Thursday, October 13, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

28 Old Comments:

Thank you Angela. We were dying of thirst out here.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/13/2005 8:31 PM  

Wow, she gets help from Paul Andrew Mitchell (PAM). Heck, forget everything I've said, with heavy hitters like that on his side, Erwin, Ervin, er, what's his name again? Whatever, he's gotta win now.*

*The preceding post was laced with sarcasm for those of you unable to recognize what's real and what's not

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 8:35 PM  

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and if wit was shit you would be a sewage farm.
Like anybody is even interested in what whimp like you has to say.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:45 PM  

Frank Buckner you are welcome to leave the country anytime you like.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:55 PM  

"wimp", doesn't have an "h" in it. If you're going to attempt to insult someone, have the brains to do it correctly.

Moron. (see, spelled correctly)

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 9:00 PM  

buck frank

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/13/2005 9:02 PM  


You probably think alot of people would like to insult you like you have insulted them. Calling them names when you don't even know them. Well, I have to say, they most likely don't give a crap what you have to say. It is nothing more than a cry for attention.

But for those who would like to say something but refuse to stoop to his level. Ill do it for you all.

Frank, I am wondering what the letters "TP" stand for. Is it toilet paper. You know, the stuff your father should have used when the better part of you obviously ran down your mothers leg.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:05 PM  

Frank bend over Dawson has something for you.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:06 PM  

Sorry Angela, were you actually trying to say something? I couldn't quite make sense of it, was it "objection"?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 9:09 PM  


It's not my fault you can't spell, don't shoot the messenger.

If you're going to continue to display your obvious idiocy to the world, you better develop a thicker skin.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 9:15 PM  

After reading the posts about F.B. I just had to offer the below -

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in What oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist
and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

In that example, you probably found that it got easier to read as you went along. By the end of it you were probably reading it almost as fast as you would a normal paragraph. Not only do we not read one letter at a time, we
don't read one word at a time. We can finish sentences before we are done reading them, because we actually can predict phrases and thoughts and complete them before we actually finish reading the whole sentence based on logic, structure and context, and we do that without realizing it. We get
all concerned about spelling, but as you can see from that, it doesn't matter as much as people think, and freaking out over spelling errors is just plain silly. But, its what we've been taught.

Just too darn easy to counter is he. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 9:15 PM  

Sure as hell won't see this in public schools!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:18 PM  



-The language in 26 USC 1 states, “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual, every head of household, etc…”
Taxable income is the subject matter of the above sentence, but it IS NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation, since INCOME is only the MEASURE of the tax, and NOT the subject matter of the tax and income cannot include inalienable rights excluded by law from taxation.
- Individual is NOT and cannot be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation on taxable income since capitation taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- Property, real or personal, in NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation since property taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- The common business callings of life, the property which every man has is own labor is NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of taxation since inalienable rights of contract, our labor being our property, and the fruits thereof our property are excluded by law from being tax and would also be subject to apportionment or capitation.

No section of the Code IMPOSES a tax on everyday normal activities.

The Supreme Court, not a US DISTRICT COURT, has ruled in a minimum of 15 decisions that the word income as set forth in all of the income tax acts of congress, has the same definition or meaning that was given IT in the corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909.

Subject matter can confuse one so let’s see what the Congressional Research Service said, ya know the Very CRS the prosecution used…
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, the revised and updated their report:
What does the court mean when it states that
the income tax is in the nature of an excise tax?
“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.”
“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.”
So now we ALL KNOW and MUST AGREE that the federal income tax is not a tax on income right? Finally we have agreement amongst all who read the blogs! Who can dispute the CRS, for that would ruin the prosecution and who can dispute the CRS for it would render Irwin wrong. OUR AGREEMENT - It is a privilege tax measured by income! Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the income tax.
Now that we agree that income tax is an excise or privilege tax, then what’s the privilege? This “privilege” must be one of the most closely guarded secrets in American history. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor members of Congress NOR THE COURT will identify the privilege.
Let’s see what Congress said, after all they wrote it – and they clearly and concisely stated it: In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” The fore stated excerpt of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for determining its Amount.”
So there you have it. The question before you is: Name the Privilege that the individual personal 1040 income tax is upon as measured by the income produced from that privilege and do so with cite from 1. court case, 2. IRS, 3. Department of Treasury, 4. Congress!


By Anonymous CJ, at 10/13/2005 9:34 PM  

"The Supreme Court, not a US DISTRICT COURT, has ruled in a minimum of 15 decisions that the word income as set forth in all of the income tax acts of congress, has the same definition or meaning that was given IT in the corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909."

If you are going to mention the Supreme Court, why not mention that it has ROUTINELY allowed to stand the convictions of several hundred tax protestors?

Isn't that a better indication of what the Supreme Court thinks about tax protestor arguments than your trying to torture case language out of context?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:37 PM  

None of this matters - not one witness, not one fact and not one statement of fact or belief. The judge will give the jury the law. They will sit down look at each other and feel they have no choice but to say "Yeah he broke the law (as the judge gave it to them)". It's a stacked deck. The judge said the law was that they had to file and pay and the facts are that they didn't do it. Case closed ...conscience clear. It's how they win everytime. Unless they have someone like us, who really understands, in that room, it's over. They will not go through every little victory of Irwin's and every misstep on the part of the government. It's too hard. It's far easier to keep it simple. What is the law and did he break it? They will find that he did, never knowing that they are the tryers of fact and the law, and they will walk out of there feeling that they did what they had to do. Just damn....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:51 PM  

Ahh anon. of 10:37 pm. You pretend to know or say something and pretend to claim I "am trying to torture case language out of context" whatever that means since I didn't use any "case Language"

And to answer your question.. NO I do not think it better to deal with cases not of relevant to my post or issue.

There, I answered you question, as I always answer, NOW WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER MINE? FEEL BOXED IN DO YOU. TRAPPED? HOW DOES IT FEEL?
Answer the question on point for once. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 10:14 PM  

I will agree "PAM" AKA "Paul Andrew Mitchell" is a waste. He is also a thief. I know of several people that paid this man from 100's to several 1,000's for him to help them and they never received one thing in return except for "PAM" evading them after he took their money.

By Anonymous IschiffBS, at 10/13/2005 10:25 PM  

I'm going to answer that one, CJ.

Trapped? How? Like what you say has any meaning beyond your own twisted view of reality?

I come here for the sole purpose of torturing the retards such as yourself - there I admit it. It's amusing to me to watch you come out with idiotic statements, proclaiming them to be the one truth in the universe.

That's it - you're a source of amusement to me.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 10:27 PM  

Buck Frank should talk. You misspelled "Irwin". You should know by now what his name is. Your ignorance is showing.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/13/2005 11:40 PM  

Such classic design. CJ lays out FACT and Frank Buckner (or what ever your name is) lays out insults are wasting electricity with your posts. And now he has even stooped lower in his insults to bring attention to "spelling errors". It is to laugh. When you have no facts, all you are left with are insults.

Fanrk, no one that matters cares what you say, I hope you do understand that.

The thousands that are visiting these posts DAILY know the difference between fact and insult. You have proven yourself many many posts ago of your childish capabilities. You truly are "old news". You and your like have insults...nothing more. Why is it you are still here? Do you truly believe your insults change the minds of the people reading these posts? You are only fooling yourself.

The people that visit this site and the MANY others like it, care dearly about America, and like Irwin, are doing their best to end the deception that you and your like excrete. They already know of the corrupt justice system we unfortunately have in OUR country...this is obvious. Regardless if they believe in Irwin or not, the injustice that is being displayed in this court room is all the proof anyone would need to realize there is something wrong here, there is something wrong in this land we are so proud to call home. If you don't feel that way then you are surely part of the corruption. Your insults don't change minds, it is too late for that here. You would be the fool to believe other wise.

You are here for your own amusement? All you have are insults and you are a sad existence you have. That's hard for me to comprehend, how insults could bring anyone joy.

At least now we all understand where you come from.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 12:08 AM  

I guess it’s time I tell the truth. I think Mr. Schiff is innocent but I need my job as an IRS agent so I lad to write those thing my boss and Judge Dawson told me to. Didn’t I?

By Blogger frank bucknar, at 10/14/2005 12:21 AM  

Judge Dawson’s jury instructions were expected and as illegal as he could make them. However this jury will see the light and free the last patriot, Irwin Schiff.
On another subject ,isn't it comforting to know the federal government employs frank buckner, anonymous guy and the other obvious anonymous government bloggers? They demonstrate their vast knowledge of the English language, writing skills and imagination when all their blogs end up being childlike attacks!
However, it is encouraging to know if frankie boy buckner is the best the prosecutors/IRS can offer then the real patriots have nothing to worry about.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/14/2005 12:28 AM  


By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 12:29 AM  

"Buck Frank should talk. You misspelled "Irwin". You should know by now what his name is. Your ignorance is showing."

Wow angela, that was almost coherent, almost.

The scotch finally wore off?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/14/2005 12:33 AM  

Love your posts "an ant." CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 7:56 AM  

"However, it is encouraging to know if frankie boy buckner is the best the prosecutors/IRS can offer then the real patriots have nothing to worry about."

Only if you call several years in prison "nothing to worry about".

But don't let me ruin your delusional fantasies.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 8:40 AM  

Re: "The Supreme Court, not a US DISTRICT COURT, has ruled in a minimum of 15 decisions that the word income as set forth in all of the income tax acts of congress, has the same definition or meaning that was given IT in the corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909."

If the above statement is true, then may we assume that income is a derivative of corporate activity and that income from corporate activity is the measure of taxation for the benefits, privileges and immunities of incorporation? Don't corporations enjoy certain advantages -- benefits, privileges, and immunities -- that people do not enjoy? As statutorily created entities, shouldn't corporations be taxed for these special benefits, privileges, and immunities?

There is a vast range of corporate earnings from one corporation to another -- from $0 to $billions. Wouldn't a tax on corporate income be a fair way of applying the tax? Tax on corporate income is an excise tax. An excise tax is an indirect, or avoidable tax and in this case can be avoided by not incorporating. A direct tax is an unavoidable tax and can only by applied through apportionment.

People receive hire, not income, in exchange for their labor. Labor is the highest form of property. Your hire is related to the worth of your labor. Since it is an even exchange, there is no profit. People who receive hire for their labor are workers or laborers. Employees are something entirely different. How does the IRC define "employee"? How does the IRC define "business," "person" or "the states." Why does the IRC use the term "the states" in some sections snd "the 50 states" in others? Is there a difference? How many people are familiar with the IRC? How many people own a copy? How many people have tried to read and understand it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 8:12 AM  

Well, I guess it is too late to assist Schiff with any more information to give to the jury, as well as his motion to have all this dismissed which included mentioning the Corporation Tax Act of 1909. Did you know that if your name is in ALL capital letters you are considered a corporation, but you cannot be taxed as if you were! Why aren’t you listed with any Secretary of State as a corporation, or even write any resolutions for the actions you take? They use the same laws, but they tax you differently and don’t bother with the corporate activities.

Can the IRS or the courts explain how anyone can claim EXEMPT and NOT commit perjury on the Form W-4 if we are liable for the ‘wage’ tax? But it just says ‘tax liability’ not specifying what tax. You could have a sales tax liability for a weekend job, so therefore you must NOT claim EXEMPT and thus have the ‘withholding tax’ taken out. Well I have found out that it doesn’t matter about the perjury portion, it only matters if you pay the tax, or if your employer makes you pay the tax. Is the ‘withholding tax’ going towards the sales tax? NO!

With the forced acceptance of your SSN then you automatically became a U.S. citizen and not just a state citizen. So therefore you reside in a U.S. territory even though your home and place of employment are NOT!

Banister’s and Benson’s earlier cases were won by using “The Law That Never Was” which removed any doubt that the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, but Schiff would not allow this and he should go on his own views and books, which were not allowed to be brought in.

If he is convicted then it most likely will be that Judge Dawson will close the books on the case and not even allow Schiff to appeal, as “What is there to appeal?” when there are no court documents to be seen! How can Schiff appeal his ‘credibility’ as presented? This would be Judge Dawson committing employment suicide if he did anything like that.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 11:51 AM