He has been posting on the commentary section of the Trial logs Web blog.
After crossing words with perspective, I went back into the archives and extracted every post that was signed by perspective.
I also pulled out any other poster's posts that I thought appropriate for showing how perspective posts and how he interacts with other posters.
Something just doesn't ring true in his postings, and because he has been such a PITA, I am turning my attention and intellect to analyzing his posts.
My comments are in black, perspective's are in green.
As this is an ongoing project, I am going to provide jump links to index where each addition to this file is added.
Append 1 Append 2 Append 3 Append 4 Next page
| Dear Fellow Patriots, He identifies himself as being part of a group that I no longer believe he is part of... Even though he does a good job of talking the talk. It is those times when he doesn't talk the talk that I am going to highlight with my commentary. It is those times when he doesn't talk the talk that lead me to believe.... Well, just read on and see if you can determine what I believe about him. One of us- #1. The Internal Revenue Code has NEVER been the issue before these types of trials. Why? Because there’s no jurisdictional issue of right involved. The context of the above statement is the Irwin Schiff trial. "Jurisdictional issue of right." I have no idea what he is talking about, And I'm not sure he ever does clarify the statement. I will address the Code and "these type of trials" as we go on through his alphabet soup of words. JUDGE DAWSON, under the circumstances of the trial, was doing his duty (See U.S. cite below). Belief that nothing is wrong- #1. If his duty was to make sure the jury never understood what law Irwin was alleged to have violated... And if his duty was to shield the government from having to actually prove that there was a law that applied.... I'll get into why this statement is so bogus in regard to the written law a little later. Irwin, after all these years, has been fundamentally missing the point—love him for his fire and economics— but he consistently and completely fails to understand Constitutional principles of law. How's this for a Constitutional principle of law-- Void for Vagueness Doctrine (footnote) -- If men of common intelligence can not agree on what the law requires; If men of common intelligence must guess at what the law means; Then that law violates the Constitutional right to due process. They're stupid- #1, inferring I'm smart- #1. Do I think he or Cindy should be in jail? No! Interesting that he thinks Irwin or Cindy should not be in jail.... Remember: Jail is a penalty. Do I think there are Constitutional repugnancies that should be addressed regarding the present taxing system? Yes! We shall see if he ever posts what he thinks those repunancies are. But the forum for Constitutional challenges was not before Judge Dawson’s court. The issue was not challenging the Constitutionality of the tax laws. The issue was the manner in which the IRS VIOLATES proceedure. The issue is what the words of law plainly command. The issue is whether those words command Irwin, or anyone else to do anything. Those words do command, but the issue is who do they command, and when do those commands become active, and what do those commands say to do. As you read through perspective's words, pay attention to how he wants the focus OFF of the words of law. Therefore, I’d start apologizing to Judge Dawson and plea for mercy---asking for leniency for Irwin & Cindy; it shouldn’t be a crime to be delusional, and Irwin is clearly delusional, but it’s in good faith. Resistance is futile- #1. They're stupid- #2. Remember: Jail is a penalty; jail is a punishment. Perspective says Irwin and Cindy should be saying, "I sorry massa, please don't whip me no more, please massa, don't punish me harshly". The court should not hold Irwin or Cindy responsible for other people’s misdirected actions in a system of government, which is supposed to be based on individual responsibility and self-government. "The court should not hold Irwin or Cindy responsible for other people’s misdirected actions" -- So Irwin and Cindy should beg the massa to not give them as many lashes per a previous sentence. And then the incongruity in the second half of the sentence: "a system of government, which is supposed to be based on individual responsibility and self-government" Hopefully, the judge will take into consideration Irwin’s and Cindy’s age, health and mental state. Yes. Hopefully. They're stupid- #3. |
|||
| The simple fact of the matter is
patriots just don’t want to realize
that the courts are NOT corrupt—that’s been an excuse the patriot
community (gurus) has adopted because after all these years they simply
haven’t identified the real Constitutional issues. Notice that he claims the courts are not corrupt. Everything is hunky-dory in his mind. He thinks it's okay that the government didn't have to prove that the words of law created a duty for Irwin to file. Don't look at the law Mr. and Ms. juror. Just take our word for it. And again with the Constitutional issue whitewash. Watch how often he spews about "Constitutional issues" yet NEVER clarifies just what the "issues" are. They're stupid- #4, inferring I'm smart- #2. Nothing is wrong- #2. Irwin had no issues of law as a defense before Judge Dawson’s court. In a word: BULLSHIT. The FIRST issue of law, is whether the law actually created a duty to file. The only issue before the court was facts in relationship to the charge of obstruction and collection of (excise privilege) taxes within the IRC, which are conditional and self-imposed penalties—of omissions or commissions. Gobbledegook! "The only issue before the court"-- Okay, he claims a single issue. I'll magnanimously allow the issue to be a "class" of issues as "The only issue before the court" "facts in relationship to the charge of obstruction"-- There can NOT be "obstruction" if the written words of law do not clearly and concisely create a duty. In other words, how can there be "obstruction" if what is being "obstructed" is the illegal actions of the IRS agents and employees involved? And the collusion of the courts? "facts in relationship to ...collection of (excise privilege) taxes"-- Actually, he erroneously got this one right... Because whether the written words of the law allowing and/or commanding an IRS agent or employee to collect a tax from Irwin et al, IS a fact that should have been determined by the jury... But we all know that the judges are themselves usurping the rights and power of the people to pass judgment on the law itself... Or in this case, whether the law commands what the IRS and government claims it does. (By the way, the judical branch is "government" also.) Please note also that perspective says "collection of (excise privilege) taxes". This entire web page is motivated by the fact that perspective refuses to give name to that "privilege" that creates the "nexus" (connection). Nexus / priviledge- #1. As to the remainder of the sentence.... WTF is he talking about. Maybe it will become clear in subsequent words. These penalties are created by Congress in their political capacity under the U.S. Constitution to enforce tax collection. I must be confused. Must be that publik skool ejukation. Since the "penalties" are a matter of written law, wouldn't that be penalties created under there legislative capacity? |
|||
| The
Constitution is alive and well—its real limits on government usurpation
have only been temporarily put to sleep. Again with the Constitution, while attempting to lull the reader into ignoring the words of law. (You'll see the truth of this as you continue to read his postings.) This is not totally a "nothing is wrong" statement. Count remains at 2. So, instead of getting mad, I suggest getting perspective. Meaningless tripe- #1. A waste of perfectly good electrons. You must understand: The Founding Fathers provide us with solutions; it’s our duty to activate them. Ah, yes, a passing nod to the ever-elusive "solutions". Keep your eyes open, you might get to see some more references to the ethereal "solutions". Just don't get your hopes up that you'll actually see anything more indepth about the "solution" than you just have in that sentence. Ethereal solutions- #1. |
|||
Citing—Cheatham
v. United States, 92 U.S. 85, 88 (1875), it was said by this Court,
speaking by Mr. Justice Miller: “All governments, in all times, have
found it necessary to adopt stringent measures for the collection of
taxes and to be rigid in the enforcement of them. These measures are
not judicial; nor does the government resort, except in extraordinary
cases, to the courts for that purpose.”
Bold emphasis mine. "In this country, this system ... provides safeguards of its own against mistake, injustice, or oppression, in the administration of its revenue laws." And when those safeguards are NO LONGER OPERATIVE, because somebody has been compartmentalizing the knowledge of the IRS employees. How many times have there been statements by IRS employees that they don't need to read the law? For those of you who have read Larken Rose's web site, think about how he was stonewalled at every turn of the administrative appeals process. And don't forget, instead of answering questions, the IRS, in a very heavy handed approach, tried to use section 6700 to shut Larken Rose up.
So pay the money first, then sue the collector... Well Ken Evans did just that. I'll summerize the case: Ken asked the very questions the government to this day refuses to answer. The judge told the DOJ lawyer three different times to answer Ken's interrogatories. The DOJ never did answer the interrogatories. If you or I failed to answer the DOJ's interrogatories after being told three times by the judge to do so, you know we'd be sitting in jail until we complied. Nothing wrong with the system there. Continuing with the cited Supreme Court case:
Bold emphasis mine. "While a free course of remonstrance and appeal is allowed within the departments before the money is finally exacted ... " That statement if applied to the system of today would be a flat out lie. The IRS has STONEWALLED the process of appeal. The IRS has illegally attempted to keep the appeals meetings from being recorded. In the table cell below is a concise observation on the recording issue by Larken Rose: |
|||
| Dear List Subscriber, Yes, I really did write "hooray for the Tax Court," and I wasn't even kidding. I just heard from a reliable source that today (7/8/03) the Tax Court ruled that it is IMPROPER for the IRS Appeals division to disallow audio-recording of meetings held before Appeals, including Collections Due Process Hearings. (That was the new "policy" of IRS Appeals, as of many months ago.) It's sort of sad that this is even worth celebrating, since 26 USC § 7521 makes it glaringly obvious that Appeals is REQUIRED BY LAW to allow such recordings. Why the heck we needed a "ruling" to state the bleeding obvious is beyond me. Oh well. The next question is, how will the IRS respond? The IRS does NOT consider Tax Court rulings binding on them, except for the particular case before the court (or pseudo-court). So I see two options for the IRS: 1) ABIDE by what the Tax Court said, and make it so that all the thuggery that has happened behind closed doors at IRS Appeals can now be on the record, and can be made available to the public by the person recording it. 2) IGNORE what the Tax Court said, and forever have a clear example of how the IRS does NOT consider Tax Court rulings to be binding. See the predicament? "So Mr. Appeals Guy, let me get this straight. You say that it's 'frivolous' for me to even mention Section 861, because of a ruling by the Tax Court--the same court that told you to allow me to record this meeting... but you didn't. So what the Tax Court says matters, except when it's in my favor? Is that about right?" If they ever get to Appeals with me, that should be fun. Sincerely, Larken Rose |
|||
| Void for Vagueness Doctrine adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment. Google "Void for Vagueness Doctrine" - opens in new window. AltaVista "Void for Vagueness Doctrine" - opens in new window. Jump back up. |
| To Fellow Patriots and "The Peon"
blogged Sunday @10:40 pm “Peon,” you’re trying to find solutions, but I’m sorry to say that your letter writing is no solution. Even if the whole taxing system were changed tomorrow, not one real constitutional problem would have been addressed. Again with the Constitution. Note that the "problem" is not stated. One of us- #2. Making changes to the taxing system would be like attempting to reshuffle the chairs on the Titanic. Straw man- #1. Nobody wants to change the taxing system. Those involved want the IRS to PROPERLY follow the "system". As for everyone’s “bitching”: Not true. I suggest you revisit "perspective" blogged Sunday at 3:25. I do not make statements lightly after 28 years in the freedom movement. |
||
| First
thing the individual patriots must ask themselves is: What is the cause
of my frustration? Answer: Socialism. Socialism IS the CAUSE of most of
the problems we’re facing in America today. Here he is definitely talking the talk. Talks it good too. Even before 1929 certain factions within our government started finding ways of by-passing the U.S. Constitution by promoting government sponsored benefits; these programs are known in law as waivers to Constitutional protections of rights for privileges. (See Wickard v. Filburn quote below) If participation is mandatory, then it is NOT a privilege but a DUTY. For those who have not read this case, the short synopsis is that a farmer grew wheat on his own farm for his own purpose and was penalized for doing so. More below. |
||
| The present
taxing system is just one of the harsh (progressive) collective effects
of these programs we’ve all been sucked into. Voluntarily or mandatorily "sucked into"? This is a passing reference to the taxing "NEXUS" (n. A means of connection; a link or tie) which he refuses to state. Nexus / priviledge- #2. That is the reason WHY government keeps saying: “Everyone must pay his or her fair share.” What is the nexus that is the reason "Everyone must pay his or her fair share"? Are there Constitutional solutions to reverse these usurpations? YES!! Ethereal solutions- #2. There are people like myself who are creating a new direction—researching and planning—so be HOPEFUL AND PATIENT as we’re in the beginning phases. I'm smart- #3. The patriot community has sadly missed critical elements regarding the constitution and will have to leave their prejudices at the door. They're stupid- #5, inferring I'm smart- #4. |
||
| The first thing the patriot
community must realize (after all these years) is that they have been
up against what the courts call the “Political Question Doctrine”. Unsubstantiated assertion- #1. (See criteria below) So for ALL THOSE failing to understand WHY Judge Dawson appeared to be going so hard on Irwin by sanctions or stopping him from bringing in the Code sections— you fail to understand the “Separation Of Power Doctrine.” I'm smart- #5. They're stupid- #6. The judge ACTED within the confines of the CASE before him and had NO choice but to proceed as he did. Unsubstantiated assertion- #2. Irwin’s arguments were simply out of context; his relationship with Congress’ taxing power was already established before Judge Dawson’s court. There's that "nexus" (n. A means of connection; a link or tie) which he refuses to state. Nexus / priviledge- #3. Unsubstantiated assertion- #3. NO Constitutional issues of law were in question, Correct. Because the issue was willful failure to file, and one of the elements of a "willful" crime is that there must actually be a law creating the duty, and it must apply to the person in question. So regardless of what you spew, the issue is what the words of law themselves say. And Irwin said if they show him the law that makes him liable, he would plead guilty. and certainly the Code itself doesn’t reach that level of judicial review. The comparison of attempting to argue the IR Code within that court’s rules is likened to a private in the Army arguing the military Code with his commanding officer that he doesn’t have to peel potatoes. Where is the argument. Schiff said show him the law that makes him liable and he would plead guilty. I was in the military. Quote: "It is not only your right, but your duty, to question an illegal order. If the military code says a certain class of soldiers are not required to peel potatoes, any such order is an illegal order. By the way, the booklet "Turning the Regs Around" was most informative in my impressionable years of my (military) youth. In both cases, the judge and the Commanding Officer may lose their patience with insubordination, and resort to sanctions. Like a guy named Vinny resorting to sanctions when a shopkeeper doesn't pay his "insurance" bill. |
||
The “Political
Question Doctrine” (see criteria below) is a bar against courts from
interfering with the legislative branch’s constitutional enumerated
powers -- In Irwin’s case the congress’ taxing power.
Bold emphais mine.
Bold emphais mine. The case (Irwin's) was already being heard by Dawson's court. Your continual pointing to the "Political Question Doctrine" is starting to look off point. The issue, which the courts are refusing to address, is NOT interfering in "the legislative branch’s constitutional enumerated powers". The issue is that the EXECUTIVE branch is NOT abiding by the law as written. The judicial branch of government stands independent of the legislature and enforces law as written by Congress unless it can be shown a conflict exists between the Constitution and an ordinary act of Congress. Bold emphasis mine. "The judicial branch ... enforces law as written by Congress..." No, they do NOT. All one needs to understand this, is to actually read the written words of law. The "law as written by Congress" and the regulations, written by the Secretary of Treasury by Congress' decree and permission, which have the same force and effect as law. |
||
| Anyone
who’s promoting threats to Judge Dawson, or the jury, or anybody else
is off base and fails to understand the context of Irwin’s trial. (See
Perspective—blogged Sunday at 3:25PM citing U.S. Supreme Court). There
is NO room in the Freedom movement for fatalism or fanatics preaching
hate, or hopelessness. PLEASE STOP IT—ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Instead of
getting mad—get smart— get perspective. So far, the off point focus with no substantiation of intent and meaning by perspective make this entire post thus far, Meaningless tripe- #2. "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes." Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 131. Addressed previously. |
||
| Political Question Criteria: 1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department 2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the case 3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion 4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches 5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made 6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments of the government And this has what to do with the fact that the IRS is violating due process by failing to follow the procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury in the regulations? On the whole, this post subtley says 'Don't read the code for yourself.' Don't read the law- #1. |
| Duplicate post.
Deleted to
spare your eyes. |
Another poster takes perspective to task for the post(s) above.
| perspective, So there's nothing wrong with the IRS misinterpreting the IR Code on purpose and going beyond their authority to perform illegal actions through intimidation and fear? Maybe this isn't the right thing for Irwin to argue in court, but what other defense did he have to proove that his actions didn't violate laws and that he didn't act willfully. What, his only chance was through character witnesses? The law judges whether Irwin was right or wrong. And if it is seen by a jury as "Everyone has to pay taxes," then character witnesses wouldn't hold up a defense for Irwin at all!!! His best bet was to show the jury that the government witnesses' actions were illegal to begin with because the jury is seeing, by default, that the IRS's actions were legal by having the government witness say that it was legal. If that was established, their testimonies would not be credible and Irwin should have won the case. The government didn't prove anything! The government didn't meet it's burden of proof. The government brought up the law, and tricked the jury to what it means. If the government can bring up law and falsify it in open court, then why couldn't Irwin bring up law? The government brought up three statutes that, when put together, make the defendants liable for the tax. The dumb judge made it known to the jury! Why can't Irwin show that the statutes in question doesn't make him liable? What you're saying Mr. perspective, will provide Irwin with no defense, but to plead guilty knowing that he didn't do anything wrong! |
| Duplicate post.
Deleted to
spare your eyes. |
| Perspective. After almost 30 years in the Freedom Movement, it pains me to see the same old disinformation still being promoted. Emotionalism and ignorance make for a never-ending martyrdom. One of us- #3. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance ---- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer They're stupid- #7. The rest is duplicative of what you have already read. Deleted to spare your eyes. |
Another poster takes perspective to task.
| Perspective, Bob says Its not often I use harsh words in my response's but in this case I cannnot resist. In a simple word BULLSHIT. I am not a lawyer or for that matter a college graduate but I can read and I think you might start by reading the Declaration of Independance and then move on to the constitution. I believe that the founders who wrote it established three branches of government not to support each other but to protect the people from what is going on today. The only guidelines for the federal Judicary is the Constitution not the will of Congress or the Executive branch. In Irwins case since the question of law was not allowed to be discussed and the Government never produced the law that Irwin allegedly broke how could you possibly convict him. What crime did he commit? Now I expect you lawyers can convolute simple language to say something that is clear language means something else unless of course the Judge dosen't want you to say it then you cower and go back to your corner like a good slave. The reality is dawson had the responsibility to review the Supreme court rulings that were arrived at back when the 16th ammendment was allegedly ratified and refered to in Irwins documents. He also was obligated again by the constitution to allow Irwin to question his witness's in front of the jury without the court reading them their rights, the jury also had the right to see the IRC in their deliberations. The truth is the combination of the sheeple in this country and as Alan Keys refers to them, the MIGS (money is God)people who have made a living by sucking off the backs of hard working Americans wouldn't know freedom if it jumped up and bit them in the butt. If dawson did this back in the days of Thomas Jefferson he would have been draged out to a one way trip to the Liberty Tree. |
| To Bob & All from Perspective: Thanks for your suggestions—please carefully re-read my comments. I have. And the more I read, the more it looks like toro mierda. I’m not a lawyer but I do a great deal of research in Constitutional law. We'll keep that in mind if we have Constitutional questions, Like what is the definition of "INCOME" in its Constitutional sense. I’d like to assure you, Bob, I’m on your side—you just don’t know it yet. One of us- #4. Hopefully, by creating an open dialogue we can convert your fears and anger into something positive. Whose fears? And what is the "something positive" when all he posts is ethereal insinuations that have no substance. Instead of undermining your productive value by allowing the government to destroy you, you can use it to support the return of limited government. Ethereal "solutions"- #3. |
|||||||||
| In the “Freedom Movement” for 28
years, I once stood in your shoes: angry, frustrated, and very alone,
and with little to no legal knowledge. One of us- #5. I'm smart- #6. They're stupid- #8. Yeah, I know, the country was going to hell in a hand basket; something had to be done, and Irwin seemed to be right on economics. Talks the talk. But after the “Biggest Con,” he crossed the line with “How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Tax”. Unsubstantiated assertion- #4. That’s where the misinformation really invaded the so-called Freedom Movement. They're stupid- #9, inferring I'm smart- #7. Before jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, patriots should have looked to the Constitution with a closer eye to find the issues. Again with the Constitution, but still no facts to hang a hat on. No, Irwin’s directions were to “just stop filing” – cut the government bastards off – that will stop them from taking our rights away. Wrong! Misrepresentation of position- #1. And since Irwin was very involved with reading the words of the written law, by inference I should increase the "Don't read the law" count. That only put the government in a better position to take ALL our rights away. Resistance is futile- #2. |
|||||||||
| As everyone has just witnessed, Irwin
knows very
little about court procedures, and completely fails to understand
Constitutional issues of rights as distinguished from privileges that
are taxable and that are enforced by civil or criminal penalties. They're stupid- #10, inferring I'm smart- #8. Again with the Constitution and the subsequent nothing of substance in the post regarding the same. "as distinguished from privileges that are taxable". Privilege(s) that perspective refuses to name, thus the creation of this web page. Nexus / priviledge- #4. Is there some hope for Irwin? Maybe there are a few issues he can appeal, a few minor technicalities, like the failure of him or his assistance of council to subpoena the government’s psychologist to present his “good faith belief” via Cheek, but none of those issues has any possibility of reaching Constitutional issues of law. Again with the misdirection of the Constitution. Irwin is fanatically convinced of his beliefs—his lack of tolerance and perspective could well cost him the rest of his life in prison – hopefully not. More like his narrow minded focus on the written words of law. |
|||||||||
| When you are charged with ANY tax
violation, the
NEXUS with that particular Congressional power has usually been
established beforehand within administrative levels. Yes. "When charged". Now answer why there are charges pending when the government will not answer serious questions about the written words of the law. Nexus / priviledge- #5. Have you seen anything as to WHAT that nexus is yet? And there are two issues of nexus... With Congress itself in the authority to make tax laws subject to the restraints in the Constitution... And the nexus the law itself has with any individual ACCORDING TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF THE LAW. This is a misdirection that infers "Don't read the law". The inference is not solid enough to increase the "Don't read the law" count because it never addresses the written words of law which describe the nexus to the tax imposed. The Internal Revenue Code, in such a case, is an ADMINISTRATIVE taxing enforcement tool for Article I Section 8 Clause I U.S. Constitution. The "enforcement tool" provisions would be sections like section 7203, which is predicated upon some other sections. In fact, the written words of law in section 7203 state:
Very, very, very clearly, if one is not a "person required under this title" or a person "required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof" then this "ADMINISTRATIVE taxing enforcement tool" DOES NOT APPLY. |
|||||||||
| In
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S.Ct. 559, 1944, the Court stated:
"When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to
carry on governmental activities, the power of those agencies is
circumscribed by the authority granted...," 321 U.S., at 309. The issue is not whether those agencies have any authority, The issue is WHAT is the circumscribed authority ? And that is to be found by... Reading the written words of law. Now perspective posts a single sentence excerpt from the case, attempting to make a point only he knows. No matter. I will post several more sentences from the very same court case. First, what is the issue of the case:
The petitioner / milk producers assert the Secretary (of Agriculture) was taking their money unlawfully. The entire case hinges upon whether the milk producers have a legal cause of action.
The court has jurisdiction. To win the case the petitioner / milk producer must prove violation of a legal right.
The Statute itself IS Constitutional... Just as the THM states the taxing statutes are Constitutional.
The petitioner / producer does NOT belong to any cooperative, thus extracting from their due, funds that go to a cooperative is the problem in the producer's mind.
Bold emphasis mine. Pro tanto: Latin for only to that extent. Example: a judge gives an order for payments for one year, pro tanto. In other words, this court has acknowledged that the deduction takes some of the producer's money.
The petitioner / producer claims the action of the Secretary of Agriculture (and delegates on equal footing) is BEYOND statutory authority. The producer claims that the deduction IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY. Much like the complaint of Tax Honesty proponents regarding the IRS.
Oh, look... A nexus. Too bad the court misspoke and called a privilege a right. That really confuses issues when we actually get to discussing true unalienable rights.
Bold emphasis mine. Consider the words in bold with the words of complaint from above: "The petitioner / milk producers assert the Secretary (of Agriculture) was taking their money unlawfully. The entire case hinges upon whether the milk producers have a legal cause of action."
Here's the link to the case on FindLaw. This court case really contrasts with the case of Ken Evans. See above. |
|||||||||
| Again,
the Court echoed these principles in Soriano v. United States, 494 F.2d
681, 9th Cir., 1974: "[A]n administrative agency is a creature of
statute, having only those powers expressly granted to it by Congress
or included by necessary implication from the Congressional grant," 494
F.2d, at 683. I don't look at lower cases because I haven't figured out how to get them from FindLaw, and I'm not sure that all these cases are even available there, so I have no commentary to make on this cite. Given the nature of the previous cite and my comments on that... |
|||||||||
| Note: The above principles foreclose
any
so-called arguments with the tax code because jurisdiction has already
been established. The "jurisdiction" question is whether one falls under the requirements of the statute. And one can not know that unless one... Reads the written words of law. Any further arguments before the court in this regard would be frivolous in the eyes of the court. IRS: You are supposed to file a return and pay a tax. Accused: Glad to. Just as
soon
as you show me the law that proves what you just said to me.
IRS: FRIVOLOUS, the courts have ruled blah, blah.Judge Dawson knows and is bound by these principles. Of not allowing the law in the courtroom... He said as much. “Only the facts, Ma’am!” Please show me the facts in the written words of law. Irwin disregarded the court’s warnings and was sanctioned. The court warned Irwin to not educate the jurors on what the written words of law actually say. This, in the eyes of the uninformed patriot, appears as if the court was acting corruptly which is simply not the case – like it or not. They're stupid- #11. Nothing is wrong- #3. The court has NO CHOICE but to abide by Congress’ constitutional authority (LAW) in these types of cases. But the court will not address what the written words of that "LAW" are in an honest manner. To do otherwise would be to breach judicial duties. The court is NOT there to advocate your rights for you. See Below: |
|||||||||
| Article
III of the Constitution limits federal "judicial Power," that is,
federal court jurisdiction, to "Cases" and "Controversies." This case
or controversy limitation serves" two complementary" purposes. It
limits the business of federal courts to "questions presented in an
adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of
resolution through the judicial process," Like this? and it defines the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Meaningless tripe- #3. Has no bearing on what the written words of law (statutes and regulations) say. |
|||||||||
| The courts have the power to
determine whether the acts of the legislative or executive branches are
authorized by the Constitution whenever they are brought before the
court in a judicial proceeding. Hence, the judicial department of the
government exercises a certain controlling, or rather restraining,
power over both the other departments. Notwithstanding, each department
within its proper constitutional sphere acts independently of both the
others, and restraint is only placed on it when that sphere is actually
transcended. But it is only when called on, in some form known to the
law, to give effect to such acts of the other departments that the
courts can determine whether such acts were done in the exercise of a
constitutional power. Very good... Or it would be if it had any bearing on the actual issues. |
| "We are not afraid to follow truth
wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson Perspective. After almost 30 years in the Freedom Movement, it pains me to see the same old disinformation still being promoted. Emotionalism and ignorance make for a never-ending martyrdom. One of us- #6. Redundant post deleted to save your eyes. |
| Perspective: use it or lose it. Meaningless tripe- #4. |
| When I started in the freedom
movement I believed it was about individuals regaining their liberties,
and dignity; now it has been reduced to a cult with NO direction. One of us- #7. Ad hominem- #1. Wouldn’t you think after 35 years someone would start questioning the assumptions that are not working? Misrepresentation of position- #3. Resistance is futile- #3. |
| Anyway, for what it’s worth:
For those that can formulate any logical and reasonable question
concerning the Constitution, I’ll do my best to respond. I'm smart- #9. They're stupid- #12. And for those who think freedom can only be gained by following some guru, carefully read and think about the quote below. Ad hominem- #2. A very, very wise soul spoke these words that changed my perspective on the freedom movement. |
| “If
you want to change the world for the better, then you are an idealist.
If you want to change the world for the better, but you believe it
cannot be changed one whit, then you are a pessimist, and your idealism
will only haunt you. If you want to change the world for the better,
but you believe that it will grow worse, despite anyone’s efforts, then
you are a truly despondent, perhaps misguided idealist. If you want to
change the world for the better, and if you are determined to do so, no
matter at what cost to yourself or others, no matter what the risk, and
if you believe that those ends justify any means at your disposal, then
you are a fanatic. Ad hominem- #3. |
| “Fanatics are inverted idealists.
Usually
they are vague grandiose dreamers, whose plans almost completely ignore
the full dimensions of normal living. They are unfulfilled idealists
who are not content to express idealism in steps, one at a time, or
indeed to wait for the practical workings of active expression. They
demand immediate action. They want to make the world over in their own
images. They cannot bear the expression of tolerance or opposing
ideas. They are the most self-righteous of the self-righteous, and they
will sacrifice almost anything-their own lives or the lives of others.
They will justify almost any crime for the pursuit of those ends. “ Ad hominem- #4. |
| CJ You are a very passionate individual and I think you have good intentions. These Internet postings are not really the best format for stating your case. So, before you get totally frustrated, I’d suggest you write a BRIEF clarification paper. |
| Suggestion: You
may want to start the paper by identifying the problem you’re trying to
resolve, short and to the point. Next: State your THEORY of the case
followed by your conclusion, and last state your solution. After doing
all the above, if your arguments hold some promise, people will have a
better opportunity to formulate questions. Complex issues need the most
care of all to overcome misunderstandings; by laying out a bigger
picture, reasonable agreement or disagreements can be found. In this
way you get the added advantage of finding out if your theory is flawed
or is useable. |
| Notwithstanding my agreements or
disagreements
with Irwin, those that can support him should do so, for I know the
isolation he now faces. |
| CJ Sorry your explanations are disjointed and out of context. Because you fail to address any issue of right, within any legal context, you are therefore wasting your time. I suggest you start with the Federalist Papers—for foundational purposes. Mary Webster puts out a very good updated version of the Federalist with modern language—do a web search. They're stupid- #13. |
| JIM Read my previous postings. Anybody reading this far into this page already has. The Constitutional ignorance in the so-called freedom movement is deplorable. They're stupid- #14. Lynch law—straight from the MOB?!? Irwin was out of context—his limp attempt to do a Writ of Prohibition—Mandamus was a Joke. Judge Dawson had NO CHOICE but to confine Irwin to disproving the FACTS only. Why???? Because the IR CODE was NOT on trial… Irwin was. If Irwin had any law question that had merit, he should have brought it up ahead of time to a higher court. But he didn’t. They're stupid- #15. |
| Let me make myself really clear—the
independence of
the judiciary is still our best hope to return us to the Constitution. Ethereal "solutions"- #4. Just because the so-called freedom movement cannot formulate a judicial question in a Constitutional sense is no reason for fanatical threats. They're stupid- #16. Your FRUSTRATIONS are misdirected!!! They're stupid- #17. I suggest you start by reading American Jurisprudence regarding ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Or you could have posted things of substance with links to said administrative law. Maybe then you’ll realize the courts are prevented in these types of trials from interfering with Congress’ powers to enforce taxes through their agencies. Misrepresentation of position- #4. Don't read the law- #2. Nothing is wrong- #4. They're stupid- #18. |
| Of course, there’s lots of corruption
in our present
system of government, because Americans have been put to sleep. Talks the talk. But the only proper way to correct it is within the Constitution otherwise we are ALL LOST. Again with the Constitution, and Ethereal "solutions"- #5. |
| Judge Dawson is NOT the problem; the
problem is
the patriot’s ignorance of constitutional principles. Nothing is wrong- #5. They're stupid- #19. You can play procedural games all you want, but if you don’t have an issue of right, you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. Ethereal "solutions"- #6. |
| Egad “DOES ANYONE READING THIS REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SOLUTION TO BE FOUND IN OUR HORRIBLY COMPROMISED COURT SYSTEM?!?” ABSOLUTELY there are real solutions in our Court system, but first you have to know how to identify the right question of law. Ethereal "solutions"- #7. They're stupid- #20. I’ll give you a hint—it’s NOT arguing the Codes. Don't read the law- #3. |
| In Federalist 33, Hamilton:
"[T]he national government, like every other, must judge, in the first
instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in
the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of
its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people,
whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and
take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as
the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." And your point was...? |
And yet another poster takes perspective to task on his posts.
| I’ll
give you a hint—it’s NOT arguing the Codes. OK I like the code, it shows me no liability but it seems that "the thing" to argue about is going to be sort of a secret for a long time. Actualy there is no point in looking at the codes at all because they are subject to interpretation (as if in a foreign language) by people more learned than myself. So lets not concern ourselves with what congress voted on. Some of us claim to know how to address the present situation and are more than willing to give hints about what the right question of law would be. Or maybe it is suggested that the whole approach is fataly flawed. I have not read the federalist papers so I can only guess what Hamilton meant when he wrote about"the people" appealing to the standard they have formed. Can I get a perspective on that. Is it necessary to know what he meant to get the hint. Or should I find out what federal judges think he meant by those writings. |
| Grumpy, The code doesn’t have to show liability — in tax law and in the eyes of the courts a waiver may be all that is necessary to establish a relationship with the taxing agencies. "A waiver"... Nexus / priviledge- #6. Don't read the law- #4. Nothing is wrong- #6. If there is no liability, there can be no tax due. If you don’t know how to rebut that relationship you’ll be compelled to acquiesce to the consequences. Resistance is futile- #4. This is what has happened to Irwin and all the rest of the patriots over a 35-year period. Resistance is futile- #5. |
| Quoting: “The
constitutional right against unjust taxation is given for the
protection of private property, and may be waived by those affected who
consent to such action to their property as would otherwise be
invalid…” (Cite omitted) Quoting from where? Why is THIS particular "cite omitted"? Without a cite the reader can not look up the context of the quote. |
| Key point above: “...as would
otherwise be invalid…” Okay, in all his postings so far, he has said that the people by their actions acquiesce to having their property taken. In otherwords, this ever elusive "nexus". Nexus / priviledge- #7. What does that mean to you and the rest of America — is there a Constitutional solution? Yes! Ethereal "solutions"- #8. That issue should be ripe for the Supreme Court within the next 1 -5 years depending on priorities. Ethereal "solutions"- #9. There’s still a great deal of research and preparation needed, along with support. The why are you posting abnoxious posts to this blog instead of working on the "great deal of research and preparation needed"? So, Grumpy, don’t give up hope; the founding fathers provided us with the means to correct government abuse. Ethereal "solutions"- #10. |
| You may wish to review my previous
postings within the last week. That is exactly what I am doing. And I am reviewing all your following postings from the next week(s) |
| I have read
all
of your post 'Per' and still do not have a clue. Do you want us to continue guessing, or are you going to tell us? |
| Jim, It is not a question of giving you instant pudding but a chance to find hope with the fact that there’s a positive direction being developed — outside of the so-called patriot community. Ethereal "solutions"- #11. They're stupid- #21. |
| Again,
after 35 years, the patriot community has learned little from its
mistakes and continues headstrong using gimmicks and producing the same
old bad results. They're stupid- #22. And since he claims to be one of us, his failure to post information that is useful or teaches... Well, just continue to read on. Oh, but they have the EXCUSE the courts must be corrupt, one excuse after another; with the fanatical attitude: We’re right and they’re wrong. Denigrating attitude- #1. That’s called a COP-OUT. Denigrating attitude- #2. |
| What makes
you think any of these patriot groups wants to find solutions to the
abuses of government? Denigrating attitude- #3. If you haven’t felt the pain, Jim, you will because of your failure to get perspective. Resistance is futile- #6. |
| The approach to
correcting any constitutional violation is a long and hard thought out
process – not to be confused with wishful thinking, “silver bullets,”
and off point frivolous arguments. Ethereal "solutions"- #12. Resistance is futile- #7. |
| Peon, You have hit the nail right on the head. But there is NO contract involved with the SS umbrella because there’s NO mutuality between the parties. In other words, it’s a one-way street with no equitable recourse; Congress can dissolve these programs at any time it chooses and never pay the benefits. He is actually correct regarding the fact that Congress can dissolve SS at any time. This socialistic system is where the entire citizenry has been compelled to “volunteer,” which is an impossibility of terms. He seems to talk the talk in the above sentence. These privileges come attached with a GENERAL INCOME TAX (excise tax) filing requirements at the end of each year. If they are "privileges" then not engaging the "privilege" removes the nexus to the excise (privilege) tax. Again, the purpose of this web page is because perspective refuses to address what the "privilege" is. Nexus / priviledge- #8. This is the reason the government can call the filing requirement a known legal duty. Why? Because of the relationship (accepted privilege) you have created within the plenary taxing power of Congress, Article I Section 8, Cl., 1 U.S. Constitution. Nexus / priviledge- #9. Nothing is wrong- #7. The Courts know this and have little patience for those who, AFTER THE FACT, attempt to argue the (“administrative law”) Codes. Nothing is wrong- #8. Resistance is futile- #8. |
| The complexity of this
socialistic relationship goes much deeper than you can imagine. You
have only identified a small part of the problem. Can it be shown that
these socialistic (New Deal) programs were repugnant to the United
States Constitution? YES!! To resolve this problem and many other
issues of RIGHT will take a new perspective—trusting in and supporting
the Constitution like you’ve never trusted in it before. Ethereal "solutions"- #13. And I just love this one: "trusting in and supporting the Constitution like you’ve never trusted in it before". |
| One
request of the patriot community is to go lightly on the judiciary,
because we won’t be able to change this by voting—WE’LL NEED THE
COURTS’ JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE. I suggest you read Federalist 78, which
will give you a better understanding of how the founding fathers gave
us an avenue to correct political usurpation. Ethereal "solutions"- #14. Nothing is wrong- #9. (with the courts.) |
| Duplicate post deleted to
save
your eyes. |
| Perspective guy, You are right on! Maybe that is why they all get mad at me when I ask them for a plan. No one has even thought far out enough to propose a workable solution to the Federal Budget issues that would arise if the income tax and the 43% of Federal revenues went away. Most of them come back with a "solution" of simply raising a different tax to make up the shortfall. No one said the TP's needed critical thinking skills, an understanding of economics, or basic reasoning skills. |
| Reasonable guy, Once you remove ALL socialist government programs, along with the un-constitutional use of our military for imperialistic purposes, we can return to a limited Constitutional government. The economic hardships would last for only a few years as President Jackson found out when he refuse to endorse the National Bank act of circa.1832. This country would then be free to go back producing our own products again—once again becoming self-sufficient. It would be a crime to burden our future generations with this monster of a debt. We’ll just have to go back to being families again instead of villages. Don’t ya think? |
| Agreed, Perspective guy. You have my vote as the most knowledgeable and reasonable (other than yours truly) poster on the board.  |
| Reasonable Guy, I have four purposes for my postings: 1. To promote HOPE The count of "Resistance is futile" stands at 8. 2. To give direction The count of "ethereal solutions" stands at 14. 3. To protect the Constitution So you claim. 4. To stop the fanaticism that has infiltrated the freedom movement. In other words, you know that eventially the government's tyrannical actions are going to lead to refreshing the Tree of Liberty and you don't wan't to be tarred and feathered. |
| "There
have been many great men and women involved in causes, to which they
gave their energies, resources, and support. Those people, however,
recognized the importance of their own beings, and added that vitality
to causes in which they believed. They did not submerge their
individuality to causes. Instead, they asserted their individuality,
and became more themselves. They extended their horizons, pushed beyond
the conventional mental landscapes-driven by zest and vitality, by
curiosity and love, and not by fear." In view of the posting history, this is just so much bafflegab coming from you. |
| Reasonable guy, All citizenship arguments within the present taxing system are frivolous and out of context. They're stupid- #23. Nothing is wrong- #10. Resistance is futile- #9. We are not a Confederation but a REPUBLIC. |
| “In this country, every man
sustains a two-fold political capacity; one in relation to the state,
and another in relation to the United States. In relation to the state,
he is subject to various municipal regulations, founded upon the state
constitution and policy, which do not affect him in his relation to the
United States.” United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384, 393, 1 L. Ed.
426; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 31, 5 L. Ed. 19. And your point was? |
| william, There have been many great men and women involved in causes, to which they gave their energies, resources, and support. Those people, however, recognized the importance of their own beings, and added that vitality to causes in which they believed. They did not submerge their individuality to causes. Instead, they asserted their individuality, and became more themselves. They extended their horizons, pushed beyond the conventional mental landscapesdriven by zest and vitality, by curiosity and love, and not by fear. Patronizing, Meaningless tripe- #5. |
| Jim AKA CJ AKA
perspective said, "Mary: Does anybody know how
we can fight and win?" As a matter of fact I do. If you spent your time wetting, calling and emailing every person in congress, every newspaper and tried to help everybody who is trying to expose what Judge Dawson did to Mr. Schiff instead of writing your crap you could be instrumental in helping us win. But, that would not feed your ego, would it? Mary | 11.12.05 - 12:04 pm | # |
| This
is PERSPECTIVE: Mary, before you drag me into your arguments with CJ or
Jim, I suggest you re-read ALL of my posts for the last 2 weeks. Which you have done by reading this far down on this page. If, after careful consideration of my prior statements, you can formulate a coherent question, I’ll do my best to answer you. Denigrating attitude- #4. Does he mean a coherent question like the one of mine that he refuses to answer? [sarcasm] Obviously this one is not coherent. [/sarcasm] Perspective stated: "you’re under taxable privilege like it or not" What privilege? You haven't read this yet, because it is further below when I engage with perspective. Up to this point I haven’t found anyone on this “blog” except Jim who shows any interest in finding a positive DIRECTION. They're stupid- #24. Ethereal "solutions"- #15. |
| Mr. Schiff, bless his soul,
is an economist, NOT a LEGAL mind. They're stupid- #25. The so-called freedom movement pretty much started from (“his”) false premises of law. They're stupid- #26. He wasn’t the first, however, with a false premise; A. J. Porth was the first that I know of over 35 years ago with an equally bad attempt by using the 5th Amendment against taxes. They're stupid- #27. The 5th Amendment does not conflict with the taxing powers because it does not interfere with an issue of right; otherwise, it would have been in conflict with the Constitution from day one. Nothing is wrong- #11. Misrepresentation of position- #5. |
| As for Irwin’s
appeal: I earlier
suggested he might
have a possibility of succeeding in the fact that his attorney FAILED
TO SUBPOENA the government’s own witness – the psychologist. "I suggested" "he might" Ethereal "solutions"- #16. The appealable issue would be incompetent council. If the psychologist was presented to the jury, Irwin most likely would have been able to convince the jury of his good faith beliefs bring to his aid the Cheek defense – notwithstanding his actual legal beliefs hold NO value in law. They're stupid- #28. |
| Jim, You seem to be trying to find some answers. If you can formulate a reasonable and brief question, I’d be happy, within my capacity, to do my best to respond. So long as it's an answer he can obfuscate and dance with to make it look like he has something of value to say, but when it's a questions that exposes him, He'll ignore it until I create this web page. As for me it’s all about finding answers and freedom, and not just paying lip service to the words, along with keeping an open mind. Meaningless tripe- #6. |
| Now for a quote: "A
popular government without popular information, or the means of
acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps
both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to
be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives." -- James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822
Everybody else is stupid. They're stupid- #29. |
| CJ said: “Perspective, you sound much like a former attorney in Dallas, I know of, who is still searching.” I am not a lawyer, but in my research of many years, I have identified many issues of rights to be addressed; I’ve already given you hints of the NEXUS with the tax issue. I'm smart- #10. Nexus / priviledge- #10. Did you miss it? This nexus seems to be as ethereal as your "solutions". |
| Quite frankly,
the patriot community has a very bad track record dealing with legal
issues. They're stupid- #30. Is there a better way to regain our freedoms? Yes! That’s where our research team, along with the attorneys, will come into play. I'm not sure how to classify this statement. "Research team". That might be why the solutions are ethereal.... He doesn't have any. Once we’re in a position to support a concerted effort, our doors will be open to ALL freedom lovers. We expect that to be within 1-2 years, hopefully. Ethereal "solutions"- #17. |
| With all due respect, CJ, I deal in
Constitutional
issues — your comments have been constitutionally off point. They're stupid- #31. I'm smart- #11. As I’ve said before, my main purpose for being on this “posting” is to stop the bashing of the courts. Nothing is wrong- #12. Those that do are constitutionally ignorant – unless they want anarchy? They're stupid- #32. Love that connection constitutionally ignorant – anarchy |
| There was in this country what was
known as inalienable rights—with
the
equally corresponding duty to respect the equal rights of others. We
must remind ourselves of those principles every once in a while; it
might help us regain dignity in our lives along with our self-respect.
America and the Constitution have been waiting to be rediscovered; we
must not let ignorance and blind pride deter us. They're stupid- #33. Ethereal "solutions"- #18. |
| Reasonable Guy, Thank you. When we're up and running you'll know us by the quality of our work. We'll be creating a primer on "Americaism." Remember to trust in the Constitution. It's our real hope and direction. I can't quite increase the count on the ethereal solutions, though I want to.... So: Meaningless tripe- #7. |
| Dear CJ, To overcome what has taken place in America, we must be able to reach the level of Constitutional issues. Again with the constitution. That is my most important point to you. If your research can go in that direction, more power to you. Again, to overcome a statute, the burden of proof is on us. Misrepresentation of position- #6. The taxing statutes are perfectly constitutional. They are being misapplied by the IRS. |
| You are correct in that history will
help find us our answers. Ethereal "solutions"- #19. I wish you well--peace. |
| CJ said: “Dear
Perspective, There is mounting evidence that the
organic
Constitution weighs heavy in the favor of the people and the organic
state constitutions prior to the "revised statutes.”” Perspective’s response: The Constitutions Fed/State always weighs in favor of its creators—We The People. As for “revised statutes,” this is a vague statement—you must be specific, something to be aware of for staying on point; it’s like writing an essay. POT-KETTLE-BLACK The ethreal solutions count presently stands at 19. |
| CJ said: “Also
the
law
merchant shows merit in the commercial arena and that is why I tried to
open discussion about the phony money (constitutionally) and what it
really is and means to the people.” Response: The “Law Merchant?” What’s your point? In other words, what application would that argument have, for example, with the issue of taxes? None. Another example: A lady once told me that this whole IRS thing is all Admiralty Law. I looked directly in her eyes and I said, “Madam, are you telling me we’re in a boat?” She gave me a dumbfounded look. Do you see the absurdity of the statement or the claim? It’s completely out of context regarding the IRS. |
| The money issue is a whole separate
argument, which has gotten enough
bad press. No comment. It's not an argument, and it's not defensibly arguable anyway. And it should get bad press. It's a bad system. Note to self: Get that money page written. |
| As
for court bashing, they were NOT directed at you at all, CJ. Please
re-read my comments. They were directed only to those doing it.
Insulting or threatening any judge is just plain wrong! And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950) If you have righteous issues, the higher courts will see them. Perspective believes that gods inhabit the higher courts, immune from the pressures of blackmail, political or otherwise; immune from greed for power; immune from scratching a pol's back for some other recompense and reciprocal back scratching. |
| As for Irwin’s appeal: I earlier
suggested he might have a
possibility
of succeeding in the fact that his attorney FAILED TO SUBPOENA the
government’s own witness – the psychologist. The appealable issue would
be incompetent council. If the psychologist was presented to the jury,
Irwin most likely would have been able to convince the jury of his good
faith beliefs bringing to his aid the Cheek defense – notwithstanding
his actual legal beliefs hold NO value in law. The above is a duplicate. I won't increment the counters. This same argument could be applied directly to Cindy—because her council should have dummied up to the “Cheek” defense. "dummied up"? dummy up. Slang. To keep silence; clam up. Anyone else, I wouldn't make an issue of this, and would just ask for clarification when a poster's fingers don't keep up with the poster's thoughts. He fail to subpoena Irwin’s psychologist, the WHOLE court and jury knew she was totally influence by Irwin’s beliefs. Underline emphasis mine. Implied, he's smarter than Cindy's lawyer: They're stupid- #34. I'm smart- #12. |
| The
only problem with this argument is I’m not sure if his stand-by council
was for questioning Irwin only? In other words the question becomes in
what capacity the lawyer was appointed to assist Irwin. It’s still
worth a try—on due process failure to allow “evidence,” which would
have shown “good faith belief.” It doesn’t matter with Cindy because it
is clear her council put up little to no defense regarding her “good
faith beliefs.” Armchair Quarterback. |
| I'm hoping the transcripts will be
avialable soon. They should
overflow with appealable issues. Looking to the trials ahead, it seems to me that folks need to spend more time on voir dire. The make up of the jury is critical to the outcome. Another point I would like to see researched is the "peers" issue. The constitution guarantees us a jury of our peers. Does that mean twelve folks picked at random from the streets. I'd like to see the case law on jury make up. |
| David, Researching juries can be found at 47 Am. Jur. 2nd. I prefer the older law books myself because they contain much more foundational background. § 1 Definitions [47 Am Jur 2d JURY] The term jury connotes a deliberative body of persons. 1 A jury is a body of laypersons selected by lot, or by some other fair and impartial means, 2 to ascertain, under the guidance of a judge, the truth in questions of fact arising either in a civil or criminal proceeding. 3 A common-law jury is a jury of 12 persons, no more and no less, 4 summoned from the vicinity, 5 duly examined 6 and sworn 7 to try the cause 8 on the facts presented by the evidence introduced at the trial. 9 As used in a constitutional or statutory provision, the term "jury" is ordinarily understood to mean a common-law jury if no other jury was known in law at the time of the adoption of the constitution. 10 A petit jury is a trial jury, sometimes called a "traverse jury" 11 or a "common jury." 12 "Talesmen" are jurors returned from bystanders or the body of the county to complete a panel after the list of regular jurors is exhausted because of challenge or other cause. 13 Sometimes the word "talesmen" is used synonymously with "jurors." 14 |
| Footnotes Footnote 1. People ex rel. Hunter v District Court of Twentieth Judicial Dist. (Colo) 634 P2d 44. Footnote 2. §§ 100 et seq. Footnote 3. State v Moon, 20 Idaho 202, 117 P 757; State v Stentz, 30 Wash 134, 70 P 241. Footnote 4. Generally as to the number of jurors, see § 211. Footnote 5. §§ 27, 28. Footnote 6. §§ 189 et seq. Footnote 7. §§ 217 et seq. Footnote 8. People v Howard, 211 Cal 322, 295 P 333, 71 ALR 1385 (disapproved on other grounds by People v Thomas, 25 Cal 2d 880, 156 P2d 7). Footnote 9. People ex rel. Hunter v District Court of Twentieth Judicial Dist. (Colo) 634 P2d 44; State v James, 96 NJL 132, 114 A 553, 16 ALR 1141. Footnote 10. Pitznogle v Western M. R. Co., 119 Md 673, 87 A 917. Footnote 11. Commonwealth v Wright, 79 Ky 22, 1 Ky LR 258. Footnote 12. Ballentine's Law Dict. Footnote 13. Lovejoy v United States, 128 US 171, 32 L Ed 389, 9 S Ct 57; Usner v Strobach (La App 1st Cir) 591 So 2d 713, cert den (La) 592 So 2d 1289; Taylor v State, 87 Tex Crim 330, 221 SW 611; State v Mayo, 42 Wash 540, 85 P 251. Generally as to the selection of talesmen, see § 129. Footnote 14. Clark v United States, 289 US 1, 77 L Ed 993, 53 S Ct 465. |
| David, Quoting “. . . Trial Logs is currently covering the government's prosecution of those who question the application of the income tax laws. It is our hope that this coverage will help us understand the failings of our justice system and help those struggling to comprehend this nation's income tax laws.” |
| Your Trial Logs
focus is on the wrong department of government. Unsubstantiated assertion- #5. It has been Congress that has put us in this sad position not the judiciary. Half correct. Unsubstantiated assertion- count stays at 5. You may want to review my comments for the last few weeks? Anybody that has stomached your nonsubstantive comments on this web page HAS reviewed your comments. In the present state of affairs the only sane thing that can stop the government from destroying this Country is a concerted effort to bringing legitimate Constitutional challenges before the United States Supreme Court. There's that Constitutional thing again. What part of the tax law is perfectly constitutional, though convoluted, do you not understand? The tax issue is ONLY one of many issues that need resolve. Talks the talk. Or the patriot community can continue to victimize itself with no end in sight? They're stupid- #35. |
| Perspective Your Trial Logs focus is on the wrong department of government. It has been Congress that has put us in this sad position not the judiciary. You may want to review my comments for the last few weeks? In the present state of affairs the only sane thing that can stop the government from destroying this Country is a concerted effort to bringing legitimate Constitutional challenges before the United States Supreme Court. The tax issue is ONLY one of many issues that need resolve. Or the patriot community can continue to victimize itself with no end in sight? My goal is to expose the injustice the pervades our justice system in a manner that makes it obvious to anyone that cares to look. And, I believe we have witnessed numerous judicial abuses over the past few trials. I hope to highlight those using transcripts and legal opinions on a companion web site in the near future. Once we have that, we can draw the publics attention to the problem and demand action from congress. Article III, section 1 of our constitution states that judges "...shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,..." Using that doctrine, it is clearly time for Kent Dawson and others to leave the bench. This nonsense goes on in our courts because citizens have allowed it to go on. We all know congress won't act until the people demand action. My hope is that we can work together to bring attention to the problem and work to clean it up. It seems like a pretty simple goal, at least it should be. |
| David said: “My goal is to
expose the injustice the pervades our
justice system in a manner that makes it obvious to anyone that cares
to look. And, I believe we have witnessed numerous judicial abuses over
the past few trials . . .” Dear David, |
| Carefully re-read my postings, setting
aside your pre-conceived
conclusions. This entire web page is dedicated, so to speak, to re-reading your postings. You haven't said much yet, for all your words. And disregard pretenders using my handle. These pretenders are easy to spot because of their obvious off point statements and incoherent gibberish. Not by what I have seen so far. |
| Let me now assure you I understand your
frustrations regarding the courts. One of us- #8 15 years ago I would have been just as adamant with your position as you are right now. One of us- #9. So, in the fifteen years since you were (according to your unproven assertions) one of us, What have you learned. I submit NOTHING because that is what you have posted of ongoing substance... NOTHING. But the fact of the LEGAL matter is . . . your anger is misplaced. I'm smart- #13. Denigrating attitude- #5. This is what’s fundamentally missing from the patriot’s awareness — a lacking of Constitutional knowledge. They're stupid- #36. I'm smart- #14. Ask yourself a very simple question: Does Congress have the Constitutional power to tax? YES! Misrepresentation of position- #7. Though convoluted, the tax is perfectly constitutional. Now ask yourself what a DIRECT tax is. Then look and see if the Code, the written words of law, actually tax those items that can only be taxed by a DIRECT tax. Then look at the weasel clauses used to trap the ignorant into signing under penalties of perjury that they have "income in it's constitutional sense" when in fact, very few of us do. Does the United States Courts have the power to legislate from the bench? NO! Since legislating from the bench is not the issue, and since there has been no substance ADDED to the point of legislating from the bench: increment tripe counter. Meaningless tripe- #8. Unknowingly, by directing your anger to the courts, the patriot’s position is in actuality asking the Courts to overthrow Congress’ taxing power by allowing frivolous legal arguments into the courts and before the juries. Unsubstantiated assertion- #6. You sure don't seem to know very damn much about my position--- That the written words of law say what they mean, and mean what they say. Misrepresentation of position- #8. The only issues before these tax trials are matter of facts already established WITHIN the jurisdiction of an Administrative Agency. You actually get one brownie point for being correct. But I have to take it away because the "Administrative Agency" (IRS) has LIED to the courts, the IRS has manipulated IMF's to show liability that does not lawfully exist, and the IRS has coercing bankers by the "notice of levy" fraud to illegally convert personal property. Link to second source about IRS lies. The trial courts are not in the position to overturn the administrative jurisdiction; that’s up to the defendant. Misrepresentation of position- #9. The comparison would be like attempting to argue before a divorce court that the marriage license has NO application. Too late!! If the marrige licensce has no application, why was that individual railroaded into the divorce court? |
| Here’s
the point: UNTIL the patriots come to the understanding that only by a
legitimate Constitutional challenge properly brought before the U.S.
Supreme Court can we regain our freedoms; otherwise these tax trials
will NOT CHANGE. They're stupid- #37. Ethereal "solutions"- #20. If the govenment ignores due process leading up to these tax trials, Why the hell do you think they are going to honor process leading up to what ever your ethereal solutions are? |
| Dear Mary, CJ Said: “. . . But I cannot be lead around blindly for that would be an unconscionable act against myself. IF there are true reasons why things are the way they are, those reasons should be explored.” I agree with CJ’s comments. Good points—one should always question, especially when dealing with law, if they are on solid ground or quicksand. But never question the written words of law itself... That is the tone of perspective's posts to come. |
| Short-to-the-point comments, are
a good policy for everyone. So when are you going to get to your point? CJ—Anonymous was out of line. Intolerance is a sure sign of fanaticism so let’s ALL find a way to be reasonable—I believe everyone on these postings down deep is sincerely looking for answers. I don't have a category for false humility. Since the post itself in effect calls the anonymous in question a fanatic, I'm chalking one up for: Ad hominem- #5. |
| CJ— 1. Where would you suggest exploring for “true reasons” why things are the way they are? 2. Would you suggest looking in history books or law books, and do you have any suggestions as to which ones would be good? 3. Have you found reliable resources to discern for solutions to this tax impasse? 4. Are you limited to the Internet, as it seems many of the patriots are? 5. What would you suggest for patriots who don’t even use computers, and only have in house materials shared by groups? Thank you. Talking the talk. |
| I would like to make a book
suggestion-- a good starting point
for
every patriot. Get a copy of the Federalist and the CD from Mary
Webster. She worked very hard to produce this wonderful book. It is the
definitive source of what the Constitution really means. If we're going
to restore limited government we'll first have to know the fundamental
principles of the country. The cost is reasonable. http://Mary.Webster.org |
| CJ, I appreciate you answers — you have discerned there is a conflict that isn’t being addressed within the patriot community. Since perspective doesn't explain or address the "conflict", tally one for They're stupid- #38. Your dissection of the “Economy” case is correct in my opinion; that case has misled many people in the patriot community. They're stupid- #39.
Between the “non-taxpayer” arguments If one is NOT a taxpayer, the IRC Does not apply. It's actually pretty simple. Any attempt to "argue" is yours. along with “Sec. 6331 IRC:” This is a page that I just slapped together. The paper version I was working on is more detailed. I need to dress this one up and add the citing links. Can you say "Due Process Violation"? They violated my right to due process. those two misdirected claims have seen many miles of hard road; they were added to the “voluntary” and “what makes me liable” arguments around 1983. Denigrating attitude- #6. |
|
| In
the United States the courts act on a “case” by “case” bases. So be
careful from a historical point of view; it can be misleading to cite
excerpts from cases, which are off point or out of context. In other
words we’re NOT a “Roman Civil Law Country” so one case doesn’t fit
all. Boy oh boy, He sure makes it look like he knows something, but since he never connects statements such as this to anything, Meaningless tripe- #9. |
|
| Forgive me for asking but do you
believe “citizenship” is
somehow a part of your issue? Or is it something else along “status”
lines? AS you’ve said you may not feel comfortable addressing those
question on this site. Which is perfectly ok with me if you do not
answer. |
|
| I think this is enough for now. Yes it is, as I look at the scrollbar on my HTML editor I see that I'm only 1/4 through his spew and he has since posted more. |
|
| P.S. I
posted some appealable issues a while back for Irwin and Cindy — I
wouldn’t have a clue if Irwin is considering them. This is for JIM. Everybody join me in some sarcastic applause. |
| Perspective wrote: Carefully re-read my postings, setting aside your pre-conceived conclusions. I'm lucky if I can find time to read them the first time. Let me now assure you I understand your frustrations regarding the courts. 15 years ago I would have been just as adamant with your position as you are right now. But the fact of the LEGAL matter is . . . your anger is misplaced. I'm not angry. This is what’s fundamentally missing from the patriot’s awareness — a lacking of Constitutional knowledge. Ask yourself a very simple question: Does Congress have the Constitutional power to tax? YES! Does the United States Courts have the power to legislate from the bench? NO! Unknowingly, by directing your anger to the courts, the patriot’s position is in actuality asking the Courts to overthrow Congress’ taxing power by allowing frivolous legal arguments into the courts and before the juries. This is where we disagree. The jury can judge the law and the person. Judges are now doing everything they can to prevent defendants from presenting there case involving egregious, misinterpreted or misapplied laws. The only issues before these tax trials are matter of facts already established WITHIN the jurisdiction of an Administrative Agency. The trial courts are not in the position to overturn the administrative jurisdiction; that’s up to the defendant. It would also be up to the jury in a fair trial! The comparison would be like attempting to argue before a divorce court that the marriage license has NO application. Too late!! Here’s the point: UNTIL the patriots come to the understanding that only by a legitimate Constitutional challenge properly brought before the U.S. Supreme Court can we regain our freedoms; You actually have faith in the supreme court? I lost hope in that body years ago. And the Kelo decision where the current Supreme Court gutted the unalienable Right to Property just re-inforces the lack of faith. otherwise these tax trials will NOT CHANGE. That may be the case, but my purpose here is to assure people get a decent trial. I'll say it again, we have just witnessed three trials and I believe each of these defendants was subjected to judicial abuse. That is not acceptable. Right or wrong, people deserve their day in court before an impartial judge. I don't believe that is an unreasonable excpectation, and I believe we have every right to demand proper conduct in these courts. It is time for the people in this country to take notice and demand action before it is to late. The process is pretty simple. 1. Identify the problem. 2. Build support by informing the public of the problem. 3. Demand action from our legislators to resolve the problem. I'm hoping there are enough people out there that care enough to help bring attention to the problem. |
| David, The following are few of my postings. I'll be happy to support any questions you may have. A Freudian slip to the thuth. To "support" questions, one posts things that raise questions. A totally different thing from answering questions. 1158 duplicate words deleted to save your eyes. |
| David, Your lack of faith in the Supreme Court is also a lack of faith in the power of the U.S. Constitution. Nothing is wrong- #13. Directly contradicted by the Kelo decision where the current Supreme Court gutted the unalienable Right to Property. When the patriot community seemingly had no answers 20 years ago, it turned its back on the Constitution and opted for administrative issues. They're stupid- #40. Why? Simply because the so-called patriot leaders were not fundamentally grounded in the Constitution to reach the Supreme Court with any judicial questions. They're stupid- #41. Misrepresentation of position- #10. The issues DO NOT NEED TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. The issues need to go to an honest lower court. |
| “This
Court, by an unbroken line of decisions from Chief Justice Marshall to
the present day, has steadily adhered to the rule that every possible
presumption is in favor of the validity of an act of Congress until
overcome beyond rational doubt.” (cite omitted) Nobody is claiming Congress made taxing statutes outside the bounds of the Constitution. Misrepresentation of position- #11. And again with the missing cite. Anonymous 11.15.05 11:27Pm should read Perspective |
| Anonymous
| 11.15.05 - 11:27 pm said Your lack of faith in the Supreme Court is also a lack of faith in the power of the U.S. Constitution. The constitution is still there, but I don't believe it means a whole lot to the Supreme Court. They have perverted its meaning over the years and are getting worse. This is the land of presidentially declared wars, fiat currency, restrictions on second amendment rights, check points on our highways, no knock search warrants, secret searches of our homes, and eminent domain abuses. The list goes on. What do you see being left of the consitution? When the patriot community seemingly had no answers 20 years ago, it turned its back on the Constitution and opted for administrative issues. Why? Simply because the so-called patriot leaders were not fundamentally grounded in the Constitution to reach the Supreme Court with any judicial questions. The patriot movement has nothing to do with the last three trials and is therefore irelevant to this conversation. |
| It was Perspective Anonymous Not
Anonymous @| 11.15.05 - 11:27
pm
said Anonymous Said: | 11.16.05 - 6:49 am | # ”The constitution is still there, but I don't believe it means a whole lot to the Supreme Court. They have perverted its meaning over the years and are getting worse. This is the land of presidentially declared wars, fiat currency, restrictions on second amendment rights, check points on our highways, no knock search warrants, secret searches of our homes, and eminent domain abuses. The list goes on. What do you see being left of the constitution?” You’ve made my point with your pessimisms. Nothing is wrong- #14. Re-read ALL my postings for the last two weeks. Meaningless tripe- #10. Ignorance is NO excuse for failing your American duty in coming to the aid of the Constitution. Denigrating attitude- #7. |
| Quote: "Unless the people, through
unified
action, arise and take charge of their government, they will find that
their government has taken charge of them. Independence and liberty
will be gone, and the general public will find itself in a condition of
servitude to an aggregation of organized and selfish interest." Calvin
Coolidge circa 1927 Sometimes quotes words that talk the talk. |
| Anonymous Said: | 11.16.05 - 6:49 am “The patriot movement has nothing to do with the last three trials and is therefore irelevant to this conversation.” You’ve just watch three trials based on BAD PATRIOT arguments and they’re irrelevant? Unsubstantiated assertion- #7. They're stupid- #42. Don't read the law- #5. Let’s see Irwin Schiff — “I’m NOT liable”—Roses—“I believe in 861.” I doubt you even understand what the 861 EVIDENCE is. If it's so wrong, you should be able to answer to what the written words of the law say and show the error of my reading. Private invite. I'll set up a page just for you and I to argue the written words of the law. These issues are ALL patriot myths, notwithstanding the mindset of their promoters and true believers. Don't read the law- #6. Denigrating attitude- #8. Unsubstantiated assertion- #8. They're stupid- #43. These bad arguments get you jailed, lose jobs, lose businesses, and lose of property, etc. It
is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Voltaire |
| Perspecitve
| | 11.16.05 - 9:17 am You’ve made my point with your pessimisms. Re-read ALL my postings for the last two weeks. Ignorance is NO excuse for failing your American duty in coming to the aid of the Constitution. Believe me, I'm working on all fronts. However, the focus of this site is the perversion of our courts. If you want to restore a constitutional government, I would suggest supporting the Libertarian Party. I would also wish you good luck with that effort as the people of this nation have embrassed communism. You’ve just watch three trials based on BAD PATRIOT arguments and they’re irrelevant? Let’s see Irwin Schiff — “I’m NOT liable”—Roses—“I believe in 861.” These issues are ALL patriot myths, notwithstanding the mindset of their promoters and true believers. These bad arguments get you jailed, lose jobs, lose businesses, and lose of property, etc. WRONG! Patriot myths are [not] based soley on unsubstantiated beliefs that do not hold up under legal research. Right or wrong, the last three trials were all deeply rooted in well researched interpretation of written law. Coincidentally, our government has been evading the questions raised in these trials for years. It should come as no surprise that even after convicting each of these people, the government continued to avoid the questions. |
| David said: “Obviously, Gerry
Spence holds a low opinion of
judges, and
obviously if judges treat Gerry Spence in this manner, you can imagine
how they treat a pro se citizen trying to defend themselve.” Gerry Spence is a criminal defense lawyer—mostly capital cases. I agree with you there are lots of political hacks on the bench. I’ve been saying this for many years there’s too much incompetence and politics in the law profession. Which would INCLUDE the Suprem Court. After debating with myself, I decide to NOT decrease the nothing is wrong count. It remains at 14. I believe most of the Law Schools stopped teaching substantial Constitutional law approximately 90 years ago. The attorney system is too specialized for most of them to waste their time on a non-money maker like Constitutional law. "I Believe"... Your opinion is noted. |
| Notwithstanding what
you or I or even Gerry Spence feels about judges—that doesn’t change
the fact that Irwin and the Roses were not in a position to put the
“law” on trial. These tax trials are SELF-IMPOSED omission or
commissions under Administrative Law. Does Babelfish have a gobbledegook interpreter? If you have a challenge against the law you have to challenge it before trial; it becomes almost impossible to challenge any law once subjected to the trial courts jurisdictions, even on appeal. The law is NOT what is being challenged. The incorrect APPLICATION of the law is the problem. Misrepresentation of position- #12. This is why, as Irwin found out, he was continually putting himself in contempt—this is just the way court rules work it has nothing to do with if the judge is a nice guy or not. Nothing is wrong- #15. Here's a link to the transcripts to the Vernice Kuglin trial so you can see how an honest court deals with the issue. |
| Your reliance on juries is also
misplaced—even with Jury
Nullification it still doesn’t address the issues of law in tax trials.
Jury Nullification is the only true FINAL check on governmental abuse of power. Rumor has it, it was jury nullification that forced the government to drop the prohibition, since they couldn't convict anyone for violating a known legal duty (not to imbibe, transport, etc.). Prohibitions (booze) utilized jury nullification, fugitive slave laws applied jury nullification; but attempting to use jury nullification regarding a challenge to Congress’ taxing power is far fetched. Jury nullification on the issues of prohibition and fugitive slave laws was about nullifying the actual words of law. The tax issue is NOT about challenging Congress' power to tax... Though if the people speaking through the juries nullified every tax case, you would be just as wrong as if you had said: 'Your reliance on juries is also misplaced—even with Jury Nullification it still doesn’t address the issues of law in prohibition trials." Or if you had said; 'Your reliance on juries is also misplaced—even with Jury Nullification it still doesn’t address the issues of law in fugitive slave trials.' The issue is about the IRS failing to follow due process rules; failing to follow the law; failing to follow the regulations; failing to answer questions for the purpose of, and I quote from the IRS mission statement, "Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all." Misrepresentation of position- #13. That taxing power was one of the main reasons the Constitution was created to support a Union and therefore those powers are PLENARY. Correct. And Congress could tax a natural person's revenue (property exchanged for property) by laying an apportioned tax. It’s true the jury could prevent criminal convictions one case at a time, but the odds using the so-called good faith cheeks defense isn’t worth it. Resistance is futile- #10. Besides our freedom will NOT come about arguing taxes issues, Resistance is futile- #11. the real issues are about liberty , and issues of property rights. Correct, however in the case of property rights, you want to put your faith in the Supreme Court who have already gutted unalienable property rights with the the Kelo decision. Taxes are off point issues, and only reflect the effect not the causes of our problems, which is, for the most part, federalized socialism. As Dave Champion has pointed out, it is in the arena of taxation where the tyranny is most noticable. |
| David said: “Believe me, I'm working on all fronts. However, the focus of this site is the perversion of our courts. If you want to restore a constitutional government, I would suggest supporting the Libertarian Party. I would also wish you good luck with that effort as the people of this nation have embrassed communism.” You have the part about communism right—but trying to defend the Constitution is not likely to take place in the political arena. Nor is it going to take place in the Supreme Court. Kelo decision. The political approach with the current state of affairs is a weak version of formal redress. What redress? See my next response. Our best chance of recovery is by taking Constitutional issues before the courts. NOT! Nothing is wrong- #16. Something is VERY wrong: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm Kelo decision. |
| “The Constitution is a written
instrument. As
such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it
means now.” (Cite omitted) I actually agree whole heartedly with this statement. He's talking the talk. |
| David said: “WRONG! Patriot myths are [not] based soley on unsubstantiated beliefs that do not hold up under legal research. Right or wrong, the last three trials were all deeply rooted in well researched interpretation of written law.” After almost 30 years, and in the trenches, first hand knowledge goes beyond wishful thinking. One of us- #10. I'm smart- #16. ALL—and I said ALL— patriot tax arguments are Constitutional myths — Irwin’s arguments and all the rest. They're stupid- #44. Misrepresentation of position- #14. Don't read the law- #7. Does it take every patriot to go through hell to prove it? What is your definition of the word "it"? My definition is that the IRS is NOT following the law. The patriot community HAS NO direction and NO issues — They're stupid- #45. and with their present arguments they will only continue to frustrate those involved. I haven't really seen you address what "their present arguments" are. I don't think you know what mine are. Many good people are involved who are sincerely interested in regaining their freedoms but who won’t realize it through mythical approaches. Nor will they realize regaining their freedoms using your mythical Supreme Court mythical approaches. http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm Kelo decision. Ken Evans refund lawsuit. |
| Schopenhauer
was right when he said of the great ideas in history that "all truth
passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self evident." Yep. And that includes realizing what the written words of law actually say. |
| Stay
in the patriot rut — yell and scream all you want that “the courts are
corrupt” and all the rest — and all you will have accomplished is
changing the date on the Calendar. They're stupid- #46. Denigrating attitude- #9. |
| CJ said: “Legislative
writes the tax law but does not force
anyone
to fall under all that law. Most people do not pay the booze distill
tax. Why not? It doesn't apply to them and they made that decission,
not the congress.” Thank you — you’ve just given the definition of VOLUNTARY tax. Exactly — that’s right out of American Jurisprudence. In proper circumstances the acceptance of any government privilege (excise) would end the argument. Nexus / priviledge- #11. Nexus / priviledge: the whole point of this web page. Once the “privilege” has been accepted, the excise tax liability becomes mandatory, along with all the Administrative code enforcements. Correct. Nexus / priviledge- #12. Its enforcement now becomes “as law,” as stated by the courts. In other words, the meaning becomes: ALL those who come within these privileges are “in like and similar circumstances, ” and will be treated as such. Correct. Nexus / priviledge- #13. |
| Taking
the subject matter to another level, we may find the door has become
legally jarred. Through research it can be shown there is a point where
instead of a voluntary tax it becomes a question of extortion. Voluntary = Electing of free will to do the privileged (excise taxable) activity = Nexus / priviledge- #14. It's not extortion. It's outright fraud on the part of the government. To show people that the fraud exists, the people must be shown what the written words of law actually say... AND MEAN. Not what the people are tricked into thinking they mean. Even though he was just talking the talk, he follows up with: That is as much as I care to say for now, because the issues are only at the outline stages. Since nobody can be trusted with the outline of the issues: They're stupid- #47. |
| One added thought: The question comes
up
within the patriot community (I’m paraphrasing): “The government
refuses to answer our questions of law.” Why? Congress and government
agencies are not in the position to give legal advice — the Congress
writes the laws (and the courts assume Congress has stayed within their
Constitutional powers until shown differently); the agencies enforce
them; that leaves the courts as the only branch left to interpret them.
Bullshit. Void for Vagueness Doctrine - google Void for Vagueness Doctrine - AltaVista My opinion is that the government refuses to answer the questions, because if they do, they will be forced to admit that the written words of law doesn't say what the government wants to pretend, and keep the general population believing, the written words of law say. See "An Accidental Confession" in the table following this one. And here’s the hard part: the courts do not give advisory opinions – it’s up to the citizenry to bring the right issues. What about Tax Court? It’s legislative in nature and its only purposes is in determining “AMOUNTS” of tax in dispute. Therefore, nontaxpayers should NEVER go to tax court. |
|
An
Accidental Confession
IMPORTANCE: 7 COMPLEXITY: 3 Dear Subscriber, Rather than "importance," I should probably say that the "Amazingness" factor on this message is 7, if not 10. Before going on, be sure you're at least somewhat familiar with the "six deadly questions" found here: http://www.taxableincome.net/questions.html For convenience, I'll summarize the questions: Questions 1 & 2 ask who should use 861 and its regs to determine their taxable income (and ask where the law says who should use them). Question 3 asks if 861 and its regs show the income of the average American to be taxable. Question 4 asks about how to determine if the "items" of income one receives are taxable or not. Question 5 asks the purpose of the list of non-exempt income in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and asks why the income of the average American is not on the list. Question 6 asks which income is exempted by the Constitution itself (though not by any statute). Again, if you can't answer those question, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine your "taxable income," and therefore impossible to determine what you owe. As you probably know, thousands have sent out those questions, and by now most of those who sent them out have received a copy of that ridiculous IRS form letter, Letter 3175, which says nothing at all about taxable income, gross income, Section 861, etc. Well, one of the question-askers was not content with evasions and insults, and wrote to his Congressmen, complaining about the IRS' failure to answer. The Congressman sent the letter to the IRS, who eventually responded with another letter. While that letter only confirms what many of us knew already, the fact that they ADMITTED it (in writing, no less) is stunning. Here is what the IRS had to say about their previous failure to answer the questions mentioned above: "The questions are constructed in such a way that any answer could be construed to support arguments that the tax laws of this country do not apply to the questioner or his/her income." Read that a few times, and let the significance sink in. The IRS just admitted that they CANNOT answer the specific questions, without SUPPORTING the conclusion that the one who asked the questions DOESN'T OWE THE TAX. (And yes, they WERE constructed in a way so the IRS couldn't answer them without the truth being told.) If this was one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions, they might have reason to complain. But simple logic dictates that in the case of the person writing the letter, there can only be ONE right answer to each question. Either he should, or he shouldn't, use the rules under 861 to determine his taxable income. Either those sections show his income to be taxable, or they don't. And so on. And of course, we WELCOME any elaboration they want to give, in case just "yes" or "no" isn't sufficient. In short, the IRS just admitted that they CANNOT specifically tell you how to determine your taxable income, because if they did, it would SUPPORT the idea that your income IS NOT TAXABLE. The letter then says this: "Clearly, the IRS cannot provide fodder for those who promote or accept these frivolous and self-serving arguments. Therefore, the response of the IRS group manager properly does not attempt to answer Mr. [redacted]'s questions." Got that? It is PROPER for them NOT to tell you how to determine what you owe, because if they did, it would SUPPORT the conclusion that you owe nothing. Of course, they have to make the accusation that such a conclusion is "frivolous" and "self-serving." (I'm sure nothing politicians and bureaucrats ever do is self-serving.) Instead of actual ANSWERS, the IRS sent the person the ever-popular, and ever-irrelevant "Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes" pamphlet, which (according to the IRS) "make[s] clear the legitimacy of our nation's tax laws [who was questioning that?] and the tax responsibilities of all Americans." By giving the person a copy of that pamphlet, the IRS employee claims to have "attempted to discharge our obligation to help Mr. [redacted] understand and meet his tax responsibilities." Then they say this: "Until he is willing to accept the facts in these documents, and recognize that the law does in fact require him to file a return showing all his income, from whatever source derived, I am not sure we can help him further." Read that one a couple times too, until the true meaning of it sinks in. Until you are willing to accept that you owe, based on assertions, insults and threats, instead of asking those darn questions about what THE LAW ITSELF SAYS... well, the IRS just won't be able to help you. (As usual, the IRS letter ends with a thinly veiled threat of prosecution.) I hope you feel well served. Now stop asking those darn questions! Sit down, shut up, and pay whatever some bureaucrat SAYS you owe. Have a nice day. Sincerely, Larken Rose A
Second Look
Dear Subscriber, First of all, in response to my "Accidental Confession" note, a bunch of you wanted to see the letter. It is now posted, and the two pages can be seen here: http://www.861evidence.com/pdfs/Z1.jpg http://www.861evidence.com/pdfs/Z2.jpg But after snickering about it for a while, I looked at it again, and something else occurred to me: The poor IRS employees, while whining about why they can't answer the questions, said that the questions are such that "any answer could be construed to support arguments that the tax laws of this country do not apply to the questioner or his/her income." This isn't true. Only CERTAIN answers would support such a conclusion. I whole-heartedly concur that they can't give the CORRECT answers, without those answers supporting the conclusion that the person doesn't owe the tax. But in saying that, they are making another rather significant admission (which didn't occur to me the first time through). The comments from the IRS rule out several possible combinations of answers, and in doing so GIVE us the CORRECT answers. For example, suppose the IRS were to answer this way: "Yes, you SHOULD use 861 and its rules, and... Yes, they show your income to be taxable." Why didn't they give THOSE as answers? Would those answers support the idea that most of us don't owe the tax? Obviously not. They would directly contradict the law, so the IRS didn't want to give those as the answers, but those are NOT the answers that they hesitated to give for fear of SUPPORTING the conclusion that the questioner doesn't owe the tax. If those were the correct answers (they aren't), the IRS would be shouting them from the rooftops. How about these possible answers?: "No, you should NOT use the rules under 861... (so it doesn't matter if they show your income to be taxable)." If those statement were true, why would they hesitate to say them? Would THOSE answers tend to support the conclusion that most of us don't have taxable income? Obviously NOT. They don't want to give those answers because the LAW directly contradicts them, but NOT because they could be "construed" to show that the questioner's income isn't taxable. Just taking the two issues of: 1) who should use the rules under 861, and; 2) what do those rules show to be taxable; there is only ONE set of answers which could possibly be "construed to support arguments that the tax laws of this country do not apply to the questioner or his/her income." And here are those answers: "YES, you should use the rules under 861, and; NO, they don't show your income to be taxable." Those are the CORRECT answers, and the ONLY answers that they could possibly fear might support the conclusion that the questioner doesn't owe the tax. Those are the answers they were AFRAID to give. It's like a murderer being questioned on the stand, complaining that if he answers certain questions, it will make him look guilty. Prosecutor: "Is this knife covered with blood your knife?" Murderer: "Well gosh, if I answer that, the answer could be construed to make me look guilty." In other words, YES, it's his knife. Prosecutor: "Where were you when the murder occurred?" Murderer: "Well gosh, if I answer that, the answer could be construed to make me look guilty." In other words, he was at the scene of the crime. Prosecutor: "Did you threaten the victim the day before the murder?" Murderer: "Well gosh, if I answer that, the answer could be construed to make me look guilty." In other words, YES, he did threaten him. Us: "Hey IRS, how do we determine what we owe." IRS: "Well gosh, if we answer that, the answer could be construed to show that you don't owe anything." The answers that the IRS KNOWS to be the truth point to the conclusion that most of us DON'T OWE the tax. Otherwise, they would have answered the questions several YEARS ago. Why hesitate to answer unless the correct answers make you look bad? They just accidentally admitted what the CORRECT answers are, by saying that they're afraid to give them. Sincerely, Larken Rose |
| CJ said: “I never like to
use the term "voluntary tax" for it
has confused/mislead many.”
You’re right on that count there has been a great deal of misunderstanding of the use of the term voluntary. Maybe it’s time to take out the mystery of the terms “VOLUNTARY TAX”? The principle is very old and well established as explained by the renowned Justice Cooley, circa 1860’s. The distinction between a property tax and an excise tax is set forth in Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.) Vol. I, page 131 “ . . . Another thing to be noted, it has been said, is that the obligation to pay an excise tax is based upon voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege, or engaging in the occupation which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand, as in the case of a property tax, is lacking.” He talk's the talk, and is very on point with this post. With such a solid post such as this one, one has to wonder why he has posted so much tripe. "voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege, or engaging in the occupation" Nexus / priviledge- #15. |
| Darren Dirt said: “So folks, any
thoughts about what --
factually -- a (legal) "duty" actually is?” I don’t think you want to play Law Dictionaries, please clarify your point? |
| The Law, I’ve known Irwin Schiff since 1978—used his stuff got my ass kicked. So what’s your point in picking on CJ? It’s time you drop the B,S. or would you like to pick on me? Since you insist on leading with your chin... |
| Perspective says, "It’s time you drop
the B,S. or would you
like to
pick on me?" Oh no! Perspective is here to protect his Honey and main squeeze CJ. I know by reading your crap that none of you clowns has ever been in trouble with the IRS because you are afraid to do anything but pound your chest and threaten the helpless using uninspired words as your sword. So until you are willing to meet me face to face stick your, “would you like to pick on me?" childish banter up your butt. Now I know poor little old me is up against at least two clowns which is not fair. So, to even things out I will only use one finger on my keyboard to destroy both of you. But now I feel bad because if I had known Perspective and CJ were an item I would not have been so truthful. NOT! |
| The Law, Thanks a bunch this trial log really needed some laughs!!!!! Oh and remember: To face piles of trials with smiles — they’ll think you need a physiologist. You could get lucky. Denigrating attitude- #10. |
| Right on with The Moody Blues. But did
you catch the
"Physiologist"?
No
Freudian slip if you were thinking psychologist. We have not yet
determined if Law is a living organism. Ha! Ha! Denigrating attitude- #11. |
| CJ, Lighten up a little—and activate your Anti-Virus program—It has yet to be determined if “The Law” is safe to view—be ready to quarantine at any moment if needed. If you must be serious: Take the term—“Individual” use it as an Adjective instead of a Noun when reading statutes. The term individual (adj) has more relationships to privileges than individual in the noun form. But without the proper context—none of these exercises have any meaning. So if you do the do—you get the lumps. Sorry, my wife and myself haven’t stopped laughing from “the laws” humor. Denigrating attitude- #12. |
| To the Law, If you’re going to be respected—you must gain perspective. Denigrating attitude- #13. Now to answer ALL your questions as kindly as I can; they are simply immaterial to the cause of freedom. Anybody notice a pattern here? He answers questions NOT. Once under administrative control the agency can screw with you just about anyway they want. So long as they do it within the written words of law. Keep in mind that NOTHING is done legally by government agencies and personnel unless the actions are Authorized, Prescribed, and Circumscribed BY THE WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW. Nothing is wrong- #17. It’s ALL about amounts, filing out forms, standing in lines, and civil--criminal enforcement of regulations. As Authorized, Prescribed, and Circumscribed BY THE WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW. Even within the administrative agency (IRS) your questions have very little meaning, let alone any serious questions of law to be resolved. Here's a direct quote of the IRS Mission Statement: "Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all." If the IRS won't answer questions, that's not exactly providing top quality service to help the taxpayer understand their tax responsibilities is it? Administrative Law tells you to exhaust your administrative remedies—after all that is over, and if you still think you have an issue—spend more money getting it reviewed—in the end it will be denied. End of story—next! Nothing is wrong- #18. One can not "exhaust administrative remedies" when the IRS STONEWALLS the administrative remedies process. |
| I fully realize your frustrations: One of us- #11. It’s understandable to miss the finer points of what you’re up against —law is a hard subject — especially when Patriots, in general, have such a difficult time distinguishing between legislative privileges, which are taxable, from actual identifiable and defendable rights. They're stupid- #48. Nexus / priviledge- #16. |
| EXAMPLE: United
States v Administrative Enters. (CA7 Ill) 46 F3d 670, 95-1 USTC 50083,
75 AFTR 2d 95-843 (there is no better illustration of the enforcement
of a sovereign right than the government's use of compulsory process to
determine a taxpayer's liability for unpaid taxes). Resistance is futile- #12. |
| Did you
note the use of the terms “sovereign right” the reference comes from
“We The People.” In other words, a collective right. There can not be any collective right unless there is first, an individual right. Taking property against the owner's will is STEALING. No individual has the right to STEAL. If no single person has a right to STEAL, There can NOT be a collective right to steal. That’s where we’ve giving government OUR delegated power to collect taxes. Collecting taxes is taking property (money). Taking property against the owner's will is STEALING. Calling the taking of property against the owner's will, "collecting taxes" does not change the fact that it is collective theft. |
| Go read: § 1 Generally [35 Am Jur
2d FEDERAL TAX ENFORCEMENT] “Generally speaking, the liability of a taxpayer to the federal government is a debt and is subject to collection in the same way that other debts are collectible. 7701(a)(14) Taxpayer The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. If a tax does not apply, according to the WRITTEN words of law (statutes & regulations) then a person is NOT subject to that particular tax. If a person is not subject to a particular tax, such person can NOT have a "liability of a taxpayer". No liability: No debt. However, the government is under no obligation to resort to a court to collect a tax, since Congress has established a means whereby unpaid taxes may be collected solely through administrative means. When administrative due process is not being STONEWALLED. The right of the United States to collect its internal revenue by summary administrative proceedings has long been settled.” (Cites omitted) So, other than Resistance is futile- #13, what was the purpose of the quote? Proving Nothing is wrong- #19. |
| So, maybe the question you should be
asking yourself
is—how’d you get within the summary powers of the government? DO YOU
THINK WE’VE BEEN TRICKED? Yes, as a matter of fact. Something to do with the nexus of privilege. He did talk the talk in that sentence. |
| I HOPE you now realize why I have
RE-DIRECTED everyone’s attention to the U. S. Constitution. It’s
because within that document lie our answers and real chance to regain
our freedoms from oppressive government. Ethereal "solutions"- #21. Sigh.... Kelo decision. Thank you |
| The Law | 11.17.05 -
12:30 pm I gave you law—I gave you a chance to get respectable and become informed. Denigrating attitude- #14. They're stupid- #49. Not!! "I gave you a chance to get respectable and become informed. Not!! " ????? Freudian slip? You still insist on being a joke. Denigrating attitude- #15. You even go beyond ignorance and hold tightly to just plain stupid. Denigrating attitude- #16. They're stupid- #50. Jokes and Viruses need to be quarantined as a waste of time. Denigrating attitude- #17. Think of these parting words when your ship goes done. God I was dumb—Irwin save me, and you’ll find he won’t be there. You’ll be broke and ALL ALONE going nowhere but jail. They're stupid- #51. Resistance is futile- #14. P.S. This is secret agent Smith over and out. |
| Darren Dirt | Homepage | 11.17.05 -
1:03 pm | Dirt said: “ My point? My goal was to get people thinking about what these words *actually mean*, since they get tossed around so much by the IRS etc., and thus by most of the posters in forums and blogs and comment sections such as this.” It’s always good getting people to think — the hard part is staying within the CONTEXT of the subject matter by making sure you’re not reading something into the issues which isn’t there. Actually an opinion of substance, because it's based upon that uncommon "common sense". I see this with lawyers; I call it “Twisting”. Government does a lot of twisting; I’ve even seen the patriot community “read-into” cases or regulations with the same twisting. They're stupid- #51. Then you shouldn't have any problem "untwisting" my study of the written words of law (Statutes and Regulations). Staying neutral is possible, but one has to make sure to leave his/her ego at the door when doing so. Uh, the "They're stupid" count stands at 52; "I'm smart" count stands at 16; "Denigrating attitude" count stands at 17; and "Unsubstantiated assertion' count stands at 8. |
| “Truth”
is a loaded term, so is “fact.” Especially when attempting to discuss the "facts" of the written words of law with IRS agents and IRS Collaborators (professed or not). It depends on the CONTEXT, which when outside of a particular context could mean something completely different. Example: In metaphysics we are considered ALL ONE, but physically everything is individualized. As a matter of logic E=MC2. Energy = Mass, and Mass is everything physical. In logic or reason it would appear there is a contradiction in terms where, in reality, none exist. Another example: If it’s nighttime for everyone in your part of the country but you’re seeing daylight—you may be having problems with your sensory data. It’s good to check your sanity sometimes with your surroundings. Meaningless tripe- #12. |
| Darren, I’ll be checking your site out.
I hope
you go back and re-read my postings on trial-logs; you’ll see a pattern
based on research, not speculations. Maybe I should count how many times he says go re-read his spew. I see a pattern of Meaningless tripe- #13. I consider the old written history of the Country and the antiquated law foundational and just waiting to be re-introduced. Ethereal "solutions"- #22. I know the founding fathers have left us with our answers; we just have to get to their level of understanding to correct the problems. Ethereal "solutions"- #23. Thank you. |
| The ignorance
and
hate spewing out of this Audio-blog (segment
2)
between Mike Golden and Peymon is ridiculous and can be summed up by
the following quote. Denigrating attitude- #18. They're stupid- #53. |
| “Basically, a fanatic believes that he
is powerless. “He does not trust his own self-structure, or his ability to act effectively. Joint action seems the only course, but a joint action in which each individual must actually be forced to act, driven by frenzy, or fear or hatred, incensed and provoked, for otherwise the fanatic fears that no action at all will be taken toward “the ideal.” Denigrating attitude- #19. “Through such methods, and through such group hysteria, the responsibility for separate acts is divorced from the individual, and rests instead upon the group, where it becomes generalized and dispersed. The cause, whatever it is, can then cover any number of crimes, and no particular individual need bear the blame alone. Fanatics have tunnel vision, so that any beliefs not fitting their purposes are ignored. Those that challenge their own purposes, however, become instant targets of scorn and attack . . .” Meaningless tripe- #14. |
| For God’s sake, STOP all this hate and
blame
on Judge Dawson. He’s not to blame for your UNCONSTITUTIONAL use of
patriot frivolous off-point bad arguments. Nothing is wrong- #20. They're stupid- #54. Perspective |
Yet another poster takes perspective to task.
| Judge Dawson is responsible for the
conduct of the trial. He
chose
to
exercise his very ample discretion to Mr. Schiff's detriment and to the
government's advantage at every opportunity. One may rightly ask what
was the agenda that motivated him to do so. He no doubt created a
myriad of appeaable and reversible errrors along the way. |
And perspective really annoyed this poster.
| TO the readers who come here to
support MR. Schiff and other
patriots I advise CAUTION!!! This blog spot has been infested with a manage-a-trois of clowns who pretend they are friends of Mr. Schiff then TRASH HIM at every opportunity. They blog under the names Peon, Perspective and their leader CJ. They write about the government’s secret rules and other nonsense but when asked to, 1. produce the law which requires anyone to file or pay the income tax 2. prove the Secretary of the Treasury delegated his authority to the IRS 3. prove IRS agents have the authority to physically alter a Notice of Lien to con Banks, employers or others to give them citizens money 4. show where in the tax code the IRS has the authority to confiscate ALL of Mr. Schiff’s Social Security rather than the 15 % the law allows. They claim those things are immaterial and refuse to address them. Therefore, I suggest you scan any blog prior to reading it and if it is signed by Peon, Perspective or CJ ignore it or voice your disapproval of their using so much space on this blog spot with their venomous attacks on of Mr. Schiff just to build up their egos. |
| When I first started in the freedom
movement, I believed it was
about
individuals regaining their liberties and dignity; One of us- #12. now it has been reduced to a cult with NO direction. They're stupid- #55. It is evident that the Movement has “FOOLS” provocateurs to prevent it from finding any real answers. They're stupid- #56. Wouldn’t you think after 35 years someone would start questioning the assumptions that are not working? They're stupid- #57. |
| CJ,
with all due respect, the complexity of the issues, which are multiple,
go way beyond the assumption or use of the commerce clause. It is true,
however, that the commerce powers have been abused going as far back as
1888. There are many abuses of government over the last hundred years
that need addressing. Talks the talk. But unless the patriot community changes its attitude and directions, they will play little in a positive change or outcome. They're stupid- #58. |
| To everyone that has read my statements
with an open
mind, I wish you well. Maybe someday our paths will cross. Meaningless tripe- #15. There’s time to change the outcome, Ethereal "solutions"- #24. but it won’t be by fools or fanatics. They're stupid- #59. Goodbye. He doesn't mean it. According to my scroll bar, I'm only 1/3 through the posts I downloaded when I started this project. And he's posted more that I have yet to append to the source file I am working from. |
| Perspective PS. CJ, The Peon, and Reasonable Guy – thanks for the time. |
| Duplicate post deleted to
spare
your eyes. |
| For
God’s sake, STOP all this hate and blame on Judge
Dawson.
He’s not to blame for your UNCONSTITUTIONAL use of patriot frivolous
off-point bad arguments. Interesting point. Then again, Dawson may be exactly what he appeared to be, an intolerant tyrant lacking the tempermant to preside over a fair trial. And, perhaps someone who sat in the court room is able to judge that better than someone who wasn't there, yet chooses to espouse their opinions over the internet. Right or wrong, Irwin deserves a fair trial. I believe the transcript will show that was denied that. |
| David, As I’ve said before — been there, done that; I got my ass handed to me using Irwin’s material. Posted to the blog by a poster using a pseudonym. Unsubstantiated assertion- #9 One of us- #13. Resistance is futile- #15. I was ALREADY THERE years ago; is there something that you’re not getting? One of us- #14. Resistance is futile- #16. Denigrating attitude- #20. So post some information proving you had your ass handed to you... Something like the docket number and jurisdiction so someone can check your assertion for validity. Just like Irwin’s case — every judge in tax trials is mandated to stay within the rule of the case. Nothing is wrong- #21. Irwin didn’t seem to care or comprehend what the judge was telling him and continued on with his same old arguments. They're stupid- #60. |
| I hope Irwin wins on appeal. Meaningless tripe- #16. But if that’s what the patriot’s consider winning, there’s no constitutional solution in that. They're stupid- #61. Ethereal "solutions"- #25. Resistance is futile- #17. |
| Once
again Judge Dawson had to deal with Irwin’s stubbornness and
outspokenness as everyone knows is quite profound — but in the eyes of
the court, that’s called contempt. Sorry, that’s just the way the hell
it works. Nothing is wrong- #22. Perspective |
| CJ, said “Hi Perspective, When I refer to "commerce" I am not referring to the commerce clause within the constitution necessarily. I am referring to commerce in a general sense to encompass money, debt, Law Merchant, admiralty, etc...” Just be careful when you’re researching law, some people have a tendency to “Bridging-Laws,” finding themselves out of context. This is where you hear the statement of “mixing apples and oranges” stems. Meaningless tripe- #17. Good stuff on the Dogs, I’ll be trying it out on the kids. Ha! |
| The following is just some of the
elements “of good faith”
needed
to claim the “Cheek defense”, regarding WILLFUL. This may help those
that do not have easy access to a law library. Perspective § 63 ----Generally [SUPPLEMENT] [14 Am Jur 2d CERTIORARI] Even though a federal criminal defendant's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or are frivolous, the United States Supreme Court–on certiorari to review a Federal Court of Appeals' affirmance of the defendant's convictions, under 26 USCS §§ 7201 and 7203, on several counts of "willfully" attempting to evade federal income taxes and "willfully" failing to file federal income tax returns–will address the significance of the defendant's constitutional claims to the issue of willfulness, where (1) at trial, (a) the defendant testified that it was his belief that the law was being enforced unconstitutionally, (b) the defendant produced a letter from counsel to the effect that (i) Congress' power to tax supposedly came from Art I, § 8, cl 1 of the United States Constitution, and not from the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment, and (ii) the Sixteenth Amendment, construed with Art I, § 2, cl 3 of the Constitution, supposedly did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain and profit, (c) the jury, during deliberations, asked for a portion of the transcript wherein the defendant had said that he was attempting to test the constitutionality of the income tax laws, and (d) the trial judge later instructed the jury that an opinion that the tax laws violated a person's constitutional rights did not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law; and (2) at oral argument before the Supreme Court, the defendant's counsel made observations to the effect that (a) a personal belief that a known statute was unconstitutional smacked of knowledge of existing law, but disagreement with it, yet (b) a "little different situation" was presented if the person was told by a lawyer or an accountant erroneously that the statute was unconstitutional. Cheek v United States (1991, US ) 112 L Ed 2d 617, 111 S Ct 604, Misrepresentation of position- #16. Which the poster with the 'nym "The Law" calls perspective on in the next post shown below. He also calls perspective on his inability to answer simple questions. What is posted just above, is a subtle playing of the Resistance is futile card. This is confirmed by what perspective then posts in reply to "The Law". Resistance is futile- #18. Shortly below, I will address the Cheek case in a little more detail instead of from the Am Jur synopsis posted here. |
| Perspective, Since you did not trash Mr. Schiff in your last post I will address it. What is the significance of the trial and ruling you mentioned? Neither Mr. Schiff nor his students ever claimed the law was unconstitutional. Clearly Mr. Schiff has said for over 30 years that there is no law and no IRS agent or anyone else ever produced such a law. BIG DIFFERENCE! As an example, if someone handed you an orange but you refused it by explaining “The world is flat!” So, whatever point you were trying to make did not pass muster. |
| The Law, You cannot have it both ways. Does anyone know what "both ways" he is talking about. Email me if you do so I can properly address this. Otherwise I will continue to believe this guy deliberately posts stuff like "both ways" never intending to define the first "way" or the second "way". Schiff look to the Cheek decision for his "good faith," claims. (See quote below) His 30 years issues are still frivolous. Perhaps he thinks the first "way" is the "good faith" belief claim, and the second way is perspectives unsubstantiated assertion that Schiff's "30 years issues are still frivolous". If this is the case, implied within this statement is that somehow a frivolous "belief" is not a "good faith" defense for a "willful" crime. Regardless this sentence contains They're stupid- #62. Since Schiff was all about what the words of the statutes say, this Unsubstantiated assertion- #10 that Schiff's beliefs (30 years issues) are frivolous means perspective is still strongly implying Don't read the law- #8. I thought you were interested in getting him out of jail, or am I incorrect? Dance away to somewhere else with "I'm Chevy Chase.... And you're not." One of us- #15. You're not. Ad hominem- #6. |
| Citing The Supreme Court.
“Even though a federal criminal defendant's constitutional arguments
are not objectively reasonable or are frivolous, …” They're (Irwin is) stupid- #63. And another implied Resistance is futile- #19. |
| Cheek V. U.S. 498 U.S. 192 Petitioner Cheek was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return in violation of 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and three counts of willfully attempting to evade his income taxes in violation of 7201. Although admitting that he had not filed his returns, he testified that he had not acted willfully because he sincerely believed, based on his indoctrination by a group believing that the federal tax system is unconstitutional and his own study, that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions were lawful. In instructing the jury, the court stated that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness, and that Cheek's beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Code were not objectively reasonable. It also instructed the jury that a person's opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. Cheek was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The above is a good summary of the case. I have highlighted the point that applies to all Tax Honesty researchers; "the tax laws were being unconstitutionally [illegally] enforced". The next part I highlighted is where the court erred in stating basically, 'The court will decide if your belief is unreasonable." And the third part where the court makes the decision that a belief regarding wages is not reasonable. As an aside, here's what many of the Tax Honesty Researchers "believe" about "wages". Opens in new window. Now, Even though Cheek was convicted, his case contains some important points. |
| Held: 1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 . Thus, if the jury credited Cheek's assertion that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Characterizing a belief as objectively unreasonable transforms what is normally a factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury from considering it. And forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision, which this interpretation of the statute avoids. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's claim, the jury is free to consider any admissible evidence showing that he had knowledge of his legal duties. Held:
|
| JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of
the Court. Title 26, 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U.S.C. 7203, "[a]ny person required under this title . . . or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This case turns on the meaning of the word "willfully" as used in 7201 and 7203. As does any case under 7201 or 7203 |
| I Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973. He filed federal income tax returns through 1979, but thereafter ceased to file returns. ... Petitioner's income during this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to trigger the statutory filing requirement. What is the definition of income as used in this sentence? What is the definition of the word income used in the IRC? What is the definition of income "in it's constitutional sense"? In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that, to prove "willfulness," the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty". |
| II The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term "willfully" as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. ... Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty". |
| III Cheek accepts the Pomponio definition of willfulness, but asserts that the District Court's instructions and the Court of Appeals' opinion departed from that definition. In particular, he challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect. Cheek challenges the trial court's ruling that a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law must be objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court agrees. So no matter how ridiculous a belief is, it negates willfulness. |
| A Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. The only way to prove that the law imposes a duty on a defendant is for the government to SHOW THE JURY the statute that creates the duty. That has been something NOTICABLY MISSING from the cases of Simkanin, Schiff, and Rose. Never was proof shown to the jury that there was a duty created by a statute. What proof does the jury have otherwise. If the judge asserts "there is a duty", the judge could (and did) LIE to the jury regarding the existence of a statutory or regulatory duty. ... Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income. What a loaded compound sentence. There are two points here that bear on the Cheek case itself:
Now dealing with point 1, proving that Cheek (or anyone else) has the duty to file a return, this compound sentence says "the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence ... including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations". If the accused can cite chapter and verse of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, such as Dick Simkanin, Irwin Schiff, or Larken Rose could, Wouldn't you think that they would be the best witnesses to prove their own "awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations"? Instead, judges are routinely gagging defendent's from proving that the government did NOT in fact "prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant". Quite simply, proof that a law does NOT impose a duty on a defendant is to simply observe the law the government contends imposes the duty. (And in some cases a string of law is required when laws are predicated upon other laws to be activated.) We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals' requirement that a claimed good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government's evidence purporting to show a defendant's awareness of the legal duty at issue. Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury. Characterizing a particular belief as not objectively reasonable transforms the inquiry into a legal one, and would prevent the jury from considering it. ... forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision. Yeah, like sanctioning Irwin schiff everytime he brought up the law in the Corrupt judge dawson's Court. It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be. "Evidence" of "understanding".... Like the actual freaking written words of the statutes and regulations..... The Corrupt judge dawson sanctioned Schiff everytime Schiff voiced "evidence of Schiff's understanding". |
| B Those cases [ Murdock-Pomponio] construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in "our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law" and "`[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care. Yet that "frank difference of opinion" and the reasons supporting it was not allowed before the jury. |
There is much more I would
cover
in detail if I put together a web page just for the Cheek
decision. Since it is perspective's resistance is futile and
don't read the actual written words of law that I am addressing, I am
addressing Cheek simply because perspective did. As such, here is
a summary of points:
|
| CJ, I belief Peymon still offers a reward for anyone who can show him the “liable” part of the code. Irwin use to offer $100.000 a long time ago for the same thing, I’m not sure if he still does? Anyway, you may want to present your case to Peymon — the hard part is finding an impartial audience, good luck. Ha! Denigrating attitude- #21. |
| “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to
that iron string. Accept
the
place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your
contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done
so, and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age,
betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated
at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their
being. And we are now men, and must accept in the highest mind the same
transcendent destiny; and not minors and invalids in a protected
corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers,
and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort, and advancing on Chaos
and the Dark.” Ralph Waldo Emerson Meaningless tripe- #18. |
| David Jahn said @ 11.18.05 - 10:14 pm: “I look forward to the day we have some comments that are actually relevant to the purpose of this site.” Trial Logs Header: “Our government's ability to incarcerate innocent people is evidenced by the number of those being exonerated, most often through DNA evidence . . .” I agree: The above statement has a great deal of validity — I relate the problem to overzealous DA’s, poor police investigation, juries who watch too much cop TV, and last but not least our (government) school systems which no longer teach civics. One of us- #16 The statement about “DNA evidence” proves necessary in rape or murder cases, not income tax cases. Perspective appears to be ignoring the point, that IN the cases of rape or murder, DNA is the tool that PROVES the CORRUPT, BROKEN nature of the court systems. By the phrase, "not income tax cases" he wants to make a point of ridicule about DNA testing being useless in tax cases. When you keep your eyes on the absurdity of DNA testing in tax cases, you have taken your eyes off the CORRUPT, BROKEN court systems as proven by the DNA exonerations. The fact of corrupt, broken court systems directly contradicts his "nothing is wrong" position (that currently has a count of 22). This Meaningless tripe- #19 is nothing more than a setup to espouse the nothing is wrong position as he does below. |
| Trial Logs Header: “. . . These
wrongful convictions evidence our
judicial system's failure.” I disagree: Nothing is wrong- #23. Our judicial system is the only reasonable forum we as citizens have to determine FACTS of a case. Nothing is wrong- #24. Unless your purpose is to revert back to MOB rule where nobody would be safe. Argumentum ad Baculum |
| Trial Logs
Header: “. . . Trial Logs
is currently covering the government's
prosecution of those who question the application of the income tax
laws.” Exactly! Most every posting I’ve made attempts to clarify one or both of your concerns: “prosecutions” and “income tax laws.” Yeah, like we are all interested in buying that bridge you own in New York City. You made the inference that you are a busy man when I made the suggestion, quoting: Carefully re-read my postings, setting aside your pre-conceived conclusions, and your response: “I'm lucky if I can find time to read them the first time. David Jahn | 11.15.05 - 9:51 pm |” So to make the statement, “I look forward to the day we have some comments that are actually relevant to the purpose of this site,” it would appear you’re really not interested in finding answers nor interested in going beyond the 35 years plus of getting nowhere in the so-called freedom movement. Has anybody actually seen anything of substance that explains or details ANYTHING posted by perspective. Bullshit artist comes to mind for me right now. Ethereal "solutions"- #26. One of us- #17. They're stupid- #64. |
| Trial Logs Header: “. . . It is our
hope
that this coverage will help us understand the failings of our justice
system and help those struggling to comprehend this nation's income tax
laws.” Your statement is disingenuous; They're stupid- #65. it’s perfectly clear you’re not really interested in finding answers to how the judicial system works. Bold emphasis mine. Nothing is wrong- #25. Implied promise of Ethereal "solutions"- #27. Nor are you interested in finding answers as to how to solve this oppressive tax system. Talks the talk: One of us- #18. Ethereal "solutions"- #28. I’ve seen this tunnel vision before in the so-called freedom movement – there’s usually a “hidden agenda” attached. One of us- #19. They're stupid- #66. Misrepresentation of position- #17. It may be something as simple as “Guru” worship, power, or monetary gain, or it might even be just plain FEAR. Ad hominem- #7. Whatever your purpose, it is short sighted—you would rather cater to fools, whose over-extended PARANOIA suffocates the very word of FREEDOM. They're stupid- #67. Ad hominem- #8. One of us- #20. |
| I stated my reasons for posting on your
sight as the following: I have four purposes for my postings: 1. To promote HOPE The count of "Resistance is futile" stands at 19. 2. To give direction The count of "ethereal solutions" stands at 28. 3. To protect the Constitution So you claim. 4. To stop the fanaticism that has infiltrated the freedom movement. In other words, you know that eventially the government's tyrannical actions are going to lead to refreshing the Tree of Liberty and you don't wan't to be tarred and feathered. perspective | 11.11.05 - 12:01 pm | |
| I’m
not interested in going around in circles arguing the IRC because it’s
NOT where the action lies; Don't read the law- #9. you’ll only continue to frustrate yourselves — failing to see the real issues. They're stupid- #68. |
| As for people who suggest I
am a government plant trying to mess with your “patriot” minds —that
would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. One of us- #21. Denigrating attitude- #22. The present so-called patriot movement is NOT any threat to government; Resistance is futile- #20. you only encourage their paranoia and increase their power by your acts. Resistance is futile- #21. So your paranoia and government paranoia added together only brings on more paranoia, fear, and oppression. Resistance is futile- #22. |
| I know my words may fall on deaf ears.
Just like a baby's "goo goo gah gah" does. It appears the information I provided is too much for you to digest and may be over your heads at this time; Ethereal "solutions"- #29. but just maybe some people will realize the importance of what I’ve been saying. You ain't said nothing. Even this sentence, both parts, conveys nothing of import or substance. There’s a better direction in regaining and actualizing our liberties through constitutional approaches for those that will hear. Ethereal "solutions"- #30. Unsubstantiated assertion- #11. Just remember, David, I once was one of you until I came to realize we were not going in a realistic direction, One of us- #22. They're stupid- #69. losing in every respect our jobs, our property, our sanity. Resistance is futile- #23. So, I felt I had no choice but to stand back and get perspective to find out how the government put us in this sad position. Meaningless tripe- #20. Only then did I start finding answers and a constitutional direction. Ethereal "solutions"- #31. |
| The infamous Jim Jones of Jonestown,
Guyana, had
many followers. Puts me in mind of comments by Buckner/Reasonable Guy about "poison cool-aid". Some have asserted that perspective is one of him... Did I say him? I meant to say Some have asserted that perspective is one of them. He was very charismatic even up to the point of convincing most of his followers to take the poison ending their lives over their cause. Those that woke up too late to the dangers and the madness of it all were simply shot attempting escape by Jones’ true believers. The analogy is starting to fit the so-called patriot movement with their ongoing attitude of hopelessness. Argumentum ad Baculum They're stupid- #70. Ad hominem- #9. Unsubstantiated assertion- #12. There is direction; there is real hope — but you’ve got to get perspective. Ethereal "solutions"- #32. The constitutional answers have always been right in front of us if we will only take the time to look and understand. Ethereal "solutions"- #33. Perspective |
| To The Peon, Peon said: “I know there are a lot of different opinions here but, has anyone given thought to the fact that our country is in a state of National Emergency? Did you know the constitution is suspended during this state? All it takes is an executive order to do so. Did you also know that we have been here in a state of emergency since 1933? So they say.” With all due respect, the suspension of the U. S. Constitution is just another patriot myth. It is, however, true there have been violations of power by the executive branch and legislative branch of government under the pretence of National Emergency. Example: F.D.R internment of Americans of Japanese decent during WWII, even though it took a long time to correct, it was shown to be in total violations of the U. S. Constitution. In the end the Constitution prevails over unconstitutional and usurp acts of government. The Constitution only gives government one power of suspension and that relates to Habeas Corpus, and only within certain limited circumstances. Example President Lincoln, while certain parts of the Country were in insurrection, suspended Habeas Corpus, he later was compelled to get Congress” approval. Talks the talk. |
| Peon carefully read Supreme Courts view
on “Emergency”. I hope this
clears this up for you. “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system. While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. Although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.” (cite omitted) Talks the talk while talking Meaningless tripe- #21. Perspective |
| Duplicate post deleted to
save
your eyes. |
| Duplicate post deleted to
save
your eyes. |
| Jim | 11.19.05 - 8:25 pm, Jim said: “For instance, say Irwin ask you to advise him what you think he should do. ”He has believed the same way for 25 years or more, has gone to jail twice over this, and has just received a civil complaint from the IRS.” This post effectively sidesteps a question, and as you will see, the poster rewords and asks again. Giving advise to Irwin is next to impossible. But I believe in his present circumstances he should maintain his position and focus on his “good faith belief” in the “Cheek defense.” Also, since Irwin’s attempt to question the governments “psychologist,” failed, was denied, he may have a chance for a NEW Trial. Account of incompetence of stand by council, this all depends on if the attorney was only there to question Irwin, or he had more of an advisory role. The psychologist should have been subpoenaed, in other words forced into court, where Irwin state of mind could be exposed to the jury. Expert’s witnesses, especially hostile that go in your favor hold lots of water in jury’s minds. Cindy attorney’s totally missed the boat on the importance of the psychologist testimony—therefore she has an appealable issue. Talks the talk. |
| Now you know why the judge denied
Irwin’s request to have the
psychologist brought in. He/she was a GOVERNMENT WITNESS not Irwin’s. The shrink wasn't anybody's WITNESS, since there was NO TESTIMONY given IN COURT by this alleged witness. I know those darn rules keep getting the way, but that’s the legal system. Nothing is wrong- #26. I didn’t know about the civil complaint those would follow, even if Irwin had won the criminal trial. No comment on Dave, Alex, except Jerry has a nice voice. Perspective Sidesteps question- #1. |
| To 'Per' Change the name from Irwin to John Doe. John has the same situation at Irwin, he has a civil case against him, but has not been charged criminally yet. I am trying to understand if John said he is open to all advice, and asks you what he should do or say to gov and civil case, and what to do if they come after him criminally. How would he use the constitution to defend himself? What constitutional questions could he raise, and would he go on the offensive? BTW is John wrong to believe there is no law that requires him to file? |
| David Jahn | 11.19.05 - 5:10 pm | # David said: “The fact is that innocent people are being convicted in this country at an alarming rate. That is a failure. Our system was designed to favor a defendant realizing that a few guilty people might go free. Better that than to incarcerate an innocent man. But, something has gone wrong. The system has tilted in favor of the prosecution. It is in effect MOB rule, only it is the governments MOB.” I agree, David, no injustice should be tolerated. Democracies have this tendency to find fault in everything, which in turn produces victims under bad laws. France is a good example. During their revolution it utilized a democracy to form Mob rule; no one was safe from the guillotine. In America a true Republic (not a democracy) was founded with an independent judiciary, which meant the minority could be protected from the majority, and even protected from bad laws. |
| Your
frustration with the judicial system may be misplaced when no issues of
right/s are involved. Example: In a murder case the burden is on the
government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Your rights are
protected through “due process,” I interrupt this diatribe to quote perspective's quote of David Jahn's Trial Blogs header: "Our government's ability to incarcerate innocent people is evidenced by the number of those being exonerated, most often through DNA evidence . . ." Please continue.... wherein the fact-finding decision is left to the jury to determine. Compare this with administrative law where the burden becomes reversed. FINALLY! After all those words, a tiny little bit of substance in regard to the ethereal problem. The burden is on you, not the agency, to disprove any of their claims. Why? Because it will be legally assumed you have volunteered for some privilege, benefit, license or special access that is regulated and taxed. Nexus / priviledge- #17. These elements (privileges, benefits, licenses or special accesses) are not of “common right;” Nexus / priviledge- #18. therefore, they have no normal protections and are treated summarily by the agencies and viewed by courts as being correct until proven differently. Now the legislative branch has a tendency to add “criminal” penalties to statutes of this nature for enforcement purposes, which the administrative agency can use to take you into court. Now you may see why you’re already HALF GUILTY coming into those types of trials; the only real question the court is interested in finding at that point is can you overcome the agency’s FACTS. Though he has posted a bit of substance, it does not connect with the words of written law, which defines for the agency, and the person executing privilege, what those privileges are, and what actions connect those laws to that person. Now as to what perspective has written the above, Let's say I am "the agency". As the agency, I am bringing action against perspective under 7201 for willfully evading the distilled spirits tax. "The burden is on you, perspective not me the agency, to disprove any of my claims. Why? Because it will be legally assumed you have volunteered for some privilege, benefit, license or special access that is regulated and taxed." Namely, importing and / or distilling spirits. "These elements (privileges, benefits, licenses or special accesses) are not of “common right; therefore, they have no normal protections and are treated summarily by the my agency and viewed by courts as being correct until proven differently." "Now you may see why you’re already HALF GUILTY coming into" this trial; "the only real question the court is interested in finding at that point is can you overcome the my FACTS" Though the "Don't read the law" count is only at 9 this will increase as we continue through perspective's posts. But since he claims don't read the law, he would have no reason (By his own standards) to avail himself of the actual written words of the distilled spirits laws. |
| David,
I deal in Constitutional research. Solutions for many issues of rights,
not just taxes, are needed, but you won’t find solutions if you can’t
first identify the problem. Ethereal "solutions"- #34. Perspective |
| David,
I deal in Constitutional research. Solutions for
many
issues of rights, not just taxes, are needed, but you won’t find
solutions if you can’t first identify the problem Many consitutional challenges to the income tax have already failed. The next question is where are you going to take your challenge? Into the tax court? Into the federal court? Judging from the way they treated Ken Evans and his case, they will tap dance around the issue in the court and then find in favor of the government even if they have to fabricate an argument you didn't raise. I'm still looking for integrity in these courts. You seem to think it is there. |
| Jim | 11.20.05 - 12:49 pm | Jim Said: “How would he use the constitution to defend himself?” ”What constitutional questions could he raise, and would he go on the offensive?” He is not, nor is the patriot community, at this time in any position to bring Constitutional issues. Until the issues of rights are completely developed and proper standing is created, I would fear a Band-Aid approach would be inappropriate. Ethereal "solutions"- #35. Are there Constitutional solutions to reverse these usurpations? YES!! Ethereal "solutions"- #36. There are people like myself who are creating a new direction—researching and planning Ethereal "solutions"- #37. —so be HOPEFUL AND PATIENT as we’re in the beginning phases. I’m reluctant to give contact information at this time. Ethereal "solutions"- #38. |
| As hateful as the suggestion may sound,
settlement by John Doe may be
his best route to go. Resistance is futile- #24. |
| “BTW
is John wrong to believe there is no law that requires him to file?” See my previous note to
David -- Perspective | 11.20.05 - 2:39 pm | # Sidesteps question- #2. Just scroll up two posts to see if you agree, the answer was vapid. |
| David Jahn | 11.20.05 - 3:15 pm | David said; “Many consitutional challenges to the income tax have already failed.” Dear David—The ISSUE ISN’T INCOME TAX!! I finally identified your impasse. "That boy is about as sharp as a bowlin' ball." |
| TAX COURT? Is a legislative court, it’s
not where you bring
Constitutional issues of law. Misrepresentation of position- #18. |
| To
find solutions you must first be willing to learn American principles
before you go playing with law. They're stupid- #71. Ethereal "solutions"- #39. Remember they stopped teaching true American civics in the early part of the twentieth century. We became easy pickings for every socialistic act our government could throw at our parents. We’re just paying the price for failing our duty to keep vigilance over the Constitution. Talks the talk morphs into Meaningless tripe- #22. |
| Please know I’ve been on your site to
help; someday hopefully we’ll
have a good laugh over any misunderstandings. One of us- #23. |
| David,
I have a questions for you: If you could get your freedoms back without
having to jeopardize your family, job, business, or property would you
do it? Set up for the Ethereal "solutions"- #40. |
| Just think about that possibility.
Where your values
would count and you’d have a forum to speak your mind. Meaningless tripe- #23. I started in the freedom movement because I believed in individuals and Freedom, I still do. One of us- #24. |
| Dear
David—The ISSUE ISN’T INCOME TAX!! I finally
identified
your impasse. Okay, what is the issue then? I'm aware the courts just threw out a law suit involving a petition for redress of grievances that listed a number of issues. Some will say that wasn't the proper action. Apparently there is no proper action when it comes to bringing the government within constitutional limitations. TAX COURT? Is a legislative court, it’s not where you bring Constitutional issues of law. I'm well aware of this. My question is what court is going to listen to a constitutional question regarding the conduct of our government? The evidence suggest they don't concern themselves much with the constitution anymore. The U.S. district court in California has voided the second amendment. It is only a matter of time before they start collecting guns out there. Strike that, I believe they already went around collecting assault rifles in that district. Anyway, what court do you have in mind? |
| David Jahn | 11.20.05 - 4:52 pm David said: “Okay, what is the issue then? I'm aware the courts just threw out a law suit involving a petition for redress of grievances that listed a number of issues. Some will say that wasn't the proper action.” Firsts part of question and answer: My issues will focus on Property rights and liberty. Ethereal "solutions"- #41. |
| As
for the “redress of grievance” suit: The “We The People,” group’s
petition was thrown out for good reason they didn’t have standing nor
cause to sustain their claims. They had a jerk of a lawyer who should
have known there was NO standing going in. They're stupid- #72. Oh well big money brings out the shysters. As I’ve indicated the Constitutional ignorance in this country is pervasive, with the exception of the higher levels of law. (See case and order below) They're stupid- #73. |
| Case 1:04-cv-01211-EGS Document 28
Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 7 Order “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be granted when it appears “beyond doubt” that there is no set of facts that plaintiffs can prove that will entitle them to relief. See Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1114 (D.C. Cir.2000).” |
| David said: “Apparently there
is no proper action when it comes to bringing the
government within constitutional limitations.” Answer: The issues determine the jurisdiction not the other way around — Dave —Constitutional Law isn’t a guessing game. There are no silver bullets — no instant pudding —we’re dealing with reasoned law going back over two hundred years. David said: “I'm well aware of this. . .” Answer: You brought up the question of Tax Court not me; I just described its legislative nature. David said: “. . . My question is what court is going to listen to a constitutional question regarding the conduct of our government? The evidence suggest they don't concern themselves much with the constitution anymore.” Answer: That’s a patriot myth; the Constitution is alive and well. Kelo decision. As for what courts, any court with proper jurisdiction to answer question of law. Taking that statement to the next logical level if needed, are the courts of last resort. |
| David
said: “The U.S.
district court in California has voided the second
amendment. It is only a matter of time before they start collecting
guns out there. Strike that, I believe they already went around
collecting assault rifles in that district.” Answer: The Second Amendment has NO application within a state. Its only application is directed against the Federal Government. I don't agree, however, in this case I recognize I could be in error, however the point is moot. Quoting U. S. Supreme Court Reports – Part “D, —The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. – Not a Right Granted by the Constitution. – The right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for existence.” (cite omitted) "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for existence" In other words, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms exists outside the constitution, be it a State or a Federal constitution. We'll see how he talks the talk when it comes to citizens carrying loaded arms on their person in total ignorance of any law the purports to restrict such right. |
| David said: “Anyway, what
court do you have in mind?” Answer: Any court that has a proper jurisdiction to answer question of law before it. Taking that statement to the next logical level if needed, are the courts of last resort. David, You have to realize there haven’t been many real questions of law being brought to the higher courts in over 70 years. The reason is simply, most issues now days relate to Congress’ socialistic controls over the country nothing more. He's talking the talk again. What I’m talking about brining back to life are INALIENABLE ISSUES OF RIGHT. "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American" be it a full rock and roll capable M16 assault rifle, a 105mm Howizter, or a Saturday night special. The purpose is to be capable of killing tyrants and those who would enslave. So talk the talk some more perspective, when is it justifiable to kill a tyrant? If you are not willing to spill blood, then all your talk of freedom is just so much bullshit and you will cower in the corner when the government thugs with guns come to trample all these rights you babble on about. What ya talking about Willis??? |
| Answer: That’s a patriot myth; the
Constitution is
alive and
well. Then why do we have show your papers dui checkpoints, no knock warrants, and eminent domain abuses all courtesy of the supreme court? Answer: The Second Amendment has NO application within a state. Its only application is directed against the Federal Government. Then why do the feds consider free speech issues? Are first amendment infringements their pervue, but second amendments aren't? |
| Anonymous | 11.20.05 - 6:58 pm | # There's lots of work to be done to make things right. Thanks for making my point. Perspective |
| David Jahn | 11.20.05 - 10:19 pm | David said: “The only conclusion one can draw is that the government will do all that it can to prevent the jury from being exposed to the issues and the juries won't expend any energy trying to comprehend the issues.” Answer: The jury can only be exposed to the facts of the case; the Code is not on trial. Did you guys catch that. He just said the duty under the law is not a fact. If the duty is not a fact, there is no reason for the trial. Don't read the law- #10. I’ve already stated that any questions of law must be brought up before the trial not during the trial. Nothing is wrong- #27. |
| Repeating
myself— <sarcasm> Really? You don't do that very often. </sarcasm> “The “Political Question Doctrine” Has already been addressed. See above. is a bar against courts from interfering with the legislative branch’s constitutional enumerated powers -- In Irwin’s case the congress’ taxing power. Misrepresentation of position- #19. The judicial branch of government stands independent of the legislature and enforces law as written by Congress unless it can be shown a conflict exists between the Constitution and an ordinary act of Congress.” |
| In
none of Irwin’s, Cindy, Larken’s and Tessa’s case, or even in those up
coming trials has or will there be ANY issues of law presented in a
proper manner to stop these types of trials. Unsubstantiated assertion- #13. Why? It’s because ALL of them fail to understand They're stupid- #74. there is a subject matter relationship already established within the jurisdiction of these taxing charges. Nexus / priviledge- #19. The code is NOT the issue as I’ve said through out this Trial logs. Don't read the law- #11. |
| Go
back to my postings starting at 11/05/05 and work your way forward,
maybe then you’ll start seeing why patriot arguments will never get
anywhere in these types of tax trial. I've been doing just that. You ain't said much worth looking at cuz you ain't said much of anything. |
| David, the jury, sorry
to say, is not in any position to solve the real problems. Ethreal problem, to which we have so far had 41 references to the ethereal solutions. Jury nullification does NOTHING to address the ISSUES OF LAW needed to over turned bad laws. Misrepresentation of position- #20. The law is not what is bad. It's implementation is. And Jury nullification IS the final check and "consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence) in regard to ANY law. Perspective |
| DE from NC | 11.21.05 - 12:04 am | DE from NC said: “My comment goes to the counsel of the WTP lawsuit on the "Right to Petition" our gov't for "redress of grievences". If you've followed the HISTORICAL cases that the Mark Lane law firm has handled over the years, you'd QUICKLY SHUT YOUR MOUTH trashing such a brilliant lawyer !!! His legal "know how" borders on O.J.'s lawyers !!! The PROBLEM STILL LIES WITH OUR CORRUPT JUDICIARY !!” Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours. I presented the Order against "WTP" petition and you congratulate the attorney for losing. Then you continue to put your foot in your mouth, with the O. J. CASE. I guess the court in O. J’s case was corrupt and not the jury? I guess O. J’s wrongful death case really didn’t prove anything. Oops! OJ's case proves it's stupid to try and frame a guilty man. The jury did the right thing by acquitting a man who was framed. |
| A
person who doesn’t know a thing about law—has a perfect right to show
his ignorance. They're stupid- #75. But a fanatic does it in SELF-RIGHTEOUS religious terms. Ad hominem- #10. The fanatic thinks in Black and White terms spewing hate as he goes. Ad hominem- #11. Gandhi said: “And Eye for and Eye makes the whole world blind.” Bye Perhaps his ethereal solution using the Constitution is to have 6 reems printed up and fashioned into a flak jacket, because a single sheet of paper or parchment with the Constitution won't stop a bullet. And the woman and children MURDERED at Waco didn't even have a copy of the Constitution to hold up to attempt to stop the bullets aimed at their vital organs.. Perspective |
| Mr.Liberty | 11.21.05 - 11:18 am Mr. Liberty said: “All law is territorial and never once have I ever seen Larken recognize the fact that the term "United States" as used in 861 and in 26 USC 7701 (a)9 and (a)10, means ONLY the District of Columbia. And inside the District, the US Constitution is not enforceable. See Downes v. Bidlwell (1901).” The Downes v Bidwell, case,182 U.S. 244, dealt with the following issues: Appeal, commerce, customs, customs duties, federal question jurisdiction, imports, international law, judicial review, jurisdiction, Puerto Rico, tax uniformity, taxation, territories, treaties. You focused your conclusions on the element of “territories” which can easily be taken out of context, when dealing with domestic law. Downes v. Bidwell runs 57,780 words. It's not my job to search those words to prove or disprove perspective's Unsubstantiated assertion- #14. |
| I agree with your conclusions that
Larken’s
arguments are irrelevant. There is NO arguement. There IS the WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW. They're stupid- #76. Don't read the law- #12. But Irwin’s position is equally frivolous notwithstanding your statements that he “. . . is a genuine patriot.” They're stupid- #77. You’re reading into the decisions of the case something that’s not there. Congress does have exclusive power over the municipal affairs of the District of Columbia, but your statement infers there are no Constitutional limits to those powers. That simply is not true, and misleads those less inclined to go beyond your theories and/or conclusions. |
| Example: The people who live in the DC
area have
just as much right to be protected by the Bill of Rights as any other
citizen in the Country. Your blanketed statements have already produces
flaws. Do you know why the people living in the DC area have the same
protections as every other American? It’s because when the U. S.
Constitution was adopted years after the Articles of Confederation, the
people of the now D.C. area were part of already existing states. That
is the 10 square miles the Constitution talks about in Art. I, Sec 8.
Comparing Puerto Rico, which is under protectorate law and treaty laws,
to D.C. only adds to the patriot confusion. Got a news flash for you... You haven't done any better in posting something to educate. You have however, made another Unsubstantiated assertion- #15. Since I am merely aware of the territorial authority issue, I will not engage it until such time as I have had a chance to fully study and commit to memory, the appropriate points. (Like the three different meanings of "United States". |
| Mr. Liberty said: “If
Larken got about 7 or 8 years, it will be about
what he deserves for misleading so many Americans . . .” It’s sad to see anyone going to jail, but to blame someone for others misfortunes is to say I only create good results, and any bad ones are someone else’s doing. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions; sometimes we make bad decisions, but it’s still our choice. Leaders are moved or pushed just as much by their followers as leaders try to move their followers. It’s a two way street. Perspective Perspective gets a bye on this round. |
| Since it's in my face, I'm
going
to reply to Mr. Liberty. "for misleading so many Americans" Before one can be Mislead, one first must be lead. Where then, was Mr. Rose leading people? He lead me to read and examine the Internal Revenue Code in the first place. For a good many years I ignorantly signed 1040 forms under penalty of perjury stating the form was accurately filled out, having NEVER READ THE LAW. Just like most other State Citizens. From Larken's web site: "Who is
this Larken Rose guy, anyway?" Larken Rose is a not
a lawyer. He has never received
formal training in tax law, or any other kind of law. He
has no special degrees or credentials regarding tax law.
He earns his living in a business unrelated to tax
law. "So why
should I take his word for anything?" Larken says, you shouldn't take his word for anything. I didn't. And I don't. I look at the written words of law. Something perspective is determined to keep the newcomer to the scene from looking into. Here's the 861 EVIDENCE as I have found it, and graphically illustrated it. |
| Billy Joe JimBob | 11.21.05 - 2:25 pm
| # Billy Joe said: “Get a clue! They were DENIED A FAIR TRIAL!” NOT SO! Nothing is wrong- #28. The comparison goes like this: The patriot arguments can be likened to someone in a stadium crowd yelling, “Hit a home-run” at a “football” game. They're stupid- #78. You are delusional and don’t know it. Ad hominem- #12. They're stupid- #79. |
| Now if you get
those thousands of people, as you were suggesting, ALL yelling at the
same time “hit a home-run” at a “football game, you have only more
delusional people, and you could start a riot. Argumentum ad Baculum They're stupid- #80. |
| Perspective, You are one confusing Dude. At times you seem to want to help and at other times you seem divisive. However, the thing we point out to everyone here is, “Mr. Schiff's innocence or guilt hung on one thing and one thing only. Does HE BELIEVE there is any law that compels the filing of or paying of taxes?” Judge Dawson knew Mr. Schiff did not believe such a law exists. How do we know that? Because on at least four occasions Judge Dawson told us he knew that by telling Mr. Schiff "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" ECT. Therefore, Mr. Schiff’s case should never have made it to the jury because Judge Dawson should have declared the government did not prove Mr. Schiff BELIEVED there is such a duty or law. In light of this no other arguments here as to what Mr. Schiff did or did not do during his trial amount to a hill of beans because, as Judge Dawson says, “They are immaterial!” |
| Billy Joe JimBob | 11.21.05 - 6:44 pm
| Billy Joe said; “Schiff was convicted after the "judge" had PROVEN ex-parte communications with the prosecution. This reason alone is cause for mistrial.” With all due respect, how do you know they were having ex-parte communications relating to the case to justify in your mind a mistrial? Maybe it had something to do with the judge prosecuting Irwin from the bench? Nothing is wrong- #29. Just because they were walking out of the room talking doesn’t mean they were undermining the trial or playing favorites or colluding against Irwin. And just because you make this statement doesn't mean the weren't undermining the trial or playing favorites or colluding against Irwin. Nothing is wrong- #30. Please explain the elements of standards of review that justifies mistrials. And your explanation is what and where? Are you going by those “legal experts” on the “Audioblog.com?” So far, they're just as viable as a source of information as you are. |
| Billy Joe said: “Not to mention
his
witnesses were threatened (if they were allowed to testify at all) I
could go on but whats the use?” JUDGE DAWSON was actually doing these guys a favor. If by "guys" you mean the prosecution, then I agree, since what dawson did was attempt to INTIMIDATE defense witnesses. Sworn testimony comes within evidence rules and CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU. So what you are saying between the lines about the witnesses for the defense is that They're stupid- #81 and they couldn't possibly understand that they are testifying and putting information upon a public, legal record without dawson's intimidation, er... warning. Irwin was dead WRONG to allow these people to be put in jeopardy, and the judge was letting them know. You are saying Nothing is wrong- #31 with dawson's intimidation, er... actions. Either Irwin wasn’t thinking, or he wasn’t concerned about jeopardizing other people. They're stupid- #82. I'm wondering if I have to sub categorize all the ways, overt and covert, that you use to trash people. |
| Billy Joe said: “You should
change your name to Unperspective if you
really believe they had fair trials.” I believe everyone should have a fair trial. Fair and legal are not the same.... And that's nothing more than a SLIGHT admission that perhaps you have a valid point regarding PROCEEDURE. But then, since you never bother to post anything that has substance, one just can't know for sure. I don't think you give a rat's ass of concern for fair in any way, shape, or form. If you ever get over being a “true believer,” Ad hominem- #13. They're stupid- #83. maybe you’ll start getting PERSPECTIVE. It’s a breath of fresh air. Meaningless tripe- #25. |
| The Constitutionalists | 11.21.05 -
4:42 pm | The Constitutionalists said: “You are one confusing Dude. At times you seem to want to help and at other times you seem divisive.” Good, you’re starting to think. Failure to address being called confusing noted. Failure to address being called a male Sybil noted. And my purpose has always been to help. One of us- #25. NOT! |
| The
Constitutionalist said: “However, the
thing we point out to everyone
here is, “Mr. Schiff's innocence or guilt hung on one thing and one
thing only. Does HE BELIEVE there is any law that compels the filing of
or paying of taxes?” I’ve stated that position at least 3 to 4 times. You are both wrong. Guilt or innocence hangs on THREE, count 'em, THREE things.
Bringing down from my reply to the previous whitewash of the Cheek case by perspective is this summary of points:
Point 1 of 3 must be proven according to point 6 of 10 Irwin most definitely holds a “good faith belief” in his arguments notwithstanding if ANYONE agrees or not. Now you know the reason I keep bringing up the psychologist who examined Irwin as an appealable issue. Yes. You want to keep people, especially new people, for looking at the written words of law. He would have testified to the FACT of Irwin’s “good faith belief.” The reason the government DIDN’T call him into court? They were afraid to!!!!!!!!!! It’s because his testimony would have destroyed the government’s position on WILLFULLNESS. He's talking the talk. Since the trial had elements of “state-of-mind,” Misrepresentation of position- #21. The elements are:
Do you know why people such as Schiff, et al. have such an "unshakable position"? It's because they (we) have READ the WRITTEN WORDS of LAW. It's because they (we) know there is NO DUTY according to the WRITTEN WORDS of LAW. |
| But NO ONE, not Irwin, not
any of the defense lawyers recognized the importance of getting the
psychologist into court with the force of a subpoena. They're stupid- #84. He was a hostile witness; therefore, it’s up to the defense to move the court to produce him as a matter of right — 6th Amendment style. I don't clearly remember, but there was something about the method used by the court to stay the shrink giving testimony that didn't sound right. You get a bye on this point. |
| The
Constitutionalist said. “Judge Dawson
knew Mr. Schiff did not believe
such a law exists. How do we know that? Because on at least four
occasions Judge Dawson told us he knew that by telling Mr. Schiff "I
disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what
you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" ECT. “Therefore, Mr. Schiff’s case should never have made it to the jury because Judge Dawson should have declared the government did not prove Mr. Schiff BELIEVED there is such a duty or law.” Those statements by the judge are not in question. Nothing is wrong- #32. The judge has a perfect right to state the law as given. Don't read the law- #13. That way, when the judge lies to the jury as to what duty the law creates, Nothing is wrong- #33. By the way, the judge DIDN'T state the law per the cited statements, to wit: "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" I know that’s a hard pill to swallow, but bear with me. The reason is simple: 'It's simple.' Okay, for the moment I'll take that at face value The plaintiff, the government (IRS), has presented a case that can be heard in District Courts, Judge Dawson’s court. Point 1: The case can only be heard in a certain court. Which is why "Those statements by the judge" "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" "are not in question." That court, through Congress, has been delegated the jurisdiction to hear Tax Trials. You said that; Point 1: The case can only be heard in a certain court. Which is why "Those statements by the judge" "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" "are not in question." Irwin, at that point has ONLY three options: I thought this was about why "Those statements by the judge" "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" "are not in question." 1. Challenge the government’s jurisdiction over him with a motion to dismiss. Right from Irwin's web site: Schiff’s Reply as to why all criminal charges against Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen, and himself must be dismissed, because federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to criminally prosecute anybody for alleged income tax crimes PDF file. 125 kb. 2. Plead guilty. Resistance is futile- #25. 3. Go to trial overcoming the prima facie evidence the government produces, which has the added element of willfulness. Bold emphasis mine. Let's examine what prima facie evidence is: prima facie adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a grand jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account, makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case. Cite. Latin for "on its face." A prima facie case is one that at first glance presents sufficient evidence for the plaintiff to win. Such a case must be refuted in some way by the defendant for him to have a chance of prevailing at trial. For example, if you can show that someone intentionally touched you in a harmful or offensive way and caused some injury to you, you have established a prima facie case of battery. However, this does not mean that you automatically win your case. The defendant would win if he could show that you consented to the harmful or offensive touching. Cite. (Latin) A legal presumption which means "on the face of it" or "at first sight". Law-makers will often use this device to establish that if a certain set of facts are proven, then another fact is established prima facie. For example, proof of mailing a letter is prima facie proof that it was received by the person to whom it was addressed and will accepted as such by a court unless proven otherwise. Other situations may require a prima facie case before proceeding to another step in the judicial process so that you would have to at least prove then that at first glance, there appears to be a case. Cite. 3. Go to trial overcoming the prima facie evidence the government produces... I've yet to see the rules that make Irwin or anybody else, fall within the statutory definitions that one must fall into in order to be a "taxpayer". I've yet to see evidence that the rules apply to Irwin or anybody else who does not fall within the statutory definition of "taxpayer". In short, defendends in these "wilfullness" trials are never allowed to question, or even to see the law, or should I say evidence of law, the creates the duty in the instances of natural persons. Leading us right back to Irwin’s and Cindy’s state of mind. Because if you hammer on this point long enough, you can distract newcomers from looking at the WRITTEN WORDS of the LAW. Don't read the law- #14. Did he ever address and support his statement: "Those statements by the judge" "I disagree with your conclusions" "That is your opinion" "That is what you think it says" "You are wrong to believe" "are not in question."? |
| Since there wasn’t any legitimate
jurisdictional
challenge against the government, Unsubstantiated assertion- #16. the court was only left with: “Irwin, are you going to plead guilty, or do we proceed with the trial?” Well, since the court ignored his challenges to jurisdiction until the day before the trial was to begin, removing any chance for Irwin to appeal the underhanded denial of Irwin's challenges... The IRCode doesn’t count Don't read the law- #15. because the taxable relationship already has been established ADMINISTRATIVELY, Nexus / priviledge- #20. along with the good possibility that an obstruction against the tax laws existed giving the court probable cause. Meaningless tripe- #26. Unsubstantiated assertion- #17. The Constitutionalist said: “In light of this no other arguments here as to what Mr. Schiff did or did not do during his trial amount to a hill of beans because, as Judge Dawson says, “They are immaterial!” You are correct. Out of context statement being agreed to, ignoring the context. Misrepresentation of position- #22. |
| Billy Joe JimBob | 11.21.05 - 6:52 pm | I suggest you read my posts back to 11/04/05 forward. If it's in green, I've read it, since I have to highlight it to change its color. The Constitution wasn’t designed for mob mentality. No. It wasn't. It was designed to keep government from stealing. Do you want your freedoms back or do you just want to rant? 99.99999% of Americans need a Constitutional civics class. Now what part of the “rule of law” don’t you get? Ethereal "solutions"- #42. Denigrating attitude- #23. They're stupid- #85. (In this case, I agree.) |
| Perspective said, "Those statements by
the judge are not in
question. The judge has a perfect right to state the law as given." We think you misunderstood what we were saying. It was not THE LAW as conjured up by Dawson that we were talking about. Perhaps you do not know but several times during the trail Dawson stopped Mr. Schiff from proving a point by saying things like "That IS your opinion, Mr. Schiff" or "You (Mr. Schiff) may believe such and such" or “That’s what YOU THINK it says, Mr. Schiff” which confirms Dawson believed Mr. Schiff does BELIEVE what he teaches. That being the case Dawson’s duty was to dismiss the case because HE believed Mr. Schiff was sincere in his beliefs |
| Scott Wagner | Homepage | 11.22.05 -
2:27 am | FairTax Dear Scott: Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder are really back-door socialists. The Income Tax is communistic and needs to go — but so is the “Fair Tax Act.” Scott said: “The FairTax does not cut funding from any cherished socialist programs like welfare or Social Security. It is merely a new way for the federal government to pay for its existence.” Constitutionally a “Fair Tax” would be considered a DIRECT TAX ON PROPERTY without apportionment. The Fair Tax would not in actuality be a true consumption tax in the first place. Doesn’t work that way. Your scheme is NOT much better than the present system. It still leads to unconstitutional acts. We’ve already had enough CENTRALIZED social planning from D.C. For over 80 years we’ve had unconstitutional nanny state redistribution of property under the guise of taxes. I suggest Mr. Boortz and Congressman John Linder take a Civics course on the Constitution because their plans to eliminate the IRS are just shuffling chairs on the TITANIC. Here’s what you’re not getting, Scott. The National government’s original PURPOSE can be reduced to 3 duties 1. Organize the DEFENSE of the Country. 2. Promote the free flow of COMMERCE. 3. Provide an HONEST MONEY SYSTEM. I will not discuss the internal housekeeping cost of the national government because it’s insignificant. These three reasons are the basic purposes for National taxes. So, Scott, what do we have? We have a STANDING ARMY, which is used to promote IMPERIALISM around the world creating more enemies as we go. It is an absurdity to take once free people, who had a rightful means of self-defense, turning them into mercenaries. That’s slavery!!!!! The UNITED NATIONS is a fraud and so is the GLOBAL AMERICAN POLICE FORCE. We as Americans have a duty to defend this Country FROM INVASIONS and INSURRECTIONS. The Constitution was created with the purpose to protect everyone’s domestic liberties, as a UNION. Period. Next: The Commerce powers have been completely expanded outside of its Constitutional authority and need to be put back to its original purpose. It is now used to federally police the States. Last but not least, the money system: Since the introduction of socialism into this country, the government no longer pays its debts; it simply PRINTS PAPER. So much for regulating the value of the currency for the protection of the People’s property. So, Scott, the government has failed in doing its lawful Constitutional duty. And, you think by changing the taxing system with a “Fair Tax,” everything will be better? Socialism is the problem! Get rid of EVERY social federal program and dismantle the standing army, and things will go back to where they were before WWI. Oh, I hear the screams, “But, but, but, but I need my government check!!!” The people, who need the help, will either have to go back to work, or get local relief. Before big brother stuck its nose into local affairs, we had Poor Laws. It used to be considered undignified to be on the dole (exception of old widows and orphans), and families were the first line of economic safety. As for defending the Country, I suggest everyone re-read Art. I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16. Those provisions work pretty much like Switzerland, which is well trained to defend itself. That type of system would also help eliminate crime in the streets overnight. Why? The reason is simple: neighborhoods would have the means and responsibility to defend themselves when called upon locally. Oh, here’s one you can agree on as a Libertarian: There would be NO more DRUG LAWS. Has anyone wondered how the Federal government started into that business?? Did anyone notice it took the 18th Amendment before the federal government could enforce booze laws? Oops!! Scott, you mean well — but you’re Constitutionally off point. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE REPUBIC — the way the founding fathers created it. |
| someone unimportant | 11.22.05
-10:13am| Billy Joe JimBob | 11.22.05 - 2:47 pm | Go back and re-read my post--you're showing your frustrations. It’s about time patriot’s start using perspective. The government is playing by the rules they just changed the game. Stop play baseball at a football game. Stand back for about 80 years and get the picture. Denigrating attitude- #24. Nothing is wrong- #34. |
| Scott Wagner | 11.22.05 - 7:36 pm | # Scott said: “For the naysayers who complain that The FairTax isn't 100% perfect -- for goodness' sake, of course it isn't a perfect solution, but does that mean you continue with a system that is 99% wrong just because the new solution isn't 100% right?” Dear Mr. Wagner, with all due respect, would you like to know why the Libertarians aren’t much better than the Democrats or the Republicans? They're stupid- #86. It’s because they don’t have any REAL RESPECT for the U.S. Constitution either. He's talking the talk. Politicians only pay the Constitution lip service—sorry Charlie, either the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land or we’ve got a problem. He's talking the talk. (And the statement is correct.) |
| You know that
“99% wrong system” you were referring to, it’s on the way out through
the proper application of the Constitution. Ethereal "solutions"- #43. It doesn’t take votes — the means and the solutions have always existed within the LAWS of this Country. Ethereal "solutions"- #44. Usurpation and fraud has permeated this Country for far to long. Talkin' the talk. Keep your eyes open the REAL FREEDOM MOVEMENT HASN’T EVEN STARTED YET!!!!!!!! The jig is up!! Ethereal "solutions"- #45. |
| "What are legislatures? Creatures
of the constitution; they owe their existence to the constitution; they
derive their powers from the constitution; it is their commission; and
therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will
be void." (Cite omitted) Making this statement an Unsubstantiated assertion- #18. Because he didn't cite-link substantiation to support his CORRECT sequence of authority, the UA is incremented because postings like this do not allow scholars to study and research the source that statements such as this come from. |
Due to the size of this file, it has been split and put on multiple pages.
Next page.
Nothing is wrong- #34. I'm smart- #16. They're stupid- #86. Resistance is futile- #25. Unsubstantiated assertion- #18. One of us- #25. Ad hominem- #13.
Meaningless tripe- #26. Straw man- #1. Nexus / priviledge- #20. Ethereal "solutions"- #45. Don't read the law- #15. Misrepresentation of position- #22.
Denigrating attitude- #24. Sidesteps question- #2.