Tuesday, October 04, 2005

I've been told that the trial of Dr. Ward Dean has been moved back to October 24th. We will do our best to cover that trial as well when it takes place.

posted by David Jahn @ 10/04/2005 08:35:00 AM  

28 Old Comments:

The Buck stops at the US Supreme Court.

At one point in history, most educated men believed that the world was flat. Today, many lawyers and judges believe that the 16th Amendment conferred a new taxing power on the federal government. However, this belief is incorrect according to several US Supreme Court decisions.

It does not matter if no scholars or law professors side with the "TP's." The TP's are still correct and in compliance with the law as expressed by the US Supreme Court.
Did you know that the US Supreme Court ruled that income is not defined in the IRC?

In 1976, in U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400: "The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

So where does one go to determine if they had any income?

In 1943, HELVERING v. EDISON BROTHERS' STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943) ruled on the limitation of the definition of "income":
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

At 404, BALLARD further ruled that "… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources."
Thus, it is shown by these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that most U.S. citizens did not have "income" as the meaning of the word is intended in the 16th Amendment.

Additionally, if one wanted to know if they were liable for income taxes, one could simply look in the index of the IRC under PAYMENT, LIABILITY, AND PENALTIES and they would see that the IRC is even in compliance with the US Supreme Court rulings. How, because, the IRC index doesn't even state one is liable for income taxes. Look it up yourself, its right in front of your eyes.

Lastly, those of you that need leagl scholars, or law professors to support something before you give any credence to it are suffering from "Authority figure syndrom." You don't need them to tell you how to read and think, they don't own you and most of them have a vested interest in keep the fraud alive.

Irwin went to their house (Law School) and challenges the students and the law professors and told them that if they could find a law that made him or any of us liable for income taxes he would give them $5,000. Now thats putting your money where your mouth is. Of course no one can to claim the money becuase no one was able to find the law. End of Story.
QUARTLOO!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:45 AM  

Cool! Wonderfully stated. Thank you very much Quartloo.

"Impose" as per Black's Law though Ballentine's would be a better source, "To levy or exact as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax duty or charge."

"Liability" "an obligation one is bound in law.."

So to simply impose a tax upon someone of some origin of some class of some status being married or single etc... is by definition not an obligation bound in law. Yes sec. 1 imposes a tax but on WHO? No, not the World Health Organization...on what people? On Americans or on U.S. CITIZENS, or on those living in the Territories and Possessions of the Federal government under their complete jurisdiction? What rights does a foreigner have as opposed to the Birth Right of an American?

So I can impose something upon someone not discribed but for anyone to be made liable I must define who they are. Could that be something missing in the "Judge's" law? Do not assume and presume it is you.

Of course I can't "impose" anything upon you except my thoughts, and I did, but you are not made "liable" to read them, understand them or consider them. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:06 AM  

From this point forward, "CJ" will be known as "Screwloose"... just poking fun at myself to save the name callers from their behavior that makes them appear so darned ignorant. Thank you, Screwloose

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:16 AM  

Who is the tax imposed on? Every individual. See section 1.

26 USC Sec 1 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table.

26 CFR 1.1-1(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:19 AM  

"What rights does a foreigner have as opposed to the Birth Right of an American?"

According to the U.S. Congress, that foreign individual has many more rights than a U.S. Citizen or Resident in the U.S. So long as the foreign individual does not have a trade or business in the U.S., the U.S. Congress allows these foreign individuals massive tax exemptions on capital gains and interest income in U.S. bank and brokerage accounts. And since the U.S. Congress has made an assortment of laws to keep U.S. Citizens and Residents from receiving the same tax treatment outside the U.S., the U.S. Congress has a monopoly on the ability to tax certain U.S. Citizen and Resident income. Let freedom ring...NOT!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 12:08 PM  

IN OTHER WORDS, Sec 1 states, there is hereby imposed on the (reversing the wording for clarification.) income that is taxable. Key word is taxable income. Corporations can make a grip( A lot of income) but unless, the can show a profit, they pay no income taxes. Hence, Section 1 only imposes a tax on the taxable income.

Some of you would have one to think that everything that comes in is income that is taxable. Nothing can be further from the truth.

As late as 1960, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

The definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, “to seize a person’s goods as security for an obligation.”

In 1976, in U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400: “Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…” BALLARD gives us two useful explanations:

At 404, “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” At 404, BALLARD further ruled that “… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources.”

Thus, it is shown by these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that individuals, married or otherwise do not have “income” as the meaning of the word is intended in the 16th Amendment: Corporate profit.


“Nothing can be clearer than what the constitution intended to guard against, which was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895).

“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).

Yeah I finally get it. Thank you TP's you guys are right and I Quatloo have been brainwashed by all the education I got from the public Fool system. I apologies and will now join your ranks.

QUATLOO!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 12:20 PM  

Good, thanks for something with some Meat to it and I was hoping someone would bite. The following is a thumbnail sketch and I don't have the spelling of names in front of me so forgive the misspelling of names. First - Let's consider the Pollock decission, a decission that has never been overturned. The Supreme Court decission said to congress they are "forbidden" to tax in the manner they attempt and thus the income tax of that time (1895) was shut down. Now let's move to Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein the Supremes (No not the motown group) said that income is not the subject matter of the tax and that is has to be an excise on certain activities and privilges. And then the Supremes ruled that income as set forth in ALL of the income tax acts of Congress HAS the same meaning "that was given it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. This has been upheld no less than fifteen (15) times. Supreme Court decission called Bruschaber (1913 or 1917 I forget off hand) stated that the 16th amendment did not change anything and it was worded "in error." So another failed attempt to make a tax on income, however there can be an excise tax on certain activities. There can also be an apportioned tax. Now where in Sec. 1 does it define the TAXABLE ACTIVITY that everyone is made liable to pay that excise tax for the tax cannot be imposed on income and Congress was barred from defining the word income so if a tax is imposed and people are made liable what is the taxable activity where there is effectively connected income? State it and you will begin to get the picture. I did not create the code or the Supreme Court rulings with regard to the subject. I simply am reporting what THEY, the Supremes have said and that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in two clauses and those being direct approtioned and excise. Since nothing has changed according to the Supremes, please state the taxable activity (remembering income is not a taxable activity) wherein everyone is made liable?

Are you beginning to get the picture. One cannot take one statement from a huge book and expect it to totally define and clear everything. Just as one cannot take one passage from the Bible and expect to know the whole Bible, or any textbook or other.

Sincerely, Screwloose

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 12:44 PM  

Anonymous 10/04/2005 12:19 PM said...

Who is the tax imposed on? Every individual. See section 1.

26 USC Sec 1 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table.

Sorry, I don't see the words "the tax is hereby imposed upon every individual.

I do see the words, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income"

26 CFR 1.1-1(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.

I'm sorry. I don't see the words "liable for". I do see the words "liable to".

In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
Incorporated in my reply by reference

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

When we get them with the US SUOREME cOURT DECISIONS, THE INFILTRATRATORS SHUT -UP AND HIDE.
tHE GRASSROOT LEVEL "TP's" have it right and don't need some "scholar, or law professor" to misdirect us. We can think for ourselves.

Quatloos!


Keep those US Supreme Court decisions coming. Quatloo and his band of merrymen will only respond by saying we took them out of context. Yet everyone can go and read the decisions themeselves, because its on all on the web.

GO TP's Go.. DON'T GIVE UP YOU ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE CRIMINALLY WRONG.

IRWIN WILL WIN, IRWIN WILL WIN, IRWIN WILL WIN.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:16 PM  

"According to the U.S. Congress, that foreign individual has many more rights than a U.S. Citizen or Resident in the U.S. So long as the foreign individual does not have a trade or business in the U.S., the U.S. Congress allows these foreign individuals massive tax exemptions on capital gains and interest income in U.S. bank and brokerage accounts. And since the U.S. Congress has made an assortment of laws to keep U.S. Citizens and Residents from receiving the same tax treatment outside the U.S., the U.S. Congress has a monopoly on the ability to tax certain U.S. Citizen and Resident income. Let freedom ring...NOT!"

This was a scheme created by the U.S. Congress through the tax system. By giving foreigners exemptions, they attract liquidity to U.S. stocks and bonds. This lowers interest rates artificially and boosts stock prices. So what happens next...the U.S. citizen and resident 'feel wealthier' by being able to borrow more against lower interest rates and artficially overvalues assets such as stocks and real estate. But notice the current total debt of $44 trillion...this is the result of such schemes in that the U.S. citizen and resident go deeply into debt relying on the inflated value of assets to carry them to prosperity. The foreigner, with the blessing of the U.S. Congress is given the green light to save. It is no surprise that if asset values collapse in the U.S., most U.S. citizens and residents will be bankrupt, whereas foreigners will be very well-off. This is a transfer of wealth and that is directly the result of the machinations of the U.S. Congress' tinkering with U.S. tax code.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:17 PM  

CJ / Screwloose. Good posts.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/

If your emails residing on my computer are something you can live with, critiques are welcome.

I want to make it easily understood by the novice.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:20 PM  

Tbanks for the update on Dr. Ward Dean. Please add his website to the post so people can learn more about who he is.

http://www.warddeanmd.com/

Thank you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:44 PM  

The IRC MAKES EVERYONE THAT IS LIABLE FOR TAXES TO KEEP BOOKS AND RECORDS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH LISTINGS IS NOTED IN THE IRC WHEN IT COMES TO INCOME TAXES. WHY NOT? BECAUSE THEY ARE VOULNTARILY PAID.

As late as 1960, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

The definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, “to seize a person’s goods as security for an obligation.”

In 1976, in U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400: “Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…” BALLARD gives us two useful explanations:

At 404, “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” At 404, BALLARD further ruled that “… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources.”

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 2:02 PM  

"The IRC MAKES EVERYONE THAT IS LIABLE FOR TAXES TO KEEP BOOKS AND RECORDS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH LISTINGS IS NOTED IN THE IRC WHEN IT COMES TO INCOME TAXES. WHY NOT? BECAUSE THEY ARE VOULNTARILY PAID."

More nonsense. Almost all laws in the US are based on voluntary compliance.

If you take your hazardous chemicals to the recycling center rather than dump them down the gutter, you voluntarily comply with the law. It doesn't mean that hazardous dumping is legal or that there aren't consequences if you break the law. It just means that every gutter isn't guarded by cops or covered over to prevent dumping.

If you stop at a red light, you voluntarily comply with the law.
In comparison, an example of enforced compliance might be a train crossing. When you approach the crossing, a barrier lowers and you are physically unable to cross. Compliance isn't voluntary because you physically can't move forward.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 2:31 PM  

No time to read all posts.

For those still hung up on Sec. 1. -

The tax cannot be made liable upon income or an individual as per previously cited cases and other Supreme Court rulings. The tax is not on an individual for it would then have to be apportioned and not upon income for that is NOT the subject of the tax. Don't remain hung-up without adding to your understanding or knowledge base. The imposition upon a person and the liability of a person to pay a tax is there... BUT the tax HAS TO Have a SUBJECT as per the Supremes and Congress...(keep reading)...the subject could, for this teaching purpose, be called an "event." The subject could be the distillation of alcohol. Yes someone is responsible to pay the tax owed and is liable to pay the tax for the profits earned from the distillation. Distillation being an Event. The Subject.

INCOME IS NOT the SUBJECT MATTER of the "INCOME TAX" !!!! ****

- Now hear this -

"The income tax is, therfore, NOT a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is basis for determining the amount of tax." WHAT??? Now where the heck did that come from? My mind, some protestors mind, how bout a so called Patriot? NO NO NO IT is a direct quote from the House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580 So there is Congress itself EXPLAINING the Nature of the income tax as a tax upon an activity NOT UPON INCOME OR AN INDIVIDUAL. The income or individual is not the SUBJECT of the tax!!!!!

Ask yourself these questions. Is an individual an activity? Yes or NO
Is income an activity? Yes or No

ahh grasshopper, now you getting it.

Remember the above has been upheld by the Supremes many times. One must receive income from (key word "from") an effectively connected source. (Trade or business made liable)

Is income a trade or business? Yes or No

Is an individual a trade or business? Yes or No

Don't blame me for Congresses' explanation of Sec. 1. Heck they wrote it, why not they explain it as they did.

I know it isn't always easy to understand, so I'll try to help using my old teaching methods. I'll take it part by part, precept by precept.

The language at 26 USC 1 states "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income..." and the statutes then impose a tax on the "taxable income" of every married individual, every head of household, etc. etc... TAXABLE INCOME is the subject of the sentence but the sentence ONLY. BUT "taxable income" is NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1, since "income" is only the measure of the tax, (per the Supremes and Congress) above.

Now Individuals are NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation on "taxable income" since capitation taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.

Property, real or personal, can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation on "taxable income" since property taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.

I'll stop there to see IF others can see where, and how the Judge is failing in HIS personal interpretation of Sec. 1 and how his personal thoughts are contrary to Congress and the Supremes.

I matters not what I think, but does it matter what Congress and the Supreme court says? I hope the DOJ catches on to this as well.

Peace and love,
Screwloose

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 3:36 PM  

Don't blame the judge or DOJ for not understanding the nature of the tax or the subject of the tax. I mean if one just simply reads it without other consideration, gee whiz it sounds like the persons income is taxed. But it only sounds like that. So be kind for even Monkeys fall out of trees sometimes.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 3:44 PM  

Schiff Criminal Tax Trial Fireworks

The criminal tax trial of Irwin Schiff entered its fourth week Monday with a cantankerous Schiff apparently making significant headway in repelling the government’s prosecution witnesses who have testified thus far.

Read article here.

By Blogger Dietrich Bonhoeffer, at 10/04/2005 3:54 PM  

"gee whiz it sounds like the persons income is taxed."

Imagine that. 100% of judges interpret Section 1 the same way, and it just happens to coincide with Congress' interpretion of that very same Code Section. What a conspiracy...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 4:28 PM  

"gee whiz it sounds like the persons income is taxed."

Imagine that. 100% of judges interpret Section 1 the same way, and it just happens to coincide with Congress' interpretion of that very same Code Section. What a conspiracy...

OUCH! The author failed to have any congnition whatsoever.

Please re-read and try harder this time. Yes it does sound like the persons income is taxed because that is the subject of the sentence BUT it is NOT the subject of the tax. Get it straight...Congress said, "The income tax is, therfore, NOT a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is basis for determining the amount of tax."

So two people would be standing together both named Tim. Both names "sound" the same but are they the same person? Just because something sounds like it is doesn't make it so.

AND 100% of the Supreme Court decissions have agreed that income is NOT the subject of the tax.

I know it is difficult to read and understand when having preconceived ideas and/or fixed ideas. Open the mind, heart and soul to find the true meaning above.

Screwloose

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 5:52 PM  

interpret Section 1 the same way, and it just happens to coincide with Congress' interpretion of that very same Code Section.
NOT!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:09 PM  

Check it out again folks...
"gee whiz it sounds like the persons income is taxed."

Imagine that. 100% of judges interpret Section 1 the same way, and it just happens to coincide with Congress' interpretion of that very same Code Section. What a conspiracy...

We have all heard of "selective hearing" well you are witness to a powerful demonstration of "selective reading"
In doing so the message and meaning can never be understood.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:13 PM  

"It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce."

Yep. And "compensation for services" is one of the activities specifically tapped for such treatment by Congress. So is "gross income derived from business" and "fees" and "commissions" and so on.

The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves at the Clintonesque word manipulation games being played by this "movement."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:13 PM  

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the word "income" as used in all tax statutes only means corporate profits. So by definition, no individual can have "income" within the meaning of the statute.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:48 PM  

While there is no statute that makes individuals liable for income tax certaintly no one would dispute the fact that we have rights under the Constitution. Iwrin's 14th Amendment rights are being violated. He has the right to a fair trial with an impartial judge. He was forced to be a witness in the meaning of the 5th Amendment by being forced to fill out a 1040 with info he believed was untrue under duress and therefore he was forced to commit perjury to avoid incarceration. Iwrin's 4th Amendment rights were violated by an illegal search by an unauthorized IRS agent who perjured himself in his affidavit to obtain the search warrant. Fraud voids anything it touches,yet the Judge allowed it. And what ever happened to our 1st Amendment rights to free speech evidentially the Supreme Court isn't concerned about a book based on years of research being banned in the U.S. despite the government's inability to refute the contents which Iwrin has devoted 25 years now to studying. I can't believe this is actually happening in America while we have brave men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 7:08 PM  

Here's to hoping Irwin uses The Fair and Informed Jury Act....the jury does not have to bow at the judges throne.

Also, wasn't it former IRS commisioner T. Coleman Andrews who feared that "through excessive and unjust taxation I feel we have fallen right into the hands of the Marxists who gleefully hail the income tax as one sure instrument that will bring capitalism to its knees."

Be gone with this form of communism. It's listed as number 2 in the communist manifesto as one of its planks.

There are enemies to the constitution both foreign and domestic military folk might be reminded that need defending. We tp's are enlisted. Irwin can be my General any time.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 7:47 PM  

Here we go again -
"It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce."

Yep. And "compensation for services" is one of the activities specifically tapped for such treatment by Congress. So is "gross income derived from business" and "fees" and "commissions" and so on.

The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves at the Clintonesque word manipulation games being played by this "movement."

So we have another person living in America, maybe calling themselves an American but has absolutely no regard for his or her rights as per 48 American Jurisprudence 2d, section 2, page 80 wherein it state, "The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interferece is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."

Clearly, from the foregoing, we can see taht labor and the fruits of labor are inalienable rights and not the subject matter of income taxation.

But hey, some people still belive the 16th amendment added new taxing power, though they never stop to think it would have had to eliminate the two clauses contained in the body of the constitution to do so...hmmm...

I do not live amoungst Americans mostly. Screwloose

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:16 PM  

CANT Leave this out -
Yep. And "compensation for services" is one of the activities specifically tapped for such treatment by Congress.

Now we are supposed to believe that compensation for services is an activity? whow

Making wiskey would be an activity I can understand that. Hmmm snow skiing would be an activity I can understand that...but compenstion for services is an activity as the other author states...now I cannot understand that being an activity.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:34 PM  

The Supreme Court in Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) stated:

The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.

Labor is Property

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/05/2005 10:27 AM