Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial Coverage by Freedom Law School (Segment 4 of 4)

61 Old Comments:

Dangerous info!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:54 AM  

I'm understanding more.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:22 AM  

You people just don't understand. The jury will be fixed. They can't lose this case. You can bet the jury room is bugged and, if necessary, the jurors will be drugged. It happened in a protestor case I handled, recited in my book, "In The Teeth Of The Wind." The U.S. Marshalls are in charge of the jury. Do I need to say more?

Shelly Waxman

By Blogger FLoA, at 10/12/2005 7:19 AM  

Today, the storm clouds of oppression cover the once great American Nation, but its people remain sleeping. But soon, and much sooner than many realize, they will awaken….but not from a dream, but into a nightmare of their own making.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 7:23 AM  

Shelly,

I ordered your book a few days ago.

What do you think about Irwin askng the Court appointed attorney to state the law under which he has been charged?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 7:50 AM  

Anonymous: Why are you anonymous? Afraid? The only fear you have to fear is fear itself. Live free or die. Let us know who you are.
The judge will read the law to the jury in his instructions.

By Blogger FLoA, at 10/12/2005 8:34 AM  

Some of Schifty's clients who are now in jail:

United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001)

United States v. Dentice, No. 99-50101 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 1999)

United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1992)

United States v. Burdett, 962 F.2d 228 (2d Cri. 1992)

United States v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1984)

United States v. Crosson, No. 95-176 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 1995)

United States v. Anderson, 637 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Conn. 1986)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 8:48 AM  

United States v. David G. Pflum, 2005 TNT 196-13, No. 04-3508 (10th Cir. 10/7/2005), aff'ng No. 04-CR-40008-SAC (U.S.D.C. Kan.)

The opinion is about instructions on "willfulness" and objections to certain testimony on tax rates, not too interesting. The opinion begins:

10th Cir. wrote:
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 69 (A. Smyth ed. 1907). While not contesting the inevitability of the former (as far as we know), David G. Pflum believed he had found a loophole to escape the latter. After an extensive study that included reading books such as "The Great Income Tax Hoax" and "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes," he stopped paying taxes.1

[Footnote]1 We note that the author of these books, Irwin Schiff, has maintained for more than 30 years that income taxes are voluntary, but, not surprisingly, "he has never been successful with that theory in court." United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing cases in which Schiff's arguments have been rejected); Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985) (referring to the "blatant nonsense" promoted by Schiff).


The 10th Circuit affirmed Pflum's conviction on eight counts of failure to pay quarterly employment taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and three counts of failure to file a federal income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, as well as his sentence of 30 months in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 8:49 AM  

Or Steven Swan, a loyal Schifty follower who is in year one of his 16 year sentence, and only at the end figured out that Schifty was just another paytriot snake-oil selling con artist.

That anybody would be so stupid as to follow a twice-convicted felon is quite remarkable.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 8:50 AM  

So, are you saying you fear revealing yourself because you followed Irwin's advice or is it because you are a government fink?

By Blogger FLoA, at 10/12/2005 9:05 AM  

Floa said

"The judge will read the law to the jury in his instructions. "

What law will the judge READ?

Chapter and verse, please.

Wanna bet?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:05 AM  

Here is exactly what the judge should read to the jury:

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."

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

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:21 AM  

The judge should also point out that NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the use of the word "liable" is required.

Irwin is simply wrong, again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:22 AM  

No non-violent person should ever be put in prison for any reason. It is immoral to put a non-violent person in prison for any reason.

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

A MUST READ FOR EVERYONE AND ESPECIALLY FOR you anon. 10:21 and 10:22. You are so very wrong in your support for the conversion of your own birthright.
WHAT? Sounds like psycho Babble to me you say? READ AND LEARN!

Thumbnail set of issues for YOU to LEARN!

"RE-Construction" the Civil War altered something, what was it? The normal and legal set up of Government. It had to be "re-constructed" but in a slightly different way! See general orders 100.

[Pollock case said to Congress...No NO you can't do that, with regard to income tax, so what ever happened had to happen AFTER the Pollock case!] I digressed for a moment.

During reconstruction the government set up a corporation to do business on its behalf. See the District of Columbia Organic Act 1871

With the Spanish American War came NEW Conquered People and New Conquered Territory and with the Treaty of Peace came another New Class of People. Remember government also created a new class of people with the 14th amendment prior to the Spanish American War.

So now we have, in essence, Government CREATING PEOPLE. Why not, government creates Persons don’t they? ie Corporations etc… change the word and like magic…

These NEW People were put under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the original Constitution. Wherein Congress has EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM! READ IT. The Constitution created two forms of government. One a National for the union states, and the other a Federal for the territories and later the insular possessions. “The proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both.”
James Madison

NOW you Corporate Trust Persons that loves to see your birthright (that is IF you are even American) removed Pay ATTENTION!

The only place that existed a Legislative Democracy is within the 10 miles square. I won’t go into the exact and factual history as to WHY they needed this area but suffice it to say that the original states would not protect the framers while in debate so they needed a place where they could hire their own private army/police to protect them!

So now there are TWO VERY DISTINCT CLASSES OF PEOPLE/PERSONS created. One class is the American and the other is a US CITIZEN. Why are people in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands called US CITIZENS and YOU claim to be one too? Didn’t you fill in numerous boxes making that claim? Didn’t you sign up for a Social Security (voluntarily so) card or “trust” using your name? Did you READ THE FORM OR THE ACT? IF NOT, YOU’VE NOT THE CORRECT PICTURE.

Part 2 later Do your homework. Find out who you are and why they can do what they do to you even though it seems very very wrong. You gave them permission and SOME OF YOU LIKE BEING DEFRAUDED! I DON’T.

I cannot discuss something in it’s entirety with those who only want to know Half the issue.

Stay tuned…..CJ

Just because you can cite some cases wherein people were trying to exercise the rights they believed they had does not make you correct for everyone who doesn’t want to be a person without rights!

The best place to start is AT THE BEGINNING. To start in the middle means you missed half the picture. To post court cases of recent means you have failed to recognize the basic truths and why and how those cases came to the conclusions that they did.
To fix it, rather than be a pawn, you must learn. It is way more deceptive than the IRC alone. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:16 AM  

To the anonymous IRS loving freedom hater who can hardly contain his excitement at the prospect of an innocent man going to prison for life, please tell us how dissapointed you are that Joe Banister is not behind bars. Remind us again how you were making these same comments about Joe Banister during his trial. Tell us how happy you would be to see Joe Banister violenly arrested and put in a maximum security facility for the rest of his life. You are free to leave the country anytime. I think you would be more at home in Bejing. Why don't you go live somewhere else?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:22 AM  

"how dissapointed you are that Joe Banister is not behind bars"

Why? Joe Banister's attorney said that Joe has been paying his taxes all along. This is why Joe was NOT charged with failure to file.

There is a lesson in there for you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:27 AM  

Look it is HIGH TIME, (and don't bring some silly drug stupidity into it because I used the word "high") that Everyone, not just some, figure out that the issue is NOT A WAR AGAINST IRWIN OR A WAR AGAINST YOUR FELLOW MAN! IF this is somehow a PERSONAL issue against Irwin, then have the "stones" to say it and WHY exactly!

The war, the fight, is to RE - Empower the People. It WAS the following Hierarchy

Creator - People - Government
NOW ITS
Government - Creator - People

Answer this, How can the created become greater than the creator?
Yes in the old movie 2001 A Space Odessy it happened and look at that outcome. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:38 AM  

"...any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'"

These are NOT the questions being asked..of course there are "laws making ANY INDIVIDUAL liable" and, yes, there are excise taxes and taxes on 'taxable income'...

Just who or what are these individuals?

and...

Are we to assume 'individuals' are every American working for a living, outside of the Federal Zone and not engaged in any taxable activity?

Are private receipts, taxable income as per the code?

Finally, I hardly find what these government employees in black robes say are "learned opinions"

They want everyone to "read themselves into the code" as 'individuals made liable'..of course!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:40 AM  

To the anonymous IRS loving freedom hater who can hardly contain his excitement at the prospect of an innocent man going to prison for life, please tell us how dissapointed you are that Joe Banister is not behind bars. Remind us again how you were making these same comments about Joe Banister during his trial. Tell us how happy you would be to see Joe Banister violenly arrested and put in a maximum security facility for the rest of his life. You are free to leave the country anytime. I think you would be more at home in Bejing. Why don't you go live somewhere else?

Tell us why you were making these same comments about Joe Banister during his trial and now that he was aquited you're all hunky dory with him. Joe Banister will testify on behalf of Irwin Schiff not against him. Tell us again why you are against Joe Banister. You certainly were full of adverse commentary against him while he was on trial.

Why don't you just do us all a big favor and leave the country.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:48 AM  

1) Irwin has not made any "federal zone" argument and apparently that will not be any part of his own defense.

2) As to Banister's acquittal, how about Banister abandoning his client Al Thompson, thus allowing the latter to go to prison for 6 years for following Banister's advice.

Funny how you keep squirming away from the fact that Banister's attorney said that Banister had been paying his taxes all along, which is why he wasn't charged with failure to file.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:59 AM  

You people just don't understand. The jury will be fixed. They can't lose this case. You can bet the jury room is bugged and, if necessary, the jurors will be drugged. It happened in a protestor case I handled, recited in my book, "In The Teeth Of The Wind." The U.S. Marshalls are in charge of the jury. Do I need to say more?

Shelly Waxman



WOW!!!!! I'd just about bet, had you applied for a job with Irwin and Cindy, you'd have been one of the top "NUTS"!!! Holly crap, you're as fruity as the rest of them. Agent 86 and 99 aren't real. Do you honestly believe Irwin and his followers of "the nut" are such a threat or what they have to say warrents James Bond to be the job? NO!! The problem is the scam they have invented for good ol' US cash and are so greedy, they want it all and don't put anything back. A big vaccum sucking and sucking until they've sucked all they can. LEACHES!!!!!!

Not SPAM!!!!
You know who I am...

By Blogger Sparky, at 10/12/2005 11:21 AM  

To the anonymous IRS loving freedom hater who can hardly contain his excitement at the prospect of an innocent man going to prison for life, please tell us how dissapointed you are that Joe Banister is not behind bars. Remind us again how you were making these same comments about Joe Banister during his trial. Tell us how happy you would be to see Joe Banister violenly arrested and put in a maximum security facility for the rest of his life. You are free to leave the country anytime. I think you would be more at home in Bejing. Why don't you go live somewhere else?

Tell us why you were making these same comments about Joe Banister during his trial and now that he was aquited you're all hunky dory with him. Joe Banister will testify on behalf of Irwin Schiff not against him. Tell us again why you are against Joe Banister. You certainly were full of adverse commentary against him while he was on trial.

Why don't you just do us all a big favor and leave the country.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:31 AM  

The sad fact is it makes no difference what Regulation, Code or Statute "YOU THINK" makes you or Everyone "LIABLE" to PAY an Income Taxes....There is NO Regulation written that has a "Distraint" or "Take By Force Laws" if you DON'T think you FIT into being a Person DESCRIBED in Such Rules found in any Income Tax Section found in Title 26
...but...such may be found in Title 27....Would the so called "Income Tax Lover" care to explain...and Tell us Why such is also NOT found in the CFR Index Book....It's printed by the Federal Government...is it wrong also?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:35 AM  

To anon. 11:59 "squirm..."

The point isn't that Irwin has or has not made an issue of what you call, and I do not, "The Federal Zone"

The point is that YOU have made an election to change your political status from that of YOUR birthright (if you had one) to that of a foreigner within your own country. The official records PROVE this about you and all of us and it was done by deciet and fraud and NO ONE is allowed, even IRWIN IF he did, to become enriched by deceit!

NOW WHY DONT YOU CARE about that fact and that point of LAW?

Either you had not birthright to begin with and that is why you hate Americans OR you have defected and "believe" that you will received a benefit from your Legislative Democracy that uses you as a pawn to enrich the fiction. Which is it? CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:38 AM  

Hey Sparkster,

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? would that qualify as a scam to you?

Is the absolute proven fact that your alleged money, more correctly called foreign owned debt currency real and what you "Believe" it to be and would that be called in scam in your book?

Have you been duped into making a voluntary election to alter your citizenship status from that of an American into a US Citizen having no actual rights and looked as if you are from Preuto Rico or the other insular territories? Would that qualify as a scam for money and power in your book?

Did the SS set you up in a "trust" arangement using your name to, as the ACT states, RAISE REVENUE? Were you told of the actual and true nature of the relationship or did you have a mind to read it? Would that be a scam?

Who is the scammer now? CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:44 AM  

As part of his defense, Bannister called Al a convicted felon and known liar.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:54 AM  

Did I miss something? I've never written a book.. Think maybe you should read it again.

By Blogger Sparky, at 10/12/2005 12:04 PM  

Irwin must do One Thing and that is to make it simple enough so the JURY can understand it.

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

What Happened to "Tax Lover", the one spouting all the Garbage...I looked up all the Take By Force and Distrain Laws I could find and NONE of them cross refenence to Title 26 Income Tax...what's the deal...or might I ask What Kind of Kangroo Court...is anyone interested in FACTS???

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:17 PM  

Why? Joe Banister's attorney said that Joe has been paying his taxes all along. This is why Joe was NOT charged with failure to file.

There is a lesson in there for you.


Joe Banister was a statutory employee as an IRS agent.
Joe Banister had statutory wages as such a statutory employee.
Joe Banister had a statutory employer-- The Federal Government.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/12/2005 12:23 PM  

I love America and Americans. I wish to extract myself from the corporate US, and become an American again like I was the moment and for a few years after I was born.

The US can use phony money, own all property, follow the marxist communist manifesto, kill it citizens, start wars without congress approval and all sort and manner of debauchery.

America is reserved for the people, the people of good will and honor and those that want to help their fellow man NOT Gloat and Bloat in the demise of others and the nation of America. CJ

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

Bannister was/has been paying his taxes up to and after he got canned by the IRS and while he was advising Al baby not to.

(Oh sorry, he resigned before he was canned.)

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

Banister didn't refund any of Thompson's fees either.

Sucker!

Banister is not coming so much to testify in support of Irwin, as he is to sell more of his books and tapes to the Irwin follower's who will soon be in the need of a new guru to tell them how to think.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:47 PM  

"PERSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE THE JUST MAN SUFFER, NOR DOES OPPRESSION DESTROY HIM IF HE IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF TRUTH. SOCRATES SMILED AS HE TOOK POISON, AND sTEPHEN SMILED AS HE WAS STONED. WHAT TRULY HURTS IS OUR CONSCIENCE THAT ACHES WHEN WE OPPOSE IT, AND DIES WHEN WE BETRAY IT." Gibran

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:16 PM  

"Every man in here is innocent" ~ The Shawshank Redemption

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:19 PM  

Now that you see how our judicial system works you know why those of us who belive Irwin Shiff is a man of integrity and courage are not put off by his prior convictions.

The Constitution has 2 taxing clauses either a direct tax which must be apportioned or an indirect tax which must be uniform. The IRS cannot impose an individual direct tax without apportionment.
IRC 6012 has no implementing regulation, and therefor is without the effect anf force of law.
As far as a tax by stamp that would be under 27CFR alcohol, tobacco, and firearms not under 26 CFR which is income taxes. It is fraud for the IRS to use code sections from 27CFR to enforce income tax which is 26CFR.If there were in fact a liability for income tax they would find the authority in 26 not 27. The IRS does not even have authority to enforce income tax they are barred from doing so by code section 7608. The Supreme Court has ruled that income must be given the same meaning in all the tax acts of congress must be given the same meaning as income in The Corporate Tax Act of 1909. (corporate profit)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:21 PM  

Quoting from Anonymous - "If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law."

If that is true and people had to pay a tax simply because it was "imposed" by the IRS code, then everybody would have to pay a wagering tax, alcohol tax and tobacco tax because those taxes are also "imposed". Having a tax "imposed" does not create a liability.

Each section regarding any tax has at least 2 parts, one is the "Imposition of Tax", and the other is the "Liability of Tax". But the income tax only contains one part - the "Imposition of Tax" part. There is no statue saying what somebody must do to be liable for income tax. What the government assumes, and wants the public to assume, is that such a statute exists.

If "imposed" and "liability" mean the same thing, then why does every tax, except income tax, have 2 sections, one imposing the tax and the other explaining who is liable. Wouldn't that just be redundant if it's the same thing?

Again, if you really believe you have to pay a tax because it is "imposed" then you should pay every tax in the code because every tax is "imposed".

The truth is you only pay the taxes that you are liable for. If you don't distill wine, you don't pay a wine tax even though that tax is "imposed" - Section 5041. And you don't have to pay income tax unless you are liable, and there is no statue stating that having income makes you liable. Yet a liability statute exists for every other tax, clear as day.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/12/2005 1:22 PM  

Here is exactly what the judge should read to the jury:

Tax protesters claim ...

Isn't it against the LAW to use that term?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:23 PM  

Sorry, but no judge or accredited legal scholar (this excludes convicted felons, BTW) thinks that Irwin's liable vs. imposed argument is anything other than a joke.

And since nobody appointed Irwin a judge, and the Senate did not confirm his appointment as a judge, Irwin's views are totally irrelevant.

Again, where are the legal scholars who say that Irwin is right? Where is the ACLU? Where is Amnesty International?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 2:06 PM  

Erik Heerlein said

The truth is you only pay the taxes that you are liable for. If you don't distill wine, you don't pay a wine tax even though that tax is "imposed" - Section 5041. And you don't have to pay income tax unless you are liable, and there is no statue stating that having income makes you liable. Yet a liability statute exists for every other tax, clear as day.

Corporate persons have income.
Natural persons with monetary return from investment in corporate business have income.
Compensation for labor is NOT income.

Observe how the other side addresses this specific challenge.

JG-b.html
rmac.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/12/2005 2:10 PM  

Nice job Eric and anon 2:21pm
matters not to those opposed to freedom and the American way. They follow their God...Corporate judges...and had they lived long ago they would have followed the Inquisitors. Many of them think of themselves as their own little gods and many find the god of their world, money. They admit this with every word they print. No changing the mind of someone like that for they do know...that

God has created your spirits with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of Love and FREEDOM. How pitiful to lop off your wings with your own hands and suffer your spirit to crawl like vermin upon the earth! CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 2:16 PM  

Again, whatever the issue, this case and most cases in U.S. courts have become more of an indictment on the U.S. court system itself than the issues that are being litigated. This is exactly what happens when the court system turns to creating law rather than preventing injustice.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 2:29 PM  

Isn’t it interesting the judge tells Irwin he can’t participate in these blogs but allows the prosecution team to do so. The proof the prosecutors are commenting is the fact they site, by name and their attorneys name and the case numbers, of over twenty people who have lost in court. They also site obscure court rulings to prove their point. Who, other than disparate Federal Prosecutors, would have that information or bother to point it out? I suggest the person in charge of these blogs run a trace on the commenters who site such cases for Irwin to be able to prove who those people are.
One of the Prosecutors pointed out in a comment to this blog that anyone could get that information. The answer to that prosecutor is, “Yes anyone can find that information. However, only a federal Prosecutor or IRS agent would do so because they have a dog in the fight. And at this point it looks like their/your dog is a poodle while Irwin's is a vicious Rottweiler with its jaws tearing into the neck of your helpless Poodle.”

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/12/2005 2:30 PM  

You know the interesting thing about all of this. Why, if this was an honest court, can't the prosecutors just cite the law? If this were a murder case, or a drug case that wouldn't be a problem.

By Blogger cle262, at 10/12/2005 2:35 PM  

I have never spoke to a IRS agent that didn't lie. They make it clear that they are not there to talk about the law just your liability. This corruption is the single most distructive activity distroying our freedom today. I have followed Irwin's advise for over 10 years and every time I used any of the many things that he has brought to my attention the IRS goes into spasumes. God Bless Irwin for being on the front line.

By Anonymous Tim Sweeney, at 10/12/2005 2:47 PM  

Shelly Waxman said it best when he spoke of an old Jewish mas who escape the ravishes of the Nazi regime. I don't remember the gentlemans' name but he pinted out how the takeover occured in Germany.
First, they disarmed the citizens, the they installed their own judges. Jury nullification over there wasn't an issue so they simply ignored it.
The only hope we have in this case is jury nullification, and it doesn't lool like that will work either in this case.

By Blogger cle262, at 10/12/2005 3:09 PM  

Let's face it,

1. the law obviously doesn't support a direct income tax on wages,

2. the law is also written to confuse people (ie. gross income is income...-defining terms using circular definitions).

One has to wonder, Why?
The reason I'm thinking is:

3. The banks have a slick deal where they use IOUs from the govt, to create credit, and then they instruct the treasury to print Federal Researve "Notes". Notice a Note is defined as a Debt instrument.

The bank wants to maximize the value of "its" stream of "revenue". The govt is scared that the bank will foreclose on all those IOU's, so together they make up ways to limit the money supply (ie. by taking money out of the system all sorts of ways) They do this to limit the supply, hence keeping the value up (to maximize the perceived value of the cash collected)

4. There are some folks who have a "vested" (no pun intended) interest(also no pun intented :) ).. These folks are part of the system, and are the only folks defending the tax. After all, even if it was legal, which average person would like it that much to defend it here in the blog?

Finally, Irwin is just stating the truth.. and it happens to be a sour point in the "sweet deal" that the banks have. Think about it, they have a revenue stream of trillions of dollars- I'd expect every trick in the book to be used to maintain that.

Another interesting observation I have, is that some congress members spend like there is no tomorrow.. could it be that they are scared of what the powers will do if they opposed the tax?

so instead, they spend to try lower the value of the dollar. the more golden toilet seats.. the more FRN's and the less demand for FRN's. Eventually, with lots of spending, they will be worthless, and the gazillion dollar debt could be paid off with a single Liberty Dollar... thus making the bank debt irrelavent

I guess what I'm saying is the Irwin approach has obviously been planned for by the powers that be- he will run into every road block. But another approach to dealing with the bankers is (oddly enough) massive spending.

Could it be that the less than brave congress members are taking this tact? (actually with what happend to Kennedy after he signed his executive order, Or Traficant after his speech, I'd be scared too if I was in congress)

Am I on to something, or just going looney?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:29 PM  

You are looney.

The income tax is levied against your taxable income.

Simple formula:

Gross income minus deductions and credits equals taxable income. Your tax is figured by looking up your taxable income in the tax table for that year.

Get a copy of TurboTax. It walks you through the whole process.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:40 PM  

Anonymous said - "Sorry, but no judge or accredited legal scholar (this excludes convicted felons, BTW) thinks that Irwin's liable vs. imposed argument is anything other than a joke."

Oh, well then, I guess we should all stop then, shouldn't we. Because as you so astutely pointed out, the judges are all knowing and we should just lay down like lambs if we don't agree. I guess you would have told Rosa Parks that she was wrong too since everybody else on the bus thought she was wrong too. You believe in mob rule, right?

Is that your line of thought? Do you hold the judges with that much regard that you will blindly follow whatever they say without examining the issue on your own? You go on to write:

"And since nobody appointed Irwin a judge, and the Senate did not confirm his appointment as a judge, Irwin's views are totally irrelevant."

So a person shouldn't say anything in his own defense because he is not a judge? If you were accused of a crime, when asked if you had anything to say in your own defense, would you just say, "Oh, I'm not a judge and the Senate didn't confirm me so whatever you guys decide is fine with me."


I agree that judges have ruled against Irwin and others, but you are missing the point. Judges say the argument is frivolous and without merit instead of actually disproving what people say. It's easier to win an argument by avoiding the argument in the first place which is what happens. No judge has ever said, "Here's the statute that says having income makes you liable for income taxes." If they did, this whole argument would have been settled long ago. Don't you think they would have by now if they could?

Lawyers don't bring it up because their job is to win the case not uncover the truth. A lawyer goes with what he believes will win a case and they know that the judge won't go for it so why risk being disbarred? They are not the ones on trial, they get paid win or lose.

In all of the cases where the judge rules against anybody bringing up the liability claim, they simply give their opinion that the people bringing this claim don't understand what they are talking about and dismiss them as incompetent and therefore, their arguments are groundless. They have never cited any actual law to dispute the claim of no liability, only cases where previous judges have agreed with them or cases that reference statues not really related to liability. All it takes is one judge to set precedent and all of the others just cite the previous one and say the matter has been settled before.

Nobody ever raises the issue of liability concerning any other taxes because the liability is plainly spelled out. And you can sure bet that the tobacco and alcohol companies have thoroughly checked for that and they would bring it up if they thought they had a shot.

Some cases require a judges interpretation of the law as best they can because the law doesn't cover the specifics of a case and there is a grey area over whether someone actually committed murder or manslaughter or accidental death, etc.

But the issue of liability is a basic tenent of law and must be defined somewhere. You have to define what someone has to do for a law to be applicable to them. A person has to "commit" the crime, they have to engage in an act that makes them liable. You can argue whether or not somebody actually committed the act, but the whole liability argument simply states that no act has been defined! There is no statute defining what somebody has to do to be liable for income taxes.

The issue of liability is not hard to understand or written in some riddle that only judges can understand and interpret. Just look up in the index of the IRS Code for "Liability of Tax" and you will see that every tax, except income tax, has a clearly defined section on who is liable for that tax.

You can cite as many cases as you want where the judge said he believes a liability exists, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that the judges never cite the law upon which their decision is based. They cite previous court cases and sidestep the issue. And that is not justice.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/12/2005 9:51 PM  

Anonymous said - "Gross income minus deductions and credits equals taxable income. Your tax is figured by looking up your taxable income in the tax table for that year."

If I gave you a formula for a clothes tax - red shirts are taxed $2, blue shirts are taxed $3, pants are taxed $10 - you certainly could figure out how much tax you owed on your wardrobe, couldn't you?

But would you pay it? No? Why? I gave you a formula for calculating the tax, didn't I? What more do you need? What, you want proof that you are liable to pay the tax? Don't you trust me? If I had a badge, would you believe me then?

Oh, you want to see the law? Well, so do I.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/12/2005 10:05 PM  

Erik,

You know what the law says. You don't appear to be ignorant.

Rehashing discredited frivolous arguments won't change the law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:16 PM  

You are looney.

The income tax is levied against your taxable income.

Simple formula:

Gross income minus deductions and credits equals taxable income. Your tax is figured by looking up your taxable income in the tax table for that year.

Get a copy of TurboTax. It walks you through the whole process.


Just answer question 1 and question 2

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

Anonymous said- Rehashing discredited frivolous arguments won't change the law.

I am not trying to change the law, I would just like judges to enforce the actual law and not make up their own.

You just proved my point earlier that instead of showing the law making anyone liable and disproving what people say, you avoid the challenge altogether by using the frivolous defense. You can win this discussion right now by citing the statute.

But just saying, "Well, a judge says you're wrong and that's that." without actually giving any reasons as to why the person's argument is incorrect, shows to me either a lack of understanding of the topics at hand or a willingness to just let others think for you. It's akin to answering a child's question with, "Because I told you to."

Either way, the only argument you seem to be making is that judges are always right and everybody else should follow their decisions without question.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/12/2005 11:17 PM  

"If "imposed" and "liability" mean the same thing, then why does every tax, except income tax, have 2 sections, one imposing the tax and the other explaining who is liable."


This is not true.

There are plenty of other taxes where the tax is "imposed" and no statute says who is liable.

Even Irwin, in his book the Federal Mafia, on page 83, cites sections as creating a "liability" even though the word "liable" is not used. Irwin notes that when a statute says that the tax "shall be paid" then the liability is established.

Well, look at section 6151.

Irwin should heed his own advice.

By Anonymous Brian Rookard, at 10/13/2005 7:51 AM  

Well,well, Mr. Rookard has decided to grace this blog with his presence. He didn't answer my challenge to his last trace grace of the blog, I don't expect him to answer this challenge either. It will take more than one post, and it will prove him wrong.

Mr. Rookard quoted another poster:

S1: "If "imposed" and "liability" mean the same thing, then why does every tax, except income tax, have 2 sections, one imposing the tax and the other explaining who is liable."

The reader should be aware that there are multiple topics in that sentence.

1. The implied question: Do "imposed" and "liability" mean the same thing?

2. The statement "Every tax has two sections".

3. The statement of exception to topic 2 above: "except income tax"

4. The function of the first section: "one imposing the tax"

5 The function of the second section: "the other explaining who is liable"

Mr. Rookard asserts:
S2: This is not true.

Which of the five components is Mr Rookard denying with his BLANKET assertion?

Mr. Rookard continues with another assertion that is less of a blanket denial than the previous assertion:

S3: There are plenty of other taxes where the tax is "imposed" and no statute says who is liable.

Having narrowed down the topic to how is this alleged liability communicated, Mr. Rookard snags something alleged to come from Mr. Schiffs book.

(I say alleged, because I have not read any of Mr. Schiff's books. I have read a bunch of the code and regs though.)

(And how does a statist sycophant come to own a copy of Mr. Schiff's book in the first place. If it's all bunk, why would Mr. Rookard read it?)

Anyway, Mr. Rookard states:

S4: Even Irwin, in his book the Federal Mafia, on page 83, cites sections as creating a "liability" even though the word "liable" is not used.
S5: Irwin notes that when a statute says that the tax "shall be paid" then the liability is established.

Mr. Rookard contradicts himself in the second half of S3 by quoting Mr. Schiff in S4 & S5.

Mr. Rookard then says:

S6: Well, look at section 6151.

Indeed, Mr. Rookard, indeed. Let us look at section 6151:

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 62 - TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX
Subchapter A - Place and Due Date for Payment of Tax

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

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

Mr. Rookard, you only did half the job.
Who is a person required?
When is a return of tax required?
Is a return of tax the same as a return of information?

I expect something about section 6012 if Mr. Rookard bothers to reply. Shortly after that, my questions will be ignored because of what they expose.

S7: Irwin should heed his own advice.

Assertion. Yawn.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/13/2005 11:59 AM  

Brian Rookard said - This is not true. There are plenty of other taxes where the tax is "imposed" and no statute says who is liable. Well, look at section 6151

Are you serious? Section 6151 "Time and place for paying tax shown on returns"?

This section has nothing to do with imposing a tax or creating a tax liability! You said there are plenty of taxes where "imposed" is used instead of "liability" but the section you cite not only doesn't refer to any specific tax but also doesn't even mention the word "imposed".

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 5:50 PM  

Please Mr. eatman, take on Brian - here where all can see, or better yet, set up one of your stupid web pages for that purpose. Rookard has forgotten more about tax law than you would ever hope to make up.

By Anonymous Doug Kenline, at 10/14/2005 5:09 PM  

You are very funny Mr. Buckner.

Cranking up the disruption because your insults weren't doing the trick?

Doug Kenline said...

Please Mr. eatman, take on Brian - here where all can see, or better yet, set up one of your stupid web pages for that purpose. Rookard has forgotten more about tax law than you would ever hope to make up.

10/14/2005 6:09 PM


I'd set up a page for Mr. Rookard, but like the rest of you, he will quit after getting painted into a corner.

Besides, Mr. Buckner, I set up a page just for you.

It's not my fault, nor is it my problem you are missing substance and cojones to debate honestly.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/15/2005 9:26 AM  

Shelly Waxman offered:

"You people just don't understand. The jury will be fixed. They can't lose this case. You can bet the jury room is bugged and, if necessary, the jurors will be drugged. It happened in a protestor case I handled, recited in my book, "In The Teeth Of The Wind." The U.S. Marshalls are in charge of the jury. Do I need to say more?"

Wow, Shelly, you really stirred up the Quatloosers on this page! Was it something you said??


Anonymous cowardly silly person sniveled:

"Some of Schifty's clients who are now in jail:"

Appeal to fear. First offense, $50, see the clerk on your way out.

Next....


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person sniffed:

"The 10th Circuit affirmed Pflum's conviction on eight counts of failure to pay quarterly employment taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and three counts of failure to file a federal income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, as well as his sentence of 30 months in prison."

Neither of those statutes can be violated. No command, no duty, no violation, no matter how many times the criminals get away with pretending otherwise.

Remanded back to 5th grade for remedial English.

Next....


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person parroted:

"If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law."

Assertions made without evidence, if not self-evident, can be ignored.

Try to read further than Dan Evans' erroneous opinions.

Next....


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person hissed:

"The judge should also point out that NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the use of the word "liable" is required.

Irwin is simply wrong, again."

I see you did not quote Irwin, so what is your point? Or did you think someone might take your word for it that something Irwin said was wrong? (LOL)

Next....


CJ revealed:

"The only place that existed a Legislative Democracy is within the 10 miles square. I won’t go into the exact and factual history as to WHY they needed this area but suffice it to say that the original states would not protect the framers while in debate so they needed a place where they could hire their own private army/police to protect them!"

That doesn't square with my recollection of history, but I'll bear it in mind next time I'm studying. If you could cite some sources on this I'd like to check them out.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person read:

"how dissapointed you are that Joe Banister is not behind bars"

...and regurgitated:
"Why? Joe Banister's attorney said that Joe has been paying his taxes all along."

Assertion made without evidence. Unsourced Quatloos articles are not a reliable source of information about anything, Joe Banister especially. Cite the attorney or prepare to be hornswoggled.

"This is why Joe was NOT charged with failure to file."

Assertion made without evidence.

"There is a lesson in there for you."

And one for you, dear coward: Confucius say, no man can be teacher if he has no class.

Next....


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person misrepresented:

"2) As to Banister's acquittal, how about Banister abandoning his client Al Thompson, thus allowing the latter to go to prison for 6 years for following Banister's advice."

Thompson did not follow Banister's advice. Thompson went off on his own, which led to him rushing into his trial while Banister was still preparing for his. To blame Joe for Al's behavior is simply cockeyed and to blame Joe's advice for Al's fate is to be ignorant of the nature of Al's situation.

"Funny how you keep squirming away from the fact that Banister's attorney said that Banister had been paying his taxes all along, which is why he wasn't charged with failure to file.

Squirm, squirm, squirm."

Funny how you keep failing to quote the attorney. Fail, fail, fail.

Back to Quatloos with ye, to try to choke a quote out of Asskissin. Good luck!

Next....


Sparky alleged:

"You know who I am..."

Actually, no; I tried to find out but your blog link is bogus.

Next....


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person screeched:

"As part of his defense, Bannister called Al a convicted felon and known liar."

Quote him.

Back to Quatloos for you too; Asskissin needs to come up with 2 quotes for you trolls now. (You kids writing checks daddy can't cash?)

Next....


Frank Buckner said...

"Bannister was/has been paying his taxes up to and after he got canned by the IRS and while he was advising Al baby not to."

It's Banister, not Bannister, and you're still 1 quote shy of 1 to substantiate this Quatlooser talking point. Also, calling them "his" taxes while failing to substantiate that allegation is of no legal effect and shall be greeted only with laughter.

"(Oh sorry, he resigned before he was canned.)"

I see you know the (quite strange) story. For those who may not, click here.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person eureka'd:

"Banister didn't refund any of Thompson's fees either."

OK.

"Sucker!"

Why? Spell it out for us po' folk.

"Banister is not coming so much to testify in support of Irwin, as he is to sell more of his books and tapes to the Irwin follower's who will soon be in the need of a new guru to tell them how to think."

Assertion without evidence. $50, see the clerk.

Next....


Erik Heerlein explained:

"The issue of liability is not hard to understand or written in some riddle that only judges can understand and interpret. Just look up in the index of the IRS Code for "Liability of Tax" and you will see that every tax, except income tax, has a clearly defined section on who is liable for that tax.

You can cite as many cases as you want where the judge said he believes a liability exists, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that the judges never cite the law upon which their decision is based. They cite previous court cases and sidestep the issue. And that is not justice."

Erik you sexy beast. I almost think Frank Buckner could understand that.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/16/2005 8:04 AM  

Well said Jamie.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/16/2005 11:52 AM