Trial Logs

Our government's ability to incarcerate innocent people is evidenced by the number of those being exonerated, most often through DNA evidence. These wrongful convictions evidence our judicial system's failure. Trial Logs is currently covering the government's prosecution of those who question the application of the income tax laws. It is our hope that this coverage will help us understand the failings of our justice system and help those struggling to comprehend this nation's income tax laws.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

For all of you who are inclined to offer assitance you can send contributions to help Irwin Schiff/Cindy Neun to:

Freedom Books
Attn: Tine
444 E. Sahara Ave
Las Vegas, NV 89104

<< Home

62 Old Comments:

Court Notes Pulled off "PACER":

"DAY 24 Hld 10/24/05 - re Ds: Verdict read; D/ Schiff s Sentncng set for 1/20/06 @ 10:30am; D/ Neun s Sentncng set for 1/27/06 @ 9am; D/ Cohen s Sentncng set for 1/27/06 @ 9:30am; D/ Cohen cont d on PR bond; D/ Neun tmprarly detained pndng dtntion hrng set for 10/25/05 @ 1pm; D/ Schiff detained pndng Sentncng. (c/r F. Zabin) cpys dist "

https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/

We will soon be able to check on the Patriot Irwin at the BOP site:

http://www.bop.gov/inmate_locator/index.jsp

IRWIN A SCHIFF # 08537-014

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20051024-1959-taxrebel.html

By Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 10:38 PM

A great injustice was perpetrated during the trial of Irwin Schiff which you can learn about at http://helliseternal6.blogspot.com
After you do please read the following and if you are willing to help 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, write or email 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
Email: aclunv@anv.net

Also, it can never hurt to have the most well know and respected appellate attorneys in the United States, Mr. Alan Dershowitx and Mr. Barry Scheck involved. You and everyone you know need to email, call, write or fax Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Scheck and ask them to look into the egregious judicial misconduct demonstrated by Federal Judge Kent Dawson during Mr. Schiff’s trial.

Alan Dershowitz
Phone: (617) 495-4617
Fax: (617) 495-7855
dersh@law.harvard.edu

Barry Scheck
Innocence Project
100 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10011
info@innocenceproject.org
(212) 364-5340

By The Law, at 10/26/2005 10:38 PM

What happened to
http://www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 12:56 AM

As the world watches in horror, one can only wonder if any of the Americans had ever heard of Nazi Germany, for if they haven’t, they will soon begin to relive what the world had once thought could never happen to the human race again.

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.”
Adolf Hitler

A threat to the "mind" of society is worse than a terrorist and worse than a robber and murderer.

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
Adolf Hitler

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:25 AM

If you think the government isn't going to fight, just think about this. The five million people that filed like Irwin this year is almost 25,000,000,000 at five thousand dollars a each. So what would you do with that kind of money, considering that we all know that the government and the judges are not going to follow the laws, they will interpret them the way they want.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:44 AM

“Yet Bush has never vetoed a spending bill,… That was too much for conservatives, who've watched annual federal spending mushroom from $1.8 trillion to $2.5 trillion since Bush led Republicans to power in 2000.” BY STEVEN THOMMA KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

The above is all debt continually adding to the already 8 trillion and US Citizens have pledged their labor, property and their rights away to pay for that (someone else's) debt.

Get this - since the money itself is ‘’debt” in and of itself…

How can you tax a debt? CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:51 AM

“Off with their heads”; the govt. & masses say about the "tax-protesters," for they make us think. They expose the ways of ourselves to ourselves and we can’t stand it. “Let them eat cake” - (bread & water) in Jail. We can’t handle any truth and you can’t make us.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:57 AM

It's not what you say, it's who you are:

The Rev. Pat Robertson's publically called for the assassination Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, which is a crime under US law as well as an act of terrorism under international law.

Irwin Schiff wrote a few books about economics, impressions of law and government and not only was the book banned, he was sentenced to prison for crime against debt, not a life. Jailed, in part, for his opinion.

Robertson, on the other hand, receives a bit of a cold shoulder for rendering his opinion to KILL SOMEONE!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 8:08 AM

10/21/05

IRS to Taxpayers: Keep Paying for the Spanish-American War
Agency tells phone companies to keep collecting
Spanish-American War tax,defying federal court ruling

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) yesterday issued a notice that telephone companies should continue to collect and remit the federal excise tax on long distance telephone service, despite a ruling earlier this year by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the tax was unlawful.

The tax, which was enacted in 1898 as a temporary “luxury” tax to fund the Spanish-American War, costs businesses and individuals approximately $5 billion annually. The Spanish-American War tax funds no specific purpose, but instead flows into general revenue.

“The IRS not only declined an opportunity to make good tax policy, but also blatantly defied a federal court in continuing to collect the tax,” said taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The only silver lining here is that perhaps Congress will see the lunacy of this particular tax and repeal it all together.”

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 9:53 AM

To Irwin Schiff:
You are a great man who is committed no crime before god. Your courage to stand up to the greatest evil on the earth today (The United States Government) has made you a martyr in which we your loyal followers of the Truth N Taxation (TNT) will gather strength and rally around you. We thank you for your bravery as others before you have suffered in the face of evil and oppression i.e. Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and many others. We promised to stand by you for the long run and do all things with in the law that you showed us. We promise to make TNT grow so that your voice will grow to the thunder of millions. We promise to deal severely with those that have caused this unbelievable and un-righteous misery. (Dawson, the prosecutors and the jury). Finally you quoted us the law as it is written and you were punished unfairly for it, we promise that the law of the people will be upheld and not the law of this tyrant government or this evil tyrant Dawson. God Bless You Irwin Schiff America could become great again with more courageous men like you.

John

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 10:21 AM

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 10:35 AM

"IRS to Taxpayers: Keep Paying for the Spanish-American War
Agency tells phone companies to keep collecting
Spanish-American War tax,defying federal court ruling"

Proof that IRS goes beyond their authority! Once a temporary tax starts, it never stops! The government gets too greedy! As a result, the next generations are oppressed with taxation here and there and currently everywhere!

Seriously people, name one thing you own or did or gave or recieved that has not been taxed.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 12:17 PM

In addition to the above statement: There needs to be a law that forces the government to cease collection especially in the case of temporary taxation!

Hell, we are still paying a withholding Victory Tax of World War 2 - a tax that was supposed to be temporary!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 12:21 PM

Let’s do the calculations;

First the prisons right now are overcrowded, especially in California by 40%.

Have ALL Schiff followers and other non-filers arrested, charged, and convicted.

5,000,000 people, at 5 cases per day, in 1,000 courtrooms nationwide, comes to 1,000 days, or 200 weeks, or 50 months, or 4 years just to get them in prison.

Cost: 5,000,000 defendants at $1,000 each is, $5,000,000,000 (billion).

Revenue: 5,000,000 prisoners at $40,000 average is, $200,000,000,000 (billion) per year.

Profit: $198,875,000,000 (billion) for the first 4 years, and $200,000,000,000 (billion) after that.

Who cares if your mattress is another inmate!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 12:30 PM

Quatloos!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 1:19 PM

why the heck would someone post one word without saying anything having no actual true meaning to the made up fiction word itself and think it has impact?

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:00 PM

Hey non-liable -

It's all about commerce!

The making of money out of nothing more correctly stated as DEBT BEING CREATED TO DISCHARGE MORE DEBT.

"The name of the game is shit and your it." Your the debt the statutes are the bonds. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:03 PM

What shall I say about the government that borrows the money from me, to build the very sword they use to stab me to my death?

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:25 PM

http://www.quatlosers.com/
irwin_schiff.htm

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:42 PM

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted." -Frederick Douglass 1857

Our submission to "Power", via participation in national socialism, has no bearing on involuntary servitude suffered by chattels owned by other men.

There is no "Power" we need to fight, other than our own ignorance, that leads us to cooperate with those who would prey upon us.

I propose a massive, very public rejection of the SS#. Let's not use it anymore...no more numbers; then what will they do? How will they track us? What is their number good for other than to track us and turn us into slaves....Let's do it!!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 4:23 PM

As Colin Powell said, the US needs you to have a SS # to track you and hunt you down. What he left out was that it also converts your status from American to US, a foreigner in your own land.

Quatloos call home!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 4:45 PM

A great injustice was perpetrated during the trial of Irwin Schiff which you can learn about at
http://helliseternal6.blogspot.com
And the latest
http://helliseternal7.blogspot.com
After you do please read this if you are willing to help then forward it in its entirety 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, write or email 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
Email: aclunv@anv.net

Also, we need the most well known and respected appellate attorneys in the United States, Mr. Alan Dershowitx and Mr. Barry Scheck involved. Therefore, you and everyone you know need to email, call, write or fax Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Scheck and ask them to look into the egregious judicial misconduct demonstrated by Federal Judge Kent Dawson during Mr. Schiff’s trial.

Alan Dershowitz
Phone: (617) 495-4617
Fax: (617) 495-7855
dersh@law.harvard.edu

Barry Scheck
Innocence Project
100 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10011
info@innocenceproject.org
(212) 364-5340

Other informative blogs about Mr. Schiff’s trial at,
http://helliseternal5.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
http://stupefing.blogspot.com/
http://helliseterna3.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.comhttp://helliseternal.blogspot.com

By The Law, at 10/27/2005 5:38 PM

LAS VEGAS
Judge cites security, denies bond for anti-tax guru co-defendant
Oct 26, 2005, 09:27 AM EDT

A federal judge has denied bond for an associate of anti-tax crusader Irwin Schiff convicted of tax evasion this week.

In rejecting Cynthia Neun's appeal to remain free, US District Court Judge Kent Dawson cited unspecified threats to court personnel and government officials.

An IRS spokeswoman says Dawson noted that the names and addresses of jurors had been posted on the Internet.

Neun's defense lawyer says Neun is not a security threat or a flight risk. He says she has no link with the Web postings.

52-year-old Neun was convicted on 15 charges including conspiracy, tax evasion, aiding in the filing of fraudulent tax returns, Social Security disability fraud and theft of government property.

She is being held in federal custody in Las Vegas pending sentencing January 27.

Nice job, Troggers. You managed to keep Cindy IN jail rather than free on bond until sentencing. Guess posting those juror names wasn't such a good idea, eh?

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 6:16 PM

Schiff was tried in a US District Court, an administrative court for the US Territory which is not a court of Law, and that is why the Law was never entered into evidence. The judge vocalized an administrative rule.

Schiff, due to his SS number is wrongly shown upon the official record of the IRS as being a US Citizen or Resident Alien, the only forms of citizen or resident that are assigned SS numbers.

I say "wrongly shown" (even though correct) because when he signed for the SS # the actual nature and consequences of signing were not disclosed. That disclosure only happened after the privacy act of 1974. He obviously got his card prior to that.

As a US Citizen he only has the unqualified right to residence and thus, by getting the card, voluntarily so, he waived all other unqualified rights in favor of privileges that are like dust in the wind.

The above is the trick, or for some it's the treat!

Do not complain that I didn't provide cites, I have already done so and then, when I do people bitch because I do.

If someone requests cites for the above I will post them alone, without comment and link them to this post by date and time. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 6:32 PM

ever think about checking this judges annual financial report. they are public information at the courthouse.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 6:53 PM

The only way to beat the IRS is if a great majority of people decided not to file income tax forms...but i guess this won't happen..the masses are too blind to their sorroundings.

HAVE MORE FAITH MY COUNTRYMEN, HAVE MORE FAITH.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 6:54 PM

I say "wrongly shown" (even though correct) because when he signed for the SS # the actual nature and consequences of signing were not disclosed. That disclosure only happened after the privacy act of 1974. He obviously got his card prior to that.

What about those who had parents get their card for them? It was forced upon them unwillingly and unknowingly.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 6:57 PM

Anonymous said...

What happened to
http://www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com
10/27/2005 1:56 AM

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

Doug Kenline removed it and ran with his tail between his legs!

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:37 PM

Sorry for the long post.

By Thomas Woods

In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term "nullification" – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.1

These ideas became known as the "Principles of ’98." Their subsequent impact on American history, according to the standard narrative, was pretty much confined to South Carolina’s nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. That is demonstrably false, as I shall show below. But it isn’t just that these ideas are neglected in the usual telling; as I discovered not long ago, these principles are positively despised by neoconservatives like Max Boot and the leftists at the New York Times (or do I repeat myself?). Neither one, in their reviews of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, so much as mentioned Jefferson’s name in connection with the Principles of ’98. It is hard to view such an omission as anything but deliberate. To mention Jefferson’s name is to lend legitimacy to ideas that nationalists of left and right alike detest, so they simply leave him out of the picture.

Jefferson once wrote, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." To resist this centralizing trend, the sage of Monticello was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism.

Our betters have already told us that the only reason anyone might wish to vindicate the cause of states’ rights is for the purpose of defending slavery or upholding some lesser form of local oppression. What follows is the tip of the iceberg of the history that, by what I shall assume is an entirely well-meaning and innocent oversight, these great scholars of American history consistently fail to acknowledge.

The Embargo of 1807–1809

In retaliation against British and French depredations against American neutral rights on the seas, the federal government under Thomas Jefferson in late 1807 declared an embargo, according to which no American ship could depart for any foreign port anywhere in the world. (The rationale was that trade with the U.S. was a key ingredient in British and French prosperity, and thus that economic pressure might persuade them to change their policies.) The U.S. Navy was granted the power to stop and search any ship within U.S. jurisdiction if its officers had "reason to suspect" the ship was violating the embargo. Likewise, customs officials were "authorized to detain any vessel…whenever in their opinions the intention is to violate or evade any provisions of the acts laying an embargo." Such standards fell far short of the "probable cause" requirement that generally governed the issuing of warrants for searches.

New England was especially hard hit by the embargo because so many of its people were employed either directly in foreign commerce or in proximate fields, and it was there that opposition to the policy was concentrated. In 1808 a federal district court, in the case of United States v. The William, ruled the embargo constitutional. The Massachusetts legislature begged to differ. Both houses declared the embargo acts to be "in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional." "While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government," they said. The embargo, furthermore, was "not legally binding on the citizens of this State."

In the midst of the crisis, a New York congressman, giving his explicit sanction to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, said, "Why should not Massachusetts take the same stand, when she thinks herself about to be destroyed?" "If any State Legislature had believed the Act to be unconstitutional," asked a Connecticut congressman, "would it not have been their duty not to comply?" He added that the state legislatures, "whose members are sworn to support the Constitution, may refuse assistance, aid or cooperation" if they regarded an act as unconstitutional, and so could state officials.

Connecticut governor Jonathan Trumbull shared these views. "Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." Connecticut’s General Assembly passed a resolution that, among other things, directed all executive officials in the State not to afford "any official aid or co-operation in the execution of the act aforesaid."

The General Assembly furthermore declared: "Resolved, that to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the embargo."

Rhode Island, when the embargo was at its end, declared that her legislature possessed the duty "to interpose for the purpose of protecting [the people of Rhode Island] from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."

Interposition – the language of the Principles of ’98.

The War of 1812

During the War of 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut were ordered to call out their respective militias for the purpose of defending the coast. The call derived from the federal government’s authority to call the state militias into service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."

Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong, however, maintained that the states reserved the power to determine whether any of these three conditions held. At Strong’s request, the Massachusetts Supreme Court offered its opinion. That court agreed with the governor: "As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, it is reserved to the states, respectively; and from the nature of the power, it must be exercised by those with whom the states have respectively entrusted the chief command of the militia."

Connecticut followed suit:

It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state," as he is "to support the constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former.

Thus if the militia were called out for any purpose but those listed in the Constitution, it "would be not only the height of injustice to the militia…but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States." The president had no authority to call upon the militia of Connecticut "to assist in carrying on an offensive war" (some New Englanders were convinced that the war was aimed primarily at the annexation of Canada). Connecticut would not comply with the federal order until New England should be threatened "by an actual invasion of any portion of our territory."

From a political point of view, the War of 1812 would wind up essentially a draw, and the Treaty of Ghent signed in December 1814 reestablished the status quo ante bellum. From a military point of view, though, it was a British rout. As a result, Congress seriously entertained the prospect of military conscription.

Here is where Daniel Webster, so often a villain in American history, emerges as positively heroic. With his usual eloquence he spoke out against military conscription as incompatible with both the Constitution and the principles of a free society. "Where is it written in the Constitution," he asked, "in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?" (Predictable quarters can now be expected to call Daniel Webster – than whom there was no greater or more eloquent defender of the federal Union – an unpatriotic, America-hating leftist.)

What did Webster think should be done if the conscription bill should pass? In that case, he said, it would be "the solemn duty of the State Governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power." Interposition – the language, once again, of the great resolutions of ’98.

In December 1813 a new and more obnoxious embargo than that of 1807-1809 was instituted. The Massachusetts legislature found itself inundated with petitions and statements of grievances. A special committee, headed by William Lloyd, was established to devise a response to the situation. The Massachusetts General Court approved the committee’s report early the following year. It read, in part:

A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim.

Need we point out yet again the language of the Principles of ’98?

Fugitive Slave Laws

At a time when the federal government was using its police powers to enforce the capture of runaway slaves, it was the state governments, expressly recalling the Principles of ’98, that determined to resist. (See Mark Thornton here [.pdf] on how the federal government socialized the costs of slaveholding.) Although the Constitution did, unfortunately, contain a clause calling for the return of runaways, some Northern states resorted to the argument that that document spelled out no particular enforcement mechanism behind that requirement.

In addition, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was especially obnoxious and repugnant. It placed all fugitive slave cases under federal jurisdiction. Fugitives were denied jury trials and the right to testify in their own defense. Special commissioners were empowered to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and according to the terms of the act were to be paid $10 if they found the accused fugitive guilty and only $5 if they found him innocent. Still more obnoxious features included the right to force bystanders to participate in the capture of a fugitive and stiff penalties for sheltering or obstructing the capture of a fugitive.

Several Northern states simply refused to comply. Especially interesting is this 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court – taken, in parts word for word, from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Many more examples of the ongoing relevance of the Principles of ’98 could be cited. In the midst of a dispute with the federal government over the Second Bank of the United States, the Ohio legislature voted to affirm the Principles of ’98. In 1825, Kentucky’s governor said: "When the general government encroaches upon the rights of the State, is it a safe principle to admit that a portion of the encroaching power shall have the right to determine finally whether an encroachment has been made or not? In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes. What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges? Just as much as individuals when judged by their oppressors. It is therefore believed to be the right, as it may hereafter become the duty of the State governments, to protect themselves from encroachments, and their citizens from oppression, by refusing obedience to the unconstitutional mandates of the federal judges."

These are facts. They are facts that constitute a central part of antebellum American history. Yet to say that the standard American history text does not trace the influence of the Principles of ’98 over the course of the ensuing years, as I have done all too briefly here, would be the understatement of the century. The profession at large has essentially ignored the issue; other than Bill Watkins’ excellent study, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single book-length treatment of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 over the past hundred years.

Thus when I resurrected these long-neglected ideas in chapter four of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, did this inclusion merit the praise of your average scholar? To the contrary, the general complaint was that I hadn’t spent more time on subjects people already know inside and out. As for the Principles of ’98 themselves, discussing them with left- or right-wing nationalists is like waving garlic before Dracula.

Not that raising the issue makes them clam up entirely. To the contrary, they’ll find some silly photos of you (which, I confess, exist in embarrassing abundance), or dredge up something you did or said a dozen years ago, or generally suggest you’re a bad person. (Everyone who’s ever met me knows I’m just a great big meanie.)

They may behave this way because they think doing so will make me shut up (no such luck there), but it’s also a lot easier than cracking a book on a subject they don’t seem to know the first thing about.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:51 PM

anon: 7:57 asks - "What about those who had parents get their card for them? It was forced upon them unwillingly and unknowingly."

Here is my opinion as an answer - No. When a youngster reaches the age of majority he or she, now an adult is free to make their own decisions. That new adult could have released themselves from the, I'll use the term "contract" for the sake of ease, but it is not exactly that- anyway when the new adult did not take the proper steps to change anything and then continued to use the card their actions proved they agreed. I know, I was busy partying at 18 too.

I also know, we all thought that as a child da da da, but we all also had the opportunity to fix it at the age of majority. However if one received their card etc prior to 1974 the actual nature of the act was not fully disclosed and thus there is a potential fraud since no man can be tricked or compelled into giving up his or her unqualified rights.

The "ACT" had a purpose and that was to raise revenue. Did it? YES. The actuary tables were used to determine life expectancy and thus it was set up that one could begin to collect just about the time they would normally DIE! Pretty convenient that the "system" now doesn't have to pay off to a dead person.

Today's problem is people live longer and thus the system isn't raising the revenue it needs, not to mention the spending elsewhere...but I digress. The Federal Corporation needs more debt created to continue to discharge the existing debt and as this condition continues the screws will be tightened upon everyone, even quatloos! CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:56 PM

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 9:46 PM

I feel sorry for Mr. Irwin.

I've been lurking here for a long time. The only person that I see that actually "GETS" it is CJ. CJ, thanks for spreading the truth, keep getting it out there.

By Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 11:13 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By David, at 10/27/2005 11:34 PM

CJ gets what? He thinks that a gold fringe on a flag makes the entire court illegal. There hasn't been a word invented that describes the depth of idiocy that CJ lives in.

By David, at 10/27/2005 11:40 PM

Some of you think others are idiots, but I guess your willingness to pay an unlawful tax is acceptable, SO WHY DON’T YOU PAY MORE, to pay off the national debt, instead of claiming any deductions!

Let us focus on something else, as NO-ONE wants to listen to the LAW!

Maybe we can have the government charged with deception and fraud with what is in their own instruction booklets and on their forms.

I don’t think Schiff went this route by trying to mention Publication 505 (Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax) or the Form W-4, which both state ‘who has to pay.’

The Form W-4 states:
7 - I claim exemption from withholding for 2005, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.
· Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability and
· This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here…

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certificate and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete,

When have you committed perjury?

Under the government’s belief everyone is liable as the tax is imposed!

According to the Franchise Tax Board rep I talked with, she said it depends on how much you earned, and therefore NO-ONE can predict on when or if they would commit perjury until they get the refund or have to pay any more tax! In other words, Liability IS a Fluctuating Amount That No-one Can Determine Until ALL IS Complete! Perjury therefore is a ROLL OF THE DICE!

IRS Publication 505 states, page 19:
Who Does Not Have To Pay Estimated Tax
Estimated tax not required. You do not have to pay estimated tax for 2005 if you meet all three of the following conditions.
· You had no tax liability for 2004.
· You were a U.S. citizen or resident for the whole year.
· Your 2004 tax year covered a 12-month period.

The following are exceptions to the rule:
1. You have a nice employer who does not care if you claim EXEMPT any time during the year, but you still committed perjury by claiming allowances as well.
2. The IRS allows you to claim EXEMPT as long as you pay the tax by April 15th, but you still committed perjury by paying the tax liability.
3. You did NOT claim EXEMPT and ended up receiving a full refund last year and this year, but you still committed perjury by receiving the refund.
4. You did claim EXEMPT, with a low paying job and the many deductions you knew you could claim on the 1040, and the IRS changed your return in denying many of the deductions in order for you to have committed perjury on the Form W-4.
5. You have an awful employer who terminates you for claiming EXEMPT as the IRS has given the employer the authority to do so as perjury charges would be inevitable, and therefore a criminal employee.
There could be more.

This is the assumption that wages and salaries are income and you are liable, therefore IF you claim EXEMPT then you automatically commit a crime as the Form W-4 is basically for when you earn wages and salaries!

Why isn’t the government arresting those that claim EXEMPT and charge them with perjury?

Because they cannot by LAW force you to confess to a crime!!!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 12:01 AM

I hereby declare that I do NOT believe that a gold fringe attached to the border of the flag, commonly known as the “stars and stripes,” would “make a court entirely illegal" nor have I commented as such.

Some people, it would seem, have great difficulty reading and may mix up words. For example, printed is “Corpus Juris Secundum” (C.J.S.) but somehow they interpret "gold fringe flag.”

Language, comprehension and cognition are critical if one is to remain “on point” when engaging in written conversation.

- What shall I say of the persons(s) who bare false witness against another?
- What shall I say of the person(s) who, without first hand personal knowledge, offers testimony as to the mind of another?

- I say to that person(s): education nor the spirit of your creator has sowed no seed of goodness in you. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 7:55 AM

Shortened list of events leading to our uncertain position of today.
*Not a complete outline as many significant items have been unfortunately left out due to space. All documentation available and some has been previously posted.

1. Prior to the 14th amend. the terms US Citizen, or Citizen of the United States did not appear, as the Federal territory or the States United didn’t have citizens per say as everyone was a citizen of their respective state.

2. After the civil war there was now a class of people who had no standing, those people being the former slaves and/or those of the black race.

3. The 14th amendment was written for and to accommodate those people (in #2) giving them a status. See Van Valkenburg v. Brown (supreme court)

4. Along comes the Spanish American War wherein America conquered portions of Spain. Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones. Spain also relinquishes all claims of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. See the Treaty of Peace between US and Spain 1898. (you can read the entire document online at the Avalon Project from Yale Law School.)

5. Those new “conquered” island people are given a choice as to their “residence” and “citizenship status” as per the treaty. Upon their “action” their choice is made. [Intent is confirmed by action] A class of citizenship is established.

It is crucial that one knows exactly and with specificity who one is, especially when printed in the official records.

End of part I

- It is my contention that we, the posterity of and for America, were also given a choice as to our citizenship status, for the government cannot force that upon you, it is a fee “choice” and/or “election.” That will be illuminated in parts to come.

- Please note that in the IRC it often uses words and phrases like “If you are the person…” or “elected” and others of such ilk. Meaning that someone or “class” of person is not the person and thus not liable or imposed upon. I say, and in no way to detract from Irwin’s plight, that the reason no one can show the actual “Liability” beyond shadow of doubt, in Title 26 (as it does for liquor and others) is because the unqualified liability does not appear in Title 26, simple as that.
It appears in another Title. Ahhh, that’s the trick! We fall for the trick and get the treat! CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 8:39 AM

Many employers are already guilty of a misdemeanor:

Two years after the 16th Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to force any employee to enter into any agreement as a condition of employment. Such prohibition would also apply to the W-4 form. “The court held it unconstitutional, saying: 'The right to follow any lawful vocation and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will. He may select not only his employer, but also his associates.” COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1 (1915). *
“any officer, agent, or receiver of such employer, who shall require any employee, or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into an agreement, either written or verbal, or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any employee - is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof - shall be punished for each offense by a fine”. COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1 (1915).

As recently as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 10:24 AM

To anon. 11.24

What you say may be true BUT, did you do one or both of the two following things?
1. sign up for and receive a Social Security Card and use that card?
2. cash checks and use federal reserve notes without legal disclaimer?

One or both will attach to you a status that will negate that cases you cite. It moves you from one status to another.

Now I love Schulz and Schiff. But think on this for a moment -

*Why did the court say that the Federal Government didn't have to read, let alone answer Schulz's redress for grievance? Contrary to the hate mongers, Bob reads the law about redress correctly, he applies to someone (himself) the law doesn’t apply to.

*Why did the judge say to Irwin that, in essence, the Law, in the manner Irwin applies it isn’t correct? Contrary to the hate mongers, it is my contention that Irwin reads the law correct, he applies incorrectly to himself because of his predetermined status.

Both are listed, on the official records, as US CITIZENS and US CITIZENS do not have unqualified rights, only privileges that congress gives them with their only right, that being to residence.

You can’t go into their arena having the record show you as one particular class of person, and thinking you’re a different class of person, and expect to be treated in the manner you wish. You will be treated in the manner the record shows, and we are!

Your employer is following the rules for US CITIZENS, (those born in the insular areas and resident aliens and those, by agreement, having freely elected to be treated as such.)

I did not, in any manner mean to insult or defame anyone, to include you anonymous. When we correctly identify the exact nature of the problem, then and only then we can begin to correct the problem. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 10:57 AM

The LAUGH is on Judge Dawson!

Irwin Schiff will receive a lifetime benefit of FREE room and board, and WILL NOT ever be able to pay off his debt, and most assuredly, Peter Schiff will not be responsible for it.

Will Judge Dawson pass sentence on Schiff to extradite his followers into paying off his debt? HE IS THE LAW!!!

Irwin won’t have a care in the world, but to rest, relax, play chess, read a good book (not the Federal Mafia), watch TV, play volleyball, get a nice suntan, and much more.

It will cost the government $40,000 per year to house Irwin in prison rather than Irwin being forced to earn a living and the government takes 50% of his ‘income.’

Congratulations Irwin, you have just BEATEN Judge Dawson in his own game!!!

But will Judge Dawson pass a sentence of solitary confinement with NO visitors, just like that first prison in the United States in which the prisoner was left alone in a cell for 23 hours per day.

Maybe someone should print the Federal Mafia and hand it out FREELY and see if the government wants to get that person on copyright infringement!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 11:43 AM

Yes non-liable, let’s hope Irwin is afforded that manner of life.

However also know that they will take the milti-million dollars of fines imposed on him, and create a negotiable instrument out of it. They then “monetize” that negotiable instrument, and create more debt for the Federal Reserve to loan out with interest. (debt loaning debt) This act, not Irwin’s or so called T.P's. will help to increase the US debt till the lid blows off. That’s how they do it in the US and that is but one reason why the US houses half the worlds prison population. US also house twice as many prisoners as China but only have one forth the general population.

Now that is a perfectly legal scam. Of course Social Security is a perfectly legal scam too… They can set up a ponzi system to raise revenue but you can’t. Hmmm are we really living in the Republic known as America?
I think not! CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 12:17 PM

You can believe what you want to, but there is evidence to support the facts.

There are some that do NOT believe in GOD, but they still live in the country that is “One Nation Under God.” According to Dr. Robert Schuller’s teachings, Charles Manson will be going to heaven.

There are some that do NOT believe that there was government involvement, and cover-up, in the JFK assassination, but when the Zapruder film came out, people have to have a blind eye to deny he was shot twice, and from different directions. Even the coroner’s photos show that there was only one bullet hole and the right side of his face was still intact.

There are many that do NOT believe that the Federal Reserve is NOT a federal agency and the Notes are NOT authorized by the U.S. Constitution, but when the U.S. Constitution states; Section 8 - Powers of Congress, To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,… it therefore can be concluded that the amendment process was NEVER used to amend the U.S. Constitution to print currency, Federal Reserve Notes.

There are many that do NOT believe that G.W. BUSH supports the indoctrinization of illegal aliens into becoming U.S. citizens, but to keep the U.S. borders open and give amnesty to the illegals, people have to have a blind eye to deny this.
http://tianews.com/tianews/breaking/12-08-04/IF_BUSH_GIVES_AMNESTY.html

Maybe someone should convince a State to secede from the Union and see how the United States reacts. If the United States says the state, like Nevada, is prohibited from doing so then we do NOT have a Union of States, but a tyrannical, elitist power of government in the District of Columbia. If the Governor and State Legislature refuse then tell them that they must be with the New World Order and WE WILL THAKE THEM DOWN!!!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 12:52 PM

Article I (NV Constitution)

Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

....now you know why alost 85% of the lands in NV are owned the U.S. Gvt.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:03 PM

Hello Jerry Hosteg here,

Why did Ponzi get in trouble if his system was a scam? Then that means the government's Social Security system is a scam also because it follows the Ponzi scam.

Gosh, since the creation of the Federal Reserve System and since the government became a cancer to the American economy, I wonder how it is still surviving!

If the economy can take this pressure, then there really is nothing to worry about. If the national debt is 100 trillion, it wouldn't matter. This debt will keep rising, and the debtor(s) doesn't care. So why even worry about an economic collapse?

Question: When the value of the U.S. dollar is completely gone, America will obviously use another kind of currency right?

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:05 PM

Great post for stimulating thought Jerry,
The SS is a scam in many ways, which I’ll enumerate –
1. It is set up as a pyramid, illegal for the citizen but legal for the government? IF illegal for the citizen how can it be legal for the government?
2. The SS ACT was instituted for the purpose of “raising revenue” not insuring old age retirement. Fact is most people, for most of the time the SS existed, did not collect anywhere nears the amount they had placed into the “system.”
3. The system was designed to have people die just prior to, one or soon after they were eligible to collect. This is how insurance companies adjust their rates, by actuarial tables.
4. Government often calls SS a trust fund, however there is no trust fund the money is deposited into and therefore no trustee. The trust, if any, is created when you sign the card as “trustee” having a “fiduciary” responsibility to operate the trust on behalf of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is the Government! The trustee cannot, by law, argue with or deny the beneficiary, provided the beneficiary is acting legally. The CARD does not belong to you it belongs to the SYSTEM. You received the card and are to required to act on behalf of the card for the good of the beneficiary, the government. You will receive your trustee fee IF you live long enough and don’t have the pay confiscated by the government prior to your collecting your trustees fee.
5. The card is assigned to either a US Citizen or resident alien, two distinctly different classes of status but taxed in the same manner.

How is America still surviving? It isn’t. You mistake America for the Federal US. Two different status, as it is above in number 5 and having two distinctly different sets of rules of law. One a Republic and the other a legislative democracy respectively. But survival for either is waning. The federal US is on a continuous downslide economically as evidenced by it’s debt, that you pledged your labor, property, life and children to pay, along with it’s loss of economic freedoms having Bahrain, Cypress, and Lithuania closer to US than the US is to the top of the list having Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia and others in the lead.

The Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar per say, it is “legal tender.” It is a legal fiction, a negotiable instrument. It is evidenced by debt and supported by all property in the Federal district. The use of this legal fiction/tender brings with it one distinct advantage, that being the shop owner cannot sue you for not paying for your product when you purchase something. You walk into a store and agree to “buy” an item. You receive that tangible item. In exchange you give the merchant a debt NOTE. This is not paying for the item for debt can only “discharge” other debt. You are taxed for the use of this debt and the PRIVILEGE to not be sued for its use.

Any wonder why the Fed. Reserve ACT was enacted at near the same time as the erroneously constructed 16th amendment and just prior to the depression, the subsequent bank holiday and the addition to that bank holiday( a.k.a. Trading with the enemy ACT ) the people were included as the enemy? Any wonder why the SS soon followed? Is it any wonder why the currency was turned over to the IMF? Is it any wonder why the union states all changed their original status and in many cases name to accommodate the use of the non-lawful money when all backing was eliminated. Ex: California Republic to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

It’s all about status, commerce and the Law Merchant. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:40 PM

Never forget when reading Sec. 8 about Money... Congress can regulate the value...

How much value does "debt" have?

The money isn't money, it is debt.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:51 PM

As you are contemplating whether or how much you want to contribute to Mr. Schiff’s appeal please consider this.
How much has Mr. Schiff’s information saved you?
How much could it cost you if Mr. Schiff’s conviction is not overturned therein allowing the government Carte Blanch to refer to every illegal thing done to Mr. Schiff before and during the trial as precedent setting evidence that what they do is okay and what you claim in your defense has been found lacking in merit?
In that regard I believe if Mr. Schiff’s conviction is overturned it will open the flood gates and millions of scaredy cats will join this movement which will end the income tax for good and put all those friendly IRS agents of a job.
After you search your conscience or figure out what is best for you send donations to;
Freedom Books
Attn: Tine
444 E. Sahara Ave
Las Vegas, NV 89104

By The Law, at 10/28/2005 2:35 PM

Every time we tried to object about our sending troops to Iraq, or tell people that Congress had no constitutional right to delegate its authority to declar war, it seemed that no one would listen.
When we told them that the income tax was wrong, they didn't listen. The WTP National Constitutional Educational Foundation petitioned the government to stop the war, to stop the tax, to end the Fed., and no body listened. We drove to Washington with hundreds from all over the country. No one would listen.
Now that indictments are coming down against the White House's inner sanctum, some of you may pay attention. It's a crime that 2,000 have died because of their lies.
It is a crime that Irwin and Cindy are in jail.
When will they listen?
When will they wake up?

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 2:37 PM

Judge Dawson may believe he will be at the right hand of GOD by making sure that these verses; “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's” and “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities” is complied with, but where did GOD give him the authority and NOT a church official?

Ten of Christ’s Apostles were executed for disobeying the evil government.

Adolph Hitler was a church going man and demanded; “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities” or else they themselves were committing SIN.

Maybe we cannot fight this on the American level, but we have to fight it on the spiritual level and determine what acts of wrongdoing did Judge Dawson and the prosecution team do!

Didn’t Judge Dawson swear on a bible that he would uphold the U.S. Constitution?

Didn’t Judge Dawson violate that oath by denying Irwin a fair trial?

I guess when you would become a judge you can swear on anything because it; JUST DOESN”T MATTER!!!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 3:46 PM

You said it all jerryhorse, and they don't have to listen because in the US Federal Corporate Territorial quasi government they are GOD. The name of the game is shit and your it.

And how can debt be money within Constitutional limitations? It cannot and it does not have to be for the Federal Corporation can use anything it wants as money.

I have tons of proof, how much more is needed?

Few listen. What I present is not the normal patriot stuff or the normal "go along with the crowd" stuff. So it should be easy for all, no matter what side you take, to open your minds, tear down the walls in your minds and see that we ALL have been had. Not just the tax protestors, or the quatloos types but ALL of us EQUALLY. CJ

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 3:53 PM

If everyone in the country, worked together to solve the problem, it would be solved in 10 days.

Problem is, people would rather fight for their personal belief than solve the problem.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 3:54 PM

What is the Constitutional Amendment that states; “the United States will pay the debt of foreign countries in order to prevent mass poverty around the world”?

NAAAHHHH!!!

The U.S. Constitution is an archaic document and has no merit in today’s world!

We need to reduce the population down to the 500,000 elitists around the world as our supplies are dwindling!

But who would cloth, feed, and make all the chauffeured limousines that the elitists would need, as well as cleaning out their trash cans and toilets?

They would have ALL the money they could print to pay for those items, but then again, who would even print the money as elitists don’t do manual labor?

Am I being sarcastic or what?

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 4:10 PM

Maybe someone should print the Federal Mafia and hand it out FREELY and see if the government wants to get that person on copyright infringement!

Now that's an idea I like.

The only limit is whether Mr. Schiff would veto such an action.

I've got over 1.5 gigabytes of webspace available.

S/N: 00005

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 4:39 PM

There is a prominent subspecies of libertarian that places much emphasis on the technicalities in Constitutional and statutory law, often at the cost of understanding the true nature of the state and its mechanisms of power.
The most pervasive technicalitarian arguments concern the income tax. We learn that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, or that the tax is only supposed to apply to foreigners or citizens who make money in foreign exchange, or that the tax is really a corporate tax, or that the web of IRS regulations serves to obscure the fact that no statute actually mandates that you pay a tax. Refusing to file for income tax, or writing your name in all capital letters, or refraining from using Zip Codes in your outgoing mail, or referring to yourself as a "Citizen" as opposed to a "citizen" is supposed to keep the tax hounds away. They cannot touch you if you know the law.
Libertarians certainly have good reasons to know the law, especially the parts of it that will help shield liberty against the government. Furthermore, it is important to understand the real story behind various frauds, hoaxes and coups in American history. When we know that a certain Constitutional amendment, or, indeed, the entire Constitution, was conjured up in a smoky room filled with special interests and unscrupulous politicians, we better recognize that the state does not really have the sacred legitimacy often spoken of it in the popular mythology. We come to realize that constitutions are mere pieces of paper and governments mere groups of people empowered in ways the rest of us are not. We see that, even by its own terms, the state is illegitimate. Knowing the workings of the state has many uses in the intellectual battle for freedom.
Drawing on the technicalities of law as the chief tactic of fighting the state has its severe limitations and drawbacks, however. Instead of helping to expose the naked emperor or the man behind the curtain, it can lead us to grant undeserved legitimacy to the state. To obsess over the income tax as a supposed violation of statutory law is to give far too much credence to statutory law. The reason income tax is wrong is that it’s theft, not because some legislator back in 1913 failed to dot his i's and cross his t’s. Moreover, if enough Americans began calling the IRS’s alleged bluff, and stopped filing, the state would simply make the income tax "official" and "properly ratified" in any ways it had presumably failed to do so.
________________________________________________________________________
When we stop for a minute to think about it, nearly every single thing the federal government does is unconstitutional, blatantly, clearly, and unabashedly. Article I, Section 8 makes no mention of a federal department of education, energy, agriculture, or transportation; a CIA, an FBI, or an alcohol, tobacco and firearms bureau; a national war on drugs, crusade on guns or struggle against illiteracy; a central bank, a retirement plan, or even a standing army. The number of constitutional – that is to say, legal – practices of the federal government would likely correspond to less than one percent of its current activity.
________________________________________________________________________
So we already know that almost everything the feds do violates the so-called Supreme Law of the Land. It is useful to reflect on this to understand how far removed the government is from the document that supposedly gives it its authority. It is helpful to consider this in understanding the way the state operates in the real world. But we should also recognize that a government that is constantly and nakedly at odds with its Constitution is not going to let itself be deprived of one of its major sources of revenue upon being shown that the IRS is not following its own regulations to the letter. Liberty is not a mere technicality away.
The state is not about laws on pieces of paper. It is about looting and violence. Its principal methods of funding are theft and counterfeiting, its regular modus operandi is extortion and its most conspicuous projects are assault and murder. Ultimately, finding a technicality that saves Americans from income taxation will prove as effective as finding one that saves foreigners from incoming U.S. missiles. (Can you imagine an Iraqi screaming at the bombing of Baghdad that since the war had not been declared properly, the explosions cannot legally hurt him?) A loophole might save you money in the short term, but it will likely do you no good if the IRS has it in for you, and it will certainly do little in the long term to help in the eternal clash with the state.
Instead of searching for the magic loophole that will swallow up the state and all its oppression, we should devote our time to learning about how the state actually works, its historical and modern relationships with the private and semi-private sectors, and the effects of its domestic and foreign interventions. We should not fool ourselves. The state does not steal our incomes because we have overlooked a confusing regulation or fail to know our case law. The reason we have an income tax is because the politicians in power want an income tax, and have bamboozled the public into believing that taxation is acceptable in the first place. The tax code is confusing and contradictory for all sorts of historical and operational reasons, but it certainly does not contain the final key to our freedom from taxation.
The state is an organization of coercion, a monopoly on aggression, falsely legitimized by its own fiat and sanctified in idolatrous mythology and through lying propaganda. There is no technicality that can curb its inherent conflict with the natural law and individual liberty. It draws actual blood, bankrupts actual companies, bombs actual cities and taxes actual wealth. Its soldiers shoot to kill, its taxmen are equally ruthless. In principle, it is no more bound by a subsection of its tax code than a mobster is bound by his vague promise to protect you. It is for all these reasons that the state must be understood and eventually dismantled wherever and whenever possible. Don’t get too distracted by the fine print and neglect the big picture.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 5:05 PM

anon 6:05 you may enjoy "Our Enemy the State" by Albert Nock, if you haven't already done so.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 5:33 PM

Anon 10/28/2005 6:05 PM

You have made the best post I have ever read on this blog!

Finally, someone who gets it!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 5:35 PM

Irwin news

By David, at 10/28/2005 5:40 PM

lifetimenonfiler said...:
10/28/2005 6:02 PM
dale eastman said...
Maybe someone should print the Federal Mafia and hand it out FREELY

But if you look back, I said it:
10/28/2005 12:43 PM
Maybe someone should print the Federal Mafia and hand it out FREELY and see if the government wants to get that person on copyright infringement!

The point is that people report things of who said what, but you get the information wrong just like some of it I heard from the trial. Just as I stated earlier that Christians believe we are to pay the ‘income’ tax solely on the verse; “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's”, but why was this only emphasized after 1942 and NOT before?

Why must State citizens accept the SSN in order to work in that State? Well, it may be like the earlier comment at; 10/28/2005 2:03 PM, of the Nevada Constitution, we are required to obey: Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States, and that is to submit to SLAVERY to the government dictators!!!

I predict that since the United States has violated practically every Article and Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Schwarzenegger should be a running candidate for president in 2008, unless they find someway of getting him into office before then. By the way, not a single president or vice-president has ever been born in the jurisdictional United States, but only in the united States of America, the forty eight states as of now.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

We the States have allowed the United States to overpower us and deny us our rights as sovereign States, and that is where we should fight!

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 6:08 PM

anon 6:05 you may enjoy "Our Enemy the State" by Albert Nock, if you haven't already done so.

I have,

Thanx

10/28/2005 6:33 PM

You have made the best post I have ever read on this blog!

Finally, someone who gets it!

10/28/2005 6:35 PM

Also,
Thanx

I hope this helps in getting us back to some effective functionality.

By Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 8:18 PM

www.freestateproject.org
www.freestateproject.org
www.freestateproject.org
www.freestateproject.org
www.freestateproject.org

By Anonymous, at 10/29/2005 2:27 PM

http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/

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

lifetimenonfiler said:
better wait till after the appeal, maybe he will still be able to sell it.

Exactly. That's why what Mr. Schiff would want is the key component.

I mean....How can you ban a book?!!!

Easy:
wikipedia.org JPG 34 kb.

wikipedia.org JPG 955 kb

By Anonymous, at 10/30/2005 1:52 PM

Trial Logs

Thursday, October 27, 2005

62 Old Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts