended that Congress removed the enforcement provisions from the code when they went from the 1939 code to the 1954 code by removing wages, salaries and tips from the list in section 22a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1939 code when they changed it to and became section 61a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1954 code. Irwin Schiff now has proved his own theory on "Gross income Defined" of the 1939 Section 22a vs 1954 Section 61a code wrong.

I've only glanced through Mr. Schiff's 12 page court document. Without authority no action may be taken. Mr. Schiff doesn't even need to look at these sections. Regardless of what is in them, they do not apply unless authority is given to take action on them. And you are taking both section 61 of the '54 code and section 22 of the '39 code out of context.

And I especially love your next comment. It's the one...

Schiff is now using a footnote not a part of the actual decision of C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass 348 US 426 (1955) and "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No.1622" to back his theory that he does not have income in its "Constitutional Sense" because in the Glenshaw Glass case they refer to "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622" in the footnote. His new contention is that what was meant by the intent of Congress in this report is that "income" in its "Constitutional Sense" means only corporate profit even though that is not what they said.

It's the one where you show what an idiot you are. You are attributing MY WORDS to Mr. Schiff. I'm not Irwin Schiff.

... using a footnote not a part of the actual decision of C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass 348 US 426 (1955) and "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No.1622" to back his theory that he does not have income in its "Constitutional Sense" because in the Glenshaw Glass case they refer to "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622" in the footnote.

It's the Definitions, Dummy

"All income (in its constitutional sense) from whatever source derived...

Do you even have a clue as to what "income" in its constitutional sense is?

His new contention is that what was meant by the intent of Congress in this report is that "income" in its "Constitutional Sense" means only corporate profit even though that is not what they said.

You misrepresent what was said. First, an "excise" tax is a "privilege" tax.
"The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880


Second, the privilege is "corporate ACTIVITIES".

Third, the excise (privilege) tax is NOT ON THE INCOME. It is on the privilege MEASURED by the income.

A stock or share holder is gains corporate privilege by owning a part of the corporation. One specific privilege is to be fully immunized for any tort the corporation does. For example, in a case like the Johns-Manville corp and abestos, if the penalties and restitutions costs are greater than the assets of the corporation, the owners (share and stock holders) won't loose their homes to pay the deficit.

Returning to the footnote; It gives an evidentiary link to the existence of the House and Senate reports. Those reports CONFIRM that "income" is used in its "constitutional sense". And that "constitutional sense" HAS been ruled on by the Supreme Court in a whole string of cases.

Corporate profit is mentioned nowhere in either the "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622 ....

Correct. The only purpose of citing the reports is to prove the existence of "income in its constitutional sense". And obviously, if there is "income in its constitutional sense" there can be income that is NOT in the constitutional sense ie. dictionary income.

To find out what constitutional (16th A) income is, you need to read that string of Supreme Court cases.

get a clue here

Now here is why you must verify everything and not take some Self-Proclaimed Guru's word for anything.

And also not take some anonymous IRS Collaborator's word for anything also.

I'm setting aside the '39 code references to section 22(a) to be addressed later. It is my intention to address those specific points on my web site as I get to them and I'll probably be writing those webpages at the same time I address the issue. Again, there is context surrounding '39 code 22(a) that anonymous is either unaware of, or withholding.

26 CFR 1.61-2
Section 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.

(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits


Only corporations have gains, profits, and income.

Congress stated their intent very clearly in "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622".

Section 61. Gross income defined
This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby.


"Statutory Gross Income" is NOT "Income in the constitutional sense".

What's it going to take to get you to see the plain truth of that issue?

Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a). Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever SOURCE derived."

Gross income is the category. Gross income is the "SET" The SET "gross income" contains the item {16th A income in its constitutional sense}

You have highlighted with allcaps the word "SOURCE". This "source" has specific bearing upon income in its constitutional sense.

This is not the "SOURCE" referred to in regulation 1.861-1(a)(1).

This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income" is used in its constitutional sense.

Specific challenge: What is "income in its constituional sense?"

Therefore, although the section 22(a) phrase "in whatever form paid" has been eliminated, statutory gross income will continue to include income realized in any form.

It's the Definitions, Dummy

Fail to put the proper definition of income in the above passage, and you FAIL to UNDERSTAND what the law is telling you.

Likewise, no change is effected by the elimination of the specific reference to compensation of the President and judges of courts of the United States, and the compensation of such individuals will continue to be taxed in the same manner as that of other taxpayers.

Ah, yes. The "Public Salary Tax Act" of IIRC 1937. The tax on the compensation for labor of public (read government) employees that would be an unconstitutional direct tax except that public employees are involved with privileged (excise taxable) activity by virtue of being public employees. This can be confirmed by a study of the 3401 definitions of "employee".

In view of the fact that certain types of income are excluded from gross income by other sections of the income tax subtitle of the new code, section 61(a) contains a clause excepting such income from the general definition of gross income.

At some later point I will have to cite the regulation for section 61 that says ANYTIME any OTHER statute or REGULATION deals with a specific item of gross income, such other statute or REGULATION overrides, overrules, and generally eliminates the action of section 61 and its regulations.

After the general definition there has been included, for purposes of illustration, an enumeration of 15 of the more common items constituting gross income. It is made clear, however, that gross income is not limited to those items enumerated. Thus, an item not named specifically in paragraphs (1) through (15) of section 61(a) will nevertheless constitute gross income if it falls within the general definition in section 61(a).

However, all of the items of gross income listed or not, that "constitute gross income" are NOT in the set of "income in its constitutional sense.

Returning to set theory to simplify:

SET A -> Gross Income.
SET B -> 16A income in its constitutional sense.
SET C -> Common items constituting gross income named specifically in paragraphs (1) through (15).
SET D -> Items constituting gross income NOT named specifically in paragraphs (1) through (15)

SET A is the main set.
The subsets of SET A are; SET B; SET C; SET D.

SUBSET B does not intersect SUBSET C or SUBSET D

Since SET B is a subset of SET A, SET A can not be a subset of SET B unless SET A does not include subsets C and D.

It is clear that using the statement that wages are not taxable since they are not listed in Section 61a would be an incorrect stance.

Here we get another dishonest sleight of hand. "WAGES" are a statutorily defined term. Only "EMPLOYEES", another statutorily defined term, have "WAGES".

It's the Definitions, Dummy

Section 3401

Only public employees are within the definition of statutorily defined "EMPLOYEES".

Wages are NOT an issue unless you are a federal employee.

This is why Section 61a says "Gross Income from whatever SOURCE derived"

And here we have another bald faced misrepresentation. Section 61(a) says, from memory; ... Gross income means all INCOME from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items;

Section 61

So that is why you must find out whether your income comes from a taxable SOURCE. Why do you think under the index "INCOME" "SOURCES of Income" is listed in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)? SOURCES within the US and SOURCES without the US. You can have wages salaries and tips and unless they come from a taxable SOURCE then your income is not taxable.

What side of the fence are you on?
What I bolded above says you are NOT an IRS collaborator.

Why you must find out if your GROSS receipts come from a taxable source is because in the case of a foreign person, it is a privilege to have income from within the US, thus an excise tax. There is no such privilege that can be taxed in the case of a US Citizen since a US Citizen contracts (by RIGHT) to exchange labor (property) for money (property).

Adding to that point, is the exact instructions for the IRS FORM 1040.

This is not complicated. If you argue that "Gross Income" in its "Constitutional Sense" does not include wages, salaries and tips you will be Wrong...

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong. You have not studied all the points. I suggest you start here

So it is evidently clear that Irwin Schiff has missed the point and he has many believing and doing the same.

Schiff has bashed Rose; Rose has bashed Schiff; Hendricksen has bashed Rose.... Guys, we all know the tax code is an elephant, and we all know the story about the three blind men describing an elephant. Everybody has focused upon a different aspect of the elephant.

My personal focus is simple, Once you figure out that an entity is a liar, then everything ever said by that entity is suspect. I have seen non-tax related lies by the government, so it was not a shock to be exposed to the lies of the government regarding taxes. Everywhere I look in the code and compare it with the IRS' actions, I see a corrupt agency misrepresenting the law and commiting extortion.

Anti-Schiff rant ignored.

You must always look at the "Evidence" yourself for what it is

That is why I attempt to put links to supporting citations on my web pages. (I've been remiss on some of the pages on my personal site which will be rectified with edits and rewrites when I bring those pages over to the new hosted site.)



By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 2:14 PM  

Dale,

Are you insane?

You are refuting a blog post from 2004.

http://irwinschiffbs.blogspot.com/

While your at it, you might like to refute everything here too.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Go ahead, we all want to read more of your lunatic ravings.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/20/2005 3:54 PM  

Why, on this BS web site...

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

...does it not make mention of an "income tax liability'...or none that I could find?

Having a "liability" to pay ANY tax is not an issue?

Shouldn't that be the FIRST PLACE TO START..."Do we have a liability to pay the tax or not?"

I guess that's why there's no mention of an "income tax liability" on that BS web site, THERE IS NO MENTION in the law that makes the average American LIABLE for "income tax".

Pretty easy.

If you have a TAX liability...you BETTER PAY and if you don't have a TAX LIABILITY...then you don't pay.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/20/2005 4:47 PM  

I Agree!! It is pretty simple to me. If I have an income tax liability I should pay it. If I don’t, then I shouldn’t be liable for paying it. It seems that some individuals want to complicate the issues with hate and name calling, but like everything else, K.I.S. (keep it simple), show me the law that say’s I have to pay income taxes, just like the law that say’s I can’t murder or rape someone and I will be satisfied and keep paying my taxes like I currently do. However, if you can’t show me a law that says I have to pay income taxes, and then lambaste and condemn me and call me a tax cheat or scam artist for simply asking a question and not answering it, it should make me and everyone else in this great country wonder WHY???

Also, having worked directly with a criminal defense attorney, experiencing 23 trials 9 of them being federal trials, from opening statements to the verdict and having sat on a murder trial jury myself it is real simple and clear to me. If the government doesn’t present the law that requires Irwin Schiff pay income taxes, then they must acquit him.

I am not a Schiff fan as I have never met the man and know little about him.

As for me if I was sitting on that jury and was privy to the fact that Mr. Schiff was willing to plead guilty to all charges and avoid the cost of a trial if the government could produce the law that say’s he is required to pay taxes that would be a no brainer, NOT GUILTY!!

Once again, I am not some crazy radical tax protester; I’m just a concerned citizen that questions why the simplistic solution to all of this has not taken place yet. Why won’t they either produce the law and hang Schiff from the Federal Building or acquit him?

By Blogger Scott Wallace, at 9/20/2005 5:57 PM  

One more question in jest, If the government produces the law that say's Schiff is required to pay income taxes do you think they will ask him to pay them the $50,000 that he is willing to pay for proof of that law?

A Provocative and Funny Question don’t you think?

By Blogger Scott Wallace, at 9/20/2005 6:06 PM  

While your at it, you might like to refute everything here too.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html


Do you mean the web site of THIS Dan Evans?

news group post

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/20/2005 7:19 PM  

What does Evans have to say about "tax liabilities".

Are they important?

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 2:04 AM  

Never heard of Dan Evans.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/21/2005 12:16 PM  

I figured he would chime in with his insults (that's all they have left...well that and violence), since he too can not find in the law where there is mention of an "income tax" liability or where your average American working the average 9-5 job is MADE LIABLE for "income tax".

Ain't that right Dan?

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 1:30 PM  

All I've got to say is that no one *likes* to pay taxes on income.

Nonetheless, that is the system we live by in this country. I am a libertarian and believe me, I wish the government at all levels were smaller with few taxes needed.

However, TP theories of all varieties have been proven by the judicial system to be wrong.

You may choose to believe whatever you wish and act accordingly, but please understand this:

There is a difference between arguing that black is white while trying to cheat the system and acknowledging the legality of the system while arguing its moraity (or lack therof).

You TPs seem to think a bunch of tax cheats are going to usher in the next American Revolution. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The Founding Fathers never doubted the legality of the taxes they were paying. They argued that the taxes were immoral and thus revolted.

Think about that, Please.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 3:25 PM  

Ol' Danny boy invited me to hang around and argue profusely with that cited exchange. That was my 11th post to that newsgroup, and the first dealing with taxes. So essentially that was my very first tax post... Ever.

I was merely a lurker, much like a guy in a diner listening to a couple of regulars talk shop, until something egregious was said at which point I said "hey, I know that's not right". The rest, as they say, is history in the google archives.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/21/2005 3:41 PM  

I hope you are not saying that, "I can't find anywhere in the law that makes me liable for the 'income tax'....therefore there must be something wrong with the way the income tax is being administered." as a TP theory?

The law is the law...THAT is the system we live by in this country.

If "NOWHERE IN THE LAW" the average American is made LIABLE for "income tax"....WHO is cheating who??????????

Think about that, PLEASE!!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 3:46 PM  

An Ant beat me to the punch.

Anonymous libertarian said...

All I've got to say is that no one *likes* to pay taxes on income.

A.L., you haven't been paying attention. Pop quiz: What is the definition of "income" in the constitutional sense?

Nonetheless, that is the system we live by in this country.

What system is that AL? It sure as h*** isn't the rule of law. Go read Schiff's document. How much plainer can it be. Schiff says 'show me the law and I'll plead guilty'. Why are we wasting time, energy, and money on the farce of a trial. Show the G****** Law and end the F****** trial.

Why isn't this happening? Because it ISN'T the law. It isn't the law on any level you want to examine. Schiff is challenging and the cowards and criminal in the system are ignoring, his demand to be shown the delegations of authority allowing the IRS to collect and inforce an "income" tax.

Strike that very valid challenge to the legitimacy of such authority, and you can not show me in the statutes where the secretary has authority to assess any tax other than stamp taxes unless shown on a return. If one does not make and file a 1040 return, there is no authority for anybody in the irs to 'execute' such return. I have only glanced through the procedures in the online IRM as it relates to SFR's, but I have seen enough to see that the system is set up on fraudulent entries of data into the system.

I am a libertarian and believe me, I wish the government at all levels were smaller with few taxes needed.

If the dog grows too fat, STOP FEEDING THE DOG.

However, TP theories of all varieties have been proven by the judicial system to be wrong.

Egads, you're an ignorant one. Certain of the tax honesty researched LAWS show how LAWLESS and WRONG the petty tyrants in black dresses are. The law (something you have failed to study) says this is four: * * * *

Some judge edicts that it is actually five except when he edicts it is three. Bullets or rope come to mind as a cure for such ignorance, arrogance, or TYRANNY.

You may choose to believe whatever you wish

It's not about belief. It's about what the plain words of the law say.
The plain words of the law say this IS FOUR!: * * * *

and act accordingly,

THIS IS FOUR!: * * * *

"No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free.
No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer
a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
" - Robert A. Heinlein

Though the government may try to tell me that there are five, and incarcerate me because I refuse to believe the judge's LIE, you will not change my mind;
THIS IS FOUR: * * * *

but please understand this:

There is a difference between arguing that black is white while trying to cheat the system and acknowledging the legality of the system while arguing its moraity (or lack therof).


What misrepresentive BUNK!
The tax laws say what they say and the entrenched status quo can not give up their wrongfully acquired status and power. Your statement belies your ignorance of what the tax honesty researchers have found and questioned.

The "legality of the system" is self evident in the laws as written. It is the immorality of a rogue terrorist organization demanding sums other or greater from the Citizens than is required by law that is argued.

Why would one be a TP (tax protester) when one would then be protesting a tax that doesn't apply to the alleged TP?

That's just plain stupid thinking on you part... Unless you still don't understand the issues.

You TPs seem to think a bunch of tax cheats

The IRS and the Federal Government are the tax cheats. The IRS and the Federal Government are the ones NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

There is no authority to assess "income" taxes. Such assessment must be assessed on the taxes shown on the return. The amount assessed must be the amount shown on the return. If there is no return, there is no authority for the irs to execute a form 1040 return.

Go ahead and argue with me on that point. I'll just start citing the law at you.

snip

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/21/2005 4:21 PM  

How long till Irwhine goes to jail?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 4:28 PM  

Nice come back...throw a little fear in there. What's wrong...couldn't point to the law that makes your average American LIABLE for the "income tax"? ....yeah, I thought so.

Sucks when fear is all you have left, uh? What a sad existence you must have...prove your point with fear and violence.

Don't show the law, create fear.

Brilliant!....in a tyrannical society.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/21/2005 5:01 PM  

Anonymous libertarian sounds like JJ "Demo" McNabb to me. If so, I'm still waiting for you to email those court cases you mentioned in Philadelphia....or are you all talk and no substance, JJ?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/21/2005 10:49 PM  

If it was Demo, she wouldn't hide behind an "anonymous" name, unlike this moron:
"Anonymous libertarian sounds like JJ "Demo" McNabb to me. If so, I'm still waiting for you to email those court cases you mentioned in Philadelphia....or are you all talk and no substance, JJ?

9/21/2005 11:49 PM"

Apparently the above idiot is unable to recognize irony when he/she types it.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/21/2005 11:36 PM  

Hey, Frank, speaking of hiding, I see you still haven't responded to my comment on your blog. (If you missed it, it's way back near the beginning, posted in response to your reference to me.) I'd sure like an answer, if you can manage one. TIA!

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/03/2005 6:04 AM