Friday, October 14, 2005

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

80 Old Comments:

"The practical reason for freedom, then is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed. Everything else has been tried, world without end. Going dead against reason and experience, we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of." Albert Nock CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 7:32 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 10:51 AM  

I agree Paymon is also a waste to the movment. He is a "Patriot for Profit" selling BS that does not work.

But 90% of the so called tax patriots are to blind so see such and not smart enough to know better.

By Anonymous TJ, at 10/14/2005 10:58 AM  

Dawson instructed the jury that they must follow his instructions.

As apposed to the following ruling

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 indicates that Dawson is at best incompetent as he should have known of this decision or at worst a criminal as he blatently ignored the decision
I am not able to contact Irwin. Could someone on this blog get this decision to irwin so he can get it on the record to use on appeal should he lose the case.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:00 AM  

CJ,

The hearts of men is cold. Sinners we are, with the desire to sin. Our reason is blinded. Law doesn't apply. We judge each other from what we were raised to believe to be correct. Our sense of freedom and livelihood is:

1) Disobedience of our creator.
2) Cursing.
3) Treating enemy prisoners worse than animals.
4) Attacking Iraq.
5) Pride in the American flag without understanding what it means.
6) Believing in false truths.
7) Supporting higher evil powers.
8) Submitting to government lies that have wrong intentions and interest in control and making money.

This is what America means! I don't care if people disagree, they'll disagree because they are blind - this nation no longer has God on it's side and will fall because of it!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:06 AM  

Wait a minute. If there is proof that the IRS has been performing illegally activity, then why are they not shut down? Why are they still operating?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:31 AM  

Hopefully the jury will go look up Cindy Neun's 90+ page palimony complaint and read it very carefully. Be fully imformed!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:34 AM  

Some unbiased, objective research about Irwin Schiff for those who are interested: http://www.quatlosers.com/irwin_schiff.htm

Be fully informed!

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

I guess it’s time I tell the truth. the guys that posted above this and I know Mr. Schiff is innocent because we heard our boss at the IRS say, “if we don’t frame Schiff our jobs are in jeopardy.” So I hope everyone understands and forgives us but we had to write those things our boss and Judge Dawson told us to. Didn’t we?
Also I need ro tell Anonymous Guy and other government anonymous bloggers, that 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 10/14/2005 12:03 PM  

To: tj, anon.11:51, anon,12;31, anon,12:34, frunk beakner,

Since you are all so very very smart and know so very very much where is YOUR correct and on point answer to my question posted many times?

Failure to answer the question is your failure as a human being. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 1:48 PM  

wait a darn minute here...I know that all you smart people with all your tremendous abilities proven by your one-liners and name calling and bullcorn is all in the name of fun...BUT

WHERE THE HECK IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION I HAVE POSTED?

What is the privilege that the tax is imposed on as per CRS and Congress?

Answer with proof or continue to prove that you have unresolved mama issues. CJ

See, anyone can call names and make quips. It takes a human being, having brains, to answer the f...in Question. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 1:57 PM  

Because nobody cares what you think, CJ, nor do they have any reason to.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 2:30 PM  

frank bucknar said...

I guess it’s time I tell the truth. the guys that posted above this and I know Mr. Schiff is innocent because we heard our boss at the IRS say, “if we don’t frame Schiff our jobs are in jeopardy.”


...again...old news...you aren't posting anything we don't already know.

So I hope everyone understands and forgives us but we had to write those things our boss and Judge Dawson told us to.

...and NO you are beyond forgiveness.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 3:04 PM  

Why do people respond to rhetorical questions?

By Anonymous Daitoryu, at 10/14/2005 3:23 PM  

If you spend some time listening to Schiff's first hearing from last year, which I believe lead to this trial this year, you hear Schiff repeatedly ask where the law is that makes him liable for the tax.

He repeatedly asks where is the law. He is correct that not one time does an attorney or a judge point him to a law. They repeatedly refer him to judicial decisions. We know, and they know that the law doesn't say that there is a liability.

However, there is an effective liability, not via law, but via prosecution and summary judgments. In other words, judges have upheld the IRS's complaints and assertions. Now that they have decisions that support the IRS, they are able to continually refer to the decisions rather than the law itself.

Judge Dawson, in that hearing, repeatedly refers to cases for Schiff to look at that establish his liability. Schiff repeatedly asks him where the law is.

Basically unless juries begin returning not guilty verdicts against judicial direction, we will not have an effective reversal of the current system.

So, we all agree that Schiff has made a valid point about the liability. However, it is irrelevant, unless juries and judges uphold it.

It's like spitting into the wind. The judge is accurate on one point. Schiff keeps being told by the people with the effective power (Agents and judges) that he is wrong. He keeps ignoring them, because their decisions seem to be in direct violation of the laws as stated, and the standards of law. Unfortunately, the law is the guide, but it's the decisions rendered that rule.

Schiff is right to point out the hipocrisy in decisions that run in direct opposition to the statements in the legal code of the IRS.

Unfortunately to win these cases the following things have to happen:

1. They have to be jury trials.
2. The defendents have to defend themselves.
3. The defendents have to endure sanction by the court for mentioning that the law doesn't establish liability, the judge will strike those comments.
4. The defendents have to hope the jury hangs or votes not guilty because it reviews the law, and goes against the judges instructions.

Until those happen, you can be right, and lose from here to eternity.

I sincerly hope that a hung jury comes out in this case and that it somehow becomes a momentous occasion. Then Schiff can rightly state that juries won't convict him only judges.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 3:41 PM  

Daitoryu said...

Why do people respond to rhetorical questions?

Was that a rhetorical question?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 3:43 PM  

"Anonymous said...
Because nobody cares what you think, CJ, nor do they have any reason to."

10/14/2005 3:30 PM

AHH, YOU ARE WEASELING OUT ARE YOU?
YOU CANNOT, WILL NOT, DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, BUT YOU CAN CALL PEOPLE NAMES, MAKE SNIDE REMARKS, AND PROMOTE HATRED TO ALLEGED TAX PROTESTORS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS ETC. ETC. ETC...

BUT YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!
The fallacy of your statement is that you say no one cares ABOUT what I say YOU SILLY GOOSE, the question IS ABOUT WHAT DO YOU SAY!

Gee whiz, get it straight. What do you have to say as answer to the question. What I have to say is not important. What IS important is your answer to the Question!!!!!!!!!

ANSWER THE QUESTION. CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/14/2005 4:35 PM  

"What is the privilege that the tax is imposed on as per CRS and Congress?"

or...

What taxabel activity are private citizens engaged in to trigger a Federal Tax upon their private receipts?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 4:46 PM  

Schiff has been told many times in an out of court what laws make him liable for the income tax, starting with 26 U.S.C. sec. 1.

Irwin's problem is that he says "No it doesn't!" and then argues based on the presumption that he is right, and everybody else is wrong.

Irwin's problem (and the problem for the rest of you too) is that nobody outside of the lunatic fringe that constitutes the TP movement thinks that Schiff's argument is right.

Not even the U.S. Supreme Court which has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand. Not even the legal scholars, who have also constantly ridiculed Schiff's argument. Not any legislator, or really anybody else who is respectable.

So who supports Schiff and thinks that he is right? Well, you have Peymon who can't even get his own federal tax liens released. You've got Ed who makes a lot of money with Peymon selling kits. Ditto for Joe Banister, though his only client to test the system (Al Thompson) is in jail.

Then, even within the TP movement (such as it is) you have Larken Rose and Thurston Bell who have repeatedly said that Irwin is just an idiot and flat wrong.

So, you can say "Show me the law" until you are blue in the face, but to the rest of us you look like somebody standing in a forest who claims he can't see a tree. Either he is (1) lying, (2) blind, or (3) deluded himself into thinking that a tree looks like something other than what surrounds him. That is what Schiff looks like to the rest of us.

Please take the time to read and THINK about the following:
***********************

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

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

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

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

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

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

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

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
"Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).
"Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);
United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).

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

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

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 4:54 PM  

Well put anonymous posted 4:41 pm, but I digress for "no one cares what I have to say" hahaha

Truly well put. And if you read my posts titled "Income is not the Subject Matter of the Tax" you will see that using their own material, Congressional Research Services and (I added Congress its self), You'll find very easily that one can make an effective claim that the tax, though imposed in Section one, is NOT imposed on people or income, regardless the definition of income.
Liability is not an issue in my post.

There have been countless posts making claim about imposition and liabilty all fondling the judge but not one of those parties has responded, on point, to my question based on what CRS and Congress said about the tax.

Shoots down their whole "tax protestor" (T.P.) theory for they have been unable to even begin to debate it.

Keep up the good work. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 4:55 PM  

"Then Schiff can rightly state that juries won't convict him only judges."

Two juries have already convicted Schiff in the past.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 4:55 PM  

Well, I haven't written in for a while. But I thought I'd write to let you all know how my little situation is going with the IRS, and the State in which I reside. I read a post I made a while back regarding becoming a non taxpayer in which some ^&*hole made a comment about me straddling the fence regarding being a non taxpayer. Well, I for one don't really care too much about what happens with my standing on this board after this post. To the jerk who says I'm straddling the fence, he isn't in my situation either, and doesn't know all the issues regarding my tax matter. My employment is not an average job, nor is it one that tolerates pursuing being a nontaxpayer. If the IRS says "take his money", they will, and if I don't like it, I'll be pulled out of service, my nice cushy $80K a year job (10 yr career) will be gone and that's that! Career down the toilet. I pursued being a nontaxpayer for 2 1/2 years, and in that time, I did all I could to find somebody out there in this whole tax honesty movement that would support me regardless of what happened. In retrospect, most all of them only wanted my money, and that's what they got for their services which landed me in a world of hurt.

Since trying to set the record straight with the IRS and the State, my life has gone straight down the toilet. I'm stressed beyond anything I have ever been stressed to before in my life, and it's not getting any better. I recieved another letter from the state today, they want more money for 2002. In addition to the $300 a month payments to them till march of next year, and I still have yet to hear from my attorney on how the IRS is gonna r__e me. So far, the IRS doesn't care about my house payment, car payments, or anything, cause to them there is a "national standard" that people around my parts are allowed to live on. I spend more than that, so, even though I have a $1,300 a month house payment, not to mention the bills, credit card payments, or car payments, the IRS says I'm allowed only $965 a month. So, I'm left with (TO THEM) being able to pay out around $800 a month based on my wages. And this is only for the next 5 YEARS! This is forgoing all the damn credit card debt I have in trying to pay off those who I had hoped would defend me if the IRS came knocking, or the attorneys, and state tax payments. So, I'm trying to settle with the credit card companies for my credit card debt. My house has a lien for $40K put on it from the IRS, my credit which 8 months ago was around 720 is completely ruined, and I'm unable to file bankruptcy since the damn laws have changed. And on top of all this, MBNA's attorneys call to tell me they are NOT going to settle my debt, and are going to place yet another lein on my house, and garnish my wages if I don't pay up.

Ya all know what? I'm so seethingly angery at the entire tax honesty movement at this point, I can't hardly type. My hands are literally shaking trying to type all this out. It's really nice for a select few to be able to have the funds, and opportunity, be it they are self employed or whatever to fight the IRS. Most have jobs that have an actual HR department that they can go argue with, most don't work for a multi billion dollar corporation with limitless resources to fight a lowely income tax honesty guy. In the end, I must say to Chad Prater, thanks for taking my 9k, thanks for your support, and costing me my financial freedom. And thanks to those who introduced me to the income tax honesty movement, the same people who wouldn't ever touch having their income taxes not being withheld or not filing. Thanks to American Tax Relief of California for telling me to go ahead with a purchase of a new house while I was in the process of applying for an Offer in Compromise, especially since I don't qualify under the IRS's rules.

In the end, my life is a complete and total train wreck, in the worst way. But it's ok, I'll put on a happy face, and lube up, the IRS is gliding right in, along with a little sand on it too, gotta make it rough ya know. Each and every single payday is met with being in debt more. Waiting each day for that direct deposit from work, having $0.98 in the checking account with no means to deal with any form of emergency, literally starving, having to call in sick to work because I don't have the money to pay for gas to get to work. I haven't gone grocery shopping now for 3 months, basically live on ramon noodles and make it payday to payday. The phone calls are nice as well from all the creditors. Heck, I'm behind on bills now like I never thought I could be in my life, and there's no end in sight. At the moment it looks like the only solution is to... hell, I don't know, I really do not know. But I do know this, my pursuit of tax freedom is the prime cause of it all. It's even nicer being told by direct family members that the entire reason for this is the way I'm living, and I'm "being taken out to the wood shed" by God himself.

My anger towards those in the honesty movement doesn't even come close to how much sheer hatred I have for those in the IRS. It's nice that for 2 1/2 years I sent certified letters to them *&^holes, only to be told after all that time, "this what you owe, deal with it". Forget abating the interest and penalties, that's just not acceptable. I REALLY appreciate the fact that the IRS says NOTHING for each and every letter I write, and in the end doesn't have to give one single bit of accountability for any of it. It was all just a complete waste of time. ...................

*sigh*... I'm exhausted. I give up.

k now.. gonna click post and wait to hear from those ready to flame me.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 4:57 PM  

frank bucknar said...

I guess it’s time I tell the truth. the guys that posted above this and I know Mr. Schiff is innocent because we heard our boss at the IRS say, “if we don’t frame Schiff our jobs are in jeopardy.”

...again...old news...you aren't posting anything we don't already know.

So I hope everyone understands and forgives us but we had to write those things our boss and Judge Dawson told us to.

...and NO you are beyond forgiveness.

10/14/2005 4:04 PM

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

Hey ant, you retard, that's not me.

But here's a bit of reality from a fellow "tax honesty" person.

Well, I haven't written in for a while. But I thought I'd write to let you all know how my little situation is going with the IRS, and the State in which I reside. I read a post I made a while back regarding becoming a non taxpayer in which some ^&*hole made a comment about me straddling the fence regarding being a non taxpayer. Well, I for one don't really care too much about what happens with my standing on this board after this post. To the jerk who says I'm straddling the fence, he isn't in my situation either, and doesn't know all the issues regarding my tax matter. My employment is not an average job, nor is it one that tolerates pursuing being a nontaxpayer. If the IRS says "take his money", they will, and if I don't like it, I'll be pulled out of service, my nice cushy $80K a year job (10 yr career) will be gone and that's that! Career down the toilet. I pursued being a nontaxpayer for 2 1/2 years, and in that time, I did all I could to find somebody out there in this whole tax honesty movement that would support me regardless of what happened. In retrospect, most all of them only wanted my money, and that's what they got for their services which landed me in a world of hurt...
Read the rest,if you dare

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/14/2005 5:00 PM  

anon. 5:57 I won't flame you. I have empathy for you. My dad is dead because of wrongful IRS pressure and he FILED.

Your post PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole thing is a mess and the saddest part is, They and the masses LIKE IT THAT WAY! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 5:08 PM  

There has been no one who did did research and followed Mr. Schiff's method to the letter ever lost any property or been convicted of anything.
But if you are not in this fight for the long haul then do not even start. Just pay the extortion and forget it.

By Blogger zblackhorsez, at 10/14/2005 5:16 PM  

Anon. 5:54 I have seen your post often.

Two questions based you your statements as follows –
"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

1. Why do the Congressional Research Service and Congress say that the tax IS NOT imposed on “INCOME?” (Regardless the definition)

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."

2. Why do Congress and the CRS say that the tax is not imposed on income and in the sentence you site above, why does it say on the taxable income and not just income? Is the taxable income only the income that is taxable? Since the tax is not truly imposed on income how can it be imposed on “taxable income?”

They say that Income is only the subject matter of the sentences you site above; it is not the subject matter of the tax. This was hard for me to understand as it is for others. I’ll post my entire evidence/question below so you can answer quickly and with speed.

Thanks in advance for your forthcoming answer? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 5:20 PM  

INCOME IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTTER OF THE TAX!

-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 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 uses…
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, the 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 and MUST AGREE that the federal income tax is not a tax on income right? It 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 fore stated 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. court case, 2. IRS, 3. Department of Treasury, 4. Congress!
CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 5:22 PM  

In order To HELP some more...
The Supreme Court in the famous Brushaber v. U.P.RR case said, that the 16th amendment was "worded in error."

Now they said it, not me. Don't blame me.

Lots of things are worded in error, fact is people make typos and spelling errors on these posts often and one person even trys to extol his own virtue by talking down those who might make an error...

Might the sentence in 26 USC also be "worded in error" since both Congress (who wrote it) and the CRS (the service the court uses) both agree it doesn't mean what one might think it does?

Heck of a question don't you think?
I know "no one cares what I think" but I do care what you think!
CJ

By Anonymous zzhlhbh, at 10/14/2005 5:48 PM  

you mention the Supreme Court and taxes by stamp not income taxes which are not payable by stamp. 6151 is under CFR 27 alcohol tobacco and fire arms. Income tax is under 26 CFR. If there is a law making payment of income taxes mandatory and not voluntary why do they have to use code sections from 27CFR?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 5:51 PM  

frank bucknar said...

Hey ant, you retard, that's not me.


Sure it is...you just think you're fooling people. Now what are you going to do? Try and prove it's not you by more insults?

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 6:01 PM  

Irwin Schiff should make closing statements to the jury of the facts that Judge Dawson refused to allow him many times from presenting laws, Supreme Court decisions, and other relevant information to support his case as this has been allowed in other cases, and therefore Judge Dawson superceded his authority. Also, it must be mentioned that Judge Dawson is NOT the LAW as per the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress IS.

If Judge Dawson rejects these comments then it is in the transcript and Judge Dawson will have a hard time to refute these rejections in front of an investigative committee, regardless if Schiff is convicted.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/14/2005 6:05 PM  

I'm sorry ant, I suppose you misconstrued my response as meaning I give a ants fart what you think. Believe what you want, reality isn't a tax protestors strong suit anyway.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/14/2005 6:08 PM  

Dear Anon don't hate the people who stand up for their covictions. We don't control the federal judges and as I'm sure you know they protect the IRS. I too am stressed from dealing with the IRS, but I think its important to stand up to the government when they violate our Constitutional rights. This goes beyond tax freedom to freedom period. We can't let the government trash our rights while we do nothing. Try contacting lawmancharles@juno.com They go after corrupt judges and IRS agents. They have over 4500 members who stick together. Hang in there.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 6:12 PM  

Frank Buckner said...
I'm sorry ant, I suppose you misconstrued my response as meaning I give a ants fart what you think. Believe what you want, reality isn't a tax protestors strong suit anyway.


LOLOLOL!!!!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 6:15 PM  

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from government in its enforcement and collection activities .... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately.

[U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
[quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]

By Blogger Salt, at 10/14/2005 6:23 PM  

I said...

Frank Buckner said...
I'm sorry ant, I suppose you misconstrued my response as meaning I give a ants fart what you think. Believe what you want, reality isn't a tax protestors strong suit anyway.

LOLOLOL!!!!


LOL! I'm sorry Frank, I shouldn't be laughing, that was an insult...I think...I should be pissed. But you know when that's all you can deliver here it's becoming so amusing. I guess you are not only amusing yourself you are amusing us too...well at least you're amusing me.

LOLOL!!!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/14/2005 6:38 PM  

Anon 10/14/2005 5:54 PM

Great post!!!!

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/14/2005 6:44 PM  

Anonymous said...

Well, I haven't written in for a while. But I thought I'd write to let you all know how my little situation is going with the IRS, and the State in which I reside. -

I appreciate your situation. I empathise with you.

All I can say is -

Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits(43). But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50

http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/LIMBAUGH.htm

By Blogger Salt, at 10/14/2005 6:46 PM  

the fact is - the "courts" are not administering lawful justice in the US; they are administering the financial bankruptcy OF the US.

if the "judges" were to approach justice, and justice meant that the government would lose the case, the "judge" might be having a little irss trouble himself.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/14/2005 6:47 PM  

"Reasonable Guy said...
Anon 10/14/2005 5:54 PM

Great post!!!!

10/14/2005 7:44 PM"

Whats so great about it, he confuses the english language, me thinks, hahaha and neither you or he has answered by question. I know the answer....you don't! Yet his unknowingness is "great." CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 7:05 PM  

To ANT,
Hahahahaha
I laugh with you
Isn't it just grand
We get to see, first hand, the mindset of communists, anti-Americans etc... and they don't know they ELECTED, VOLUNTARILY SO, to give up their birth right in order to receive or secure a benefit/privilege and pledged their all their property, their labor AND WAIVED THEIR RIGHTS in order to have the "privilege."

Problem for them is they cannot identify the privilege or benefit!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'll be posting it sooooon! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 7:10 PM  

Words for truth seekers (non status quo crowd)

Together we can do more than each one of us can do alone.

A three braided cord is hard to break! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 7:12 PM  

"What is the privilege that the tax is imposed on as per CRS and Congress?"

the priviledge is enjoying work as an employee of a government agency.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/14/2005 7:14 PM  

CJ,

Pool still needs one last cleaning before I drain it for the winter; can you stop by?

Feel free to stock me on firewood when you come by. Don't worry, I'll pay you in cash again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 7:17 PM  

"What is the privilege that the tax is imposed on as per CRS and Congress?"

the priviledge is: enjoying work as an employee of a government agency.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/14/2005 7:20 PM  

Well, I have an auto pool sweep and I don't drain my pool for winter and I don't need or use firewood so you must live in a much colder climate and thus have mistaken me for someone else. Worry can't help you! CJ

Oh, buy the way, did you answer the question with court cite, law, etc... OH NO YOU DIDN'T....
See I told you that you have me confused with someone else. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 8:11 PM  

Hi Hank, well you certainly have the results of the privilege, thats great. I'll soon post the legal Nexus and hint at the remedy.

Dale, Hank and other seekers of facts and evidence, is there a way you know that we can connect so we can work together and share data without the blat, splat, burp, ahooogah and other NOISE from the non-thinking, non-caring, crowd that has no concern for themselves let alone others to include their children, IF they have any for they show many signs of sexual disfunction? CJ See boys and girls I can do it too, so easy, hahahaha No great accomplishment though.

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/14/2005 8:15 PM  

Hey folks, thanks for your verbal support of me during my kangaroo trial. I was told not to "audio" blog anymore, but the Nazi judge said nothing about writing.

I appreciate all the support, but my finances have been being drained by this illegal trial. Please, if you really believe in the truth about the income tax laws, send whatever you can to

Irwin Schiff Support Fund
C/O Freedom Books
444 East Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89104

Obviously I would prefer cash donations.

I thank you and so does Cindy and Larry.

By Anonymous Irwin Schiff, at 10/14/2005 8:26 PM  

"the fact is - the "courts" are not administering lawful justice in the US; they are administering the financial bankruptcy OF the US.

if the "judges" were to approach justice, and justice meant that the government would lose the case, the "judge" might be having a little irss trouble himself."


Smartest post of all posts on this blog to date....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 10:25 PM  

Hey Anon. 10/14/05 5:54 P.M.
You said no legislatures have said there is no income tax. I believe I read on this Blog that Congressman Ron Paul from Texas said on national T.V. that he does not believe there is an income tax.

By Anonymous Otis, at 10/14/2005 10:44 PM  

I've been reading the Quatloos website. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I was wrong. They seem to be able to answer the questions.

By Anonymous cj, at 10/14/2005 11:09 PM  

Judges frequently rule against the IRS, just not in tax protestor cases. UPS beat the IRS in a case for $600 million, and Xelan beat the IRS in a case for $200 million.

Tax protestors lose because they are WRONG, which is why NO credible legal scholar will support their theories.

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

Hello Jerry Hosteg here,

Ok why don't we just talk solution here,

No one likes to pay taxes!!! Paying taxes is a burden to the average person, and in the end we are poor as hell.

The government didn't do anything to earn tax money and really is getting free money from doing absolutely nothing. They tend to spend the money, on unecessary expensive things (like wars, and dumb ass pussy projects, and paying mother f#@%*ers like judge Dawson) and raising the public debt like crazy. Of course congress don't give a shit cause a Federal Reserve exists and they can borrow infinite money.

Which means congress is not doing what is in the best interests of America. They are getting paid, and they are not doing the right things!

Since we are the people, and we have more power than the government, who is heavily oppressing us with a tax and spending the money on uncessary things, why don't we just tear down the tax entirely?

It's really a waste of time convincing government that we don't owe the tax! Their responses are not going to change! They are just not going to answer, and they will still keep throwing people in jail until all Tax truth seekers are all jailed.

Hell, have you ever heard the song "We didn't start the fire" by Billy Joel? Listen to all the shit that happened over the years. Most of them caused by government. And it's the people that has to fight the fire started by government!

Destroy this evil government I say. Develop a new government. Our future depends heavily on it! History always repeats, and if we don't fix the source of the problem, we are f@&%#ed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:12 PM  

Ron Paul pays his taxes. Ron Paul will pander to just about anybody who he thinks will send him a buck.

Did Ron Paul testify in Irwin's trial? In Larken's trial? In Lynne Meredith's trial?

No, Ron Paul only gives lip service to the TP movement because he thinks they will send him a few bucks.

It's all about the money with Ron. But you just keep on believing that he is your big Hero, although he really has never done anything for you except talk.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 11:13 PM  

Jerry Hosteg you are a flake. Why come here spouting your hatred? We are here to support Erwin Schiff, not to pander to your twisted agenda. Please, follow the crowd, or leave. Thank you

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 10/15/2005 12:18 AM  

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
U.S. Supreme Court 1789
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
1796, Signer of Declaration of Indep.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice
U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the evidence."
United States vs. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
(including direct taxation without apportionment).
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they're his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."
2 Elliot's Debates, 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 1:56 AM  

No Dale Eastman did NOT say.

dale eastman said...

Jerry Hosteg you are a flake. Why come here spouting your hatred? We are here to support Erwin Schiff, not to pander to your twisted agenda. Please, follow the crowd, or leave. Thank you

10/15/2005 1:18 AM

By Anonymous The Real Dale Eastman, at 10/15/2005 8:21 AM  

Anonymous said...

10/14/2005 5:57 PM

*sigh*... I'm exhausted. I give up.

k now.. gonna click post and wait to hear from those ready to flame me.


How about just a slight warming up?

Let's start with a quote from Voltaire:

"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

Or:
It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.

Then Samual Adams:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Since in this very blog thread, somebody posted as if me, all I can say is that on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog.

If your story is accurate, I'm sorry that you have found out just how corrupt this government has become.
If your story is made up...

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
Charles Austin Beard

Live free or die
New Hampshire State motto.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/15/2005 8:48 AM  

the guy is drowning and eastman throws him an anchor. What a guy. I find myself changing my view towards the tax honesty movement.

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 8:52 AM  

Dale, Hank and other seekers of facts and evidence, is there a way you know that we can connect

Yes.

But here's the downside; I rarely delete stuff in my computer. You will need to email me direct. If you are looking to stay anonymous, you only stay that way until the slimy feds come to pull a Larken Rose on me...
You know, illegal search and seizure.

Contact page

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/15/2005 9:06 AM  

cj said...

the guy is drowning and eastman throws him an anchor. What a guy. I find myself changing my view towards the tax honesty movement.


Except I don't believe you're CJ.
Nor do I believe you're Dale Eastman.
Nor do I believe you're the guy that's drowning, seeing as that post was a copy N Paste from another discussion group.

Or did you forget the link you posted, Mr. Buckner?

Frank's posted link proving he is the anonymous 10/14/2005 5:57 PM that copied that post to this blog

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/15/2005 9:14 AM  

Wow, I go away, I later grab a fee zzzzz's and my wonderful kind and thoughtful honest, considerate human brothers make fallacious posts in my name (CJ).

It is so easy to defeat them for they can’t tell the truth well nor even lie well. Proof that didn’t post that I am changing my mind from fact to fiction is as follows. THEY DIDN’T nor does their beloved “QUARTLOW” ADDRESS OR ANSWER MY QUESTION DAMN IT! There is slam-dunk proof that you cannot believe everything you read. You guys are too easy! Come on give me a challenge or quit.

Like I’ve already eluded to, they not only hate themselves and fellow man but even hate children. They hate children because they hate and/or are afraid of sex and children are the natural occurrence from sex. They hate children and that is why they like having children born into fiscal bondage, something like a $30k debt at birth and rising.

AND THEY WILL NOT AND CANNOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
IT HAS GOTTEN TO THEM! NO STUPID REMARK CAN OFF SET THE FACT THEY ARGUED WITH IRWIN ON “LIABILITY” BUT THEY CANNOT ARGUE WITH THEIR BELOVED (CRS) ON “IMPOSITION.”

Thanks for the laugh guys. “Defender of American children, CJ.”

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 9:17 AM  

Other than by coercion (without my consent), how does the "constitution" - a document witnessed and autographed by people who died over 200 years ago - bind you or I or anyone else? How does any of its' derivatives (amendments, statutes, laws) obligate any of us?

Maybe you are asking the wrong questions. Instead of "show me the law" how about "by what authority does the "law" apply to me?".

Ask the right questions and you just might see that the "emporer wears no clothes".

Try the following for a better understanding:

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com
http://www.lysanderspooner.org (No Treason IV: The Constitution of No Authority)
and
http://www.voluntaryist.com

Just asking questions...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 9:32 AM  

"I don't want to give the jury anything that will encourage them to research the law."

- Judge Dawson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 10:21 AM  

To: anonymous of 10/15/2005 10:32 AM

Great ideas, concepts and questions!

Following is, what I think to be a pertinent question... What if you mistakenly signed away, voluntarily so, your constitutional rights rendering the constitution invalid for you?
To further explain in question form: What relationship did you have with the government the moment you were born? Did anyone (living man) have statutory jurisdiction over you or were you born “free?” What happened? How were you relieved of your birthright in order to be placed under the Legislative Democracy as per Art. 1, Sec. 8 Clauses 17-18? There has to be an “event” or an “intent followed by an action” for this to have happened because we agree as to the nature of the problem. Thanks for stimulating my thoughts. Enjoyed your post. GD

By Anonymous GD, at 10/15/2005 10:39 AM  

"I don't want to give the jury anything that will encourage them to research the law."

- Judge Dawson


-----Can you imagine if a juror saw this quote before going into deliberation on Monday...what do think they would do in defiance of this judge. The jury is a separate body in the courtroom...they have the right to disregard the judge's instructions.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 11:06 AM  

Well, I guess it is too late to assist Schiff with any more information to give to the jury, as well as his motion to have all this dismissed which included mentioning the Corporation Tax Act of 1909. Did you know that if your name is in ALL capital letters you are considered a corporation, but you cannot be taxed as if you were! Why aren’t you listed with any Secretary of State as a corporation, or even write any resolutions for the actions you take? They use the same laws, but they tax you differently and don’t bother with the corporate activities.

Can the IRS or the courts explain how anyone can claim EXEMPT and NOT commit perjury on the Form W-4 if we are liable for the ‘wage’ tax? But it just says ‘tax liability’ not specifying what tax. You could have a sales tax liability for a weekend job, so therefore you must NOT claim EXEMPT and thus have the ‘withholding tax’ taken out. Well I have found out that it doesn’t matter about the perjury portion, it only matters if you pay the tax, or if your employer makes you pay the tax. Is the ‘withholding tax’ going towards the sales tax? NO!

With the forced acceptance of your SSN then you automatically became a U.S. citizen and not just a state citizen. So therefore you reside in a U.S. territory even though your home and place of employment are NOT!

Banister’s and Benson’s earlier cases were won by using “The Law That Never Was” which removed any doubt that the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, but Schiff would not allow this and he should go on his own views and books, which were not allowed to be brought in.

If he is convicted then it most likely will be that Judge Dawson will close the books on the case and not even allow Schiff to appeal, as “What is there to appeal?” when there are no court documents to be seen! How can Schiff appeal his ‘credibility’ as presented? This would be Judge Dawson committing employment suicide if he did anything like that.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 12:00 PM  

All right Non-Liable you have correctly identified ONE of the triggers that place us in “their” dominion. “With the forced acceptance of your SSN then you automatically became a U.S. citizen and not just a state citizen. So therefore you reside in a U.S. territory even though your home and place of employment are NOT!”

May I offer, not to discredit or argue but to shed more light, that:

· The SS # Sets up the account for the IRS as a “Tax Payer I.D. #”
· That the SS is in fact “VOLUNTARY” (not voluntary compliance) for any American with a birthright as only foreigners are MANDATED to obtain the number Prior to their first work experience.
· That the SS card and account DO NOT belong to you, as clearly printed on the card, but belongs to “them.” You, as a human being, are in essence a “trustee for the account.” Thus the “trust fund” though “they” never name the trustee.
· That you are, at birth a non-resident alien to the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17-18 “federal state” and you cannot be “forced” to change your citizenship. Citizenship cannot be mandated only a free election as an American. Those people in the insular possessions and territories are Mandated as to who they are and what rights they have which is limited to existence. Everything else they may have comes From Congress as Congress has complete legislative jurisdiction OVER them. They have “Civil Rights” not natural rights. They are not protect Constitutionally for tax purposes and if they come to the geographic United States they HAVE to have the NUMBER and they are who the Law applies.
· Through deceit, fraud and trickery, YOU, I and most others, have been duped to ELECT to hand over, give away, our natural born state of citizenship and elected to become, for STATUS PURPOSES, one of those persons clearly identified as U.S. CITIZENS as though we lived in one of the insular possessions or territories. With that, we become, “one of them” and enjoy the “benefit/privilege” of being one of them.

As you stated we are who we are but have elected to be something else with a completely different status and thus are being governed by the “rules and regulation” that THEY are governed giving Congress complete and total jurisdiction of every move.

ALRIGHT….the facts, evidence and Law are all stated Above.

NOW HERE THIS – The liability for the tax is NOT in Title 26! That’s why it cannot be found without discrepancy. Irwin is right and so are those who disagree. The disagreement comes because Title 26 does not create the trigger that binds you to the tax! More later.

“Non-liable, we need to speak outside this forum. Maybe you can contact Dale, he and I connected correctly and we can do some conferencing.” Sincerely, the real CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 12:27 PM  

THE JIG IS UP - The problem solved - The full and complete remedy is around the corner -

By Anonymous gd, at 10/15/2005 12:30 PM  

Hello freedom seekers,
Heres an afterthought -
This "thing" we deal with, to include Irwin, is all based upon assumption and presumption.
You are presumed to be a resident alien, one who owes a tax for the privilege of working in America because you allegedly sign up for a Tax # a.k.a. SS # making the claim that you were NOT an American with birthright originally.

This is what the "record" shows. Their "record" is THE EVIDENCE and under the "BEST EVIDENCE" RULE you have nothing on record saying otherwise.

They say, hey you elected to be one of them - You owe the tax!

Now, that the facts and evidence have been presented everyone should be pissed, for WERE YOU NOTIFIED THAT You were signing away your birthright prior to doing so? Was your mother notified? For EVERYONE, pre 1975 Privacy Act... YOU WERE NOT NOTIFIED. Read what happened after the act! On the form and instructions you were "noticed" but in a "round-about" way. The REAl CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 1:01 PM  

CJ, there is much more for you, and others, to see at Directoryupdate.net about Taxes, the Federal Reserve, Bush, and the corrupt government. You should go there and contact the host as he should probably want to contact you as you are both on the same wavelength, if you get my drift. I have found much on this site and encourage others too, as he has posted the latest link on his news site about Irwin Schiff.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 1:07 PM  

Great, got it, as we cannot do everything necessary here at triallogs for it is not the right forum...However I can do this...

To STOP in their tracks the Quartlow guys and keep them from postin their "unknowingness" and the mistakes of others... But First - Let me say that I respect all those who have sincerely tried and failed and are jailed or dead or in harms way, for the WEB of trickery grows as does the spiders and to miss one small portion of the web gets ones flesh stuck in the web as it closes around you. Because of the failures/errors of those posted at Quartlow we are more able to find all the sticky little pieces.

Don't post the Cooper case (lost) with regard to US CITIZEN. He didn't have, on the official record anything to rebut under "best evidence." A grandious mistake. Doesn't mean the concept is wrong, only means the proceedure was not completed prior to action!

Nip it in the bud I say! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 1:15 PM  

No dipwad. I posted my link after the other cut and paste. I admit I hadn't completely read the thread before posting it. To believe I'm as stupid as you by doing something so obvious is...well, as stupid as I've come to expect from you. I've told you before and I'll repeat it (read slow now eastman) I do not post under anonymous. I have no reason at all to fear not posting under my name. However, should you ever put the wheels back on your house, be sure to give fair warning. Any more questions genius?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/15/2005 6:47 PM  

farnk bunkcer said,
I'm a dipwad

By Anonymous fnrak bnekur, at 10/15/2005 6:53 PM  

If you are seeking the truth about Judge Dawson's conduct during Irwin's trial go to;
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
and
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/15/2005 9:17 PM  

I watched this documentary a while back about the corrupt English legal system. People went to great lengths to learn to read so they could read and understand court records. After the riots started there wound up with a bunch of heads on sticks. I don’t know if it was the same story but weren’t the laws written in Latin so the people couldn’t make much understanding of them and they had to rely on Legal counsel for an interpretation of how guilty they were. History repeats itself, or does it?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 9:18 PM  

From the latest issue of the Jewish Times. www.mesora.org/jewishtimes
Read this and you will see how this relates to Irwin and all those in the tax honesty movement.

The Heebrew Hammer
-----------------------------------
Swords vs. Words
by Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim

Contrast the two major religions with Judaism, and you are struck with this gruesome reality. On
the one hand, Jihads and Crusades unveil their coercion of religion – the sword’s ultimatum;
while Judaism is presented with
words…reasonable arguments for a good life, and no ultimatums. In fact, Abraham and the other prophets displayed the exact opposite: they sacrificed their ‘own’ lives to help others live and acknowledge the Creator and His will for mankind. Never did any Jewish prophet or leader
resort to anything but reason to present the Jewish theology. Even while imprisoned, Abraham
debated with his fellow man, directing their minds towards the path of reason…the only path
available for determining reality and truth.

Any truth, be it religion, math, science, et al…is of no value if one who verbalizes the fundamentals
of that truth; remains blind to its validating rationale. Quotations from famed thinkers attract accolades and applause. But life’s meaning is not measured by how many claps one may induce,
from others who are equally blind.

Life is for the purpose of “knowing”. Life is for realizing what is true, what is real. And with no conviction, one
possesses no commitment or value, regardless of his words.
A religion that coerces others to follow it, is a religion whose principles cannot defend itself. It is a religion of cowards and insecure adherents who find a momentary ease from their self-doubt, when one more feeble-minded soul agrees, instead of suffering death. Some validation that is! But this method of religious bribe, of forced ultimatums,reveals just how bereft of validation these religions
truly are. Validation of a religion cannot come by the sword’s threat. Validation of anything must be derived from reasonable argumentation. Yes,
Muslims and Christians greatly outnumber Jews. But with what type of numbers: numbers who cannot defend their faith with any semblance of reason? Shall these numbers impress us? Both religions cannibalize Judaism, and with such
transparency, one is amazed that their adherents can fool themselves. It is from this suppressed truth that anti-Semitism springs forth: “Kill the
Jew, for his arguments will prove us wrong.”

Many frightened Jews and liberals will seek to squelch such open critique. But this was not the
way of Abraham, Ramban, Maimonides, and any other Jewish mind that knew the truth. They did
not seek the applause from the masses, or cower from their scorn. These great minds lived for God
and His truth. Their reality was not the billions of hands clapping, fame, fortune or legacy. Their reality was truth. They understood life is temporal,
so they placed no stock in prolonging a life that
denied truth....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 11:20 PM  

Do you wonder what Judge Dawson looks like? Would you like a couple of pictures of Judge Dawson for your wallet or to put on your Christmas cards or to throw darts at?
Then go to;
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com
and thank me later!

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/16/2005 12:29 AM  

GD said...
Following is, what I think to be a pertinent question... What if you mistakenly signed away, voluntarily so, your constitutional rights rendering the constitution invalid for you?

Having my own projection as to where GD will go with this, I'm gonna jump him on the issue of "mistakenly". See, you are starting to refer to a contract. The terms of the contract were kept from you. Like once you sign up of SSN, it's irrevocable. Did they tell you that when they lied to you and told you that you had to have a SSN?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/16/2005 12:31 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person queried:

"Wait a minute. If there is proof that the IRS has been performing illegally activity, then why are they not shut down? Why are they still operating?"

Feel free to shut them down. Let me know when, where, and how you are going to do that and I'll see what I can do to help.


CJ whined:

"The fallacy of your statement is that you say no one cares ABOUT what I say YOU SILLY GOOSE, the question IS ABOUT WHAT DO YOU SAY!

Gee whiz, get it straight. What do you have to say as answer to the question. What I have to say is not important. What IS important is your answer to the Question!!!!!!!!!"

They post here purely to get you to react like that. Behavior rewarded tends to be repeated.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person again spammed:

"Please take the time to read and THINK about the following:
***********************

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

Read and thought about more than once. Dan Evans is a liar; stop pretending otherwise.


zzhlhbh said:

"In order To HELP some more...
The Supreme Court in the famous Brushaber v. U.P.RR case said, that the 16th amendment was "worded in error."

Now they said it, not me. Don't blame me."

What's the whole quote, in context?


Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim suggested:

"But this method of religious bribe, of forced ultimatums,reveals just how bereft of validation these religions
truly are. Validation of a religion cannot come by the sword’s threat. Validation of anything must be derived from reasonable argumentation."

To discard ALL of Christianity on the basis that the Crusades represent the only, or even the main, way in which Christianity spreads is far from reasonable argumentation.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/20/2005 7:45 AM