Wednesday, October 12, 2005

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

120 Old Comments:

FLASH NEWS!
JUDGE KENT J. DAWSON JUST WROTE THE LAW COMPELING THE FILING AND PAYING OF THE INCOME TAX!
See it here for the first time.
At the beginning of the Erwin Schiff trial Judge Dawson and his assistants, the prosecution team, had a major problem. The illegal search of Mr. Schiff’s offices had revealed the fact that Mr. Schiff could prove neither Nevada Senator John Ensign, Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, the Library of Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury nor over 300 IRS agents could find a law that required resident citizens of the United States to file or pay income tax.
But that wasn’t Judgie Poo Dawson’s only problem. He was also aware that more and more of the citizens that had been illegally prosecuted for tax crimes were being found not guilty because of that silly little quirk in the law that there is no law. Being a quick study Judgie Poo must have realized if this keeps up no one will pay the income tax. Then, it’s reasonable to believe his first thoughts were, “Heavens to Betsy that will mean the government will get rid of its inferior federal judges! No more houty touty country club! No more bowing and scraping to me! No more extra curricular activities in Pahrump’s Chicken Ranch! And, and, God Forbid, I’ll have to find a real job!”
However, you just can’t keep a good man down. So Judge Dawson decided to interpret the tax code as being the world’s largest word anagram dictionary. Therefore, in Judge Dawson’s brave new world if there are words, contained anywhere in the tax code, that one could use to construct a law requiring the citizens to file and pay taxes on their income from wages, then the citizen is required by law to pull those individual words out and put them together in a somewhat cohesive sentence which spells out such a law. Then, that becomes the law they are to obey because the individual words did come from the tax code. Now I know Mr. Schiff has seen it all, but I’ll bet even Mr. Schiff would admit Judge Dawson’s criminal and cunning misuse of the tax code in this manner is creative and unique.
However, apparently during this trial Judge Dawson decided the jury was incapable of word anagram construction. So, being ever diligent in his proven partisan pro prosecution quest for injustice, during one of his illegal exparte meetings with the prosecution (one of which is Mormon, as is Judge Dawson) he constructed the law which compels the payment of income tax. Unfortunately some of the words Judge Dawson wanted to use were not in the tax code so he declared, because his is a life time appointment, he can do anything he wants to. So, in addition to section 1 of the tax code he included the writings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on Polygamy and the entire works of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales in his source material.
Even though I fear being sanctioned with jail time for revealing the new law prior to judge Dawson springing it on the jury and Irwin, as a patriot I am compelled to do so.
Therefore I present to you the new and improved law requiring the filing and paying of income tax as authored by his most honorable Justice Kent J. Dawson
PREAMBLE
When in the course of inhuman events it becomes evident the government’s group of hit-men known as the IRS ass is on the line it is incumbent on all federal judges to come to the rescue. Therefore, I, the most Holy and respected Federal Judge Kent Dawson have on this day of our Lord came down from Mount Charleston (just north of Las Vegas) with the law, written in Crayon, on the back my W-4 exemption form, by the hand of an anonymous stranger who resembled Charlton Heston complete with long flowing white hair who was given immunity from prosecution by the federal prosecutor.
IRS Tax Code Number 0
All money or valuables in excess of $6,000.00 earned annually by anyone, including butchers, bakers, candlestick makers and ugly hookers, residing in the United States are subject to income tax and must be reported on a 1040 form and paid to the IRS within twenty four hours of receipt of such money or valuables. This law expressly includes people named Irwin Schiff, Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen and everyone they know.
Evidence of the violation of this law includes the placing of funds in any financial institution which IRS agents cannot intimidate into giving said funds to them.
The penalty for failure to adhere to this law is to be sprayed with mace and immediate incarceration in a dark, damp dungeon with no benefit of trial and the confiscation of all property the IRS decides it wants which includes any expensive golf clubs monogrammed with K.D.
However, this law does not include Halliburton or any major oil company or its higher echelon personnel, anyone friendly with President Bush or anyone in his administration or any person making in excess of $200.000.00 who has a lawyer to degrease the skids of justice or take advantage of all the loopholes provided for the preferred class of people.

Exempt Gifts
All gifts of money, land, *stocks and bonds or vacations to government officials i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Members of City Councils, IRS agents, Federal Judges and Prosecutors ECT.
* This includes stock split tips or the profit on inside information given to the cronies of all of the above on where new highways will be built.
Non-exempt Gifts
All rent, electric and phone bills paid by a boy/girl friend unless proof of the relationship is provided in the form of a semi monthly video tape of explicit sexual activity between them is given to all the male IRS agents, the male federal prosecutors and all judges regardless of gender.

All deadbeats that are not required to file or pay income tax must fall into one of the following groups.

1. Any little old lady who lives in a shoe and is straddled with a bunch of brats.
2. Anyone who’s diet consists entirely of Curds and Whey and lives on the *streets out of sight of respectable people. *Authors note > more specifically not living in tent city which Judge Dawson has previously ruled was a stinky blight on society and repugnant to society.
3. All people who know where the skeletons are hidden that would cause problems for high placed people, such as federal judges.
4. Those IRS agents (30 percent) who know where their fellow agents and superiors skeletons are hidden and already do not file or pay income tax.
5. Any employee of the Chicken Ranch in Pahrump.
6. Any old woman named Hubbard that is too poor to buy a bone for her dog unless such dog is not flea ridden and is a pure bred which an IRS agent’s child would like.
7. Any person who feeds a mob with one loaf of unleavened bread and rises from his grave after being nailed to a cross. (***However, this exemption from income tax is subject to Judge Dawson and the prosecution team being forgiven for all the illegal crap they are doing to Erwin Schiff et all.)
*All laws preventing exparte communications between judges and prosecutors are hereby stricken from all federal codes.
**All persons observing or telling others about observing the ending of an exparte meeting between Judge Dawson and the federal prosecutors of Irwin Schiff et all shall be sanctioned with 5 days in jail. If Irwin Schiff complains, in open court, about such a meeting he shall have his time in jail doubled and redoubled.
*** If the demand for forgiveness by J.C. mentioned in number 7 is ruled to be overreaching then the prosecution team should go straight to hell but the obviously innocent, of any favoritism or criminal malfeasance during this trial, Judge Kent J. Dawson must be forgiven.

The Constitutionalist

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 12:12 AM  

Kent J. Dawson,
United States District Court Judge,
U.S. District Court of Nevada,
333 South Las Vegas Boulevard,
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

No need to put Hon befor his name there is nothing honarable about him

Be sure to let this baboon know how you feel about him. Maybe someone can find him a job in North Korea or Zimbabwe I am sure that he will be able to teach them something.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:22 AM  

The Internet Privacy Act code 431.322.16-C compels the warning, If you are affiliated with any government agency or police, or any other related group, or were formally a worker, you CANNOT enter these web pages, links, nor access any of its files for the purposes of influencing, disinformation or general harassment or intimidation under the color of law. And you cannot view any of the HTML files for the purposes of intimidation or the influencing of any United States citizen or potential witness involved in a criminal preceding.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:28 AM  

The Constitution does not require the use of the word "liable".

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 10/13/2005 12:44 AM  

If Irwin has been sanctioned 15 times he already has 47 years. Let’s see this baboon impose this jail time.
It would be helpful if someone could draft a nice letter as to the behavior of Dawson that we can copy and send to our congressman.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 1:16 AM  

FACT: The IRS and its hit men have destroyed more American lives then the combination of casualties of both world wars.

FACT: The IRS achieves its goals using intimidation, fear and the threat of violence against American citizens.

FACT: The IRS places itself above the laws and the constitution of the United States.

Therefore, what jury in America will return a “not guilty” verdict? If I was sitting on this jury, I would be worried that if I don’t side with the IRS, then I’ll be the next one to be taken out.

By Blogger Dr. C, at 10/13/2005 1:51 AM  

Response to the constitutionalist's post:

LOL! ROTFLOL!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 3:18 AM  

In re: "dr c" posting

That post, in a nutshell, defines tax protestors.

Stating over and over that something as "fact", eventually the matrix loving, conspiracy theorist dunderheads that make up the hundred of tax protesters in existence, start believing it.

Out of nothing, fact is born should be the new motto of the "tax honesty movement".

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 4:02 AM  

I look at this blog and realize the impact that we are having.
We should call ourselves Truth Not Taxes. We are packing the power of TNT. Be aware tyrants your days are numbered the wishes of the majority will be carried out not the decisions of corrupt judiciary.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 7:02 AM  

MORE PROOF THEY DONT GET IT
Anonymous said...
"there is no written law that shows liability"

Show where the Constitution requires the use of the word "liable". You can't, of course.

The tax is imposed in 26 USC sec. 1. Despite the militia nuts and window washers who constitute the TP movement, nobody else has trouble finding it.

10/12/2005 11:34 PM

Very Good, now are YOU, the above, Liable to pay MY TAX? Are you LIABLE to pay a booze tax if you don't make it? ARE you Liable to pay the donkey riding tax, if there is one?

SEE, There has to first be a tax to pay, (the donkey example) The you have to be engaged in the business that has effectively connected income from that trade or business (the booze tax) and then you have to be the one Liable to pay that tax, (pay my tax example).

Without the above, who pays what tax upon what activity for income is not the subject of the tax it is only the subject of the sentence. The taxable activity is the subject of the tax. AND Congress cannot define "income" only the courts can and it is not what YOU THINK but what the courts have ruled and not overturned.

I know it is hard...but ponder and you WILL understand, hopefully when it isn't too late. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 7:47 AM  

The whole bit in the famous Economy Heating case was that you cannot pay someone elses tax! You must be liable for the tax. I repeat... YOU cannot pay someone else's tax, you must be liable for the tax before you can pay that tax. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:06 AM  

"you must be liable for the tax before you can pay that tax"

Show where the U.S. Constitution says anything about liability.

You can't, of course.

Why do NO accredited legal scholars think that Irwin's theories are any more than a big joke? But you just keep on following a twice-convicted felon.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:31 AM  

go to www.lewrockwell.com and READ
Acquiescence and Conformity
by Scott L. Fields
enjoy, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:33 AM  

More Proof -

Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes the tax on undefined "individuals". (UNDEFINED MEANS IT IS NOT DETERMINED, NOT NAMED)
Chapter 79 (ANOTHER SECTION) states that an "individual" is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States** nor a resident of the United States**.

Of course many will get this backward but even not understood IT SHOULD RASIE A QUESTION IN THE MINDS OF OUR COMMUNIST DEFECTERS?
CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:49 AM  

Hey Frank Buckner -

Do you think that this judge is acting impartially in this trial?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:59 AM  

The sane people in this world think that the judge is acting impartially, and bending over backwards to protect the rights of a crazy twice-convicted felon.

The TP wackos think that Irwin is being railroaded, but they will think that no matter what happens. Fortunately, nobody cares what they think and they are only very small number of nutters -- Peymon can barely get 80 nationwide on his conferences calls -- none of whom have any real influence on real people outside the patriot nut fringe.

What will you people do when this trial is over? Nothing, just like you did after Meredith, Simkanin, Rose, etc., and going back years and years to Phil Marsh and before. You'll yack, yack, yack in chat rooms, but in the end your effect will be the same as it always is: Nothing.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:12 AM  

If taxing our wages and salaries is legal. Why doesn’t the government write a law that simply says? The government has the right to collect taxes from salary and wages. Why the cloak and dagger stuff. The law is supposed to be simple so someone with an IQ of 70 can understand. It is obvious to any moron out there that the reason for the cloak and dagger stuff is because the constitution protects us from having to pay taxes on our salary or wages. NOW ONE MORE TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT IDIOTS.

The Thirteenth Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

We are not the servant of the government when you take taxes out my salary you have turned me into your slave or involuntary servant.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:21 AM  

"The law is supposed to be simple so someone with an IQ of 70 can understand."

Why should the law be dumbed down so that the stupid TPs can understand it?

This is like saying that because you can't understand how your electronic ignition works, you shouldn't drive. This is why the chronic stupidity of TPs is so amusing to everybody else.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:30 AM  

"Anonymous said... (HAHAHAHA)
"you must be liable for the tax before you can pay that tax"

Show where the U.S. Constitution says anything about liability.

You can't, of course.

Why do NO accredited legal scholars think that Irwin's theories are any more than a big joke? But you just keep on following a twice-convicted felon. "

[Deserved a re-read don't you think?]

Answer IF you will, for my poorly educated non legal scholar mind PlEASE I BEG OF YOU.
1. Can you pay MY tax?
2. Are you liable to pay MY tax?
3. Can you receive my refund though you were not LIABLE to pay my tax?
4. The Constitution doesn't mention Constructive Trust, does that mean it doesn't exist?
5. Are you MADE LIABLE to pay the booze tax? IF your answer is no, then why are you not liable? Might you need to be made LIABLE for that tax? How are then made liable and/or why then is there NO NEED to be made Liable?

Are you There Yet?

The famous Economy Plumbing case 470 F.2nd 585 (1972) said, in part, that you cannot pay the tax that you are not liable to pay...YOU cannot pay someone elses tax. So my weak and feeble mind has to at very least ask the questions above.
AND
Define Income as per the code?
Define Individual as per the code?

Here's some help for you...
Income is quasi defined in section USC 643(b) "...the term income when not proceeded by the words taxable, distributable net, undistributed net, or gross, means the amount of the income of the estate or trust..." hmmm income means income of the estate or trust.

AND

"individual" is located in section 79.

Now please educate me and other so we may be as mentally well as you!

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS!
ANSWER TEH DAMN QUESTIONS!
failure to answer is more PROOF of the fallacy! CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:37 AM  

No, it is only proof that you ask stupid questions.

Answer: Why has the U.S. Supreme Court routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:38 AM  

"Anonymous said...
The sane people in this world think that the judge is acting impartially, and bending over backwards to protect the rights of a crazy twice-convicted felon."

AND
the sane in this world also said that Blood DIDN'T circulate throughout the body and the sane established medical profession (akin to the tax profession) said the Dr. Harvey was a quack for making the absurd statement!
AND
the sane, in this world, said, for two centuries that scuvy was "incurable"...again the established government professionals, even though some sailor "cured" themselves with Vit. C. The sane called Dr. James Lind a quack for making the claim, for how can something incurrable be curable? The established sane people ATTACKED him. One century later his claim was understood and scurvy was cured for all buy the use of LIME JUICE (rich in Vit. C) and that is why British sailors were nicknamed "Limeys."

So we all can rest easy knowing the "SANE" are IN CHARGE of us all.
CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:49 AM  

To those who cite Section 1 and say that the IRS Code doesn't need to establish liability because the constitution doesn't require it, let me say this.

The section that you cite, Section 1, is under Subchapter A which is entitled, "Determination of Tax Liability". So in the IRS Code itself, there is a complete Subchapter regarding the "Determination of Tax Liability" with regards to income tax. But ironically, no part of that subchapter ever defines who is liable!

Now I know some of you will say, "Well see, that just means that since the tax is imposed under that subchapter that it is as good as defining liability. It's the same thing like the courts have said."

Okay, now take that logic one step further. If imposing a tax is just as good as defining liability, then why don't you pay wagering and alcohol taxes? Those taxes are imposed too, aren't they? If you can't explain why you haven't paid, then you are evading taxes. Please explain why you don't follow your own logic.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 10:06 AM  

Why should the law be dumbed down so that the stupid TPs can understand it?
What a moron the laws are for the people by the people everyone needs to understand them.
You don't understand electronic ignition idiot. You don't know which end is your ass and which end is your mouth the same stuff comes out of it.
Where the hell did you get that word dumbed from? Go and debate with pre-school kids shit for brains

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 10:14 AM  

And back to changing brake pads for you . . .

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 10:18 AM  

Anonymous said - Why has the U.S. Supreme Court routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand?

Well, the Supreme Court thought is was okay to own slaves and treat them as property. The courts also thought "separate but equal" was fine as well. They also didn't see any problem with women not being able to vote and thought lynching a black person in the south was okay.

If you don't understand the issues and just want to believe that judges are all knowing, then why are you posting? Why do you care if other people disagree with the judges? If you think everybody hear is just plain silly and we're wasting our time, okay, but why are you wasting your time?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 10:23 AM  

Why are you wasting your time? We all know that at the end of the day, you'll do nothing but yack on the forums, just like after Meredith was convicted, Thompson was convicted, Rose was convicted, etc., etc., etc.

You'll be amazed at how fast everybody will forget that Irwin ever existed and will move on to their next guru. Absolutely amazed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 10:33 AM  

Anonymous said - What a moron the laws are for the people by the people everyone needs to understand them. You don't understand electronic ignition idiot.

So your point is that only judges and lawyers should be able to understand the law? That like electronic ignition, to work correctly it needs to be complicated?

You want laws that you don't understand? You want to be governed by a system so complex that you have to pay someone else to interpret it for you and be at the mercy of others? Please explain further why you appear to be against simple and plainly written laws.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 10:34 AM  

Anonymous said - Why are you wasting your time? We all know that at the end of the day, you'll do nothing but yack on the forums, just like after Meredith was convicted, Thompson was convicted, Rose was convicted, etc., etc., etc.

If you are comfortable in your knowledge that this will all blow over and others here are wasting their time, then why are you here? You don't have anything better to do?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 10:37 AM  

Good luck Irwin

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 10:57 AM  

Good luck Irwin,
Walt

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 10:58 AM  

Dr. Harvey wasn't a twice-convicted felon.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:00 AM  

Some observations:

What power does Judge Dawson have to tell Irwin he is not to dscuss this case on the blogs? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be good fro Irwin to do so. But on what grounds does Judge Dawson make that order. Irwin has been convicted on nothing in tis case.

To the tax loving freedom haters who post on these blogs, go take a course in 2nd grade logic and learn that the following are invalid, unsound, and stupid methods of argument (though they do have persuasive force upon others who are as mentally challenged as those who use them):

(1) Appeal to authority [judges and accredited legal scholars].

(2) Name calling.

(3) Injecting irrelvancies such as "Irwin's two prior felony convictions, as well as given a copy of Cindy's 90+ page palimony complaint where she complains about being raped and other things".

Frank Buckner, post something intelligent for once or spare us the endless drivel of b.s.

By Anonymous HK, at 10/13/2005 11:01 AM  

the simplest argument that any jury member can understand and the argument that best reflects a good faith reliance will now be set forth. Turn to the “HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES” following 26 USC section 61 it provides that: “Revision Notes and Legislative Reports: Under “1954 Act”, in relevant part, one finds a reference to House Report No. 1337, Senate Report No. 1622, and Conference Report No. 2543, see 1954 U.S. Code Cong. And Adm. News. Pp. 4155, 4802, and 5280, respectively.” When we turn to page #4155 of the 1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm News, at page #4155 that page provides that:
This section corresponds to section 22 (a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22 (a).
Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes “all income from whatever source derived.” This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word “income” is used in its constitutional sense. Therefore, although the section 22(a) phrase “in whatever form paid” has been eliminated, statutory gross income will continue to include income realized in any form. Likewise, no change is effected by the elimination of the specific reference to compensation of the President and judges of courts of the United States, and the compensation of such individuals will continue to be taxed in the same manner as that of other taxpayers.

The Supreme Court had before it the 1954 Code when the Court decided the case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 428, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed 483. The issue before the high court was:
The common question is whether money received as exemplary damages for fraud or as the punitive two-thirds portion of a treble-damage antitrust recovery must be reported by a taxpayer as gross income under 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
The Court said:
The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:
SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . . (Emphasis added.).
This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power. Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 ; Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216, 223 ; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9 ; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166 . Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as windfalls flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive [348 U.S. 426, 430] labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 ; Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87 -91. Thus, the fortuitous gain accruing to a lessor by reason of the forfeiture of a lessee's improvements on the rented property was taxed in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 . Cf. Robertson v. United States, 343 U.S. 711 ; Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 ; United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 . Such decisions demonstrate that we cannot but ascribe content to the catchall provision of 22 (a), gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. The importance of that phrase has been too frequently recognized since its first appearance in the Revenue Act of 1913 5 to say now that it adds nothing to the meaning of gross income.
Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. .


It therefore cannot be said with certitude that Congress intended to carve an exception out of 22 (a)'s pervasive coverage. Nor does the 1954 Code's legislative history, with its reiteration of the proposition that statutory gross income is all-inclusive, give support to respondent's position. The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

At footnote the U.S. Supreme held that:
In discussing 61 (a) of the 1954 Code, the House Report states:

This section corresponds to section 22 (a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22 (a).
Section 61 (a) provides that gross income includes `all income from whatever source derived.' This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word `income' is used in its constitutional sense. H. R. Rep. No. 1337, supra, note 10, at A18.

A virtually identical statement appears in S. Rep. No. 1622, supra, note 10, at 168. [348 U.S. 426, 434]

Today, 26 USC 61 as it relates to wages is still the same; “Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses…”. The Legislative branch and Judicial branch of the United States has declared that it is only the income that is derived from Lawrence’s property that an income tax can be laid on and not upon the property itself. If that is a “frivolous argument, then the U.S. Congress and our U.S. Supreme has presented a frivolous argument. That is the ultimate conclusion that the IRS wants this Court to adopt. However, the IRS’s position is not the truth.

In footnote #6 the Court said: “The phrase ( i.e. the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. ) was derived from Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , two cases construing the Revenue Act of 1909, 36 Stat. 11, 112. Both taxpayers were wasting asset corporations, one being engaged in mining, the other in lumbering operations. The definition was applied by the Court to demonstrate a distinction between a return on capital and a mere conversion of capital assets. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., supra, at 184. The question raised by the instant case is clearly distinguishable.”

In 1977, some 23 years after the Court decided Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., the U.S. Supreme Court decided Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977), the high Court held that:
Although Congress simplified the definition of gross income in 61 of the 1954 Code, it did not intend thereby to narrow the scope of that concept. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., supra, at 432, and n. 11; H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., A18 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 168 (1954).

Footnote #13: The House and Senate Report ( i.e. H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83rd Cong, 2d Sess, A18 (1954; S.Rep No. 1622 83rd cong. 2d Sess., 168 (1954), states that: “[Section 61] corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a).”

In Kowalski, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court ... {was] concerned [with] the

federal income tax and the issue of what was income. Central Illinois Public Service v.

United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978). While section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a) it certainly is no broader than 61(a). The Judges of today’s courts have made section 61(a) broader than section 22(a) by equating wages with income and then laying the income tax on the wages rather laying the tax on the income that is derived from the wages. Neither ssection 22(a) nor it's progeny, 61(a) authorizes an income tax on
the wages, but rather only the income that is derived from those wages. That is what section 22(a) provides for and section 61(a) did not change that statutory provision. That is the full measure of the taxing power of 61(a).
If one argues that , except for Governmental employees, wages cannot be taxed as income, then the argument that the Government imputes to the “Tax Protestor” is that the wage earner does not want to pay his “fair share”.
First, lets make it abundantly clear in this article that we are not dealing with the concept of the presence fair share or the absence of it. We are dealing with ones “legal share”

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 11:08 AM  

hk,

Here you go....

TP's know the law and how the courts have determined every single one of their arguments to be frivolous.

So why do you blindly cling to discredited arguments?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 11:10 AM  

"What power does Judge Dawson have to tell Irwin he is not to dscuss this case on the blogs?"

Did anyone in the courtroom actually hear the judge say this?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:32 AM  

Hahahaha, "Anonymous said...
Dr. Harvey wasn't a twice-convicted felon." 10/13/2005 12:00 PM

Ahh be was considered a Quack, a kook, a scam artist and all those two bit names you call Irwin and people like YOU did so and YET he was correct? hmmmm

What does that say about YOU!!!!CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:34 AM  

An Open letter:
INCOME IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTTER OF THE TAX!

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

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

-The language in 26 USC 1 states, “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual, every head of household, etc…”
Taxable income is the subject matter of the above sentence, but it IS NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation, since INCOME is only the MEASURE of the tax, and NOT the subject matter of the tax and income cannot include inalienable rights excluded by law from taxation.
- Individual is NOT and cannot be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation on taxable income since capitation taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- Property, real or personal, in NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation since property taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- The common business callings of life, the property which every man has is own labor is NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of taxation since eh inalienable rights of contract, our labor being our property, and the fruits thereof our property are excluded by law from being tax and would also be subject to apportionment or capitation.

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

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

Subject matter can confuse one so let’s see what the Congressional Research Service said, ya know the Very CRS the prosecution used…
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, the y 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? Finally we have agreement amongst all who read these blogs! Who can dispute the CRS, for that would ruin the prosecution and who can dispute the CRS for it would render Irwin wrong. OUR AGREEMENT - 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 foretasted excerpt of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount.”
So there you have it. The question before you is : Name the Privilege that the individual personal 1040 income tax is upon as measured by the income produced from that privilege and do so with cite from 1. court case, 2. IRS, 3. Department of Treasury, 4. Congress!
Failure to answer will mean that those who constantly throw quips and one-liners, the Bruckner types, the Reasonable Guy types, are either incapable or do possess the issues as stated above with regard to their mother etc…
* ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION * ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION * CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:35 AM  

Good, Walter Carver, you know some of Schiff’s materials and others. I purchased his Freedom Package 4 ½ years ago and from that I learned more on the Internet by doing my own research. But the truth comes out when the government covers up all this and says it is irrelevant. When does a statute or Supreme Court case become irrelevant? Well, when the corrupt government says it does! Can’t you remember history and the Boston Tea Party? Maybe we will have the Irwin Schiff retirement party when Irwin gets convicted, as that may be the only thing for us to get aroused and take our own actions to Congress. That could happen as the jurors could be threatened as saying; they cannot leave until they find Schiff guilty or else they may be prosecuted themselves for assisting a known felon.

I have the experience to know that you do not have to have ANY earnings or money coming in to be liable for the ‘income’ tax and pay it. I received a letter the California Franchise Tax Board in which they said; “The courts have consistently upheld the estimation of federal income tax liabilities by the use of United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Consumer Price Index.” And if you did NOT work, estimate what you should be making, and pay the tax then they would. This was confirmed when I met with their representative at a hearing, and she said the same thing. How can anyone pay a tax for which they had NO earnings? That is worse than slavery, that utter ownership of you is by the government. In the past the State did not own slaves, only people owned slaves. If I lost my job making $100,000 and could not work for a few years, then I would still have to pay the tax as that is what I SHOULD be making regardless of if I had any income. So therefore you do not have to be liable to be prosecuted and convicted like Schiff could be.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/13/2005 11:50 AM  

How can the trial end today. Aren't Cindy or Larry going to put on any defense at all?

This is bad.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:51 AM  

CJ,

The courts have already ruled on the many TP arguments and they have been ruled as frivolous.

I simply want to know why you still cling to them and what is your plan to change the law when every argument you have tried has lost?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 11:54 AM  

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!

Where's the answer? Your all very quick to quip and toss two bit one liners into the ring, show your stuff! CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 11:57 AM  

Reasonable Guy has PROVEN that he is unable to name the privilege as stated in CRS that the income tax is based upon.

For your edification {Guy" there an equal number of court rulings that state issues that you say "I cling to." So since you cannot bring forth an answer, on point, as challenged, what does that say of you and your inablilibty and blindness?
FURTHERMORE
Answer the question on point and not with a question about why I do or don't do something. You don't know me. I may or may not file, traditional, zero or otherwise. That is not the game.

I cling to truth as does a vine to a trellis. What are you clinging to?

So answer the question and when you can we are all enlightened by you and when you can't you may too become enlightened by your own humility and learn to cling to truth as well!

I await, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:22 PM  

"How can the trial end today. Aren't Cindy or Larry going to put on any defense at all?"

Honest Question: What defense do they have, other than that they relied on Irwin?

It is entirely possible that the jury will find Irwin to be "delusional" and thus, perversely, qualified for the Cheek defense which would allow him to escape conviction even if he is wrong, but then hold that the Cindy's and Larry's reliance on Irwin was not reasonable under Cheek because he is crazy. Thus, Cindy and Larry could go to prison, even if Irwin himself avoided doing so.

If you think that this result would be crazy, it is not too much different than what happened in the Thompson and Banister trials, where the court ruled that Banister was privileged to help file a "protest return" and thus was acquitted, but that Thompson did not reasonably rely on Banister, and thus Thompson will be in jail through 2011.

Again, what defense did you expect Cindy and Larry to put on, keeping in mind that the judge has NOT restricted them anywhere as much in their defense as he did Irwin who is defending himself (a mistake, since he had more than enough money and time to hire a really good lawyer before trial).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:22 PM  

I feel extra kind and generous today so I'll make it even easier "Reasonable Guy" and I hope you are reasonable. Please also do not take my response to you as disrespect for you made attempt, no matter the lack of data.

Since you seem to "cling" to decided court cases...it should be easy to cite the case wherein the privilege as stated by Congress and CRS is identified.

Now that is easy don't you think?
CJ

I have my own theories but no conclusions. I'll share with you my concept, if you wish, but only after you resign from the game above. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:27 PM  

This trial may be a sham, as Judge Dawson may have never taken his oath of office. I did some searching and found this site, but it will be up to those that have access, and even Schiff to confront Judge Dawson, to get this information. The following is the link and some of the info that was listed. Check it out for yourself.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax-unmoderated/message/16088

Subject:
legal defects confirmed in 2 of 4 credentials required of Kent J.
Dawson, USDC/Las Vegas

Summary: DOJ has provided photocopies of all 4 credentials
required by law of Kent J. Dawson. However, 2 of those 4 credentials
are evidently witnessed by Lloyd D. George, who has failed to produce
or otherwise exhibit his APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT or OATH OF OFFICE,
and the Clerk of Court has refused to produce or exhibit either.

The Clerk of Court is the designated legal custodian of the
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3331. Therefore,
there are legal defects in Kent J. Dawson's APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT
and OATH OF OFFICE, because Lloyd D. George is still lacking
both Oaths of Office required of him.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/13/2005 12:31 PM  

CJ, aka Dale,

Debating frivolous arguments in this venue is not going to change court opinion.

I suggest you take your questions to tax court where you will be educated in a more meaningful way.

I ask only about your motivation in rehashing frivolous arguments and what you intent to accomplish without a plan to change the law.

It is a simple question, can you answer it?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 12:33 PM  

Vivian, I, too, have been praying for Irwin Schiff and his trial, that Irwin would be allowed to actually present a defense because, were he to be allowed, he would win. However, for reasons known only to the ETERNAL, this has not happened. The witnesses were allowed to only testify as to character, that they thought Irwin to be a nice man. No law or any evidence of substance was allowed by the judge. We can all see the hand writing on the wall, can we not? There is NO WAY IN THIS WORLD the so called judge is going to allow the truth to be presented. You know the methods the judge has used to prevent any defense so I shall not list them again. The INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WILL INSURE CONVICTION. All I can say is, I am so sorry to be an observer of the travisty of our supposedly honest court and judicial system. Why even have a trial? Just have sentencing. The trials
are nothing but an attempt to make believe there might be justice. I am sick to my stomach.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:40 PM  

Wrong again "Guy" CJ is not Dale and Dale is not, to the best of my knowledge, CJ. I don't know Dale and never heard of him prior to my first log on this blog only a short time ago.

Your second point of error is to say that my "arguement" is "frivolous." This is a two part error. 1. I am not argueing anything. I am simply asking those who proclaim that anyone who has a question with regard to taxation is a "koolaide" drinking, wacko. T.P. etc... and certainly my question does not qualify as arguement. I simply stated, from what the court used in the current trial (CRS) and from Congress and asked the question and hope it forthcoming without arguement! 2. Now you have also proclaimed my QUESTION improperly termed as "arguement," as "frivolous." By what authority do you do so? Did you cite the case wherein the exact cause and nature of my question was found to be frivolous?
NOW
to answer you "simple question."
My motivation is to find the answer to my question as stated clearly above.
I answered you, can or will you answer me? CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:46 PM  

Intent of Congress

The legislative intent of Congress is to be derived from the language and structure of the statute itself, if possible.”” United States v. Lanier , 520 U.S. 259, 268 n. 6 (1997); see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 486 (1996). As such, ““[s]tatutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.”” Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc ., 469 U.S. 189, 194 (1985); see also BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States , 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (this inquiry requires the court to ““begin[ ] with the statutory text, and end[ ] there as well if the text is unambiguous.””). In this regard, the Supreme Court has instructed that ““[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.”” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. , 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997); see also Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Dimension Fin. Corp. , 474 U.S. 361, 373-74 (1986). These principles have been applied by courts construing various excise taxes. See, e.g., American Bankers Ins. Group v. United States , 408 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11 Cir. 2005); Pittway Corp. v. United States , 102 F.3d th 932, 934-35 (7 th Cir. 1996); American Online, Inc. v. United States , 64 Fed. Cl. 571, 577 (2005). And they have been invoked by courts construing the very parachute provisions in question. See, e.g., Cline , 34 F.3d at 486 (““The language of the statute is the best starting point.””); Iowa 80 Group. Inc. v. IRS, 406 F.3d 950 (CA8, 2005) ("Our objective in interpreting a federal statute is to give effect to the intent of Congress.").

Statutory Interpretation
Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438, 119 S.Ct. 755, 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999). When interpreting a statute, the Court "give[s] the words of a statute their 'ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,' absent an indication Congress intended them to bear some different import." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (quoting Walters v. Metropolitan Educ. Enters., Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 207, 117 S.Ct. 660, 136 L.Ed.2d 644 (1997)). "We must first 'determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.' " Clary v. United States, 333 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997)). If the statute is unambiguous, the court's inquiry ends; the court must enforce the congressional intent embodied in that plain wording. Chamber lain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178, 1192 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Clark, 454 U.S. 555, 560, 102 S.Ct. 805, 70 L.Ed.2d 768 (1982)). " 'Policy considerations cannot override our interpretation of the text and structure of [a statute], except to the extent that they may help to show that adherence to the text and structure would lead to a result so bizarre that Congress could not have intended it.' " Id . (quoting Cent. Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Baak, N.A. , 511 U.S. 1 64, 188, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994)).
In the case of Greene v. United States, 62 Fed Cl 418, (Fed Cl 2004), the Court held that:
"If legislative history is to be considered, it is preferable to consult the documents prepared by Congress when deliberating." Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 580, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995). "[T]he authoritative source for finding the Legislature's intent lies in the Committee Reports on the bill, which 'represen[t] the considered and collective understanding of those Congressmen involved in drafting and studying proposed legislation.' " Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76, 105 S.Ct. 479, 83 L.Ed.2d 472 (1984) (quoting Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186, 90 S.Ct. 314, 24 L.Ed.2d 345 (1969)). " '[T]he fears and doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the construction of legislation' " because of the likelihood that those in opposi tion tend to overstate the reach of the bill in question. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 196, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998) (quoting Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U.S. 384, 394, 71 S.Ct. 745, 95 L.Ed. 1035 (1951)). Moreover, statements by individual legislators should not be given controlling weight, although such statements may evidence congressional intent when consistent with statutory language and other pieces of legislative history. Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 263, 106 S.Ct. 1834, 90 L.Ed.2d 248 (1986) (citing Grove City Colt v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 567, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984)).

The IRS 's construction of the section 61 ( 26 USC 61 ) which it administers is evaluated under the principles set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). If the statute speaks clearly to the precise question at issue, "that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id . at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. If, however, the statute does not directly address the precise question at issue, "the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. See also Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 217-18, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002) (applying Chevron analysis in determining lawfulness of agency's interpretation of statute

With the above legal framework of Congressional intent go back to my previous article and read section 22(a) of the 1939 code, together with section 61(a) of the 1954 code and the above cited Congressional intent regarding these two sections. From this when taken together, it is clear that it is not wages that can be taxed as income but rather it is only the income that is derived from the wages that an income tax can legally be laid upon. Good luck and may God bless all.

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 12:49 PM  

CJ said - The courts have already ruled on the many TP arguments and they have been ruled as frivolous.

Yes, Anybody familiar with the issues knows this. Why do people keep bringing it up? Do you expect somebody to say, "Oh, thanks, the judges disagree huh? Well, i guess that's the end of it."

I simply want to know why you still cling to them and what is your plan to change the law when every argument you have tried has lost?

Again, I guess your suggestion is just to listen to judges and go home, yes? They have spoken, end of story? Your advice then to people who feel they have been wronged is to just go away?

The issue is not to change the law but how it is enforced by the courts. Tell me, would you derive some kind of pleasure from seeing Irwin convicted? I get the impression that you want to continue paying income taxes and anything that threatens that is not good. Am I correct in this assumption? I am just curious as to why you are here.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 12:53 PM  

CJ, aka Dale,

You are too close is style so there you are, in the same boat. Sink or swim by your delusions, your choice.

You didn't answer my question and I take it by your non-answer that you get your kicks from spreading mis-information and don't care if what you do in this venue has no impact on the court system.

Surprise me and be the first on this blog to actually propose a workable plan to eliminate the personal income tax and explain how you will sell this to the American people with either offsetting taxes elsewhere or budget cuts to make up the revenue shortfall. I expect you know that 43% of FY '04 revenue came from personal income taxes.

OK Hotshot, your turn. Will you evade or shoot straight?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 12:59 PM  

America's Corrupt Legal System - Danger to Visitors, Travellers as Well as USA Residents
by Dr Les Sachs

(This article may be freely reproduced and republished in full by anyone, anywhere.)

The tragic reality of the world's biggest corrupt legal system -

America's rigged courts, bribed judges, fake and phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag.

Why USA "justice" is not like in Hollywood movies, and why YOU could be the next victim on USA territory - innocent and sent to prison, or strapped to a table and put to death; or robbed of your life savings by American lawyers.

Why YOU can be tortured, have your freedom and rights taken away, and why people in America are afraid to help you, or even tell what happened to you.


The recent pattern of American violations of international law are ultimately based in the corruption of the USA domestic legal system. Phony USA courts are very dangerous even for travellers and visitors to America, who can easily wind up among the USA's more than 2 million prisoners, or lose all their family's possessions to corrupt American lawyers.

Read rest of article at: http://bannedinamerica.blogspot.com/

By Blogger wolfgangsmutz, at 10/13/2005 1:02 PM  

To: Erik Herrlein
Please do not attribute to me CJ statements that are not MINE and that did not come direct from ME. I hope you find that you mis-read and/or misunderstood the post, as can happen due to the anonymous thing for I am not a blogger nor intend to be one.

I NEVER made the statement you attribute to ME (CJ) IF it is contained in any of my posts it was a only a reference to what someone else said to, about or against me or against certain fact.

I did not make that statement!

It is my sincere belief that you mistook "Reasonable Guy" for CJ as "Reasonable Guy" did IN FACT make the statements you quoted.

thank you for seeing your error. I screwed up last night in much the same manner...can happen.
Respectfully, CJ
p.s. I am not Dale!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 1:04 PM  

CJ said - thank you for seeing your error. I screwed up last night in much the same manner...can happen.

Yes, I apologize if I incorrectly attributed a quote to you. There are many "Anonymous" postings here and without a name at the begining of the thread, it's hard to keep track. You can chose the "other" identity and supply a name to help clarify posts if you don't intend to register.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 1:17 PM  

"Frank Buckner, post something intelligent for once or spare us the endless drivel of b.s. "

Well, considering the crowd that reads this, I figured that "BS" was something you were extremely familiar with. I mean, you follow "Erwin" "Irvin" Schiff, don't you? Intelligent? Again, same response.

Were any of those words to much for you to pronounce? Just sound them out and you'll be ok.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 1:19 PM  

"The law is supposed to be simple so someone with an IQ of 70 can understand."

Why should the law be dumbed down so that the stupid TPs can understand it?

This is like saying that because you can't understand how your electronic ignition works, you shouldn't drive. This is why the chronic stupidity of TPs is so amusing to everybody else.


The above was the most Content Free post I've yet!!! Now that you are on the wrong bus are you going to take it all the way to the end to the schedule.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 1:26 PM  

Tell me Frank Buckner, what do you have to gain by seeing Mr. Schiff convicted? I understand that you do not agree with him, but why do you show such a high level of malice towards him and people posting here? Why are you concerning yourself with this issue at all, I mean, why do you care what happens to this case?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 1:29 PM  

Thanks Erik, I didn't know about the "other".
See folks, when people work together questions are answered and issues resolved. CJ

OK time to step up, work together and answer the question posed in INCOME IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER. The question is real and for anyone, not just those that call Irwin names.

I mean are not we all seeking the truth and proof? If you don't have the proof and this court doesn't state it, then doesn't that matter to everyone? CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/13/2005 1:32 PM  

Response to the constitutionalist's post:

Good one!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 1:37 PM  

I will now review for you the Hatter v. U.S. cases. This case started around 1989 with Terry Hatter a U.S. District Court judge in the southern District of California. These Hatter court cases that started in the year 1989 continued on for over ten (10) years. These cases involved the Federal Judges suing the U.S. government, the Judges employer, all over Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, 26 USC 3121(a), 3121(b)(5(E) and 42 USC 42 USC 410(a)(5)(E).
There are now two classes of Federal Judges. The Federal Judges who were appointed by Congress before 1983 and 1984 do not have to pay the tax imposed under these sections. The Federal Judges who were appointed after 1983 and 1984 do have to pay these taxes imposed under these sections. As time passes and these pre 1983 and pre 1984 Federal Judges die off and are replaced, the post 1983 and post 1984 Federal Judges will not have to pay the income taxes imposed under the above sections. Why? Because the post 1983 and post 1984 Federal Judges would have come into office after passage of the 1983 and 1984 taxes. Hence, no violation of Article III, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution. Congress is sticking it to the Federal Judges and the Federal Judges are sticking it to the "tax protestors."
Now, if, as the IRS now says, that wages is income under section 22(a), now 26 USC 61, then why did Congress have to amend section 22(a), again now 26 USC 61, to include the salaries of Federal Judges as income under that statutory provision????? Because of Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
From this change in the statute of section 22(a) of the 1939 code to the same statute under the code of 1954 ( the current section) that statute being currently section 61, it is clear that wages of Federal Judges are now included in income. But if, again as the IRS says, that wages were always taxable as income rather than only the income that is derived from wages, then why did Congress have to pass this legislation to equate Federal Judges salaries with that of income? I submit that they had to do this in order to move us citizens closer to re-defining what could be taxed; that is, now that the Federal Judges salaries is taxed as income rather than the Federal Judges salaries only being taxed if and only if any income is derived from their salaries, then this apparent unequal application of the tax laws would provoke the Federal Judges to incorrectly interpret this statute to include all wages as income. This they have now done. But it is only the lower Federal Courts who have done this.The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected, in Commissioner V. Glenshaw Glass Co, the argument that wages can be taxed as income. They held that it is only the income that is derived from the wages that can be taxed without following the rule of apportionment. If wages are to be taxed then the tax laid directly upon those wages has to first be apportioned. This would pass constitutional muster; i.e. an apportioned tax laid directly upon wages.
Congress has said that wages cannot be taxed as income. The U.S. supreme court has held the same by showing that under section 22(a) it was only the income that is derived from the wages that can be taxed as income and that wages cannot. Yet the lower courts continue to rule otherwise Hence, the lower courts are legislating.
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and house of Representatives.
In the case of Florida hospital Trust Fund v. C.I.R., 71 F.3d 808, 813 (CA11, 1996) the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that:
It is not the role or power of the judiciary to remedy a legislative statute by opinion. [10] As the Supreme Court stated in HCSC-Laundry, at 8, 101 S.Ct. at 840, "Congress easily can change the statute whenever it is so inclined."
Citing HSCS-Laundry v. U.S., 450 U.S. 1, 4, 101 S.Ct. 836, 840, ___ L.Ed. ___ ( ) (#80-338).
In the same case, the Eleventh circuit Court held, in footnote #10, that;
We have great respect for Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that confers the power to legislate upon the men and women of Congress. It doesn't confer that power upon us, the judiciary, and it is inappropriate to patronize Congress by noting their imperfect work and quietly correcting it. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. United States, 37 F.3d 321, 324 (7th Cir.1994) (Hill, J., dissenting dubitante ). The judiciary should neither assume the responsibility nor usurp authority not delegated to it. Roberts v. Austin, 632 F.2d 1202, 1215 (5th Cir.1980) (Hill, J., concurring specially), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 975 , 102 S.Ct. 527, 70 L.Ed.2d 395 (1981).
What is the point inciting this case? It shows that Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution does not confer power upon the judiciary to hold that wages can be taxed as income when the U.S. Congress has said otherwise because to do so would mean that the Judiciary is legislating. Yet, the Judiciary is legislating when they hold that wages can be taxed as income. Hence, the Judiciary is sitting in violation of Article I, section every time they hold that wages can be taxed as income.

If those who are taking the litigation position that wages cannot be taxed as income but can be taxed if apportioned would do great monetary damage to the judicial salaries for many reasons. First, the judges would lose all of their exemptions, allowances and deductions if the tax on wages and salaries were taxed by apportionment rather than as income. Second, the primary reason why lawyers seek a judgeship is because of power. It is this lust for power, at the expense of and in contrast to the loss of huge sums of monies as private lawyers, that is the motivating engine that drives these judges to take the positions that are being reflected in the Schiff case. The greatest aphrodisiac known to man is not money, sex, etc, but rather POWER. In the Hatter cases, id, the federal judges expanded their power by showing the IRS that they, the federal judges are subject to the income tax laws that they are throwing patriots in the jails and prisons. Finally, the IRS withheld on the average $2,000.00 from the judges salaries in the Hatter cases. The Federal judges did not have to file a claim for refund, because they sued the IRS under the Taking
They, the Federal Judges, have the power – not the lawful power – but the usurped power - to rewrite the legislation to equate wages with income and the shuffling of the wording of section 22(a) of the 1939 code to now section 61(a) of the 1954 code enhances and aids in this unlawful deception.. That is precisely what they have done. Now do you see why Federal Judges now equate your non Federal Judge’s salaries and wages as income? That right – if we have to pay, the Federal Judges say, then you have to pay. If you had this power and you were a Federal Judge wouldn’t you want to do the same? Power is the greatest aphrodisiac known to man.

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 2:03 PM  

One of the federal Prosecutors made a comment on these blogs asking anyone to explain how the tax system could be improved. So here is their answer!!
The simplest system to tax all the people THAT WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL is a national sales tax. The reason the government does not want to do that is when a citizen went to buy a car and the tax was $12,000.00 then he would ask, "What the holy hell are you clowns spending my money on?"
Opps, no more pork projects! No more raises for Congress passed in the middle of the night. No more paying of IRS agents or Federal Prosecutors to illegally prosecute people who tell the truth. Now wouldn't it be a shame if those soulless people had to get a real job?

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 2:07 PM  

A National Sales Tax sounds good to me, since (1) I would pay less tax than I do now, and (2) it will be a much harder tax for TPs to avoid, and so they will end up paying a lot more than they do now.

So power to the National Sales Tax, and thank you for supporting it, suckers!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 2:19 PM  

[Un] Reasonable Guy said...

CJ, aka Dale,

Wrong.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman (NOT CJ), at 10/13/2005 2:20 PM  

in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue,{even though the world was flat!}and he'd fall and die.
Proir the 1950's,"NO way will man EVER get to outerspace!little on walk on the moon!"
Remeber when you were young,and your parents told you not to go beyond a certian boundry or the "Boogie Man" will get you?
We are people who get intimidated easily{The IRS will take all of your property&goods if you fail to pay}until those handfull of individuals stand up and assert themselves to debunk the falsehoods and injustices put before us.
IT would appear that there are Court Decisions to support both sides of the "TAX LAW" so why not proceed forth and find the "loopholes"against the income tax,and prove it's unconstitutional?? WE WILL PREVAIL!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 2:28 PM  

CJ challenged:

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, I'm taking those words as my own. You said it well, concise, and to the point.

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!

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/13/2005 2:28 PM  

CJ and Dale,

If you are two different people, that's great. Maybe one of you will attempt an answer to the end game question. TP's hate it when I cut to the chase.

"Surprise me and be the first on this blog to actually propose a workable plan to eliminate the personal income tax and explain how you will sell this to the American people with either offsetting taxes elsewhere or budget cuts to make up the revenue shortfall. I expect you know that 43% of FY '04 revenue came from personal income taxes."

Or maybe they really are tax cheats and think the personal income tax applies to everyone else who isn't as smart as they obvously are.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 2:31 PM  

Above I talk about the Hatter v. U.S. cases. I am now going to add the citations to those cases so that those case can be reviewed by anybbody who wishes to do so. But First I would like to make an observation about the Hatter cases, the IRS and the Paatroits.
While the Federal Judges were suing the IRS for violations of the Judges Article III and 5th Amendment provisions in extracting what the Federal judges believed to be an illegal federal income tax, the same Federal judges were locking Patroits up for attempting to advance the same arguments. Now to the Hatter cases.
Hatter I was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit., United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S. Ct. 1782, 149 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2001) (Hatter IX). The history of this case involves nine decisions: Hatter v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 786 (1990) (Hatter I), Hatter v. United States, 953 F.2d 626 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Hatter II) (on remand 8 more federal judges joined the lawsuit), Hatter v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 436 (1994) (Hatter III), Hatter v. United States, 64 F.3d 647 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Hatter IV), Hatter v. United States, 519 U.S. 801, 136 L. Ed. 2d 3, 117 S. Ct. 39 (1996) (Hatter V), Hatter v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 166 (1997) (Hatter VI), Hatter v. United States, 185 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) [*2] (Hatter VII), Hatter v. United States, 203 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Hatter VIII), and United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S. Ct. 1782, 149 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2001) (Hatter IX). On remand , case was remanded to determine damages to the Federal Judges arising from the unconsitutional imposition of the Social Security tax. The federal circuit Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims to determine damages to the federal judges arising from the unconstitutional imposition of the Social Security tax, consistent with opinion of the Supreme court. Hatter v. U.S., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24126,*;21 Fed. Appx. 928; 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6552;Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH) P16,641B (Fed. Cir., Oct. 26, 2001) (Hatter X). On remand to the United states Court of Federal Claims the Court that held in 1994 that the Judges complaint had to be dismissed because the judges had not first filed a tax claim for refund with the IRS now had to enter judgment refunding the monies to the federal judges and all without having to file a tax claim with the IRS. The United States Court of Federal Claims ordered the following Social Security taxes to be refunded to the federal judges by the United States: Judge Beer $62, 968.68. (Docket entry # 75); Judge Owens, $48, 706.96; Judge Hatter, $71,993.97 (doc. #82); Judge Bowen, $46, 759.19;

By Blogger Walter Carver, at 10/13/2005 2:38 PM  

Anonymous said - A National Sales Tax sounds good to me, since (1) I would pay less tax than I do now, and (2) it will be a much harder tax for TPs to avoid, and so they will end up paying a lot more than they do now.

Am I correct in understanding that your main greivance against people who challenge the IRS, is that they are trying to get out of paying taxes and leaving you behind?

Don't you understand that if Mr. Schiff wins and the laws are enforced fairly, you will benefit as well? And changes that come about would benefit all Americans, not just those bringing about the changes. Are you against fair implementation of the laws and are pro income tax?

People are trying to defend their rights and standing up for themselves but it seems like you would be happier if everybody just shut up and paid an unfair tax because you feel that you have to. Put another way, as long as everybody is unhappy with income taxes, that is okay, but you are against anybody actually trying to do something about it.

Mr. Schiff is not trying to make special laws that apply only to him but get equal, fair and just laws that apply to everybody. Why you would not want that, I don't understand.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 2:39 PM  

Reasonable guy said,

"Surprise me and be the first on this blog to actually propose a workable plan to eliminate the personal income tax and explain how you will sell this to the American people with either offsetting taxes elsewhere or budget cuts to make up the revenue shortfall. I expect you know that 43% of FY '04 revenue came from personal income taxes".

Where does one find a drug to make one so delusional?

There's been a plan all along, it's called indirect taxes and could easily fund this government and is clearly definded in the Constitution. It is important that the American people rediscover the distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes because the Constitution lays down different provisions regarding how each is to be lawfully levied. The Federal Government(with the help of a perfidiuos Federal judiciary)now completely disregards these constitutional distinctions and is, therefore, able to collect taxes in a blantantly illegal manner. Of course this pitiful overbloated beaurocratic government wastes so much that they actually have people believing that income tax money is needed to run the country. If we gave those idiots every dollar we make (which I'm sure they're trying to do)they still would be mismanaging it and be broke. Funny, the government can fund the rest of the world with the people's money, but they just can't seem to manage their own finances. I thought all that money we put into the War On Drugs(horrible failure and big waste of money, oh, but it does pay for a lot of government jobs)would keep delusional drugs out of the country; this is apparently not the case and makes one anything but a reasonable guy! Sheeple and blind patriotism are the biggest threat in this country today.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 2:46 PM  

Anon 10/13/2005 3:46 PM,

We are all waiting for your forthcoming plan in "indirect taxation". Do you even have a plan? Is there a website that contains this "plan"?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 2:50 PM  

I'm not CJ or Dale, but here is your answer:

"Enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives: Effective immediately. Section A of the Internal Revenue Code is repealed."

as for selling it to the American people - are you kidding me?

no offsetting taxes are required because the income to the government from the so-called "income tax" goes to offset the principal and interest on the bogus "national debt".

and, while I'm typing, let's just eliminate the federal reserve at the same time. why borrow back from them the same money that is printed at the federal bureau of engraving!

and, who says that a national sales tax is constitutional? by which provision of the constitution and how?

By Anonymous hank, at 10/13/2005 2:52 PM  

Consumption tax a la Great Britian, early 19th Century. Current H.R. 25 for Fair Tax system to replace current progressive (direct) income tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 2:53 PM  

I have a question. For the sake of an analogy, let's say that the object of the tax in question was "pies". If the Internal Revenue Code defined pies as "All pies from whatever sources derived, including but not limited to: apples, cherries, bananas, blueberries, etc. etc." would a person who had cherries or apples or bananas have to pay the "pie" tax? or would they have to make a pie first?

By Blogger Dee, at 10/13/2005 2:55 PM  

reasonable guy said - Or maybe they really are tax cheats and think the personal income tax applies to everyone else who isn't as smart as they obvously are.

I'm going to make a generalized statement and say that I don't think that anybody who has challenged the IRS ever intended to get a favorable outcome that applied only to them. Just because you don't agree with their position doesn't mean they would not want all Americans to benefit from their actions.

You call them tax cheats to imply that they want something for nothing and to take something away from you. This is not like a co-worker trying to get free coffee at work but you have to pay for yours.

If that co-worker goes to the boss and makes his claim for free coffee, better working conditions or more vacation time for everybody, would you make derogatory statements about them and call them a "cheater"? If that person was unsuccessfull with his claim, would you call him names for trying?

Yet people call others "tax cheaters" and somehow don't understand that the very people they make fun of are trying to create a fair and just system that benefits everybody. I don't see why you would want to impede somebody from possibly accomplishing a good thing that you would benefit from.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 3:00 PM  

Having something doesn't generate income. The pie vendor who sold the pies commercially would owe tax on any taxable income.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 3:02 PM  

So the Constitutionalist thinks people are too stupid to look at their tax returns to see how much tax they paid for the year. That's not surprising. The tax dishonesty movement relies on people being too stupid to see through the word games it plays.

Equally interesting is that the paytriots in the tax dishonesty movement claim to stand for the rights of the individual, but don't believe that most Americans are individuals.

By Anonymous Steve B., at 10/13/2005 3:06 PM  

you should read the law: "All pies from whatever sources derived, including but not limited to: apples, cherries, bananas, blueberries, etc. etc." I've searched, and I've searched, but I can't seem to find the word "income" in there at all! kinda like "liability" don't you think?

By Anonymous hank, at 10/13/2005 3:08 PM  

dee said - would a person who had cherries or apples or bananas have to pay the "pie" tax? or would they have to make a pie first?

That is where the question of liability comes in. Is the pie tax a tax on the baking of pies? The selling of pies? Some act needs to occur for a person to be liable for the pie tax and this act needs to be written down.

Replace "pies" with "wine" and you have your answer. People who distill wine are liable to pay a liquor tax.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 3:08 PM  

reasonable guy said - We are all waiting for your forthcoming plan in "indirect taxation". Do you even have a plan? Is there a website that contains this "plan"?

If there was an alternative plan to the current income tax, would you be open to it or is the point you are trying to make that the current enforcement of the income tax is just fine because an alternative, fully laid out plan is not provided for you?

I'm trying to figure out if you agree with Mr Schiff and would be willing to entertain a more fair and just tax system.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 3:18 PM  

*****NEWS FLASH********
October 13,2005
Las Vegas, Nevada


Twice Convicted "de-tax guru" Irwin Schiff has been found guilty of all charges.

1 Count - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (GUILTY)
5 Counts - Aiding & Assisting in the Filing of False Fed Inc Tax Returns (GUILTY)
1 Count - Tax Evasion (GUILTY
6 Counts - Filing False Income Tax Returns (GUILTY

Considering the number of lives of innocent dupes he's destroyed, hopefully he'll die in prison

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 3:22 PM  

I humbly thank you Dale and know that anything I post is free to all who have the freedom of mind with which to discern.

I thought a purpose of this blog was to share, examine, relate, question, answer besides just one liner quips and name calling, so I brought something to the table as per the CRS, used by the prosecution and Congress. IF CRS is wrong, then the prosecution is wrong and Irwin is right. If CRS is correct than the prosecution and judge had better provide the answer for, at very least, their next case will indeed ask the question.

As for Irwin – “Your Honor, the IRS/DOJ/Judge have failed a proof of claim in this case. If they will file the supporting documentation required by Rule 3001 I will pay whatever is required.
[Proof of claim is something like: (Breach of contract. Negligence. Fraud. Slander. Statutory violation.] Proof of Claim is not case precedent, as those who print tons of irrelevant lower court cases on this post would have you believe. Besides it every man for himself…see IRC 7852 (a) Now IF the defectors from truth want to cite Supreme Court decisions, those work! I remain a clinging vine to truth. Still awaitning the answer - CJ

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/13/2005 3:30 PM  

Erik Heerlein said...
reasonable guy said - We are all waiting for your forthcoming plan in "indirect taxation". Do you even have a plan? Is there a website that contains this "plan"?

If there was an alternative plan to the current income tax, would you be open to it or is the point you are trying to make that the current enforcement of the income tax is just fine because an alternative, fully laid out plan is not provided for you?

I'm trying to figure out if you agree with Mr Schiff and would be willing to entertain a more fair and just tax system.

10/13/2005 4:18 PM

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

Thank you, Erik for your civil reply and question.

I would love to entertain the possibility of a more fair and just tax system. No one likes to pay taxes. I have said weeks ago on this blog that I am a libertarian.

I don't agree with Mr. Schiff because he advocates frivolous, discredited arguments for avoiding paying income taxes. I have also tried to point out the difference between legality and morality. I believe the tax system in America to be legal. I do not believe it moral, but this distinction appears lost on most TP's.

This is why I ask for a plan to change the law. Simply rehashing frivolous arguments has not and will not change the law.

I believe in smaller government and it surprised even me to read TP's in posts prior to this advocating sales or consumption taxes to replace the income tax. As if the total tax burden was acceptable to them as long we all paid any other tax as long as it wasn't on income. How sad.

Your thoughts?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/13/2005 3:34 PM  

Of course, no tax at this point is acceptable because every proposal excepts the current out-of-control level of spending by the U.S. Federal Gvt.

The first step in any tax reform would be the call for a reduction in spending by the U.S. Gvt.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 3:40 PM  

No audioblogs from the lunch break?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 3:45 PM  

reasonable guy said: "I don't agree with Mr. Schiff because he advocates frivolous, discredited arguments for avoiding paying income taxes. I have also tried to point out the difference between legality and morality. I believe the tax system in America to be legal. I do not believe it moral, but this distinction appears lost on most TP's."

And I "CJ" have posed a question with regard to the CRS and Congress and it has not been answered by "reasonable guy" I find this somewhat unreasonable!

Think on this...the tax system was begun at nearly the same time the un-federal Federal Reserve System took over the money? Might the tax be based on the use of the private foreign based currency we use and not on us, not on goods and services but because we have the privilege of using debt currency to "dischage" our payment with limited immunity? See you can't pay for something with nothing, so you receive immunity from the store clerk for paying for something with debt!

AND

Might we be taxed on the privilege of being US Citizens, having given up our birthright when altering our status as Americans by opting for a different status wherein the Government has total jurisdiction over us in exchange for the perceived benefit of collecting Social Security some day if it isn't stolen or you live long enough, which most don't?

There are some REAL ISSUES about the PRIVILEGE. Don't you FEEL MORAL and PRIVILGED NOW?

A MORAL TAX IS AN HONEST TAX. A MORAL TAX IS ONE THAT FAVORS NO ONE OVER ANOTHER. A MORAL TAX IS DISCLOSED.

Wouldn't it be moral for the government to tell you that or if you have been defrauded by them when they had you voluntarily convert your status without letting you in on the secret?

What is moral about fraud? Note that I address issues outside of Irwin's as fraud so do not equate me with the IRC or this case. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 3:52 PM  

reasonable guy said - As if the total tax burden was acceptable to them as long we all paid any other tax as long as it wasn't on income.

I am paraphrasing here but Mr. Schiff believes the tax laws are legal as well but the enforcement of them are not and I share this view. Mr. Schiff has previously said that he is not trying to avoid paying any tax, ever, on anything. He pays sales tax, property tax, etc. because those taxes are mandated by law and are legal.

His contention is strictly with the IRS and their collection of income taxes as a matter of law. He doesn't want to pay a tax or doing anything that he doesn't have to do by law, which I think you would agree, nobody does.

That is the essence of his argument, that the income tax is not legal and it is being enforced illegally. What people confuse about his position is that he is not trying to wiggle out of paying a tax or sculpt out some special provision just for himself while everybody else pays taxes.

His objections are not to the idea of taxation in general or paying any taxes ever or the necessity of taxes and their role in government. His objections concern the legality of the income tax and not whether people pay too much or how it is used. Although, like everybody else, he does have his opinions on government spending as well. Flat tax, consumption tax, whatever it is, it needs to be conducted openly and honestly which is not how the IRS operates.

He has frequently said that he would pay the tax owed if the questions concerning legality are answered. That's his beef in a nutshell, that since 1954 after it was deemed unconstitutional the law says no one has to pay income tax (hence voluntary compliance) and it's enforcement is illegal.

Some do not want to pay any tax ever but others are protesting the legalities of the income tax, not taxation in general. The Boston Tea Party was over "taxation without representation", it was about law, not a bunch of people who didn't want to pay any taxes and were trying to cheat the system. On the contrary, the system had let them down by not giving them fair representation.

I don't know if a flat tax or consumption tax is constitutionally legal or not but if it is legal, it would be greatly preferred to what is an illegally enforced tax. So a "tax protestor" can be against the current system and for a consumption tax if it's legal. That's what they are after, fairness and lawfulness, not simply avoiding taxes in their entirety. People are generally upset about the income taxes they pay and the services they get in return so animosity is born whenever somebody is perceived as not paying their share. Mr. Schiff is not like someone collecting disability who is not disabled or running some other scam to his advantage. It's about law and fairness.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 4:30 PM  

Nicelys stated Erik.

I am waiting for the answer to my question as presented by CRS and Congress -
The question 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 10/13/2005 4:48 PM  

Tax Solution, reasonable guy asks so I deliver.
Why not a tax based in "morality" since you brought that word to the table. Corporations get to dedut nearly everything before paying on their PROFITS. The Bible says to pay 10% of your Excess to the church, (not 10 off the top),
So why not allow people to Deduct their living expenses and pay the tax as per a Corporation and The Bible?

How's that? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 5:10 PM  

What happened to the noon update?

Why didn't Cindy and Larry put on ANY defense?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 5:31 PM  

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

What the above site tell ya?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 6:05 PM  

Hey Constitutionalist!

Irwin's name is spelled IRWIN

not Erwin!

Proves you know nothing about schiff or have never read any of hi writings.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 6:15 PM  

Anonymous said - Proves you know nothing about schiff or have never read any of hi writings.

All it proves is either it is a typo or The Constitutionalist always thought it was spelled that way. If spelling was a cut and dry indication of intelligence, then you failed your own test by mispelling "his".

Let's try and keep the discussion to the case at hand and not get petty.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 6:27 PM  

Double your pleasure, double your taste. Chew Doublemint, Doublemint, Doublemint Gum.
We have a double government,one is the Three-branch Constitutional Republic,the continental United States, the other is the One-branch legislative democracy, Federal United States. Both are called the United States.(Doublemint).They have cooked the books. There are two sets of books (Laws).One is empty so to speak. The other has laws in it. The first is for non-taxpayers. The second is for taxpayers.The government wants everyone to believe they are taxpayers whether they are or not.As CJ,I believe it was he, said, we say that we are U. S. Citizens, we sign government documents that we are U.S. Citizens. When we do this,we make a contract, the Federal Government takes us at our word and treats us as if we are U.S. Citizens,Federal, not national citizens of continental United States. The laws for taxpayers then apply to us because we have said that they do.
Also, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy (Statue)..." The older, before 1938,Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy. In 1938,the Supreme Court case Eire Railroad vs Tompkins was the year the courts blended Law with Equity. The courts became Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. This happened because America was and is bankrupt. It is completely owned by its creditors. Congress, Executive, Judiciary, and all the State Governments are all owned. The courts are operating under Admiralty Jurisdiction, but they were told not to call it that. They call it Statutory Jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States mention three jurisdictions in which the courts may operate: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty or Maritime Law. Most of this information was taken from The History of American Constitutional or Common Law with Commentary Concerning Equity and Merchant Law by Dale Pond, Howard Fisher, Richard Knutson, North American Freedom Council. I bought at Amazon.com .
CJ and Dale help me if I missed anything.

By Anonymous Otis, at 10/13/2005 6:31 PM  

"The Constitutionalist"

Can anyone say KOOK, CRACKPOT, NUTCASE, LOSER, IDIOT!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 6:32 PM  

Anonymous said - Can anyone say KOOK, CRACKPOT, NUTCASE, LOSER, IDIOT!

Please explain your assertions, Anonymous. Name calling will not advance your position here. Perhaps a school yard would be more advantageous to your tactics.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 6:56 PM  

I'm wondering why there is no news of todays events at the trial. I wonder if the Judge sanctioned all the Schiff supporters and took them into immediate custody so no news would get out. It wouldn't suprise me.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 7:28 PM  

"I'm wondering why there is no news of todays events at the trial. I wonder if the Judge sanctioned all the Schiff supporters and took them into immediate custody so no news would get out. It wouldn't suprise me."

Paranoia-the-Destroya ~ The Kinks

More like Mike the Radio Rebel failed to pay his cellular bill again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 7:31 PM  

Anonymous said - More like Mike the Radio Rebel failed to pay his cellular bill again.

Why do you feel the need to be negative in this forum? Honestly, I am curious as to why someone would derive pleasure from the misfortunes of others and make snide comments. What do expect to achieve?

Do you also go out of your way to high school sporting events and cheer the player who drops the ball or laugh when someone trips and falls? I don't know what transpired in your past to make you feel that humanity would be better off if you attempted to spend your time in such a way as to denegrate your fellow man for no other reason than your own perverse enjoyment.

Whatever the reason, it does not paint you in a favorable light.

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 7:49 PM  

Hey Otis, thank you sir! CJ here.
Article 1, Clause 8, Section 17 exists because the framers needed a territory where they had jurisdiction so they could hire guards/army/police to protect them from people like those on this blog who HATE any new ideas, facts, change etc... and because there wasn't an internet to assinate people they had to protect themselves from the real thing. Also it served to protect the nation as a whole.

This article established the two nations. "The proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both" James Madison

Think of it as the United States, the geographic nation that you expressed and the...hmmm...well the State of being hovering over top as an overlay if you will. This state of being is the FICTION that they created using what sounds like your name. Look at the SS card...EVERYONE...it says it does NOT BELONG to YOU! IT is their property. What? You have it, they own it. It is a trust account set up with a name like yours but it IS NOT YOU! Get it everyone, IT IS NOT YOU, you are you. It is not a Representation of YOU for it is not ever "supposed" to be used as Identification. It identifies itself...a trust and YOU are the trustee and YOU PLEDGED TO HONOR ALL THE EVER CHANGING RULES AND REGS. and it set up your IRS account...READ the act...it says so!

Ok, enough for now...and YES OTIS, very good you are on the target and the more people who learn the whole, the entirety and not just a couple little things, the BETTER the REAL country, not the fiction, WiLL GET!
Thanks Otis, we are truth and fact seeking brothers. We are not perfect nor know-it-alls...just seekers of truth and fact and yet filled with sin just like the self-righteous ones posted herein. Peace, love and intelligence, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 7:51 PM  

Hey Otis, thank you sir! CJ here.
Article 1, Clause 8, Section 17 exists because the framers needed a territory where they had jurisdiction so they could hire guards/army/police to protect them from people like those on this blog who HATE any new ideas, facts, change etc... and because there wasn't an internet to assinate people they had to protect themselves from the real thing. Also it served to protect the nation as a whole.

This article established the two nations. "The proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both" James Madison

Think of it as the United States, the geographic nation that you expressed and the...hmmm...well the State of being hovering over top as an overlay if you will. This state of being is the FICTION that they created using what sounds like your name. Look at the SS card...EVERYONE...it says it does NOT BELONG to YOU! IT is their property. What? You have it, they own it. It is a trust account set up with a name like yours but it IS NOT YOU! Get it everyone, IT IS NOT YOU, you are you. It is not a Representation of YOU for it is not ever "supposed" to be used as Identification. It identifies itself...a trust and YOU are the trustee and YOU PLEDGED TO HONOR ALL THE EVER CHANGING RULES AND REGS. and it set up your IRS account...READ the act...it says so!

Ok, enough for now...and YES OTIS, very good you are on the target and the more people who learn the whole, the entirety and not just a couple little things, the BETTER the REAL country, not the fiction, WiLL GET!
Thanks Otis, we are truth and fact seeking brothers. We are not perfect nor know-it-alls...just seekers of truth and fact and yet filled with sin just like the self-righteous ones posted herein. Peace, love and intelligence, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 7:51 PM  

"so the news wouldn't get out"

What news? The only news that will coming out of that courtroom is guilty on all charges. That's not due to have any "inside information", it's due to have a passing familarity with reality. I realize that with TP's - reality isn't your strong suit, but reality will be smacking down the old crazy one on Monday - Guilty verdict Tuesday at the lastest.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 7:53 PM  

Otis and others, have you ever visited the www.teamlaw.org site and clicked on the L. hand side the History of this Nation or Historical Outline sections and read and looked up the docs to verify? I think only one who has posted here is unable to comprehend, that being F.B., as most others have a sense of decency at some time or other.

I bet those docs and the understanding cannot be proven wrong! Is it the entire story? No. Heck this thing is deep and weblike. Are there other issues? Yes. But one cannot go away without seeing a bit of the situation we ALL Find ourselves in today, tomorrow and maybe forever unless we seek to learn and come together and eliminate the hate, anger and game playing that serves only to prove the foolishness of some. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 8:05 PM  

Frank Buckner - What news? The only news that will coming out of that courtroom is guilty on all charges.

And then you will be able to gloat, is that your position? Why? Has Mr. Schiff harmed you in some way in the past to the point that you wish him ill will?

If you don't know him, it seems that you are taking a perverse pleasure in a stranger's misfortunes. Why the interest in seeing a guily verdict, Frank Buckner? How does this benefit you?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 8:10 PM  

So now we have a news media blackout on the blogs also? I guess the heat is gettin' too heavy for 'gubermint'.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:12 PM  

Frank Buckner - What news? The only news that will coming out of that courtroom is guilty on all charges.

And then you will be able to gloat, is that your position? Why? Has Mr. Schiff harmed you in some way in the past to the point that you wish him ill will?

If you don't know him, it seems that you are taking a perverse pleasure in a stranger's misfortunes. Why the interest in seeing a guily verdict, Frank Buckner? How does this benefit you?

___________________________________

It doesn't "benefit" me at all. My interest is in seeing a snake-oil salesman get his due. People like eastman, or "cj" or hankie, haven't the brains to come up with this patently stupid crap on their own. Schiff destroys lives and sleeps like a baby. If you really wanted to know the pathos of schiff, you'd read the 90+ page palimony suit that Cindy filed against him. That's your hero, a manipulative, self absorbed, delusional sociopath. I pity those that follow him.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 8:20 PM  

Hey Frank:

Get this, finally: Cindy's lawsuit ISN'T RELEVANT!

Also, THE GOVERNMENT destroys lives with their prosecution of innocent people who are trying to stand on their rights, not Irwin Schiff.

By Blogger The Tarquin King, at 10/13/2005 8:28 PM  

Anonymous said... "The Constitutionalist" Can anyone say KOOK, CRACKPOT, NUTCASE, LOSEER, IDIOT!
Isn't it comforting to know the federal government employees the anonymous above? He has such a vast knowledge of the English language, writing skills and imagination that all he can offer is that child like blog!

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 8:34 PM  

"So now we have a news media blackout on the blogs also? I guess the heat is gettin' too heavy for 'gubermint'."

The BlackHawk helicopters will be next!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:59 PM  

Frank Buckner said - If you really wanted to know the pathos of schiff, you'd read the 90+ page palimony suit that Cindy filed against him.

Mr Schiff's personal life and his thoughts on income tax are two separate things. I'm not familar with palimony suits but you suggest that people read it, is it available online? How did you get a copy to read? Can you send everybody a copy? And just for clarity, this is Cindy Neun, the same person in the courtroom who is a co-defendant with Irwin and is supporting him in his position, correct?

That's your hero, a manipulative, self absorbed, delusional sociopath. I pity those that follow him.

I would suggest that the quickest way for you to show others how wrong Mr. Schiff is would be to, well, show us how wrong he is. I venture to say that no one here isn't aware of what the courts think of Mr. Schiff's position and what the IRS will do so there's no need to cite another judge's opinion concerning that.

I am not disagreeing that people have gone to jail as has Mr. Schiff. But I do believe Mr. Schiff has a point about there not being a statute making anybody liable for income tax. Do you agree? Can you explain why the IRS is taking 100% of his social security when the law clearly states that they can only take 10%?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 9:01 PM  

"But I do believe Mr. Schiff has a point about there not being a statute making anybody liable for income tax."

Then why is it that no accredited legal or constitutional scholar agrees with this position, in addition to the courts consistently rejected it as ridiculous?

Is it a HUGE conspiracy spanning decades and encompassing hundreds of thousands of people, or is Irwin simply WRONG as he himself suggested at his trial that he might be (and it wouldn't be the first time for Irwin, either).

Think about it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 9:21 PM  

It doesn't "benefit" me at all. My interest is in seeing a snake-oil salesman get his due. People like eastman, or "cj" or hankie, haven't the brains to come up with this patently stupid crap on their own. Schiff destroys lives and sleeps like a baby. If you really wanted to know the pathos of schiff, you'd read the 90+ page palimony suit that Cindy filed against him. That's your hero, a manipulative, self absorbed, delusional sociopath. I pity those that follow him.

buckner.html

By Anonymous Mr. Eastman, at 10/13/2005 9:28 PM  

boy is the one above me a tired old hackneyed statement.
why don't you know-it-all, answer my question. Where is the great Frank B., and why hasn't he answered my question. SO SIMPLE so easy. I'll post it again so you can read and answer ON POINT CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/13/2005 9:28 PM  

I am not disagreeing that people have gone to jail as has Mr. Schiff. But I do believe Mr. Schiff has a point about there not being a statute making anybody liable for income tax. Do you agree? Can you explain why the IRS is taking 100% of his social security when the law clearly states that they can only take 10%?
**********************************
Actually, after the first line above, the rest is moot, isn't it?

As to his social security payments - first, the irony of a tax protester receiving SS payments is more amazing than I can find words to describe.

Second, you have Schiff and his associates word that the IRS is taking by levy 100%. I suppose if you choose to believe a criminal, that's your right.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 9:30 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 used…
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, 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? Finally we have agreement amongst all who read the blogs! Who can dispute the CRS, for that would ruin the prosecution and who can dispute the CRS for it would render Irwin wrong. OUR AGREEMENT - 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!

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION =
YOU TALK THE TALK, NOW WALK THE WALK. ANSWER IT ALL YOU HATE FILLED NAME CALLERS THAT HAVE DEFECTED FROM TRUTH. cj

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/13/2005 9:32 PM  

CJ, I put your question on Frank's page... Including the rest of the post.

buckner.html

Now you can just cite the link to Frank's page.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/13/2005 9:44 PM  

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

10/13/2005 1:44 AM

The Constitution does not require the use of the word "liable".

'[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute.

Hay Dan http://evans-legal.com/dan/welcome.html

Riddle me this :)

Define the word income. House and Senate reports define it as corporate profit. Do I as an individual earn corporate profits? Hell no, so I am not liable for the tax. Wake up and smell the roses.

Don

By Blogger Don, at 10/13/2005 10:17 PM  

Hey Anon of 11:34 pm. Show us where in the constitution the IRS has any athority to do anything. Or even show where the IRS is mentioned in the constitution.
How about this, the 1040 instruction booklet says you have to pay any tax you are liable for.
The w-4 instruction says you can claim exempt if you are not liable for the income tax. That means someone is and someone isnt liable for you stoneheads out there.
So how do you know if you are liable? Do you rely on some idiot accountant and what he thinks? Or what some voice on the the phone that you never talked to before in your life tells you? Or do you do some research and read what the law says for yourself?
Thats the whole meaning here people! People like Irwin have read the law for themselves. They understand it differently I'll give you (like Larken and Irwin) But they come to the same conclusion..THE INCOME TAX IS A SCAM!!! But the problem is government doesnt care if its not legal because they have a dependancy on that money ( not for any service mind you). This would be all over the news if it wasnt so dangerous to the governments scam

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/14/2005 12:36 AM  

Anonymous (aka coward) said:

***************************.
*****NEWS FLASH********
October 13,2005
Las Vegas, Nevada


Twice Convicted "de-tax guru" Irwin Schiff has been found guilty of all charges.

1 Count - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (GUILTY)
5 Counts - Aiding & Assisting in the Filing of False Fed Inc Tax Returns (GUILTY)
1 Count - Tax Evasion (GUILTY
6 Counts - Filing False Income Tax Returns (GUILTY

Considering the number of lives of innocent dupes he's destroyed, hopefully he'll die in prison

10/13/2005 4:22 PM
*******************************.
*******************************.

That's interesting, given that closing arguments occur Monday and the jury has not yet been instructed and given the case for deliberation.

Oh, I get it, that's what was decided in the ex-parte meeting between the court and the government prosecutors.

By Anonymous HK, at 10/14/2005 9:17 AM  

Erik Heerlein said:

* * * Can you explain why the IRS is taking 100% of his social security when the law clearly states that they can only take 10%?

10/13/2005 10:01 PM

***************************.

Tha's a good question. Keep in mind that the IRS could not illegally take 100% of Schiff's social security unless another government agency, the one that's responsible for distibuting social security to the person entitled to receive it, is also violating the law. So, there are at least two rogue government agencies involved in that illegal act.

By Anonymous HK, at 10/14/2005 9:28 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person spammed some Dan Evans crap:

"The Constitution does not require the use of the word "liable".

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. "

First, the obligatory mention that Evans' use of the term "tax protesters" begs the fundamental question at issue here (assuming he means us, and not actual tax protesters). Second, he quotes nobody. Who said the *word* "liable" is required? Quote them. I think you'll find that most of us will agree with me when I say it is the *meaning* of the word "liable" which must be explicit in the law. If that is done via other wording, fine, as long as it does make the liability clear.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person piddled:

"And back to changing brake pads for you . . ."

I love how these comments always seem to come from "Anonymous". So, can you think of anyone who (a) feels superior to productive workers and (b) does not want to be publicly identified with their own expressed opinions? Sounds a lot like a socialist conspirator, to me.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person predicted:

"You'll be amazed at how fast everybody will forget that Irwin ever existed and will move on to their next guru. Absolutely amazed."

If you are incapable of seeing the truth, and only view this situation in terms of gurus and followers, this may be a fairly good prediction. Looked at accurately, though, it is natural that others will take Irwin's place exposing the fraudulent activity of the government, until the system collapses. Truth always recruits its own proponents, if it has the opportunity.


Reasonable Guy asserted:

"Debating frivolous arguments in this venue is not going to change court opinion."

That's true by definition. Are you asserting by implication that ALL of what is being discussed here is "frivolous"? If so, you are wrong. Frivolous means not grounded in law and fact. The worst that can be said of what is (mainly) being discussed here is that various courts have DECLARED it frivolous, but those declarations have in many instances been frivolous, themselves.


Erik Heerlein said:

"reasonable guy said - Or maybe they really are tax cheats and think the personal income tax applies to everyone else who isn't as smart as they obvously are.

I'm going to make a generalized statement and say that I don't think that anybody who has challenged the IRS ever intended to get a favorable outcome that applied only to them. Just because you don't agree with their position doesn't mean they would not want all Americans to benefit from their actions.

You call them tax cheats to imply that they want something for nothing and to take something away from you. This is not like a co-worker trying to get free coffee at work but you have to pay for yours.

If that co-worker goes to the boss and makes his claim for free coffee, better working conditions or more vacation time for everybody, would you make derogatory statements about them and call them a "cheater"? If that person was unsuccessfull with his claim, would you call him names for trying?

Yet people call others "tax cheaters" and somehow don't understand that the very people they make fun of are trying to create a fair and just system that benefits everybody. I don't see why you would want to impede somebody from possibly accomplishing a good thing that you would benefit from."

(applause)

I notice none of the tyranny defenders tackled this one. Good job. :-)


Steve B. scoffed:

"So the Constitutionalist thinks people are too stupid to look at their tax returns to see how much tax they paid for the year. That's not surprising. The tax dishonesty movement relies on people being too stupid to see through the word games it plays."

Who wrote the tax code, big shot? That's the source of the word games.

Re: too stupid, if you want to argue with the factual record, that's your problem. Lurkers who want to know where such an idea actually came from will find this useful:

"There began a brutal, bare-knuckled assault on the lives and property and privacy of the American people. The withholding tax poured in more money than Beardsley Ruml (former chairman of R.H. Macy and Co. and of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) could ever have imagined, partly because government soon learned what automobile and real estate salesmen already knew--if you talk to the customer about monthly payments, never mentioning the total price, it is much easier to sell a car or a house.

In tax collections, the term 'take-home pay' entered the language, and soon it was clear the government could take in far more without serious complaint if it deducted the money before the taxpayer ever saw it. If the immense sums being collected had to be handed over in one lump sum, surely there would have been a revolt. The withholding tax allowed government to keep the rates high, Congress held on to it, an artesian well spouting cash, computers to count it and disburse it, an automatic, power-driven money machine never seen before and a true wonder of the world. With all this money theirs to spend, congressmen could buy votes and build post offices and roads and bridges and reelect themselves almost interminably. They did."

--David Brinckley (bold emphasis added)

"Equally interesting is that the paytriots in the tax dishonesty movement claim to stand for the rights of the individual, but don't believe that most Americans are individuals."

Hmmm... now what was that we just read? Oh yeah: "The tax dishonesty movement relies on people being too stupid to see through the word games it plays." The tax honesty movement in fact relies on people being NOT so stupid as to fall for word games like the one YOU just played. They will understand, when given the chance, that the word "individual" can be, and has been, given a specific meaning within federal tax law which is not identical to the colloquial meaning. The efficacy of your attack here relies on them failing to pick up that distinction.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/18/2005 11:56 PM