Saturday, October 22, 2005

Irwin Schiff interview with Doug Kenline (Call 1)

69 Old Comments:

Even if Schiff is found not guilty it means nothing. All charges against Schiff are for WILLFUL.

So he would be found not guitly of Willfully Evaiding, Willfully Aiding, Willfully filing, Willfully not filing, Willfully failing to pay.

Such a ruling in no way shape or form says he is found not liable for or required to pay.

But Schiff and the so called tax patriots will do the same thing and praise such a ruling as they have done with the irrelevant rulings in Kuglin and Bannister.

By Anonymous Ischiffbs, at 10/22/2005 1:14 PM  

Ischiffbs said
Sounds like you have conceded that Irwin will be found not guilty. Even a bias jury which I don't believe they are would find Irwin not guilty. No one in the country knows more about the law of taxes than Irwin. That is why Dawson would not allow the law to be discussed. Dawson says that the law would be problematic. What type of justice system do we have in this country that laws are made that only attorneys and judges supposedly understand and yet ignorance of the law is no excuse. Think about that folks Dawson implies that the jury will not understand the interpretation of the law, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I suppose this is what makes America great Right?

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 1:30 PM  

TAX CONVICTION Overturned !

I'm happy that In US v. Yakobowicz , the conviction for filing false federal tax returns was just vacated this week because the defendant didn't receive a fair trial (just like Irwin's recent trial). I read the recent successful Yakobowicz appeal, and your trial is much more unfair and egregious.
With Yakobozicz, the tax conviction was overturned solely because the judge allowed the prosecutor to do "mini-summations" throughout the trial. The 2nd circuit believed that even that was unfair to the defendant.
I hope that Irwin and the other defendants are getting their appeals ready for filing, just as an insurance policy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/040201p.pdf

No. 04-0201 (2d Cir. October 17, 2005)

Gary

By Anonymous Gary, at 10/22/2005 1:55 PM  

We live in a society of Deception, Fraud adn Fiction. Most people find the above statement absurd...untill they begin to look...GD

By Anonymous gd, at 10/22/2005 1:56 PM  

Great new picture/cartoon at;
http://helliseterna4.blogspot.com/

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/22/2005 1:59 PM  

Ignorance of the Law is not excuse!

-The defendant does not and cannot know the law.
-The prosecution does not and cannot know the law.
-The jury does not know the law and is simply to easily confused to read the law and understand it.

I, judge Dawson, am the only one who knows the law and you will abide by that law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 2:06 PM  

US v. Yakobowicz is another irrelevant case.

He filed false 941 witholding tax forms.

Big deal!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 2:22 PM  

I brought up in the last blog that Irwin MUST be a mind reader in order to KNOW the LAW!

Did you know that even those persons with an IQ of less than 50 can be charged with a crime as ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’? BUT WAIT, they have a limited mental capacity, and that makes it a crime for anyone to file charges against them as they have a legal right under the Anti-discrimination Act to NOT be prosecuted. But US morons do not fit into that as we may have an IQ of 100 and are required to know EVERY LAW that Congress passes. BUT then I don’t think ONE Congressman looked at the Patriot Act in 2001 before they signed it as some websites have reported. So if our Congressmen don’t read ALL the pages of the Acts they pass, as there is no time to read the thousands and thousands of pages before a vote, then HOW can WE be set to a HIGHER standard?

Does Judge Dawson know every LAW in the book, or does he just go by his feelings?

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/22/2005 2:29 PM  

HEY Morons!

All these cases that are sent to the higher courts and dismissed just make more money for them and a guaranteed job for them.

Judge Dawson is just keeping his job, as with Schiff convicted there will be a LOT more cases he can preside over!

Now this is why we must keep bringing up talk which some of you think is irrelevant.

The cause for the trial is for THEM to keep their jobs and nothing more!

That is why in 1945 that the withholding tax could not be rescinded, for the public’s point of view, as there would be millions of people out of work, besides the military, that were working with you on you paying those taxes.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/22/2005 2:44 PM  

LET'S STOP FIGHTING
LET'S FIND AGREEMENT
CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS?

For the Quatloos types and those who read and post from it…

Let’s seek agreement for with agreement we have reality! I am willing, how bout you?

1. We know, for sure, that the income tax is imposed, as an excise tax upon a privilege and that cannot be denied for CRS, which the court used in the Schiff trial, says so and Congress and the Supreme Court agree it with!

OK there we have agreement one. See how easy it is to agree! We don’t have to fight.

2. I will stipulate that the liability attaches with the imposition, though questionable, I’ll go with that for the sake of agreement.

OK there we have agreement two. See I gave a little no problem. Agreement can be found with a little give and take. I’m willing and demonstrated so, how bout you?

3. I will agree to come to your side of the issue, if and when you agree to furnish the exact nature of the privilege that the tax is imposed upon me, you and others, and how an individual American received that privilege and when you show where the nature of it was fully disclosed when signing up for and/or agreeing to the "privilege" for purposes of paying the income tax.

OK, see how easy that is. You have an entire web site filled with court cases and more knowledge than I and tons of data about the stupid and frivilous crap that tax protestors say. You have have posted, with regularity all sorts of data so it will be Very Easy for you to post the answer to the above and show yourself as truly the most knowledgeable and I will agree with you when you do so.

I found agreement with you and also gave in to you. Are you willing to be upfront and do the same with and for me? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/22/2005 3:33 PM  

Why in the world would America have laws that are problematic????What a ..!!## Dawson is! WE THE PEOPLE need to enforce the power of a citizens' arrest. The feds. only have jurisdiction on federal land. As soon as Dawson leaves the court house two citizens need to make a citizens' arrest on him for breaking the very law he is suppose to uphold & stand for, take him to the sheriffs' office & have him booked for TREASON>

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 3:51 PM  

The new picture/cartoon was moved to;
http://helliseternal5.blogspot.com
An on going article was added.
Serious suggestion as to how this story should be told from fellow patriots are welcome

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/22/2005 3:53 PM  

""Even if Schiff is found not guilty it means nothing. All charges against Schiff are for WILLFUL.""

Yes, they throw an ugly monkey wrench in his life with the possibility of going to jail for the rest of his life and it means nothing...where is the honor and the integrity and the fairness in all of this?

How can they destroy someone's life for nothing?

I, for one, do not bestow praise upon any ruling of any of these crooked courts. The whole thing is unproductive and extremely sad and the only positive that comes out of these circus acts is that the juries sometimes can see through the bullshit.

Let's hope that none of us here will ever have to face this.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 4:03 PM  

The new picture/cartoon.....


I think you spell that: SANCTIONED

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 4:06 PM  

I agree with anonymous. When this moron leaves the court house he is on our land(property) !!!!!! FOR the idiots ,ALL FEDERAL judges must live & reside within the U.S. federal territories to be aricle III federal judges & the man does not. The only authority they have is on those fed. territories.
GO to WWW.edrivera.com & learn something!!!for a change.

By Anonymous big boy, at 10/22/2005 4:12 PM  

The new picture/cartoon was moved to;
http://helliseternal5.blogspot.com
This trial as an ongoing article, win or lose, is being written by The Constitutionalist for this blog. Serious suggestion as to how this story should be told from fellow patriots, such as what was the most important thing during the trial, what documents would have helped Mr. Schiff the most if he could have got them entered as evidence and what areas of the trial were the worst as far as judicial misconduct ECT. are welcome. Email to theconstitutionalist@hotmail.com (no attachments allowed)

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/22/2005 4:26 PM  

little boy
All jurors must live & reside with in the FED. territories & none of them do.The problem is that no citizen knows where the fed.territories are located,the fed. courthouse is one,fed. parks are another.ALL LANDS not OWNED by the fed.GOV. is not their land or property, get the picture! judge Dawson could be in for a real suprise if he meets the right person!!! Or wrong person!!!

By Anonymous little boy, at 10/22/2005 4:31 PM  

Don’t you get it!

If the courts are made up of judges that believe in Admiralty LAW and NOT Common LAW, and there is NO Constitution they have to abide by, THEN THERE ARE NO LAWS THAT WE MUST COMPLY WITH THAT WOULD DENY US TO HAVE THEM HAULED OUT AND HUNG BY THE NEAREST TREE!!!

How can they say we must comply with the U.S. Constitution when it does not exist for them in the first place!

They can’t have it both ways!

The U.S. Constitution protects them, but the Admiralty LAW allows them to act like gods with slavery and executions of their choosing!

Schiff’s trial is a mistrial, and that is what Irwin should close with if he is convicted!

If Judge Dawson rejects the defense of a mistrial and hauls them off to jail, then you should have a RIOT right inside the courtroom and then the news crews cannot deny that there was something wrong going on by the Judge!

But then again, they would probably throw every one of you supporters in jail and file criminal charges under the Patriot Act of you trying to assassinate a government official, but then there will be NO trials, you will only be sent to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation!

I am a supporter of liberty, but when a judge believes he is higher than the U.S. Constitution then WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!

Maybe someone should fall down in front of Judge Dawson and then have him bending over you and someone else takes a picture of it!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/22/2005 4:41 PM  

I guess the Internal Revenue Code was never certified as a public legal record, for Schiff’s case, or has it been by Congress!!!

But here is something for the rest of you from William Wallace Lear.

Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis In Law
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-05-21.htm

Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged probation violation and asking the court to send a “recalcitrant tax convict” back to prison, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdrew their complaint alleging the probation violation.

WHY?

Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting of certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be self-authenticating and valid as evidence.

Here is the text of Rule 902, sub-paragraph (4):
Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

(4). Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/22/2005 5:11 PM  

New! Read: "The concept of income for federal income tax purposes "

by Olumide Obayemi, a Professor of Taxation Law, East Bay Law School ,
San Francisco Bay View

http://www.sfbayview.com/101905/theconcept101905.shtml

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 6:37 PM  

We the people have no hard eveidence.

Schultz and his cohorts are a waste of time as they have done nothing but hurt the movement.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 6:42 PM  

To: Non-Liable
Your last post was helpfull and on point for thid forum.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/22/2005 7:19 PM  

To: Non-Laibe
Now if you would forget the Admiralty LAW crap you would be on the tight track.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/22/2005 7:23 PM  

of course not, you dolt. there isn't any written evidence to support the practices of the government in regard to income taxes. that is why their practices are illegal.

Translation: they don't follow the written law; they make up the law as they go. the Irwin Schiff trial is your evidence.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/22/2005 7:31 PM  

anon. 7:37 & 7:42 you obviously are a quatloos types, why not find agreement?

So, I read your little article, "The [con]-cept of income for income tax purposes" sounds like H&R Block. So what. Just a bunch of case situations wherein someone had presumed a responsibility to file and the results. Where the Hell did the presumption come from???????

Lets see, I have first hand personal knowledge of a local college PROFESSOR, (one who professes), told the jazz band that "Count Basie's band played behind the beat, and Stan Kenton's band played ahead of the beat." 28 years he has been "teaching" jazz.

So I piped up in my humble little way and asked, well if the Basie band played behind the beat together would not that become the beat and visa versa for the Kenton Band. Ooops...the PROFESSOR was wrong and had been wrong all his life. Look at all the young musicians he ruined with this and other non-factual data. Fact is the band will sound like it is pulling or pushing due to the manner the eighth notes are being played.

So, just because a professor says something doesn't make it so.

My daughter was told in Jr. High social studies that Ramadan and Yom Kippur do not exist and are not celebrated by anyone in America.

More fine edumabation....

I recently watched a schoolteacher have a black marked placed in her teaching jacket/folder, by the superintendent who has a DR. degree, for "NOT filing the wrong form." That’s correct, she got busted because she didn’t file the improper form!

Hmmmm maybe all the above have been learning from the gobermint!

We The People simply asked questions based on evidence provided. What is the purpose to say they haven't hard evidence? To try to smear them? Seems Mr. Lear, known to and associated with We The People presented some hard evidence in court and the IRS walked. See non-liables post!

As a former teacher...I must give you a failing grade for you didn't answer the question or offer any legitimate evidence when making your claims "F".

Now that you have been spanked, go do some homework before you GPA sinks to a new low. CJ
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/22/2005 7:32 PM  

I guess, according to some of you, Mr. Schulz is a wacko for his views, as the courts use Admiralty LAW rather than Common LAW, and that would include the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as wackos for supporting Schulz!!!

Judge Dawson is using Admiralty LAW if you would bother to open your eyes!

Schulz had to reschedule the meeting with the IRS and Congress in Sept. 2001, and it was rescheduled for Feb. 2002, but NO government officials showed up to contradict ‘We The People’s’ arguments.

I guess it is a waist of your government’s money to tell you there is a LAW, but this will waist millions more by having trials, and $35,000 per year to house each one of you that was convicted.

Here is something for the rest of you about a win for Schulz.

Dramatic Development:
U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer Without A Court Order
Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons


http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-01-29.htm
Queensbury, NY – On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.

Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),
“...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order…[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing.”


Maybe we should file charges against the U.S. Supreme Court for assisting in the FRAUD that we all believe, and that is they support the view that there is NO LAW making a person liable for the ‘income’ tax, and it is voluntary.
Why should we spend five years in prison till our case gets to them and then they overrule it?

Are people guilty till proven innocent, and then wait till all the planets are aligned before we can have a trial?

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/22/2005 8:27 PM  

The schultz ruling on a summons was another irrelevent ruling that the tax movemnet thinks was great. It has been alway held by the courts that no-one is mandated to comply with an IRS summons absent a court order for inforcement. Schultz by filing suit showed how little he knows.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 8:35 PM  

anon. 9:35 cite your authority. Bold statements without any cite is drivel. So, here is your opportunity. Schulz ruling came from the U.S. court of appeals 2nd circuit.

Now, cite an equal or higher authority wherein this same ruling was established prior to the Schultz one and YOU win.

Failure to cite will prove your a loser. Put up or shut up. That's fair don't you think?
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/22/2005 10:13 PM  

Of course, Kuglin had to pay her taxes -- but Banister didn't because he was paying his taxes all along anyway according to his attorney.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 10:48 PM  

Right Bannister has never stopped. He is a FRAUD.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 11:14 PM  

CJ:

United States v. Kulukundis, 329 F.2d 197 (2d Cir.1964).

In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir.1962

Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 447-50, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964)

United States v. Kulukundis, 329 F.2d 197 (2d Cir.1964)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/22/2005 11:16 PM  

Did you know that even those persons with an IQ of less than 50 can be charged with a crime as ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’?

Damn, there goes the Tax Protesters last defense.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/22/2005 11:33 PM  

Frank Buckner

You Quack me up!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 12:17 AM  

What is irrelevant? Only those items that prove the ‘income’ tax is totally voluntary?

You might want to go to this site as it shows the history of the actions of Roosevelt and the con game of the U.S. government:
http://www.aposse.org/commons/sstl2.htm
1913-1935 -- In a period of 22 years after ratification of the 16th Amendment, out of a population of approximately 125 million people in 1935, the vast majority (95%) of American workers, earning income, were not required to file income tax returns or pay income taxes;
1935 –1944-- In eight (8) years after the passage of Social Security, the number of taxable INDIVIDUAL income tax returns filed, increased from the 1935 level of 2.1 million, to the level of 44 million in 1943 -- an astounding, unprecedented, 2100% increase. By the fiscal year ending 1944, that figure reached 52 million, a 2,476% increase from the 1935 level.


How could an ‘income’ tax be placed on wages and salaries if there are flaws in the system?

Why did it take 12 years to start collecting a tax on most Americans which was supposedly ratified in 1913 and mandatory?

Why wasn’t it mandatory for wages and salaries to be taxed for most Americans after 1939 but before 1943 when the Victory Tax Act was passed?

Why was the Victory Tax Act of 1942 repealed and then the name changed to the ‘Individual Income Tax Act of 1944’?

Why was it only after 1952 when churches were going to be taxed unless they became 501(c)(3) corporations, when Section 508 made a mandatory exemption for them?

This is ALL about control, if you have not seen the TRUTH!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/23/2005 12:28 AM  

Is the Common LAW topic irrelevant?
NOT at all!!!

Is Schiff in the right court of LAW?
Possibly NOT!

I have found some evidence!

This Document PROVES the existence of Article III Courts (Admiralty and Common Law Courts)
http://www.celtic-international.org/Article3/Art3Court.html
But I have not found any judges or court listed under the stare of Nevada!

And here:
I. One of the fundamental and essential basics of a valid proceeding sufficient to comply with the Due Process requirements of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is that of a court of competent jurisdiction.
http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/admiraltymemo.html
“Adoption of the bill will not create new causes of action. It merely specifically directs the courts to exercise the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States already conferred by article III, section 2 of the Constitution and already authorized by the Judiciary acts. Moreover, there will still remain available the right to a common law remedy which the Judiciary Acts * * * have expressly saved to claimants.”

http://www.erosproject.com/appeal/article3.html
MOTION TO CONVENE AN ARTICLE III COURT.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/23/2005 2:42 AM  

The ongoing 30 year battle of Irwin Schiff against tyrrany, corruption, dishonesty and the economic decay of America will not die whether Irwin is convicted or not.
His struggle against the income tax and tyrrany is only one man's fight to express himself freely, openly and honestly. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans have read his books and many have believed his ideas and views of the law, the constitution and how to file a zero income tax return is testimony to the power of his ideas.
It just so happens that Irwin's vision and his beliefs are so powerful that the those in power are fearful of his vision of America and the truth and honesty that this man speaks. They have been trying to shut him up for thirty years and the more they fight him, the more they highlight his vision, his view, his concepts.
Its not that everyone hates paying income taxes, that goes without saying. Its not that Irwin devised a method to file a legal income tax return showing "zero" income. It's that Americans hate government interferring in their lives. The income tax in America reaches into the personal lives, and identities of every person in this country. The income tax is a means by which the federal government can control by economic pressure every industry and the spending habits of all individuals, corporations, and even state governments. The income tax simply reduces the Home of the Free to the Home of the Slave.
Every aspect of our lives is controlled by taxing one thing or another.
While individual Liberty must be balanced with society's needs as a whole, and while in a country of 300 million people it is not easy to satisfy this balancing act, . The federal government has devised the use of the income tax to control the people. To the extent that this governmental control reaches beyond the constitutional confines established by the Founding Fathers, we the people are supposed to fight back and nulify the same. That is the fight that Schiff recognized 30 years ago when he was in the military working in the bursar's office. When he was in the insurance business he recognized the federal government's improper interference with that industry.
Then he found about the greatest scam of all. He hasn't looked back since then.
His fight is not just about income taxes, but is one of freedom of expression and freedom from governmental tyranny in all its opressive directions.
So, in my view, Irwin's battle against illegal imposition of the income tax by the federal government is an age old struggle that existed from the first days that man formed societal groups. As Bertrund Russel said 60 years ago, governments don't need laws, but laws need governments. Since we have laws and we have a government, we will always have a struggle to keep our govenment honest. That is our struggle, and it is eternal.

By Blogger jerryhorse, at 10/23/2005 5:14 AM  

To: anon 12:16am Just another failed attack!

1st. You simply cited case precedent (cases preceding the current one) from the text of the Schultz case. Did you read any of those cases? The Reisman case (Supreme Court) was directly related to an accounting firm, not an individual. There is a difference when one simply exists in his individual capacity as a human being (Schultz) and when one is wearing a certain type “hat,” in this instance of a professional accountant (presumably licensed).

2nd. The cases you cited are 40 years old and as the court said in the Schultz case, they are “…completing a task begun forty years ago…” Key words in the aforementioned excerpt from the Schultz decision are [completing and begun]
That should have clued you in on the idea, at least, that the issue was not resolved in its entirety.

In contrast to anonymous I say, Thanks Bob for putting before the court the opportunity to complete the understanding of the issue, as it relates to the regular man/woman, and having it brought modern/current as well. In addition, thanks for putting the IRS on notice, so to speak, with regard to the issue for no doubt they have not been concerned with the previous case rulings and/or found discrepancies or thought they didn’t have to, which allowed them (IRS), in their own minds, to disregard the rules and the law.

So anonymous, while it is sometimes fun to cite cases one may be well served to read them first! Moreover, while it may seem fun for you to downplay the efforts of another, such as you do/did with Schultz, in attempt to extol your own virtues, know that one may also find themselves, in the end, virtue less. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 8:27 AM  

CJ:

Read them. A summons by the IRS to anyone is just that a summons which has the same meaning be it to an individual, corporation, CPA and so forth.

They ruled this before pathetic Schultz filed his irrelevant suit in the cases posted. If they were not ruled before then they would not have cited PRSCEDENT!

Same patriot trash. Patriots holding praise to another that was and is irrelevent. This is why the so called tax patriots keep falling to the wayside.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 11:00 AM  

Your post is filled with innuendo and void of substance. You cite nothing from the cases to prove your position. Seems to this reader your only position is to casts stones at Mr. Schultz and other Americans and your fellow man in attempt to bestow upon yourself some sort of virtue.

Let me ask you to cite the case you have taken to the appealet level court with regard to taxes or other even matter?

The reason the case was heard is because it had MERIT! Merit = value or worth.

Now I’ll take your side wherein you say the Schultz case was “…pathetic Schultz filed his irrelevant suit…” AND “Patriots holding praise to another that was and is irrelevent.”

OK, I accept your words. You are asking everyone to believe you based on your word, isn’t that correct, for a man or woman is their word? You claim the Schultz ruling was “irrelevant” to tax cases, do you not? You claim that the issue had previously been decided 40 years ago but the court found reason to RE-Visit the issue and thus it is irrelevant? You claim that all situations are alike and thus the Schultz case had been decided by case precedent and thus something similar is exactly the same as something the same? You claim that Schultz’s case was somehow irrelevant to him?

Now I am somehow asked to believe that a court of appeals case with regard to the specific subject that rules that the IRS hasn’t the authority they wrongfully try to exercise in an illegal manner is somehow not Relevant?

I fail to see your relevancy! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 11:47 AM  

Anyone who acts “outside” the law is an “outlaw.” Many government servants and employees are currently under indictment, as have many in the past. Many are found guilty and many are not.

The IRS has been judged guilty of acting outside the law on many occasions, which prompted the hearings the past decade.

In the Schultz matter, the IRS was attempting to act outside the law. Schultz had the issue adjudicated and won HIS issue. The case is relevant to him and to everyone for it is now clear to all the limits that Congress placed upon the IRS with regard to this matter.

What say you, in the above, is not relevant? I see, based on your word, another failed attempt to trash a fellow human being. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 11:54 AM  

While the Schiff jury is out, rumors abound that our American leaders are about to be indicted. See the Huffingto Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-most-important-crimin_b_9183.html. No it is not about Schiff, but about all the President's men.

Then there is Death Watch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by Doug Thompson
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7560.shtml
"For all practical purposes, governing the nation has stopped at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as aides deal with an increasingly despondent President, mounting scandals and defecting dissidents from the Ship of State."

Perhaps when all of this washes out, Schiff will be nominated for President or some other high office like Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

God Bless America

By Anonymous Jerry Horse, at 10/23/2005 12:48 PM  

CJ:

They court never once said what the IRS was doing was illegal or that they did not have authority to summons.

As for for case cites you were given them Go read the cases for your self as they are clearly evident.

The reason the case was heard was not that it had merit. Schultz filed suit in DC and lost as he received no harm and failed to state a claim upon which releif could be granted. The circuit court heard it not that it had merit but because it was an APPEAL. And again shown Schultz recived no harm and there was no relief that could be granted.

Duh!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 2:01 PM  

CJ

It was never ruled in Schultz's case that the IRS isuing a summons was either illegal or outside the law.

The law authorizes the IRS to issue summonses. see 26 USC 7602. To the contrary the IRS has statutory authority to issue the summons as held by the courts. If you fail to comply the IRS if they want to enforce the summons must take you to court and obtain a court order from a show cause hearing.

Schultz won nothing. The clearly stated that he had not been damaged and only when the IRS seeks enforcement through the court can he claim such.

Anonymous is correct in his posts but you fail or refuse to acknowledge such.

By Anonymous Don Won, at 10/23/2005 2:08 PM  

For those that speak of things being irrelevant, WHAT are those things that ARE RELEVANT here?
The only thing that has been emphasized is whether Schiff was WILLFUL in his actions!
But that doesn’t say anything, as in WILLFUL in doing WHAT?
Yes, Schiff was WILLFUL in filing zero returns, but does that make him GUILTY?
NO! He was just going by what he thought was the TRUTH!
Now Anonymous, can you state what is relevant in Schiff’s case?

Now I have heard that people who have the same similar earnings and deductions don’t pay the same tax.
Yes that is true, as IRS agents come back and disallow certain deductions for one person but allow them for another.
Isn’t that discrimination?
Didn’t you know that according to the LAW, any errors on your return are considered as WILLFUL, and it is considered a FRAUDULENT return?
Your return was totally correct, but the IRS didn’t like it, so they themselves changed it and made it a FRAUDULENT return, but you are the guilty party, not them!
Has the IRS ever talked with you or checked out the truthfulness of your return by coming to your home or place of business?
I see it as a police officer planting dope in a person’s possession to get them charged with a crime.
It has happened in the past!
We should fight on this alone and then maybe WE would win altogether!
Change the battle plan!

Doesn’t the 1040 booklet give you your Miranda warning?
Why would they give you a Miranda warning if filing a tax return was ‘voluntary’ in the sense that if you didn’t they would come after you and probably send you to prison!
It is nice to know that; I HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE A RETURN AND POSSIBLY BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME FOR THE INFORMATION ON THE RETURN, OR POSSIBLY GO TO PRISON FOR NOT FILING A RETURN!!!
Which of the crimes do you want to be charged with?
Irwin said on his 5 ½ hour seminar tape that a government agent was a spy for Russia and he received $1,000,000; and was required by LAW to report it.
He was to report that on his Form 1040.
Can you really believe that we can be charged for crime we committed, because we reported the ‘income,’ or be charged for NOT reporting the crime?
Here is what the judge would say on the first day of the trial;
“Sir, you are hereby charged with NOT confessing the crime you committed!”
How many criminals that earned ‘income’ were charged with ‘income’ tax evasion as well?
I don’t think a single criminal has, ever!
I saw a police videotape of a woman being dragged out of her automobile on a highway when she refused to identify herself.
She was charged with ‘Resisting Arrest’ for which that in itself was the criminal act!
What was the crime in which she originally committed and would be arrested for?
She went to trial and was found NOT GUILTY for the police were idiots!
You cannot be charged with resisting to be removed for a crime in which that crime did not exist in the first place!
‘Income Tax Evasion’ is a crime when you do not pay the adequate amount of withholding taxes, isn’t that true?
How many of Schiff’s witnesses will now be charged with a crime for assisting in the defense of a convicted criminal?

For the JFK assassination, there were dozens of people shooting with their movie cameras, and the government confiscated those films for evidence, but not a single strip of film from those cameras was ever brought forward!
It wasn’t till the Zapruder film came out that there was substantial evidence that JFK was shot at least twice and from different locations, the second being on the grassy knoll.
By the way, G.H.W. Bush was on the assassination committee as he had been working shortly in the CIA!
The Warren Commission Report, which railroaded Oswald, with its strong box of secrets, will be sealed till the year 2039 when all those involved are dead, including G.H.W. Bush at the age of 115 years!
Is this RELEVANT? YES!
It shows the corruption of the government!

Shall WE wait till Judge Dawson and everyone else has died of old age before the TRUTH shall be revealed?
NO, I guess this is an ongoing TRUTH that the government will make you SLAVES before the TRUTH comes out!
It was some 70 years before Bill Benson revealed the TRUTH on the 16th Amendment!
Thanks to the Internet for this mass media!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/23/2005 3:26 PM  

LOOK HERE ANON. 3:08 pm

Did the Schultz case BRING Full attention to the matter? Yes or NO

Did everyone know this data/truth prior to the Schultz decision? Yes or NO

Did the IRS ever USE their summons upon the general public in such a manner that had people believing that summons had enforcement power? YES OR NO

Were more people informed that the IRS used summons in order to scare people knowing they hadn't anything real enforcement power due to the Schultz decision? YES OR NO

Do people now know they don't have to roll over to the IRS summons? YES OR NO

Ok you answer the questions.
If you answer NO, you are correct, the Schultz decision meant nothing to anyone and you speak for everyone.

IF one will answer YES, the decision had a verifiable impact upon the way and manner people will allow themselves to be treated by the IRS and how the IRS may treat them.

I am not going to argue someone's personal definition of a win. How silly! I will tell you my definition and that is what I go by, not yours, up until the provide a verifiable better definition.

HERE IT IS:
A win is Intending on doing something and doing it, OR Not Intending on doing something and Not doing it.
NOW
A Loss is Intending on doing something and Not doing it OR Not Intending on doing something and Doing it anyway.

Clearly Schultz intended on doing something and he did it. THAT’S A WIN!

Clearly some others have learned what they otherwise may not have known because of his intent and because of his win.

He stated he wanted others to know the facts and thus that must have also been his intent and thus he did it and that is a win.

Winning is not always what you seem to have limited your minds to think.

NOW you provide more clear definitions of win and loss BEFORE you make your statement that Schulz won nothing and before you attempt to pass judgment upon my mind saying I fail or refuse to acknowledge such.

Definitions are important. If you don’t know the terms you using to speak it becomes convoluted. Now have YOU offered the exact nature of the franchise/privilege as I have asked over and over? Have you offered the exact definition, in law, with regard to a U.S. CITIZEN? NO! I did that because you didn’t.

GET IT – GOT IT

What say YOU! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 4:03 PM  

p.s. anon...

The court didn't have to say what the IRS was doing was illegal...
THEY act outside the law on a moment to moment basis. That was but one purpose of the formal Congressional hearings a while back.

IF they trick someone into believing their summons had enforcment power when it did NOT, IS THAT ACTING WITHIN THE LAW?

You judge you, don't judge me. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 4:06 PM  

Beware of the IRS agents, in training, who are trashing all relevant knowledge. GD

By Anonymous gd, at 10/23/2005 4:18 PM  

Did you know that the letter from the Congressman stated;
Congress of the United States rather than CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES?

Did you know that probably everyone of you who filled out a preprinted Form 1040 was committing FRAUD?

Your name was printed like; IRWIN A. SCHIFF, but you signed it Irwin A. Schiff, in lower case letters and therefore you signed as an individual rather than a corporation!

Even the court documents of trials the names are like; IRWIN A. SCHIFF and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Did you know that the gold fringe on the flag stands for Admiralty LAW and NOT just honor and respect?

It signifies a military jurisdictional presence.

Under this tribunal that Schiff is going though, he may be held as a treasonous underling!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/23/2005 4:58 PM  

CJ:

The answers to all your questions"

"Did the Schultz case BRING Full attention to the matter?" NO

For those who are smart enough to have done their research already know this.

"Did everyone know this data/truth prior to the Schultz decision?" Yes

Again any of those who are smart enough to have done their research already know this.

"Did the IRS ever USE their summons upon the general public in such a manner that had people believing that summons had enforcement power?" NO

Those that do not do their research just assume!

"Were more people informed that the IRS used summons in order to scare people knowing they hadn't anything real enforcement power due to the Schultz decision?" NO

Again thse that are not smart enough to have done their research just assumed!

"Do people now know they don't have to roll over to the IRS summons?" YES

Those that are samrt enough to have done thier research knew.


Now Schultz won nothing in his irrelevent suit as the court stated he received no harm and his suit was unjustified!

But again this is the problem with the so called tax movement. They rely on what people tell them instead of researching for themselevs. 99% of the so called tax patriots would beleive that if you throw an onion at the IRS agents they would disappear and leave you alone if someone told them all so.

They are like the scarecrow!

If they only had a brain!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 5:35 PM  

Your answers only serve you, not everyone. You may think you know it all, but I, and everyone else knows you don't.

You may think that others should know it all, but I know they cannot.

You have placed yourself upon a perch from which you will certainly fall.

I notice you didn't offer YOUR SUPERIOR DEFINITION OF WIN AND LOSS!

The upity patriot hates his fellow man and is as anti-social as is the government. The know-it-all who can speak for others is alwasy WRONG!

I Personally know numerous people that had a belief the IRS summons had some enforcement power. I have first hand personal knowledge of that fact. Proof at least some of your answers are false.

Now go fight it all alone you little GOD unto him or herself YOU! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 6:14 PM  

CJ:

I have not had to take action in court. The IRS and DOJ have not tried to take action in court. I stopped it all at the administrative level!

That is why you and all the other so-called tax patriots lose when they go to court, lose by levy, lose by lien. Non of the so-called tax patriots know what they are to do because they are to lzy to research and learn.

It all can be stopped at the administrative level. The IRS never follow all the administrative procedures they are bound to follow.
They only follow half of them.

If you and the other so-called tax patriots would take the time to do your research and understand administartive issues you would not have the problems you and they have.

By the time you all have faught with your non-substanciated letters and irrelevant case law and it gets to court you lose because you are in DEFAULT for failure to abide by and exaust the administartive remedies made available to you to correct your issue.

Keep on losing and doing what you are doing they love people like you and the other sheeple follow the leader patriots.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 6:30 PM  

Wait, your not a patriotic American are you...how can you be for you have proclaimed yourself as a God. You know what others think, should think, know and don't know. You know for an absolute, base on your word, that the IRS never used the summons in a manner to extract data beyond the limitation of the law!

Ok God, explain to all the readers exactly what you plans are for those humans living on earth?

WAIT, your not God, your from the Government.

Here, I'll out do ya -

Dorothy: "How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?"
Scarecrow: "I don't konw. But some people without brains do an aweful lot of talking don't they?"

yes and they think they are gods. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 6:30 PM  

I know one thing for sure...you're a liar. You make claims about others that you could not possibly know. You have called yourself a liar.

Now, you have offered NOTHING to ANYONE but to attempt to extol your own virtue. That means to talk highly of yourself while putting others down.

There are many who have stopped "them" at the administrative level...for a while...and some for a long time.

Why don't you SPELL IT OUT RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

WHAT IS YOUR WEBSITE WITH THE FOOL PROOF ANSWER TO EVERYONES IRS WOES!

DO SOMETHING POSITIVE, DON'T JUST BE A LIAR and A GOD UNTO YOURSELF. CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/23/2005 7:11 PM  

"Did the IRS ever USE their summons upon the general public in such a manner that had people believing that summons had enforcement power?" NO

The above from anonymous, yet the claim is now made that the IRS "never follow all the administrative procedures they are bound to follow."

But they never mislead anyone...

Can anyone reconcile the rantings and puffing of the chest of anonymous as quoted?

Remember, he or she is the only person that isn't lazy!

Ok, I admit, your a God.

Now spell out the entire process, it should be easy for one of your talants, put up or shut up. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 7:17 PM  

cj and others:

first, his name is Schulz NOT Schultz.

second, it is true that an irss summons can only be enforced by a court order (7402(b) & 7604(b)).

third, if one does not respond to and appear at the irss office in response to an irss summons, that failure to appear will be the justification for the irss/doNOj to obtain a court order and require the person summoned to appear in court to show cause.

fourth, it is an easy and fun-filled mission to appear in response to a summons from the irss. they use 7602(a) as the authority to summon a "taxpayer", and the operative words of the first sentence of that section are "the Secretary is authorized.."

imagine what you can do with that. I did 2 months ago, and that issue is now moot.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/23/2005 8:32 PM  

The IRS not following all their mandated administrative procedures does not mean the mis-led anyone.

It is your responsibility to know the administrative regulations to appeal anything the IRS does. Your failure to be informed is your fault.

All you have to do is read the administrative procedures regulations it is all there for the asking.

Do some work and you can fix your IRS WOES. Be lazy and follow the advice of other non productive so called patriot gurus and keep sliding into oblivionudmyzjl

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 9:09 PM  

Liar once again, I haven't any IRS woes. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 10:00 PM  

You anon. offer nothing of value to anyone other than to pretend your a god.

Your too lazy to do anything productive. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 10:01 PM  

God ANON.
I began a study of admin. proceedure some 20 years ago with the Free Enterprise Society and NCBA and others.

What do you know that you think is so important that no one else knows?

Are you one in a million or is everyone just stupid and lazy and you are not?

If you really wanted to do anyting positive you would ceratinly have a different tactic.

Trashing people only shows you don't know. Helping others shows you do. CJ



CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 10:29 PM  

Hank, I hope for you the issue is moot but more often it just comes back again.

Thanks for the spelling correction, it is better respect for the living and dead to do so but hey, people spell my name wrong often as well.

Yes they need a court order and yes you should appear and yes there are many arguments.

My point is simple - Lots of people were harmed by not knowing or not having the confidence when appearing and the IRS does indeed try to bully and mislead and that means they know what they are doing is not true and correct and are playing games with people in order to extract the tax and/or the records without the court order.

If Bob Schulz brought that data to the forefront...I thank him for doing so! Remember the DOJ wanted the court to change their ruling and petitioned them to do so. WHY IS THAT if everyone knew the law and it was so settled? Were they not perfoming some underhanded ploy when doing so? How just and fair are they really?

Anonymous says everyone is stupid and lazy (his words) but I believe that is not true.

I know for sure that I know things he doesn't know but he believes all are wrong but he, and then trashes others but offers nothing of service.

I quit these blogs. Too many self proclaimed gods seeking to harm others as would the devil.

CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 10:39 PM  

I'll read your posts no more God Anon.

Remember though, the DOJ asked the court to change their decission. If everyone knew, as you say, why didn't they? Or did they know and were trying an end around? That means they only play fair and with truth and honor right?

If you ever have anything positive to offer, I hope someone can benefit. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/23/2005 10:41 PM  

CJ:

You said: "Anonymous says everyone is stupid and lazy (his words) but I believe that is not true. "

Not my words. Not in one post did I say everyone is stupid and lazy.

Prove it by stateing the date and time of the post where I said such! You cannot as it does not exist!

As for the Free Enterprise Society and NCBA they were always a joke and knew nothing as time has proven!

As for pretending I am GOD. I never claimed to be GOD. GOD is GOD and we all are beneath him.

As I said it is all in the administrative regulation for all to see, know and use. Failure to do so fall firmly on those that do not take the time to do so.

My posts are not to harm others as you are claiming but to get those that can think to think before as usual falling into line as sheeple following the advice of some other self-proclaimed guru that will set them free and then come time to pass they are in even worse shape then before.

Learn the administrative process and of the IRS of what they are to do and help yourselves/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/23/2005 10:51 PM  

"Non of the so-called tax patriots know what they are to do because they are to lzy to research and learn." posted by anonymous 10:09pm

"99% of the so called tax patriots would beleive that if you throw an onion at the IRS agents they would disappear and leave you alone if someone told them all so." posted by anonymous 6:35pm

Now Anonymous 11:51 says "Not my words. Not in one post did I say everyone is stupid and lazy.

Prove it by stateing the date and time of the post where I said such! You cannot as it does not exist!"

SEE ABOVE

Well folks we can play a kiddie "word games" just like the government does, or we can read and understand and deduce based on the topic. Since the topic is those involved in certain type of "tax issues" and not the entire population it is clear that anon. said "NONE of the so called tax patriots know....they are to lazy" (I presume non = none and lzy = lazy)! Now I may be dumb but "NONE of" means everyone! It sure sounds like all of us (everyone as a tax patriot) to me.

AND

Though 99% isn't
technically "everyone" it is so damn close. So the bit about throwing an onion...that sure appears as though anon. is calling 99% pretty darn stupid.

Now the claim is, (11:51) "Not in one post did I say everyone is stupid and lazy.

Prove it by stateing the date and time of the post where I said such!"

Well there are the posts and the times of those posts, obviously todays date 10/22/2005.

Seems to me I proved it! Close enough for jazz, (off by 1%) this isn't court.

Now - when one can take it upon oneself to answer for others as was acomplished in post 6:35 pm and to make the claim that anon. knows for a fact that the IRS never used their summons as though it had enforcement power, means anon. knows everything that happened in all IRS offices to everyone. For me that is, in a sense playing as a god.
- When one can only find fault with so many others and place themselves above, that is playing god, as I see it.
- When others are a joke, as stated in the 11:51 post (FES, NCBA)though those folks, whatever faults they do have, researched and tried beginning many years ago and have done some good things and add to that the FES always discussed administrative remedies, to demean them as a joke though they have succeeded in some ways, is like one playing as though one is a God passing specific judgement.

I determined you to be a God based on your behavior and your word! You proclaim to be smarter than 99% and not lazy and have conquered the foe citing no one's help but your own study and therefore you have accomplished what a God would have.
I call you God, in jest, because you act as though you see yourself in that light!

Note that not one post contained anything positive about anyone or any concept other the anonymous self. Of course it is hard to find anything good when "99%" are so stupid that they, "...would beleive that if you throw an onion at the IRS agents they would disappear and leave you alone if someone told them all so."

There is my proof.

Now deny the proof as expected. CJ
p.s. Though I though to ignore you, I just had to show the proof, since you asked,...I couldn't let you off that easy! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/24/2005 1:20 AM  

p.s. I remember way back in the late 80's I think, FES did mock trials in attempt to see how well the mock defendant would do in mock court. They all lost to the mock jury made up of existing members.

Now according to, who I call god like anonymous, FES is a joke!

I thought that exercise FES did was very revealing! But someone as dumb and lazy as I would for my odds are that I am in the 99% and would believe to throw an onion would work!

Irwin is presumably a joke too for he was on trial and anon. has defeated the whole thing never to go on trial.

The major difference is, Irwin is a real human being that we actually know about and anonymous is a Ghost playing god!

See how dumb I am? I know the difference between action and being out there in reality and being mere words behind a computer.

Words hurt. They stall momentum and cause distrust and infighting and can even display one as a pompass ass, if that were the case.

I can sleep well for I provided the proof and more as requested. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/24/2005 1:35 AM  

CJ:

You have not shown one post where I said everyone was "Stupid and Lazy"!

I am Still waiting!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 10:36 AM  

"Non of the so-called tax patriots know what they are to do because they are to lzy to research and learn." posted by anonymous 10:09pm

"99% of the so called tax patriots would beleive that if you throw an onion at the IRS agents they would disappear and leave you alone if someone told them all so." posted by anonymous 6:35pm

None = everyone

or are you playing the anonymous poster game?

That's all for you.

By Anonymous cj, at 10/24/2005 12:08 PM  

“Did you know that gullible is not found in the dictionary?”

“It isn’t?”

“Ha, see how gullible your are?”

I’m not CJ but you are anonymous. hehehe

By Anonymous cj, at 10/24/2005 12:18 PM  

CJ:

Where is the word STUPID??????

Still waiting!

You continue to fail!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:19 PM  

CJ:

As for your statement:

" “Did you know that gullible is not found in the dictionary?”
“It isn’t?”


Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:gullible
Variant:also gullable \*g*-l*-b*l\
Function:adjective
Date:1818

: easily duped or cheated
–gullibility \*g*-l*-*bi-l*-t*\ noun
–gullibly \*g*-l*-bl*\ adverb



New Oxford American Dictionary:

gul·li·ble /Šglbl/
*ADJ. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous: an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money.



You failed again!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2005 1:26 PM