Monday, October 17, 2005

Folks,

We will be podcasting starting today for those of you who enjoy the convenience of podcast.

One source is podcast.net.

We'll strive to make any new audio's available twice a day.

David Jahn

81 Old Comments:

To Judge Dawson

10:1
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;

10:2
To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!

10:3
And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

10:4
Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

10:5
O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.

10:6
I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

From Isaiah 10

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 8:46 AM  

Your Federal debt is a PRIVATE DEBT owed to a PRIVATE consortium that you tricked into agreeing to pay on their behalf.

That is but one reason that Title 26 IRC has not been enacted into "POSITIVE" law as are Titles 1, 3, 4 and others. Those have been enacted into Positive law.
Title 26 is PRIVATE LAW or SPECIAL LAW.

Positive Law is enacted for use of the American Government.
Law not enacted is for use by the Federal State, a different animal.

We are victims of assumption and presumption! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 8:58 AM  

For clarificaion, titles 1, 3 and 4 HAVE been enacted into Positive Law. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 8:59 AM  

Go check out Cindy Neun's 90+ page palimony complaint where she describes the REAL Irwin Schiff, and not the "kindly old grandfather" routine that he puts on in court.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 9:17 AM  

another quatloos quisling post above.

They are blinded by hate and offer nothing except their love for the Marxist progressive income tax.

To date, not one quatloos "quisling" = (Collaborator [nazi type]) has offered anything positive toward the reversal of the tyranny that engulfs our country! Beware! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 9:24 AM  

Scum of the earth. climb back into the hole you came from and get off our audio blog.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 9:24 AM  

The Scum of the earth message was ment for the squats of quatloosers that impose their garbage on this blog and Schiff supporters.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 9:31 AM  

Funny how you are AFRAID to address the TRUTH of Cindy's allegations in her 90+ page palimony complaint.

As with other forms of truth, you simply want to ignore all unfavorable evidence as if it never existed, such as these convictions of Schiff's followers:

Schiff clients who have been criminally prosecuted aren't hard to find...

United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Dentice, No. 99-50101 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 1999)
United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Burdett, 962 F.2d 228 (2d Cri. 1992)
United States v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Crosson, No. 95-176 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 1995)
United States v. Anderson, 637 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Conn. 1986)
A new one for you: United States v. David G. Pflum, 2005 TNT 196-13, No. 04-3508 (10th Cir. 10/7/2005), aff'ng No. 04-CR-40008-SAC (U.S.D.C. Kan.). The opinion is about instructions on "willfulness" and objections to certain testimony on tax rates, not too interesting. The opinion begins:

10th Cir. wrote:
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 69 (A. Smyth ed. 1907). While not contesting the inevitability of the former (as far as we know), David G. Pflum believed he had found a loophole to escape the latter. After an extensive study that included reading books such as "The Great Income Tax Hoax" and "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes," he stopped paying taxes.1

[Footnote]1 We note that the author of these books, Irwin Schiff, has maintained for more than 30 years that income taxes are voluntary, but, not surprisingly, "he has never been successful with that theory in court." United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing cases in which Schiff's arguments have been rejected); Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985) (referring to the "blatant nonsense" promoted by Schiff).

The 10th Circuit affirmed Pflum's conviction on eight counts of failure to pay quarterly employment taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and three counts of failure to file a federal income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, as well as his sentence of 30 months in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 9:32 AM  

This is where Irwin welched on his bet; good reading!

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/newman.htm

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 9:33 AM  

p.s. IF anyone thinks that I am not "on target" then prove it.

Don't just call names, show anger, disagree without substance, post some off point issue - If that is your behavior you will be proving that you learned it from the IRS/Corporate Federal government for those are their tactics.
Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 9:42 AM  

I have addressed your "proof"...funnier how you continue to deny it!

Funny how you continue to post the same ole stuff offering nothing new.

Funny how you NEVER ANSWER A POINTED QUESTION and only post tired old junk.

Well, I don't find it funny at all, I find it revealing that YOU HAVE NOT, WILL NOT AND CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED SO OFTEN. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 9:47 AM  

An Open Letter to ALL Quatloos Quislings,

You act as though being at war against your fellow American is a virtue, why is that?
You act as though you agree with and love the Marxist Progressive Income Tax, why is that?
You act as though you have never studied one iota of the facts and only follow what a judge said without questioning WHY he said it, why is that?
You never answer issues relative to the tax matter on point, why is that?
You post quotes of Ben Franklin about generic tax, though there wasn't an "income" tax when he lived and thus is irrelevant, why is that?
You have not addressed my question, posted many times, with regard to what CRS said in that INCOME IS NOT the subject of the TAX, Why is that?
You act as though there is virtue in your hate for anyone attempting to call attention to, and/or correct what should seemingly be to everyone, at least an error made against the American People, why is that?

Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 9:56 AM  

I think I got it CJ -
I am not a war with my fellow American, My problem is with the IMPOSITION of the Tax, Right? Forget Liability for now because the liability statute is not found in Title 26 but somewhere else Right?
I shouldn’t spend my time worrying about or caring about what others say, I should spend my time learning about “They” say, right?
They are the government, the Federal State, the IRS, the Prosecutors and the Judges!
They say the tax is imposed upon a privilege as you pointed out a number of days ago.
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, the revised and updated their report:
What does the court mean when it states that
the income tax is in the nature of an excise tax?
“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.”
“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.”
: In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” The fore stated excerpt of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for determining its Amount.”
So they say I am exercising a “Privilege” that I somehow obtained but I don’t know what it is and how I obtained it, Right?
Their records show that I am either a resident alien, corporate franchise, or and alien collecting a benefit due to my privilege and that is how they impose the tax upon me, Right?
My quest it to determine how they do this, how they did this and what I can do about it, Right?
Please advise and Thanks

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:17 AM  

Go check out Cindy Neun's 90+ page palimony complaint

Why would I want to go and read about Cindy and Irwin's dirty laundry? We all know how messy divorces can be. This in a sense was a divorce.
Sounds to me like you are the type that likes to read the Enquirer. get a life.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:17 AM  

Hello Jerry Hosteg here,

lawoman, you think Judge Dawson will consider the bible? He has already made his decision and is wieghed on the balances and found wanting.

Less he and others repent and willfully sin no more, can they gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

The things on this earth are temporary (just like life on this earth). People tend to get comfortable with the things of this earth - to the point where they will do anything to preserve or get more.

Judge Dawson is not likely to change his pride, and will never admit he was wrong. I'll be suprised if he does. And will be great if he does!

I know a man that did submitted to the will of God after breaking down his pride and admitting he was wrong. He is also mentioned in the Bible. His name was Nebuchadnezzar king of the Chaldean (also known as the Neo-Babylonian).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:25 AM  

Now now John, only enquiring minds truly want to know!

To anon. Above “I think I got it CJ”

YOU GOT IT-
NOW LET’S DO WHAT IT TAKES TO FIX IT! CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/17/2005 10:31 AM  

There are lines from the son The impossible dream that put me in mind of Iwrin Schiff. To fight the unbeatable foe, to run where the brave dare not go, to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, to right the inrightable wrong, to try when your arms are to weary, thanks to Irwins courage to stand uo for his convictions the world will be better for this.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:31 AM  

There are lines from the son The impossible dream that put me in mind of Iwrin Schiff. To fight the unbeatable foe, to run where the brave dare not go, to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, to right the inrightable wrong, to try when your arms are to weary, thanks to Irwins courage to stand uo for his convictions the world will be better for this.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:31 AM  

There are lines from the son The impossible dream that put me in mind of Iwrin Schiff. To fight the unbeatable foe, to run where the brave dare not go, to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, to right the inrightable wrong, to try when your arms are to weary, thanks to Irwins courage to stand uo for his convictions the world will be better for this.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:31 AM  

Irwin Schiff is nothing but a 2-bit scam artist who has sold his koolaid-drinking followers a bunch of snake-oil, and then ignored them as they went to prison, like Steve Swan his loyal follower who got 16 years in prison (and only in the very end figured out that Schiff had scammed him, and filed a lawsuit against Schiff).

Far from being a hero, this twice-convicted felon is just an old con artist, and the only thing surprising is that the pro wrasslin' crowd continues to believe in him.

And if you think that he is some kind of "kindly old grandfather" be sure to read Cindy Neun's 90+ page palimony complaint, including where she uses the word "rape".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:48 AM  

To see pictures of Judge Dawson being involuntarily yanked from the courtroom go to
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/17/2005 10:49 AM  

How is it that there is a Corporation listed in the database of the NV Secretary of State as follows:

"TREASURY DEPARTMENT- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE"

Doesn't this prove that the "TREASURY DEPARTMENT- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" is a corporation if they are trying to avoid D.C. or some othe state income taxation?

The "U.S. Treasury Department" is a government agency, is it not?

Therefore, if "TREASURY DEPARTMENT- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" is a NV Corporation, then who owns the shares since bearer shares can be used in NV? It is listed as a C Corporation (for profit corporation)....who is entitled to the profit? The U.S. Gvt. or some other 3rd party.

If bearer shares are being utilized than any foreign or domestic 3rd party could own this Corporation and be receiving its profits.

Notice how the payment of tax has to be made out to the "U.S. Department of Treasury" which again is a government agency...

it appears that the "TREASURY DEPARTMENT-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" is a private collection agency owned possibly by a non-resident alien 3rd party.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 10:52 AM  

Reasonable Guy said...
CJ,

I'm just asking where you stand.

Your writing style is not succinct so I apologize if I made assumptions.

So I'm still looking for a clear answer from you. What would you do to the budget for the missing 43% of Federal revenue if there were no personal income tax? Would you increase other taxes or cut the budget and how would you sell that plan to the American people?

10/16/2005 4:35 PM

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

CJ wimped out and could not answer.

Anyone care to put forth an intelligible, clear answer?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/17/2005 10:56 AM  

Who are you Reasonable Guy to say I "wimped out" when I very succintly STATED
GO LOOK AT WHAT ESTONIA, (thats a country) DID. THERE IS MY ANSWER!

ASKED AND ANSWERED!
Your assertion, once again PROVEN FALSE!

You act as though ignoring things is a virtue, why is that? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 11:04 AM  

A national sales tax would solve the problem and it would fall, legally, within the taxing clauses of the Constitution.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/17/2005 11:04 AM  

To anon. 11:52
Absolutely!

Everyone, Read the 1944 Brenton Woods Agreement, (that is a place, a location, not a person's name for those who like to post the minutia) wherein the entire treasurey of the domestic Federal Corporation was turned over to the IMF a foreign corporation!

We are moving along... CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 11:10 AM  

To Reasonable Guy, I do not treat you "unreasonably" why do you "fabricate" about me?

Why do you call me a "wimp" because you don't UNDERSTAND.

You have not answered my question about the Privilege the tax is imposed have you? You made an attempt but you didn't state the privilege as per CRS, Congress, Courts etc... why is that?

I don't believe you a wimp because you fail to know, learn or understand. I encourage you to read, comprehend and study! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 11:14 AM  

That's easy.
Put a tax on all those goods coming into this country. It's called an import tax and completely within constitution for the federal government to tax.
Has anybopy ever heard of the trillion dollar trade deficite. Sounds like a big source of tax revenue for me.

Of course we can leave the stratus quo and distroy american manufacturing and production and penalize the nation with an income tax.

Lets see americans try to evade the import tax.

Joe Free

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 11:15 AM  

The Constitutionalist said...
A national sales tax would solve the problem and it would fall, legally, within the taxing clauses of the Constitution.
The problem with that kind of a Tax the rich would pay more because they spend more. Now what rich person wants to do that. I can see the lobbist already

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 11:46 AM  

Not to mention a flat tax would eliminate class discrimination

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 11:56 AM  

and most of the bean counters at Squatlooser

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 11:56 AM  

As I see it the problem we face lies in the federal judicial system. As an example, lets suppose congress passes a law that says, “White is the lightest color” Then a year or so later federal judge A rules, “Slightly off white is also acceptable as the lightest color” Then, because it suits his immediate problem federal judge B says “Light gray also falls within federal judge A’s written opinion” So, federal judge C says “Dark Gray falls within federal judge B’s opinion” This progresses to the point that federal judge X says “It is well established law that Black is the lightest color”
That is exactly what happened in the federal system to the income tax laws. The federal government in earlier tax case had the federal judge A rule the tax laws are okay even if they are “slightly confusing (off white)” and then federal judge B, judge Dorsey told Irwin Schiff’s jury, in his first trial, “that they could find him guilty even if they thought the tax laws were not specific (dark gray) and the government did not prove their case against him.” That case set the ball in motion to where now federal judge X say “Well, the judge and jury in the Schiff case made it clear that there is a law compeling (Black as the ace of spades) the filing and payment of income tax. Which brings us to the case at hand. Federal judge Z, judge Dawson’s answer to Irwin’s question “Show me the law” is, “All the courts have ruled (Blacker then black) there is a law so I don’t have to show you or the jury anything!” That, my children is how the federal government, in most areas of our life, turns white into black and makes most of the citizens believe it even thought their eyes tell them different.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/17/2005 12:28 PM  

OK, CJ. I'll bite your hook and let myself be drawn away from the US temporarily. Now reel me in with SPECIFICS about Estonia.

Attached is the Estonia tax structure presented for all. Tell us specifically, CJ, what do you like about it?

http://www.fin.ee/doc.php?12176

We are all waiting. For all those lurking, remember he brought it up so he should be prepared to talk specifics with no evasions.

Good luck.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/17/2005 12:59 PM  

Dear Constitutionalist, (and others….)
I would like to agree with your (Const.) latest court analysis. I would also like to offer a thought, though I had been waiting for the verdict to do so, I’ll do it now.

Might the second part of Irwin’s title be incorrect? The Federal Mafia certainly is reflective of attitude, tactics, the underhandedness and corruption they perform with.
However, How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes may be in Error! It certainly appears as though this is what is happening but the courts rule otherwise! Might a correction in our view be necessary? This is not to say that the IRS has not ruined countless lives and businesses of those who file and those who don’t alike. My father is a testimony of how a life is ruined for a filer. I’ll move on…

IF! Just suppose that the government has on its Official Record our name and Tax I.D. number a.k.a. the Social Security Number that we are engaged in an activity or business as a corporate franchise…OR…that we are listed as resident aliens…OR…we are listed as non-resident aliens engaged in a trade or business that has effectively connected income? Might they be collecting the tax “legally” IF this is what their record shows?

I mean it is legal to collect the booze tax etc… and if we are somehow, someway connected to a trade or business akin to that or are listed as Government Employees etc…would they not be collecting the taxes owed? Now I am not saying we are indeed those things! I am saying that IF we were indeed portrayed upon their OFFICIAL RECORDS as such we would indeed owe a tax, based on the privilege of participation in one of the above events. Let’s all just stop and think for a moment. Calm and easy like.
Doesn’t title 26 allow for the collection of taxes upon certain trades and businesses and even upon foreigners that work in this country? If we are listed as such, they are simply doing to us what they do to them.

If the above is true, we have nothing on the Official Record to rebut their assumption or claim against us and thus our arguments are, in law, frivolous! Though our arguments are correct with regard to an American having a birthright and living in one of the Union States, by the same token our arguments are incorrect if we are officially listed as one of the above that is actually liable for a tax!

Ever wonder why in all tax cases the SS# is introduced by the prosecution? The SS is voluntary we all know, but only for Americans. Foreign persons are Mandated to obtain the number that sets up the IRS Account! IF we are listed as foreign persons engaged in a franchised trade of business that has effectively connected income, and are Not listed as Americans, could they be collecting the tax seemingly legally? CJ

The remedy for the above is to correct the record!

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/17/2005 1:00 PM  

Dear Reasonable Guy,

I believe it incumbent upon you to google (or other)what has happened in Estonia. The data is way more concentrated than what I can do here. I will Address why later in this post!

I am not saying that I am in favor of America doing what Estonia has done, but I am saying that the Corporate US Federal State and you may find it helpful...with that said.

Estonia elected a former wild hippie type guy, a radical if you will, and he looked around at all available tax structures for Estonia was in dire straights, so to speak.

He instituted a specific type of flat tax structure that after a few years the rate actually CAME DOWN and continues to drop. (Thats cool). Estonia went from a negative to a positive with growth and their needs met. A few other countries watched and have followed and are experiencing similar results.

Germany actually looked at it but the CONSERVATIVE thought, meaning "status quo," argued and thus they didn't follow are having difficulties.

I propose that you do a wee bit of research on this subject and you will find my above thumbnail sketch indeed correct. And if you do that you will simply say thank you for the idea.

Now, as stated in my first paragraph, I am trying to teach certain facts about the Imposition of the Tax in America and do not have time to also instruct you personally on Estonia.

Before you make attempt to slam me again...Please look into the above for yourself. I did it, you certainly can as well.

After you do, post what happened and the results for that is your topic, not mine.

Respectfully, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 1:13 PM  

You say “Irwin Schiff is nothing but a 2-bit scam artist” in his issue with Cindy Nuen, but I guess you have never welshed on anything! You always kept your promises and told the truth!

But at the same time it is OK for Judge Dawson to welsh on his oath of office to swear on a bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution!

Get off it! We are not here to debate the Irwin – Cindy issue because that does not apply to all of us, but the income tax issue does.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/17/2005 1:14 PM  

p.s. reasonable guy -

How to save the corporate federal state from its 8 trillion dollar debt is your topic...and a good one.

It is not my topic.
My topic of concern is HOW to help the people and get Americans back into America and out of the corporate Federal state and out from under the 8 trillion of private debt they are paying for someone else.

Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 1:19 PM  

truthman said....
To Judge Dawson the Mormon fool.
Jesus, the real and only judge that ever was, came to this earth and did not pay taxes. He even said to the people "you must do exactly as I do". This is for you idiot, if God was your father and you were Jesus what mortal man would he(God) want you to pay taxes to? Only an idiot would think that in Jesus's kingdom persons would vote, pay taxes and follow man's law. In Jesus's kingdom you only follow Jesus's(God's) law. Judge Dawson, the first person that Jesus went to to disciple with him and spread the word of God was Matthew. Matthew was the head "tax" collector for the Romans. Jesus told him "do this no more, follow me", guess what Matthew did? What would you do idiot? When your maker tells you to do something, you do it because you have NO choice, and you Judge Dawson are no one's maker. I have a question for you idiot, how does it feel to have the devil in your body and for him to have complete control and you can't force him out...because you don't know who you are.
Jesus and the truth are synonymous.
I pray for you and your kind! Jesus said, that if I truthman brought one person to him (christ) that he would reward me in heaven. And that person needs to be Judge Dawson.

By Anonymous truthman, at 10/17/2005 1:23 PM  

Does the IMF have a trade or business in the U.S.? Isn't the IMF based in Basel, Switzerland. It appears that this may be one of the owners of the Federal Reserve/IRS juggernaut. So who owns the IMF? Looks to be a network of ownership going on here. IMF owns FED-IRS NV-PR Corp. and IMF is owned by network of non-resident alien banking family corporations.

Thereto, these banking families own the profit from productive labor and capital of U.S. citizens and residents. AND this is why non-resident aliens do not pay taxes on capital gains and interest income with no trade or business in the U.S., whereas U.S. citizens and residents are absolutely oblgated to cover the interest payments owed to these non-resident alien banking family corporations.


Still no word from Quatloos about all this..the truth is too hard to handle.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 1:31 PM  

I don't see why any of you are even arguing about income tax. It's apparent none of you have to pay it, because none of you have jobs. If you do have jobs, I don't see how you make any money considering all you do is leave posts here every 15 minutes. Why don't you all get of the damn pc and actually do something to back up your convictions instead of pissing on trees all day. I come here once a day trying to learn a little bit about Irwin's case and all I read is the same arguments over and over. It's very apparent that some of you actually do understand the Constitution. On the other hand, the rest of you are the kind of people our government counts on to do there dirty little deeds. You see, if it wasn't for this second group of people, the government wouldn't be able to run over everyone. Sheeple is what I call them. They just put on the blinders and want someone to tell them what to do and how to do it. Life is much simpler this way as they don't have to think; this group prefers someone to think for them. For all of you that want the truth from our government, I applaud you. For the rest of you, reality TV is on every night and it's there just for you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 1:39 PM  

Christians have told me to read and follow this verse;
Matthew 22:21 (KJV) “They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

But then they say that is the absolute for us to pay the ‘income’ tax. They don’t read that it says ONLY the things which belong to Caesar!

Christians promote the payment of an illegal tax as they are ignorant of the truth. They will pay to Caesar everything that is due and then what is left over they might give to God his share, if there is anything left, as that is specified AFTER giving to Caesar.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/17/2005 1:40 PM  

God made the silver and put it in the earth. All that is Cesar's is his picture and his name.That's all he can get.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 1:53 PM  

Why have a tax at all? The US government can and does print as much money as they wish... whenever there is a need for money the print it, what use does the government have to tax... it can and does tax at will without one 1040 being submitted. They don't even print it anymore, just a couple of keystrokes in a computer now a days. This income tax thing is so stupid... there is no need for any federal tax if they are going to print at will.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 2:23 PM  

Communist Manifesto
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 2:28 PM  

God Bless You Irwin, Cindy and Larry.

Charles Baker

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 2:29 PM  

Tax Protestors are Nuts!

Ok now that I’ve got your attention –

Could the courts be correct and are indeed telling us something and we are failing to see it?

Could Bob Schultz be failing to understand why the court said that the “government doesn’t have to address the redress of grievances?” I mean the court ruled it didn’t they. Gee whiz, Quatloos has many cases posted wherein the courts have said something and the “Tax Protestors” always seem to argue and disagree.

For one minute, try agreeing! Try it and let’s see what happens.

Think that the courts are right, not their behavior but their rulings. Take the emotion out of the equation. Maybe the whole enchilada of us, are wrong and here is why – stay with me for a few more seconds…

I think we enter into the arena thinking and believing that we are Free Americans and that they can’t do what they do to us. I think that is where we are wrong and I think the court TELLS US SO! The Supreme Court has told us that many times. The Supremes said something like, who are we to tell you, the people, what kind of government you wish to place yourself under. The court told Bob Schultz, the court told Larkin Rose, that they respectively are not Americans with rights and that the 861 doesn’t apply/or isn’t applied correctly.

Why doesn’t the government HAVE TO read, consider or respond to a Constitutional redress of grievance. Better asked as WHO doesn’t the government have to respond to?
Why doesn’t 861 apply when it clearly says it does? Better to ask WHO doesn’t it apply to?

That’s right, you got it, NEITHER APPLY TO one without standing…a foreigner…an alien…a franchise having no Constitutional Rights, only having those civil rights as listed by Congress and REDRESS OF GRIEVENCE and being an American AIN’T ONE OF THEM CIVIL RIGHTS!

Could the court be saying, “Who are you to walk into this court and demand Constitutional Rights you foreigner you? “Who are you to demand the law, you haven’t the standing to demand it, let alone receive it!”

John Jennings, in Florida, found this out when the court flat out told him that he didn’t have the standing to present his case. Why not, because only a Free American would have the standing to present the case, and he ain’t one!

Ok, now either go backwards to arguing and not listening or ponder this presentment. I have personal friend of 20 yrs. currently imprisoned because they entered the whole argument believing they were Americans and what happened to them can’t happen to an American…WELL IT DID! What happened to them, CAN and DOES happen to anyone without inalienable rights and that is what they say you are!

Respectfully submitted for your consideration, CJ

God Bless Irwin, Cindy, Larry and us All

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 2:38 PM  

Can you remember one of the Twilight Zone episodes, the one in which the president of the company replaced all the workers with computers and then the president himself was replaced by Robby the Robot?

I was just listening to Kelly McGinley, and she mentioned that Albertson’s has checkout counters that are self-serve, and late at night the only option you have is to use it as there are no clerks. I have been in there also to see it.

Your government is working towards getting rid of the Federal Reserve and printed currency, but you will still have to pay for the use of ID cards to withdraw any Federal Reserve “electronic notes.”

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/17/2005 2:39 PM  

The thing that is so very funny to me is that Anom wants Irwin convited so bad that instead of pointing out the law he wants every one to read what some one else said about the person. It doesn't matter if he didn't cry when old yeller died the truth is the truth. When you look at the definition of wages in 3401 its the renumeration of a federal employee or Officer or elected offical. The only way a non government employee could have wages is if the renumeration he receives is not included in gross income on a w-2 or a 1099. In section 1 had anything to do with income it would be in the privacy act notice. How can the Government compell you to testify against your self. In the 740 booket for wagering it says the info you give on that form can not be used against the person giving it. A marranda warning is a Maranda warning read the law and if you still want to volunteer go a head help your self.

By Anonymous Tim Sweeney, at 10/17/2005 2:55 PM  

Let’s Talk DEBT

The national debt is over $8 Trillion and in the time it takes you to read this it will have increased by another 50 million.

So let’s prosecute all the leaders in the “Tax Protest” movement and jail them at a cost so the debt continues to mount.

Now let’s say that we have sufficiently scared 70% of the Protestors into “compliance” and collect $500,00 from them each year.

In the time it takes you to shower that $500 Million is gone. So let’s say we collect $1 Billion. No Matter the debt continues to rise.

You See you CANNOT, under this system, Pay off the DEBT, no matter how many you jail and how many lives are ruined, for the money is BORROWED into circulation.

You’ve been had! Now there is a true scam for ya’ll. CJ

By Anonymous Chuckie J., at 10/17/2005 3:05 PM  

Joe Free posted "Has anybopy ever heard of the trillion dollar trade deficite. Sounds like a big source of tax revenue for me."

There is no real trade deficit. It's simply trade. For there to be a trade deficit, theft would need to be involved. For example, I go into a grocery store, I select a banana, I go to the counter and exchange one FRN for the banana. That's a trade. No deficit there. It's only a deficit if I walk out of the store without paying. The fact that the cashier didn't buy or exchange something from me doesn't mean that there is a trade deficit. The trade deficit is simply a made-up term with no really substanance or relevance. Trade is trade.

Steve from Michigan

By Anonymous Steve from Michigan, at 10/17/2005 3:07 PM  

Why have a tax at all? The US government can and does print as much money as they wish... whenever there is a need for money the print it, what use does the government have to tax... it can and does tax at will without one 1040 being submitted. They don't even print it anymore, just a couple of keystrokes in a computer now a days. This income tax thing is so stupid... there is no need for any federal tax if they are going to print at will.

Do you understand what inflation is?

Do you know what the Mandrake Mechanism is?

What you propose is what happened in Germany. Hyperinflation. It's still a tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 3:07 PM  

Steve from Michigan said:

There is no real trade deficit. It's simply trade. For there to be a trade deficit, theft would need to be involved. For example, I go into a grocery store, I select a banana, I go to the counter and exchange one FRN for the banana. That's a trade. No deficit there. It's only a deficit if I walk out of the store without paying. The fact that the cashier didn't buy or exchange something from me doesn't mean that there is a trade deficit. The trade deficit is simply a made-up term with no really substanance or relevance. Trade is trade.

Mr. Steve,

You have cogitated while unaware of the missing information you need to put the entire picture together.

I go to the counter and exchange one FRN for the banana. That's a trade. No deficit there.

Take out one FRN from your pocket and read the top of it. Does it say FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE? Yes?

You yourself called it an "FRN" that you traded for the banana....

Federal Reserve NOTE.
What is a NOTE?

It is an IOU. You handed the cashier an IOU. What you did not hand the cashier was something of intrinsic value.

Let us step back and look at the macrocosm now. Boatloads of FRN's go to the countries that the bananas came from. Nothing of value was traded for the bananas. Just a boatload of IOU's. It is not until the Banana countries send a boatload of FRN's back to america to purchase some tangible items that the trade is actually completed.

If it's goods one way, and FRN's the other way, and we keep printing FRN's based upon monetizing debt, the "trade DEFICIT" grows ever larger.

Trade deficit is another term for trade IMBALANCE.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/17/2005 3:24 PM  

Jesus said if you are ashamed to stand with me on sin & taxes I will be ashamed to stand with you at the gate. I have not found a church that Jesus would approve of. The minister & the church pays no taxes, BUT ALL THE MEMBERS PAY THIS EVIL TAX. Who's doing what is correct MEMBERS OR MINISTERS? All the money that is collected is used to fight unjust wars, or did they get the money from Hilter? Maybe they take all the social security money paid in to that system from those who have died & use it. Maybe JUDGE DAWSON'S Mormon church supplies the money. Nevertheless it comes from our own evil U.S. GOV. Aren't you glad that Jesus sees what your're doing? Irwin Schiff is aware of this and he is only trying to enforce God's law. At least Irwin hasn't let the evil Government use any of his money to fight unjust wars,unless it was stolen from him.

By Anonymous truthman, at 10/17/2005 3:30 PM  

"When you look at the definition of wages in 3401 its the renumeration of a federal employee or Officer or elected offical. "

No, it says that wages include those type of wages; but it does not say it only includes those types.

By Anonymous jg, at 10/17/2005 3:31 PM  

No, it says that wages include those type of wages; but it does not say it only includes those types.

The term "includes" when used in title 26 means it is a term of limited expansion. The only reason it is used is to mislead the casual reader.

See Family Guardian for a more detailed analysis...

By Anonymous 1patriot@gmail.com, at 10/17/2005 3:43 PM  

As I see it, the problem we face lays in the, either inadvertent or deliberate, lies perpetrated in the federal judicial system. As an example, lets suppose congress passes a law that says, “White is the lightest color” Then, a year or so later federal judge A innocently rules, “Slightly off white is also acceptable as the lightest color” Then, because it suits his immediate sinister purpose federal judge B says “Light gray also falls within federal judge A’s written opinion” So, federal judge C solves his bigger sinister problem with “Dark Gray falls within federal judge B’s opinion” This progresses to the point that federal judge X says “All previous judges have set the precedent, so It is well established law, that Black is the lightest color”
That is exactly what happened in the federal system to the income tax laws. The federal government in earlier tax case had the federal judge A rule the tax laws are okay even if they are “slightly confusing (off white)” and then federal judge B, judge Dorsey told Irwin Schiff’s jury, in his first trial, “that they could find him guilty even if they thought the tax laws were not specific (dark gray) and the government did not prove their case against him.” That case set the ball in motion to where now federal judge X say “Well, the judge and jury in the Schiff case made it clear that there is a law compeling (Black as the ace of spades) the filing and payment of income tax.
Which brings us to the case at hand. Federal judge Z, judge Dawson’s answer to Irwin’s question “Show me the law” is, “All the courts have ruled (Blacker then black) there is a law so I don’t have to show you or the jury anything!” That, my children is how the federal government, in most areas of our life, turns white into black and makes most of the citizens believe it even thought their eyes tell them different.
To see pictures of Judge Dawson being involuntarily yanked from the courtroom or view other blogs written by The Constitutionalist go to
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
http://stupefing.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com
Or, for convince, just left click the blue (the constitutionalist) at the begining of this blog.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/17/2005 3:50 PM  

dale eastman said:
If it's goods one way, and FRN's the other way, and we keep printing FRN's based upon monetizing debt, the "trade DEFICIT" grows ever larger.

Trade deficit is another term for trade IMBALANCE.


I was with you right up until this point. An imbalance and a deficit are not the same things. An imbalance could an inequity for or against any of the parties to a transaction. A deficit is clearly a negative inequity with respect to one party. So, a trade imbalance is always the case. Rarely, if ever, does the outflow of FRN (to other countries) equal the inflow of FRN. Consequently, whether the outflow is larger or the inflow is larger, there is always an imbalance. But, when we say there is a "trade deficit" what we mean is that from our American perspective more FRNs are flowing out than in. That is, we're importing more than we're exporting. Note that the other country views this situation as a "trade surplus". They are exporting more than importing.

Its a slight distinction, but an importatn one.

By Anonymous interested party, at 10/17/2005 4:09 PM  

Anonymous said...
"Funny how you are AFRAID to address the TRUTH of Cindy's allegations in her 90+ page palimony complaint."

You are completely off point. If Cidy prevails in her suit against Irwin, more power to her, but the issue we are here to discuss is the law that requires American citizens to file and pay income tax.

I know you've been asked this before, but let me ask you nicely Mr. Q Loser.

What law requires me to file and pay an income tax?

All of the Morris code sections the IRS agents claim include the words "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

"When required" What statute or regulation makes me or you required?

JS

By Anonymous JS, at 10/17/2005 4:19 PM  

"include" means to contain within, to envelope.

The opposite would be "exclude" outside of.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 4:20 PM  

At the end of the day, it matters not whether you are right or wrong about whether the law requires or does not require one to pay income taxes, but instead, the only thing that matters is whether you can win. Up until now, Mr. Schiff's system, when tested in a court of law, has failed. That is a fact. All of the discussions on this blog today only have practical relevance if Schiff wins. I wish him the best.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 4:27 PM  

Galileo lost too, but was he wrong? Should he just have submitted and shut up?

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 4:43 PM  

"All of the discussions on this blog today only have practical relevance if Schiff wins. I wish him the best."

10/17/2005 5:27 PM anonymous

I disagee - there is much posted that is totally relevant even if Schiff doesn't win...and I sincerely hope he does.

Please re-read the posts. You will find issues that Mr. Schiff never considered or didn't grasp to consider though he was told and presented hard evidence.

He has his beef/issue but there are many issues.

Mr. Schiff does not spend time with the Imposition upon a privilege. Mr. Schiff does not spend much time with the IMF. Mr. Schiff does not spend much time or even consider what the official record reflects. I know him, moved his furniture from his apartment to his first office and helped when he expanded to another office within the same courtyard complex long ago.

There are loads of issues and data outside of Mr. Schiffs arguements that have relevance regardless the outcome of his trial.

Respectfully, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 4:51 PM  

The government is allowed to go beyond their boudaries when it comes to the rights of the people. Paying income taxes makes us a servant of the government! But whose fault is it that the government steps over the law and is allowed to do illegal activities such as forcefully collect income taxes?

It is the people's fault for allowing them to reach this level. The people did nothing about it and is still not doing anything!

The government is like a bucket fulling up with water. The water is power. This bucket has draining system to keep a balance of power in the bucket. As I see it, the draining system is clogged by the people's ignorance and self-involvement!

I can't wait till I see it bites them in the ass when this country collapses. The sad thing is their children will feel it and they don't care (remember people are all about self-preservation)!

Then they'll start blaming the government. When in truth it was actually their fault.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 5:06 PM  

CJ and fellow TP's,

None of you ventured anything but a flip answer with no substance.

Shame on you, wimps!

I believe in a much smaller government and much fewer and smaller taxes. My plan is to influence the public and lawmakers through advocating workable solutions that will cut the role of government, taxes, spending and increase the role of the private sector to provide solutions society seeks. All of this done through LEGAL means.

You guys are such wimps that you have no vision, no plan, and no serious arguments to accomplish even tax freedom for yourselves.

You spend all your time here "debating" frivolous arguments, magic words, and refuse to see the law even when it smacks you in the ass when the jail cell closes.

When I try to inject a little reality into your dream world, you can't even articulate a workable solution to replace the 43% of Federal revenue that would disappear if there there was no personal income tax. What's worse, when you venture a flip answer, you substitute another tax!

Faux libertarian posers, all of you!

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/17/2005 5:08 PM  

They are done! The blogs are coming up shortly

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 5:18 PM  

There you go again reasonable guy, being very UNreasonable.

I was specific in my answer to you THREE TIMES. I specifically directed you to an answer based on the country Estonia. I explained that I am not here to answer your personal issue as I have my own issue but graciously directed you to a sorce anyway.

You will also note all the posts, some or mine, that address the money and the debt and that you have "been had," if you believe something can be done to fix it.

To jail or bring into compliance all "Tax Protestors" as you call them, will not fix the problem you state. Shrink government and your communist state will have MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT and no jobs for them to do. The money is DEBT!

It is designed to not get fixed!

But if you wish to direct people toward something, figure out what it is you personally wish them to be directed to and do it. You have not done that you only call names and want someone else to do it for you!

Your post proves once again that all you can do is call names and that your emotions run wild while your mind fails to see the info in front of it.

Stop pointing out the splinter in anothers eye while failing to see the log in your own!

Reasonably yours, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 5:26 PM  

CJ,

You are so full of it. Surprise me and post an answer that is specific and coherent that articulates what your solution is to the reduction of 43% of Federal revenue without a personal income tax.

Have you even considered in your dream world that if one of your magic words actually worked, Congress would simply close the loophole? Probably not. After all, you live in a dreamworld.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/17/2005 5:43 PM  

Court was adjourned and the jury is now deliberating. Radio Mike will be giving us his take on it in a few minutes.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/17/2005 5:50 PM  

Solutions.

1. To big government..stop feeding the pig. Politicos in this environment are never going to go along with any loss of power as they relentlesly encroach every area of our lives. Stop paying...oh, it's a nickel here 8% there, no biggie right? April 15 needs to be just another spring day. Don't worry any true needs can be done far more efficiently with competition as a driving force vs. the beareaucratic conflaguration. Anyone ask a toll worker for a highway prospectus lately? Should be on hand, you pay for it at every friggin booth. Oops, goes to general funds after what percent goes to roads???

2. Libertarin via the Republican doorway may chip at the wall. Libertarian alone enables the socialist dems. Infiltrate as have socialists on the left.

3. Buy and work for Liberty Dollars backed by gold...watch Washington squirm. Get off the fiat money system.

4. God bless tax protesters, must we be reminded how our nation was founded. Seems they petitioned the King for redress back 250 yrs ago and he replied with force, also.

Fret not IRS employees, you'll find other meaningful work...well, provided you cleanse yourselves of the marxist ways you've subscribed to.

Win or lose Irwin, someone's going to get through. Lots has been on display on how to hopefully beat this corruption as many are taking notes, I'm sure. BUT, I want you to win!!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 5:53 PM  

Gee Whiz, how long are you going to keep up with your rant...This is the LAST TIME I'll address you sir.

Go read and learn as directed to Estonia, I gave you a thumbnail with regard to the Flat tax as created in Estonia and you didn't do your homework, your a bad boy, you get an "F" for failure to do your homework!

Next there is NO SUCH THING as a PERSONAL INCOME TAX...GET IT! What you reference is, according to CRS and Congress, a franchise Tax laid upon a privilege, not upon INCOME! So once again you didn't do your homework though this issue has been clearly defined.

Next I have posted Reality, you my friend are in the dreamworld believing that there is a fix for your problem...it cannot be fixed for if the debt could be fixed, someone would have fixed it don't you think?

Next, the first thing is to ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM THAT uses debt as money. Talk about a dreamworld...lets substitute reality for the appearance of reality.

Let's elimate the Brenton Woods agreement wherein the treasury was turned over to the IMF a foreign entity.

I mean these threads are full of facts, ideas and concepts.

I am so sorry you have failed to cognate upon the facts as presented.

Bottom line, LET's All work toward returning America to the land of the free and home of the brave where people will do their homework. Let's get the original America back under the original Constitution!

Go to www.teamlaw.com and learn since you couldn't google search Estonia.

That is it for you are way to UNreasonable for me to continue to address. EVERYONE who reads can and will recognize that fact.

Best regards, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 5:57 PM  

Incoherent ramblings from CJ again.

Once again, you lived down to my expectations.

No vision, no plan; nothing from you makes any sense. You will wind up in jail like Irwin, Larken, and the rest.

What a waste.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/17/2005 6:05 PM  

Truthman said

To reasonable guy

WHEN & IF YOU BECOME REASONABLE

you will understand that without JESUS you are just a chemical reaction & have no soul!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/17/2005 6:21 PM  

Reasonable Guy - you want a plan to replace the alledged 40% that the income tax brings in. How about reducing the government to its Constitutional size? How about getting rid of all of the unconstitutional social programs, the pork barrel spending, and the Federal Reserve Bank (i.e. private banking cartel). The funds that would be saved on the interest alone if we went back to printing our own money instead of paying a private banking cartel to do what they have no constitutional authority to do should come close to doing it.

How about requiring the members of congress to get social security for retirement like the rest of us, instead of their tax funded million dollar retirement programs. If they want something more than that, let them invest their own money. How about not giving away the billions of dollars a year (also unconstitutionally) that we do to foreign countries? How about not spending billions of dollars on illegal wars. I think all of the above will go a long way in making up for the lost 40% of revenue from the income tax, don't you think?

There are a ton of ways to reduce the bloat, waste and unconstitutional spending, but it is NEVER going to happen unless the money gets shut off. If you want to get rid of the beast, a sure way is to STARVE IT!

By Blogger Dee, at 10/17/2005 6:31 PM  

Very good Dee,
Your suggestions are indeed necessities and even the bleeding obvious, however we both know that IF anyone in government actually wanted to do it, it would have been done. People and government do things for one of two reasons, or sometimes both. Either they want to of they have to. We know the “want to” is not in the works so the “have to” is the only alternative as you put it so well to “starve the beast.”

There are those among us that are not satisfied with anything. They are filled with hate and rage for themselves and their fellow man. This illness blinds them and also clouds their minds so only to see, or hear selectively what they want and then superimpose their rage upon another by making false claims. Bearing false witness if you will. The self-righteous break the commandments over and over yet call themselves Christian and/or American. What a frivolous way to act to themselves and to their maker.

Truly, the country of Estonia instituted a specific type of flat tax (though that is not my personal preference) and in a few years they were able to lower the rate and have lowered it more. I expressed this on previous posts and ask all to read and learn about it, but alas many don’t want to do anything but complain and have others do their bidding or hope to find a misspelling or two and cast stones for simple error.

As my old doctor once said to me, “There are more of them, than there is of us.”
Everyone should think on that for the best way to fix everything is to come together in peace and love. Funny after all the turmoil in biblical times and with the commandments and the fights over the commandments today…Jesus gave it to us all in a most simple form breaking it down to ONE Commandment! “Love one another as I have loved you.”

How far away we are….CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/17/2005 7:01 PM  

There are three men, authors, which are at the forefront of our financial freedom.
Two of them are presently, and have in the past been, on trial.

The Income Tax, Irwin Schiff;
http://www.paynoincometax.com
‘The Federal Mafia’

The 16th Amendment, Bill Benson;
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
‘The Law That Never Was’

The Federal Reserve, G. Edward Griffin;
http://www.1freedom.com/thecreature.htm
‘The Creature from J Creature from Jekyll Island’

Not a single one of these books have been banned for promoting tyranny, but so far ‘The Federal Mafia’ has been the only one been banned for promoting the TRUTH! Did you know that you can write a book on how to build a bomb and sell it freely!

If you have time, you can listen to G. Edward Griffin for about 90 minutes explaining in detail HOW the Federal Reserve System was created. He might answer many of your questions on this blog. I have heard him in person speaking on a similar issue and he had to cut it short as he has too much info to speak on for a one night meeting. His book, ‘The Creature from J Creature from Jekyll Island’ is over 600 pages and I believe has more pertinent info in it than both Schiff’s and Benson’s books combined.

As soon as Schiff and Benson are in prison they, the government, will go after Griffin! If the government is reading this then I may have slipped to tell them of who to go after next.

If you ever go to court you need to have ALL three of these certified as evidence to present your case. You should never loose, unless they charge you with a Title 18 crime.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/17/2005 7:20 PM  

To Anonymous et. al.

A simple, onetime post here regarding you and other obsequious minions of "the system". You claim to know what you're talking about so please set us all straight and (1) dig into Title 26 Subtitle A (Income Tax) and show us the law creating the liability compelling a state Citizen to pay the federal mafia for the right to earn a living exclusive of tobacco, alcohol production or gambling activities and (2) kindly show us how you know and why you think these federal judges are impartially running these kinds of cases. You know, the ones that if done justly, honestly, might result in ending their own cake walk.

If Irwin and the others are found guilty, it won't mean that they were found guilty in the course of a fair trial. It won't mean that Irwin was allowed to present the law to the jury as evidence and to promote an honest defense - a joke if it weren't so abysmal - from the very same law books (Title 26) that the government is using to charge him with!

If Irwin and the others are found guilty, it will be just one more reason why we need J.A.I.L. For Judges (http://jail4judges.org) so we can reel in these dishonest, black robed criminals.

If you all can't understand that these guys and gals ARE being railroaded into convictions, well then, you're just not paying attention or reading the facts and no not the law. Just because a judge is present during a trial is no certainty that he doesn't have an agenda of his own and will prejudice an outcome. I could show you enough evidence of such behavior from scores of trial transcripts. To not understand this is at best simply naive.

By Blogger Jim Paulson, at 10/17/2005 8:40 PM  

wolfgangsmutz said...
Folks,

David Jahn said,
We will be podcasting starting today for those of you who enjoy the convenience of podcast.

One source is podcast.net.

We'll strive to make any new audio's available twice a day.

David Jahn

Why is it when I go to this site and click on one of the links, tracking cookies attempt to invade my computer?
-----------------------------
Also has anyone considered that if this clown Dawson and his henchmen succeed in getting convictions they will be awarded a "prize." (substantial monetary award above their already bloated salaries).

WS

By Blogger wolfgangsmutz, at 10/17/2005 9:57 PM  

Why is it when I go to this site and click on one of the links, tracking cookies attempt to invade my computer?

I'm not sure about that. If you have another podcast service you'd like us to list with, please let me know.

-----------------------------
Also has anyone considered that if this clown Dawson and his henchmen succeed in getting convictions they will be awarded a "prize." (substantial monetary award above their already bloated salaries).

Perhaps they'll get a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/17/2005 10:39 PM  

CJ, Well said, and I agree with most everything you said; however, unfortunately, many of those that make up our current government are not capable of loving thy neighbor. They have sold their souls and are motivated only by their uncontrollable need for money and power. Many of them would call themselves Christians or religious men, but that is just a cover and a lie.

I do not agree; however, that a flat tax is a solution. That would also be a direct tax on one's labor, which I think is abhorrant to the entire concept of freedom, and also unconstitutional. I don't care whether or not the Supreme Court has tried to define the income tax as an "excise tax", because logic dictates otherwise. One of the elements of an excise tax is that it is avoidable. How do you avoid a tax on your labor??

I truly think that the only answer is to return this federal government to its constitutional size and a return to the principles which we were founded on, i.e. self accountability, small federal government that performs only the clearly enumerated functions, no social programs (that's what we have charity's for), etc. etc.

Can you imagine what would happen to our economy if the income tax was abolished and the federal government raised its revenues by taxing imports from foreigns countries that pay slave wages to its underaged help. The tax on the imports would allow our own manufacturers to compete with the slave labor and our economy would boom. Never mind the fact that the 40% tax burden removed from businesses would help many of them to thrive and grow, creating an untold number of jobs for Americans.

Unfortunately, this would only be accomplished by people who want this country to survive, and sadly those in power (not just Congress, but those pulling their strings) do not want that. They want to bring this country to her knees, and are not far from achieving their goal.

Again, the only answer is absolute defiance of what we know to be wrong. Stop funding them and "starve" the system.

By Blogger Dee, at 10/18/2005 6:34 AM  

Hi Dee, please note that I stated the flat tax is not my personal choice or preference. I was simply responding to reasonable-guy and trying to help him understand certain things that he has yet to receive. To understand tax, one must also understand various forms.

We are on the same wavelength.

CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/18/2005 9:37 AM  

Reasonable Guy:

"refuse to see the law"

What law? A prison cell is not a law, it's just a cage.

Until you stop misrepresenting this point, your otherwise-potentially-useful conversational angle will likely not be listened to by many here. A valid PoV does not need to be bolstered by misrepresentiation.


CJ:

"Brenton Woods"

Bretton Woods.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/21/2005 5:26 AM