Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

5 Old Comments:

That's pretty funny. Irwin is cross-examining a witness on why he didn't call in and claim the $5,000 prize, and the witness pointed out to Irwin that he always welches on that bet and has been sued several times because of it. This made Angela mad, and so she blurted out "Objection!" from the spectator's gallery, and got banned for good from the trial.

What a circus. At least the jury gets to see that Irwin's $5,000 challenges are totally bogus because he always welches on his bet, just like a twice-convicted con artist would be expected to do.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 4:56 PM  

fuck off anonymous. it is time that we remove these federal judges appointed to life terms by past and present Presidents.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 5:06 PM  

It is the judge's fault that Irwin welched on his challenges? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 5:23 PM  

No, for Irwin to welch on a challenge, one would have to have come forwards showing that the average worker is liable for a tax on trading their time for money.

To do so in court, Irwin would have to be allowed to show the law. Since the courts refuse such and refuse to allow the law to be included in findings of law (or rather refuse to force the accuser to properly refute the laws provided), Irwin cannot defend his bet in a court of law.

Want the easy proof concerning the income tax?

Constitution of the United States of America:

Artical I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Artical I, Section 9:
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Amendment 16:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Artical I, Section 9 clearly notes that direct taxes must be laid via apportionment according to the census.

Note that Artical I, Section 9 was never repealed.

The 16th amendment allowed a direct tax on "incomes". The meaining of the word at the time of enactment was equivalent to corporate profit. The supreme courts have ruled this to be the case.
They have also noted that the 16th amendment granted no new power of taxation as doing so would cause it to conflict with Artical I, Section 9.

Remember, both parts are still in existance. Any law passed that would directly conflict with the constitution would be null and void (unconstitutional). To see this more clearly, look at amendments 18 (prohibition) and 21 (repealing the prohibition). 21 explicitly repeals the 18th amendment. Amendment 16 does not repeal any part of Artical I, section 9.

Anywise, the income tax (as written) is valid. However, by constitutional law it _cannot_ place un-apportioned direct taxes. It can tax corporate profit because being a corporation is a priveledge, not a right...making a tax on corporate profit ("income") an excise, which does not need to be apportioned.

Another simple way to see that it is being mis-applied is to read Artical I, Section 2:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "

Note the part in bold (my emphasis). Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states...

Not, "Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the people..."

Make no mistake about it, a tax on money earned from labor is a direct tax. To argue that exchanging work for money or goods is a priveledge is to argue that we are slaves, with no right to trade what is ours.

Since any such tax would have to be apportioned among the states (not apportioned among the people), the government would have to try and force the states to pay them.

It is rather simple if one can avoid believing the tortured reading of bits and pieces of the constitution by those who argue against the above.

More distilled:

If 2 laws are in effect that contradict each other and one is part of the Constitution of the United States...the other must necessarily be null and void. Since the 16th amendment is not null and void, it must not contradict the constitution.

If a tax on labor was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment (it was) ...and the 16th amendment does not conflict with Artical I, Section 8 of the constitution, then a tax on labor is no less unconstitutional than it was before the passing of the 16th amendment.

Very simple stuff. No need to dig through the horridly obfuscated US Code. No need to argue jurisdiction. No need to argue anything. The constitution states the truth so that anyone can read it.

By Blogger Nekogami, at 10/11/2005 11:28 PM  


"Artical" is not a word. The word is "article".

Please take note.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/15/2005 9:40 AM