Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Folks,

Following the unsettling conviction of Irwin Schiff, Cindy Neun, and Larry Cohen, I want to thank all of those on the ground who are doing all that they can to help these brave souls.

Judge Dawson had Irwin and Cindy taken in to custody immediately following the verdict. I understand they have a hearing set for 1:PM today to determine if Irwin and Cindy will be allowed to go free on their own recognizance. Sentencing is scheduled for January.

I want to assure everyone that we are working on several important projects.

We are setting up www.triallogs.com and hope to have some material up there very soon. My hope is that we can use this new site to post legal opinions of these trials as they close. Surely, there is something for citizens to learn from these trials and we will be exploring each and every one of them.

Trials for Dr. Ward Dean, Tessa Rose and Arthur Farnsworth are forthcoming and we arehoping they find the information compiled by us here at triallogs useful. We also need to have folks on the ground at each of these trials, so let us know if you are planning to attend.

As of this morning, we have had over 12,526 different people visit this site since we started tracking it on October 5th, and the numbers are growing each day. Obviously, there are a lot of freedom minded people around the world. Let's not disappoint them, and let's not disappoint those who have crossed swords with the government on our behalf. We have to do all that we can to expose any government miscoduct for all to see and we have to work to free these brave people.

Anyone that is interested in helping with any of these efforts can reach me at triallogs@ourliberty.net.

Please keep the faith.

David Jahn

154 Old Comments:

* SOMETHING CHANGED –

We know that prior to and immediately after the Pollock decision that the mis-named “income tax” was NOT allowed as it was struck down.

Beginning at that point, and moving forward to before yesterday, something must have changed. Identify correctly that which changed and you will know what has happened to YOU! This includes those that favor the taxes and the money as is. You lost something too. Now maybe you never wanted it, but others have and do. Some want to live in and under a Constitutional Republic as we all learned about in school. So what changed?

Either the Constitutional limitations on taxation changed…well the 16th amendment, though “worded in error,” added no new taxing power… so Constitutionally that didn’t change, however is mis-used!

What actually changed?

Our desire to have a more Marxist state of mind certainly changed as is evident by those who post their agreement to the ways of communism. So the minds of the masses have changed… “let them eat cake.”

Our Republic changed into a Democracy via the 17th amendment (and other issues), so that has certainly changed.

Our Constitutional money has changed from substance to a fiction created by the banks and/or IMF. So that changed.

Our form of government also changed with the bankruptcy, so that changed.

We pledged our lives and labor to pay the bankruptcy owed by a corporation, so that changed.

Our status has changed. Once the people had a voice and government was responsive. Now government controls all aspects of EVERYONE’S life and that is proven by the multitude of laws making the “US” the most imprisoned people on the planet, literally and figuratively.

Our citizenship has changed. We once had non-lien-able “rights” like that to the fruits-of-our-labor and now we don’t - so is would appear our citizenship status has changed.

We have people not born in one of the union states now titled “U.S. CITIZENS” and we also have U.S. Nationals…see IRS (Income Code 16 pg. 1) What the heck is up with that?

Our states of the union have changed. For example: the California Republic has been changed to “THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.” All states are now, in capitol letters, “THE STATE OF ___________________.” That has changed.

So mark the changes, identify how things have been altered. Learn to know who you are in relationship to other people, other entities, and the “governments.” (plural)

Let’s all correctly identify the changes, how it happened, why it happened and maybe, the freedom loving Americans can begin to change it back, which would also be forward. First, as has happened to the masses, we must begin with the people. Begin to change their minds from hate of others to love for themselves, from that of the oppressed to that of an individual self, for it is fact that the oppressed hostage can “fall in love” with their oppressor. Love yourself and quit hating others…step one.

Now let’s get to work! CJ

p.s. Reasonable Guy, until the actual problem is clearly and correctly identified, it cannot and will not be fixed. By skipping step one, (identification) the presumed solution then becomes the problem. Feel free to offer the correct identification of the exact cause and nature of the problem and then everyone can move on to the next step, the solution. You wish for me to offer, to you, a solution but we don’t even agree on the problem, how can there be a solution to opposing problems?

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 8:08 AM  

Irwin will not be let out on his own recognizence. He is a flight risk as well as Cindy.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 8:09 AM  

I didn't know Irwin had wings(flight risk) Angels have wings, is he also an angel?

See anyone can alter meanings of words, terms and phrases, not just the government and those who lick their boots.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 8:29 AM  

What is the tax imposed upon?

"Paying taxes is the price of citizenship…” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.

Is citizenship the event and privilege, the subject of the tax as stated by the commissioner his self? Your “citizenship” is the basis to calculate tax upon your income?

He seems to be the only one to answer CJ’s question throughout the entire blogs. I couldn’t. GD

By Anonymous gd, at 10/25/2005 8:39 AM  

Gd said….
"Paying taxes is the price of citizenship…” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.

Is citizenship the event and privilege, the subject of the tax as stated by the commissioner his self? Your “citizenship” is the basis to calculate tax upon your income?

He seems to be the only one to answer CJ’s question throughout the entire blogs. I couldn’t. GD

You $(*&^% cheap ass moron, You say we have to “pay a price” to be a citizen, so we are not free!

Wow, sounds more and more like the mafia all the time to all the koolaid drinkers. “Pay up you or we take your business.” “You are not free to do business in our territory.” “You don’t pay, we break your legs.”

I don’t care if my forefathers lived free. Look how they lived. They didn’t have a big screen tv, a car, electricity, like I do. They didn’t have full retirement in Social Security like I do. The name itself says I will be “Secure” and the government guarantees it, you idiot. I have to pay a price for those things I enjoy that the government gives to me.

Now go pay your taxes, quit worrying about your so called freedoms and rights and live right like the rest of us. The government gives you your freedom. The tax code gives you your freedom. You just want more and not pay for it! Quatlooooooooos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 9:24 AM  

I don't remember the government giving me anything that i have. I worked hard and earned what i have. If the government gave you what you say, like the the tv's and such, please fill us in on where we can join. Shit why should i work if the gov will give me everything i need. damn where have i been.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 9:33 AM  

Oh and what the hell does social security have to do with "income taxes"? And what happens when this pyramid scheme runs out of money. I hope you're old enough to retire real soon because there will not be any money left in this scam trust fund for you when you retire.

ps: can you buy anything with "quatloos", like a brain that actually works.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 9:40 AM  

Anon said:

"I don't remember the government giving me anything that i have."



Do you have a:

FHA backed home loan?
Drivers License?
Social Security Card?
Motor Vehicle License Plate?
Bank account insured by FDIC?
Savings Account insured by FDIC?
Student Loan?

If so to anyone of theses and more then you asked for and are accepting a government granted priviledge so you have no excuse to not obey!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 9:58 AM  

Schiff has no hearing for today at 1PM to determine if he can be released on personal recognizence. He is in jail till senetencing and then till death.

Neun is the only one with a 1pm hearing to argue for release which she will not be released as she is a flight risk!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:01 AM  

CJ said, We know that prior to and immediately after the Pollock decision that the mis-named
“income tax” was NOT allowed as it was struck down.


CJ, you get an F in tax history. Immediately before the Pollock case, the income tax was perfectly constitutional, having been upheld in the 1880 Springer case. Pollock came along and struck down the tax ONLY because the Court thought a tax on the income from property (e.g., rents, dividends, and interest) was a direct tax that needed to be apportioned (even the Pollock court, however, had no constitutional problems with a tax on personal earnings, since such a tax has never been held to be a direct tax).
The 16th Amendment simply overruled the Pollock decision by making it clear that no tax on income needed to ba apportioned.

In other words, Congress has always had the power to tax income. The only issue was whether in exercising this power, the tax needed to be apportioned. Under current law, it's clear that it does not.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:01 AM  

Who wants to be a citizen of Nazi America? A massive renouncing of citizenship by all of Irwin’s followers is in order. Then all of us go to Canada and ask for asylum. We have to gain international recognition about the state of American Justice. We must use the enemy America constantly points a finger at China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Iran about the state of human rights in their countries when ours is worse. We must send them full coverage of this trial. It cannot be just one of us, but rather thousands of us that do this. Accuse the American government of perpetrating 9-11 which I know they did. I have worked around explosives for many years I know an implosion when I see one. Use this as our reason for asylum. We have to take action lip service will no longer work we have to do something to get noticed. Our own citizens have to see what goes on a march across America exposing this trial Americans have to know that the Gestapo has arrived. Peaceful resistance is what is needed listening to radio shows, reading blogs, going to web sites is a lost cause. Is there not a leader amongst us that can rally the citizens into this dog fight which is desperately needed to be fought? Come on patriots write a song for our cause begin the movement now and for god sake don’t look for an opportunity to make money out of this rather do it as your patriotic duty. Be prepared to burden yourselves and even die for this noble cause.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:04 AM  

p.s. Reasonable Guy, until the actual problem is clearly and correctly identified, it cannot and will not be fixed. By skipping step one, (identification) the presumed solution then becomes the problem. Feel free to offer the correct identification of the exact cause and nature of the problem and then everyone can move on to the next step, the solution. You wish for me to offer, to you, a solution but we don’t even agree on the problem, how can there be a solution to opposing problems?

10/25/2005 9:08 AM

**********************

CJ, don't beat around the bush. Your posts never have been clear. I may "bite" if you post something intelligible.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 10:08 AM  

What changed? Previous generations of Americans were not vigilant in preserving liberty, not only for themselves, but especially their posterity.

As years went by, generations grew up not knowing the difference between rights and privileges (and not caring to know). An understanding of something so essential to liberty, such as the enjoyment of the right to the full fruits of your labors, has been replaced with the belief that "everyone has to pay their taxes" and that "it's the price of citizenship." Generations have grown up being taught NOT to think about such things and unquestioningly accept such beliefs. Those wielding power can usually count on a jury being a pack of ignorant dolts (with perhaps one of two jurors 'helping' the rest with their decision).

Now the country is paying the price for decades of the People's neglect in their understanding of liberty. The Schiff jury just tighted the nooses around their own necks as well as their children's, and don't seem to have the slightest inkling about it.

Hey, isn't there a good football game on tonight or something?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:12 AM  

don won said...
"I don't remember the government giving me anything that i have."


Do you have a:

FHA backed home loan?
Drivers License?
Social Security Card?
Motor Vehicle License Plate?
Bank account insured by FDIC?
Savings Account insured by FDIC?
Student Loan?


Which of these things makes one who would not otherwise be liable for the federal income tax, liable?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:18 AM  

Anon said:

"I don't remember the government giving me anything that i have."



Do you have a:

FHA backed home loan?
Drivers License?
Social Security Card?
Motor Vehicle License Plate?
Bank account insured by FDIC?
Savings Account insured by FDIC?
Student Loan?

If so to anyone of theses and more then you asked for and are accepting a government granted priviledge so you have no excuse to not obey!

10/25/2005 10:58 AM

************************************

Drivers license - i didn't ask for it but is mandated to drive.

Social security - again i don't recall volunteering for this one.

MV license plate - how do i drive a car without this one. nope didn't ask for it.

I don't use banks because they are as corrupt as the government. so no to this one also.

FHA = no. I have a regular mortgage.

No student loan either.

Savings account. At 1.5% interest what is the point of this one.

So i guess no to all your questions. Does this mean i still have to obey.

ps: did the government give you the right to use your brain. No, well then, maybe they should have.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:24 AM  

rage-rage -rage!! Geeez-you guys are doing exactly what they want you to do and that's fight amongst yourselves. ignore the idiots in here and stay focused- please for all of us. Please state the important issues.

What does this trial mean for the rest of us?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:31 AM  

I remember a while back there were 5 or 6 questions posted somewhere about challenging people to prove the tax, the 16th etc. for an award.
Does anyone know where those questions are in cyberspace?
would like to see them and have a go at them.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:33 AM  

The United States declaired war on its citizens in 1913 when the jewish bankers took over our banking system.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:33 AM  

YEAH!! Lets blame the Jews. And lets blame the blacks in new orleans for not being edumacated enough to know better. And lets blame the Native Americans for wanting those shiny beads instead of that tiny little island off the shores of the Hudson.

Are you kidding me? The rabbit hole goes a little deeper than the bankers being Jewish.
Whoever posted that gives me fear for my childrens future.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:38 AM  

Just pay your taxes. I have more pork projects which need to be completed. It's nice to see the system working. Now that I know this pimple has gone to jail, I can go on vacation via the people's expense. You foulish slaves, just work and pay your taxes.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:39 AM  

Hi-
sorry for the previous post about paying your taxes and going on vacation. I was just kidding.
I just did it to get you all riled up.
Please except my apologies- I should have known better

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:42 AM  

Which of these things makes one who would not otherwise be liable for the federal income tax, liable?
None of the above you idiot we all know that the government needs money to run. There are other ways to gather this money legally where the rich pay an equal percentage of what they own as what the middle class do. This is not happening in America today. When you tax my salary you have made me your servant. I am not the government’s servant, but the government most certainly is our servant.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:46 AM  

"Hi-
sorry for the previous post about paying your taxes and going on vacation. I was just kidding.
I just did it to get you all riled up.
Please except my apologies- I should have known better "

Don't apologise for me. I ment every word of what I wrote.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:49 AM  

This scumbag government constantly tells the citizens we are privileged to do this and we are privileged to do that. Even in the drivers manual they tell us that we are privileged to drive on the roads that we paid for. We all know that driving is not a privilege, but rather a responsibility. The only privilege is for the government to serve the people which the do a lousy job of. A high school drop out could have done a better job than what this filthy generation up on generation group of politicians has done.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:57 AM  

Several years ago I bought Irwin Schiff’s material and I took it to my local tax expert (accountant) and I ask him to look over everything carefully and see if he could prove “anything” that Irwin said was incorrect. The tax expert could find “nothing” wrong.

I just want to say THANKS a MILLION Irwin for exposing the truth, you have saved me a bundle of $$$$. It is really sad that we have elected into office this government. I wish you the best in your appeal. We need many more people like you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:05 AM  

"CJ, you get an F in tax history." Anon. 11:01 am

Oh really? Well let’s see how well you did.

I posted a general thumbnail sketch of events and you picked out one part of the thumbnail, concentrated upon it and let everything else stand, why is that? No one paid an “income tax,” in the manner they do now, at the time of the Pollock decision - Fact of Fiction! That is what I STATED. (there’s your “F” Fact or Fiction) The Pollack case is an important point of reference for it clarifies language.

Congress always has the power to lay and collect tax...true.

Direct taxation – art. 1. sec. 2 clause 4 & article 1, section 9, clause 4 (1787) “No capitation or other direct tax…” defines a tax on people (capitation or poll tax) is a direct tax and therefore subject to the constitutional rules governing and limiting direct taxation. Meaning they are to be “apportioned.” Etc…

"Indirect Taxation" – is not in the constitution, it is a Supreme Court ruling see Tyler v. United States 281 U.S. 497,502 (1930) “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an “indirect tax…”

The class of tax, direct or indirect, can be placed on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to census or enumeration, and still NOT be in irreconcilable conflict with the original Constitution?
If the tax, as you say, was a direct and without apportionment tax, ( I quote for reference:
[“The only issue was whether in exercising this power, the tax needed to be apportioned. Under current law, it’s clear that it does not. 10/25/2005 11:01 AM])
it would be irreconcilable conflict with the Constitution. “It is the “without apportionment” wording that limits even the 16th amendment to the class of INDIRECT TAXES i.e., “a tax laid upon a happening or event, as distinguished from it’s tangible fruits.

THEREFORE ANY TAX UNDER THE 16TH AMENDMENT MUST BE AN INDIRECT TAX, A TAX UPON A REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY AND THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IS USED TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF TAX UON THE REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY…” see Brushaber v. U.P.R.R.

Now as I have posted often, CRS, Congress and the Supreme Court all Agree that the “income tax” falls into the category of an indirect tax placed upon a taxable revenue activity having effectively connected income. It is an indirect tax upon also a “privilege.” THE TAX IS NOT UPON INCOME AS YOU SAY, AND I QUOTE FROM YOU: “The 16th Amendment simply overruled the Pollock decision by making it clear that no tax on income needed to ba apportioned.”

Cite where the Pollock decision was “overruled” by the 16th amendment! Fact or Fiction…oops there’s that pesky “F” again.

The 16th amendment didn’t do anything but confuse people. It simply states the same thing as the constitution body…that a tax must either be direct and apportioned or indirect as is an excise tax.

The 16th amendment was “worded in error” also state in teh Brushaber case, and you have fallen prey to that error.

You can disagree with the Supremes, Congress and CRS all you want in attempt to make me look bad but you would be better served to learn the true nature of the subject prior. You may grade me upon your terms of Fiction.

I grade myself upon the terms of the Supreme Court, Congress and CRS.

“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.”
The “income tax” is not a direct tax upon income!

Who should you believe, the Supreme Court, Congress, CRS, or a ghost writer on a blog!

Thanks for the “F” for I do get an “F” under your terms of Fiction. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 11:08 AM  

Anonymous said...
Several years ago I bought Irwin Schiff’s material and I took it to my local tax expert (accountant) and I ask him to look over everything carefully and see if he could prove “anything” that Irwin said was incorrect. The tax expert could find “nothing” wrong.

I just want to say THANKS a MILLION Irwin for exposing the truth, you have saved me a bundle of $$$$. It is really sad that we have elected into office this government. I wish you the best in your appeal. We need many more people like you.

10/25/2005 12:05 PM
**************************

Please share your accountant's contact info. I'm sure the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the IRS will thank you.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 11:12 AM  

Don't apologise for me. I ment every word of what I wrote.

Again- my apologies-I keep counter posting myself because I still just want to keep trying to rile you all up in here.
Is it working??
Hee Hee

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:13 AM  

HEY Reasonable Guy,

What is your plan? You never offer up your plan!

Fix everything for everyone with your plan, come on be a hero.

OR in the alternative-

State that all is well and nothing is wrong!

Which is it?

Explain the plan Estonia used to BECOME A MORE ECONOMICALLY FREE COUNTRY THAN THE US!!!!!!

EXPLAIN IT ahh but you don't for you don't know. You would rather make feeble attempts at trashing people.

Explain why Paraguay has less Fiscal Burden than does the US?

Explain why the US governments intervention into economics is as invasive as that of Kenya?

UNTIL the EXACT problem is identified, the agreement of solution cannot come.

Whats the exact problem...IF ANY?

did you get the question yet or are you meds not working for you still?
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 11:21 AM  

Johnson said he understands Dawson's decision to return Schiff to police custody.

"He's not a danger because he's the guy with a machine gun," Johnson said. "But look at what he's spinning. Who has it hurt the most? The people hurt most by Schiff are the people who follow him."
ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ANGELS OF CONCERN. The government makes me puk. There only concern was what Irwin cost them in money.
By the way the article comes out of the Review Journal who were noticeably absent during the Gestapo Trial.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:21 AM  

CJ, take the sleep out of your eyes. I wrote "CJ, don't beat around the bush. Your posts never have been clear. I may "bite" if you post something intelligible. "

Try again.

BTW, nice try on changing the subject. I have posted my plan, sorry you missed it.

Now get back on topic and post something intelligble if you want a serious discussion.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 11:26 AM  

Now there's a good laugh hahaha

How can you get something "from" government, that it first didn't
"take" from you?

You get a tax refund "from" the government, which they had to first "take" away from you.

Govenment doesn't PRODUCE much of anything EXCEPT REGULATIONS AND OPPRESSION!

Someone even had the audacity say that you get "government loans"
hahaha the money had to come from the people first as pledges of their property, labor and promise...and that goes into the banking "system" where they turn the pledge into alleged "money".... the government borrows in form of "bonds" and other Negotiable Instruments and the web grows.... and you say we receive, "from the government" loans? Hahahahahaha

(please, the above is just a simple thumbnail sketch, not to be construed as the entirety of the deception)

My belly hurts from laughing. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 11:34 AM  

Anon said:

"Drivers license - i didn't ask for it but is mandated to drive."

Yes it is mandated for those that are statutorily required to have one.

So if you chose to just get one without seeing if you are statutorily mandated then that is your fault YES you asked for a government priviledge!


"Social security - again i don't recall volunteering for this one."

If you have a SSN and card YES you did ask to volunteer!

MV license plate - how do i drive a car without this one. nope didn't ask for it."

YES if you have one you asked for it and the government priviledge. If you didn't bother to check if you were statutorily mandated to have one then again thats your fault.

"Savings account. At 1.5% interest "what is the point of this one."

So again you asked for the government priviledge to have your money insured in case of loss.

Now Bow Down and OBEY!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 11:38 AM  

Hey Don Won- just like the tax it falls under Conventional Wisdom- If we do not know any better then how would we know about statutory this or that.
I agree its all about educating oneself. But everyday people- like me and the others paying this tax (that we are not legally obligated to pay) are the ones who are really affected by all of this. its yours and others in the know's responsibility to educate those of us who have not seen the light.
and by the way- My parents got my SS card for me I didnt ask for it.
and did you know- most hospitals these days will not even allow you to leave with your newborn unless you give them a SSN.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:46 AM  

Reasonable Guy,
"Explain the plan Estonia used to BECOME A MORE ECONOMICALLY FREE COUNTRY THAN THE US!"

With your explanation will come clarity for all and the exploration of possible or workable avenues.

Is that intellible for I want serious discussion. If not, well leave me out of your mixture of gripes.

CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 11:47 AM  

when I say "others" in the last post.
I am referring to other U.S. citizens.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:48 AM  

CJ, the graduate of baffle 'em with bullshit school, cuz you surely have no brilliance. Just because you can cut and paste a thousand words, doesn't make what you say right. You're still misreading the snippets of others work that you cut and paste. Tossing out thousand word cut and paste jobs may impress the idiots that lap up schiff's swill, but it doesn't do much else for anyone with half a brain cell. Head on over to Quatloos CJ and register and take them on...if you dare.

By Anonymous AFTP, at 10/25/2005 11:48 AM  

HOW DOES SCHIFF RULING AFFECT THE REST OF US???

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:50 AM  

"HOW DOES SCHIFF RULING AFFECT THE REST OF US???"

No more "reliance defense" based on Schiff's teachings, seminars, tapes, or books -- as a starter.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:55 AM  

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:56 AM  

CJ, you claim to be the "expert" on Estonia, so it is incumbent upon you to explain (with clarity) your point.


I agree with Anonymous that you are a graduate of the "Baffle 'em with Bullshit" School. You never post anything that makes any sense.

Now, if you want to change the subject to Estonia, then please make your point (if you really do have a point to make) with an intellegible assersion.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 11:58 AM  

All well and told, was Mr. Schiff adequately represented?

Were his arguments based on merit?

Was this an open and shut case?

Was case law cited from his side?

What responses did the IRS give to any of the charges?

By Blogger Chris Watson, at 10/25/2005 12:08 PM  

The politicians say The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT. Well, I say Judge Dawson took a legal knife and thrust it into the heart of The Constitution with his rulings. What is further sickening is as it lay bleeding to death the prosecutors stomped and kicked it with their glee.
I generally do nor believe in conspiracy theories but I cannot believe not one of the jurors heard Irwin’s words or saw what was going on. Therefore, if the truth is to come out as to what happened in the jury room then it must come from the mouth of one of those jurors. Even if we have to pay a juror for an interview then that is what we must do because misconduct during deliberations is an automatic mistrial. In that regard it was obvious Judge Dawson and the prosecution team knew what the verdict was before the jury delivered it.

By Blogger The Law, at 10/25/2005 12:10 PM  

Anon Said:

"If we do not know any better then how would we know about statutory this or that."

You are prsumed to know the law. Your failure to know what the laws are is no-ones fault but your own.

Everyone is responcible for their own actions or lack thereof. Ignorance is no excuse.



"did you know- most hospitals these days will not even allow you to leave with your newborn unless you give them a SSN."

Wrong They will let you leave. Did you ask? Did you refuse and then walk out? They will not stop you. They will get mad because they lose the money the get for getting you to do so.

It is not required and the cannot stop you from not doing so. Been there done that.

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 12:11 PM  

Look enough from you about me Ms. Reasonable Guy
Reasonable Guy said...
CJ, you claim to be the "expert" on Estonia, so it is incumbent upon you to explain (with clarity) your point.

I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN EXPERT ON ESTONIA.

FACT, YOU ASKED FOR AN ECONOMIC SOLUTION. I DIRECTED YOU TO THAT COUNTRY FOR THEY WERE BENEATH THE US IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND NOW THEY ARE AHEAD!

IT IS NOT MY FAULT YOU DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO READ. MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH YOUR PROBLEMS. I SIMPLY OFFERED SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

YOUR GAME SUCKS. END OF GAME CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/25/2005 12:17 PM  

I knew CJ was full of hot air.

He brings up Estonia like he has a point to make, expects me to somehow make his point for him, and when I call his bluff by daring him to make his own point, takes his toys home.

LOL

CJ is a poser on this board.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 12:22 PM  

"was Mr. Schiff adequately represented?"

Mr. Schiff had several millions that by his own admission he secreted offshore, and many months prior to trial to hire very experienced criminal defense attorneys to argue his case. Instead, the old fart decided that he would represent himself, but after a couple of days figured out that wasn't such a hot idea, and so got the court to appoint an attorney to assist him. That attorney came in late and didn't have a clue about the case until about halfway through it, but that was Irwin's own fault and nobody else's but his.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 12:31 PM  

AFTP said...
CJ, the graduate of baffle 'em with bullshit school, cuz you surely have no brilliance.

I ONLY POST THE FACTS, NOT MY BRILLINCE! I ALSO POSE QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE THOUGHT IN OTHES, WHERES YOURS?

Just because you can cut and paste a thousand words, doesn't make what you say right.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN, I DON'T CUT AND PASTE, MOST IS HAND TYPED. AND REGARDLESS HOW I DO IT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG. YOU OFFER NOTHING AS PROOF WHAT I HAND TYPE IS WRONG.

You're still misreading the snippets of others work that you cut and paste.

AND YOU MISREAD MINE

Tossing out thousand word cut and paste jobs may impress the idiots that lap up schiff's swill, but it doesn't do much else for anyone with half a brain cell. Head on over to Quatloos CJ and register and take them on...if you dare.

ALL QUATLOOS DOES HERE IS CUT AND PASTE FROM PREVIOUS TRIALS. I CARE NOT FOR SNIPITS OF TRIALS OTHER THAN TO LEARN WHAT THE TRIALS REVEAL. I DON’T NEED TO GO THERE FOR THEY ARE HERE!

I HAVE MET REAL FRIENDS FROM THIS BLOG SITE AND WE NOW NETWORK, THEY LIKING WHAT I WRITE AND I THEIRS. THAT IS CALLED TREATING PEOPLE WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. QUATLOOS HAS PROVEN ITS PRIME CONSIDERATION IS TO TALK TRASH IN ATTEMPT TO EXTOL IT'S OWN PERCEIVED VIRTUE AS YOU PERFORM NOW.

IT SEEMS YOU WOULD RATHER WRITE SHORT INSULTS THAN QUESTION YOUR OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT THINGS. I ASK QUESTIONS TO SEE WHAT OTHERS THINK SO I MAY BECOME MORE ENLIGHTENED. YOU MAKE FEEBLE ATTEMPTS AT INSULT IN ORDER NOT TO KNOW. QUATLOOS FOLKS NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THEY JUST FEEBLY COMPLAIN THAT A QUESTION EXISTS.

WHAT YOU PRESENTED ABOVE IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION, WHICH I CONSIDER FAIRYLAND. I USE CORRECT AND REAL CITES!

BYE BYE FAIRYLAND CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/25/2005 12:36 PM  

Damn CJ,
Did they hit a nerve or something? Is the fact that you "write" (I agree with the cut and paste assessment, personally) tomes of bullshit a sore subject? But hey, rage some more, it's still not going to make the silly horsecrap you spout - right.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/25/2005 12:52 PM  

Reasonable Guy said...10/25/2005 1:22 PM
I knew CJ was full of hot air.

THANK YOU, YOU ARE CORRECT FOR I AM WARM BLOODED!

He brings up Estonia like he has a point to make, expects me to somehow make his point for him,

AHH, HERE IS WHERE YOU ARE COLD BLOODED, SO TO SPEAK, YOU ASKED ABOUT FIXES FOR THE SYSTEM, I OFFERED A RESOURCE FOR YOU AND GAVE YOU A THUMBNAIL SKETCH ABOUT ESTONIA LONG AGO. YOUR QUESTION WAS NEVER MINE NOR AM I MUCH INTERSTED IN YOUR QUESTION. I TRIED TO HELP YOU AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS BITCH BITCH BITCH.

and when I call his bluff by daring him to make his own point, takes his toys home.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGED ON ANOTHER THREAD MY THUMBNAIL AND THAT YOU DIDN'T READ ABOUT THE METHODS THAT COUNTRY USED. NOW ALL YOU CAN DO IS BITCH BITCH BITCH.

LOL

HAHAHA I LAUGH WITH YOU

CJ is a poser on this board.

CJ IS REAL TO THOSE WHO HE MET ON THIS BOARD AND NOW COMMUNICATES WITH (OFF THIS BOARD) AND PRAISE GOD YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM! CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/25/2005 1:03 PM  

"HOW DOES SCHIFF RULING AFFECT THE REST OF US???"

No more "reliance defense" based on Schiff's teachings, seminars, tapes, or books -- as a starter.

But that does not affect the actual Law, evidence and beliefs Schiff so adamently tried to expose- Does it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 1:10 PM  

CJ, you should learn when to quit.

Every post you make just embarrases you further.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 1:10 PM  

thank you for your kind advise, reasonable guy, but I'm not embarrassed by you or myself, if I am even
CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/25/2005 1:20 PM  

The more posts CJ does the more it proves he has absolutley zero knowledge or intelligence!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 1:20 PM  

I agree!

Hee Haw Hee Haw Hee Haw!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 1:22 PM  

CJ should pick a new handle and start fresh like I've seen discredited posters do on the Yahoo boards.

Then we can all expose him as the former CJ. Maybe he will go the Anonymous route or maybe since Shifty has been convicted, we will all lose interest in this board.

:-O

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 1:26 PM  

"HOW DOES SCHIFF RULING AFFECT THE REST OF US???"

No more "reliance defense" based on Schiff's teachings, seminars, tapes, or books -- as a starter.

But that does not affect the actual Law, evidence and beliefs Schiff so adamently tried to expose- Does it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 1:34 PM  

"But that does not affect the actual Law, evidence and beliefs Schiff so adamently tried to expose- Does it?"

The courts have consistently rejected Schiff's interpretation of the law. The only question is whether there could be "reasonable reliance" on his materials. One cannot "reasonably rely" on the materials of another, whether that other person went to jail for tax evasion and numerous other counts.

So, the ability to "reasonably rely" any of Schiff's materials and theories just totally died yesterday. Maybe you can find somebody else to try to rely on, but it will not be Schiff.

Think of it this way:

Prosecutor: "On what did you rely in not filing taxes?"

You: "The materials of Irwin Schiff."

Prosecutor: "And what happened to Mr. Schiff in his own tax trial?"

You: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

Prosecutor: "He was convicted on all counts, wasn't he?"

You: "Uh, yeah, I guess so."

<<< Jury snickers; judge rolls eyes >>>

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 1:46 PM  

And don't think that you can rely on Peymon's materials, either, because Peymon can't even get the federal tax liens against him released.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 1:48 PM  

And don't expect a fair trial. No one is this country is entitled to one of those either. (/sarcasm)

It's interesting how all the oppressors celebrate the demise of our system of justice in this nation.

Didn't the testimony of some of the governments witnesses amount to admissions of crimes? Maybe the federal prosecutors should persue those criminals as well.

It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out. There is more here than meets the eye. Those blinded by one track minds may never see it.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/25/2005 2:11 PM  

I don't know you CJ, but you have the most insightful posts on this blog. Reasonable guy(Bitch), and Quatloo (Squat and Shit) annoys me. They appear to be college educated and can't recuperate from the teaching of the American fool (school) system.

Its sad that this jury could not see, in the day of visitation, that they could have freed themeselves and this country from the tyranny of this system, by acquitting Irwin.

The Jews made that same mistake when they cried for the crucifiction of Jesus in order to keep the status Quoa.

Irwin is a good man, and has fought all these years telling the truth to us who had never even heard of an IRC, AND THE numerous US Supreme COurt decisions.

I didn't believe the man at first, why should I, I was programmed to believe that everybody must pay an income tax.

Therefore, I purchased an IRC and read numerous US Supreme COurt decisions that gave support to what Irwin ws teaching. Even though the court has convicted Irwin, the IRC and those US Supreme court cases still resonate in my spirit and I know the man ws railroaded.

Just the index to the IRC is all one would need to see. LOOK at it, can you find undER LIABILITY, PAYMENT OR PENALTIES just one listing for income taxes? No you can not.

What about the US Supreme court case, FLORA v. US: oUR SYSTEM OF TAXATION IS BASED UPON VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT NOT UPON DISTARINT.

The government knows this, but if they allowed the rest of the nation to know this, the revolt would be unstoppable.

You would have guys/gals in the army refusing to pay, no police officer would pay (First line of defense against the citizenry), and quatloo would even think about not paying? oops, they work for the government, so they would have to pay or get fired.

IRWIN IS A MARTYRE. HE IS AN AMERICAN HERO. HISTROY WILL ONE DAY RECOGNIZE HIM AS A GREAT MAN. WE HAVE. PEACE OUT BROTHER IRWIN, I LOVE YOU.

THIS GOVERNMENT STINKS!!!!!

TO BE WILLING TO MARCH INTO HELL FOR A HEAVENLY CALL.

By Anonymous AN APOSTLE OF CHRIST, at 10/25/2005 2:11 PM  

But- if you have done the same research and come to the same conclusions with the same documented evidence- would not that be your own belief and your own evidence to use as your defense??

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 2:13 PM  

Hi all-
new to all of this. Can some one please show me where the law says that I, a US citizen-would be liable for a tax on my taxable income that is from sources from within the United States.
My buddy turned my on to all of this so I am still a little green.
thanx

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 2:16 PM  

An old and weathered grandfather
sat quietly in his chair
his thoughts were quickly racing
as he pondered his last days here

How quickly time had passed him by
it seemed like yesterday
He had hopes and dreams and aspirations
When did they die away?

Startled out of his reflection
by a girl of less then ten
The old man looked up at her
and asked Where have you been?

Grandpa I was in the attic -
trying to hide my tears
but never mind that now,
you won't believe what I found up there

Look at these old papers
I cannot believe the things they say!
we must surely try to hide them
or they'll take us all away

They talk about such crazy things
That I can not contemplate
Things like rights and freedom
that don't come directly from the state!

Who were these people Grandpa?
Who would write such blasphemy?
Don't they know how wrong it is
to think that they are free?

They say that we're all equal
and have the right to freely speak
Don't they know Grandpa the punishment
is death for being weak?

The sick, and frail and handicap,
the useless feeders all
have no place in society
Its best that way, that's all

How awful would it truly be
if we all spoke our mind?
The state would not allow it
they would seek us out to fine

And what is this craziness
about the right to being armed?
We all know the soldiers are here
to keep us all from being harmed

Yes, criminals do carry guns
but its just a matter of time
before they finally get them all
and then we'll be just fine

It even says we have a right
never to be searched
unless by order of a judge
and reasons stated first!

How foolish could these people be?
It's common knowledge you know
That the state could never keep us safe
without invading all our homes

And what's this word religion?
I think I've heard it once before
Its that silly superstition
that besides us there's something more

Please tell me dear grandfather,
Why would you keep these papers here?
You know you've put us all in danger
they're probably already drawing near

The cameras, they see everything
nothing do they miss
the microphones inside our home
hear everything amiss

The old man finally looked up at her
Tears rolling down his chin
I'm so sorry my dear sweet child,
I don't know where to begin

These people that you speak of
were not foolish as you say,
they were among the bravest men to walk this earth
For freedom they gave everything away

They fought and died to leave to us
a better way of life
A life of free will and choice
and oh they paid the price!

I know its hard to understand
but truly they believed
that people always had the right
to choose the lives they'd lead

They knew that power would corrupt
so they tried their best to make
a society where the people ruled
and were more important than the state

And most of all they understood
that there was something up above
There was a God who watched over them
and they gave Him praise and love

But oh how quickly we forget, my dear,
the lessons of our past
The only mistake they ever made
was thinking it would last

How did we lose our heritage?
I'm so ashamed to say
The only honest answer is,
We gave it all away.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 2:23 PM  

Good argument, anonymous!

Try this...

Inquisitor: "On what did you rely in believing the world is round?"

You: "The materials of Galileo Galilei."

Inquisitor: "And what happened to Mr. Galilei in his own trial?"

You: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

Inquisitor: "He was convicted, wasn't he?"

You: "Uh, yeah, I guess so."

<<< Jury snickers; judge rolls eyes >>>

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 2:25 PM  

I guess you are right.
The world did end up being flat after all.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 2:33 PM  

Anonymous said:

"Hi all-
new to all of this. Can some one please show me where the law says that I, a US citizen-would be liable for a tax on my taxable income that is from sources from within the United States.
My buddy turned my on to all of this so I am still a little green.
thanx"


Ask your Buddy if he truned you on to all this.

By Anonymous Paco, at 10/25/2005 2:44 PM  

The Constitution does not require the use of the word "liable", and Irwin could not show anything that does require the use of that word.

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. § 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 10/25/2005 3:13 PM  

Oh, I see anonymous, if the Constitution doesn't specifically require it, than it's not required. Based on that rationale, why do we have Miranda warnings? Where's that specifically required in the Constitution? The rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but where does it say they have to be read to a person prior to arrest? Where is the right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution? I guess we have no right to privacy, since the word "privacy" is no where in the Constitution.

If nobody had to be "liable" for a tax that was imposed, why is there any "liability" sections in the Internal Revenue Code at all?? The word "liable" isn't anywhere in the Constitution as you say, so why bother writing the 100's of pages that were written in the IRC to spell out who's liable for other taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc.)? Oh, I see, liability is only necessary for some taxes and not others, is that it? Where can I find the rule of that one?

By Blogger Dee, at 10/25/2005 3:44 PM  

What about 861.1-8?
does that have anything to do with it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 3:51 PM  

My Declaration,
To date, Frank B., Reasonable Guy, other anonymous Quatloos types have not provided one iota of proof or evidence to prove me wrong. To date, the above types have maintained a position of whine, cry, bitch, bring false witness, lie, slander, harass and other forms of debauchery against people who simply have a desire and seek a way to be free. What does that tell ya about those named above.
This is, as evidenced by the manner of language, the real CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 3:59 PM  

What about 861.1-8?
does that have anything to do with it?


We may never know. The government won't answer the question and the courts won't even let anyone raise the question.

All we know for sure is that if you ask the question, the government will break into your house and search your computers for email messages that can be used to make you look un-American to a jury.

So, if you are going to ask those kind of questions be prepared for a beating. Otherwise, shut up and lay down and enjoy what's left of your freedom.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/25/2005 4:08 PM  

CJ doesn't get it and he might not ever.

The only authority that he "prove" his arguments to is the US Court system. His and other TP arguments have been shown time and time again to be frivolous. Irwin Schiff is the latest to be proven wrong. CJ, what more "proof" do you need?

I ask all of you who don't like the law to get a plan to change it.

What is your plan?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/25/2005 4:11 PM  

To Anonymous 3:16 PM

Hi all-
new to all of this. Can some one please show me where the
law says that I, a US citizen-would be liable for a tax on my taxable income that is from sources from within the United States.
My buddy turned my on to all of this so I am still a little green.
thanx
========================================================

One of the problems I see with this board is that those who are knowledgeable on the subject spend too much time debating the Quatloosers and give no basic guidance to those who are just becoming aware of this debate.


If you want to look into the sources thing go to this web site and download the report there is also links to the U.S. codes and and Code of Federal Regulations and Supreme Court cases. brace yourself for long tedious study.
http://www.taxableincome.net/


Irwin Shiff does not buy the 861 "argument".
http://www.paynoincometax.com/861.htm

Personally I disagree with him because the IRS uses the 16th Amendment which refers to sources and also section 61 of the code where it refers to a sources and the IRS wants you to believe that "from whatever source" means the pay you receive for your labor .So to counter that it doesn't hurt to have some knowledge of the 861 " argument " .

However I do agree with Irwin that is not necessary to go to that debth to become convinced that most Americans are not liable.
----------------------------------------------

26 USC Sec. 1
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of

Sec. 2.(e) Cross reference
For definition of taxable income, see section 63
----------------------------------
Sec. 63. Taxable income defined

-STATUTE-
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this
subtitle, the term ''taxable ncome'' means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
CROSS REFERENCES
Deductions - .........
Gross income -
Defined, see section 61 of this title.
--------------------------------
Sec. 61. Gross income defined

-STATUTE-
(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; .....

CROSS REFERENCES
Income from sources -
Within the United States, see section 861 of this title.
Without the United States, see section 862 of this title.
------------------------------

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:25 PM  

What about 861.1-8?
does that have anything to do with it?

We may never know. The government won't answer the question and the courts won't even let anyone raise the question.


And for the uninitiated, It's not that they haven't responded, they have...

If you call this a response:
Questions the government REFUSES to answer

S/N: 00002

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/25/2005 4:28 PM  

Since anonymous et. al. have not yet responded, I will ask again:


If nobody had to be "liable" for a tax that was imposed, why is there any "liability" sections in the Internal Revenue Code at all?? Why bother writing the 100's of pages that were written in the IRC to spell out who's liable for other taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc.)? Why not just impose all of the taxes and skip the liable part all together?? Why the inconsistency?

I anxiously await a response, if you have one.

By Blogger Dee, at 10/25/2005 4:32 PM  

One of the problems I see with this board is that those who are knowledgeable on the subject spend too much time debating the Quatloosers and give no basic guidance to those who are just becoming aware of this debate.
www.taxableincome.net/


I've tried to make it a little less tedious:
denovo.html

And I've approached it from the Constitutional angle also:
www.synapticsparks.info/tax

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:35 PM  

Oh, and these sites are good also:



www.861.info
whatistaxed.com
861evidence.com

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:40 PM  

The 861 argument is a loser. It has continuously been shot down in the courts.

See Larken Rose, Thurston Bell, Al Thompson just to name a few who argued such and lost.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:43 PM  

To dee:

That is because Section 1 states whom is liable:

Married individuals
Heads of households
Unmarried individuals
Estates and trusts


The problem is the So-called tax patriots refuse to accept what is written in black and white.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:48 PM  

To Anonymous 4:13

Wow quite diatribe there. Here's a problem. You quote the Regs:

"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. § 1.1-1(a)(1)."

Cool! I like it and I'm with you! Now go to the IRC Definitions at Section 7701(a) 9 and 10. See if you fit into the shoes of "citizen or resident of the United States...." I sure as hell don't nor do 200 million other states Citizens! Therefore, as has always been the case but criminally denied, the feds have no subject matter jurisdiction over us unless we concede that point. Judge Dawson as well as Judge George before him denied this truth to come out in the court in Schiff's cases. Sadly, it doesn't change the facts.

After cutting Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1) open and examining it, we find that it is a truthful statement to whom it concerns BUT it is deceptively and in the instant case criminally misapplied upon us - the state Citizens.

Until we give the feds permission to rewrite our organic law and liberty - THEY DO NOT HAVE IT AND DO NOT OWN IT. Therefore, any communistic types can pound sand.

Finally, I don't know what is so hard to see, experience, sense or know that the feds, IRS and DOJ lie, cheat and steal. It's all about the money! Just follow the money!

Oops! I hope I didn't ruin anyone's idea of the euphoric American dream. Oops again! A diatribe of my own!

Here's the URL for the IRC Section 7701 - Definitions - look them up.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-F-79-7701.html

By Blogger Jim Paulson, at 10/25/2005 4:50 PM  

Section 6331 of the IRC (in reference to levies for failure to pay income tax) begins with wording "if any person LIABLE for any tax imposed..." Why does it say "any person liable" in conjunction with the use of the word "imposed" if liability is not a necessary element of imposition???

Where do I find out if I am LIABLE for the tax that is imposed (income)? If imposition was the only thing necessary, why the use of the word liable?? Why doesn't is just state "if any person fails to pay any tax imposed upon them"??

and again:

If nobody had to be "liable" for a tax that was imposed, why is there any "liability" sections in the Internal Revenue Code at all?? Why did they bother writing the 100's of pages that were written in the IRC to spell out who's liable for other taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc.)?

I'm still waiting.

By Blogger Dee, at 10/25/2005 4:52 PM  

A synopsis on how a law is enacted – from: Congressional Document # 105-14 1998
“One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the state were to hold its people responsible for conduct before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior. In practice, our laws are published in the Federal Register immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them.”

Now, only valid laws that apply to everyone in the Republic are published, meaning the people are put on notice. The term valid law implies there would also be “invalid” laws does it not, for if the law were not published it would not be “valid” law.

So why are United States Code titles 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44 & 49 enacted into law by being published in the Federal Register and titles 26 IRC and 42 Public Health and Welfare (social security interestingly), amongst others, are not enacted into law by being published into the Federal Register?

How many governments were created with the signing of the Constitution for America?

The above questions should be pondered, if you wish, and have your thoughts stimulated to seek the operative set of facts that lead to a legal conclusion. Bitching about and against people seeking freedom is just that, no more, no less!
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 4:54 PM  

Everyone ignores what 26 USC 861 says. Income from sources includes income received from domestic labor unless specifically excluded. So unless your income from labor is one of the excluded items in (3) then it is taxable.



§ 861. Income from sources within the United States:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if—

(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,

(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and

(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with—

(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or

(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.

In addition, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual’s temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 4:56 PM  

I don't know CJ - I don't recall ever saying anything about you that wasn't true. The thousand word essays you posit that say nothing, are bullshit. I wish there was another word to use that wasn't as profane, but sometimes you just have to go with your first impression. But hey, don't feel like the lone ranger. Dale Eastman, Hank and without a doubt -Schiff are just as capable (and do) of flinging enough bullshit to make a ranch hand feel at home.

I realize the truth hurts and it's something you and your ilk rabidly avoid, but deal with it.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/25/2005 4:58 PM  

Nice word for the bullshit of CJ's post:

full of PooPoo
full of the runs
full of the squirts

Just as CJ is!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:00 PM  

CJ:

If Congressional Document # 105-14 1998 says what you claim post a link to an actual certified copy!

Otherwise your post is full of PooPoo!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:05 PM  

For those of you who are new to the subject, you can go to www.givemeliberty.org for a great overview. Review the entire site thoroughly. Another great book is "Cracking the Code" by Peter Hendricken. You can do a google search to find it. Another great book is "The Creature From Jekyl Island" by G. Edwin Griffin. Although this book does not get much into the income tax deception per se, it clearly explains why the income tax was created to fund not the government, but the private banking cartel called The Federal Reserve Bank.

One of the reasons that the feds have gotten away with this deception for so long is because it is a very complex issue and people must have at least some basic understanding of the constitution as well as the taxation restrictions that were placed on the federal government and why.

Educate yourself! Knowledge is power and the more people that become aware of this deception, the harder it is going to get for them to continue to perpetuate it.

By Blogger Dee, at 10/25/2005 5:16 PM  

Truth is not determined by majority vote

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:22 PM  

Dee:

givemeliberty.org/ We The People / Bob Schulz is a joke and a waste. They have done more to hurt the movement then help.

By Anonymous Paco, at 10/25/2005 5:23 PM  

CJ said, "A synopsis on how a law is enacted – from: Congressional Document # 105-14 1998
'One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the state were to hold its people responsible for conduct before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior. In practice, our laws are published in the Federal Register immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them.'"


The document exists, and may be read at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd014.105

Of course, CJ made up the last sentence in the above quote; it does not appear anywhere in the document. The real last sentence actually says, "In practice, our laws are published immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them." (see the first paragraph of section XIX of the document).

Of course, there is no legal requirement that federal statutes be published in the Federal Register. In fact, if you read the document, you'll find that they aren't.

CJ, lying is hardly the way to persuade others of the validity of your position. Next time, be honest.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:32 PM  

CJ said, "A synopsis on how a law is enacted – from: Congressional Document # 105-14 1998
'One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the state were to hold its people responsible for conduct before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior. In practice, our laws are published in the Federal Register immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them.'"


The document exists, and may be read at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd014.105

Of course, CJ made up the last sentence in the above quote; it does not appear anywhere in the document. The real last sentence actually says, "In practice, our laws are published immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them." (see the first paragraph of section XIX of the document).

Of course, there is no legal requirement that federal statutes be published in the Federal Register. In fact, if you read the document, you'll find that they aren't.

CJ, lying is hardly the way to persuade others of the validity of your position. Next time, be honest.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:33 PM  

Dee said...
If nobody had to be "liable" for a tax that was imposed, why is there any "liability" sections in the Internal Revenue Code at all?? The word "liable" isn't anywhere in the Constitution as you say, so why bother writing the 100's of pages that were written in the IRC to spell out who's liable for other taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc.)? Oh, I see, liability is only necessary for some taxes and not others, is that it? Where can I find the rule of that one?
*********************************
You are arguing against an assertion no one has ever made. The question is not whether anyone has to be liable for the income tax, but rather whether or not Congress can specify who is liable for the income tax without using the word "liable". They can, of course, and have. Schiff's bizarre notion that Congress has to use the word "liable" borders on a belief in magic words.

Where do you come up with the idea that the word "liable" is required? The English language has multiple ways of expressing the same concept. Congress is not required to use any specific words or phrases when writing laws.

By Anonymous Steve, at 10/25/2005 5:41 PM  

I remember a while back there were 5 or 6 questions posted somewhere about challenging people to prove the tax, the 16th etc. for an award.
Does anyone know where those questions are in cyberspace?
would like to see them and have a go at them.

10/25/2005 11:33 AM

Go to www.taxableincome.net for the 6 questions.

Also - The information in section 861 has been consistently "shot down" by the courts because no judge has ever allowed that section to be entered into evidence. I read the section and it actually states in no uncertain terms what is taxable. Wages and income earned exclusively in the U.S. is not on the list. Every legal precedent says that in such a case what is not included is automatically EXcluded. That means that if it ain't on the list then it is not relevant.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:41 PM  

I think the guy who wrote the posting on 10/25/2005 10:24 AM
is a complete moron! The government has not given me anything, and in fact, all the stats show that "today", it takes 5 times as long to double your net worth than it did 100 years ago.

So then, he is a moron, because he believes that the Government can solve all the problems. Let see what he says when he is old and dying, and being abused at the hands of a Government worker in a nursing home that is charging him for therapy that he never gets!

People who believe that the Government was fabricated to "take care of us" are morons. This country is at it's best when people are working hard, not waiting for the Government to do something!

Dude, if you think Social Security is going to take care of you, then you are stupid! You should be in jail for being a moron!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:43 PM  

I have heard the specious arguments that without an "income tax" then bridges will collapse and roads will go unpaved. That schools will close and anarchy will reign. THAT IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Local governments pave roads and build bridges and pay for school. What is at "stake" is Federal "matching funds" which is money that is confiscated by the government and "gifted" to cities and states in return for complying with federal mandates. I for one am no longer interested in cooperating with the federal government. I will not cooperate. I suggest that anyone reading this do the same. Civil disobedience on a large scale is definitely the next step. Let these morons in DC know that their job is about to get much more difficult.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:48 PM  

I am new to a lot of this and not very familiar with the whole belief but could you all please tell me one thing.
why are there no groups or organizations like the ACLU - NAACP or the like that could be united against this cause. A group that could gain recognition by the mainstream. If you say GiveMeLiberty I'm afraid you are going to have to do better than that. Yes its great what they are doing but I think this fight needs a little more moxy. And why haven't people like Banister, Kidd, Jackson, Rose, Benson, Becraft, Peymon or the like created something like this? I'm starting to think that the only time they really come together is for Seminars to preach and pass around the basket. I remember hearing something in my history class years ago about- "United we stand Divided we fall!" - There's a lot of truth behind that and we all know it. (Ever see the movie Bug's Life.?) This movement needs a figure head and a strong leader-and its followers need to step out of the shadows and start a voice in their own communities. If one already exists please let me know so I can stand up and starting doing my part.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:57 PM  

About 30 of my friends (my rugby club) and I who have been following the trial are joining the local militia. This was absolutely the last straw. If the appeal is not successful and the presiding judge acts with the same criminality as Mr. Dawson I think that the militias will be our last refuge against an out of control government. We are rapidly running out of peaceful solutions. Prepare yourselves now.

The local commander was absolutely thrilled when we told him we wanted to meet with him as a group. This will almost double their membership. It is a great bunch of guys and gals representing all races and religions.

Militias - they're not just for white guys anymore.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 5:59 PM  

Colin Powell leaks real reason for SSN

"...Russia does not have a Social Security System, as here in America, that allows us to MONITOR, TRACK DOWN and CAPTURE an American citizen." - Colin Powell, 06/17/01

Mr. Powell tells us the underlying intent of the US Government, reaffirmed by his admission.


# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/25/2005 6:00 PM  

Anon said:

"Also - The information in section 861 has been consistently "shot down" by the courts because no judge has ever allowed that section to be entered into evidence. I read the section and it actually states in no uncertain terms what is taxable. Wages and income earned exclusively in the U.S. is not on the list."

861 regs have indeed been let into court as evidence. See the trials of Rose, Bell and thopson. They were admitted under the Cheek act as their relience and were shot down.

As for domestic wages not being included again go read 26 USC 861(3).

Everything is included eraned withing the US for labor except what is listed in 26 USC 861(3) as not included.

This is the proble with the so-called patriots they fail to read what is in front of them in black and white or ignore it because it does not substanciate their fairytale thoery!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 6:06 PM  

regarding the comment about the militias:

i completly agree. i joined a "gun club" today.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 6:06 PM  

More little bitches out there.

Response to anon. 6:05 I didn't post a link because I have the document in my hand...get your own or search the web.

bitch bitch bitch

Now for anon. 6:32

bitch bitch bitch

Hows this [in the Federal Register] so I forgot the brackets as emphasis added, maybe a thought forgotten in a mini senior moment, changing nothing but definately adds clarity and this anal person, having lots of class, too bad it’s all 4th, calls me a Liar.

You opened your big mouth, state a factual legal conclusion WHY EXACTLY some are enacted into positive law and why some are not and be specific and don't misspelled any none worsd ro forgets some minor tidbit cause you is a god unto yourself!

THEY are becoming frightened that I am getting ready to expose more truth...watch them bitch and bring forth a splinter while failing to see the log of their own.

The document stands as correct, thank you for your verification and admission that it is a true and correct document!
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 6:08 PM  

Steve,
My question was first, why is there inconsistency in the manner in which taxes are levied in the code? This alone at least gives the appearance of inpropriety. Why do most of the taxes have both imposition sections and corresponding liability sections, yet the income tax does not? And since this has been such a source of controversy among many tax honesty members, why the heck hasn't Congress just added a liablity section for income taxes like all the other taxes and end the confusion (you and I both know why - because legally they can't AND be in compliance with the early Supreme Court rulings without making it obvious that the average person isn't liable).

Also, I am questioning the liability because it is a word that THEY SPECIFICALLY use in Section 6331 and others sections. I repeat, Section 6331 begins with the wording "ANY PERSON LIABLE...". I didn't write the code, they did. There is no mention of imposed and they could just have easily written "Any person who fails to pay any tax IMPOSED" and they did not. You and I both know why.

The questions I ask are rhetorical for me, because I don't need an answer from you - I already know the truth. I just like to see you people squirm through you non-responsive, non-sensical answers.

And on another note, if the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to allow for direct taxation without apportionment (even though it never got ratified), why the heck didn't it just say so? Why didn't it say "Congress has the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment or enumeration"?

Wouldn't that have been a lot easier and straight forward. The reason it doesn't say this is because they NEVER, ever would have even come close to getting it ratified and allowing the federal government to directly tax state citizens without restriction would pretty much wipe out most of the Constitution (why would any of the other rights matter if they could make slaves of you?) So instead they pass an Amendment with an undefined word ("income", which Congress never clearly defined at the time it was allegedly passed), that they knew they could twist the meaning of at a later date, which is where we are today. (You know, the living, breathing, morphing and ever changing constitution.)

That doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court at the time saw what they were up to and made it clear that the 16th Amendment gave "no new power of taxation". Direct taxation without apportionment would clearly be a "new power of taxation".

Regardless of how you try to spin it, the cat is out of the bag and you're not going to get it back in. More and more people are finding out every day about the lies and deception and its just a matter of time before it become unenforcable. After all, how many juries can you fix, how many trials can you black out, how many lies can you tell and coverups can you manage before it comes back and bites you in the ass.

By Blogger Dee, at 10/25/2005 6:12 PM  

to don won -

no - 861 was not admitted in the Rose case or the Bell case. I dont' know about thopsom. in the case of Rose particularly the issue was "willfulness". in spite of consistently talking about 861 in email broadcasts and on his website and in spite of the fact that rose at NO time suggested that anyone "not pay up" nor did he ever try to "sell" anything the judge saw fit to disallow the actual laws that rose was accused of breaking into the courtroom. the judge directed the verdict 100%. again - if you actually were paying attention in the rose case you would know that like the schiff case there was ex parte communications between prosecution and judge which the defense was not privy to.

nice try Mr. fed

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 6:17 PM  

Burn Washington DC, hang the traitors.

Simple.

You're either with us, or against us. Decide now cause this puppet gov is going down.


# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/25/2005 6:22 PM  

The only thing that is going down is maybe you to the 7-11 to pick up another sixpack of Milwaukee's Best

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 6:29 PM  

I feel SINCERELY SORRY for Irwin's verdict !!! HE DID NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL AT ALL !!! I have a question to any and all out there on this blog- WHY IN THE HELL IS THEIR NOT A WORD OF BILL BENSON'S TRIAL ON A BLOG ANYWHERE ????? This particular trial is as important as Irwin's !! Especially since it has to do with the ILLEGAL ratification of the very amendment that the IRS touts to "get it's strength" from !!! I CANNOT BELIEVE THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO COVERAGE ANYWHERE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND in a an extensive internet search utilizing all the major search engines !!! This case is every bit as important, it DESPERATELY NEEDS DAILY COURTROOM COVERAGE IF POSSIBLE FROM ANYONE THAT HAS THE TIME IN IL TO SIT IN ON THE CASE !!!! The outcome of Bill's case need's to be covered just as fully as Irwin's !!! Someone or some group in the vicinity of Bill's courtroom please help in covering this case !!!!

By Anonymous D E from NC, at 10/25/2005 6:32 PM  

John wrote, "Who wants to be a citizen of Nazi America? A massive renouncing of citizenship by all of Irwin’s followers is in order. Then all of us go to Canada and ask for asylum."

ROFL! You don't think they have income taxes in Canada?

By Anonymous schiffiswrong, at 10/25/2005 6:38 PM  

My hat is off to Irwin.....right or wrong this man showed the courage of our founding fathers. He dared risk his right to walk as a free man for something that he deeply believes. And... he took that risk (not for himself), but for all of us.
After following with great inrerest the proceedings of his trail, I am convinced that we American's now reside in a country
controlled by a system showing itself to be worse than Nazi Germany.
If any of you think that we are "free".......it's only because you've been fortunate enough (for the moment) to have not yet had your own personal introduction into this "system." As long as you keep your eyes closed, pay your "fair share" and do what your Government tells you, you may be left alone. However, in light of what I'm seeing in the past several years from our "fearless leaders," I can't help the feeling that even the sheeple will eventually see this Government for what it is.
God Help American's and God bless Irwin.......I salute your courage sir!!
Michael
Phoenix

By Anonymous Michael/Phx, at 10/25/2005 6:39 PM  

dear anonymous I would like to know what you believe in something so strong that you will be willing to risk your freedom your life everything for I have read about people who sacrificed everything when they did not have to like our founding fathers most of them were well-off under British rule but they were willing to sacrifice their families their fortunes and their very lives for what they believe in but you are so much of a coward you will not even give your name my name is John Sheppard Jr. I live at 6010 deep green drive Shelby 28152 my telephone number is 704-471-1212 you see I'm not scared to use my real name address and telephone number I feel like Irwin Schiff Cindy and Larry won the greatest battle because they never back down and never surrendered their true hero's you on the other hand you are a coward just stay out of this user group we don't need cowards like you

By Blogger johnnyb, at 10/25/2005 6:43 PM  

I second that!!
Right on Johnny B !!

Michael
Phoenix

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 6:49 PM  

corrections on the telephone number it is 704-297-2979 that is my home telephone number the other one is my old cellphone number but you can reach me at home I look forward to talking to the coward simply known as anonymous

By Blogger johnnyb, at 10/25/2005 6:50 PM  

notepad said...
Burn Washington DC, hang the traitors.

Simple.

You're either with us, or against us. Decide now cause this puppet gov is going down.


Put me down as "against".

By Anonymous schiffiswrong, at 10/25/2005 6:50 PM  

thank-you Michael I would love to have been in that courtroom I wonder how those other cowards the jury as they're formally known the biggest cowards of them all they had a chance to make history but instead they chose fear and ignorance to afraid to make a difference there almost as bad as anonymous

By Blogger johnnyb, at 10/25/2005 6:56 PM  

JohnnyB,

As in all wars, there are battles won and lost......Unfortunately, Irwin's (at least until appeal) was a loss.....Trust me Johnny...the war's not over!
The brave American's are getting stronger in number every day.

Don't be surprised if Irwin's loss isn't a blessing in disguise (in the form of a wake up call to America).

By Anonymous Michael, at 10/25/2005 7:04 PM  

JohnnyB,

As in all wars, there are battles won and lost......Unfortunately, Irwin's (at least until appeal) was a loss.....Trust me Johnny...the war's not over!
The brave American's are getting stronger in number every day.

Don't be surprised if Irwin's loss isn't a blessing in disguise (in the form of a wake up call to America).

Michael
Phx

By Anonymous Michael, at 10/25/2005 7:05 PM  

Anon:

Sorry you lose.

The 1.861 regs were admitted into evidence in both the Rose and Bell cases. And they both lost. One is going to prison the other has been gaged

DUH!

Go get yourself a full and copy of the cases with all filings and transcripts and see for your self.

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 7:14 PM  

The ratification or NON- ratification of the 16th amendment is more of a “territory and/or citizenship” issue than an income tax issue. Why? Same reason enacted titles and non-enacted titles are as well. Some apply to the Republic and the others to the Territory under article 1, section 8, clause 17-18. Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over certain areas and later over people they don't need to enact those laws for those people. When the Constitution was signed there were No Federal or US citizens. That concept appeared with 14th amendment and was created for people of the black race only see VanValkenburg v. Brown. More on that later…

Now, from the Frank Brushaber case, for a moment with regard to the 16th amendment and tax.

“In fact, comprehensively surveying all the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 26] relied upon, aside from the erroneous construction of the Amendment which we have previously disposed of,…”

As I have stated earlier on this thread the amendment was worded in error, and there it is. That’s what “erroneous construction of the amendment” means. Do the math, so to speak, and read about it. So the amendment was constructed erroneously! There is a wording problem and one could misinterpret it not careful and people do!

Moving on:
“We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition is to answer it.”

WOAH! WHAT!
Let’s examine that for a moment… Who was given the power to makes all Rules and Regulations…? Quatloos… or Da Judge? hahaha NO! Congress and congress alone. See article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution.

So were the Supremes saying that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statue in question, upon the Secretary of the Treasury, it was void? Not questionable but void, because it unwarrantedly delegated legislative authority and to state the proposition is to answer it.

I mean, really how can any one ask that question? To say that the unelected secretary can actually take the place of Congress in violation of the known Constitutional limitation?
No wonder to ask it is to answer it!!!!!!!!!!!! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 7:22 PM  

The ACLU filed a brief in support of Mr. Schiff’s fight to keep The Federal Mafia from being banned by the government.
We need to get the ACLU involved in overturning this conviction so you need to call or write Gary Peck and express your concern about the way this trial was conducted.

Executive Director: Gary Peck
1700 E. Desert Inn Road, Suite 113
Las Vegas, NV 89109
Phone: 702-366-1226

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/25/2005 7:23 PM  

Hey there jonny b.
They just like to bitch and fail at talking trash as well.

Your cool man. CJ

"Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company."
George Washington

By Anonymous cj, at 10/25/2005 7:27 PM  

Here are the address and phone numbers? That is the only ones I could fined on yahoo.



Jury's names:
Monique Perkins
Annie Gooding
Uriel Samaniego
Carolyn Salton

Addie Gilliard Las Vegas, NV (702) 647-6191
Brenda Moulton

Sonia Lopez 5250 Stewart Ave Las Vegas, NV (702) 313-3014 OR 4141 Country Garden Ave Las Vegas, NV (702) 452-5518

Belisa Brownlee
Eric Lombardo
Travis Groft

Stanley Ward Las Vegas, NV (702) 655-9270

Christina Steinagel (replaced)
Al Dishon (#12)
Melissa Stoddard
10/24/2005 7:20 PM

By Blogger Tax Free, at 10/25/2005 7:33 PM  

Sec. 7341. Penalty for sales to evade tax

-STATUTE-
(a) Nonenforceability of contract
Whenever any person who is LIABLE to pay any tax IMPOSED by this title

I hope this helps to solve the frivolous debate over the word liable.

By the way the word can be found hundreds of times in the code.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 7:41 PM  

HA PEOPLE; I have been following the trial of Erwin , Cindy and Larry from the begining, and we as people need to react, first and foremost, by state by state getting the Constitution re-ratified. In this maybe the general population will start to wake up!!!!.

By Anonymous LOUB, at 10/25/2005 7:52 PM  

Just as our shameful CONgress and the American people were misled about WMD's in Iraq, which they are admitting to "now", both democrat and republican, as heard today on NPR, so was this jury in Irwinn's trial.
Shame on this Judge and Shame on this Jury.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 8:13 PM  

CJ:

Your reading of court cases is as bad as Schiff's. Take it out of context and only take bits and pieces to put together to try and fit your illogical fairytale theory.

Again your post is full of:

PooPoo
Runs
Squirts
BS
Diaper Rash

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 8:17 PM  

ANON said:

" Sec. 7341. Penalty for sales to evade tax

-STATUTE-
(a) Nonenforceability of contract
Whenever any person who is LIABLE to pay any tax IMPOSED by this title

I hope this helps to solve the frivolous debate over the word liable."

*******

Just as bad a Schiff only taking bits and pieces to fit an illogical theory.

Now for the full and rest of what the statute says:

§ 7341. Penalty for sales to evade tax
Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) Nonenforceability of contract
Whenever any person who is liable to pay any tax imposed by this title upon, for, or in respect of, any property sells or causes or allows the same to be sold before such tax is paid, with intent to avoid such tax, or in fraud of the internal revenue laws, any debt contracted in such sale, and any security given therefor, unless the same shall have been bona fide transferred to an innocent holder, shall be void, and the collection thereof shall not be enforced in any court.


That only deals with what it says:
PROPERTY SALES TO EVADE TAXES !!!!!!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/25/2005 8:22 PM  

We the people may still have some power, but you have to get off your easy chair, face your addictions to comfort and excess and stand up for Inalienable, God given rights! for if you don't you may hear the knock on your door, very soon.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 9:38 PM  

TO: THE PATRIOTS,
Do yourself and Mr. Schiff a favor and stop arguing with the idiots for a moment and read the following. Then forward it to everyone you know and ask them to forward it to everyone they know.
The ACLU filed a brief in support of Mr. Schiff’s fight to keep The Federal Mafia from being banned by the government.
Those of you who want to help Mr. Schiff need to help us get the ACLU involved in overturning this conviction. So stop whatever you are doing and call or write Gary Peck and express your concern about the way this trial was conducted.

Executive Director: Gary Peck
1700 E. Desert Inn Road, Suite 113
Las Vegas, NV 89109
Phone: 702-366-1226

Also, it can never hurt to have the most well know and respected appellate attorney in the United States, Alan Dershowitx involved. You and everyone you know need to email Mr. Dershowitx at dersh@law.harvard.edu and ask him to look into Mr. Schiff’s trial.
0r call or fax him at;
Phone: (617) 495-4617
Fax: (617) 495-7855

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/25/2005 10:00 PM  

The ACLU will not get involved with the criminal case!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:29 PM  

Irwin sacrificed himself for the rest of the best! What a noble man.
Some one needs to post the address of a judge, also where he attends church. The store where he shops for what ever one like he eats. The make & color of car he drives. It’s tag number & tire size. What time of day he drives to & from work. Where he buys gasoline. Watch this so called man he is evil! Watch him like a hawk! When all this is known do not shop or go where he does! Post this info in the news paper. HE is an outcast. Treat this man like JESUS said, a heathen or tax collector.

Send a letter to each of his church members let them know about him. Write letters to all the stores he goes to& their managers& inform them that you will not shop there as long as they serve his kind. 100 letters to each business will do the job. Get a boat air horn & when you see him blow that horn & say hi to all, thought you were hard of hearing. Everyone send him a present for every occasion you can think of & make this your life’s commintment! After all he is someone's friend!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 10:53 PM  

For those that do NOT want to believe that the ACLU, along with the Freedom to Read Foundation, will support Irwin Schiff, here it is:

United States v. Irwin Schiff, et al.: The Foundation filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit after the federal government successfully sought a temporary restraining order against Irwin Schiff and his publisher, Freedom Books, forbidding them to publish Mr. Schiff’s book, The Federal Mafia: How Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes. FTRF’s brief opposed the court’s prior restraint of Mr. Schiff’s book. After a federal judge in Las Vegas upheld the restraining order, Mr. Schiff and the ACLU of Nevada appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on February 9, and a decision is pending.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/25/2005 11:06 PM  

Help Irwin: Important: To keep track of Irwin in Federal custody/jail, go to: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&LastName=Schiff&Middle=&FirstName=Irwin&Race=U&Sex=M&Age=&x=25&y=22

IRWIN A SCHIFF # 08537-014

You can also post money to Irwin's prison account, so he can use it or buy him a prison phonecard asap.

We're pulling for you, Irwin !!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:12 PM  

How about this: instead of sitting around bitching about the injustice of it all why not get off of your butts and come together to decide what you are going to actually DO to change things (like the guy that joined the militia)! The Feds have set the Rules of Engagement. They treat the People with contempt and derision. They are probably reading this and laughing their asses off and thinking that their jobs and persons are safe from harm since people like CJ sit around all day typing shit on a blog. Look - WE NEED AN ANGRY CITIZENRY THAT IS WILLING TO TAKE ACTION! We need people who will actually make the Feds sweat. The court system is completely rigged with the prosecution and judge essentially on the same team. Join a militia! Write letters! Stage protests! But stop nitpicking about the specific wording of the 861 evidence or cutting and pasting snippets of IRC.

(I do have one small bit of bitching that is hard to resist: CJ -I can tell from the time stamps that you've been sitting in front of your computer all day. Do you actually HAVE a job which gives you income to tax or are you just sitting there in your underwear ranting for 12 hour per day?)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:21 PM  

re: anonymous's suggestion to follow judges with airhorns, send letters, etc....

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:30 PM  

Where has Irwin's son been in all this? He clearly has his father's gift of economic knowledge, yet he remains silent. WHy, to protect his business (www.europac.net)? Write CNBC, the New York Times and other media outlets and encourage them to get Pete Schiff's thoughts on this case. He is famous and has a large enough media following to make an impact. The public doesn't understand the issues at hand because we have lost the public relations battle so far. Pete gets a lot of press, perhaps his high profile can help save Irwin in this all-important fight!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/25/2005 11:31 PM  

Please look at the other blog dated 10/25/2005 02:16:00 AM and I have two comments;

10/25/2005 11:48 PM
Letters should be sent to; the Office of Management and Budget, the Congress, and The U.S. Supreme Court notifying them that Judge Dawson doesn’t give a rats patooty of what the US. Constitution has to say on; who can ISSUE FORMS that are required by legislative regulations, who WRITES the LAW, and who is the AUTHORITY to uphold the Constitution and is a judge’s superiors.

10/26/2005 12:36 AM
For those that would like to know where Irwin Schiff might end up is possibly here in Victorville:

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/25/2005 11:44 PM  

All right, I've waited over 24 hours for this:

Told you so.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/26/2005 3:05 AM  

"CJ:Your reading of court cases is as bad as Schiff's. Take it out of context and only take bits and pieces to put together to try and fit your illogical fairytale theory.

WRONG AGAIN - EXTRACTED EXACT QUOTES, IN CONTEXT, WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING AND OTHER LEGAL POINTS TO CONFIRM AND DID SO DUE TO SPACE AND TIME.

Again your post is full of:
PooPoo Runs Squirts BS Diaper Rash
10/25/2005 9:17 PM"

GOTTA LOVE IT, NOTHING BUT NAME CALLING, NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE, NO LAW. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT IS? TO ATTEMPT TO SWAY PEOPLE INTO STUPIDITY MAYBE?

A SELF PROCLAIMED GOD UNTO HIS OR HER SELF HAS SPOKEN IN THE ABOVE QUOTES.

EITHER WE LIVE AS POO POO NAME CALLERS OR WE LIVE AS PEOPLE WITH FACTS EVIDENCE AND LAW.

WHICH DO YOU WANT TO BE CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/26/2005 8:30 AM  

I don't want to be CJ that's for sure.

Hey where were you called names CJ?

Name the post and date!

You were never called a name! Your posts were said to be fll of:

PooPo
Runs
Squirts
Diaper Rash!

Your posts have no substance and as mentioned you ignore what the rest of the court cases say and only use bits and ieces to try and substanciate your fairytale theory as Schiff has tried to do.

CJ you haven't posted one posts with any evidence.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:38 AM  

don won said:

Do you have a:

FHA backed home loan?
Answer: NO

Drivers License?
Answer: Yes, so what? It was forced on me by the state. I can drive my car just as well without it.

Social Security Card?
Answer: Yes, so what? It was forced on me by the state. I can live just as well without it and I have never contributed to SS.

Motor Vehicle License Plate?
Answer: Yes, so what? It was forced on me by the state. My car runs just as good without it.

Bank account insured by FDIC?
Answer: Yes, so what? I never asked for it and the FDIC is so hopelessly underfunded that it would not do any good in a real crisis anyway.

Savings Account insured by FDIC?
Answer: Yes, so what? I never asked for it and the FDIC is so hopelessly underfunded that it would not do any good in a real crisis anyway.

Student Loan?
Answer: No

So, does the state give me anything I need or asked for? Absolutely NOT.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:59 AM  

I propose meeting in a less public forum so that we can discuss more serious issues other that simply writing letters. Protests of this type always seem to fall on deaf ears. The Feds do not care about protest letters or protest marches. All those things do is reinforce the fact that we have turned into a nation of weenies. Perhaps if the Fed actually saw large groups of average Americans drilling with weapons (legally of course) that perhaps they might start getting an inkling that they had better change their ways. WE NEED TO MAKE THEM AS AFRAID OF US AS WE ARE OF THEM! WE NEED TO SHOW THEM THAT ILLEGAL RAIDS AND THROWING THE INNOCENT INTO JAIL OVER PAPERWORK "VIOLATIONS" WILL RESULT IN MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAN CLOGGED EMAIL BOXES.

I would of course never advocate unprovoked violence against government employees but they need to understand that there is a possibility that their illegal raids and generally fascist behovior *might* result in a direct armed conflict with their bosses, i.e. The People. I *might* even cheer if some sort of rescue mission was mounted to free our imprisoned spokesmen and spokeswomen.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 1:02 PM  

Anon said:

"Drivers license - i didn't ask for it but is mandated to drive."

Yes it is mandated for those that are statutorily required to have one.

So if you chose to just get one without seeing if you are statutorily mandated then that is your fault YES you asked for a government priviledge!


"Social security - again i don't recall volunteering for this one."

If you have a SSN and card YES you did ask to volunteer!

MV license plate - how do i drive a car without this one. nope didn't ask for it."

YES if you have one you asked for it and the government priviledge. If you didn't bother to check if you were statutorily mandated to have one then again thats your fault.

"Savings account. At 1.5% interest "what is the point of this one."

So again you asked for the government priviledge to have your money insured in case of loss.

Now Bow Down and OBEY!

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/26/2005 1:29 PM  

The so-called patriots just do not understand that they ask for a priviledge and to be regulated when voluntarily they:

obatin a SS card:

You are claiming you are incompetent to handle to provide for yourself in the future when you reach retirement!

Obtain a drivers license:

You are claiming you are incompetent to handle to travel the roads and need to be told what to and not to do!

Obtain a checking or savings account FDIC insured:

You are claiming you are incompetent to handle your own money and need it looked after by someone else!

Obtain insurance for you automobile:

You a claiming tha you are incompetent to handle your own financial responcibility for any damage you may cause.

And many, many more!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 1:39 PM  

WHAT’S IN THE MEASING OF A WORD?

Willfulness, voluntary, & mandatory!

Voluntary; Someone can optionally agree to do something, but if they refuse to agree then they will have to suffer the consequences!

Mandatory; Someone must agree to do something, but if they refuse to agree then they will have to suffer the consequences!

Willfulness; Someone has chosen to do something, but if they choose to make that choice in opposition then they will have to suffer the consequences!

Schiff willfully failed to file tax returns reporting that he conned the American people in NOT paying the ‘income’ tax on a form 1040 that is NOT required by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB 1545-0074, under 26 IRC 602.101 for a tax which they do NOT owe!

HE REFUSED TO CONFESS TO COMMIT A CRIME WHICH DOES NOT EXIST UNDER TITLE 18!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/26/2005 1:56 PM  

At what age do you think most Americans get a SS card, or a drivers license? 15-16 I would guess.
what 15 or 16 year old person do you know-would have any knowledge of statutory this and that.
Stop assuming everyone is going to be as smart and maybe as paranoid as you Don Won.
Since you are so educated in all of this- let me ask you- what are you doing in your community to pass on your wisdom?
Don't you think you have a responsibility to your fellow man or is "every man for himself" your attitude?
It seems like you people in here just like to sit around a belly-ache. I would really love to know what pro-active steps any of you are taking to really make a difference.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:03 PM  

Correction; that should be 26 CFR 602.101, not 26 IRC 602.101.

See more of this at blog: 10/25/2005 02:16:00 AM under non-liable posting, 10/25/2005 11:48 PM

By the way, didn’t you know that you are responsible for the actions taken by your parents that relate to you when you are below the age of 18!
You as a newborn were required to know the LAW then and accept the consequences of your parents’ actions.
YOU ARE A SLAVE!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/26/2005 2:11 PM  

Anymore most aprents get apply for the childs SSN at the hospital when they are born.

It's is the parents responsibilty to know what is and is not required for their children upto 18 years of age.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:12 PM  

Most parents and people are under the conventional assumption that you have to have a SS card in order to work in this country. Do you believe that the average American is going to question any of what you are talking about?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:24 PM  

Exactly- if the average american did question authorities more- then I doubt that this tax or this forum would even exist.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:26 PM  

WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP BELLYACHING ABOUT THE REGULATIONS? THE REGS ARE DESIGNED TO BE CONFUSING. THAT IS WHY THERE IS SO MUCH DEBATE AS TO WHAT THEIR TRUE MEANING IS. UNTIL YOU FIGURE THIS OUT YOU WILL FOREVER BE STUCK IN THIS ENDLESS CYCLE. WE NEED TO TAKE POSITIVE ACTION NOW. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OFFICERS OF THE COURT KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE THESE ILLEGAL INCARCERATIONS LYING DOWN. WE NEED TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE GREATLY OUTNUMBERED BY AN INCERASINGLY HOSTILE POPULATION!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:58 PM  

To: cj said....SOMETHING CHANGED –

I totally 100% agree with your statements!

Seems these posters that are all for Irwin schiff's conviction are nothing more than mindless Marxists, who love the Communist policy of PROGRSSIVE INCOME TAX!

Enough said!

By Anonymous Robert40/Georgia, at 10/26/2005 6:01 PM  

Great idea... Join a militia. If anyone knows of a local militia in the southern part (around Los Angeles) of California please let me know. I'm sick of this way of life and I want to make every scum bag that works for the gubmint sick as well. I want to let them know that we will one day be coming for them. I hope that when the truth is finally exposed and teh IRS and the FTB are disolved all the scum that worked for any of these taxing venues will not be able to find work anywhere. Any companies that employ them will be shunned and hopefully they will go out of business. Let the families of those scunm suffer ten times more than they have made innocent families suffer because of this fraud.

By Blogger Macloed, at 10/26/2005 7:46 PM  

One you wonder why tax protestors are considered illiterate crackpots.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 10/26/2005 7:51 PM  

Anonymous said...
Hey where were you called names CJ?
Name the post and date!
You were never called a name! Your posts were said to be fll of:

PooPo Runs Squirts Diaper Rash!

CJ you haven't posted one posts with any evidence.

10/26/2005 12:38 PM

You are a bald faced liar. Read threads for the past two weeks and many names have been tossed about. Now read posts of the past two weeks and many EXACT cites have appeared.

Just because you haven't the ability to read and cognate doesn't mean that you are correct.

you simply have a hair up your butt for me and that is your problem, not mine.
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/27/2005 9:29 PM