Thursday, October 13, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial Coverage by Freedom Law School (Segment 2 of 5)

18 Old Comments:

Strange as it seems, the Mormon Church incorporates the United States Constitution as part of what their members are to abide by. Since Judge Dawson is a member of the Mormon Church one would think he has put his immortal soul at risk by ignoring the Constitution during the Irwin Shift trial. I have to believe if I had to either succumb to the pressure being put on Judge Dawson by the real powers in the United States to convict Mr. Schiff verses going to hell, then since being damned to hell lasts a lot longer then a lifetime, I’d be inclined to tell those earthly powers to STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE! But, that would also require the good Judge to have a smidge of integrity and backbone which he clearly lacks. And Judge Dawson’s JURY INSTUTIONS will get him a seat in the front row in hell!

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 11:15 PM  

zzzblackhouse

By Blogger frank bucknar, at 10/13/2005 11:17 PM  

To Anonymous Guy and other government anonymous bloggers,
It only takes a second to establish a name to blog under. Now I know "DIRTY ROTTEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SCUM" has been taken by my boss but there are other names you could use to describe yourself! Oh, I forgot. You are afraid if you register to get a blog name you will be traced back to the IRS/Prosecutor/Judge Dawson’s offices as was I. I’m sure you know I understand the hardships of being a ROACH when the light comes on!
However, we are operating under a false sense of security. A computer freak with the right software can trace “Anonymous, frank buckner and Anonymous guy” posts and give that information to Irwin to use if an appeal becomes necessary or to expose us before Judge Dawson. And trust me on this, Judge Dawson will not like it when one of us flunkies gets caught with his pants down.

By Blogger frank bucknar, at 10/13/2005 11:19 PM  

Isn't it comforting to know the federal government employs frank buckner, anonymous guy and the other obvious anonymous government bloggers? They demonstrate their vast knowledge of the English language, writing skills and imagination when all their blogs end up being childlike attacks!
However, it is encouraging to know if that’s the best the prosecutors/IRS can offer then the real patriots have nothing to worry about.

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 11:21 PM  

Well stated "constitutionalist"

INCOME IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TAX !

Why hasn’t the non-koolaid drinking, the prosecution, the name calling, Buckner crowd disputed or answered, any fact or evidence, regarding my post of long ago with regard to the above title?

HERE IT IS AGAIN IN CASE YOU MISSED IT! NOW DISPUTE IT WITH FACTS AND EVIDENCE OR SIMPLY CONTINUE TO SHOW THAT YOU WERE ONCE PICKED ON IN GRADE SCHOOL AND HAVE EMOTIONAL ISSUES WITH LIFE, SEX AND YOUR MOTHER…there I hope I got your IRE up so you will answer. ************************************************************************

The language in 26 USC 1 states, “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual, every head of household, etc…”
Taxable income is the subject matter of the above sentence, but it IS NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation, since INCOME is only the MEASURE of the tax, and NOT the subject matter of the tax and income cannot include inalienable rights excluded by law from taxation.

- Individual is NOT and cannot be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation on taxable income since capitation taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.

- Property, real or personal, in NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation since property taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.

- The common business callings of life, the property which every man has is own labor is NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of taxation since eh inalienable rights of contract, our labor being our property, and the fruits thereof our property are excluded by law from being tax and would also be subject to apportionment or capitation.

No section of the Code IMPOSES a tax on everyday normal activities.

The Supreme Court, not a US District Court, has ruled in a minimum of 15 decisions that the word income as set forth in all of the income tax acts of congress, has the same definition or meaning that was given IT in the corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909.

Subject matter can confuse one so let’s see what the Congressional Research Service said, ya know the Very CRS the prosecution used…
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, they revised and updated their report:
What does the court mean when it states that
the income tax is in the nature of an excise tax?
“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.”
“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.”
So now we ALL KNOW that the federal income tax is not a tax on income right? Finally we have agreement amongst all who read these blogs!
DISPUTE THE CRS AND RUIN THE PROSECUTION, IN WHICH CASE IRWIN IS RIGHT OR DISPUTE THE CRS AND PROVE IRWIN WRONG.
The income tax is a privilege tax measured by income! Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the income tax.
Now that we agree that income tax is an excise or privilege tax, then what’s the privilege? This “privilege” must be one of the most closely guarded secrets in American history. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor members of Congress NOR THE COURT, will identify the privilege.
Let’s see what Congress said, after all they wrote it – and they clearly and concisely stated it: In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” The foretasted excerpt of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount.”
So there you have it. The question before you is : Name the Privilege that the individual personal 1040 income tax is upon as measured by the income produced from that privilege and do so with cite from 1. Supreme court case, 2. IRS, 3. Department of Treasury, 4. Congress!
***the word “LIABLE” doesn’t appear above so don’t go there..
* ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. FAILURE TO DO SO PROVES YOU HAVE A DEEP SEEDED MOTHER ISSUE - CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:28 PM  

I guess it’s time I tell the truth. I think Mr. Schiff is innocent but I need my job as an IRS agent so I lad to write those thing my boss and Judge Dawson told me to. Didn’t I?

By Blogger frank bucknar, at 10/14/2005 12:14 AM  

"frank bucknar" huh?

You're still a piece of crap, Kenline.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/14/2005 12:29 AM  

They have your money or have those in jail if you do NOT want to give up your money.
They want CONTROL!

What is this with the 9 and 11?
I know, but do you?
Eleven years later, to the day, the WTC was attacked!

9-11-90: President George H.W. Bush declared his "New World Order" in a speech before the US Congress:
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations."

Now the days are coming to an end for (C.) George W. Bush, and the Bush family has possibly 3 years left to take total control if brother (D.) Jeb Bush does not run for president.
(A.) Grandpa, Prescott Bush financially supported Adolph Hitler and failed.
(B.) Dad, George H.W. Bush had called the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, and failed, besides being on the JFK assassination committee, and had the experience to get away with it in 1981.

Now, back to getting your money!

You know, according to the government, there doesn’t have to be a Statute to specify anything, just as much as churches have to be 501(c)(3) corporations.

But first, here are the totals that the IRS wants to count on evidence of money to you personally regardless if it happens to be the same accountable money in a year.

Wages: $50,000
Payroll check deposits: $35,000
Cash withdrawals: $10,000

Total income by the IRS's perspective: $95,000

You failed to report "receiving payroll checks" and "cash money."
Your reported income was only from your employer on your "wages."

You MUST pay tax on the $95,000 as that is what you received from your sources, $10,000 was counted three times as you see.

Now according to Section 508 there appears to be a MANDATORY exemption for churches, but the government just ignores it;
Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to--
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or

If the IRS believes only 501(c)(3) do NOT have to pay taxes they forgot to read the U.S. Constitution where there can be NO law made to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Today churches, as state corporations, are controlled or pay the taxes.

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

As it concerns the judges instruction to the jury that they must follow his instructions.The U.S.Supreme court ruled in U.S. vs Dougherty. 473 F 2nd 1113. 1139.(1972). "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . ." This ruling alone indicates that Dawson is Not qualified to be on the bench because he either knew of this decision and blatently lied to the jury or he as a federal judge should have known about this decision and didn't. Either way it shows that he is incompetent and not fit to be a judge.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 9:42 AM  

"frank bucknar" huh?

You're still a piece of crap, Kenline.

But I like eating crap, so I want to eat you.

By Anonymous Frank Bockner, at 10/14/2005 10:38 AM  

Paymons Freedom callin posts are a waste to this blog. We are here to hear from those that are actually at the trial. Paymon is not at the trial. So who ever is posting paymons BS should stop wasting our time!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 10:54 AM  

Law... You don't need no steenking law.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/14/2005 12:22 PM  

A speech by a juror in the Gaylon Harrell case

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/14/2005 2:24 PM  

3 blogs up Frank Buckner just said, “I want to eat you”
I had no idea he was a gay blade, but he does work for the IRS so why should we be surprised?

By Blogger zblackhorsez, at 10/14/2005 5:02 PM  

non-liable said...

"(A.) Grandpa, Prescott Bush financially supported Adolph Hitler and failed.
(B.) Dad, George H.W. Bush had called the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, and failed, besides being on the JFK assassination committee, and had the experience to get away with it in 1981."



All BS nonsense with no proff to substantciate one claim.

KOOK!

That's what's that matter with the tax movement. Filled with 90% KOOK'S with nothing to back their claims.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 6:57 PM  

Anonymous called me a KOOK!, because he has NEVER seen the TRUTH!!!

The jurors can call all of us KOOKS as they have NEVER seen Schiff’s books or the Internal Revenue Code and just believe Judge Dawson and the IRS!!! Natives that live in the deep darkest parts of Africa can call you a KOOK for even talking about writing words that will be read in a few seconds by hundreds of people thousands of miles away, ie. the internet.

I prefer not to bring this up on an income tax blog, but here it is;

Here are the facts on the Bush family, the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, and the whole NEW WORLD ORDER, as well as who created the Federal Reserve System. In fact the building in which the Federal Reserve is a historical landmark with a sign on the door of the room in which these seven men met stating the Federal Reserve was created here. This does somewhat relate to the forced illegal ‘income’ tax.

If you actually knew, the Bilderbergers are the elite of all the groups and they control what will happen to G. Bush and who will be the next president. They MADE both G.H.W.Bush and his son presidents and now are going to have G. Bush fall within the next three months with the ongoing indictments against him. And even the History Channel mentioned G.H.W.Bush was on the JFK assassination committee.

http://www.infowars.com/
Alex Jones, avid documentation reporter.

http://www.1freedom.com/thecreature.htm
G. Ed Griffin, detail researcher, who I have met personally.
The secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia at which the Federal Reserve was conceived; the birth of a banking cartel to protect its members from competition; the strategy of how to convince Congress and the public that this cartel was an agency of the United States government.--...were seven men who represented an estimated one-forth of the total wealth of the entire world.

1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican "whip" in the Senate,
2. Abraham Piatt Andrew
3. Frank A. Vanderlip
4. Henry P. Davison
5. Charles D. Norton
6. Benjamin Strong
7. Paul M. Warburg

How can Congress pass a law in which only ONE politician was present at the first meeting for the creation?

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/14/2005 7:41 PM  

More KOOK truths!!!
http://presidentbushlibrary.org/

A History of the Bush Family Evil Empire
The Bush's Fund Adolf Hitler

Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed - by John Buchanan

Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded
with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor

WASHINGTON -- After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners.

Therefore the Mr. Anonymous that called me a KOOK must also believe that The National Archives and Library of Congress are full of LIES!!!

BUT, I guess Mr. Schiff is still a KOOK for believing that the ‘income’ tax is voluntary, when he researched the LAWS.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/14/2005 8:04 PM  

Guys, stay on topic and knock off the lame-brained impersonations. If you have tangential issues to discuss (NWO, or whatever) just keep it brief here and provide a link for interested folks to follow.

Re: "Paymon" and the calls being unhelpful, these recorded calls are discussions of the trial. Next time try listening to them *before* you criticize them.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/19/2005 4:10 AM