Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Schiff Trial Update from Mike Golden

posted by David Jahn @ 10/26/2005 07:04:00 AM  

76 Old Comments:

Some on these blogs don't understand "Voluntary" some don't understand "Mandatory" or "shall" or "should"or “territory, liable, impose" and other words and phrases.

Below is clear but some will argue anyway. Don't listen to the argument; follow your heart and your open mind. First tear down the walls in your mind. Enter without preconceived ideas or hatred which only serves to boggle the mind. *Below my personal comments will be [bracketed.]

Social Security Numbers For Children SSA Publication No. 05-10023, February 2004,

"When you have a baby, one of the things that should be on your “to do” list is getting a Social Security number for your baby. The easiest time to do this is when you give information for your child’s birth certificate. If you wait, you can apply for a number at any Social Security office.

Contents

Must my child have a Social Security number?

"No. But it is a very good idea to apply for a number right after your baby is born. [Why, what does it really do?] Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. You should apply for your baby’s number before the child is 1 year old. If you do not, it may take up to 12 weeks longer, because we will contact the state office that issued the birth record to verify the record. We do this to prevent people from using fraudulent birth records to obtain Social Security numbers to establish false identities."

[If you voluntarily signed up for a SS# you are then mandated, by contract and agreement to abide by all the rules, regulations imposed upon you. (Voluntary Compliance)]

[Who is mandated to obtain a SS#?]

CFR 6109 (g) “Special rules for taxpayers identifying number issued to foreign persons (1) General rule – (i) SS number. A SS number is generally identified in the records and data base of the IRS as a number belonging to a US Citizen or resident alien individual.”

[The term U.S. CITIZEN or UNITED STATES CITIZEN is not found in the Constitution of any one of the fifty union states united.

The term U.S. CITIZEN or UNITED STATES CITIZEN is not found in the body of the Constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The term U.S. CITIZEN or UNITED STATES CITIZEN is not found in the body of UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Who or what is a US CITIZEN?

What rights do United States (US) citizens have?

Those questions and more answered later… and as always, where applicable, with cites!]

[Some of you already read the UN Covenant I previously displayed…some did not. Some simply bitch because I place it on display for your consideration. Either the UN lied to the world or it correctly identified and/or defined a US Citizen as one from the insular areas or territories.] CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 10:07 AM  

TO: THE PATRIOTS,
Do yourself and Mr. Schiff a favor and stop arguing with the idiots for a moment and read the following. Then forward it to everyone you know and ask them to forward it to everyone they know.
The ACLU filed a brief in support of Mr. Schiff’s fight to keep The Federal Mafia from being banned by the government.
Those of you who want to help Mr. Schiff need to help us get the ACLU involved in overturning this conviction. So stop whatever you are doing and call, write or email Gary Peck and express your concern about the way this trial was conducted.

Executive Director: Gary Peck
1700 E. Desert Inn Road, Suite 113
Las Vegas, NV 89109
Phone: 702-366-1226
Email: aclunv@anv.net

Also, it can never hurt to have the most well know and respected appellate attorneys in the United States, Mr. Alan Dershowitx and Mr. Barry Scheck involved. You and everyone you know need to email, call, write or fax Mr. Dershowitx and Mr. Scheck and ask them to look into the egregious judicial misconduct demonstrated by Federal Judge Kent Dawson during Mr. Schiff’s trial.

Alan Dershowitx
Phone: (617) 495-4617
Fax: (617) 495-7855
dersh@law.harvard.edu

Barry Scheck
Innocence Project
100 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10011
info@innocenceproject.org
(212) 364-5340

By Blogger The Law, at 10/26/2005 10:16 AM  

Maybe you TP's can put your collective intelligence together and come up with a plan for changing the law.

Like an alcoholic, no one can do it for you. You have to want to change the law first.

You do want to change the law, don't you?

Then what is your plan?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 10:43 AM  

Well done Constitutionalist I some times think you are the only one with an agenda.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:17 AM  

You are correct Constitutionalist and I will adhere to your words…but I will respond to Reasonable Guy’s question even though he may attempt to degrade my response due to his or her highly charged emotion and lack of understanding. I don’t hate him or her for that. Fact is the question posed is important to stimulate thoughts on the matter of my concern. I have documentation, some factual knowledge. I read others posts and I post to seek the help of others who have like concern - Thanks constitutionalist.

“YOU DO WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW DON’T YOU?”

No I, as an individual, don’t. Not at this time. I want to fully understand the law and who I am in relationship to the law and how to place myself under my correct (birth right) form of government! I believe, through investigation, that I placed myself in a position that I find myself unhappy. I always admit that. I also believe I was induced and defrauded. This must be corrected. Others may find this the case as well.

The Constitution created two governments when signed. One is a Republic and one a Legislative Democracy under Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 17-18. That law is clear on that and documented in volumes.

It is my contention, that Americans have volunteered to enter the territory and thus became US Citizens, provided one signed up to do so and most did, voluntarily so.

The Territory is under the complete and total legislation of Congress... in my words, congress is like GOD over the territory and those people within it. Conversely Congress is under the Creator and the people in the Republic and that territory. That’s what I learned in school with regard to my government but what I learned and what happens in reality are in conflict. I believe the reason for that conflict is my current and some past posts.

It is my contention that the First thing to do is to correctly identify who you are in relationship to government and what form of government is governing you.

This is as important to the so-called “tax protestors” as it is to the “truth in taxation” folks as well as the Quatloos folks and all concerned Americans. There is a pitchfork sticking us and while we focus on one prong the other prong stabs us, and we end up stabbing each other rather than seeking to live within the Republic under only the enumerated powers and having the full Bill of Rights as guarantee. A precept our forefathers fought to leave us, the posterity. To want to live within the legislative democracy is ok too, but it offers nothing, no rights except to residence and I will prove that as I continue, hopefully without the “poo poo” words used only to distract those serious about the subject matter of their standing in life on earth within government. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:19 AM  

Reasonable Guy said...
What is your plan I am ready to listen.
By the way Contitutionalist the last post was mine.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:21 AM  

Blogmaster;
Please keep these individual blog entries down to less than 100 comments, if this is going to continue, or we each would have to scroll down the long list to just read the last one and waist more time doing so.

U.S. district court judges:
As Article III judges, federal district judges are appointed for life, and can be removed involuntarily only when they violate the standard of "good behavior". The sole method of involuntary removal of a judge is through impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives followed by a trial in the U.S. Senate, which requires a two-thirds vote to convict. Otherwise, a judge, even if he is convicted of a felony criminal offense by a jury, is entitled to hold office until he (or she) dies or retires.

Therefore, Judge Dawson can have Irwin Schiff EXECUTED, and even do it himself, and have NO repercussions of being removed from his post!!!

But there is hope if he did violate the standard of “good behavior.”

If Judge Dawson is the LAW then he does NOT have to comply with any LAWS written by Congress, and there we have the TYRANNY!!!

This judge must be impeached before he can take any further HARSH action against Irwin.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:23 AM  

If *reasonable guy* is reasonable, then I have an irrational response. As Irwin has made abundantly clear, there is nothing wrong with the law. There are no mandatory exactions for the support of government. There is no income tax. Since the judiciary is behaving as a mafia, the needed course of action is to see the laws upheld. Irwin is the law abiding citizen. Kent Dawson
is the criminal.

*reasonable guy* is trying to divert attention from the real issue:
criminals in the court room.

Many thanks to Mike The Radio Rebel for the updates. I will be calling Freedom Books with a contribution again and again.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:26 AM  

CJ:

Show where in any statue at large Congress claimed the income tax to be voluntary!

Look up the word impose in Blacks Law! DUH!

Again another post full of:

PooPoo
Runs
Squirts
Diaper Rash

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:42 AM  

WARNING!!!

Someone should have Schiff protected, as there just might be a former supporter of Schiff, who utterly HATES Schiff, and happens to be in the same cell or dorm that Irwin is housed.

Schiff can have Judge Dawson removed from office if he could even get out and take the action necessary!

Here is another Clinton crony, Judge Dawson, but Vince Foster ended up as a loose screw for the Clinton administration.
* Dawson, Kent J., Nevada District, Clinton, 2000

On July 20, 1993, Vincent Foster committed suicide by shooting himself through the back of the head. In a scribbled note, apparently a farewell note, discovered a week after his death, he observed that in Washington, D.C., "ruining people is considered sport."

The lies:
* Wounds not consistent with self-inflicted gunshot.
* Not enough blood on the scene given the injuries.
* Foster's hands lacked gunshot residue consistent with self-inflicted shot.
* Firing position "inconsistent" with suicide.
* The body was "neatly arranged" where it lay.
* Foster's clothing not examined by investigators.
* Evidence on scene, including patterns of bloodstains, indicated Foster's body had been moved
* Investigators failed to interview neighbors and area residents after the incident.
* Crime scene photos missing or otherwise unusual in format.

Who will pay with their life for the corruption of the Irwin Schiff trial?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 12:11 PM  

Hello people,

I found this website two days ago, and have been listening to the blogs for hours. It seems that injustice was done. I don't understand why the jury didn't see it, and set the defendants free. Were the jury members coerced or paid in advance to render a guilty verdict? Or are they just really, really dumb?

Even if the defendants was wrong about the law, and is truely guilty of breaking it, I would still set them free because of how the unjust the trial was!

Mr. Schiff was only allowed character witnesses? I don't quite see how it proves on his "willfull" actions. If Mr. Schiff was allowed to show the law in court, that would have been a more meaningful defense because it was the law itself in which his "willfull" actions ran by.

I don't understand why many of Mr. Schiff's question were sustained either. The judge didn't even require an explaination as to why the questions were sustained!

It seems to me the judge did a better job prosecuting the defendants than the prosecutors themselves. Is this how a courtroom is supposed to be run?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 12:14 PM  

To: The Patriots.
The word of caution I would advise is, "Mr. Schiff always takes the high ground and never stoops to the level of his distracters. So, if you are blogging in his defense you must follow Mr. Schiff’s example and either ignore the idiots as I do or attempt to persuade them to take the right path with facts but no matter how provoked never fall to their level."

By Blogger The Law, at 10/26/2005 12:21 PM  

The Constitutionalist said...
To: The Patriots.
The word of caution I would advise is, "Mr. Schiff always takes the high ground and never stoops to the level of his distracters. So, if you are blogging in his defense you must follow Mr. Schiff’s example and either ignore the idiots as I do or attempt to persuade them to take the right path with facts but no matter how provoked never fall to their level."

10/26/2005 1:21 PM
****************************

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14055727

The pot calls the kettle black again.

ROFL !!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 12:42 PM  

"I don't understand why the jury didn't see it, and set the defendants free."

Maybe because the prosecution put one a month-and-a-half worth of evidence, but Irwin only put on one day of evidence and Cindy and Larry didn't put on any?

Irwin's defense: "I didn't know any of this was wrong."

Prosecutors' rebuttal: "What the hell are you talking about? You've been convicted twice before."

Jury: "Really. Guilty on all counts."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 12:43 PM  

Abraham Lincoln just won the CIVIL WAR, but he failed to protect himself from anyone who might think the South should have won.

For NOT taking any precautionary actions, such as even one guard at Ford’s Theater, it cost Lincoln his life.

Is Irwin so arrogant that he believes that no-one will harm him while in prison?

I thought Irwin believed the same way with the trial, as it is a guaranteed WIN!!!

Is this the third conviction for Schiff?

If so, will Judge Dawson use the California 3 strikes law to send Schiff away for good, just like the U.S. Supreme Court used foreign laws and court decisions in some of the recent rulings?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 12:44 PM  

"Maybe because the prosecution put one a month-and-a-half worth of evidence, but Irwin only put on one day of evidence and Cindy and Larry didn't put on any?"

Hello again,

Mister, you need to listen to the blog meetings. I've been listening on this blog website starting two days ago.

The judge practically denied Mr. Schiff a defense, which is why he was only able to present character witnesses - something that was not vital to his defense on proving his actions of willfullness.

Also, the prosecution put on no evidence with regard to willfulness. Their witnesses would have be discreditted from answering Mr. Schiff's questions on law and their legal authority - Which I saw in this case, they have no legal authority. With the actions of the government witnesses, you would be blind not to see that Schiff's questions would definitely discredit them in court. This is something the defense should be allowed to do in court!

The judge practically stopped Mr. Schiff's challenges to the government witnesses.

Also, what's the deal with the judge reading Mr. Schiff's witnesses their Miranda rights? How come the government witnesses weren't read any Miranda rights?

You would be blind not to see that this trial wasn't a trial, but a trap! The judge did most of the work. The prosecution just had to relax.

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

***WARNING***
"CJ: Show where in any statue at large Congress claimed the income tax to be voluntary! Look up the word impose in Blacks Law! DUH!
Again another post full of:PooPoo
Runs Squirts Diaper Rash
10/26/2005 12:42 PM"

*WARNING! For anyone who could possibly be swayed by the above please note that my (CJ) post of 11:07 top of this page CLEARLY STATES that:

SOCIAL SECURITY IS VOLUNTARY AND THAT IS FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AS CITED.

"Must my child have a Social Security number?

"No. But it is a very good idea to apply for a number right after your baby is born. [Why, what does it really do?] Getting a Social Security number for your newborn [IS VOLUNTARY] emphasis mine.

*WARNING! Don't be mislead by those who attempt to traverse issues in order to purposely deceive you and other forms of debauchery.

MY CLAIM: It is my belief and opinion that all taxes are Mandatory! That’s right, mandatory! I know this is contrary to Irwin, who I love dearly. I will continue to provide absolute factual evidence as to the exact nature and reason for the risky statement I just made. The hate mongers have forced my hand prematurely but I can deal with it, for they don’t know, don’t Irwin followers become hate filled as well. THERE IS A REASON THAT MOST EAT SHIT IN COURT! LET’S GET TO THE REASON!

We “Voluntarily” place ourselves into the position of being a “taxpayer” and did so unwittingly. Thus, now that we have volunteered, we must comply OR get our asses kicked. HINT: The taxpayers living in the territories are afforded no rights but ONE. I’ll prove that later with correct cite. Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases with or without OMB numbers, with or without liability. If the liability to pay the tax were in title 26 don’t you think someone would have found it? The liability does not come from TITLE 26…that is why you and I can’t find it there and thus the argument with the other side. I argue not. It comes from somewhere else and I will prove that later as well. The court won’t tell you where it actually comes from but it exists.

So yes the court is corrupt and yes they deceive, but as other have posted, the US District Court is an administrative court, not a court of LAW! That’s why IRWIN didn’t get to present any LAW. The US District court was set up to handle people within the territory under Article 1, sec. 8 clause 17 and “Rights” as we understand DO NOT exist in that territory or courtroom or for those people. We, very dumbly so, volunteered to become one of those people and now we can’t stand living that way…I agree…I did it too…I hate it too…but I want to fix it – not argue it and keep getting my ass kicked. I have personal friends besides Irwin in prison. I know we can fix it WHEN We Understand it. Who else wants to FIX IT rather than argue where we always get shafted???? I will continue to post the FACTS, the EVIDENCE and the LAW for your consideration. Remember You don’t have to read my data.

If you want one liners full of nothing, read those posts, not mine. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 1:37 PM  

WHY DO I SAY SOCIAL SECURITY IS TIED TO INCOME TAX IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTLESS OTHERS? READ:

CFR 6109 (g) “Special rules for taxpayers identifying number issued to foreign persons (1) General rule – (i) SS number. A SS number is generally identified in the records and data base of the IRS as a number belonging to a US Citizen or resident alien individual.”

WHO or what is a US CITIZEN AND WHY IS A US CITIZEN LUMPED IN WITH A "RESIDENT ALIEN?"

That can and will be answered later, Best wishes, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 1:40 PM  

We can all help Iwrin with his appeal. He has an attorney from Chicago. Please send donation's for his appeal to 444 E. Sahara avenue Las Vegas, NV. 89104
So please help with what ever you can ASAP.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:02 PM  

non-liable said...

Blogmaster;
Please keep these individual blog entries down to less than 100 comments, if this is going to continue, or we each would have to scroll down the long list to just read the last one and waist more time doing so.

Then take the debate to the newsgroup misc.taxes

Paste this into your browser's URL line:
news:misc.taxes

then hit enter.

If your browser and ISP support newsgroups, you will be taken to misc.taxes newsgroup.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:03 PM  

CJ:

At least the one liners are to the point.

Your posts are essays full of:

Nothing
PooPoo
the Runs
Squirts
Diaper Rash

-

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:08 PM  

Hello people,

I found this website two days ago, and have been listening to the blogs for hours. It seems that injustice was done.

Then PLEASE, PLEASE, tell your friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers about this site.

It seems to me the judge did a better job prosecuting the defendants than the prosecutors themselves. Is this how a courtroom is supposed to be run?

And of course, I hope that what Mr. Schiff was not allowed to show the jury, you and your's will take the time to examine.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:09 PM  

Erika Wilhite | October 26 2005

Although our national anthem assures us that we live in "the land of the free," Americans cannot honestly pretend that we are doing our best to preserve that freedom anymore.

In a real "land of the free," legislature allowing government agents to pry into private lives without actual evidence of wrongdoing would never have been passed, nor would it have remained valid four years after being instated.

In a land of the free, the news media wouldn't inflate or fabricate stories about threats of terrorism in every town, city, or airplane, working sane human beings into a frightened frenzy about pretty much everything, while simultaneously disregarding the real threats to our liberty brought about by our own government.

In a land of the free, "terrorist" wouldn't be an overbroad, vague term for anything that makes the government unhappy, and, of course, for Middle Easterners.

The government wouldn't have the authority to detain immigrants indefinitely without any clear reason. It certainly wouldn't have the authority to detain its own citizens without warrants, for indefinite period of time and without disclosing their identities. In a land of the free, citizens wouldn't just vanish off the public record and be spirited away by the government.

Simply put, citizens in a "land of the free" would never have allowed the Patriot Act to become a permanent fixture in our legislation.

When I find myself wondering how we ever let it pass in the first place, I remind myself that nothing we Americans have allowed to happen in recent memory has actually increased or protected our basic liberties - you know, those "rights" we are apparently supposed to possess?

Over two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin warned us, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

But we have done precisely that: we surrendered our liberty in exchange for temporary security.

And the real question is not, "Do we deserve either?" but, "Do we even have either?"

Despite all the changes made to the government's national security arm after Sept. 11, 2001, it failed the test of Hurricane Katrina miserably. Throughout the bungled, mismanaged and botched preparation and recovery efforts, one fact shone through clearly: our government was grossly unprepared for a disaster.

One wonders how curbing the freedom of every man, woman and child in this country better prepares us for the next catastrophe.

We have been selling our liberty piece by piece, and the people who bought it - our own government, perhaps, or the corporations who are swiftly becoming our government - have it locked in a safe. Everyone once in awhile we take it out (on loan, of course) to admire it - especially when we're dipping our collective finger into the global war pie.

When that happens, we all ooh and aah over it, and tell each other how pretty and shiny it is.

Then we have to put it back in the safe, because after all, freedom is really too delicate an idea for regular people to be dealing with. Let's leave it to the professionals. Otherwise, somebody might get hurt.
Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.E MAIL THIS PAGE





What is a slave? How do we define a slave? What test do we use to tell if someone is a slave. What makes them different from free people?
Free people can say “no”. Free people can refuse demands for their money, time, and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”. If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to, then you are a slave. No other test need be applied.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:15 PM  

Guys, I just called the IRS! The lady on the phone is claiming that your practices are wrong and pulling the public away from abiding by the law. She claims that anyone who is working is earning income, and that they must pay taxes. She claims that the IRS Publications are tax laws requiring everyone to pay taxes. My question: are IRS Publications laws of taxation? If so, the IRS pulbications must be saying that everyone owes the tax.

T.G.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:36 PM  

Anonymous said... CJ: At least the one liners are to the point.

AND AS PROVEN, THE WRONG POINT!

THANKS, it is very important for we must learn to stay "on point" or we "traverse" into another form and issue and then we are LOST! Lost in the world without hope.

As it was written in the good book - I send you into the world as sheep amongst wolves.

Beware of the wolves. For a legislative democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

When Social Security was created they looked at the actuary tables as would any insurance company and they found the average life span was about 60-65. The ACT is a TAX and its purpose was to “raise revenue.” How could it not? You voluntarily paid in all your working life and then most died not collecting anything and the government did have to pay out.

Now there is a problem, people are living longer….up the age is one solution but more are coming.

Nonetheless it was and is Voluntary for an American born in one of the union states!
Why did you sign up voluntarily so and what did it actually do to or for you? CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:50 PM  

I think I’ve got it!

Use the same thing they do against us, the ‘impose’ statute.

Have civil charges brought against Judge Dawson for failing to file a return on wagers.

Title 26 Section 4401 states:
(c) Persons liable for tax.
Each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and shall pay the tax…

He would come back and state he does not accept wagers, but in fact he does everyday as the defendants are wagering their lives with Judge Dawson, just as Irwin did and he lost.

Judge Dawson’s salary is the accepted wagers!

What is the real interpretation of the LAW?

Judge Dawson cannot say that he does not have to pay a tax that is just imposed when he just had Irwin Schiff convicted for the same thing!

Schiff did not have ‘taxable income,’ but was convicted on the willful not paying a tax that was imposed, which did not state anyone was liable for, however a liability was stated in the ‘impose’ statute for wagers.

Judge Dawson would state “we need evidence,” but the evidence is NOT there as Judge Dawson never did file that type of return.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 2:57 PM  

The first draft of my letters to the ACLU, Alan Dershowitz and Barry Scheck can be read at;
http://helliseternal6.blogspot.com
Perhaps this will assist you as you draft your letters to them.
Or a simple, "Please help Mr. Schiff." will suffice and not clog up their email system.

By Blogger The Law, at 10/26/2005 2:58 PM  

Thanks to the moron who posted the jurors' names and personal info, Cindy has to remain behind bars until her sentencing hearing in January.

Can't you fools practice any self restraint?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:24 PM  

Hello cj,

I've been reading your posts and I am following you. I've come across several people/groups who seem to be on the same page as you. Would you agree to correspond with me via email. I'm posting my temporary email addy in hopes on corresponding with you, so I can discuss more about why we are where we are.

Thanks,

Steve

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:27 PM  

For cj:

dougsr5@hotmail.com

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:28 PM  

You know I have finally figured something out. I have seen the term "Quatloos" spattered throughout these posts and I wondered, "Why in the world do people keep brining up a term used on the original TV series Star Trek, in one of there episodes. Duh! Well, I get it now. There is a website run by "Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. - A Non-Profit Corporation" - a website dealing with, in their own words: "Quatloos.com is a public educational website covering a wide variety of financial scams and frauds, including wacky “prime bank” frauds, exotic foreign currency scams, offshore investment frauds, tax scams, “Pure Trust” structures and more..." The URL to the site is in it's description.

Anyhow, what I find VERY interesting about the site, is the logo in the upper left corner. Good old "Skull & Bones"!!!

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't "W." and his "Papa" members of one "Skull & Bones" organization?? Not to mention that in the 2004 "elections," BOTH of the major candidates, Bush & Kerry, WERE BOTH IN "SKULL & BONES."

Coincidence? Just a coincidence, huh?

We sure had a good "choice" in that "election" didn't we.

When?! ... Oh when, will this web of lies be unraveled? -- Oh wait, yes there is a place isn't there: "Bohemian Grove"; Where the slogan is: "Weaving Spiders, Come Not Here!"

It must be a place of "Truth" then, huh? YEAH RIGHT!

This country has been flushed down the toilet long ago, who has the guts and daring enough to reach in and pull it back out?

Anyhow, in the interest of information and balance, I will suggest a site that I haven't fully read yet, but might be of interest to those posting here. I have only recently started to examine the issue of the legality of our tax system, so I'll leave all the hard research up to all of you who know more than me about it. Here's the site: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html It's a lot of reading. But GO AT IT, and let me know what you think. Does it hold water or not?

I for one think the entire system is corrupt. "WE THE PEOPLE..." needs to be put in the proper terms that it deserves in today's world, "WE THE SLAVES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ... HAVE NO SAY AT ALL!"

Sickening, but, I believe, VERY TRUE.

--Conspiracy Buff

------
"It's not 'paranoia' when everyone REALLY IS against you."

*smile*
------

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:31 PM  

Beautifully written,
Erika Wilhite 3:15 pm

But we are not free people and have not been for many years. Many of us wish we were free however. We gave away our freedom - no one took it. The government cannot mandate an American give away his birthright but we can give it away opting for something else and most did.

Excerpts [emphasis added]
“American Citizenship is a precious right [how precious is precious] and a fundamental right. Citizenship is man’s basic right, for it is nothing less than the right to have rights.” 14 C.J.S. Sec. 3

“The only absolute and unqualified [cannot contract away] right of a United States [US] Citizen is to residence…”
14 C.J.S. Sec. 6

“A SS# is generally identified in the records and database of the IRS as a # belonging to a U.S. Citizen or resident alien individual” Reg. 301.6109 (g)

“The United States includes a number of Insular Areas, each of which is unique and constitutes an integral part of the U.S. political family. Persons born in these areas are U.S. citizens (U.S. nationals in the case of American Samoa).” UN Covenant 1993 item 12.

[Is a US Citizen the same as a freeborn American? NO. To be an American brings with it a what type of right? A precious right! A US citizen has only one right what is it? To residence! The IRS database show the SS # belongs to who? A US Citizen or resident alien! A U.S. citizen is born where? The insular areas!]

*If you have voluntarily opted to become a US Citizen altering your status from that of an American then you have entered the US Territory and must abide by those laws, which are different. You then enter a US District Court, an administrative court, for the US territory and are treated as a US Citizen having no rights but one, and the only Law is what they have already determined.]

I hope someone is beginning to get the real picture here… CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:31 PM  

Anonymous said:

"Thanks to the moron who posted the jurors' names and personal info, Cindy has to remain behind bars until her sentencing hearing in January."
10/26/2005 4:24 PM



That is not why she remains behind bars.

She is a FLIGHT RISK as proven by the prosecution in court!

The jurors have nothing to do with it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:49 PM  

Boy, I bet you morons feel good. Neun was denied a OR due in part to your fellow whack jobs posting the jury information on the internet.

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

So, will Shifty's prison number be all zeroes? I think it would be appropriate, don't you?

By Blogger David, at 10/26/2005 3:49 PM  

"That is not why she remains behind bars. She is a FLIGHT RISK as proven by the prosecution in court! The jurors have nothing to do with it."

You might want to read the story in the Las Vegas Review Journal about her detention hearing. But then again, the cheerleaders who post here could care less about the truth.

Rah Rah.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 3:59 PM  

I think I’ve got it, again!

Find Irwin Schiff’s Congressman Shelley Berkley, when she is in Las Vegas, and make a citizen’s arrest.

The easiest thing to do is invite her to come to the Sheriff’s station where they could handle everything there.

The charge would be; HER WILLFULNESS ON FAILING TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT JUDGES ARE THE LAW AND NOT CONGRESS, EXTORTION TO ACCEPT THEIR SALARY FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT THE LAW MAKER

Judge Dawson cannot be the LAW only inside his court if his LAWS affect everyone outside the courtroom.

The result would be that WE THE PEOPLE did not want to violate the LAW for which we were NOT ignorant of, or be charged later for violating the LAW for which we were ignorant of!

Did you get that?

Either that would put pressure on Congress to have Schiff’s case dismissed and Judge Dawson impeached, or it would be an agreement that Judges are the LAW and Congress is just wasting our money, and we would have every one of them removed!

A false arrest case that went to court should bring in as evidence the Schiff trial transcripts!

Who are the persons to take this action?

I am sorry I could not as I do not live there!

We should try several options at the same time and at least one of them would peak Congress’ interest.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:00 PM  

Looked online and their paper said exactly that she is a FLIGHT RISK and a danger to the comminity!

Percisley what was stated before!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:12 PM  

Mr. Frank Bukner,

Your comments are so unkind. Even if Mr. Schiff and Cindy broke a law, it's not like they murdered anyone.

How do you think you will stand before God? Look at yourself through heaven's eyes. Do you think you deserve God's mercy for your unkindness?

I should tell you, that your words and thoughts are recorded in the records in Heaven (the records that actually matter)! When Christ comes again the records will show and we will be judged accordingly!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:15 PM  

"In rejecting Cynthia Neun's appeal to remain free, US District Court Judge Kent Dawson cited unspecified threats to court personnel and government officials.

An IRS spokeswoman says Dawson noted that the names and addresses of jurors had been posted on the Internet."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:16 PM  

"Your comments are so unkind. Even if Mr. Schiff and Cindy broke a law, it's not like they murdered anyone."

Nah. They just caused a couple dozen of their followers to face criminal prosecution and who knows how many have been financially ruined. That's a pretty high price for being gullible and foolish.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:19 PM  

continued from 10/26/2005 5:00 PM;

If the Sheriff refuses to take any action then show him the U.S. Constitution:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
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.

Congressman Shelley Berkley gave the legislative powers over to Judge Dawson in the trial of Irwin Schiff.

If the Sheriff still refuses then file charges against him for failing to comply with his oath of office which states he must comply with the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme LAW of the Land!!!

GET THEM FROM EVERY DIRECTION!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:19 PM  

"So, will Shifty's prison number be all zeroes? I think it would be appropriate, don't you?"

It should the same number as his off-shore account in Belize "1040".
He sent buckets of money to his offshore account (he sold you fools more than $4.2 million in worthless products in just the past few years) but you all just keep sending him "donations" now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:30 PM  

will you people stop arguing about the regs? this has never been about the "law". this "trial" was merely a procedure for incarceration. the regs are designed to be confusing, hence the "debate" over what their true meaning is. this is nothing more than the railroading of an innocent man into prison. Rose, Simkanin, et al, are victims because they committed thought crimes against the almighty state. as long as we insist on playing by the State's rules (which change frequently) on the State's turf, honest people will always lose. we must post as much personal information as possible about the private lives of court officers so that we can make them pariahs in their communities. make them uncomfortable. make them look over their shoulders constantly. make them understand that we KNOW what they are doing and we don't like it. make them wonder whether or not rescue missions will be mounted. making an innocent man sit in a prison cell for even one minute should result in a life sentence for the court officers responsible. no excuses, no exceptions.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 4:46 PM  

""Thanks to the moron who posted the jurors' names and personal info, Cindy has to remain behind bars until her sentencing hearing in January.""


why should this woman be punished for something someone wrote on a public web site?

I'd venture to say that that is a lame reason among many the judge would have found to further torture her. She should not be in jail to begin with.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 5:16 PM  

First of all we need to get one thing perfectly straight. The system is corrupt way up past it's eyeballs and possibly to the sky. These vermin have a scam going and a lot of the sheeple STILL believe that "taxes" are needed to "run" the country. The name of the game is control. Until you can educate Joe Lunchbucket that the government can "print" all the "money" it needs and until the Federal Reserve and the IRS are abolished ain't nothing gonna change. I have advocated that violence WILL be necessary but at what time in the future is left unsaid. My personal opinion is that a revolution was needed long long ago back in the last quarter of the 20th century.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 5:28 PM  

Lifetimenonfiler said:
"I gotta friend who immigrated recently,legally.....When he filled out his application for citizenship, he agreed to become a taxpayer with a social security/taxpayer id#,as a condition for citizenship.?I feel sorry for him.I recently saw the annual "census questionnaire" that they send to him every year.questions about every thing...everything...job,relatives,interests,retinal scan,associates,racial background...ect.ect..absolutely horrifying!!!I wonder what his final contract with the govt will look like...after his trial citizenship period is over.. 10/26/2005 6:16 PM"

AND YOUR FRIENDS CITIZENSHIP IS NOT THAT OF AN AMERICAN FOR YOUR FRIEND IS NOT ONE OF THE POSTERITY. HE OR SHE WILL BECOME A US CITIZEN, AS EVIDENCED IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS TODAY, AND TREATED AS ALL WHO ARE BEING TREATED IN A MANNER THAT SEEMS MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO WITNESS.

MOST ALL HAS IMMIGRATED, IN A SENSE, FROM THE REPUBLIC TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY AND MANY FEEL MORE PAIN FOR THAT CHOICE WITH EACH PASSING DAY! CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 5:41 PM  

Get the Word Out!

Free Them Now
http://www.wordofblog.net/

http://www.wordofblog.net/search_result.php?org=FREE%20THEM%20NOW!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 5:45 PM  

Anonymous & Reasonable Guy,

Perhaps you can help me in my understanding. What are the documents or laws in this country that grant you your freedoms in this land?

What are those freedoms you have?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 6:20 PM  

The current income tax system is broken. Arguing in court about the existing code is pointless.
It's time we focus on getting rid of the IRS and the tax code all together.
It's time we put the The IRS agents and tax court judges in the unemployment lines.
There is a bill in congress that will do just that.
It's the Fair Tax Act of 2005 HR 25/S 25
The FairTax NO IRS, NO Tax Filings, NO Loopholes, NO Hidden Taxes NO MORE CRAP!!!!

http://www.fairtax.org/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 6:42 PM  

what is the full legal name of this judge?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 6:58 PM  

DID YOU KNOW - Given that the US Dist. Court judge is barred from making a declaratory judgment as to the status whether someone is a taxpayer or not...28 USC 2201, -
Who makes that determination? If not the judge then who?

Well, could it be that one makes that declaration for oneself? I think so. The court can't and the government can't determine your political status either. Only you can.

The above is the nature of the problem. The court and govt. act upon what you have declared by your intent, signature and subsequent actions. WAIT, Don't get mad at me, I screwed up too.

Now how can one argue that they are not the taxpayer when that same very person previously declared that they are? Since the judges won’t tell you, I will, that’s the basis of “frivolous.” CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 7:39 PM  

Can anyone tell me what territory the United States (District of Columbia) claims when we ‘voluntarily’ become a U.S. citizen?

My parents and older brother and sister were U.S. citizens before I became one at about the age of 18.

Did the United States claim our residence as the territory or was it each of us individually?

Can the United States claim a territory for which a non-U.S. citizen resides just because a U.S. citizen does reside there?

Can the United States claim our bodies as territorial possessions regardless of where we go?

If we personally are territories of the United States then we possibly cannot be territories of the State in which we live.

If the United States claims us individually then I see it as NO different then being a SLAVE!!!

Here in the U.S. Constitution you will see that there is a SECOND NATION established within the United States with the Legislature having full control;
The Constitution of the United States
Article I. - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Clause 17 & 18
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Lawyers should check this out as Judge Dawson was established LAW as these clauses state!

If you claim to be a U.S. citizen then you are giving authority to them by these clauses!

Did you know that the Rothchilds figured this out a hundred years ago, so they established the Federal Reserve, which was NOT required to be ratified by the united States of America, but we were sucked into it by their deception!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 8:57 PM  

2000 news...EMAIL and write Sen. Harry Reid about the unethical judge:

" President Clinton nominated Kent Dawson to the federal bench earlier this year on the recommendation of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the state's ranking Democrat. Reid spokesman David Cherry said Tuesday the confirmations are expected to go smoothly.

"We don't see any chance this (confirmation) is going to derail," he said.

"I am very proud of ...Kent, and I know they will make an immediate role in addressing the enormous caseload already facing Nevada's U.S. District Court," Reid said in a statement.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 9:37 PM  

What the hell is Irwin doing in jail?!....get him out of there ASAP!! Irwin is only pointing out what has been AND is killing the U.S.....the U.S. income tax scheme.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 10:14 PM  

squawk@cnbc.com
morningcall@cnbc.com
powerlunch@cnbc.com
streetsigns@cnbc.com

Use the above addresses to write CNBC (also e-mail the New York Times and other media outlets) and encourage them to get Irwin's son, Pete Schiff's thoughts on this case. His firm is famous and he could use his press contacts to make an impact. The public doesn't understand the issues at hand because we have lost the public relations battle so far. Pete gets a lot of press, perhaps his high profile can help save Irwin in this all-important fight!

Write CNBC, Bloomberg, and any other financial papers you can... this story must be told!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:36 PM  

Ah, here it is: www.europac.net.

That is Pete Schiff's firm.

Force the press to cover this story!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2005 11:38 PM  

My words are unkind?

I don't believe my words drove people into financial ruin.

I don't believe my words have sent anyone to jail.

I don't believe my words have caused anyone to file a 90+ page palimony suit against me alleging that I was verbally abusive - amongst other things.

You can defend Shifty all you want, it doesn't change what is.

What is, is that hundreds of lives have been ruined by swallowing his snake-oil. What is, is that Irwin Schiff (self proclaimed delusional person that he is) decided that he was the only person in the entire universe that "figured out" that the tax laws were illegal and, "by the way, give me $99.95 and I'll show you too."

I have to figure that a vast majority of the people that support Shifty do so because the thought that he (and by extension you) was/is wrong is too much to bear. So, like lemmings, you'll just run off the cliff with your "leader".

Pitiful, truly really pitiful.

By Blogger David, at 10/27/2005 2:35 AM  

Why would Pete Schiff be relevant to anything? It appears that he is a good, law-abiding taxpayer with a successful financial business, unless his thrice-convicted felon father.

I feel sorry that Pete has to live with his father's sordid reputation, but you can't blame Pete for any of that.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 10:36 AM  

Excellent comments, Frank.

Not one of them has a plan to change the law, either.

They would rather blather on about conspiracy theories and corrupt judges, wollowing in their own self pity rather than actually do anything positive to change their situation.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 11:19 AM  

Mr. Buckner,

You sure have a lot of opinions about the law.

How come you won't bother to discuss the actual words of the law?

Could it be that you don't know the law?

You have had opportunity to read how I dealt with Mr. JG

You have my email address:
dalereastman (at] sprintmail D0t com

And your page is already set up and waiting.

It's on you. Sling shit or discuss the actual words of law.

Is the term "income" used in section 61(a) used in its "constitutional sense"?

S/N 00003

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 11:59 AM  

Because MR Eastman, were I so inclined to "discuss" the law, why ever would I do so with you?

Are you a lawyer?

Are you a professor on law in general, tax law in specific?

Are you a certified public accountant with a speciality in tax law?

No? Well, then your "views" are exactly that - views. You have no definable expertise in the law, only a tax protestors warped view that the "word "is" isn't in a specific sentence, therefore the entire law is invalid."

You have the warped tax protestor view that "liable" doesn't mean what it means, because I say so, and I'll hold my breath until it does.

So no, MR Eastman, I choose not to discuss the law with YOU because I recognize that I'm not a lawyer, nor a professor, nor even a CPA.

What I am is a rational person that is able to understand that your "arguments" defy logic, they defy common sense and I have to wonder how it's possible that you're not embarrassed when you stand up and spout out what is, beyond a doubt, kindergarten reasoning.

By Blogger David, at 10/27/2005 12:28 PM  

Anonymous & Reasonable Guy & Frank Buckner,

Perhaps you can help me in my understanding. What are the documents or laws in this country that grant you your freedoms in this land?

What are those freedoms you have?

I doubt that any of you will answer as that it will expose you for the frauds that you are. I grant the possibility that I'm wrong. So I'll await your answers.

Funny, you guys write and argue like the attorneys on Quatloose. Part of the Danny "Boy" Evans gang. Again I could be wrong.

Anyway give us an answer if you dare.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 1:33 PM  

Anon2,

Anybody reading from Quatloos is probably chuckling to themselves. I am not affiliated in any way with the site. I'm just an educated guy who happened to be laid up temporarily during Shifty's trial with too much time on his hands. I found this blog and was fascinated by the misinformation, lies, ignorance, and just plan idiocy that is prevalent among the TP subculture.

Please cut to the chase and make your point if you have one. I tried to have a dialog with CJ who posted nonsense and would never get to a specific point to discuss.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 1:55 PM  

Reasonable Guy,

I'm "fascinated" you can't/won't answer a "reasonable" question.

I think my questions have painted you into a corner and your pleading the 5th by misdirection (over exaggerating to make a point, I know how you legal guys are). I'm sorry but I'm interested in your "honest" answer and not answering with a question.

Of course you don't have to answer
Anything else is just lawyer BS to me.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:12 PM  

Anon2,

Make a specific point to respond to and I'll be happy to reply.

That's how a discussion works. Someone makes a point with evidence, logic, etc. and then someone else responds with evidence, logic, etc.

Very reasonable. Now do you have a point to make or are you another CJ?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:19 PM  

Reasonable Guy,

I made my point. Just answer the questions.

In so much as it might expose you as a fraud, for now I'll accept your non-response as pleading the 5th.

By the way thanks for the correct spelling of quatloos. For a laid up guy with too much time on your hands you sure seem to be in the know. I'm sure your correct that Danny (Boy) Evans and his gang are having a big laugh and perhaps you as well too.

You know that when I posed questions like this to Danny Boy he was smart enough not to engage.

You should really continue to engage legal questions as that there are no real lies living under legal. It is just a matter either developing case law to support your position (Your position has nothing to do with truth.) and/or selecting these political cases to support your position. This is legal.

You know once in Quatloos (again thanks for the correct spelling) one of the attorneys or (attorney wannabe) make a case that 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2. How can anybody argue with that? Of course in a legal relative world he is probably correct.

I think Danny Boy gets it. It is better to remain silent and let those wonder if you are a fraud then to speak and be confirmed a fraud.

I'll give the others time to respond, to be non-responsive or not respond at all.

That's "reasonable" to me.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 2:58 PM  

No one wants to go around the mulberry bush or chase wild geese with you, Anon2, CJ or whomever you are.

If you are unable to make a point to discuss, then discussion with you is pointless. Literally!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 3:09 PM  

reasonable guy, (from his point of view)

I made my point. "Literally!" I remain and you have been confirmed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 3:27 PM  

There are few free people of liberty who know the correct answer to the questions below. When you truly know the answer to these questions, then engaging the ongoing discussion herein with the likes of "reasonable guy" is pointless. You’re caught between casting pearls before swine and spitting in the wind.

These questions are about who you are ultimately. Who you are is not a matter of legal interpretation or opinion unless you believe otherwise.

Perhaps you can help me in my understanding. What are the documents or laws in this country that grant you your freedoms in this land?

What are those freedoms you have?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 3:43 PM  

anon 2 is not CJ but anon and CJ could dialogue for anon2 has communicative skills whereas reasonable guy just bitches and bitches and bitches to the point of no return. Just because reasonable guy will not, does not and cannot perceive, does not mean I hate reasonable guy in the manner that he hates me for I know that if I fail I would look to myself and not blame others as does reasonable guy for his failure. He just wants you to say what he wants you to say because he wants it and since he doesn't get it he bitches.

I have posted the facts for anyone to read, with cites and there is oh so much more. I now have private communication with a number of bloggers and have shared my documents, most of which they never saw before. I don’t care if any of them are agents for I only share true copies of public domain and I ask for nothing, besides I have been harmed beyond any more harm. They can now only take my flesh for they already stole my citizenship and with that my rights and freedoms, however I am trying to get those back. I wish Irwin and all the very best but I will not write letters to a foreign government that only recognizes forms.

Anon2 if you wish to contact me try dale eastmans web site

http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/elephant.html

he set this up for us to communicate and screen the senders.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 4:58 PM  

Mike the radio rebel has no clue what he is talking about. His facts are all wrong!

1. Neun's attorney stated in his opening statemnet that Neun was finished with all the tax matters, Irwin and all other's related to the tax movement.

2. So now she is posting to the blogs making her attorney look like a liar and her self.

3. Neun is not in any Federal pen she is in another city dentention center.

4. Neun lied about the money of inheritance to the court and there for what she says cannot be believed!

5. Neun has not benn in a wheel chair for well over 15 years. Not recently as Mike want to claim.

6. Mike the radio rebel did no pay for Irwins new attorney from chicago it is Irwin's son whom is paying and has paid for the attorney to come in from Chicago.

GET YOU FACTS STRAIGHT!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/27/2005 7:31 PM  

Some of you think others are idiots, but I guess your willingness to pay an unlawful tax is acceptable, SO WHY DON’T YOU PAY MORE, to pay off the national debt, instead of claiming any deductions!

Let us focus on something else, as NO-ONE wants to listen to the LAW!

Maybe we can have the government charged with deception and fraud with what is in their own instruction booklets and on their forms.

I don’t think Schiff went this route by trying to mention Publication 505 (Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax) or the Form W-4, which both state ‘who has to pay.’

The Form W-4 states:
7 - I claim exemption from withholding for 2005, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.
· Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability and
· This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here…

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certificate and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete,

When have you committed perjury?

Under the government’s belief everyone is liable as the tax is imposed!

According to the Franchise Tax Board rep I talked with, she said it depends on how much you earned, and therefore NO-ONE can predict on when or if they would commit perjury until they get the refund or have to pay any more tax! In other words, Liability IS a Fluctuating Amount That No-one Can Determine Until ALL IS Complete! Perjury therefore is a ROLL OF THE DICE!

IRS Publication 505 states, page 19:
Who Does Not Have To Pay Estimated Tax
Estimated tax not required. You do not have to pay estimated tax for 2005 if you meet all three of the following conditions.
· You had no tax liability for 2004.
· You were a U.S. citizen or resident for the whole year.
· Your 2004 tax year covered a 12-month period.

The following are exceptions to the rule:
1. You have a nice employer who does not care if you claim EXEMPT any time during the year, but you still committed perjury by claiming allowances as well.
2. The IRS allows you to claim EXEMPT as long as you pay the tax by April 15th, but you still committed perjury by paying the tax liability.
3. You did NOT claim EXEMPT and ended up receiving a full refund last year and this year, but you still committed perjury by receiving the refund.
4. You did claim EXEMPT, with a low paying job and the many deductions you knew you could claim on the 1040, and the IRS changed your return in denying many of the deductions in order for you to have committed perjury on the Form W-4.
5. You have an awful employer who terminates you for claiming EXEMPT as the IRS has given the employer the authority to do so as perjury charges would be inevitable, and therefore a criminal employee.
There could be more.

This is the assumption that wages and salaries are income and you are liable, therefore IF you claim EXEMPT then you automatically commit a crime as the Form W-4 is basically for when you earn wages and salaries!

Why isn’t the government arresting those that claim EXEMPT and charge them with perjury?

Because they cannot by LAW force you to confess to a crime!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 12:03 AM  

Good one non-liable. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 7:25 AM  

The reason that the hostile posters won't answer, is as I wrote, it exposes their fraud. Someone who has an innocent misunderstanding would answer, "The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights". I know as I ask this question all the time. One lawyer and one Bankruptcy Judge as well answered this way. They were both embarrassed when I said,

"How can, what is self-evident be granted? It can only be agreed to or confirmed. Does it not say in the Bill of Rights that these rights listed are not a limitation of existing rights? If rights are granted to you by the words of men, can they not take them away as well?"

Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Submitted April 14, 1886
Decided May 10, 1886
118 U.S.356

When we consider the nature and the theory of our
institutions of government, the principles upon which they are
supposed [118 U.S. 370] to rest, and review the history of their
development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not
mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and
arbitrary power.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system,
while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts.

And the law is the
definition and limitation of power.

It is, indeed, quite true that
there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or
body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere
administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal
lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment,
exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the
suffrage.

But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are
secured by those maxims of constitutional law
which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race insecuring to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men."
For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life,
or the means of living, or any material right essential to the
enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be
intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the
essence of slavery itself.

This opinion/decision seems to be in agreement with what is self-evident. It is the most powerful opinion standing today in my very limited opinion. It further clarifies what is freedom. It does not add or take away only confirms and agree.

By what right can law be made that steals a man's property. Of course the answer is the law of politics. Politics to the conservative is the protection of what is owned at the expense of another's Life, Liberty or Property by legislation. As well it is for the liberal who has nothing using outright theft by fraudulent legislation. Legal is the polite vehicle for theft by consensus (democracy). Conservative, liberal two faces of the same coin.

My second point is about the war of words and misunderstandings. Ever so subtle yet a very serious misunderstanding. To think that any man's or women's freedom is subject to the whims or "higher thinking" of another man or women or group. This is the thinking, no matter how subtle, of a slave. How do the servants talk to you? IRS Chief Counsel wrote that Section 7521 "grants" petitioner the right... I quickly asked that these words be stricken from the record as frivolous and impertinent. Section 7521 tell the IRS what to do when a right is exercised, I wrote. The judge ignored it. How can he not? If the IRS cannot grant anything, then by what right do they steal?

The 861 along with Irwin Schiff is only the leaves of the weed or tyranny above ground. Neither, get at the root. Although, Irwin make the point that the law applies only to Federal Employees. Then why does a freeman argue from the book of slaves? To me it is the same about the 861. I admire Irwin more so as he is the reason most have come to understand the fraud first.

If you are as written "...not subject to law", why argue from that book of the slaves.

The only real way to combat this is through Natural Law/Common Law. This is the root killer. However, the root at this time can feed a tree and the shade from this giant weed blocks out the sun and drinks up all and any nourishment.

Another way to look at it is the hornets nest is now the size of a city block. No matter how the problem is approached you will get stung.

Anyway I hate seeing people waste their time by arguing law that doesn't apply to them. It makes no sense to argue with Quatloos plants or lawyers about the law from a legal point of view. You will not win. However, simple questions outside of legal causes them problems. It hurts them when they can't quote a "legal" court case.

Legal is complicated and for slaves and government servants. Lawful is for the free and self-evident. Why do you think many in the legislature want to abolish the founding documents? Freedom is an inconvenience to those wanting to be lords and masters.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:22 PM  

Reasonable Guy said...
"Maybe you TP's can put your collective intelligence together and come up with a plan for changing the law."

In light of what I just wrote you can see the fraud in this statement. Reasonable has you assume that this legal law applies to you as if a slave. If you are a slave then it does. As a slave you can beg the master to be merciful and change the law.

The free cannot ask for change as it doesn't apply to them anyway. In asking to change it gives credence to the "legal" law as having application to the free.

Irwin in this regards again was right that the law, actually code, cannot apply and therefore their is no need to change it.

Sort of like the burglar you catch in your house with a bag of your property. You demand that the thief return the goods. The thief says, "OK, but I'm going to steal something else since you caught me. Is that Ok with you?"

According to reasonable guy no problem.

Reasonable Guy will have you dance around his mulberry bush and chase his wild geese. His mulberry bush bears fruit of poison and his geese will crap all over you if you give chase.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 1:51 PM  

Thanks for the laugh Mr. Buckner.

Because MR Eastman, were I so inclined to "discuss" the law, why ever would I do so with you?

To prove you have the first inkling of what you post about on this blog.

Are you a lawyer?

Ever hear of the void for vagueness doctrine?

Are you a professor on law in general, tax law in specific?

void for vagueness doctrine

Are you a certified public accountant with a speciality in tax law?

void for vagueness doctrine

No? Well, then your "views" are exactly that - views.

You call names. I cite laws. The lurkers can tell the difference.

And your view about my views...

You have no definable expertise in the law, only a tax protestors warped view that the "word "is" isn't in a specific sentence, therefore the entire law is invalid."

Nice straw man. Here is how I will quote that last statement of yours: "". Yep. You've said nothing.

You have the warped tax protestor view that "liable" doesn't mean what it means, because I say so, and I'll hold my breath until it does.

Not content to do anything but sling names, you are now putting words into my mouth. It's called a straw man.

So no, MR Eastman, I choose not to discuss the law with YOU because I recognize that I'm not a lawyer, nor a professor, nor even a CPA.

You forgot the point where you'ld get you butt whupped because you got no logic, nor do you have the law to back you up.

You've already admitted that you would find a person guilty of aiding and abetting the fugitive Anne Frank in reply to my posts.

You've already been proven WRONG in regard to the word "income" being used in its Constitutional sense in section 61(a), again, in reply to my posts.

As Dave Champion would say- "You got no game."

What I am is a rational person that is able to understand that your "arguments" defy logic, they defy common sense and I have to wonder how it's possible that you're not embarrassed when you stand up and spout out what is, beyond a doubt, kindergarten reasoning.

Well then... IF my "arguments defy logic" your "superior" logical skills must certainly be up to the task of proving this to be the case... Just like they did in proving what you proved regarding the word "income" being used in its Constitutional sense in section 61(a).

S/N: 0004

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/28/2005 4:56 PM