Monday, October 24, 2005

IRS answers taxpayers' tough questions

After years of requests for answers, the IRS happily obliges.

posted by Anonymous @ 10/24/2005 01:16:00 PM  

28 Old Comments:

Hello Jerry Hosteg here,

What's wrong with the IRS? Why is it they can't answer such a simple question! Why do they have to lie out of their tongues about the law(like Catholic priests lie about the bible)!

If no such provision exists, then people "evading" these non-existant provisions, are not committing a crime and should NOT be penalized! Why is Irwin even on trial? Did he commit a crime at all?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:35 PM  

Or Catholic priests lie about sex with little boys...

If not such perversion exists, err I mean provision...

Irwin is noted as being the most "notorious" sorta like Dillinger, and Scarface.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:48 PM  

By the way,

Listen to how the Commissioner starts his answer: he has paid taxes in his old jobs. And that in order to get government services you have to pay for it.

They never answered the question. Refer to IRS website? That website is bogus, and doesn't answer the question either. It only attacks any resistence to the phony IRS by claiming that resistence as frivilous under no grounds.

Yes they list court cases, but why are they operating on lower court decisions that make illegal and false rulings based on nothing and without following the decisions of the US Supreme Court!?

The government will never answer the question. They'll just say "pay up or else!" Well, that's USA for ya'

-Jerry Hosteg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:48 PM  

To anonymous posting at 10/24/2005 2:48 PM



To you maybe. But not to many. Attacking Irwin does not answer the question. Putting people in jail for crimes that are not crimes does not answer the question.

Irwin mentions the corrupt system of the alliances of the federal judicary, the IRS, and the DOJ is why innocent people are punished for tax crimes! This is happening and we are not doing anything about it!

Apparently mr. anonymous supports this kind of system.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:57 PM  

Irwin will be found not guilty, bu tthe questions will never be answered: Cite the law from the IRC that makes one liable for income tax payment, liability or penalties. I'll help you get started, check the IRC index page where they list Liabilities, payments, and penalties.

Then check out all the regulations juxtapose the parrallel table of authorities, and you will see that all, and I mean all, the enforcement provision for income taxes have nothing to do with income taxes. The IRS uses regulations that pertain to Liquor, tobacco and alcohol taxes to enforce, income tax payment. WHY IS THAT QUATLOO? WHY DO THE IRS USE THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF ATF, TO ENFORCE INCOME TAXES??? WHY???, WHY???, WHY??

Answer: Because there is no law that requires anyone to pay income taxes, therefore, there are no enforcement provision for income taxes. The supreme Court ruled that "Our system of taxation is voluntary..." Flora v. US.

Now if they convict Irwin, we will all know that the man would have been railroaded. No doubt about it. But I am confident that the Black folk on the jury will not convict Irwin, they know injustice when they see it. Well in this case, when they are not allowed to see it. I'm referring to the juries request to obtain a copy of the IRC, WHICH THE CORRUPT JUDGE DENIED.

tHE JUDGE IS LUCK THEY DIDN'T ASK TO SEE THE REGULATIONS, OR TO VIEW THE NUMEROUS US Supreme Court decisions.

BTW, was this court bound by US Supreme Court decisions, or was it operating under Admirality law? Does anyone know? explain if you will. Thank you,

NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:07 PM  

It doesn't, that is your paranoid delusion.

Show in the U.S. Constitution where the use of the term "liable" is required. Irwin has been asked that question dozens of times, and he still CANNOT ANSWER.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:18 PM  

Dear "Black people" GRIN, I think this file I've been working on for a few days and got from www.worldnewsstand.net answers your question and would have been a good thing for Irwin to have put before the court at the start. FYI, this is 6 or so printed pages long and I added a few notes to myself on the front end.

Bless us all. Consider checking out and registering with www.trust-yourself.com if you are serious about making a difference in the 2006 and 2008 elections. I have already spoken with this blog rep. and several other groups who are interested and prepared to JOIN FORCES. It would make such a move easier if you will register with Trust-Yourself. TOGETHER and UNITED we can KICK BUTT. It's way past time. PS Thanks for those who put this trial blog together and making such a success and contribution to Sovereign Americans. R.

Article IV Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I asked lots of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One judge stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit."
America is Bankrupt
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys, and the U.S. Attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: 'America is a bankrupt nation. It is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State Governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating under Admiralty Jurisdiction - call it anything you want, but do not call it "Admiralty."'
Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court that has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and, which you supposedly have breached, be placed in evidence.
No court has Admiralty or Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid International Maritime Contract that was breached.
So you say, innocent like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of it. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the International Bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves!
Not Expedient
The bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not politic to admit the jurisdiction under which the courts are operating.
When we understand these things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit and we can use this to our benefit.
Jurisdiction
The Constitution of the United States mentions three jurisdictions in which the courts may operate: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty or Maritime Law.
Common Law
Common Law (Natural or Constitutional Law) is based on [the Creator's] Laws as originally presented by Moses. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any governmental action that prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross state line 5, you will probably see a sign that says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS - IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
Equity is law that compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are a party too. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of that contract. Now this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seat belt laws Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized (imprisoned) or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.
Admiralty or Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance that also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of a contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty or Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty or Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case, that the decisions from then on will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they now call it Statutory Jurisdiction.
Courts of Contract
You may ask how we got into a situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seat belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced: Equity and Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this later.
Contracts Must be Voluntary
Under the Common Law (Natural Law), both parties must enter into every contract knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract.
There is another characteristic. It must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read: "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract; the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said: "For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house, etc." and suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction that contract would be unenforceable because the Federal Reserve Note is not substance.
"Colorable: That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be; hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
Colorable Money and Colorable Courts
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver and gold) it is colorable. If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract, and colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty Jurisdiction. It is colorable because we are using colorable money. Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we came under this Statutory Jurisdiction.
Uniform Commercial Code
The government set up a colorable law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper that was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law that was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is colorable law, and is used in all the courts.
I explained one of the keys to this mess earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says, "Jump!" then the slave had better jump (compelled performance) because the master has the right to cut off his head. As slaves (we are compelled to perform), we have no rights. But the creditors or masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This colorable jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.
Contract or Agreement
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) Knowingly; (2) Voluntarily; and (3) Intentionally. Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, written contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement" it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are, obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it is the drivers' license, the marriage license, or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.
Compelled Benefit
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of actually paying off debt en toto with substance. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar; substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. I still owe for the milk. I have incurred debt. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper (because it cannot be reasonably used for anything else) given in exchange for something of substantive value. We have been "given" a way to escape this endless accrual of debt albeit with plenty of strings. Congress offers us this escape in the form of a benefit; debt money, created by the Federal United States, can be spent all over the continental United States; it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts when you "pay" a debt using this colorable money.
So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only use a colorable court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- we are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying debts.
Courtroom Technique
Question: How did you "box in" the Judge? This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know too much, but I boxed him in. You must play a little dumb. If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you. (5 UCC Y3-415). "Accommodation Party." One who signs commercial paper in any capacity for purpose lending his name to another party to instrument. Such a party is a surety. Surety is, "One who undertakes to pay money or do other act in the event that his principal fails therein." In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the charges?"
Defendant: No, your Honor, I do not. Judge: "Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong-way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't understand?" Defendant: Well, You Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this action.
Judge: Well, what is that? What do you want to know? Always ask some easy questions first, as this establishes the fact that they are answering. You ask: Defendant: Well, your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action? Judge: It is a criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal.) Defendant: Thank you, your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against (your name) is a criminal action, is that right? Judge: Yes.
Defendant: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts, under Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives the court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law.
Judge: No, I can assure this court is not moving under the Common Law. Defendant: Well, thank you, your Honor, but now you make the charge against me even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract involved. I would have to a party to it, and it would have to be breached. Too, the court would have to be operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed in evidence, so that I would have the chance to contest it. But surely, this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put the words in the judges’ mouth.
Judge: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean somewhere. We're right here in the middle of the State of (any state). No, this is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Defendant: Thank you your Honor, but now I am more puzzled that ever. If this charge is not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty -- and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the constitution -- what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating under? Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
Defendant: Oh, thank you, your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that jurisdiction, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find those rules?
There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction; so the judge will get very angry at this point and say: Judge: If you want the answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney. I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench.
Defendant: Oh, your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law from the bench if you just answered a few questions to explain to me the nature of this action, so that I might defend myself. Judge: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I'm going to find you in contempt of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court will provide you one. But if you want those questions answered, you must get yourself a licensed attorney.
Defendant: Thank you, your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. This court has made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend in my own person?
He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as "wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black sheep" country. Remember [the Savior's] words, "I send you out as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove." Sheep do not attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand the charge. Remember, too, they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would automatically be a reversible error on appeal.
The Social Security Problem
If I were a young man, 18 to 20 years old and just starting out in my first job, I would not want Social Security. With my signature on the application I would write, "Without prejudice UCC 1-207," and I would reserve my Common Law rights. But why wouldn't I want Social Security today? I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I paid into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting a promised return in Federal Reserve Notes that have considerable less value.
For example, in 1940, you could buy a deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's Federal Reserve Notes, that won't buy the rear fenders and trunk on a new Chevrolet. It I were a young man, I would not want to put Federal Reserve Notes into Social Security now, and get back something later like the German mark after World War I, when it took a billion to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you every Federal Reserve Note back that they promised you, but it might not buy anything.
Assurance
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right with any agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't go to them and say, "I want to rescind my Social Security number," or "refuse to take it." Just take it easy and say, "I would be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into this contract, but I have a little problem. How can I have assurances before I enter into this contract that the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at the end of the contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning?"
They can't guarantee that, and you have a right under the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract. So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with the same value Federal Reserve Notes that I'm paying in. Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes, but you know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't hold their value. I want assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my retirement will buy as much as the ones that I'm giving you now in my working years." They can't make that guarantee. If they won't give you that guarantee, just say, "I'd be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance under the contract, I'm afraid I cannot enter the contract."
Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the sections of the Uniform Commercial Code that grant the right to have assurance that the contract you have entered will be fulfilled properly; that the return will equal the investment, and you can reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can show that they cannot make you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently like a lamb. It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the government or the courts. Never raise your voice or show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge up, call him 'Your Honor.' Give him all the 'honor' he wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things you need to have in the record.
If the exercise of a constitutional right can become the cause for imprisonment, the constitution has been nullified and there is no security from omnipotent government; the constitution has become a worthless scrap of paper. Marchetti v US, 390 US 39, 57 (1968).
Title 18, Section 3077 tells us that an ''act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331.
Title 18, Section 2331(5)(A) defines domestic terrorism as activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; AND (B)(i) that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
The FBI defines terrorism as, Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Due process is violated if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105 (1934).
That which violates the spirit of the constitution is as much unconstitutional as one that violates its letter." Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700 dis op.
Any time any act violates the principles of justice this union of states was founded on, due process has been violated thereby violating the Constitution and Natural Law.
Due process is violated if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105 (1934).
That which violates the spirit of the constitution is as much unconstitutional as one that violates its letter." Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700 dis op.
We must understand that an act by an American man or woman that is deemed a crime and defined as such must have a victim, plus there must be the intent to damage or harm. Lacking either, the act cannot be defined as a crime.
Where the record is wholly void of any necessary element of a crime, the case is constitutionally infirm." Thompson v Louisville, 362 US 199.
It is patently unconstitutional for human rights to be violated by any offices. They must understand and adhere to the fact that officials may not make rules intended and enforced upon our People as living souls are above and beyond the written laws (actually only rules governing the government and its creations) of men.
Acquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be presumed. Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464 (1938); Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1, 4 (1966); Ohio Bell v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292 (1936).
"The mere chilling of a constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 (1969).
*** Those hauled off to jail were kidnapped.
Although they are hundreds of such rulings, several of which have been cited by the writer in the past, the writer endeavors to add to one’s repertoire of cites. Thus, here are three more declaring and dictating unconstitutionality of any rule that impinges upon fundamental rights;
A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v Bolden, 446 US 55, 76 (1980); Harris v McRae, 448 US 297, 312 (1980).
AND
"(A) Legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v Carter Coal Co., 298 US 238 (1936).
We the People are the sovereignty of the united States of America. The sovereignty is not subject to rules made by its creations, any more than any one of us individually or as an assembly can be ruled over by the rules of any corporation unless we voluntarily and with full knowledge agree to be subject to its rules. "Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v US, 397 US 742, 748 (1970). (My italics)
Get it straight, People. Cops are supposed to be friends of ours protecting our Rights. They do not have any authority whatsoever to infringe upon any Right of the People. Without an indictment by a Grand Jury that one has damaged another in a criminal fashion there can be no arrest, detainment, or stopping of the American People.
In Smith v US, 360 US 1, it is further held that the constitutional right to an indictment, as restated in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(a), could not be waived by the defendant and that a proceeding in violation of this constitutional requirement negated the jurisdiction of the court.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:20 PM  

Questions:
1. If wrongly convicted, do they go to jail immediately?
2. Is an appeal almost ready to file, just as an insurance policy in case the worst happens?
3. Exactly how many days of "penalty" jail time has the stupid judge racked up against Irwin? Is that jail time thrown out if he is hopefully found not guilty?
4. Even if aquitted, doesn't Irwin still have the issue of the 2 million tax judgement against him? Can't the IRS grab the assets of Freedome Books from that?

gary

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:20 PM  

To anonymous at 10/24/2005 3:18 PM


Are you saying that just because a tax is imposed, that every single individual is liable for it even though they are not invovled in it!

Get your damn facts straight!

"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." Boath v. Terry, 713 F 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960): “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” The definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, “to seize a person’s goods as security
for an obligation.”

The Supreme Court rulings leave us with only the one alternative. The individual income tax, unless it is imposed from the rule of Apportionment, falls outside the authorized taxation powers granted by the Constitution, it being a direct tax on an individual's property. The only way it can possibly be legal is if it is voluntary.

Irwin is right! It is voluntary because it is imposed as being a direct tax on an individual's property.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:40 PM  

The IRS has answered the questions, for those whose head is not in the sand or up their arses.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/
article/0,,id=136751,00.html

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:48 PM  

Will the TP commmunity answer the tough questions?

Do you think the personal income tax applies to everyone else but you or is everyone exempt in your view?

If everyone else but you must legally pay, then that makes you out as cheating the system.

If no one legally must pay, then where is your plan for dealing with the resulting Federal budget issues when 43% of Federal revenue is gone?

And just what would stop Congress from plugging the hole to make the personal income tax apply to everyone if your impossible dream was made real?

Where is your plan folks?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:56 PM  

To anonymous : 10/24/2005 2:57 PM

WHAT YOU SAY?

"To you maybe. But not to many. Attacking Irwin does not answer the question. Putting people in jail for crimes that are not crimes does not answer the question."

WHO ATTACKED IRWIN? NOT I. DON'T BE SO QUICK TO GET YOUR PANTIES IN A WAD. MY POST WAS A SIMPLE RESPONSE AND PLAY UPON THE POST ABOVE MINE AS THAT PERSON ASKED "WHY IS IRWIN EVEN ON TRIAL?

I SAID, BECAUSE HE IS THE MOST "NOTORIOUS." HE HAS BEEN CALLED THAT YA KNOW..OR DONT KNOW.

"Apparently mr. anonymous supports this kind of system." WHY YOU SAY I DO DAT? YOUR PANTIES STILL BUNCHING UP?

LEARN TO READ FULLY THOUGH, COGNATE, HAVE A BIT OF A SENSE OF HUMOR, - NOW - TAKE THE WORDS FROM THE POST ABOVE - SEE WHERE JERRY SAYS "IF NO SUCH PROVISION EXISTS,"
THEN TAKE MINE AS SEE WHERE IT SAYS ABOUT THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND COMPARE THAT TO THE ABOVE POST AND THEN SEE HOW I USED THE WORD "PERVERSION" AS A PLAY UPON THE SEX WITH BOYS THING AND THE IRS THING USING THE SAME WORDS AS THE POST ABOVE MINE.

WHEW! FIX YOUR PANTIES

READING LESSON 101 ENDED

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 2:59 PM  

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states [50 states of the Union], but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
Constitutional restrictions and limitations are not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority.” –Supreme Court Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:11 PM  

To reasonable guy,
People have been giving you plans for over a week now, including me. Do you not read them? As I stated to you last week, I would like to know where one can get a drug to make one so delusional to believe that 43% of the federal revenue is generated from income tax. That's complete and utter BS; get your facts straight.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:13 PM  

Reasonable Guy,

The Federal Budget may relate to income taxes, but it is not even an answer simple Tax questions from the public nor does it justify illegally enforcing a tax!

Losing 43% of their revenue is a good thing, for it will force them downsize useless government expenditures, to stop borrowing and printing so much money, and stop raising the public debt past 8 trillion!


To anonymous posting 10/24/2005 3:48 PM

Starfish Prime is right! That article on the IRS website does not answer the question at all. It is again using intimidation to get people to believe a law actually exists! If you can't see that, you need help on comprehension or something because a child can figure it out!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:16 PM  

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0#table1-4

To anonymous bonehead. Learn to read. 43% of Federal revenue in 2004 came from the personal income tax.

Now where is your plan?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:18 PM  

they were just called down to the court house for the verdict.

By Blogger Unknown, at 10/24/2005 3:28 PM  

This guy is full of it, the web site he sited does not exist, check it out.
_________

Anonymous said...
The IRS has answered the questions, for those whose head is not in the sand or up their arses.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/
article/0,,id=136751,00.html

10/24/2005 3:48 PM

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:32 PM  

We often hear the question about supporting the federal government without an individual income tax from those who have not yet read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. A government constrained by the US Constitution could easily be supported by voluntary contributions.

By Blogger Unknown, at 10/24/2005 3:37 PM  

hopefully some of the court watchers will stay outside the courtroom so they can go talk w/ the jury immediately after they are dismissed instead of getting locked in the courtroom like at the Rose case...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:39 PM  

Look at that table! it's scary; in 2011 over 50% of revenue will be from income tax, The jury should find Judge Dawson guilty!

-JB

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:42 PM  

To Anon 3:18,
hold up Buddy, liable is not in the constitution. Youre right!
But neither is the term "gross income". Income is but it is not defined in title 26!
Neither is the term "IRS" or "Federal Reserve" or "voluntarily compliance"
Does that mean because they are not in the constitution They hold no legal weight?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:47 PM  

To Reasonable Guy 3:56PM
you need to do some research before you write. these answers have been out for years.
Check out the Grace Commission Reports to President Reagan.
But I guess youll call him a TP as well?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 3:59 PM  

Regarding the 43% of Federal revenue that would be gone with the elimination of IRS, what about the administration costs of that massive agency that would be saved(in the $billions) and the economic boom the elimination of IRS would create?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 4:08 PM  

They have to go after Schiff he is their biggest headache with the most knowledge. Banister knows nothing.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 6:07 PM  

ahh yes the GRACE commission...very good...

So if 43% of the governments revenue came from personal income tax, as reasonable guy says, that sounds like the people are being fleeced!

Read the grace commission report before spouting off there pseudo reasonable.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 7:09 PM  

43% wow, Does that money pay for all those in prison too?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 7:09 PM  

Let's stop the blatent attacks on Catholicism. This is one time I will use my real name unlike the anonymous cowards that blatently attack my church. Take your hatred somewhere else.....Next time you think to blame the Catholic Church for lying about the bible you'd better first thank them for putting it together for you to THUMP!

Keep this discussion about tax reform.....and try and read something for yourself for once intead of taking the word of another mislead friend or Pastor who for some reason after 2000 years believe he has all the answers.......

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 7:25 PM