Saturday, October 01, 2005

Hank Goltz interviews Cindy Neun

59 Old Comments:

Frank Buckner IS a provocateur.

I did take the time to look up the information from the link cited Mr. Buckner. What Buckner posted did NOT match what was available via the link he cited.

It just shows you just how low these statist sycophants will stoop to maintain the statuts quo.

The issue 'tween Cindy and Irwin has nothing to do with the issue of the fraudulent and criminal actions of the IRS.

Ms. Neun, sorry you even had to address the issue.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/01/2005 4:38 PM  

What part didn't match? It was pretty to look the basic info up on the website and verify what he posted.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/01/2005 4:42 PM  

What part didn't match? It was pretty to look the basic info up on the website and verify what he posted.

I'm not going to get into spreading this manure. The words Mr. Buckner posted do not match the words at the linked page...

By Anonymous Dale Eastman., at 10/01/2005 5:22 PM  

Who is the one spreading manure? I found the case easily.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/01/2005 5:33 PM  

Great interview! Thank you very much Hank Goltz. Good work. Thank you........doug kenline

By Blogger Doug, at 10/01/2005 6:50 PM  

hey Eastman,

Cindy herself admitted on this audio blog that she filed the lawsuit against Schiff. What part of that is "provocateur[-ish]"?

The fact that it contradicts what you choose to believe?

The link and what I posted was word for word. I, unlike tax protestors (Dale Eastman anyone), have no problem with pasting everything without choosing what context I want.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/01/2005 9:15 PM  

"Sometimes when couples break up they squabble", says Cindy.

But not all couple breakups result in a 99 page civil complaint.

If you are REALLY interested in the truth about Irwin, you should take the time to read Cindy's complaint. The rest of you sheeple can leave your heads deeply in the sand and up other places.

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

Cindy sounds pretty frustrated. I guess she realizes that the trial is going very badly for her, Irwin and Larry.

Trying to claim innocence when you know that Irwin is shuffling money to his offshore Belize trust is going to over like the proverbial lead salami.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/01/2005 11:12 PM  

The issue 'tween Cindy and Irwin has nothing to do with the issue of the fraudulent and criminal actions of the IRS.

The issue 'tween Cindy and Irwin has nothing to do with the issue of what the law says.

The fact that you are still trying to make an issue out of it just substantiates what I already said:
"It just shows you just how low these statist sycophants will stoop to maintain the status quo."

Now about that question you didn't answer:Mr. Buckner, Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

And while I'm on the subject of unanswered post's and questions...

With that wonderful teacher's persona perhaps you would enlighten us regarding:
1. Best Evidence;
2. Hearsay Evidence;
3. Void for vagueness doctrine;
4. How keeping the actual words of the law from the jury helps them to understand whether the accused broke the law.


Okay, Mr. Buckner. Hypothetical situation:

You're a member of a jury in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has proven, with solid evidence, waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did indeed commit the crime the accused was accused of doing.

Q.1. Are you required to vote guilty?

Q.2. If your answer to Q.1. is no, Would you vote guilty?

P.S. The accused in the above hypothetical situation even sat on the stand and testified, "Yes. I broke that law."


Frank, Wipe your lips

"you know who"? Why didn't you post under your real name of Goldman? You're still an idiot.

Such acumen.

Check the URL, dummy.
__________________________________

If you are REALLY interested in the truth about Irwin, you should take the time to read Cindy's complaint.

And this has exactly what to do with the fraudulent enforcement of an "income" tax by the IRS? Can you repeat that part of your post, my dog ate those electrons and I didn't see anything from your post on that issue.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/01/2005 11:20 PM  

Sorry, Dale, but only you and a few other nutters even think there is an issue about the constitutionality of the income tax.

Certainly, no REAL legal or constitutional scholars do, the rantings of a twice-convicted felon and his sycophants not to the contrary.

Why is the ACLU standing up for Irwin, Cindy and Larry? Because the ACLU knows that their arguments are totally bogus too.

Funny that there are less than a half-dozen people even attending the trial, including a few old men just trying to enjoy the free air conditioning.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/01/2005 11:30 PM  

Sorry, Dale, but only you and a few other nutters even think there is an issue about the constitutionality of the income tax.
We are a growing force and bringing the word to our fellow citizens at an astonishing rate. Little worms like you will jump on the band wagon when the citizens say enough is enough and take on this bunch of thugs called US government. That is why the scumbags (government)are trying to muzzle Irwin and run a kangaroo court.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/01/2005 11:43 PM  

Sorry, Dale, but only you and a few other nutters even think there is an issue about the constitutionality of the income tax.

Judging from the number of people following these trials, I would say it is more than a few.

Certainly, no REAL legal or constitutional scholars do, the rantings of a twice-convicted felon and his sycophants not to the contrary.

This is an interesting assertion. How have you arrived at this conclusion? Have you polled them all?

Why is the ACLU standing up for Irwin, Cindy and Larry? Because the ACLU knows that their arguments are totally bogus too.

If you're relying on the ACLU to flush out what is right and wrong in the legal arena or to determine what cases have legal importance, you really are misguided.

Funny that there are less than a half-dozen people even attending the trial, including a few old men just trying to enjoy the free air conditioning.

Don't let an empty court room fool you. How many folks do you know, besides government employees, that get five weeks vacation? It is quite possible more will show up to experience the the court house abuse in the later weeks.

Meanwhile, it is hard to believe those "few old men" are enjoying the air conditioning as they witness some of the worst judicial and governmental misconduct.

But, Judge Dawson, you should know, you're the one that's there.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 12:04 AM  

Go for it, Dale, name one accredited legal or constitutional scholar who believes that tax protestor theories are anything but a big joke.

When did the firewood haulers and pool cleaners get the monopoly on knowledge?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 12:14 AM  

Coward 10/02/2005 12:30 AM said...

Sorry, Dale, but only you and a few other nutters even think there is an issue about the constitutionality of the income tax.

Filled them bib overalls all the way up with straw didja? You can't wear them again if you rip them while knocking the stuffin out of that straw man.

Certainly, no REAL legal or constitutional scholars do, the rantings of a twice-convicted felon and his sycophants not to the contrary.

Why you done did good. Knocked the stuffing right out of that strawman without putting one tear in 'em.

[red herrings snipped]
---------------------------------
Anonymous said...

Go for it, Dale, name one accredited legal or constitutional scholar who believes that tax protestor theories are anything but a big joke.

When did the firewood haulers and pool cleaners get the monopoly on knowledge?

10/02/2005 1:14 AM


Frank, you must think I'm as dumb as you. Your fingerprints are all over your post.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 12:28 AM  

Well apparently you are dumb, thanks for proving it. When I post I use my name. I actually have denigrated anon posters, so posting that way wouldn't be very productive of me. I realize you don't understand rationality, but squeeze your head between your hands and try to have an original thought.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/02/2005 12:32 AM  

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 1:40 AM  

Anonymous said...

When did the firewood haulers and pool cleaners get the monopoly on knowledge?

I think the answer is...

When the USC became searchable online about 10 years or so ago.

The folks behind the tax honesty movement are just in their cause.

I don't understand how anyone that studies both sides of the issue cannot come to the conclusion that Schiff is right.

If Mr. Buckner is so knowledgeable why doesn't he just answer Schiff's liability motion point for point and post it on the internet since the government could not manage to do it.

If Schiff is just ALLOWED to present the LAW in its entirety to the jury, he will win.

Let the prosecution try to disprove any of it AFTER it is presented to the jury...they can't.

Why?

If the feds are RIGHT and all those scholars, then let's just have a good ol' town meeting and have both sides lay it on the table on national TV like Bob Schultz has been trying to do for years.

Mr. Buckner I don't know you and I don't mean any disrespect but please tell me why the feds REFUSE to meet in a town hall type meeting when they have the chance to put all this tax protester shit out to pasture once and for all???

Good job Dale.

There are plenty of people watching this trial.


He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
- Albert Einstein

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 2:49 AM  

If Mr. Buckner is so knowledgeable why doesn't he just answer Schiff's liability motion point for point and post it on the internet since the government could not manage to do it.

I'll even post that page to my web site for him... If he answers all the points plausibly... or not.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 3:17 AM  

Dale Eastman pontificates:

Now about that question you didn't answer:Mr. Buckner, Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

Well, I know when it comes to the federal income tax, the Supreme Court recognizes that one does not have to be assessed before payment is required ...

"Taking a more metaphysical tack, Baral contends that income tax is "paid" under § 6511(b)(2)(A) only when the income tax is assessed--here, June 1 or July 19, 1993, see supra, at 1008--because the concept of payment makes sense only when the liability is "defined, known, and fixed by assessment," Brief for Petitioner 9. But the Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment. See § 6151(a) ("[T]he person required to make [a return of tax] shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ... at the time and place fixed for filing the return" (emphasis added)) ..." - Baral v. U.S., 528 U.S. 431

By Anonymous Brian Rookard, at 10/02/2005 7:16 AM  

The 9th Circuit said, as a result of the Cheek decision by the Supreme Court, that decision effectively overturned all relevant prior
precedents issued by the 9th Circuit. It's a footnote at the very end of their decision; but it's a highly significant footnote because it says --the Court is saying -- all prior precedents in this area are now effectively overruled by this decision. And, as a result of that, defendants are now allowed to introduce into evidence, into the court record, and to present to the jury, the law -- whatever law, Title 26, Title 5, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Register Act, you name it. They can excerpt the law and read it to the jury and say, "This is my understanding of what this
law says."

I don't know if the conclusions are correct, but I do know that we can rely on other things, and Irwin Schiff should be doing the same!

If you have Black's Law, look under Stipulations. You will find reference to stipulating to the laws that will be presented at trial.

Also, in US vs. Bishop, the High court states that if you are relying on it's prior decisions, that you cannot be said to be willfully violating the law. Well, if they say I can rely on their decisions, then I will present to any court those decisions on which I have relied.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 8:49 AM  

eastman quoting Hamlet? The quote (not surprisingly considering it is eastman writing it)wasn't worded by the author the way eastman wrote it. If he truly knew the context in which Queen Gertrude uttered that observation, he'd realize what an idiot he just called himself by using that particular quote in that particular context.

But, he's a tax protester that merely regurgitates the words of others instead of having an original thought. By the way eastman, I "doth protest" not at all.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/02/2005 8:51 AM  

"Mr. Buckner I don't know you and I don't mean any disrespect but please tell me why the feds REFUSE to meet in a town hall type meeting when they have the chance to put all this tax protester shit out to pasture once and for all???"

Call it a hunch, since despite kodaks assertion, I'm not a "provocateur" for anyone.

My guess would be that there are some people (and you know who you are) that wouldn't be convinced regardless of what anyone said. IF the Fed decided to have a "town hall" meeting with the likes of Schiff (assuming he can get a furlough from the federal prison to which he's headed), Rose (same assumption) and the other so called heads of the "tax honesty movement", they would sit there and dispute every point and never agree that they are wrong - no matter what what shown them. The law has been shown, it's all right there in the US code and attendant federal regulations. Where is the exact word that would make them happy? Probably doesn't exist. Put just to put some logic into the mix, why would a government, that has the power to tax - always has and always will - try to "trick" the people into paying taxes? What motivation would be present to "trick" the citizens into paying taxes? The government has the ability to tax it's citizens and does so.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/02/2005 9:09 AM  

Merely repeating "there is no law" over and over will not make that lie come true. Certainly, the courts from the U.S. Supreme Court on down has had no trouble identifying it, nor have the thousands of tax, legal, and constitutional scholars in the U.S.

The only ones who can't see the laws are the kool-aid drinking followers of a twice-convicted felon and the pro wrasslin' crowd.

Irwin will get his chance to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, after which he will be buried in an unmarked grave in the prison cemetary, just like Phil Marsh of the Pilot Society some years back -- another "delusional" nutter with a Jim Jones like ability to persuade his sheeple followers that only he could "see" the law.

Brake pad changers, unite!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 9:10 AM  

Source http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable

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

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

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

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

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

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

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

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).

"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).

"Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).

"Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);
United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).

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

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

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 9:35 AM  

Anonymous said...

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.


Why site a regulation? A regulation cannot create a liability that does not already exist in a statute, right??


"...The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability."
Bothke v. Terry , 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

Further...

"A tax is a legal imposition exclusively of statutory origin. (37 Cyc. 724, 725) and, naturally, liability to taxation must be read in statute or it does not exist." Bente vs. Buzbee 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 1927

and...

"...liability for taxation must clearly appear [from statute imposing tax]." Higley vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)

Imposition of a tax does not automatically make someone liable.

If it did as you claim, why did the law makers go through great lengths to IMPOSE a tax in ALL OTHER federal taxes AND THEN create liability in others.

If imposing the tax is enough like the proponents claim, then WHY the extra step, the extra work writing the EXTRA laws to create liability??

Did they FORGET to do it with the income tax? arguably the most contested tax there is?

Is it so inconceivable that the government (federal courts)might be less than honest to protect "national interest?"

The excuse for not having a national town hall meeting to clear this whole issue up because the tax protestors would never be satisfied is a crock.

Let both sides present their evidence on national TV and then let the country decide.

The pro IRS camp would have no problem dealing with the "silly tax honesty movement," right?

The tax protestor movement would die because everyone would see the truth.

It would save millions on future trials.

The IRS could go to the town meeting and SHOW to us all once and for all the truth outside of the obviously biased courts.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 12:02 PM  

Totally stupid argument. First, the Constitution does NOT require the use of the word "liable".

Second, who else would be liable for the tax if not the party receiving it? It is clear that the party paying it gets a deduction, and that it is only INcome to the party receiving it.

Sheesh.

There is a reason that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars think that the "liable" argument is anything other than a big joke -- it is plainly ridiculous, as the courts have said on numerous occasions.

But keep on deluding yourselves, and wondering why nobody who matters supports you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 1:09 PM  

Why are naysayers here?

If Irwin claimed that the Earth was flat, wouldn't everyone just ignore him?

You would not argue with that notion, would you.

Do you post here because you are unsure about the income tax? What are you trying to convey if it is as obvious as the Earth is an oblate spheroid?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 3:10 PM  

"Why are naysayers here?"

For the same reason that people will slow down to watch a car wreck, or will watch COPS.

Irwin's trial is a car wreck in progress, just like Larken's was a couple of weeks ago, and Lynne Meredith's was last fall.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 3:27 PM  

Totally stupid argument. First, the Constitution does NOT require the use of the word "liable".

We are being taxed BY the Constitution? I thought it was by the statutes.

and...

You still have not given an answer as to why the lawmakers went through painstaking effort to IDENTIFY WHO is liable for other federal taxes and NOT income taxes.

The argument that the establishment of liability is NOT needed because the Constitution does not require it is a joke easily proved by the fact that the Constitution did not "require" it for other federal taxes either but yet it is done over and over and over again.

Second, who else would be liable for the tax if not the party receiving it? It is clear that the party paying it gets a deduction, and that it is only INcome to the party receiving it.

WHAT? Do you receive the tax?

Sheesh.

Agreed.

There is a reason that NO accredited legal or constitutional scholars think that the "liable" argument is anything other than a big joke -- it is plainly ridiculous, as the courts have said on numerous occasions.

That's pretty sad. An American has to be "accredited" to understand the Constitution?

I have a hard copy of the Constitution and it reads pretty easy. The only reason there is need for "accredited" Constitutional scholars is to help justify the manner in which the meaning of Constitution has been TWISTED over the years.

Why don't more "scholars" speak out??...hmmm that's a tough one, how about fear of ridicule and retaliation?

But keep on deluding yourselves, and wondering why nobody who matters supports you.

If you are so sure of yourself, TELL US WHY lawmakers spent so much time DEFINING WHO is liable for ALL THE OTHER federal taxes, if, according to you, the constitution does not require it?

End the delusion now. Gather up your best and brightest “accredited” scholars and DOJ lawyers and meet Bob Schultz outside the courtroom in front of the cameras and put this to rest right now.

The truth needs to be decided by the American people. Just ask all of the poor souls being exonerated by DNA evidence these days that where CONVICTED of rape and murder and what not by the federal courts.

A town meeting would be the “DNA” evidence needed by the Tax Honesty Movement to finally prove its point and start to set our great country back on the right track again.

Until then you can spew all the disinformation you want and these blog debates will never end BUT our side is READY and WILLING to meet in a non-biased setting and RESOLVE the issue in PUBLIC once and for all.

It would be a great learning experience for all of us.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 4:26 PM  

*Re: Letters 10-2*
Charles Baker

I agree. Mr Quinn was obviously coming from a prejudiced position
without knowing much about the subject. He knows far less than Mr Irwin
Schiff who has studied tax laws for over thiry years and written and
self published many important and very informative books on the
unlawful
income tax. One of which is "The Federal Mafia, How The Government
Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes. When I was in
the eighth grade, I knew that you don't define a word by using the same
word in its own definition. IRC Sec 61 supposedly starts off giving the
definition of income by stating that "Except that otherwise provided in
this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source
derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

So the code starts off telling you what gross income is before telling
you what income is!!

If I told you that a big faligulet was a faligulet only bigger, would
you know what a faligulet is? No, first you would have to know what a
faligulet is before you could know what a bigger one was. Therefore IRC
Sec 61 does not define the meaning of income.

Note to the IRS, prosecution attorneys, and those that permeate the
fraud and lies;

3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the
face
of the whole earth: for everyone that stealeth shall be cut off as on
this side according to it; and everyone that sweareth shall be cut off
as on that side according to it. 4 I will bring it forth, saith the
Lord
of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the
house of him that sweareth falsely by my name, and it shall remain in
the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof
and
the stones thereof. Zechariah 6:3-4

Psalm 103:6 The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that
are oppressed.

What is more oppressive to the American people than the IRS?


Sincerely, Charles Baker

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 5:25 PM  

Irwin can't even understand the difference between gross income and net income. Irwin seems like a genious to the rest of you small brains because he throws some gobblygook together and acts like its law.

But go ahead and follow a twice-convicted felon whose own hired psychiatrist has testified under oath is "delusional". Following Irwin is no different than following Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 6:14 PM  

It's my old pal Brian Rookard from misc.taxes

This is the long answer. It's purpose is to show that Mr. Rookard is an ardent supporter of "legal plunder". Rumor has it, he's in the legal field or training to be a liar, er lawyer.

Mr. Rookard cites a question of mine: Now about that question you didn't answer:Mr. Buckner, Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

However, Mr. Rookard failed to give a simple yes or no answer.

Mr. Rookard, Can a person have a state property tax liability if no state property tax has been assessed?

Since you jumped in here, surely you can post a yes or no to the question.

For those not familiar with Mr. Rookard's style, he'll come in and attempt to bury and obfuscate the novice. He's IRS damage control plain and simple. His purpose is to attempt to kill the novice's interest in the truth.

With that said, it is time to look at his posting of an excerpt of a SCOTUS case. To do that, first let us see what it says.

The lurkers can read along with me here

Two remittances were made to the Internal Revenue Service toward petitioner Baral's income tax liability for the 1988 tax year: a withholding of $4,104 from Baral's wages throughout 1988 by his employer, and an estimated income tax of $1,100 remitted in January 1989 by Baral.

First, let us note that Baral was a "taxpayer".

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)


Everybody clear on Baral-- He had employer paid tax deductions during 1988, and he had paid himself, an estimated tax in January 1989, prior to the tax return due date of April 15, 1989 for the year 1988 taxes.
$4,104 by deduction and $1,100 by estimate for a total of $5,204, paid prior to the due date. Back to the case:

Though he received an extension until August 15, he missed this deadline and did not file the return until June 1, 1993. On the return, he claimed a $1,175 overpayment and asked the Service to apply this excess as a credit toward his outstanding tax obligations for the 1989 tax year. The Service denied the requested credit,

The first question I'm thinking is, was $1,175 a legitimate overpayment?

The Service denied the requested credit, concluding that the claim exceeded the ceiling imposed by 26 U. S. C. §6511(b)(2)(A), which states that "the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period, immediately preceding the filing of the claim, equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return.

The service denied the credit; The service did NOT deny the overpayment.

To understand §6511(b)(2)(A) one needs to understand subsection (a) which it refers to:

(a) Period of limitation on filing claim
Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.


Now we can look at §6511(b)(2)(A):
(b) Limitation on allowance of credits and refunds
(2) Limit on amount of credit or refund
(A) Limit where claim filed within 3-year period
If the claim was filed by the taxpayer during the 3-year period prescribed in subsection (a), the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period, immediately preceding the filing of the claim, equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. If the tax was required to be paid by means of a stamp, the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.


Returning to the SCOTUS text:
Since Baral filed his return on June 1, 1993, and received a 4-month extension from the initial due date, the relevant look-back period under §6511(b)(2)(A) extended from June 1, 1993, back to February 1, 1990 ( i.e., three years plus four months). According to the Service, Baral had paid no portion of the overpaid tax during that period, and so faced a ceiling of zero on any allowable refund or credit. Baral commenced this suit for refund in the Federal District Court, which granted the Service summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that both remittances were "paid" on April 15, 1989.

Held: Remittances of estimated income tax and withholding tax are "paid" on the due date of a calendar year taxpayer's income tax return. Sections 6513(b)(1) and (2) unequivocally provide that the two remittances were "paid" on April 15, 1989, for purposes of §6511(b)(2)(A), so that they precede the look-back period, which began on February 1, 1990. Subsection (1) resolves when the remittance of Baral's employer's withholding tax was "paid," and subsection (2) determines when his remittance of estimated income tax was "paid." Because neither these remittances nor any others were "paid" within the look-back period, the ceiling on Baral's requested $1,175 credit is zero, and the Service was correct to deny that credit.


In English: The court just allowed the IRS to STEAL the taxpayer's overpayment by Bastiat's "LEGAL PLUNDER".

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 6:33 PM  

Anonymous said...

Irwin can't even understand the difference between gross income and net income.

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.

You are wrong.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 6:36 PM  

Okay, the short answer to Mr. Rookard's post:

But the Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment. See § 6151(a) ("[T]he person required to make [a return of tax] shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ... at the time and place fixed for filing the return" (emphasis added))

That's a mighty fine Idea. See § 6151(a).

Sec. 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns

-STATUTE-
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).


So, Mr. Rookard, when IS a return required? And who is the person required?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 6:44 PM  

Famous Frank's Phrases:

I'm not a "provocateur" for anyone.

Uh huh.

But, he's a tax protester that merely regurgitates the words of others instead of having an original thought.

Well apparently you are dumb, thanks for proving it.

I realize you don't understand rationality, but squeeze your head between your hands and try to have an original thought.

But, please let your insanity rule the day and show me the workings of several deluded minds.

"you know who"? Why didn't you post under your real name of Goldman? You're still an idiot.

Will Irwin's prison number be all zeroes? Inquiring minds want to know!


Mike Goldman the "radio idiot" is more like it.

That's the rules of evidence you frigging moron,

Of all the remarkably moronic statements that Jahn has made

Withdrawing money from your own bank account" (that's rich, like tax protesters have bank accounts)

Heck, you idiots searched him out...

Doug Kenline is a p**sy

Apparently the above idiot is unable to recognize irony when he/she types it.

should you refrain from reading them with a cup of tp kool-aid in your hand

What was that first quote...?
Oh yeah.

I'm not a "provocateur" for anyone.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 7:16 PM  

Now, Famous Frank, You gonna answer these questions?

Hypothetical situation:

You're a member of a jury in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has proven, with solid evidence, waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did indeed commit the crime the accused was accused of doing. The accused even sat on the stand and said, "Yes, I broke that law".

Q.1. Are you required to vote guilty?

Q.2. If your answer to Q.1. is no,
Would you vote guilty?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 7:20 PM  

A provocateur, in general, seeks to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group. Everything you've painstakingly compiled (do you actually have a life?)is what I said under my own name and without being done "in secret". The fact that it's all true would also seem to piss on your "provocateur" theory. By the way, thanks for cutting and pasting only certain snips of my posts - in a single post,you've displayed the modus operandi for the entire Tax Prostate movement, cut and paste only what you want without context. Congrats Eastman, you truly are a scholar *hack cough cough*

As to your last idiotic query (again, not done in secret, I publicly proclaim that your question is over the border of idiocy)

I realize this is an extremely difficult concept for you to grasp, but if you follow your oath that you take at the start of the trial (in Nevada the oath is substantially in this form)

"Do you, and each of you, (solemnly swear, or affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury) that, you will well and truly try the case now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according to the evidence given (so help you God)?"
Notice not a word in there about "personal feelings to the contrary"? If I would voluntarily take that oath, something I take seriously (again I realize you have a hard time understanding that, but stick with me here), I would abide by that oath. So yes, by my own personal standards, I would be required to vote "guilty".

I notice you never did respond to me calling you on your mangling of Shakespeare. Truly kodak, if you wish to come across as being literate, you have to at least use the proper contexts in the quotes you choose to use.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/02/2005 9:20 PM  

Hypothetical situation:

You're a member of a jury in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has proven, with solid evidence, waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did indeed commit the crime the accused was accused of doing. The accused even sat on the stand and said, "Yes, I broke that law".

Q.1. Are you required to vote guilty?

Q.2. If your answer to Q.1. is no,
Would you vote guilty?

If I would voluntarily take that oath, something I take seriously (again I realize you have a hard time understanding that, but stick with me here), I would abide by that oath. So yes, by my own personal standards, I would be required to vote "guilty".

I forgot (on purpose) to explain the criminal act, and you didn't bother to ask.

Aiding and abetting the fugitive Anne Frank and her family.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 10:34 PM  

Awww, how special. You think you "got me"? As in everything you tax protesters do, you pull a "matrix" scenario out of your nether regions and wish it to be so.

I answered your original question because I really wanted to see your "gotcha"...I didn't think it'd be so juvenile, but I should have known. Congrats, you've reached a new level, further down the evolutionary ladder, but a new level nonetheless.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/02/2005 10:59 PM  

More like "exposed you" as a statist sycophant.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/02/2005 11:13 PM  

I am delighted to see the comments and the emotionalism of these anti- Schiff posters. Their arguments confirm what I already suspected of their characters. For those of you who are Pro-Schiff like myself, remember that these personal attacks on Irwin involve a fallacy of logic called an Ad Hominum attack. The attacker avoids ideas and goes for the person.

Remember what first convinced you that Irwin was right. Observe these Ad Hominum attackers go for character. Ask yourself what type of person is terrified by Irwin's enormous influence and you will know who these people are and that their real motive is the continuation of this vampire state that sucks the blood of the living for the sake of the dead. I was one of the "old men enjoying the air conditioning" (I am 45) at Irwin's "trial."
Go to Las Vegas and see the attitudes of the men involved. If you doubt Irwin's case and you're rational, You will be reassured of Irwin's rectitude and the venality of the opposition.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/02/2005 11:43 PM  

By the way, thanks for cutting and pasting only certain snips of my posts - in a single post,you've displayed the modus operandi for the entire Tax Prostate movement, cut and paste only what you want without context.

My apologies Famous Frank. I forgot the link: Here's the context

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/03/2005 12:22 AM  

"I am delighted to see the comments and the emotionalism of these anti- Schiff posters. Their arguments confirm what I already suspected of their characters. For those of you who are Pro-Schiff like myself, remember that these personal attacks on Irwin involve a fallacy of logic called an Ad Hominum attack. The attacker avoids ideas and goes for the person."

A surprisingly well worded argument.

Too bad it's wrong.

None of these posts (mine or others) have attacked Schiff personally. The only word used that could be considered personal is speaking to him being delusional, and that's a word used in court filings by his own defense. In fact, the "going public" with that portion of his defense caused a rift between him and Cindy - again in Cindy's own words on ZIF.

I find myself totally amazed that people can follow ideas such as those promoted by Schiff, Rose, the late Phil Marsh and scores of others.

As David Hannum said, "There's a sucker born every minute"...I just lucked out and found a segment of society (TP Land) where they congregate.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/03/2005 9:04 AM  

I find myself totally amazed that people can follow ideas such as those promoted by Schiff, Rose, the late Phil Marsh and scores of others.

What ideas are those Mr. Buckner?
Ideas like reading the law for oneself?
Ideas like once on reads the law for themselves they see the government lies?
Ideas of not of not relying on hearsay evidence of the law, like some black robed tyrants edict, "I will tell you what the law is"?
Ideas that the government lies about the law?

This all becomes clear once one becomes motivated to read the ACTUAL words of the law.

With the exception of your out of context citing of section 1, 61, & 63, you have yet to post any discussion of substance ON the actual words of LAW

Mr. Rookard's interesting spin notwithstanding, you have yet to answer this question:

Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/03/2005 11:26 AM  

What ideas are those Mr. Buckner?
Ideas like reading the law for oneself?
Ideas like once on reads the law for themselves they see the government lies?
Ideas of not of not relying on hearsay evidence of the law, like some black robed tyrants edict, "I will tell you what the law is"?
Ideas that the government lies about the law?


Mr. Eastman, you and every other person in the entire world, has the right to read the law. You have the right to argue the law, you have the right to lobby to change laws you don't agree with.

What you don't have is the right to disobey the laws you don't agree with. You can beat your head against the wall all you want to about "what is the meaning of this word or that word" - it doesn't change what is. What is, is the fact that the government has always had the power to tax it's citizens and does so. The laws were written and passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States - all elected representives of the people of the United States of America. There is no vast conspiracy, there is no magic bullet or secret handshake that makes it all go away. I know this will come as a shock, but there is no Matrix. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/03/2005 6:23 PM  

Frank Buckner said...

I know this will come as a shock, but there is no Matrix. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.


We do live in a matrix Frank, it's called the Zero Point Field.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 8:31 PM  

Mr. Eastman, you and every other person in the entire world, has the right to read the law.

Do you know what the Void For Vagueness Doctrine is?

I really like this quote from faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor which states the following:

THE VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

This doctrine, so eloquently put by Justice Holmes (in McBoyle v. U.S. 1931) in the opening quote at the start of this lecture, has ancient origins. The maxim of uncertain law, then no law comes down to us from the Romans, and there are numerous cases in American jurisprudence that lay claim to establishing the doctrine. Frequently cited formulations include:

"Any statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (Connally v. General Construction Co. 1926)

"Any statute, on its face, which is repugnant to the due process clause, [where] specification of details of the offense would not serve to validate it...No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids" (Lanzetta v. New Jersey 1939)

"To have available, through a sufficiently precise statute, information regarding the standard of criminality before being charged with the alleged commission of a crime" (Watkins v. U.S. 1957)

"A state may not issue commands to its citizens in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them" (Raley v. Ohio 1959)

It is not enough to challenge a law on the basis of imprecise words alone. A number of tests have been developed to tell when such attacks will be successful or not:

Should a layman, or common person, know that the conduct in question is so wrong that it is likely to carry a criminal penalty? This is the most common test, and one in which judges must resort to an understanding of public opinion, culture, and customs.

Is the statute capable of more precise language, without asking the legislature to do the impossible? This is sometimes known as the conjecture test, which looks at whether lawmakers seemed to leave things to the imagination.

Is the statute more uncertain than other statutes, or is part of a whole group of related unclear statutes? This test gets at the bulk of criminal law in a certain area.


Focussing specifically on the first quote from Connally:

"Any statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (Connally v. General Construction Co. 1926)

You certainly have made the point that you and yours differ with me and mine on the issue of tax law.

You have the right to argue the law,...

There ain't no argument. If there is, the law is void for vagueness.

you have the right to lobby to change laws you don't agree with.

Who said anyone on my side of the fence wants to change a perfectly Constitutional law that does not tax the domestic compensation for labor of the Citizens?

You're making strawmen again.

What you don't have is the right to disobey the laws you don't agree with.

But apparently in your book the government does have the right to disobey laws they don't agree with.

This, my dear statist sycophant, is PROVABLE. I just haven't uploaded the information to my web site yet.

You can beat your head against the wall all you want to about "what is the meaning of this word or that word" - it doesn't change what is.

Finally! A statement by you that I can actually agree with.

So let's start with these words from this Treasury Regulation:

1.861-8T(d)(2)Exempt income and exempt asset defined--

1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)(A) In general.
For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.


Q1. Can a tax be laid upon "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" income?

Q2. Can deductions be deducted from "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" income?

1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)Income that is not considered tax exempt.
The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:


Q3. In the context shown, does "tax exempt" mean "not taxable"?

Q4. Does "considered to be exempt" mean "considered to be not taxable"?

Q5. Does "not considered to be exempt" mean "not considered to be not taxable"?

Q6. Do double negatives Cancel i.e. Does "you are not - not dumb" mean the same as "you are dumb"?

Q7. Does "not considered to be exempt" mean "considered to be taxable"?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/03/2005 9:04 PM  

Void for Vagueness is something that can only be determined by a Court, not a regular joe (or Dale) on the street. Love to see you rob a Credit Union and then say the law that prohibits bank robbery was void for vagueness since it didn't say "Credit Union".

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/04/2005 12:24 AM  

My apologies to the rest of you in advance for the repetition. Frank's dog ate the electrons and he didn't get the rest of this post.
I know he would have answered the questions to See my "gotcha" if his dog didn't eat the electrons of my post.

I answered your original question because I really wanted to see your "gotcha" -- Frank Buckner

You can beat your head against the wall all you want to about "what is the meaning of this word or that word" - it doesn't change what is.

Finally! A statement by you that I can actually agree with.

So let's start with these words from this Treasury Regulation:

1.861-8T(d)(2)Exempt income and exempt asset defined--

1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)(A) In general.
For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes
.

Q1. Can a tax be laid upon "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" income?

Q2. Can deductions be deducted from "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" income?

1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)Income that is not considered tax exempt.
The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:


Q3. In the context shown, does "tax exempt" mean "not taxable"?

Q4. Does "considered to be exempt" mean "considered to be not taxable"?

Q5. Does "not considered to be exempt" mean "not considered to be not taxable"?

Q6. Do double negatives Cancel i.e. Does "you are not - not dumb" mean the same as "you are dumb"?

Q7. Does "not considered to be exempt" mean "considered to be taxable"?

10/03/2005 10:04 PM

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/04/2005 2:14 AM  

Mr. Buckner doth protests thusly:

By the way eastman, I "doth protest" not at all.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/04/2005 1:41 PM  

So, Mr. Rookard, when IS a return required? And who is the person required?

By Anonymous Yoo Hoo, Brian, at 10/04/2005 1:43 PM  

I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Dale's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Dale's writings to know that Dale parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. My usual response to his crusades is this: His appeal to antipluralism is dangerous stuff. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little churlish, so let me be more specific. The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how mingy and abhorrent he has become. The purpose of this is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how there is little question that he always says the most vexatious things. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. I think I've dished it out to Dale Eastman as best as I can.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 3:25 PM  

Dear anonymous ankle biter,

I am honored that you crawled out of the woodwork to "dished it out to Dale Eastman"

Perhaps you can "dish it out" just a little more by stepping in for my old pal Brian Rookard. He is apparently indisposed so he couldn't be here to answer his questions:

So, Mr. Rookard, when IS a return required? And who is the person required?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/04/2005 5:59 PM  

There are two taxing clauses in our Constitution. A direct tax which must be apportioned, and an indirect tax (excise tax) which must be geographically uniform. The income tax falls into neither of these catagories. So it would not come into direct conflict with the two taxing clauses of the Constitution it was given limited meaning by the Supreme Court,and that meaning is corporate profit. See Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka and Stratton Independence v. Howbert, and Brushbauer v. Union Pacific. The 16th Amendment did not grant any new taxing powers to congress. Our "income" tax system is based on voluntary compliance as ruled by the Supreme Court in Flora. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a 1040 is being a witness in the Constitutional sense (5th Amendment) See Gardner v. U.S,, and Sullivan v. U.S. Therefore we cannot be forced to be a witness against our self by filing a 1040. 6012 by the way does not have an implementing regulation and does not have the force and effect of law to the public.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:44 PM  

There are two taxing clauses in our Constitution. A direct tax which must be apportioned, and an indirect tax (excise tax) which must be geographically uniform. The income tax falls into neither of these catagories. So it would not come into direct conflict with the two taxing clauses of the Constitution it was given limited meaning by the Supreme Court,and that meaning is corporate profit. See Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka and Stratton Independence v. Howbert, and Brushbauer v. Union Pacific. The 16th Amendment did not grant any new taxing powers to congress. Our "income" tax system is based on voluntary compliance as ruled by the Supreme Court in Flora. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a 1040 is being a witness in the Constitutional sense (5th Amendment) See Gardner v. U.S,, and Sullivan v. U.S. Therefore we cannot be forced to be a witness against our self by filing a 1040. 6012 by the way does not have an implementing regulation and does not have the force and effect of law to the public.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:44 PM  

6511 is found in CFR 27 which is Alcohol,tobacco,and firearms,not in CFR 26 which ic income tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:03 PM  

Why can't the people who belive that there is a tax on wages site the statute that established such a tax????

Could it be because there is no such statute??

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/05/2005 11:26 AM  

"Wages" is a statutorily defined term.

Only federal "employees" have wages.

See section 3401.

My 3401 page
3401 from house.gov website

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/05/2005 4:34 PM  

Dale, make sure you add this beaut from Frank on your page of his nuggets: "None of these posts (mine or others) have attacked Schiff personally." LOL!


"Antipluralism" is not a word according to dictionary.com, but even if it isn't, it does make me wonder what is the opposite of "pluralism"? There should be one, or perhaps one for each distinct definition of "pluralism". Anybody know offhand, or know where to find this info easily? thesaurus.com doesn't have an entry for "pluralism".


Anonymous would-be legal scholar asserted:

"6511 is found in CFR 27 which is Alcohol,tobacco,and firearms,not in CFR 26 which ic income tax."

There is a 26 USC Sec. 6511. The CFR is numbered differently, and I was unable to easily locate anything with a section # 6511 in either CFR 26 or CFR 27. However, due to the numbering scheme difference, I may have missed it. You didn't provide the Part # for the CFR, and without that, it's hard to search for a section #. (The CFR is broken down by Title, then Part, then Section.) Would you care to elaborate? If you do, please make your point clear; remember the lurkers! :-)

Also, for the record, 26 USC contains more than just income tax statutes.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/09/2005 7:38 AM