Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial update by Mark Yannone

13 Old Comments:

America's Magic Bullet!
(if its Citizens are are smart enough to care)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:09 PM  

"Civil servants and priests, soldiers and ballet-dancers, schoolmasters and police constables, Greek museums and Gothic steeples, civil list and services list - the common seed within which all these fabulous beings slumber in embryo is TAXATION."
Karl Marx

When asked why the IRS was refusing to answer, in writing, the Petition for Redress regarding the fraudulent origin and unlawful collection of income tax upon ordinary Americans; the response from IRS senior spokesman, Terry Lemons, gave to a New York Times reporter (David Cay Johnston), who asked Lemons, - The IRS’ was answering the Petitions through “enforcement actions.”

"Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
Joseph Stalin

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:38 PM  

This case will have a fall out long after the verdict. There are many people that new nothing of the disgraceful behavior of the government in its’ illegal collection of taxes from the American citizens. This judge has served us the tax reformist with his scandalous behavior. We can all see this is not a democracy but rather a collective dictatorship. I am now confident that the tax issue will lead to a revolution in this country. As more and more Americans discover the hoax that has caused misery to countless thousands of families by this scumbag of a government, their outrage will lead to a violent confrontation with the government. This government is worse than when the British ruled this country.
I do believe the better approach would be the Gandhi method so intent was he on not having any violence that he went on a 63 day hunger strike and through his peaceful resistance he forced the strongest nation on the earth at the time out of his country. We ourselves must resist we must get organized under one roof. We must stop the American economy in it’s’ tracks. Remember the evil we deal with is all based on the greed for the green back dollar. Let’s hit them in their pocket. Be brave and prepare to go to jail, but what ever you do cost the government money. Demand jury trials never accept plea bargains I even say this to the criminals because remember you are saints compared to the filth that is our government. Find ways to cost the government money. Don’t go out and work and pay the government for your cell, make the government pay for it. Let us as citizens start to find ways to collapse the economy. We are ten times more likely to get outside intervention through peace than through violence. Remember there are good nations out there that have the same contempt for this government as we the citizens.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:53 PM  

Let me see if I understand.

The Prosecuter/Judge says that even though there is no written law that shows liability, the Courts have ruled....

Does this mean that a citizen should not read the Tax Code but needs to read court decisions?

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

Fully Informed Jury?

Maybe the jury should be informed about all the Schiff supporters who have gone to prison.

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

"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.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:34 PM  

You TP's are funny. Why are you hung up on the word "liability"?

If that was the magic bullet for instant tax freedom, don't you think Congress would add the magic word pronto?

What other magic words does Congress need to add?


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:34 PM  

I do not believe that anyone should be working for the IRS, particularly as IRS Commissioner, if he is unable or unwilling to answer these perfectly reasonable questions, which are essential to properly administering and complying with the tax laws.)
Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If I should not use those sections to determine my taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or should not use those sections for that.

3) If I, as a U.S. citizen, receive all of my income from working within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show my income to be taxable?

4) Should I use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether my “items” of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is my domestically earned income not on that list?

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

Reasons for questions 1 and 2:

The regulations at 26 CFR § 1.861-8 begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined. Section 1.861-1(a)(1) confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (see also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c)). Cross-references under 26 USC § 61, as well as entries in the USC Index under the heading “Income Tax,” also refer to Section 861 regarding income (“gross” and “taxable”) from “sources within U.S.”

Reason for question 3:

Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from the U.S. was taxable for foreigners, and for U.S. corporations and citizens deriving most of their income from federal possessions, but did not say the same about the domestic income of other Americans. The regulations under the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which still relate only to certain types of international trade (see 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).

Reason for question 4:

The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.

Reason for question 5:

After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations list several types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), including the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations; but the list does not include the domestic income of most Americans (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).

Reason for question 6:

Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute or “fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to the types of income specifically exempted by statute, other types of income were excluded because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)). (This is also reflected in the current 26 CFR § 1.312-6.)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 10:57 PM  

Seems I read somewhere that in any Contempt of Court sentence of 180 days or more that the individual is afforded a jury trial? Correct me if I'm wrong.

By Blogger Anabelle, at 10/12/2005 11:16 PM  

Trial by Jury is trial by the people. When juries are not allowed to judge the law [they ARE by the way], it becomes trial by government. When juries are not allowed to judge the justice of the law, they cannot protect the people from the oppressions of government because, AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN, GOVERNMENT MAY AUTHORIZE ANY OPPRESSION BY LAW (or at least Color of Law).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:32 PM  

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

Don't forget to visit the web page with the scan of the letter that replied to but DID NOT ANSWER those questions.

1,200 people asked these 6 questions.
This is the non-answer given

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/12/2005 11:39 PM  

Anonymous said - Maybe the jury should be informed about all the Schiff supporters who have gone to prison.

So you are saying that nobody is ever wrongly sent to prison? That anybody who tries to stand up for their rights and loses in a court case is therefore wrong? Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., they were wrong about civil rights because they stood up for their beliefs and were sent to jail?

How about the people whose convictions are overturned years later because a witness lied or the judge excluded testimony or evidence that was later deemed crucial to the case. You never heard of a case being overturned because they were framed?

I'm not saying every Schiff supporter is innocent, but not everybody gets a fair trial either.

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

Okay, then why use it at all? You either have to use it for all of the tax laws, or none at all. If you are saying liability is pointless and meaningless, then nobody is liable for anything. You can't use it on one law and want it to mean one thing and then not use it on another law and say, "Well, it doesn't matter. It still means the same thing."

The tax is imposed in 26 USC sec. 1.

Nobody is saying that 26 USC sec. 1 does not impose the tax. The issue is defining liability, which that section does not do. Doesn't even mention the word liability. Imposing a tax and defining a tax liability are not the same thing. If you truly believe that you have to pay because a tax is imposed, then you will have to pay all of the taxes that are "imposed". So you non-TPs here, please explain why you are not paying a wagering tax because that tax is imposed as well and by your logic you should be paying it.

Another anonymous said - If that was the magic bullet for instant tax freedom, don't you think Congress would add the magic word pronto?

It was there before the 1954 code. Income tax was mandatory before 1954 but the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional so in 1954 the IRS Code was rewritten and "mandatory" was replaced with "voluntary compliance"(only regarding income tax though, mandatory remained for other taxes), all mention of the IRS was removed from the code, "The Commissioner of the IRS" was replaced with "The Secretary of the Treasury" and any mention of liability was removed.

That's why they can't put it back in. But no matter, the judges ignore the lack of a liability statute anyway.

What other magic words does Congress need to add?

It amazes me that you consider liability to be unimportant, like it doesn't matter. Do you understand what the word means? You have to do something to commit a crime. The act of selling illegal narcotics makes you liable for the drug laws. If you don't sell drugs, you are not liable. Try writing a law without saying who it applies to.

Every single law from murder to jaywalking has a liability section to it. All except one. Can you guess which one?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/13/2005 12:17 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person suggested:

"Fully Informed Jury?

Maybe the jury should be informed about all the Schiff supporters who have gone to prison."

Maybe if they had had fully informed juries, we wouldn't be here now.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/16/2005 9:28 AM