Saturday, October 15, 2005

Segment 3 of the 10/13/05 conference call addresses some concerns related to financial privacy resulting from a distressing supreme court ruling.

78 Old Comments:

What is “financial privacy” to the government? Look here!

Why is the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE listed under the Nevada Secretary of State site; https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?CorpID=235044 as a Nevada corporation rather than in the District of Columbia?

Well, I believe it is to prevent paying the District of Columbia taxes as Nevada doesn’t have any corporate ‘income’ tax, and the information of the corporation is more secret!!!

But, why is there only ONE U.S. government department listed in Nevada?

Well, there is real no need to keep the other departments secret from the public!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 12:18 PM  

Non-liable,
See below your post on last thread. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/15/2005 12:32 PM  

This post is to the jury if you are reading our posts:
Irwin Schiff is the father of The Truth in Taxation Movement. Our movement is growing in leaps and bounds. I predict in three years we will force the governments hand over this tax issue. It is not by coincidence that President Bush talked about a national sales tax during his last election. He did it to gain votes from our movement who ever we are. Even we do not know the full extent of who we all are. More importantly he is laying the ground work to change the system before public outrage brings down the government. Woe betides a jury that found Irwin guilty after witnessing a kangaroo court. I believe Dawson has sealed his fate already. It may take a few years but he will leave as disgraced judge and hopefully be put in prison where he belongs. He’ll be sacrificed when things get too hot for the government as will Mc Bride because of his disgraceful conduct in the Simkanin trial.
It should not take you the jury more than two minutes to reach your verdict. You do not need to pour over all the evidence or should we say the one sided evidence in this case. You only have to think about one thing now WERE THE DEFENDANTS GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL. When you are satisfied that they WERE NOT you must acquit. If there is a planted juror among you there will be no place for you to hide this is Irwin Schiff you preside over. The lone juror and Mc Bride from the first Simkanin trial will discover the wrath of The Truth in Taxation Movement (The citizens of America).
Finally to the Mormon Church, Dawson will cause you considerable embarrassment in the future you need to throw him out of your congregation before that day ever arrives. If there is a Mormon reading these posts you need to contact your leaders and report his conduct. One of the Ten Commandments is Thou shall not bear false witness, Dawson has certainly done that.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 12:41 PM  

I have gone back and forth on these blogs and lost track on where I saw it, but I did hear or read that if the juror had any involvement with the IRS and disapproved then he, the juror, was dismissed. Well, isn’t the saying, “If you have read Schiff’s books, you are dismissed”? What about saying too, “If you have read the income tax form instructions, you are dismissed”? The prosecuting attorneys are biased and Judge Dawson allowed them to be by eliminating those jurors who favored Schiff, but Schiff could not dismiss those jurors who favored the government.

Schiff can have the case thrown out as you can only have one point of view, and when the government throws out both Schiff’s view and any impartiality to Schiff’s view then there can be only one other, the government’s view!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 1:41 PM  

· "[The State] did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation..."



· "There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."


· "The State...is the organization of the political means. Now, since man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, he will employ the political means whenever he can...He will…have recourse to the State's modern apparatus of exploitation…So long, therefore, as the organization of the political means is available – so long as the highly-centralized bureaucratic State stands as primarily a distributor of economic advantage, an arbiter of exploitation, so long will that instinct effectively declare itself."

Albert Nock

By Anonymous gd, at 10/15/2005 2:54 PM  

Surgeons

Five surgeons are discussing who has the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating
table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians!
Everything inside them is color coded."

The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best;
everything inside them is in alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers.
Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at
the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would."

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: "You´re all
wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There´s no guts, no
heart, n o balls, no brains no spine, and the head and the ass are
interchangeable.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 3:57 PM  

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."
Adolf Hitler

"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."
Adolf Hitler

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 4:22 PM  

LAWYER IN AN ACCIDENT
> > >
> > > A very successful lawyer parked his brand-new Lexus in
> > > front of his office, ready to show it off to his
> > > colleagues. As he got out, a truck passed too close and
> > > completely tore off the door on the driver's side. The
> > > lawyer immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911,
> > > and within minutes a policeman pulled up.
> > >
> > > Before the officer had a chance to ask any questions,
> > > the lawyer started screaming hysterically. His Lexus,
> > > which he had just picked up the day before, was now
> > > completely ruined and would never be the same, no
> > > matter what the body shop did to it.
> > >
> > > When the lawyer finally wound down from his ranting and
> > > raving, the officer shook his head in disgust and
> > > disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you
> > > lawyers are," he said. "You are so focused on your
> > > possessions that you don't notice anything else."
> > >
> > > "How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.
> > >
> > > The cop replied, "Don't you know that your left arm is
> > > missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off
> > > when the truck hit you."
> > >
> > > "My God!" screamed the lawyer. "Where's my Rolex?"

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 5:17 PM  

If you are seeking the truth about Judge Dawson's conduct during Irwin's trial go to;
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
and
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/15/2005 9:11 PM  

I have received a couple of PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT notices in which I allegedly owe them about $14K. Where do I go to learn how to write my first letter to them letting them know why I believe I am not required to file?
Can you recommend a specific book title that has proven effective?

The Heebrew Hammer

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 9:48 PM  

The Heebrew Hammer see here...

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/2003forms.htm

http://www.losthorizons.com/overpay.htm

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/TheEmpireWhiffsBack.htm

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/

http://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/15/2005 11:20 PM  

Listen to (Segment 3 of 5) on 10/14/2005 12:23:00 AM, at exactly 03:00 minutes in.

Judge Dawson has read jury instruction 33 on count 17 for evasion of roughly $1.3 million in taxes from the years 1979-1985, taxpayer assessments are a deficiency is adequate evidence.

There was NO statute mentioned for count 17, as Judge Dawson could never find ‘income’ tax evasion listed as a crime under Title 18, but the jury would not know that. And the jury would not be informed that count 17 has NO place in this trial, as Irwin has already served the time, so they could convict Irwin on this alone, AGAIN!!!

So if what Irwin has said that count 17 applies to his earlier conviction, then there should be charges made against Judge Dawson prior to the end of the trial and notice made to his superiors. Irwin should not spend one day in jail for count 17, or any that pertain to his prior convictions.

So here Judge Dawson is putting himself ABOVE Congress in determining what the LAW is and therefore it is a legitimate charge for his disbarment; LYING TO THE JURY.

If assessments could be the only evidence allowed for ‘income tax evasion’ then the IRS could always make fraudulent assessments for anyone they want and then have those persons put in prison.

Maybe letters to Congress from every one listening to these audioblogs or the trial itself should be sent out stating that Judge Dawson put himself as the LAW maker and Congress HAS NO LAW MAKING POWERS that pertain to his job!!!

Should the Japanese Americans still be accountable for the actions they supposedly took in the 1940’s against the United States? Judge Dawson might just believe they should!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/15/2005 11:51 PM  

Do you wonder what Judge Dawson looks like? Would you like a couple of pictures of Judge Dawson for your wallet or to put on your Christmas cards or to throw darts at?
Then go to;
http://mickeydamouse.blogspot.com
http://mickeydamouse2.blogspot.com
and thank me later!

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/16/2005 12:26 AM  

We need a nice letter that we can send to our congressman and the President complaining about Dawson. There is no way that this tyrant megalomaniac should get away with this.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 12:46 AM  

I have found an official law that Judge Dawson must not only comply with, but be charged with;

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

Judge Dawson denied Irwin Schiff from having a FAIR trial, and therefore committed this crime!

Judges are NOT exempt from being charged or prosecuted.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 12:51 AM  

In regard to the issue of failure to maintain privacy in U.S. banking operations for U.S. citizens and residents.....

Now you know why there is over $10 trillion in assets in offshore financial institutions...

This will only continue until the U.S. Gvt. discontinues their abuse of financial privacy....

...and ultimately it will be less money for quatloos and the U.S. Gvt. to get their hands on.....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:01 AM  

BEFORE THE VERDICT AND THE JUBILATION AND/OR DISGUST HIT THE FAN (depends on what side of the coin one is on) I OFFER THE BELOW – CJ
SINCE THE “PRIVILEGE HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ANYONE ON THIS BLOG SITE …HERE IS MORE DATA…FOR IT CONCERNS BOTH PARTIES MENTIONED ABOVE (Except those who love paying the tax and love having no natural rights.)
How can the TAX be "correctly interpreted," and not violate the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution? Very simply. When it is a tax on a "privilege" rather than on a person, JUST AS CRS AND CONGRESS SAID IT IS! What kind of privilege? The privilege of doing business as a corporation, or as a licensed person "privileged" to earn an income in a way not open to anyone else who does not have that government created "privilege." In return for the "privilege," the privileged person pays a fee. How much is the fee? That depends on how profitable the privilege is. For example, how much income was gained from the "privilege." It is really an excise tax, but because the amount of the tax is based on the amount of the income, it is called an "income tax."
What the Code of the I.R.S. does is to describe the amount of the tax, and the manner in which it is determinable of payment by those who are or recognize themselves to be liable at law, that is, on some franchise taxable by the Government.
The only such franchises or privileges taxable are trading franchises, under which the liability to report lies for the privilege granted by the People of the particular state to operate as a person or do business in a corporate capacity (limited liability and perpetual succession). EVER WONDER WHY YOUR (IMF) INDIVIDUAL MASTER FILE ALWAYS STATES THAT YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IS SOME FORM OF BUSINESS THAT YOU ARE NOT??? EVER WONDER WHY IT ALSO SAYS YOU ARE A BUSINESS BUT DOESN’T HAVE A BUSINESS FILE ON YOU?
Under this viewpoint, unlicensed persons such as farmers, gardeners, laborers, clerks, carpenters, secretaries, waitresses, etc., would not be required to file or pay because their income was not earned in a 'privileged' capacity.
Obviously those persons who have rights guaranteed under the 4th and 5th Amendments are not required to file an income tax return. The 4th Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to the privacy of his papers and effects, while the 5th Amendment guarantees every citizen the right not to present evidence against himself. Filing a tax return forfeits both of these rights. BUT WHEN YOU WERE TRICKED INTO GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS PRIOR TO FILING THE FORM WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? MEANS YOU HAVE TO FILE THE FORM OR ARE IN BREECH OF CONTRACT. YOU ARE VIEWED AS A FRANCHISE ON THEIR RECORDS. THAT IS HOW AND WHY THE PROSECUTE.
Not all "persons" are protected by the 4th and 5th Amendment rights?
No! Corporations, which are legally "persons" are not so protected as explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. The Courts said:
"There is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has not the to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He's entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.
"Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its Charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.
"While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges." (See also Wilson v. U.S., 2211 U.S. 361)
END PART ONE!

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/16/2005 9:10 AM  

sorry for omitting the spaces making the above difficult to read...but please do and hang in there with it.

Part 2 to come...

What did you, an individual, do to sign up to become a legal Person, Corporation, Franchise, (it's titled the California Franchise Tax Board for the State of California) and thus voluntarily sign away your natural rights of 4th and 5th amendment???

You were indeed "Tricked." But nonetheless you did it.

********The remedy is to Fix it, not argue it. CJ ***********

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 9:19 AM  

BEFORE THE VERDICT AND THE JUBILATION AND/OR DISGUST HIT THE FAN (depends on what side of the coin one is on) I OFFER THE BELOW – PART TWO - CJ

Another case in point is Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107.

In that case the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Corporation Tax Act passed by Congress in 1909 was not unconstitutional since the tax on the income of corporations was an excise. The Court said:

"Excises are taxes laid . . . upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges. (Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th Ed., 680)

"The Tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity . . . the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges.

"When the Constitution was framed the right to lay excise taxes was broadly conferred upon the Congress. At that time very few corporations existed. If the mere fact of state incorporation, extending now to nearly all branches of trade and industry, could withdraw the legitimate objects of federal taxation from the exercise of the power conferred, the result would be to exclude the national government from any objects upon which indirect taxes could be constitutionally imposed.

"The thing taxed is not the mere dealing in merchandise, in which the actual transactions may be the same, whether conducted by individuals or corporations, but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere the corporate capacity of those taxed.. . . It is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods which may be the same, whether done by corporations or individuals.

"Congress may have deemed the public inspection of such returns a means of more properly securing the fullness and accuracy thereof. In many of the states, laws are to be found making tax returns public documents, and open to inspection.

"We cannot say that this feature of the law does violence to the constitutional protection of the Fourth Amendment and this is equally true of the Fifth Amendment, protecting persons against compulsory self-incriminating testimony . . ."

Now it becomes clear that the privilege created by the State for certain individuals to do business in a corporate form is a privilege for which they must not only surrender certain 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but must also pay for out of the benefits or income received which otherwise would not have been received except for the State created privilege.

It likewise becomes clear as to what is meant by "make a return." The corporation "makes a return" to pay a tax for the privilege extended to it to do business in a corporate capacity. This could also be called a kick-back. It would obviously include a report, under oath, of how much was earned. Since the State had created the corporation it obviously has the right to demand a percentage of its income. So too may Congress.

In the case of Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, The Supreme Court said:

"State Law creates legal interests and rights. The Federal Revenue Acts designate what interests or rights so created, shall be taxed."

"Excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as. are also reached by the States in order to support their local governments." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra.

Since Congress can tax only the same State created rights or privileges which the State itself may tax, than it follows that where the State is prohibited from taxing constitutionally protected rights, so too is Congress.

The Supreme Court said in the case of Murdock v. Pennsvlvania, 39 U.S. 105:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." (See also U.S. v. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234, affirmed; 384 U.S. 155.)

Of interest also is the ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas in the case of Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720:

"An income tax is neither a property tax, or a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. . . . Legislature may declare as privilege and tax as such for state revenue those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right,1 but has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right."
It must be understood that the terms excise tax, privilege tax, and indirect tax are synonymous and are used interchangeably in some of the court's rulings. These terms are contrary to the term direct tax.

SO YOU HAVE SIGNED UP SOMEWHERE – SOMEHOW TO BECOME A FRANCHISE, A CORPORATION, if you will, AND THUS THAT “PRIVILEGE” MAKES YOU LIABLE FOR THE TAX! This is the "point of view" that the government opperates from.

Where did they get this point of view? Did you Voluntarily sign up to become a franchise? If so did you know that you did? Was it disclosed to you prior to your doing so?

Remember the courts have ruled agasint most everyone and calls their arguements "frivilous" WHY? Because the RECORD shows you to be a corporate franchise "subject to the tax" and you argue and say, "I am not!" On what basis? The official record says that you are, and you have not correctly challenged or corrected the record.

This issue is not something to get angry about for that clouds the mind. Get smart and see what they see and FIX IT!

IRWIN HAS THE RIGHT QUESTION IN A SENSE….WHAT LAW MAKES ME LIABLE! THE PROBLEM: He, YOU, and I, WERE TRICKED INTO MAKING YOURSELF LIABLE AND NOW THAT YOU ARE you Better pay up! EITHER PAY OR BETTER YET – Let's work together to FIX IT! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 10:09 AM  

If you understand the above, you then understand the term "Voluntary Compliance" Laws are Mandatory and you can, in this case, volunteer for the benefit/privilege and thus comply.

You, I and Everyone acting as a normal human being doing our work to sustain our lives, signed up as a state created entity VOLUNTARILY So (so they say) and thus gave up our birthrights as Americans and subsequently fall under the Code even though it is not POSITIVE LAW because it doesn't have to be POSITIVE LAW IF you Voluntarily signed up to be placed under it, does it? You were not mandated to sign up.

The Liability is NOT in Title 26, that's why it is not found!

Respectfully submitted, CJ
don't blast me because you hate the government or hate Tax Protestors. The above is a wee bit of the story of what has happened to all of us. There is more and it is up to us to fix it.

To argue that you are not made liable is indeed "frivilous" that's why the court says it. My wonderful friend of 20 yrs. in jailed today because he wouldn't "let go" of the idea that he is not a corporation/franchise and that he is a human being. YES he is a human, but not on their records because he voluntarily signed the forms that says he isn't without knowing it and they USE THOSE FORMS AGAINST US IN COURT! cj

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 11:19 AM  

Those desiring to be FULLY INFORMED should consider http://www.quatlosers.com/irwin_schiff.htm as well as Cindy Neun's recent palimony complaint where she makes many allegations that shows the TRUE Irwin Schiff.

Don't be taken in by the courtroom charades of a twice-convicted felon.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 11:48 AM  

Quartlow of 12:48 pm YOU are of NO HELP at all.
Quatloser or whatever it's called is NOT TRUTH!
It is opinion based on errors of those who are trying to understand the sick web of destruction that has been placed UPON YOU and all of us!
You should learn to respect all those that have tried for the problem is so vast that your beloved Quatloo CANNOT AND HAS NOT FIGURED IT OUT! IT IS BEYOND HIS OR HER AND YOUR COMPREHENSION and that is why you continue to post your hate RATHER than post something that has meaning and that will help the oppressed TO INCLUDE YOU!

If quartlow knew anything, the ANSWER and the REMEDY would be posted at that site. IT IS NOT!

Now, do you understand what the PRIVILEGE is that you agreed to trade your natural rights as a human for? YOU made a trade. YOUR RIGHTS FOR WHAT?

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION and you will be on your way to becoming human and an American again! CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 12:56 PM  

CJ,

Have you figured out yet how to replace the personal income tax which contributed 43% of Federal revenues last year?

What's your plan to sell this to the American people and which items in the Federal Budget would you cut?

Or do you think that the personal income tax applies to everyone else but you?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/16/2005 1:02 PM  

The Bleeding obvious is that Quatloo is posting cases as scare tactics in order to PRETENT they know something and are of high morality when IN FACT, with regard to income tax, Quartlow is a quart low.

They offer nothing of fact except to say they think we all should remain in the fog, as corporate franchises when in FACT WE ARE HUMAN Beings, One of the posterity with Natural Rights that have been taken away by trickery, deciet and fraud.

Quartlow must like that....I DON'T and millions of others don't either. CJ So sick of the lie and those that continue to tell live it and tell it.

By Anonymous CJ, at 10/16/2005 1:05 PM  

"Or do you think that the personal income tax applies to everyone else but you?"

That's interesting...it appears that the U.S. Congress believes that the personal income tax applies only to U.S. citizens and residents, but does not apply to all non-resident aliens who do not have a trade or business in the U.S. If a U.S. citizen does not have a trade or business in the U.S., they are still forced to pay a tax on capital gains and interest income whereas non-resident aliens are exempt. Thus, the foreign individual has more rights to their property, under certain circumstances, than U.S. citizens and residents.

Ultimately, that is discrimination folks...it is no different than racial discrimination in that it is financial/nationality discrimination. Thereto, the U.S. Congress has committed an act of discrmination against its own people. Countries such as Uruguay make no distinction between local and foreign which is more equitable. Answer that one Quatlosers....$10 trillion and rising....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 1:32 PM  

Schiff clients who have been criminally prosecuted aren't hard to find...

United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Dentice, No. 99-50101 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 1999)
United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Burdett, 962 F.2d 228 (2d Cri. 1992)
United States v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Crosson, No. 95-176 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 1995)
United States v. Anderson, 637 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Conn. 1986)
A new one for you: United States v. David G. Pflum, 2005 TNT 196-13, No. 04-3508 (10th Cir. 10/7/2005), aff'ng No. 04-CR-40008-SAC (U.S.D.C. Kan.). The opinion is about instructions on "willfulness" and objections to certain testimony on tax rates, not too interesting. The opinion begins:

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

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

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

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 1:53 PM  

For Immediate Release: August 29, 2002
Contact: Steven A. Swan (603) 483-0550

Long-Time Promoter of Tax Protester Irwin Schiff Launches
New Web Site Refuting Schiff's Income Tax Theories
(www.SchiffIsWrong.info)

(Auburn, N.H.) From 1996 to 2002, Steven A. Swan of Auburn, New Hampshire promoted the income tax theories of nationally-known tax protester Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, Nevada. Swan promoted Schiff's income tax theories through seminars he conducted; through a Web site he set up; through radio, television, and print interviews; through press releases; through letters-to-the-editor; through advertisements; via word-of-mouth; etc.

However, Swan now realizes that Schiff has misinterpreted and misconstrued the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the income tax laws and regulations, and the court decisions Schiff has relied upon to develop his theories that the Federal Income Tax is entirely voluntary and that anyone can legally refuse to pay it. Earlier this year, Swan filed a $7 million civil lawsuit against Schiff in U.S. District Court in Nevada claiming that Schiff was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence against Swan. That lawsuit is currently in its discovery phase.

In order to warn the public and the thousands of Schiff followers that Schiff's income tax theories are incorrect, Swan has launched a new Web site refuting all of Schiff's income tax theories one by one. Swan's new Web site is located at www.SchiffIsWrong.info.

For further information, Swan can be reached by e-mail at stevenswan@earthlink.net; by mail at P.O. Box 453, Auburn, NH 03032; or by phone at (603) 483-0550.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 1:54 PM  

Wanted: Other Victims of Income Tax Guru Irwin Schiff

For over 20 years income tax guru Irwin Schiff has been advising Americans that the federal income tax is voluntary and that anyone can legally stop paying it. According to Schiff, a million Americans have legally stopped paying income taxes using his methods. Unfortunately, many of these unwitting people have had the IRS file liens against them for not paying income taxes; many have had their credit ruined; many have had property seized from them; many have been prosecuted for income tax crimes; and some have even committed suicide because of the difficulties they have encountered for using the bogus information provided by Schiff.

Schiff himself was imprisoned in the 1980's for income tax evasion. However, in 1990 he published a new book encouraging people who wanted to stop paying income taxes to file what he calls "Zero Returns". And for the past 12 years, the Justice Department has inexplicably left Schiff alone--even though many Americans have been harmed by his incorrect theories regarding the federal income tax.

I was one person who was ensnared by Schiff's fast-talking, no-one-else-could-get-a-word-in-edgewise pitch. And for many years I promoted Schiff's theories myself. But as time went on and as I more fully investigated his theories, I came to realize that they were incorrect.

I have put together a Web site refuting Schiff's income tax theories one by one. It is at www.SchiffIsWrong.info. I have also filed a civil lawsuit against Schiff for fraud, negligence, and misrepresentation in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada-Las Vegas.

I would like anyone else who is a victim of Irwin Schiff's misguided income tax theories to contact me so that we might discuss filing a class action lawsuit against him to prevent him from damaging any more innocent people. Perhaps we can do what the Justice Department has been unwilling to do all these years.

If you would like to contact me, my telephone number is (603) 483-0550; my e-mail address is stevenswan@earthlink.net; and my mailing address is Steven A. Swan, P.O. Box 453, Auburn, NH 03032.

Steven A. Swan
www.SchiffIsWrong.info

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 1:55 PM  

Schiff clients who have been criminally prosecuted aren't hard to find...

I wonder what a review of the transcripts in these trials would reveal.

Do you think these trials were conducted more fairly than the disgraceful display hosted by Judge Dawson?

Losses in this nation's justice system are not news. When someone actually wins in such an adversarial system, now that's news.

What is lost on many of you government employed cheerleaders is that our justice system is a sham. It is erroding our rights and incarcerating innoncent people everyday.

This blog isn't about income taxes, it is about the conduct of the courts in this nation.

That misconduct just happens to be most evident in the course of income tax trials. Sadly, that is only the tip of this iceberg.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 2:11 PM  

"10th Cir. wrote:
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 69 (A. Smyth ed. 1907). While not contesting the inevitability of the former (as far as we know), David G. Pflum believed he had found a loophole to escape the latter."


The irony of ironies: The U.S. Congress has made a loophole by allowing non-resident aliens to conduct banking and brokerage transactions in the U.S. that are totally exempt from taxes on interest income and capital gains so long as the NRA has no trade or business in the U.S. A U.S. citizen or resident is excluded from such loopholes as the U.S. tax scheme is on worldwide income. If a U.S. citizen or resident had no trade or business in the U.S., but only capital gains taxes and interest income, they would still be forced to pay the tax. That is discrimination folks on a loophole in the tax scheme. It appears that Quatloos folks don't want to talk about the absolute inequities that are taking place with the tax code. Maybe that's because it wil cost them dearly. A scheme like the one above takes a large group of suckers to continue its existence.

So the 10th circuit's quip about Bejamin franklin and that there are no loopholes is totally false. Let's see the 10th circuit rule in favor of a discrimination lawsuit by U.S. citizens and residents (taxpayers) against the U.S. Gvt.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:13 PM  

Once Irwin is convicted, if that happens, the government will start going down Irwin’s list of customers and file charges against anyone who has believed in Schiff’s materials.

Why don’t we just admit that Congress writes the laws and judges can change them “at-will.” Why don’t we go to Congress and have them go back to the 1944-1945 tax rates as that could easily get the government out of debt.
http://staff.jccc.edu/swilson/businessmath/fit.htm
Here you can see that the rate was 94% for those that made over $200,000; which would probably be $2,000,000 today. That would leave only $120,000 available if he had no deductions, but even then there would be state and local taxes.
At the same time someone making $20,000 at today’s rate would pay 23% or be left with $15,400 before other taxes.

Congress can impose slavery without regard to the U.S. Constitution.
I have argued with the state of California that if the federal government imposes a 50% tax rate and the state of California imposes the same rate due to referencing the same code section then that would be a 100% tax or slavery!
What if they both imposed a 75% tax rate, then you would owe 50% beyond what you ever earned and could never pay it back, and the interest would still be growing!

Were Irwin’s evidence never certified as evidence and therefore not allowable, while anything that the government submitted was certified, but possibly only after the fact? Is it true that the evidence must be certified for the defendant except when the defendant is the government?

Everyone that has not known about the “We The People” lawsuit should look into it, as that may be our last hope to get out of slavery.

Are You prepared to take the ‘mark of the beast,’ the microchip implant that will be totally voluntary, but it would be required if you want to purchase anything, or even work for an employer? What is voluntary, either total submission or slow death?

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 2:14 PM  

From Cindy's palimony suit:

"Irwin moved in to my home under the pretence that he was my boyfriend. We were ever "engaged", but Irwin said several times that he intended marriage at some point. He said this in front of other people who liked me and who chided him for not making an "honest woman" out of me. These statements were a part of the fraud. His deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying and conning others for personal profit or pleasure, to remain in honor for those students, customers, friends and family who expressed their fondness for me."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:17 PM  

"If you would like to contact me, my telephone number is (603) 483-0550; my e-mail address is stevenswan@earthlink.net; and my mailing address is Steven A. Swan, P.O. Box 453, Auburn, NH 03032."

Looks like Swan's contact information is out of date. If you want to contact him between now and the year 2010, you'll need to mail your correspondence to him in prison.

STEVEN A SWAN
00259-049
FMC DEVENS
SATELLITE CAMP
P.O. BOX 879
AYER, MA 01432

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:22 PM  

The …“Where’s the Beef?” defense for Irwin!

Remember the very popular Wendy’s ad, where the little old lady peers beneath the buns of her hamburger only to discover laying there amidst the vast expanse of a hamburger bun this teeny tiny piece of meat, and upon seeing this she forcefully demands to know …“Where’s the Beef?”

Irwin in his closing remarks to the jury should ask the jury; “Where’s the Beef?” We have asked and asked the IRS and the government …“Where’s the Beef?” and all the IRS and the government gave us back in return was ‘tofu’!

I have asked Judge Dawson …“Where’s the Beef?” and what did Judge Dawson give me back in return? …more ’tofu’! The ‘Beef’ would be a clear straightforward law that plainly says who is required to file an income tax return and pay income taxes. ‘Tofu’ is what Judge Dawson gave me instead of the beef. All of us know the difference between tofu and beef.

Remember what Judge Dawson’s explanation for the income tax law requiring one to file a tax return and pay income taxes? Well, his 'tofu tax law' recipe was something on the order of ...you take one part lower court decisions and mix them with two parts of a few lines of code taken from unrelated code sections in the Internal Revenue Code book and press it all together like Spam, - sprinkle the concoction with some magical court dust and then presto chang–O you have the law, according to this judge that requires people to file a tax return and to pay the income tax.

Now do you have some understand as to why the judge wants you to blindly accept what the laws says as he instructs you as to its meaning?

A fact about 'tofu' is … very few people really know what’s in 'tofu' and the same is true of the Internal Revenue Code, - very few people really know what’s in it. The government is asking this jury to find the defendants guilty and send them off to jail for violating ‘tofu tax laws’! What possible moral justification is there for any jury to convict someone for violating laws of any kind, - tax laws or any other laws, that amount to bunch of tofu, - laws that no one truly understands. Tofu can be cleverly doctored up and disguised to look and taste like beef, but you gut knows the difference, -fed a bunch of ‘tofu’ when it craves 'beef' your gut will still hunger for the real thing ...shouting out to you … “Where’s the Beef?”

Ask yourself this question as you deliberate the fate of the defendants; is it morally right to convict someone of violating laws that are made of a bunch of tofu, - laws that are highly complex, confusing, ambiguous, disjointed and vague? Do you accept Judge Dawson’s version of the law making you liable to file a tax return and pay income taxes, or did his ‘tofu tax law’ explanation ...or, does the bunch of 'tofu income tax law' that judge worked hard to pass of as 'beef' in hopes the jury would swallow it just make you want to cry out, - “Where’s the Beef?” "Show me the Beef!"

If you feel that the judge in this case tired to feed this jury a bunch of 'tofu' while claiming it was really the 'beef', then you must aquit the defendants on all charges.

By Blogger Mr. Beef, at 10/16/2005 2:25 PM  

From Cindy's palimony suit:

It seems to me that if Cindy's civil complaint had any value(assuming this is from her complaint), the government would have entered it into evidence. It's not like they were encountering any difficulty introducing evidence from their side of the trial.

The governments cheerleaders are out in full force tonight. It must be part of the strategy.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 2:25 PM  

"I have argued with the state of California that if the federal government imposes a 50% tax rate and the state of California imposes the same rate due to referencing the same code section then that would be a 100% tax or slavery!"

Couldn't happen. State taxes paid from are deductible when calculating federal income taxes.

Besides, any politician that tried it, would be voted out of office. That's how the checks and balance system designed by the founding fathers works, silly.

"Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:26 PM  

"It seems to me that if Cindy's civil complaint had any value(assuming this is from her complaint), the government would have entered it into evidence. It's not like they were encountering any difficulty introducing evidence from their side of the trial."

Unless she took the stand, they would have no way of getting it introduced into evidence.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:28 PM  

www.SchiffIsWrong.info

There is no such web site. It seems to be bogus as presumably is the rest of your post.

The lights must by burning at the IRS building tonight.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 2:29 PM  

Unless she took the stand, they would have no way of getting it introduced into evidence.

Like I said, they weren't having any difficulty introducing evidence from that side of the courtroom. Besides, Irwin was on the stand, I'm sure they could have weaseled it in then somehow, or are you conveniently forgetting that.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 2:33 PM  

"www.SchiffIsWrong.info There is no such web site. It seems to be bogus as presumably is the rest of your post."

Not wrong, just outdated. I guess Swann couldn't renew his domain names in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:35 PM  

"Like I said, they weren't having any difficulty introducing evidence from that side of the courtroom."

It's not surprising that attorneys with experience in courtroom procedure have a much higher success rate than Schiff who would introduce the kitchen sink if he thought it would help jurors drink the koolaid made from tap water.

"Besides, Irwin was on the stand, I'm sure they could have weaseled it in then somehow, or are you conveniently forgetting that."

Silly person. Evidence has to be relevant to the person on the stand. Since this trial is about the defendants' beliefs, and a lawsuit filed after the indictment couldn't have helped Schiff form his beliefs, the civil suit could not be introduced during his testimony.

Your ignorance of court procedure doesn't change the fact that court procedures were followed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:41 PM  

You can read the Swan website if you go to www.archive.org and type in

http://schiffiswrong.info/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:44 PM  

Besides, any politician that tried it, would be voted out of office. That's how the checks and balance system designed by the founding fathers works, silly.

"Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson


So, are you suggesting that these tax honesty folks who are challenging the current interpretation of the law, may be the first of our citizens to draw the line as to what is an acceptable rate of taxation?

How dare anyone say enough is enough when it comes to taxes. Let's bring back whippings before we throw them in jail. (/end sarcasm)

The fact is the government won't stop raising taxes until they reach the citizens point of intolerance. We have perhaps reached that point.

I suppose the first wave of resistors can be ignored and imprisoned, but at some point we'll have too many citizens in prison. I'm not sure what point that is. We already have a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other nation in the world.

I guess the politicians and courts will make that determination for us here in this land of the free (at least for those that who haven't been thrown in prison for something).

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 2:48 PM  

For all those who do not live in REAL TIME...Swan and others past is HISTORY! GET OFF IT and GET ON something of value.

READ what anonymous said about "NON-RESIDENT ALIENS" This person has something true and real to say!

The irrelevant stuff is indeed irrelevant for yesterday is not today. Go get a high colonic and come back when your mind is free of debris. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 2:52 PM  

And when citizens get tired of excessive taxation, they vote in politicians who agree to reduce taxes.

The Constitution states that the check and balance against high taxes is voting, not cheating, or changing the plain meaning of common words like "includes" or any of the other paytriot games this so-called movement likes to play.

Heck, most tax protesters don't even vote.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 2:54 PM  

If Irwin is convicted, then will the government go to Freedom Books and take everything?

Will they tear down the sign and remove everything that shows his place of business even existed?

Will those that worked at Freedom Books be prosecuted too as CRIMINAL accomplices of Schiff’s?

Maybe someone should be there to record on video of what the government will be doing!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 2:54 PM  

"READ what anonymous said about "NON-RESIDENT ALIENS" This person has something true and real to say!"

Not only is it real but it is possibly about to be a major collective lawsuit against the U.S. Gvt. by the citizens and residents of the U.S.

What is taking place here in the tax code in terms of non-resident aliens vs. U.S. citizens and residents is an outrage and total hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. Congress. This tax scheme needs to be abolished and the U.S. Gvt. should be forced to refund all capital gains and interest income paid by U.S. Citizens and Residents OR (which isn't going to happen) ask all NRA's to cough-up the tax on capital gains and interest income. An official letter of apology by the U.S. Gvt. should be placed in the Federal Register addressing the criminal action that the Gvt. enforced on the American people so future generations never forget the discrimination that has taken place here....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 3:02 PM  

Silly person. Evidence has to be relevant to the person on the stand. Since this trial is about the defendants' beliefs, and a lawsuit filed after the indictment couldn't have helped Schiff form his beliefs, the civil suit could not be introduced during his testimony.

I see, so you think the government is honorable in its actions and the judge might actually have sustained an objection coming from the defense.

You have no idea how much I would like to believe that myself. Unfortunately, I witnessed enough trials to know that isn't the case.

The truth is that our government is most often represented by lying, scheming, ruthless people who will stop at nothing to get a conviction.

Our jails are flush with innocent people, and you will never know how bad it is until you stand falsely accused in a courtroom seeking justice yourself.

I don't wish that on anyone.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 3:03 PM  

Reasonable Guy said...
CJ,
"Have you figured out yet how to replace the personal income tax which contributed 43% of Federal revenues last year?"

"What's your plan to sell this to the American people and which items in the Federal Budget would you cut?"

"Or do you think that the personal income tax applies to everyone else but you?"
10/16/2005 2:02 PM

As a matter of FACT Reasonable Guy I posted a couple ideas and I am sorry YOU missed them!

1. Corporations treated as such are allowed to write off lots of expenses prior to paying the taxes owed for the privilege of being a franchise of the state as a corporation.
2. The Bible says to pay the Church (Tithe) as 10% of your excess, (not off the top) but your excess means after living expenses.
3. The Individual tax has people paying tax before their expenses of life.

SO THAT addresses your once asked MORAL ISSUE. IS it moral to have an uneven playing field?

SECOND….The tax you pay is not to AMERICA but to the Corporate Federal State. YOU CLEARLY MADE THAT DISTINCTION IN YOU QUESTION OF ME. The corporate Federal state has bungled its way into mess after mess.

IF you did not live in that State of being you would pay the tax? America is not the corporate federal state, therefore they (corporation federal state) should pay the tax in their realm and You and I should pay the tax in America and for America.

PROBLEM IS, you live and work in the corporate Federal territory, as a franchise according to them (ON PAPER) and thus you have to pay for their debt because you were tricked into it.

IT is SEPARATE FROM YOU WHEN YOU WERE BORN. yOU WERE NOT BORN A FRANCHISE!!!!! YOU ASKED TO DO IT AND YOU DO!

NOW why should I have to pay YOUR AND their and taxes? Should a Canadian have to pay my tax or your tax too? I seek to be an American not a fiction franchise of a paper state. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 3:05 PM  

CJ,

If I understand you correctly, you are advocating a massisve increase in corporate taxes to make up the shortfall in personal taxes?

No budget cuts? The current overall size of the Federal government is ok with you?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/16/2005 3:13 PM  

Anonymous said...
“The Constitution states that the check and balance against high taxes is voting”

Have you bother to read any of the reports on the last two presidential elections, especially those on the internet? I believe it was in Riverside, CA that one polling place had 50,000 votes counted prior to the polls even opening. There were some that had more votes then there were residents, including children. I found one website that has a poll for the 2000 election in which one of the choices was a write-in in which Pat Buchanan and Bugs Bunny were selected. On one vote Pat Buchanan won with 56% of the vote and on another Bugs Bunny had 25% of the vote, but these were both supposedly write-ins with the same vote selected. The technology is there to manipulate the votes, so really your vote doesn’t count any more!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 3:16 PM  

Still no explanation by Quatloos on Non-Resident Aliens vs. U.S. Citizens and Residents discrepency...that's because it is the 'dirty little secret' that the U.S. Congress has made with the U.S. financial establishment.

Quatloos..since you are such experts, please tell us what other loopholes in the tax code are available so Non-Resident Aliens can use the U.S. as a tax haven while U.S. Citizens and Resident have to cover the costs...


Absolute disgrace...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 3:17 PM  

Dear Resonable Guy,
You Assume wrong. I wrote nothing of the sort!

I first answered you other MORALITY question on the basis of fairness to all concerned.

I secondly expressed the facts as they stand. You, as a corporate franchise CITIZEN (US) have to take your issues up with your FEDERAL Corporation that gave you your franchise!

A Non-resident alien does not have that issue to deal with.

What is a non-resident alien you may ask? Non resident to Art. 1. Clause 8 Sec. 17-18 territorial citizen of the insular possessions.
Did you ever wonder why, when traced, all the IRS offices/commissions are from Puerto Rico and/or why all your info is held by the commissioner international?

Residents of America are not taxed outside the taxing clauses of the Constitution for the United States and are actual human being people, not franchises of a corporation!

So why didn't you answer any of my questions? Answer this one...should someone else pay your tax? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 3:21 PM  

Dear Resonable Guy, I can't fix your problem. I will help you though. If you want to assist your Federal corporation try reading about the country of Estonia! Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 3:25 PM  

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States..its citizens do not pay taxes to the U.S. Gvt, but pay taxes to the Gvt. of Puerto Rico. It may be why the IRS is based there because of this distinction on a territorial basis.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 3:27 PM  

Gee whiz guys, why do you think that in all the definitions contained in the IRC with regard to United States, State etc...ALL mention only the territories like Guam etc... because the IRC APPLIES TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT CONGRESS HAS EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDITION OVER.

If they come to the geographic United States they HAVE to get a SS CARD MANDATORY BY LAW. An American born here only gets one VOLUNTARILY. BUT WHEN YOU GET ONE, YOU BECOME ONE OF THEM!

THERE IS ONE LINK TO THE FRANCHISE! cj

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 3:33 PM  

CJ,

I'm just asking where you stand.

Your writing style is not succinct so I apologize if I made assumptions.

So I'm still looking for a clear answer from you. What would you do to the budget for the missing 43% of Federal revenue if there were no personal income tax? Would you increase other taxes or cut the budget and how would you sell that plan to the American people?

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/16/2005 3:35 PM  

p.s.

The SS # is a Tax Payer number.

It sets up the account with the IRS.

You reside here and thus have become, on paper, a resident alien oweing the tax. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 3:35 PM  

"Why is the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE listed under the Nevada Secretary of State site; https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?CorpID=235044 as a Nevada corporation rather than in the District of Columbia?"


How can a Nevada Corporation have the title "Department of Treasury- INternal Revenue Service" Was this entity created by a private individual/corporation or the actual Department of Treasury-Internal Revenuw Service. If the latter is the case, then one can only surmise that this proves that the IRS is a Corporation and has formed into a NV corp to avoid state taxation issues with the District of Columbia.

More proof that the IRS is not a government entity.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 3:46 PM  

The IRS and Federal Reserve are part of the ‘New World Order’ and you are the slaves to them, as seen in Judge Dawson’s courtroom.

If the Federal Reserve were to collapse today then they would want to claim ALL their property to pay whatever there were required to do so.

That means ANYTHING that was paid for with Federal Reserve Notes will be confiscated by the Federal Reserve.

So, anyone who is alive today in the United States has been paid for their labor with Federal Reserve Notes and then they purchased ALL their items with Federal Reserve Notes.

Therefore NO-ONE is exempt from handing over their property and themselves as slaves to the Federal Reserve, including President Bush, the Congressmen, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and the property of the 50 states and the United States itself!!!

The NEW bible translations from the Wescott and Hort New Greek Text from 1881 have been translated and published by the Freemason publishers, the ‘New World Order,’ to get across the message that God wants you to obey your government rather than what the King James version states; obey your church leaders. I guess Caesar did not like what Paul wrote in Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God,” and therefore had Paul executed for even Paul did not obey the corrupt government. But if the new translations are correct then Caesar executed his own promoter, to obey Caesar.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 3:57 PM  

By the way, if the Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service is now a NV corporation , who owns the shares in the corporation? Same goes for a Puerto Rican Corporation. Also, if it is a NV Corp., then bearer shares could be used and the real identity of the owners of the Department of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service is being concealed. Thereto, the owners could be anyone: Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs, foreign governments or other entities. It could be the Queen of England and thereto the American public is still paying taxes to the British crown some 200+ years later.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:01 PM  

One other point..if the Dept. of Treasury- Internal Revenue Service is a NV corporation and is listed as a C Corporation then that means that it is a "For Profit Corporation" Who are the profits going to? the U.S. Gvt. OR some 3rd party that owns the taxing collection agency of the United States of America. Who are these folks if it is not the U.S. Gvt.?

C'mon quatloos...tell us what's going on here..

It's looking more and more like a very wealthy group own the entire taxing authority of the United States and thereto the Gvt and its people.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:21 PM  

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.

I only have a few words to say to you in my closing argument.

I stated in court, and I stated in documents I filed with the court, that I would plead guilty if the government would just show me the law(s).

Five weeks of your lives have been wasted by a government that refuses to show me the law.

Have they shown you the law?

Five weeks of your lives have been wasted by a Judge who doesn't want the law in his court room.

Each time I mentioned the law, the judge said "sanction". That means he was giving me another day in jail. And he doubled it each time.

The judge is going to tell you the law.

I ask you to ask yourselves, How will you know when that judge lies to you?

It won't be because he or anybody else showed you the printed law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:27 PM  

If non-resident aliens receive such tax exemptions through loopholes in the tax code and U.S. citizens and residents are cornered into paying the same taxes AND the Department of Treasury-IRS is owned by a 3rd party, be it internal or external..

THEN

could it be that in 1933 when the U.S. claimed bankruptcy, the taxing authority and thereto the nation of the United States was consumed financially by some internal or external 3rd party?

This is an important question because it explains the discrepencies in the tax code for non-resident aliens vs U.S. citizens and residents in that it could be that non-resident aliens (or U.S. citizens/residents posing as non-resident aliens) that own the U.S. taxing authority and thus the country financially.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:33 PM  

Ever wonder WHY Title 26 (IRC) is not "Positive Law?" It has not been enacted into Positive Law. Title 1 has and so has Titles 3,4,5 and more. Title 41 hasn't nor Title 42. hmmm the SS act is in Title 42!

This stuff is called "Special Law" or "Private Law" and You Elected to resign your inalienable rights in order to be placed under this "Special/Private Law" which is PRIVATE to the Federal Territories and Insular Possessions.

That's WHY 26USC is not POSITIVE LAW for it only applies to areas outside the organic United States/America!!! CJ

Now if Quatloos would concern themselves about the real issues affecting ALL OF US and not just want to get their little jollies trashing people, they could actually do some good. As it stands they only serve the boots they lick and them ain't American Boots. CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 4:40 PM  

Yes, it may be true that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Warburgs are the stockholders of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, but you will NEVER find the truth as that is why the IRS is in Nevada. By the way, the Federal Reserve is made up of investors from around the World, a U.S. government agency owned by foreigners!

Dr. Frank Logsdon, who has passed on (1907-1987), and Les Garrett who were and are promoters of the true Bible translations are like Irwin Schiff and Bob Schulz on the tax issue. They will go to their grave trying to tell the ignorant people out there that you are NOT blindly to obey your government, as the TRUTH is there and must be presented.

By the way, if you want to believe in the new translations, then you will be guaranteed to go to heaven along with Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden. In Revelation 21:24 it reads, NASB; “The nations [???] will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” and in the King James; “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.” But only does the King James mention “which are saved” are those going to heaven. So, if you want to just obey the new translations then you are guaranteed to get to heaven. By the way, both Bush’s swore to uphold the Constitution by swearing on a Masonic Bible, which is to swear to the Masonic Lodge!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 4:46 PM  

So here it is:

Federal Reserve/IRS owned by wealthy interests who are established as non-resident aliens. Thereto, they hold vast amounts of U.S. Treasury debt and other assets which are exempt from taxation on the income and capital gains from those assets. The agreement is that the new owners of the United States of America would provide the liquidity to bail the country out of bankruptcy in 1933. Of course, the bankruptcy was a direct result of overcreation of credit by the very entitity that this group owns (Federal Reserve). It was no accident that there was a deflationary depression from the late 20's on...it was intended to bankrupt the U.S. and transfer the control of the nation quietly over to the private interests that control the Federal Reserve.

This is a transfer of wealth and sovereignty and that is why the income tax on U.S. citizens and residents is so vociferously enforced because the owners of the United States of America own its people, its resources and its sovereignty.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 4:55 PM  

President Kennedy gave an order for U.S. Treasury Notes to be issued over the Federal Reserve Notes, but the New World Order didn’t like that so he was assassinated.

ALL the U.S. Treasury Notes that had been issued at the time were recalled by the new President Johnson.

The cover-up of the assassination included G.H.W. Bush working for the CIA at the time.
http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

If you assist the New World Order then you may become president.

If you are a judge and assist the New World Order then you may become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

The latter may inevitably come true as much terrible information has been coming out against Miers.

Convict an anti-tax promoter, Schiff, and become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/16/2005 5:15 PM  

For those of you looking for that site in Steven A. Swan's post below, a little history lesson:

Steven A. Swan
---------------------------
1996: Schiff disciple, zero-return filer

2002: Raided by IRS

2005: In federal prison

You do the math. Have a nice day!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 8:29 PM  

What does Steven Swan have to do with the price of tea in China? I mean are we not discussing the price of tea in China?

By Anonymous gd, at 10/16/2005 8:44 PM  

Swan, Bob Schultz, Peymon, Larkin Rose, all make the fatal flaw in beginning their consideration thinking that they are American's.

Yes in social studies that is what we learned and we certainly want to believe it.

However a few events happened that placed us and them in the position of having their original status altered.

To enter the discussion as an American one has to be an American on record. The official record of the Federal corporation shows them, and you as Federal citizens wherein they have complete and total legislative jurisdiction over you and you only have Civil Rights, those rights they statutoraly assign to you, NOT Constitutional Rights.

Ever wonder why the judge says "The Constitution doesn't apply here" (in the courtroom)
Why did Mark Furman of the O.J. trail fame ask for his "fifth amendment privilege and not right?

Ever wonder about Judge Dawson and what kind of LAW he is administering? So what he is a creep! He is administering private law based on the PRIVATE PAPER used by Irwin and everyone as under a debtor/creditor relationship. That relationship established the law. Merchantile Law. CJ

I sure hope that some more of you are beginning to get it! To see that we are all trapped into something that can only get worse unless we learn about it, work together to change it back to the manner our forefathers envisioned.

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 8:51 PM  

sooo, let's establish banks using Liberty Dollars backed by gold and silver...seems too, the m.o. is to box the defendant into a corner for which the only conclusion a paid for jury is to come to is logical, now how to get out of the box. CJ you nailed it. Extricate oneself from the corporate sytem, bank with and work for liberty money.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/16/2005 8:56 PM  

Come on Quatloos jump in and expose the real scam.

We were all taught to play in a sandbox we no little to nothing about. We use private (that means they belong to someone else and we use them for a fee) debt negotiable instruments and say we "pay" for things, when that is absolutely impossible. We discharge a debt with limited liability. For you cannot pay a debt with a debt and consider it paid.

Now there is a scam for ya! Posting old news about Mr. Swan accomplishes nothing but maybe the poster getting his jollies over someone elses woes...whose woes are based in the same SCAM that befalls those leaving such posts.

CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/16/2005 8:59 PM  

your debt is now 8 trillion... and your labor, your equity in your home, your savings...everying is Pledged to that debt. Hahaha GD

By Anonymous gd, at 10/16/2005 9:01 PM  

For those of you looking for that site in Steven A. Swan's post below, a little history lesson:

Steven A. Swan
---------------------------
1996: Schiff disciple, zero-return filer

2002: Raided by IRS

2005: In federal prison

You do the math. Have a nice day!


------------------
Does anyone have the transcript of this trial? I'm sure it would be quite revealing.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/16/2005 9:07 PM  

Irwin's on live right now.
http://paynoincometax.com and scroll down to the "listen live" button to listen on the internet.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/16/2005 9:17 PM  

"It is opinion based on errors" - cj 1:56pm 10-16

Damn cj, you da man! Able to sum up the tax protestor [bowel] movement in 6 words.

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 10/16/2005 10:58 PM  

Dave Jahn wrote:

"This blog isn't about income taxes, it is about the conduct of the courts in this nation.

That misconduct just happens to be most evident in the course of income tax trials. Sadly, that is only the tip of this iceberg."

Well said.


Anonymous cowardly silly person suggested:

"You can read the Swan website if you go to www.archive.org and type in

http://schiffiswrong.info/"

What makes you prefer Swan vs. Schiff? You Quatloosers constantly harp on Schiff's "twice-convicted felon" status (ignoring the overturning of one and the bogus nature of both) but Swan is a "convict" as well.


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person bleated:

"The Constitution states that the check and balance against high taxes is voting, not cheating, or changing the plain meaning of common words like "includes" or any of the other paytriot games this so-called movement likes to play."

Nobody in this movement likes to play those games. Who started them? Find out who wrote the laws, regs, and other materials which *establish* the word games, and you'll have your answer.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/20/2005 11:46 PM