Saturday, October 08, 2005

Doug Kenline interview wiht Irwin Schiff (2 of 3)

6 Old Comments:

reposted by Eyes Wide Open!!!

MAILBAG: IRWIN SCHIFF TRIAL ON TAXES-WOW!

Posted By: Ghostwolfemoon
Date: Saturday, 8 October 2005, 12:04 p.m.

Here is one of the most important stories going on now and it went totally under my radar. Thanks to a RMN reader, friend, and fellow truckdriver who lives a half hour away from me for bringing this to my attention.

Irwin Schiff has been battling the IRS for years, spent time in jail, and who knows how much money. This case could end up wrecking the IRS after their recent loss to a former agent who is fighting the same battle.

It all boils down to one thing...

SHOW ME THE LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS, SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT, AND PUT IN A BOOK THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO FILE OR PAY INCOME TAX!

Simple enough or is it?

Even after many challanges in court to produce the laws, the IRS has always failed to produce such laws and gotten by with it. With a little luck, this jury will see through the most corrupt theft system ever developed in America that robs us blind taking half of what we make in all to many cases.

I have written many times to many people from the IRS, the Commissioner, my Congress Critters, and have yet to get any thing that even resembles an answer to the question, what is the law. Show me!

Sure the government needs money to operate, that is a given but at least 95% of what the Imperial Federal Government does is illegal period! There is no provision in our Constitution for most of what they do and they fail to do what they must do by law which is secure our borders.

They are suppose to get what little money they should need to operate by taxing imports and certain other things but not We The People. How about a very high tax on all the crap coming into America from China which would force the multinationals to make things in America again and give us jobs instead of using what amounts to slave labor? How about taxing imports to restore our manufacturing base which was once the envy of the world?

Geesh, I can rant for days on this one....

Back to Irwin...

If you are interested in this case, and if you are a taxpaying American, you should be, go to the link:
http://www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com/ and keep up with the trial via the transcripts there. This bares watching for many reasons, from how his rights are trampled by the judge and IRS, how the jury reacts, and ultimately, if Mr. Schiff wins or dies in jail.

Our tax system needs fixing! Not even the IRS understands the thousands of pages of the tax code. It is written in such a way that the vast majority of us can't understand it and done that way on purpose.

It is past time for the Imperial Federal Government to operate under the laws our Founding Fathers enacted to protect us from exactly what we have now...an out of control government.

It's your money they are stealing, whatch gonna do about it?

Logically most RMN readers are in the middle income level or like me in the lower part of the middle income level. Wouldn't it be nice to have thousands more each year that you work so hard for to do something nice for your family? How about the rising medical cost, housing, fuel, college expenses for your children, the roof than needs repair, or just to have a few thousand extra to blow on a great vacation to anywhere USA?

I don't know about you, but my paycheck looks like it has been raped every week they take so much. Like I said, it's your money they are stealing and you see daily how they waste it, loose billions and have no idea where it went, and on and on.

Ghostwolfemoon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Man !!

I don't know if you've even been aware of Irwin Schiff's trial in Las Vegas, but if NOT, YOU NEED TO BE !! And I'm not telling ya your job as a news man but NOBODY ON RMN IS COVERING IT !! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT !!!

This is a trial that the outcome affects just about the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE U.S. !!!!! And the only place I know of is the link below.

You gotta get this on RMN !! It's too big o' story NOT TO BE ON THERE !! IT NEEDS THE EXPOSURE !! Especially with DAILY "audio blog" updates as to what went on in the courtroom that day. And let me tell ya, Irwin is "grillin' " the hell outta the PROSECTION witnesses !! AND THE JURY IS FINALLY PAYING ATTENTION !!! Let me tell ya, DESPITE all the "judicial rigging" on the part of the judge, Irwin is "tearing 'em a new xxx xxxx" AND THATS WITH THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES !!!

Sure, he's been "sanctioned" (ie: for contempt he's up to 7 days in jail) for some of his "unethical" courtroom behavior, but on a positive note the "loud and unethical behavior" of late HAS REALLY GOTTEN THE JURY INTERESTED IN THE CASE !! Before there were tales of a couple jury members "nodding off" AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION !! But, in one instance when the IRS agent who levied on 100% of Irwin's social security income (remember BY LAW the max is 15% !!!) was challenged by Irwin, he walked over to the witness stand and shook his finger at the agent and told him

"You've been stealing my money" now SHOW ME THE LAW that says you can with I believe the IRS code book in his hand !!! Of course he was held in contempt by this LOSER of a corrupt judge for the comment but BOY DID THE JURY TAKE NOTICE ENOUGH TO SEND THREE QUESTIONS TO THE JUDGE !!!

And you wana know the best part ?

ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WAS "WHAT LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN ?"

YES !!! And the jury SERIOUSLY TOOK NOTICE WHEN THEY GOT NO ANSWER !!!

This is DEFINITELY worth following !!! Irwin's case IS WINABLE !!! And as it's well known, Irwin's hearing is not the greatest, and when the judge was asked for a transcript screen (like the judge has !!) that could deliver the court reporter's transcript in "real time" so Irwin could READ what he maybe DID NOT HEAR, the judge said THIS EXACT STATEMENT TO IRWIN- "Sit down, be quiet, look up here and read their lips !!"

CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?

I wonder if this corrupt XXX has EVER HEARD OF THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT ? That BY LAW specifically provides for "special consideration" in a court case involving someone with a disability such as bad hearing !!! And Irwin got to say more than once his classic statement "Well ok, if you say so, SHOW ME THE LAW IN THE IRS CODE" !!! To some of the agents put on the stand BY THE PROSECUTION !!! And better yet, the IRS brought in some woman to "trash Irwin's reputation and his company Freedom Books" and boy did that blow up in their faces !! It was downright funny !! They "built up her reputation" as an entrepreneur and all this, then she started in on how her beliving the stuff in his material "got her into all sorts of trouble" and that she had "severed her ties with Schiff and his Freedom Books in 2000" .

Sounds bad for Irwin, right?

NOT WHEN HE PULLED OUT A CREDIT CARD RECEIPT FROM 2002 WHERE SHE'D PURCHASED MORE MATERIAL FROM IRWIN !!!! HA!HA!HA! Just "washed her down the drain that quick" AND THE JURY NOTICED THAT TOO !!! I'm tellin' ya, ol' Irwin is lookin' like a modern day "Non-Taxable Matlock" the way he's makin' them "show the law" !!!

And of course, when they do their classic "sugar coated sidestep" to avoid answering, THE JURY NOTICED EVERYTHING !!! You gotta follow this, for your own benefit, even if you don't comment about it on RMN but I hope you do !!!

IT'S GREAT,GREAT STUFF !!!

Go to the link below and look under "Day 12 begins" (or any other sequential day)and click "trial logs blog". Once you're in the "trial logs blog" page scroll down to the FIRST 5 AUDIO UPDATES from Day 12 , MOST ESPECIALLY the 2 audio updates submitted by The Freedom Law School !!

Listen to BOTH SEGMENTS IN ORDER THEY ARE GREAT !! It's a conference call for The Freedom Law School, with comments from guys who WERE THERE in the courtroom !!! The 2 segments together total about an hours listening, the reason for the 2 segments is I don't think you can have an audio update "section" that's longer than a 1/2 hour each.

THIS IS GREAT,GREAT STUFF !!!

http://www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com/

Be careful out d'ere,

D

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/08/2005 9:25 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 1:01 AM  

BTW, nothing in the Constitution says that the word "liable" must be used.

That is just another of Irwin's fallacies.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 1:01 AM  

The Quatloos Website is a FRAUD Dave Champion thrashes Jay
Wed Jan 12, 2005 16:10
209.240.205.60
The Quatloos Website is a FRAUD
Dave Champion thrashes Jay D. Adkisson on American Radio Show, March 6, 2004
Beware, tax honesty advocates! There is a lot of snake oil out there, and the most prominent source of anti-tax protester snake oil is the Quatloos website. This website is run by a verbally abusive and arrogant lawyer named Jay Adkisson. (aka AssKisser)
Go to web site below for rest of article
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-13-05/discussion.cgi.37.html

By Blogger wolfgangsmutz, at 10/09/2005 1:03 AM  

Speaking of snake oil, is Dave Champion still selling Pure Trusts -- you know, the ones that Lynne Meredith went to jail for 10 years for selling?

PAYtriotism at its finest.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 1:27 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person tried:

"So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't."

Deficiencies in law can be created, and they are particularly liable (ha) to be created when the intent of the legislature is not honest. There's no right way to do the wrong thing. Ambiguities are to be resolved in the citizen's favor, not the government's.

"If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law."

How has this been determined?

You cite "When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay..." but that is self-evident and doesn't pertain to what the IRS so delicately termed "the nature of the tax situation" w/r to US citizens and income taxation.

The court cases you cite in support of the theory that an imposition automatically creates a liability offer precisely zero support in law for that theory, merely asserting it ex nihilo (or ex bungholio, perhaps). As Dale likes to say, an assertion offered without proof can be refuted without proof; they are wrong.

A curious example is this one:

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."

Notice that the liars got sloppy here and dropped a word ("on") from their quote of the code. That's a simple typo, of which no big deal shall be made semantically (at least by me), but it does indicate sloppiness. The real kicker, though, is that coupled with the "attempted contorted construction" smear is this bit of mangled sin-tax (pun intended):

"it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income"

It imposed a tax on the income, yes, but the rest of that sentence is the very thing it sanctimoniously pretends to oppose.

These liars simply pull things out of thin air and insist that everyone must agree with them. They offer NO support in THE LAW for their patently frivolous opinions. They only offer... other opinions (e.g. "The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions..." and "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")! Ludicrous. Judges are no more exempt from the inability of men to pull themselves into the sky via their own bootstraps than you are.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/14/2005 2:51 AM