Saturday, October 08, 2005

Doug Kenline interview wiht Irwin Schiff (3 of 3)

posted by David Jahn @ 10/08/2005 09:24:00 PM  

16 Old Comments:

Send a letter to Amnesty International here is their address.
aiusala@aiusa.org
This trial is a crime against humanity.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 6:30 AM  

Dear Frank Buckner,

By your words are you justified and by your words are you condemned. Your own words have condemned you as anti-American and anti-Social and one who could look down at a broken man, woman or child and laugh at their misery. But will you laugh when the misery becomes yours?
As far as I am concerned your word is DEAD.
My opinion for all concerned... Don't even look at a word Frank prints. Don't scan it and don't respond. He has already condemned his self and made a place for his self upon his own alter. He needs pity and prayer but not our ear.
Frank, if I were to see you lying on the street bleeding...I'd still help you, for I know you also need grace. I am wise enough to know the fight happening before our eyes IS NOT a fight against ourselves/each other/fellow man... it is a fight FOR the Republic that you and I have not truly enjoyed but only learned about in school. We have lived in a legislative democracy for longer than our lives and have witnessed the demise of a once great Nation.
The main difference between you and me Frank...I recognize what has happened and so do the readers and authors that print important facts about the situation... and we can substantiate those facts. You, by virtue of your posts, spend your time hiding behind the internet facing off AGAINST your fellow man because it is safe and you cannot get hurt. But you have been hurt in countless ways and when that fact finally becomes real to you, what will you do? How will you behaive then? Will you want someone to care about you? Sadly by then, maybe no one will remain to even help you. Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:23 AM  

Auto-Parts Supplier Files for Chapter 11

By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 9, 2005; Page A18

Delphi Corp., the nation's largest auto-parts company, filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday, the latest casualty in an American auto industry that has been struggling with high labor costs and aggressive competition from foreign rivals.

THE ABOVE IS NOT JUST ANOTHER OF IRWIN'S FALICIES!
SEE EVEN YOUR INCOME TAX DOLLARS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO PAY THE INTEREST UPON THE FIAT CURRENCY DEBT AND TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION AND A TRADE BALANCE...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:42 AM  

I see CJ.

Well then, if you're so compassionate that you'd help me if you see me "lying" on the street (freudian slip wouldn't you say CJ?), does that mean you feel compassion for the thousands of people whose lives have been totally screwed up by listening to the likes of Schiff?

Show me one person (sane, so eastman is out of the equation) who has had their life enriched by listening to the snake-oil peddled by schiff and hendrickson and rose? You can't because none exists. This is the path to ruin and destruction, you cloak it in "patriotism" and "seeing the truth", when the fact is - you're hopelessly deluded into believing that you're right and the remainder of the world is wrong. The truth is, I pity you and use ridicule in an attempt to make you see how uttterly stupid your point of view is. I haven't really had much success with the die hard kool-aid drinkers, but at least it keeps me out of the pool halls.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:55 AM  

Hey Frank Buckner -

Would you say that the judge has acted impartially throughout this trial?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:04 AM  

Yeah, where is Amnesty International? Where is the ACLU?

For that matter, where is Bob Schulz?

Funny that not even the other gurus like Bob Schulz or Sherry Peal Jackson, etc., will even show their faces at Irwin's trial. They know a loser when they see one, and are only interested in picking up Irwin's former clients when the latter finally decide they need a new koolaid dispenser for their feeble sheeple minds.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:38 AM  

Hey Frank Buckner - WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE JUDGE HAS ACTED IMPARTIALLY THROUGHOUT IRWIN'S TRIAL?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:55 AM  

Hey Frank Buckner - WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE JUDGE HAS ACTED IMPARTIALLY THROUGHOUT IRWIN'S TRIAL?

Yes Mr. Buckner, inquiring minds want to know.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 12:17 PM  

The issue is that the entire federal legislative democracy is full of practicing Satanists and you'll never get fairness, justice or truth about anything from a Satanist. Obviously there is no law that makes any person liable for the federal income tax. What's equally obvious is the IRS and the federal judiciary know that this is a fact. The evil is rampant and Satan is a liar, and so are his own and with the so-called scales of justice only tilts in favor of those in kontrol, justice by fiat, government by fiat and THEY will damn you if you tell the truth when the truth is that THEY are the one's who are damned. Yahshua is returning with a vengeance to judge the nations and the UnitedStatesofAnti-Messiah has been judged and no doubt found wanting. I hope Irwin wins, I pray that he'll win. Look around in this world and ask yourself if it appears that he actually has a chance against the Satanic system of global governance when LIES are the Rule of Law and truth was tossed out long ago.
Take heart Irwin because the real Judge Yahshua is coming quickly

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 12:27 PM  

The Schiff followers are Satanists because they keep spreading lies in the hopes of selling Irwin's books and tapes for the purpose of making money, no matter how many of Irwin's followers like Steve Swan spend large portions of their lives in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 5:23 PM  

God made Truth with many doors to welcome every believer who knocks on them.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 5:53 PM  

Hello Jerry Hosteg here,

To : the Anonymous person who calls Irwin followers Satanists.

From what is happening in this trial, it seems to me that government prosecution who seems to have a biased judge, is trying to prevent the law from coming out.

Just think about the logic for a second. The trial is running in a sense that the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything.

The judge is being biased toward Irwin, and canceling out his most important witnesses under no basis!

Irwin tries to point out the IRS's performed illegal activity throughout the years. The prosecution objects and call it irrelevant when in fact it is relevant to the case because Irwin has a right to chalenge their illegal activity conducted upon him.

People even write and call the IRS asking about liability for an imposed tax. The IRS has no answer!

Does any of these things spark your common sense one bit? Do you not even get a tiny bit of doubt that Irwin may be right?

If you don't think like this, you have no right calling anyone else Satanists because you have no sense of logic!

Why can't you even end this blog by putting on here:

1. All the authority of IRS!
2. A resonable and factual rebuttal to Irwin's beliefs on the tax laws.
3. Proof of your claims that the average American owes the federal income tax.

Golly, I'm simply asking you: Can you please prove the man wrong!

But, as usual, I don't expect you or any government official to do this because you guys think you don't have to answer to the people.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 6:53 PM  

I would really like an answer CJ. Does your compassion extend to the lives ruined by Schiff and his zero return mumbo-jumbo?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:34 PM  

are you kidding?! How about the millions that have been ruined by the Federal Mafia?!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:43 PM  

"How about the millions that have been ruined by the Federal Mafia?!"

Millions? I think you may be overstating just how many TP's exist. Thousands, I'll buy. Lives are ruined when you believe that you know "the law" better than those elected to write "the law". By following that cross-eyed belief into violating the law. YOU ruin[ed] your own life, I realize that doesn't sound as noble, but truth is oft times cruel.

Wishing for a thing, doesn't make it so.

By Blogger David, at 10/09/2005 8:22 PM  

Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word "liable"). However, that is not what the law requires.

In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. ยง 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on upaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that "The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation...." U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).

Also, section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return "shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return." The Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating: "When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay..." U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).

As explained below, the obligation to file a return is established by section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay the tax shown on the return.

So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
"Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).
"Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);
United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).

Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was "no law imposing an income tax" on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was "frivolous" and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner's costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).

Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six month after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning "Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?" The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients). "It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments, Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions." Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985). The court also referred to Mr. Carley's arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that thoroughly defy common sense."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:48 PM