Question for Tax Protestors
Gerry Carter
Willard Joder wrote in message ...
>In article <48gns4$s...@globe.indirect.com>, go...@indirect.com (Robert J.
>Gonzalez) wrote:
>
>
>>Labor and compensation for it is a fundamental Right because it IS, not
>>because some judge said so.
>
>Oh marvy, circular logic. It is because it is. WOW! Did you go to
>school to figure this all out? What makes you think compensation for your
>labor is a right? You never knew of anyone who worked for no money?
>Perhaps you never heard of unpaid interns? Or you never cut the neighbors
>grass while they were on vacation for free? The examples are endless in
>which labor is provided without compensation. Try to elavate yourself to
>a higher plane of discussion.
>
>--
>wij...@quick.net Class of 68
>I know where I am If you don't know
>I just wish I didn't Don't ask
> You won't understand
And if you ask 2 different people in two different societies at two
different points in time "Which rights are rights just because they are?"
you will get two different lists. It is all perspective, and it is all
subjective. The bottom line is that there are no real "rights", only
privilages that we grant to each other through common consent (laws are
included here).
LQuest
You are correct sir that rights have the appearance of privileges. But
that appearance is just that superficial appearance. Rights, by
definition were not invented, they were discovered. They always
existed. Once they were discovered, popular pressure mounted to
create mechanisms for their protection and respect. To date that
mechanism has always take the form of a "government". The protective
mechanism does have the power to deny or disparage rights but they do
not have the authority or power to do so JUSTLY. This is the core
nature of this thing we call rights. The BoR did not GIVE us rights --
it merely acknowledged that certain rights objectively exist in
reality and promised to defend them. If government were in fact the
SOURCE of rights and not just the mechanism designed to protect them,
then these freedoms of harmless action we all call rights, would
indeed be just privileges. And privileges that can be given can be
justly taken away. Rights cannot be justly denied to harmless
individuals.
How do we objectively know that rights exist? The answer rests on a
single assumption: that life, especially human life is good and that
all living individuals cannot be justly denied the original right to
live harmlessly and at their own expense. I wonder sir, do YOU have a
right to live harmlessly and at your own expense? If the answer is
no, then you won't mind if we all vote to have you executed
immediately -- will you? If the answer is yes, then we can continue
this discussion and learn how ALL other basic human rights are
objectively (not subjectively) derived from our common acceptance of
the base assumption that life is good.
--Mike
Robert J. Gonzalez
Interesting that this guy chose to quote from a three year old post.
Gerry Carter
LQuest wrote in message ...
The government is a mechanism we use to protect those privilages we have
collectively determined to view as rights.
>then these freedoms of harmless action we all call rights, would
>indeed be just privileges. And privileges that can be given can be
>justly taken away. Rights cannot be justly denied to harmless
>individuals.
>
>How do we objectively know that rights exist? The answer rests on a
>single assumption: that life, especially human life is good and that
>all living individuals cannot be justly denied the original right to
>live harmlessly and at their own expense. I wonder sir, do YOU have a
I notice that your arguement is based on an assumption, which only proves my
case. Someone decides what our "rights" are. They are not self-evident.
>right to live harmlessly and at your own expense? If the answer is
>no, then you won't mind if we all vote to have you executed
>immediately -- will you? If the answer is yes, then we can continue
>this discussion and learn how ALL other basic human rights are
>objectively (not subjectively) derived from our common acceptance of
>the base assumption that life is good.
>
>--Mike
An arguement that is based on an assumption cannot be viewed as being
objective. It is inherently subjective at its core.
Gerry Carter
Robert J. Gonzalez wrote in message <357bd...@news.cyberenet.net>...
>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 04:51:59 GMT, LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net>
wrote:
>>then these freedoms of harmless action we all call rights, would
>>indeed be just privileges. And privileges that can be given can be
>>justly taken away. Rights cannot be justly denied to harmless
>>individuals.
>>
>>How do we objectively know that rights exist? The answer rests on a
>>single assumption: that life, especially human life is good and that
>>all living individuals cannot be justly denied the original right to
>>live harmlessly and at their own expense. I wonder sir, do YOU have a
>>right to live harmlessly and at your own expense? If the answer is
>>no, then you won't mind if we all vote to have you executed
>>immediately -- will you? If the answer is yes, then we can continue
>>this discussion and learn how ALL other basic human rights are
>>objectively (not subjectively) derived from our common acceptance of
>>the base assumption that life is good.
>>
>>--Mike
>
>
>
>
>Interesting that this guy chose to quote from a three year old post.
>
I don't check the dates on the posts I reply to. This one happened to show
up on my news server.
What I find interesting is that this is the best comment you could come up
with on this topic. Having a blonde day?
LQuest
>
>LQuest wrote in message ...
>The government is a mechanism we use to protect those privilages we have
>collectively determined to view as rights.
>
>>then these freedoms of harmless action we all call rights, would
>>indeed be just privileges. And privileges that can be given can be
>>justly taken away. Rights cannot be justly denied to harmless
>>individuals.
>>
>>How do we objectively know that rights exist? The answer rests on a
>>single assumption: that life, especially human life is good and that
>>all living individuals cannot be justly denied the original right to
>>live harmlessly and at their own expense. I wonder sir, do YOU have a
>
>
>I notice that your arguement is based on an assumption, which only proves my
>case. Someone decides what our "rights" are. They are not self-evident.
All that must be "decided" is that life is good. From this choice,
all other action choices are derived as in the axiom: "form follows
function". The "function" (to live) is envisioned and is followed by
the "form" of behavior required to manifest the desired function.
>>right to live harmlessly and at your own expense? If the answer is
>>no, then you won't mind if we all vote to have you executed
>>immediately -- will you? If the answer is yes, then we can continue
>>this discussion and learn how ALL other basic human rights are
>>objectively (not subjectively) derived from our common acceptance of
>>the base assumption that life is good.
>>
>>--Mike
>
>An arguement that is based on an assumption cannot be viewed as being
>objective. It is inherently subjective at its core.
Technically I agree. I merely asserted that most people, by virtue of
their almost sub-conscious self-defensive, self-sustaining behavior,
are demonstrating that they believe life is of sufficient value to
protect and sustain. If you disagree with the idea that life is good
and worthy of pursuit and defense, then any discussion of rights OR
privileges amounts to nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. If, however, you DO agree that life is good, then surely you
have an interest in discussing the relative merits of secondary values
designed to support the base assumption that life is good. I admit to
curiosity about your assumption that there are no self-evident rights.
After getting past the base assumption that life is good, then there
must be some axiomatic conclusions that are required to manifest our
assumption that life is worthy of defense. IOW if you believe that
earning a living is good, then you must agree that certain kinds of
action is required to convert that belief into reality.
--Mike
>
>
Robert J. Gonzalez
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:51:51 -0400, Gerry Carter <gca...@newbridge.com> wrote:
>
>Robert J. Gonzalez wrote in message <357bd...@news.cyberenet.net>...
>>On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 04:51:59 GMT, LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net>
>wrote:
>>>indeed be just privileges. And privileges that can be given can be
>>>justly taken away. Rights cannot be justly denied to harmless
>>>individuals.
>>>
>>>How do we objectively know that rights exist? The answer rests on a
>>>single assumption: that life, especially human life is good and that
>>>all living individuals cannot be justly denied the original right to
>>>live harmlessly and at their own expense. I wonder sir, do YOU have a
>>>no, then you won't mind if we all vote to have you executed
>>>immediately -- will you? If the answer is yes, then we can continue
>>>this discussion and learn how ALL other basic human rights are
>>>objectively (not subjectively) derived from our common acceptance of
>>>the base assumption that life is good.
>>>
>>>--Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't check the dates on the posts I reply to. This one happened to show
>up on my news server.
>
>What I find interesting is that this is the best comment you could come up
>with on this topic. Having a blonde day?
>
>
Even more interesting is that once again we have a heckler who can't read.
1. Willard Joder is the one who apparently quoted a three year old post.
2. The three year old post was mine, I posted it in mid 1995 sometime so
there's no way in hell it just "showed up" on your news server.
Someone obviously's been playing in the archives somewhere.
3. According to the headers, you had nothing to do with this thread, so
who are you and what the fuck is your problem???!!!
Gerry Carter
Robert J. Gonzalez wrote in message <357c9...@news.cyberenet.net>...
Speaking of twits.....
It amazes me the attitudes of many of the idiots who post to these news
groups.
1) I went back and looked. Willard Joder posted (according to my server)
on 11/18/95. It was his post that I replied to.
2) After deleting the history files in my newsreader, a whole bunch of
posts from '95 showed up, aparently left on the newshost and never deleted.
I did not look at the date of the posts - I never do - until it was pointed
out to me. That does not, however, change the fact that the comments I made
were in the nature of discussion, not heckling.
3) What I had to do with this thread is that I read a post that interested
me, and I replied - to discuss, not to heckle.
You are the one with a problem here, a severe attitude problem. Whoops, you
can't read either. Recheck the headers and the attributions. And don't
tell me what showed up on my news server. Get your head out of your own
ass, learn some manners, and get a life.
Is it really too much to ask for to be able to make a post without all
manner of idiots commenting for no other purpose than to annoy and disrupt?
Children.
Robert J. Gonzalez
Excuse me?
"having a blonde day?" is NOT heckling?
Bullshit!
Your heckle was your first appearance in the thread from what I saw.
What are you talking about?
>
>3) What I had to do with this thread is that I read a post that interested
>me, and I replied - to discuss, not to heckle.
>
You didn't reply, you heckled me and that's all you did.
>You are the one with a problem here, a severe attitude problem.
^^^^^^^^
The most over used and most under understood word in the english language.
Whoops, you
>can't read either. Recheck the headers and the attributions. And don't
>tell me what showed up on my news server. Get your head out of your own
>ass, learn some manners, and get a life
>
>Is it really too much to ask for to be able to make a post without all
>manner of idiots commenting for no other purpose than to annoy and disrupt?
>
It was my post that was quoted.
I and I alone had the right to comment.
>Children.
>
>
lao...@my-dejanews.com
> And if you ask 2 different people in two different societies at two
> different points in time "Which rights are rights just because they are?"
> you will get two different lists. It is all perspective, and it is all
> subjective. The bottom line is that there are no real "rights", only
> privilages that we grant to each other through common consent (laws are
> included here).
>
>
I see, so why aren't the first ten amendments called the "Bill of
Privileges"?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
LQuest
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:50:07 GMT, lao...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> And if you ask 2 different people in two different societies at two
>> different points in time "Which rights are rights just because they are?"
>> you will get two different lists. It is all perspective, and it is all
>> subjective. The bottom line is that there are no real "rights", only
>> privilages that we grant to each other through common consent (laws are
>> included here).
>>
>>
>
>I see, so why aren't the first ten amendments called the "Bill of
>Privileges"?
I have a theoretical answer: Because in the envy twisted quagmire of
class warfare that America has become, all inconvenient words now have
rubber meanings. If it does not fit the political whim of the moment
then we just change the definition. Judges and other members of the
permanent political class do it all the time.
--Mike
Gerry Carter
lao...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6llhbv$ocr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> And if you ask 2 different people in two different societies at two
>> different points in time "Which rights are rights just because they are?"
>> you will get two different lists. It is all perspective, and it is all
>> subjective. The bottom line is that there are no real "rights", only
>> privilages that we grant to each other through common consent (laws are
>> included here).
>>
>>
>
>I see, so why aren't the first ten amendments called the "Bill of
>Privileges"?
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
I see, so why isn't it called the "Bill of Peanut Butter"? What you call
something doesn't change what it is.
Gerry Carter
Robert J. Gonzalez wrote in message <357e1...@news.cyberenet.net>...
Wrong. Re-read the attributions, or go back to the archives, and you will
see that I responded to the Willard Joder post with polite commentary.
Which was heckled. Which I responded to in kind. And which I am now
responding to again. If you can't read or properly attribute words to the
right people, please refrain from saying anything, as it only makes you look
like an idiot and a child.
>
>>
>>3) What I had to do with this thread is that I read a post that
interested
>>me, and I replied - to discuss, not to heckle.
>>
>
>You didn't reply, you heckled me and that's all you did.
>
Re-read the posts.
>
>>You are the one with a problem here, a severe attitude problem.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>The most over used and most under understood word in the english language.
>
The last refuge of those who cannot find anything of substance to comment
on. Pick on grammer and spelling.
>
>
> Whoops, you
>>can't read either. Recheck the headers and the attributions. And don't
>>tell me what showed up on my news server. Get your head out of your own
>>ass, learn some manners, and get a life
>
>
>>
>>Is it really too much to ask for to be able to make a post without all
>>manner of idiots commenting for no other purpose than to annoy and
disrupt?
>>
>It was my post that was quoted.
>
>I and I alone had the right to comment.
There is that word "right" again. I suppose that this is a god-given right
as well? When you place your words in a public forum, you are inviting
commentary. Get a life.
>
>
>>Children.
>>
>>
Robert J. Gonzalez
>
>Wrong. Re-read the attributions, or go back to the archives, and you will
>see that I responded to the Willard Joder post with polite commentary.
>Which was heckled. Which I responded to in kind. And which I am now
>responding to again. If you can't read or properly attribute words to the
>right people, please refrain from saying anything, as it only makes you look
>like an idiot and a child.
I did.
Willard Joder quoted my post and I commented on it then you heckled me
with your "blonde day" crap.
>
>>
>>>
>>>3) What I had to do with this thread is that I read a post that
>interested
>>>me, and I replied - to discuss, not to heckle.
Your first post was the "blonde day" remark.
If you made any previous posts, they didn't show up here.
>>>
>>
>>You didn't reply, you heckled me and that's all you did.
>>
>
>
>Re-read the posts.
>
>>
>>>You are the one with a problem here, a severe attitude problem.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>>The most over used and most under understood word in the english language.
>>
>
>
>The last refuge of those who cannot find anything of substance to comment
>on. Pick on grammer and spelling.
>
Grammar and spelling? There was no "pick" on either.
You used the word "attitude" when It's likely you don't really know what
it means since you used it in the political sense, ie, People have an
"attitude" problem when they don't agree with you.
J. Lobnolly
Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
> NATURAL RIGHTS ARE UNTAXABLE
> "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed
> for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial
> entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but,
> the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights
> for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
organic sovereign rights are tax-exempt except by God's authority
Dan Evans
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 02:52:16 GMT, Jeff Ganaposki
<No.Spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
>> In article <358A5C67...@bellsouth.net>, jgm...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> > LABOR = COMMON LAW RIGHT
>> > "the right to labor and to its protection from unlawful
>> > interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every
>> > man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
>> > [48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80]
>> >
>> > NATURAL RIGHTS ARE UNTAXABLE
>> > "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed
>> > for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial
>> > entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but,
>> > the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights
>> > for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
>> > [Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.]
>>
>> Nope. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected this argument:
>
>IF THEY DID, WHERE IS THE CITE AND SPECIFIC "RIGHT"THEY'RE TAXING?
>
>> We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent'
>> or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights,
>> so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance.
>
>NOT ACCORDING TO THE CITES I HAVE LISTED.
>
>> An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited
>> altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise.
>> It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.
>>
>> CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 580-81 (1937).
>>
>
>AND YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE LITTLE THING ABOUT 1937?BY THEN MOST AMERICANS WERE
>NUMBERED AND LOST
>THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS BY THE FEDERAL INSURANCE
>CONTRIBUTION ACT.
Chas. C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis is the U.S. Supreme Court
decision that held that the federal insurance contribution act was
constitutional, and the reason that they held that it was
constitutional can be found in the quotation above.
In other words, moron, the decision was issued in 1937 because it was
the first time the FICA was contested and, the first time the FICA
was contested, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional.
You can't use the fact that a decision goes against you as evidence
that the decision is invalid.
>PERHAPS READING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>WOULD REFRESH THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
If the Declaration of Independence had any legal significance (which
it never did), it was superseded by the Constitution. And the
Constitution gave Congress the power to tax, subject to only two
restrictions, that no "Capitation, or other Direct, Tax" be
apportioned, and that all excises be uniform within the United States.
The 16th Amendment declared that a tax on income shall not be subject
to apportionment, and the income tax is geographically uniform, so the
income tax is constitutional.
>FOLKS, YOU'LL ALWAYS FIND DISAGREEING OR MISLEADING CITES
>AFTER 1933 - THE BANKRUPTCY. THE SCOUNDRELS IN CONGRESS AND THE
>COURTS HAD TO DISGUISE THE SCAM OR THEY WOULD BE TARRED AND FEATHERED.
>
>READ "OLD" CITES TO UNDERSTAND THE AMAZING HERITAGE OF THE
>COMMON LAW AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. IT'S NOT LOST
>PERMANENTLY, ONLY MISPLACED.
If the decisions after 1933 are suspect, then how about 1796? In
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was
unanimous in holding that the phrase "direct tax" only applied to
taxes on the value of real property, and that a tax imposed by
Congress on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for private use
was constitutional.
Or 1880? In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the
Supreme Court, adhering to the decision in Hylton, held that an income
tax was not a "direct tax" and was therefore constitutional even
without apportionment.
The only "scam" are those dupes, frauds, and charlatans like yourself
who are constantly trying to convince gullible people that the income
tax is somehow invalid or unenforceable.
Dan Evans **************
*This is not legal advice
*unless you paid for it.
Wes Parker
As you say, you lost everything you had. How successful a strategy is that?
-- Wes Parker
Geoffrey Green
>> >PERHAPS READING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>> >WOULD REFRESH THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
>>
>> If the Declaration of Independence had any legal significance (which
>> it never did), it was superseded by the Constitution.
>
>FALSE! It is listed as Document #1 in the Statutes-at-large of the U.S.
>Congressand is still law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution that
>would contradict
>the Declaration of Independence. Nor is there any published notice that
>the D O I has been superceded by law or treaty. If you know of anything,
>please help educate us.
>But as far as I can tell, no Supremer ever declared that government is no
longer
>in the business of helping us secure our rights, nor has the government ceased
>to seek your consent before they "threw the book" at you.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal significance. I challenge
you to find *any* court case that says otherwise, or any court case that
cites to the Declaration of Independence as a source of law.
In any event, a brief look at the ways whereby the Declaration of
Independence was "approved" and the way the Constitution was approved
should make clear which document has *by far* more legal authority.
>> And the
>> Constitution gave Congress the power to tax,
>
>FALSE - all powers delegated to Congress were already specified in
theArticles of
>Confederation. There aren't any new powers delegated under
>the constitution - it only reorganized the Congress into three branches.
Better brush up on your American history. The Constitution replaced
wholesale the Articles of Confederation (though laws passed under the
Articles of Confderation were still effective...).
[remainder snipped]
Legally bankrupt arguments. Those cites to the state law of Georgia, by
the way, have no relevance at all to the jurisdiction of the federal
government.
- geoff
--
Geoffrey Green
http://pages.nyu.edu/~gfg0877/
Wes Parker
Yeah, after you lost everything, they lost interest in you (surprise!
surprise!). Hardly a tactic to suggest to others, i.e., lose everything and
you will "disappear" from their radar screens.
-
While everybody else is getting rich in this economy, there are a few nuts
trying to save a few bucks in taxes -- and missing the entire train in the
process.
-
-- Wes Parker
Wes Parker
Ah, the wisdom of your reasoning!
-- Wes Parker
-
nos...@here.com wrote in message <35911526...@news.zebra.net>...
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:11:37 -0500, "Wes Parker" <bill....@msn.com>
>explained to the world:
>f**ing moron and your using this particular email address confirms it.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>in-propri...@tuguys.com
>I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
>It's just my constitutionally protected opinion.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>They periodically rattle their chains to remind
>themselves of their freedom.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
nos...@here.com
Robert Miller
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> >PERHAPS READING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>> >WOULD REFRESH THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
>>
>> If the Declaration of Independence had any legal significance (which
>> it never did), it was superseded by the Constitution.
>
YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY KIND OF MORAL AUTHORITY !
You think as long as something is "LEGAL" it's perfectly okay maybe
even "MORAL" But heaven forbid there should be a "LAW" agianst it
then it becomes "IMMORAL".
How much better our Country would be if the President did only what
was legal or moral.
Question Mr. EVANS Do you think there are things that are Legal but
should not be done? and do you think there are any law that should be
broken?
For example do you ever go even 1 mph over the legal speed limit?
Is that okay or is it wrong?
curious people would like to know!
Robert Miller
"If you're 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you're 40 and not a conservative, you have no brains."
--Sir Winston Churchill
LQuest
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:55:12 GMT, "J. Lobnolly" <lo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
>
>> NATURAL RIGHTS ARE UNTAXABLE
>> "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed
>> for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial
>> entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but,
>> the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights
>> for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
>
>organic sovereign rights are tax-exempt except by God's authority
Correct. They are also morally exempt even WITHOUT God's authority.
The very fact that we EXIST (regardless of the CAUSE of such
existence) in this earthly context, possessing specific attributes as
sentient beings leads to a logically bulletproof axiom: each
individual has a morally immutable right to absolutely FINAL control
over his/her destiny and consequently possesses allodial right the
fruits of his/her own honest, harmless labor. Any force that denies,
disparages or encumbers the fruits of such labor is an anti-life force
-- devoid of any objective moral authority.
--Mike
LQuest
On 19 Jun 1998 22:15:00 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>In article <358A5C67...@bellsouth.net>, jgm...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> LABOR = COMMON LAW RIGHT
>> "the right to labor and to its protection from unlawful
>> interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every
>> man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
>> [48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80]
>>
>> NATURAL RIGHTS ARE UNTAXABLE
>> "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed
>> for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial
>> entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but,
>> the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights
>> for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
>> [Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.]
>
>Nope. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected this argument:
So what? How does that change reality except to identify which side
of a brutal, medieval struggle for survival the judge is on?
>
> We learn
"We learn..."!!!! Exactly HOW did this perfidious minion of coercive
statism "learn" this? To "learn" something suggests a source of
pre-existent knowledge or authority. What is that source?
>that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent'
>or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights,
>so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance.
Says who? If we suddenly decided that pigs could fly, would we then
begin to see flocks of pigs flying overhead?
> An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited
>altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise.
>It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.
Again, says who? What is the source of this judge's arrogant
certainty?
>CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 580-81 (1937).
>
>The case is on-line: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/301/548.html
Ah yes, "case law" -- the crystallized manifestation of collective
human mistakes -- the synergetic result of generations of human
foolishness. By all means let's pass the definition of reality
around the campfire a few more times so we can convince ourselves that
anything that so many people believe is true, must in fact be true.
-- your future worst nightmare
nos...@here.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:08:38 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
explained to the world:
>Correct. They are also morally exempt even WITHOUT God's authority.
>The very fact that we EXIST (regardless of the CAUSE of such
>existence) in this earthly context, possessing specific attributes as
>sentient beings leads to a logically bulletproof axiom: each
>individual has a morally immutable right to absolutely FINAL control
>over his/her destiny and consequently possesses allodial right the
>fruits of his/her own honest, harmless labor. Any force that denies,
>disparages or encumbers the fruits of such labor is an anti-life force
>-- devoid of any objective moral authority.
>
>--Mike
put well
LQuest
On 23 Jun 1998 20:47:00 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>star...@rabun.net (Robert Miller) wrote:
>
>> >Dan Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >PERHAPS READING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>> >> >WOULD REFRESH THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
>> >>
>> >> If the Declaration of Independence had any legal significance (which
>> >> it never did), it was superseded by the Constitution.
>> >
>> Spoken like a true Lawyer, Even Bill Clinton would be proud.
>>
>> YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY KIND OF MORAL AUTHORITY !
>
>He said legal authority, not moral authority. Learn to read.
Of course you are "technically correct". Notice all how our
perfidious lawyer conveniently sidesteps commentary on the ONE issue
that gives the "law" any significance at all -- the kind that nurtures
and satisfies both men's hearts AND their intellects. Laws crafted by
fallible, corruptible humans derive their only just power from the
moral authority they can only get when they are logically rooted in
reality -- especially the objective reality known as the essential
nature of Man. The keepers of "law" in America have long ago
squandered the last vestiges of moral authority handed to them by the
heroic sacrifices of our founders. Pearls before swine.
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything
which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke
"You will never know how much it has cost my generation
to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it."
--John Quincy Adams
--Mike
John C. Randolph
Israel,
I see you falling into a common trap here, which is to construct detailed
arguments as to why the feds can't legally take your money, and then assume
that having done so, they will honor your reasoning and refrain from robbing
you.
Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The legislature and the courts may or
may not have been so clumsy as to enact a tax code that is not "legal" or
constitutional, but as long as the sheriffs and the bulk of the public
*believe* it's legal, then nobody's going to stand up and say "no" when the
IRS comes to evict you from your home.
What governments have a *right* to do, is completely irrelevant. The real
question, is what do they have the *power* and the *will* to do. That's what
you have to concern yourself with, not the minutia of how they're violating
natural law, the code of the United States, or the constitution as they beat
you senseless and steal everything you've earned.
-jcr
LQuest
On 30 Jun 1998 09:30:08 GMT, jcr.r...@this.phrase.idiom.com (John C.
Randolph) wrote:
John, you are absolutely correct. Thank God someone in this NG
finally "gets it". All, repeat ALL of American legal culture's lofty
sounding affectations of "justice" and our pompous, self-infatuated
assertions of "human rights" or "nation of laws" are simply, elegantly
and utterly irrelevant to what actually happens in reality. In
matters of the relationship of the ruling class to the ruled subjects,
we are hardly better off today, than our 10th century ancestors were.
Aside from the technology, they were actually more honest about it
than we are. Today we indulge in pretentious fantasies of "civilized"
behavior and "rule of law" when the reality is that any given
individual's rights are only as safe as the strength of the particular
"gang" to which he belongs. For a brief, shining moment in American
history, the human spirit soared with the possibility that our
founder's vision of a free future were indeed possible. Today, many
of those who post here are demonstrating that all we actually have is
a more sophisticated but just as brutal struggle for survival.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work
within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
-- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution"
--Mike
lao...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nab70$h76$3...@supernews.com>,
jcr.r...@this.phrase.idiom.com wrote:
> Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The legislature and the courts may or
> may not have been so clumsy as to enact a tax code that is not "legal" or
> constitutional, but as long as the sheriffs and the bulk of the public
> *believe* it's legal, then nobody's going to stand up and say "no" when the
> IRS comes to evict you from your home.
>
> What governments have a *right* to do, is completely irrelevant. The real
> question, is what do they have the *power* and the *will* to do. That's what
> you have to concern yourself with, not the minutia of how they're violating
> natural law, the code of the United States, or the constitution as they beat
>
This attitude has allowed us to get to where we find ourselves. Let's not be
concerned for what is right. Let's not be concerned for the of liberty or
the organized desicration of our constitution. Be afraid of being beaten
senseless and robbed.
If we all have this selfish attitude then how can freedom survive? Freedom
does require sacrifice and thank God that there are those that are willing to
stand up for their ideals rather than cower behind trees in the cold shadows
afraid of losing their comfort.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
SteelEye
Ok I get to hop in here and add my two cents (not that there worth much)
> Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The legislature and the courts may or
> may not have been so clumsy as to enact a tax code that is not "legal" or
> constitutional, but as long as the sheriffs and the bulk of the public
> *believe* it's legal, then nobody's going to stand up and say "no" when the
> IRS comes to evict you from your home.
>
Nobody but you, your knowledge and your layer.
> What governments have a *right* to do, is completely irrelevant. The real
> question, is what do they have the *power* and the *will* to do.
Your absolutely right (Have you read 1984?) If not please do so. Reading it then was like science fiction, now...
That's what
> you have to concern yourself with,
I believe that IS the concern.
not the minutia of how they're violating
> natural law, the code of the United States, or the constitution as they beat
> you senseless and everything you've earned.
If we don't take this road then... (1984)>John, you are absolutely correct.
Thank God someone in this NG
>finally "gets it".
I think we all "get it" we just believe we should remind ourselves and others how it's supposed to be. In 1895(?) "they decided to make taxing income legal. Well there was a case before the Supreme court that made a big impression. As I was going through the <http://www.findlaw.com/toc.html> and I noticed that from the 1890's to about the 1930's many cases were siting this 1st case. It looks like to me that people just gave up. Even though they were "right". Now I'm sure this was all in the papers and in every body's minds at the time. But those people are all dead along with their memories and the only things we have been taught to believe have come from the gov. So, Now that we have the net and we are communicating (again) information on how it's "meant" to be is getting around.
>For a brief, shining moment in American
>history, the human spirit soared with the possibility that our
>founder's vision of a free future were indeed possible. Today,
many
>of those who post here are demonstrating that all we actually have
is
>a more sophisticated but just as brutal struggle for survival.
Changes are happening, the IRS has had it's hands slapped hard by the current gov. granted congress isn't interested in owning up to it's own bull but people are noticing.
>America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work
>within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
>-- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution"
Maybe well see the "revolution" in our life time.
This attitude has allowed us to get to where we find ourselves. Let's not be
concerned for what is right. Let's not be concerned for the of liberty or
the organized desicration of our constitution. Be afraid of being beaten
senseless and robbed.
Unfortunately true, if we cower at the injustice than that's all we'll ever have.
If we all have this selfish attitude then how can freedom survive? Freedom
does require sacrifice and thank God that there are those that are willing to
stand up for their ideals rather than cower behind trees in the cold shadows
afraid of losing their comfort.
Yes I'm grateful for those people who are willing to face the wrath of
the establishment and their blind followers (i.e. Gallilao (sp?)).
But it's still hard to know what to believe and we all know how strong
the opposition is. (i.e.: Wakeo, Texas)
BTW: I don't agree with what the cult stood for. I just have
a hard time accepting that it was the gov't place to go in kick ass just
because "society" considered those people to be... what? A
menace? A threat? I'm still a little confused on this point...
Diana
I could be...Elvis?
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
>
>>On 30 Jun 1998 09:30:08 GMT, jcr.r...@this.phrase.idiom.com (John C.
>>Randolph) wrote:
>>
>>>What governments have a *right* to do, is completely irrelevant. The real
>>>question, is what do they have the *power* and the *will* to do. That's what
>>>you have to concern yourself with, not the minutia of how they're violating
>>>natural law, the code of the United States, or the constitution as they beat
>>>you senseless and steal everything you've earned.
>>
>>John, you are absolutely correct. Thank God someone in this NG
>>finally "gets it". All, repeat ALL of American legal culture's lofty
>>sounding affectations of "justice" and our pompous, self-infatuated
>>assertions of "human rights" or "nation of laws" are simply, elegantly
>>and utterly irrelevant to what actually happens in reality.
This topic has been around and around on the libernet-d list, at least
until the plug was pulled on the list.
The IRS estimates 35 million non-filers. The real number is probably
higher than that. Only a fraction of those go to court, ones the IRS
is reasonably sure to win. A person who is prepared legally to meet
IRS challenges can win. Several people on libernet-d have not paid
taxes in over a decade. They hear from the IRS on occasion, but the
proper legal response puts the IRS back in the box.
The people who go to jail or pay fines are mostly people who just said
"screw it, I'm not filing this year". That's not proper preparation.
>
>In this case, however, the law accurately describes reality.
Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
liability upon the majority of US citizens.
>
>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
1) The item to be taxed,
2) The entity liable for the tax, and
3) The penalties for not paying.
If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
but what is income? The answer is not so obvious. Capital gains tax
is only paid on the difference between what you sell for and what you
bought for. The difference is your income, and is what you are taxed
for. In the case of salary, you sell your skills to your employer.
What did you pay for them initially? The difference is what you
should be taxed on, but what exactly is it?
Number two is absolutely missing. There is no liability spelled out
in the income tax code for the majority of US citizens.
So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
like the liquor tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
>
>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
Tennessean named Lloyd Long. Case Number CR-1-93-91, U.S. V. Lloyd
Long. The judge in the case issued a gag order, but the transcript is
available on the internet.
If you visit that WWW page, be sure to visit his mailbox link where he
has posted replies. There are well written replies there, including
cites of cases where people have won.
--steve
--
Steve Ravet st...@imes.com.spamarama
International Meta Systems http://www.imes.com
(512) 795-8825
The default return address has been spamitized for my
protection. Remove ".spamarama" if replying via email
Wes Parker
I could be...Elvis? wrote in message <35a381a4.103090045@sun4c412>...
The vast majority of which are empty shell companies, failed partnerships,
etc. -- i.e., business entities which obtained a FEI number, and had no
revenue so don't report. Then, there are illegal aliens. Note that you
cannot find any official statistic that says that individual nonfilers
number in the millions.
-
>The real number is probably
>higher than that.
As shown, the number is much, much lower than this.
-
>Only a fraction of those go to court, ones the IRS
>is reasonably sure to win.
Actually, of those most folks pay up (tired of having their wages garnished,
etc.), or they enter into Offers in Compromise.
-
>A person who is prepared legally to meet
>IRS challenges can win.
Operative word is CAN. What happens is that you get a jury trial, all
non-filers are excluded from the jury pool, and the jurors that are left are
pissed-off that they are paying more in taxes because someone else isn't
paying. Deck stacked heavily in favor of the IRS.
-
>Several people on libernet-d have not paid
>taxes in over a decade. They hear from the IRS on occasion, but the
>proper legal response puts the IRS back in the box.
Usually that the IRS finds out that they don't have any taxable income and
can't garnish their welfare checks.
-
>
>The people who go to jail or pay fines are mostly people who just said
>"screw it, I'm not filing this year". That's not proper preparation.
Amen to that.
-
>
>>In this case, however, the law accurately describes reality.
>
>Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
>does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
>theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
>liability upon the majority of US citizens.
Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a 100%
chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
-
>>
>>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
>
>It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
>
>1) The item to be taxed,
>2) The entity liable for the tax, and
>3) The penalties for not paying.
>
>If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
>popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
>but what is income? The answer is not so obvious. Capital gains tax
>is only paid on the difference between what you sell for and what you
>bought for. The difference is your income, and is what you are taxed
>for. In the case of salary, you sell your skills to your employer.
>What did you pay for them initially? The difference is what you
>should be taxed on, but what exactly is it?
>
>Number two is absolutely missing. There is no liability spelled out
>in the income tax code for the majority of US citizens.
This is false, and every court which has considered the issue in the last 25
years has held it is false.
-
>
>So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
>liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
>like the liquor tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
>for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
>passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
>don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
Not true -- you're liable.
-
>
>>
>>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>
>Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
>extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
>for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
>properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
Oh yeah? Cite one example from the last 25 years!
-
>
>Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
>of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
>loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
>Tennessean named Lloyd Long. Case Number CR-1-93-91, U.S. V. Lloyd
>Long. The judge in the case issued a gag order, but the transcript is
>available on the internet.
Complete lie that the judge "issued a gag order". Long won because the Court
found that he was too stupid to understand the law. Many people have tried
Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
-
>If you visit that WWW page, be sure to visit his mailbox link where he
>has posted replies. There are well written replies there, including
>cites of cases where people have won.
-
tax information.
-
-- Wes Parker
lao...@my-dejanews.com
"Wes Parker" <wesp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Operative word is CAN. What happens is that you get a jury trial, all
> non-filers are excluded from the jury pool, and the jurors that are left are
> paying. Deck stacked heavily in favor of the IRS.
I don't think that Wes has been paying attention. The deck is NEVER heavily
stacked for the IRS. They are probably the most d group in the nation.
> -
> Usually that the IRS finds out that they don't have any taxable income and
> can't garnish their welfare checks.
> -
Now just where did you get THAT little statistic? Or was it just grabbed out
of thin air?
> >Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
> >does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
> >theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
> >liability upon the majority of US citizens.
> -
> Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
> courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a 100%
> chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
This isn't true. While over and over I've seen people arguing that everyone is
liable, I have yet to see one single solitary cite to prove it. A person isn't
liable unless something makes him liable. I've seen several posts that show
where the 'taxpayer' is liable, or the person with a 'taxable income', or a
'taxable year' but never where an individual, not committing crimes and not
engaged in some kind of privileged activity, has ever been liable.
> This is false, and every court which has considered the issue in the last 25
> years has held it is false.
Here he was responding to the assertion that nothing has ever made anyone
liable. So, Wes, if there is something making the average citizen liable,
would you post it please? Or post a court case (since you claim that every
court which has considred the issue has rejected that argument I assume that
you have seen at least one of them).
> >So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
> >liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
> >like the tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
> >for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
> >passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
> >don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
> -
> Not true -- you're liable.
Prove it.
> >>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
> >
> >Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
> >extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
> >for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
> >properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
> -
> Oh yeah? Cite one example from the last 25 years!
Lloyd Long, Gail Sanocki... there... that's two.
> -
> Complete lie that the judge "issued a gag order". Long won because the Court
> found that he was too stupid to understand the law. Many people have tried
> Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
> probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
You're right about that. The gag order is a lie. On the other hand saying
that the court found that Long was stupid is another lie. The court didn't
find anything. The jury found that he did not willfully violate the law...
and that's it. They didn't mention a thing about his mental stability. I
would say that he couldn't have been too dull... he beat the crap out of the
IRS.
> And there's quite a few scam artists trying to make a living selling bogus
> tax information.
> -
> -- Wes Parker
And there are many millions of people that think that they have a right to the
money that YOU earned.. without giving back even bogus information... without
giving you back anything other than derision.
LQuest
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>st...@imes.com.spamarama (I could be...Elvis?) wrote:
>
>>On 01 Jul 1998 02:33:29 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
>>(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>>
>>>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
>>
>>It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
>>
>>1) The item to be taxed,
>>2) The entity liable for the tax, and
>>3) The penalties for not paying.
>>
>>If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
>>popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
>>but what is income? The answer is not so obvious.
>
>On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
>or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
So, if I walk up to you and hand you a five dollar bill then you hand
me another five dollar bill back, have either of us "gained" anything?
According to the logic you just posted, it appears we have both just
"derived gain".
[remaining soul numbing preposterous minutia flushed]
--Mike
Dan Evans
>In article <eHtutnrq9GA.207@upnetnews03>,
> "Wes Parker" <wesp...@nospam.com> wrote:
[Someone wrote]
>> >Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
>> >does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
>> >theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
>> >liability upon the majority of US citizens.
>> -
>> Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
>> courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a 100%
>> chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
>
>This isn't true. While over and over I've seen people arguing that everyone is
>liable, I have yet to see one single solitary cite to prove it. A person isn't
>liable unless something makes him liable. I've seen several posts that show
>where the 'taxpayer' is liable, or the person with a 'taxable income', or a
>'taxable year' but never where an individual, not committing crimes and not
>engaged in some kind of privileged activity, has ever been liable.
Want a citation? How about this:
"[C]ase law in this circuit is well-settled that individuals must pay
federal income tax on their wages regardless of whether or not they
avail themselves of governmental benefits or privileges." McLaughlin
v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).
>> This is false, and every court which has considered the issue in the last 25
>> years has held it is false.
>
>Here he was responding to the assertion that nothing has ever made anyone
>liable. So, Wes, if there is something making the average citizen liable,
>would you post it please?
Taxable income. You conceded that yourself, above.
>Or post a court case (since you claim that every
>court which has considred the issue has rejected that argument I assume that
>you have seen at least one of them).
Done. See above.
>> >So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
>> >liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
>> >like the tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
>> >for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
>> >passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
>> >don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
>> -
>> Not true -- you're liable.
>
>Prove it.
Done. See above.
>> >>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>> >
>> >Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
>> >extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
>> >for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
>> >properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
>> -
>> Oh yeah? Cite one example from the last 25 years!
>
>Lloyd Long, Gail Sanocki... there... that's two.
Lloyd Long was found not guilty of criminal failure to file, but he
still had to pay taxes.
Gail Sanocki is an unpublished and undocumented case, but from what I
have read in these newsgroups, she was found to be an "innocent
spouse" and not prosecuted (but her husband was). If you have
citations to verifiable information to the contrary, please post them,
but your personal assertions are worthless.
Wes Parker
-
-- Wes Parker
-
Want a chuckle? See http://melchizedek.com
-
You can be an Ambassador too!
Bill Williams
>
> Tzemach! How's your War with France going?
>
- a very strange tax scam !!! I wonder how many ambassadors they have
recruited -
The Dominion of Melchizedek (mal-khay-tzed-ek) is a recognized
ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty inspired by the principles
of the Melchizedek Bible. blessing Old Testament Abraham received from
Melchizedek, the righteous king of peace and history's first
monotheistic teacher of the Most High God. known in modern times as the
Sovereign Order of Melchizedek, DOM has also become known as the Kingdom
of Melchizedek (KOM) and the United States of Melchizedek (USM),
I could be...Elvis?
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>st...@imes.com.spamarama (I could be...Elvis?) wrote:
>
>>On 01 Jul 1998 02:33:29 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
>>(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>>
>>>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
>>
>>It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
>>
>>1) The item to be taxed,
>>2) The entity liable for the tax, and
>>3) The penalties for not paying.
>>
>>If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
>>popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
>>but what is income? The answer is not so obvious.
>
>On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
>or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
>
>See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Corp., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).
>
>> In the case of salary, you sell your skills to your employer.
>>What did you pay for them initially? The difference is what you
>>should be taxed on, but what exactly is it?
>
>No. What you think people *should* be taxed on is very difference
>than what they're *actually* taxed on. See 26 U.S.C. ss. 61, 63.
>
>>Number two is absolutely missing. There is no liability spelled out
>>in the income tax code for the majority of US citizens.
>
>False. See 26 U.S.C. s. 1.
>
>See also 26 C.F.R. s. 1.1-1(a)(1): "Section 1 of the Code imposes
>an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or
>resident of the United States. . . ."
The tax protestor argument is that that's not liability. That is what
is to be taxed. To recap what I said above, the Supreme Court held
that there are 3 things required of tax laws: What is taxed, who pays
it, and penalties. If any of the three are missing the tax is
invalid. Here's an example from the booze (distilled liquor) tax:
26 USC s 5001 (Subtitle E, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise
Taxes)
------------------------------------------------
§ 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax.
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or
imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each
proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all
fractional parts of a proof gallon.
------------------------------------------------
That says what is taxed. But legally, who is required to pay it? The
manufacturer? Distributor? Consumer? Importer? To find out, you
have to look at a different section:
------------------------------------------------
§ 5005. Persons liable for tax.
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the
taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).
------------------------------------------------
What happens if it doesn't get paid? Another section deals with that:
------------------------------------------------
Subchapter J. Penalties, seizures, and forfeitures relating to liquors
Part I. Penalty, seizure, and forfeiture provisions
applicable to distilling, rectifying, and distilled and
rectified products.
§ 5601. Criminal penalties.
§ 5602. Penalty for tax fraud by distiller.
------------------------------------------------
Look at the other excise taxes and you'll see similiar headings.
Except for the income tax. Here are all the section titles pertaining
to individual income tax:
------------------------------------------------
Part I. Tax on individuals.
§ 1. Tax imposed.
§ 2. Definitions and special rules.
§ 3. Tax tables for individuals having taxable income
of less than $20,000.
(4. Repealed.)
§ 5. Cross references relating to tax on individuals.
------------------------------------------------
Section 1 states something similar to what you wrote above:
------------------------------------------------
§ 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703)
who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a
tax determined in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------
This states what is to be taxed: the taxable income. But who,
legally, is required to pay it? Employer? Employee? That's the
second of the three required items. From the titles of the sections
in Part 1, it doesn't appear that any of them impose liability. And
in fact, if you read them they don't impose liability.
Now, there are plenty more sections to follow, that determine how
taxable income is calculated, what taxable income is, various
deductions, etc. I haven't read all that. It's possible that
somewhere in there is a misplaced statement implying liability. But
it's not likely. If you can find it you can make a lot of money,
because lots of people offer a reward to anyone who can prove that the
tax code imposes liability.
That's the second piece, liability, that is missing. And the argument
that most tax protestors advance. But wait, (as they say), that's not
all! What's the definition of this "taxable income" referred to in
section 1? Here it is in section 63:
------------------------------------------------
§ 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this
subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
deduction).
------------------------------------------------
So taxable income depends on "gross income". What's that?
------------------------------------------------
§ 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
------------------------------------------------
yada yada yada. it says "all income from whatever source derived,
including but not limited to..." But what is income? That's not
defined, or circularly defined, by the code. If a farmer sells a crop
for $1 million, is that income? No, his income is his profit ($1
million) minus his expenses (seed, workers, etc.). In the case of a
salaried or hourly employee it's harder to figure out. See below.
These are the sections you referred to previously:
>No. What you think people *should* be taxed on is very difference
>than what they're *actually* taxed on. See 26 U.S.C. ss. 61, 63.
Here's a court decision you referred to:
>On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
>or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
>See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Corp., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).
Gain from capital is easy. What about gain from labor? My salary
isn't free, I have to eat, have to have a place to live, have to have
some means of getting to work, etc. I also have some "intellectual
capital" in that I have a talent toward computer and electronics that,
apparently, I was born with. The same as others have talents towards
writing or public speaking or whatever. What is the value of that
capital? The only way to define the value of it is to say, "It's
worth whatever someone pays you for it." But that's a circular
definition, because that's also the definition of gross income. It's
a difficult problem, which is why the tax law is so complicated. Even
if the tax code did succesfully define the value of this intellectual
capital, the fact that it is complicated complicates things, because
the Supreme court has also held that a tax law that is not clearly
written (like the other excise taxes) is "void for vagueness". That's
yet another protestor argument.
Finally, if you look through Chapter 1, you won't find a section that
talks about penalties. That's the third and final portion that is
either missing or vague.
Here's that WWW page again:
>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
It's called the tax protestor hall of fame, and details some cases
where people lost to the IRS. If you visit it, be sure to visit the
mailbox also, where people have alternately heaped praise and scorn on
him. In there, you can find cites of cases of people who have won
court victories agains the IRS. As I said above, court victories are
few, because the IRS doesn't want winning arguments in a court of
record. Most tax victories are people who become familiar with the
issues outlined above and stop paying taxes. They hear from the IRS,
but the proper legal responses and filings put the IRS back in their
box. The IRS won't pursue cases that it doesn't feel sure of winning.
In closing, I'll point out that other people are probably better at
making these points than I am, since I am an engineer and not a
lawyer. All the sections I quoted above are easily available on the
internet. The site I accessed is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/uscode/
There are probably others. There are also WWW pages that make the
same arguments. It is regrettable that not very many legal
professionals support this issue. A lot of the WWW pages that discuss
this issue do so with LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS and !!!!!! exclamation
points and bible references, but there are still nuggets of truth
there. To paraphrase Donald Shimoda, "I'll take the truth where I
find it, thank you." Irwin Schiff is widely recognized as an
authority (yes, I realize he has been to jail), and he wastes a lot of
paper in his book talking about federal conspiracy theories. Whether
or not there is a conspiracy doesn't change the facts outlined above,
though. Bottom line is, read the code and decide for yourself. Even
if you don't drop out of the tax system, you should be plenty outraged
that you've been paying a tax for which you are most likely not
liable.
I could be...Elvis?
wrote:
A new thread? Don't do that.
>
>I could be...Elvis? wrote in message <35a381a4.103090045@sun4c412>...
>>On 01 Jul 1998 02:33:29 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
>>The IRS estimates 35 million non-filers.
>-
>The vast majority of which are empty shell companies, failed partnerships,
>etc. -- i.e., business entities which obtained a FEI number, and had no
>revenue so don't report. Then, there are illegal aliens. Note that you
>cannot find any official statistic that says that individual nonfilers
>number in the millions.
35 million was printed in a recent newspaper article. Here are some
statistics I found in a quick search:
From the law office of LeSourd & Patten, P.S.:
In October, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service initiated a program to
encourage an estimated 10,000,000 nonfilers to voluntarily file
delinquent returns and to re-enter the tax system.
http://www.halcyon.com/lesourd/crimb.html
From the GAO:
At the beginning of fiscal year 1993, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) had an inventory of about 10 million individual and business
nonfilers.
http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY96/abstracts/gg96072.htm
From the law offices of Fleming and O'Neill:
The IRS has undertaken a nationwide effort to encourage the estimated
10 million taxpayers who have failed to file annual income tax returns
to file their overdue returns, pay their tax liabilities and return to
the system.
http://www.flemingoneill.com/nonfiler.html
I stand corrected. It apparently is 10 million non-filers, at least
in 1992. It's probably more now, but I don't have an "official
statistic".
>-
>>The real number is probably
>>higher than that.
>-
>As shown, the number is much, much lower than this.
Shown? You made an unsupported assertion, same as I did. Now mine is
backed up.
>-
>>Only a fraction of those go to court, ones the IRS
>>is reasonably sure to win.
>-
>Actually, of those most folks pay up (tired of having their wages garnished,
>etc.), or they enter into Offers in Compromise.
Now there's a statistic you're not likely to get ahold of. You can
guess, though. 10 million non-filers. Those are people who haven't
faced legal action from the IRS, because the IRS is trying to
encourage them to come forward. A couple dozen court cases are listed
on the "Tax protestor hall of fame" WWW page. Certainly lots of
people do lose, or pay up on the advice of counsel.
>-
>>A person who is prepared legally to meet
>>IRS challenges can win.
>-
>Operative word is CAN. What happens is that you get a jury trial, all
>non-filers are excluded from the jury pool, and the jurors that are left are
>pissed-off that they are paying more in taxes because someone else isn't
>paying. Deck stacked heavily in favor of the IRS.
Of course the operative word is can. Someone who is properly prepared
shouldn't ever get to court. I have spoken with people who haven't
paid in over a decade. The IRS occasionally contacts them, but the
legal remedies available keep the IRS at bay.
>-
>>Several people on libernet-d have not paid
>>taxes in over a decade. They hear from the IRS on occasion, but the
>>proper legal response puts the IRS back in the box.
>-
>Usually that the IRS finds out that they don't have any taxable income and
>can't garnish their welfare checks.
Hiding income that would otherwise be taxable is a useful technique.
As is divesting yourself of property that would attract the IRS. That
doesn't mean homeless, that means income in trust, leasing your house
and car, etc. You can enjoy the use of property without owning it.
>-
>>
>>The people who go to jail or pay fines are mostly people who just said
>>"screw it, I'm not filing this year". That's not proper preparation.
>-
>Amen to that.
>-
>>
>>>In this case, however, the law accurately describes reality.
>>
>>Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
>>does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
>>theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
>>liability upon the majority of US citizens.
>-
>Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
>courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a 100%
>chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
Different jurisdictions are split on the question of whether income
tax is a direct or indirect tax. The questions raised by tax
protestors are far from resolved. Unfortunately as I said before, I'm
not a lawyer and some of the arguments on libernet-d went over my
head. Suffice to say that there are lawyers that specialize in these
cases, and that have plenty of victories. As noted, they are not
court victories because the IRS won't pursue a losing case to court.
They just quit contacting you.
>-
>>>
>>>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
>>
>>It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
>>
>>1) The item to be taxed,
>>2) The entity liable for the tax, and
>>3) The penalties for not paying.
>>
>>If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
>>popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
>>but what is income? The answer is not so obvious. Capital gains tax
>>is only paid on the difference between what you sell for and what you
>>bought for. The difference is your income, and is what you are taxed
>>for. In the case of salary, you sell your skills to your employer.
>>What did you pay for them initially? The difference is what you
>>should be taxed on, but what exactly is it?
>>
>>Number two is absolutely missing. There is no liability spelled out
>>in the income tax code for the majority of US citizens.
>-
>This is false, and every court which has considered the issue in the last 25
>years has held it is false.
>-
>>
>>So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
>>liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
>>like the liquor tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
>>for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
>>passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
>>don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
>-
>Not true -- you're liable.
See my reply under the original thread, complete with cites from US
code.
>-
>>
>>>
>>>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>>
>>Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
>>extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
>>for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
>>properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
>-
>Oh yeah? Cite one example from the last 25 years!
Lloyd Long. A guy named Savage on libernet-d offered $100 to anyone
who could name a case that used Schiff's defense and win. He,
unfortunately, never paid up.
>-
>>
>>Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
>>of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
>>loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
>>Tennessean named Lloyd Long. Case Number CR-1-93-91, U.S. V. Lloyd
>>Long. The judge in the case issued a gag order, but the transcript is
>>available on the internet.
>-
>Complete lie that the judge "issued a gag order".
That's what I was told. I haven't tried to look up the transcript in
a law library or anything. Doesn't change the fact that he used the
Schiff defense and won.
>Long won because the Court
>found that he was too stupid to understand the law.
They liked to badmouth Lloyd on libernet-d also. The Court didn't
"find" anything. A jury aquitted him. As in 12 votes of "not
guilty". Only the jury knows why he wasn't guilty. You saying that
he was "too stupid" is an opinion.
The basis of Longs defense was that the IRS did not make him liable
for taxes. He wrote them plenty of letters asking if he was liable,
and if so what section of the tax code made him liable. If the tax
code implied liability, the IRS would have told him so, pointed out
where. Especially in court, they would have said, "Here it is, right
here, section xyz. This section makes you liable." They didn't. The
IRS argument contained things like "Don't you feel bad that your
neighbors pay taxes and you don't". Appeals to the jury instead of
facts. You should read the transcript:
http://www.future.net/~thetruth/usavlong.txt
>Many people have tried
>Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
>probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
One more time, most victories never go to court. The people just stop
hearing from the IRS when the IRS realizes it's too hard to win, and
they don't want the arguments recorded in a court of law. Plus, there
are too many people who just say "screw it" who are easy to tag.
That's not a good strategy. 25,000 people using Schiff's (not Long's)
defense? Can ya back that up?
>-
>>If you visit that WWW page, be sure to visit his mailbox link where he
>>has posted replies. There are well written replies there, including
>>cites of cases where people have won.
>-
>And there's quite a few scam artists trying to make a living selling bogus
>tax information.
True and unfortunate. It's a shame that there aren't more legal
professionals taking up the tax protest cause. One professional is
Larry Becraft, one of Long's attorneys. His "Dixieland Law Journal"
is online at:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/
Bill Williams
> >Many people have tried
> >Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
> >probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
>
> >And there's quite a few scam artists trying to make a living selling > bogus tax information.
> professionals taking up the tax protest cause. One professional is
> Larry Becraft, one of Long's attorneys. His "Dixieland Law Journal"
> is online at:
> http://fly.hiway.net/~becraft/
> --steve
> Steve Ravet st...@imes.com
> (512) 795-8825
> The default return address has been spamitized for my
> protection. Remove ".spamarama" if replying via email
so is there really a "Becraft"? the same scammer/"been in jail"
southern lawyer? The web site has strange stuff on enumeration and
fingerprint laws, sounds like real fruitcake stuff -----
Wes Parker
I could be...Elvis? wrote in message <35a5ec63.261489311@sun4c412>...
now proven. And in your quotes it says things like "individual and business
nonfilers", which means that out of this 10 million a percentage are as I
have suggested. Moreover, people are more likely to correctly report in a
good economy (when they have the money to pay), which have now as opposed to
then (when they didn't).
-
So, the upshot is that you have now proven that you were off by 350% -- is
there anything else that you were off by this magnitude by? Or perhaps now
your credibility is zilch, eh?, since we now know that you pull numbers out
of thin air when it suits you.
-
>>>Only a fraction of those go to court, ones the IRS
>>>is reasonably sure to win.
>>-
>>Actually, of those most folks pay up (tired of having their wages
garnished,
>>etc.), or they enter into Offers in Compromise.
>
>Now there's a statistic you're not likely to get ahold of. You can
>guess, though. 10 million non-filers. Those are people who haven't
>faced legal action from the IRS, because the IRS is trying to
>encourage them to come forward. A couple dozen court cases are listed
>on the "Tax protestor hall of fame" WWW page. Certainly lots of
>people do lose, or pay up on the advice of counsel.
-
are dead people, etc., who haven't been taken off the rolls, or the
perennially homeless, etc., which don't report, but then don't have much
taxable income, either.
-
>
>>>A person who is prepared legally to meet
>>>IRS challenges can win.
>>-
>>Operative word is CAN. What happens is that you get a jury trial, all
>>non-filers are excluded from the jury pool, and the jurors that are left
are
>>pissed-off that they are paying more in taxes because someone else isn't
>>paying. Deck stacked heavily in favor of the IRS.
>
>Of course the operative word is can. Someone who is properly prepared
>shouldn't ever get to court. I have spoken with people who haven't
>paid in over a decade. The IRS occasionally contacts them, but the
>legal remedies available keep the IRS at bay.
-
folks under the bridge and at the bus depot?
-
>>-
>>>Several people on libernet-d have not paid
>>>taxes in over a decade. They hear from the IRS on occasion, but the
>>>proper legal response puts the IRS back in the box.
>>-
>>Usually that the IRS finds out that they don't have any taxable income and
>>can't garnish their welfare checks.
>
>Hiding income that would otherwise be taxable is a useful technique.
>As is divesting yourself of property that would attract the IRS. That
>doesn't mean homeless, that means income in trust, leasing your house
>and car, etc. You can enjoy the use of property without owning it.
-
etc.) try to sell trusts, but these are the easiest thing to break.
-
>>>The people who go to jail or pay fines are mostly people who just said
>>>"screw it, I'm not filing this year". That's not proper preparation.
>>-
>>Amen to that.
>>-
>>>
>>>>In this case, however, the law accurately describes reality.
>>>
>>>Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
>>>does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
>>>theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
>>>liability upon the majority of US citizens.
>>-
>>Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
>>courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a
100%
>>chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
>
>Different jurisdictions are split on the question of whether income
>tax is a direct or indirect tax.
-
Yes, but the courts which believe this are in the big buildings, and the
courts which don't are held in somebody's mobile home a/k/a posse comitatus.
-
A point which you do not contest, I see.
-
>>>>So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
>>>liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
>>>like the liquor tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
>>>for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
>>>passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
>>>don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
>>-
>>Not true -- you're liable.
>
>See my reply under the original thread, complete with cites from US
>code.
-
That's your belief. Unfortunately for you, no court will agree with you.
-
>>>Well, some people do lose. As noted above, you have to prepare
>>>extensively to take on the IRS. Most people don't. You can be tagged
>>>for filing a frivolous return and other paperwork violations, but a
>>>properly presented "not liable" defense can work.
>>-
>>Oh yeah? Cite one example from the last 25 years!
>
>Lloyd Long. A guy named Savage on libernet-d offered $100 to anyone
>who could name a case that used Schiff's defense and win. He,
>unfortunately, never paid up.
-
Schiff is a joke, and is beleived to pay his taxes in full. Although Long
won his criminal case (by proving that he was too stupid to understand the
law), he lost his tax case and had to pay his taxes (as well as bonding fees
and attorneys fees) -- a rather dubious "victory", eh?
-
>>>
>>>Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
>>>of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
>>>loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
>>>Tennessean named Lloyd Long. Case Number CR-1-93-91, U.S. V. Lloyd
>>>Long. The judge in the case issued a gag order, but the transcript is
>>>available on the internet.
>>-
>>Complete lie that the judge "issued a gag order".
>
>That's what I was told. I haven't tried to look up the transcript in
>a law library or anything. Doesn't change the fact that he used the
>Schiff defense and won.
-
Schiff never won jack. As for what you're being told, see 350% miss on
number of non-files, supra. As for Long, as pointed out he did win his
criminal case, but lost his tax case and was left a broken man.
-
>>Long won because the Court
>>found that he was too stupid to understand the law.
>
>They liked to badmouth Lloyd on libernet-d also. The Court didn't
>"find" anything. A jury aquitted him. As in 12 votes of "not
>guilty". Only the jury knows why he wasn't guilty. You saying that
>he was "too stupid" is an opinion.
-
The court instructed the jury that they could find him too stupid to be
culpable, which they did.
-
>The basis of Longs defense was that the IRS did not make him liable
>for taxes. He wrote them plenty of letters asking if he was liable,
>and if so what section of the tax code made him liable. If the tax
>code implied liability, the IRS would have told him so, pointed out
>where. Especially in court, they would have said, "Here it is, right
>here, section xyz. This section makes you liable." They didn't. The
>IRS argument contained things like "Don't you feel bad that your
>neighbors pay taxes and you don't". Appeals to the jury instead of
>facts. You should read the transcript:
>http://www.future.net/~thetruth/usavlong.txt
-
And the transcript doesn't mention that Long got his butt kicked 100% on his
tax case, and had to pay his taxes, does it?
-
>>Many people have tried
>>Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
>>probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
>
>One more time, most victories never go to court. The people just stop
>hearing from the IRS when the IRS realizes it's too hard to win, and
>they don't want the arguments recorded in a court of law. Plus, there
>are too many people who just say "screw it" who are easy to tag.
>That's not a good strategy. 25,000 people using Schiff's (not Long's)
>defense? Can ya back that up?
-
Can you cite a SINGLE win using Schiff's alleged system? Don't worry, I'm
NOT going to hold my breath.
-
>>-
>>>If you visit that WWW page, be sure to visit his mailbox link where he
>>>has posted replies. There are well written replies there, including
>>>cites of cases where people have won.
>>-
>>And there's quite a few scam artists trying to make a living selling bogus
>>tax information.
>
>True and unfortunate. It's a shame that there aren't more legal
>professionals taking up the tax protest cause. One professional is
>Larry Becraft, one of Long's attorneys.
-
Becraft also lost his case; not only lost, but was fined by the court for
making a frivolous (i.e., legally stupid) argument. Not a good example for
you.
-
Can you cite ANY winners, i.e., people who didn't pay their taxes after the
court case? You make "vague allusions" but you don't seem to give any names,
except for Long and Becraft, both of which lost (although Long won his
criminal case as discussed above, though he still had to pay his taxes).
-- Wes Parker
lar...@northwest.com
to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
it's in the transcript.
===================
>
> >Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
> >of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
> >loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
> >Tennessean named Lloyd Long.
>
> Lloyd Long's "victory" was that he didn't have to go to prison. He
> remained liable for the income tax.
>
> More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>
> --
> jgadams1 at concentric dot net
> http://www.concentric.net/~jgadams1
--
*************************
" I think I need a soma."
*************************
agen...@my-dejanews.com
be...Elvis?) wrote:
> On 09 Jul 1998 00:30:42 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
> (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
> >
> >st...@imes.com.spamarama (I could be...Elvis?) wrote:
> >
> >>On 01 Jul 1998 02:33:29 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
> >>(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
> >>
> >>>The law authorizes an income tax, and does so quite clearly.
> >>
> >>It may or may not. Three elements make up a tax:
> >>
> >>1) The item to be taxed,
> >>2) The entity liable for the tax, and
> >>3) The penalties for not paying.
> >>
> >>If any of these are missing the tax is not valid. Number one is a
> >>popular point of dispute among protestors. Income is what is taxed,
> >>but what is income? The answer is not so obvious.
> >
> >On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
> >or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
> >
> >See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Corp., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).
Maybe you should actually read it, instead of the out of context quotes from
your tax protestor manual. The above quote actually comes from Eisner v.
Macomber, it was just repeated in Glenshaw. Glenshaw was about whether
punitive damages were taxable income (they are). Glenshaw also says:
"The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:
Sec. 22. Gross Income. [which I think is Section 61 in the 1954 Code]
"(A) General Definition. - 'Gross Income' includes gains, profits, and
income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ...
of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations,
trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real
or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such
progperty; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the
transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or
profits and income derived from any source whatever ..."
And:
"And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in
recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those
specifically exempted."
> >> In the case of salary, you sell your skills to your employer.
> >>What did you pay for them initially? The difference is what you
> >>should be taxed on, but what exactly is it?
> >No. What you think people *should* be taxed on is very difference
> >than what they're *actually* taxed on. See 26 U.S.C. ss. 61, 63.
And read Glenshaw. Unless the code specifically says that something is
exempted, your income (or gains) is 100% taxable.
> >>Number two is absolutely missing. There is no liability spelled out
> >>in the income tax code for the majority of US citizens.
> >
> >False. See 26 U.S.C. s. 1.
> >
> >See also 26 C.F.R. s. 1.1-1(a)(1): "Section 1 of the Code imposes
> >an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or
> >resident of the United States. . . ."
>
> The tax protestor argument is that that's not liability.
The tax protestor UNSUPPORTED argument that is.
That is what
> is to be taxed. To recap what I said above, the Supreme Court held
> that there are 3 things required of tax laws: What is taxed, who pays
> it, and penalties. If any of the three are missing the tax is
> invalid.
<snip>
> Look at the other excise taxes and you'll see similiar headings.
> Except for the income tax. Here are all the section titles pertaining
> to individual income tax:
Not even close to all.
No kidding.
> But it's not likely.
Perhaps if you actually read the code instead of your tax protestor manual,
you might find it.
If you can find it you can make a lot of money,
> because lots of people offer a reward to anyone who can prove that the
> tax code imposes liability.
And they never pay. See Newman v. Shiff.
> That's the second piece, liability, that is missing. And the argument
> that most tax protestors advance.
The only trouble is that it is covered. See
"¤ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list (a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made
liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection
thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a
return or statement shall include therein the information required by such
forms or regulations."
Notice it says THIS TITLE, meaning all of Title 26.
Then look at:
"¤ 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns (a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is
required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such
return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay
such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and
shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return
(determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."
Notice again the use of the words, THIS TITLE. So people who owe taxes as
specified in 26 USC 1, must file a return and must pay.
Liability found.
So how do you define compensation? business? property? gains? None of
these terms are defined in the code either.
> These are the sections you referred to previously:
> >No. What you think people *should* be taxed on is very difference
> >than what they're *actually* taxed on. See 26 U.S.C. ss. 61, 63.
>
> Here's a court decision you referred to:
>
> >On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
> >or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
> >See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Corp., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).
>
> Gain from capital is easy. What about gain from labor? My salary
> isn't free, I have to eat, have to have a place to live, have to have
> some means of getting to work, etc. I also have some "intellectual
> capital" in that I have a talent toward computer and electronics that,
> apparently, I was born with. The same as others have talents towards
> writing or public speaking or whatever. What is the value of that
> capital? The only way to define the value of it is to say, "It's
> worth whatever someone pays you for it." But that's a circular
> definition, because that's also the definition of gross income. It's
> a difficult problem, which is why the tax law is so complicated. Even
> if the tax code did succesfully define the value of this intellectual
> capital, the fact that it is complicated complicates things, because
> the Supreme court has also held that a tax law that is not clearly
> written (like the other excise taxes) is "void for vagueness". That's
> yet another protestor argument.
A tax is imposed on all the income of all individuals and businesses (that
meet the stated minimum earnings). However, businesses and individuals get
to deduct different things to determine their actual taxable income. If you
don't like it, see your Congressman.
> Finally, if you look through Chapter 1, you won't find a section that
> talks about penalties. That's the third and final portion that is
> either missing or vague.
You must have missed this one (as an example, there are more) too:
"¤ 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or
required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make
a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to
pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply
such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000
in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both,
together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with
respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section
shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no
addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In
the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first
sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for
"misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year".
Notice the use of the term THIS TITLE.
All your arguments are refuted.
<snip>
>Irwin Schiff is widely recognized as an
> authority (yes, I realize he has been to jail), and he wastes a lot of
> paper in his book talking about federal conspiracy theories.
Remember Newman v. Schiff, where the Court charitably said: "The kindest
thing that can be said about Schiff's promotion of this idea is that he is
grossly mistaken or a mere pretender to knowledge in income taxation."
So, there's always the $64,000 question: Do you pay your income taxes?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
be...Elvis?) wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:38:45 -0500, "Wes Parker" <wasp...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> A new thread? Don't do that.
>
> >
> >I could be...Elvis? wrote in message <35a381a4.103090045@sun4c412>...
> >>On 01 Jul 1998 02:33:29 EDT, jgadams1@[delete-this-part]concentric.net
> >>The IRS estimates 35 million non-filers.
> >-
> >The vast majority of which are empty shell companies, failed partnerships,
> >etc. -- i.e., business entities which obtained a FEI number, and had no
> >revenue so don't report. Then, there are illegal aliens. Note that you
> >cannot find any official statistic that says that individual nonfilers
> >number in the millions.
>
> 35 million was printed in a recent newspaper article. Here are some
> statistics I found in a quick search:
>
> From the law office of LeSourd & Patten, P.S.:
> In October, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service initiated a program to
> encourage an estimated 10,000,000 nonfilers to voluntarily file
> delinquent returns and to re-enter the tax system.
> http://www.halcyon.com/lesourd/crimb.html
Maybe you better read a little farther:
"Information items, which are tax related communications and other
information indicating the commission of a tax crime, are also a major source
of criminal investigations. These types of items include currency transaction
reports, Forms 8300, and newspaper and media reports concerning such items as
embezzlement, fraud or theft. The Internal Revenue Service's information
matching system, which matches income information records such as Forms W-2
and 1099 against taxpayer accounts, is also a source of nonfiler cases for
the Criminal Investigation Division."
So if the IRS gets a 1099 or a W-2 without a tax return, the person is classed
as a non-filer. My mother is a non-filer in the eyes of the IRS. But she
doesn't owe any taxes. She doesn't have enough income to file a return.
> From the GAO:
> At the beginning of fiscal year 1993, the Internal Revenue Service
> (IRS) had an inventory of about 10 million individual and business
> nonfilers.
> http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY96/abstracts/gg96072.htm
And from this report:
"IRS identifies potential nonfilers primarily by matching data on
information returns, such as wage and withholding statements from
employers, with data on filed income tax returns. When the matched
data show income but no corresponding tax return, a potential
nonfiler is identified. IRS then decides what type of action to
take, if any. Depending on the facts of the case and available
resources, IRS' decision can range from doing nothing to conducting a
detailed investigation."
And this 10 million number is also apparently cumulative over some number of
years. Also from the GAO report:
"At the beginning of fiscal year 1993, IRS had an inventory of
about 10 million known nonfilers-- about 7 million individuals and
about 3 million businesses that had not filed one or more required
returns."
Notice the words "...one or more required returns." This line is continued
as:
"In 1993, IRS received about 114 million individual income tax
returns. Almost all of those returns were for tax year 1992. For
that same tax year, IRS identified 59.6 million potential individual
nonfilers. Of the 59.6 million, IRS took no enforcement action on
54.1 million (91 percent), primarily because IRS subsequently
determined that the individual or business had no legal requirement
to file. Collection officials at IRS' National Office and regional
offices evaluated the remaining 5.5 million cases to determine the
potential tax due. Cases that IRS judged to have the least
potential, 2.5 million, or 46 percent, received a reminder to file.
Cases judged to have medium potential, 0.6 million, or 11 percent,
received up to 2 notices. Cases judged to have the highest
potential, 2.3 million, or 43 percent, received up to 4 notices."
If you read on through the report, you also find that there are only 18,000
revenue agents/auditors to try to collect on these returns. And that the IRS
eventually gets about 3.5 million "non-filer" (2+ million from individuals)
returns filed each year.
You also find that some of the 10 million non-filer cases were quite old. So
old that the IRS has now written them off as uncollectable. Does that mean
that some people got away without paying taxes? Yes it does. Does it mean
that they did it legally? Not by a long shot.
So, can you really say that 10 million people (and businesses) are not
properly filing their income tax returns each year? It appears the answer is
no.
<snip>
> I stand corrected. It apparently is 10 million non-filers, at least
> in 1992. It's probably more now, but I don't have an "official
> statistic".
>
> >-
> >>The real number is probably
> >>higher than that.
> >-
> >As shown, the number is much, much lower than this.
>
> Shown? You made an unsupported assertion, same as I did. Now mine is
> backed up.
And you took a number out of context. Read the rest of the GAO report. The
number of non-filer's each year is nowhere near 10 million.
> >-
> >>Only a fraction of those go to court, ones the IRS
> >>is reasonably sure to win.
Mostly because the IRS is resource limited to prosecute the cases. They have
to choose cases that are worth prosecuting. That's why almost all the cases
you see involve multiple year violations. And you also might note that it
takes maybe 6 years from the first non-filing to get it to court.
> >Actually, of those most folks pay up (tired of having their wages garnished,
> >etc.), or they enter into Offers in Compromise.
>
> Now there's a statistic you're not likely to get ahold of. You can
> guess, though. 10 million non-filers. Those are people who haven't
> faced legal action from the IRS, because the IRS is trying to
> encourage them to come forward. A couple dozen court cases are listed
> on the "Tax protestor hall of fame" WWW page. Certainly lots of
> people do lose, or pay up on the advice of counsel.
Read the GAO report. (1) It isn't 10 million per year. (2) Quite a number of
the non-filers eventually file.
> >>A person who is prepared legally to meet
> >>IRS challenges can win.
> >-
> >Operative word is CAN. What happens is that you get a jury trial, all
> >non-filers are excluded from the jury pool, and the jurors that are left are
> >pissed-off that they are paying more in taxes because someone else isn't
> >paying. Deck stacked heavily in favor of the IRS.
>
> Of course the operative word is can. Someone who is properly prepared
> shouldn't ever get to court. I have spoken with people who haven't
> paid in over a decade. The IRS occasionally contacts them, but the
> legal remedies available keep the IRS at bay.
>
> >-
> >>Several people on libernet-d have not paid
> >>taxes in over a decade.
You have names, don't you?
They hear from the IRS on occasion, but the
> >>proper legal response puts the IRS back in the box.
> >-
> >Usually that the IRS finds out that they don't have any taxable income and
> >can't garnish their welfare checks.
>
> Hiding income that would otherwise be taxable is a useful technique.
> As is divesting yourself of property that would attract the IRS. That
> doesn't mean homeless, that means income in trust, leasing your house
> and car, etc. You can enjoy the use of property without owning it.
And that's exactly how most tax evaders accomplish their goals. They end up
with no interest bearing investments, or property, or anything. They would
rather pay their money renting stuff instead of accumulating wealth. Good
plan.
<snip>
> >>Tax protestors have all kinds of theories about *why* the tax code
> >>does not make most citizens liable. Take them as you will. The
> >>theories don't affect the *fact* that the code doesn't impose
> >>liability upon the majority of US citizens.
> >-
> >Unfortunately, no matter how many people chant this, it isn't true and the
> >courts will not back it up. You assert it in court, you not only have a 100%
> >chance of losing, but you will likely be sanctioned or fined, too.
>
> Different jurisdictions are split on the question of whether income
> tax is a direct or indirect tax.
Whether that's true or not, it is immaterial. No jurisdiction has ever ruled
that you don't owe a tax on your income.
The questions raised by tax
> protestors are far from resolved.
Only in the minds of the tax-evaders.
Unfortunately as I said before, I'm
> not a lawyer and some of the arguments on libernet-d went over my
> head. Suffice to say that there are lawyers that specialize in these
> cases, and that have plenty of victories. As noted, they are not
> court victories because the IRS won't pursue a losing case to court.
> They just quit contacting you.
You have proof of that don't you?
<snip for space>
> >-
> >>
> >>So, the income tax may be "authorized by law", but if you aren't
> >>liable you don't have to pay it. Do I pay other federal excise taxes,
> >>like the liquor tax or the gasoline tax? No, because I'm not liable
> >>for them. I pay them in the sense that the manufacturer usually
> >>passes them along, but I'm not liable for them. As a consumer, I
> >>don't go to jail if the manufacturer fails to pay them.
> >-
> >Not true -- you're liable.
>
> See my reply under the original thread, complete with cites from US
> code.
See my reply that shoots yours to shreds.
<snip>
> >Long won because the Court
> >found that he was too stupid to understand the law.
>
> They liked to badmouth Lloyd on libernet-d also. The Court didn't
> "find" anything. A jury aquitted him. As in 12 votes of "not
> guilty". Only the jury knows why he wasn't guilty. You saying that
> he was "too stupid" is an opinion.
Long was acquitted of what he was charged with, that is "willful failure to
file." The jury made no determination as to whether he actually owed any
taxes.
> The basis of Longs defense was that the IRS did not make him liable
> for taxes. He wrote them plenty of letters asking if he was liable,
> and if so what section of the tax code made him liable. If the tax
> code implied liability, the IRS would have told him so, pointed out
> where. Especially in court, they would have said, "Here it is, right
> here, section xyz. This section makes you liable." They didn't.
But they did. And you might want to read the judges instructions to the jury.
The
> IRS argument contained things like "Don't you feel bad that your
> neighbors pay taxes and you don't". Appeals to the jury instead of
> facts. You should read the transcript:
> http://www.future.net/~thetruth/usavlong.txt
>
> >Many people have tried
> >Long's strategy since, but ALL have lost. So that's 1 victory out of
> >probably 25,000 cases. Not good odds, huh?
>
> One more time, most victories never go to court. The people just stop
> hearing from the IRS when the IRS realizes it's too hard to win, and
> they don't want the arguments recorded in a court of law. Plus, there
> are too many people who just say "screw it" who are easy to tag.
> That's not a good strategy. 25,000 people using Schiff's (not Long's)
> defense? Can ya back that up?
Can you back up your contention?
> >>If you visit that WWW page, be sure to visit his mailbox link where he
> >>has posted replies. There are well written replies there, including
> >>cites of cases where people have won.
> >-
> >And there's quite a few scam artists trying to make a living selling bogus
> >tax information.
>
> True and unfortunate. It's a shame that there aren't more legal
> professionals taking up the tax protest cause. One professional is
> Larry Becraft, one of Long's attorneys. His "Dixieland Law Journal"
> is online at:
> http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/
And be sure to go back to the WWW page and see where Mr. Becraft was censored
by the Court for his actions in a tax case. The Court said "Indeed, it is
beyond our comprehension that a competent attorney, which Becraft certainly
is, could harbor a good faith belief that this panel or the court sitting en
banc would reconsider the rejection of Nelson's claim of federal tax
exemption." And added: "Moreover, we believe that Mr. Becraft's litigation
record in the federal appellate courts demonstrates the necessity of sending
a message to Becraft that frivolous arguments will no longer be tolerated.
Our research reveals that we are not the first appellate court in which
Becraft has raised this patently frivolous Sixteenth Amendment claim." And
then: "Becraft's record in the federal courts thus exhibits an alarming
willingness to utilize appellate court resources to adjudicate claims that a
competent attorney should realize have no reasonable possibility of success."
And lastly: "Notwithstanding the legitimate countervailing concerns that
accompany imposing sanctions against defense counsel, we nevertheless believe
that when a criminal defense counsel reasserts an argument in a petition for
rehearing which was summarily rejected on direct appeal, and which flies in
the face of unambiguous, firmly established law, that attorney exposes
himself to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 38. Accordingly, we order
Becraft to pay $2,500 in damages."
Wes Parker
theory that he was too stupid to understand the IRC and thus truly believed
that he was right -- he lost his tax case and had to pay his taxes.
-
Anyone who says the court ruled that he was not liable for his taxes is a
liar, and demonstrably so.
-
-- Wes Parker
-
agen...@my-dejanews.com
lar...@northwest.com wrote:
> read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
> to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
> that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
Notice the word willful. He wasn't not guilty of "failure to file", but
"WILLFUL failure to file". Big difference. He still owed the taxes. He
just convinced the jury he was a good ole boy who was too stupid to know the
difference.
lar...@northwest.com
i merely indicated that the IRS was unable to provide certain facts.
please read the emails more carefully before you start foaming at the mouth...
and spraying about.
======================
Wes Parker wrote:
>
> Complete lie. While Long won his criminal case -- on the somewhat bizarre
> theory that he was too stupid to understand the IRC and thus truly believed
> that he was right -- he lost his tax case and had to pay his taxes.
> -
> Anyone who says the court ruled that he was not liable for his taxes is a
> liar, and demonstrably so.
> -
> -- Wes Parker
> -
> lar...@northwest.com wrote in message <35A6B2...@northwest.com>...
> >read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
> >to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
> >that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
> >
Wes Parker
on your own faulty grammar.
-- Wes Parker
-
lar...@northwest.com wrote in message <35A79A...@northwest.com>...
Wes Parker
United States Tax Court
JOSEPH M. AND DEBRA ROE,
Petitioners
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
T.C. Memo. 1993-633
Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 18155-93
Date of Decision: December 28, 1993
Judge: Buckley, Helen A.
Filed December 28, 1993
Joseph M. and Debra Roe, pro se.
Susan Mathew, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUCKLEY, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This matter was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. /1/ It is
before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
Respondent mailed separate notices of deficiency as follows:
Joseph M. Roe
Additions to Tax
________________________________
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
____ __________ _______________ _________
1991 $1,669 $394 $87
Debra Roe
Additions to Tax
________________________________
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
____ __________ _______________ _________
1991 $1,669 $394 $87
Each determination consisted of one-half of unreported community income
wages.
Petitioners resided at Mesa, Arizona, when they timely filed the petition
herein.
The petition and amended petition in this case do not meet the requirements
of our Rule 34(b)(4) that a petition shall contain clear and concise
assignments of each and every error which petitioner alleges to have been
committed by respondent in the determination of the deficiency. Further, it
does not contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which
petitioner bases his assignments of error, as required by our Rule 34(b)(5).
Rule 34(b)(4) also provides that "Any issue not raised in the assignment of
errors shall be deemed to be conceded." Petitioners do not contend that they
did not receive wage income during 1991, they do not contend an error in the
amount of wage income, nor do they contend they filed returns in a timely
manner, reported such wage income thereon or paid sufficient estimated or
withholding tax to relieve them of liability under section 6654.
The petition and petitioners' objections to respondent's motion to dismiss
are filled with tax-protestor material long rejected by this and other
courts. While much of these filings is no more than gibberish, what we can
interpret is that petitioners complain the Commissioner did not state what
"kind of tax" was being asserted, and they therefore were without lawful
notice; /2/ that petitioners are residents of Mesa but not of the United
States; that petitioners were not persons liable to pay income tax, and that
the Internal Revenue Service failed to comply with some provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act. We have considered many arguments of similar
ilk, the latest in Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533. In that case
we quoted an opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding another
tax protestor: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber
reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that
these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d
1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Suffice it to say, petitioners, who reside in
the State of Arizona, are subject to the income tax imposed by section 1 on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United
States and subject to tax under section 1.
Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the case at bar
petitioners presented no facts or law in support of their claim that would
entitle them to relief. Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss will be
granted.
At the calendar call, and prior to the hearing on respondent's motion, the
Court advised petitioners that their petition and amended petition failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be afforded and noted that it
contained tax-protestor arguments which had been repeatedly rejected by this
Court and every other court which has faced these issues. Petitioners were
also warned that if petitioners continued to make such arguments the Court
was inclined to award a penalty to the United States. Petitioners were given
the opinion of this Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983) to
read prior to the hearing. Rowlee, inter alia, makes clear that persons such
as petitioners have an obligation to file returns and report income.
At the hearing, petitioners stated they had read "Rowlee", but went on to
state that it did not change their opinion of the law. They also advised the
Court that they had "opted-out" of the social security system, and that they
were not liable for Federal income taxes. This Court took several steps to
save petitioners from the folly of their own making, but they chose not to
be saved.
Respondent, as a part of her motion to dismiss, did not request an award of
a penalty under section 6673. That section provides that this Court may
award a penalty not in excess of $25,000 to the United States where the
proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or where
the taxpayer's position is frivolous. We have decided to make such an award
sua sponte, and we award a penalty to the United States in the amount of
$900. Petitioners have wasted not only judicial time but also time of the
respondent in making these frivolous and groundless allegations.
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
FOOTNOTES
/1/ Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
/2/ The deficiency notice clearly indicates income tax is being determined.
END OF FOOTNOTES
Wes Parker
United States Tax Court
PAUL T. TATE, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
T.C. Memo. 1988-335
Docket Dkt. No. 13072-87
Date of Decision: July 29, 1988
Judge: Tannenwald, opinion
Filed July 29, 1988
Paul T. Tarr, Jr., pro se.
John C. Meaney, for the respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANNENWALD, JUDGE: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's
Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
_____________________________________________
Section Section Section Section
Year Deficiency 6651 /1/ 6653(a) 6653(a)(2) 6654
____ __________ _______ _______ __________ _______
1980 $9,691.61 $2,422.90 $484.58 -- $617.51
1981 8,824.48 1,807.12 441.22 * 523.30
* To be calculated based upon the entire underpayment.
By amendment to answer, respondent claimed an increase in the above amounts
based upon an omission of additional wages in 1980.
Petitioner was a legal resident of Elgin, Oregon, when he filed his
petition.
This case was called for trial in Portland, Oregon, on June 20, 1988,
pursuant to notice to the parties. Petitioner did not appear. The Court had
before it petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as well
as the question or the proper treatment of the case in view or petitioner's
failure to appear and to comply with the Court's order dated June 3, 1980.
We deal first with the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Petitioner contends that the deficiency notice herein is invalid because
respondent did not base his determination on a voluntary act of petitioner
(he failed to file any return for the year at issue) or on a substitute
return required by section 6020, citing Star v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363
(9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983). This contention is totally
without merit. Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1988),
specifically rejected this position and refused to apply Scar. We hold that
the deficiency notice herein is valid.
As an alternative position, petitioner asks that his motion to dismiss be
treated as a motion to withdraw the case. This position is also without
merit. Once a petition is filed in this Court contesting a valid notice of
deficiency, petitioner cannot withdraw the case from our jurisdiction.
Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519 (1974)
We now turn to the question of the proper disposition of this case.
Petitioner herein asserts various "protestor" arguments which have long
since been rejected by the Court. McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th
Cir. 1983), affg. 76 T.C. 1027 (1981) (privilege against self-incrimination,
burden of proof, right to a grant of immunity, right to a jury trial).
In his petition, petitioner asserted that he was entitled to deductions
which had not been taken into account in the notice of deficiency. At no
time did he offer to submit any evidence to support his claim. Since the
burden of proof is upon petitioner in this respect, as well as all the other
issues raised by the notice of deficiency, Rule 142(a), his nonappearance
and nonproduction of evidence as to any of these issues results in his
failure to carry his burden of proof. Roat v. Commissioner, supra; Edelson
v. Commissioner, 829 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1987).
By order, dated June 3, 1988, petitioner was directed to file with the Court
a statement Summarizing the evidence he would present at trial together with
copies of any written material he would offer at trial in respect of the
SUBSTANTIVE tax issues raised by the notice of deficiency. The order
notified petitioner that he had the burden of proof on these issues and that
if he did not comply with the Court's order, the case might be dismissed for
failure properly to prosecute. /2/ Petitioner failed to file any such
statement or otherwise inform the Court as to these matters or comply with
the other provisions of said order, i.e., communication with respondent in
order to prepare a stipulation of facts.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we dismiss the case for failure properly
to prosecute. Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1985), affg.
per curiam an unreported order of this Court. The dismissal is also
appropriate with respect to the increased deficiency, as to which respondent
has the burden of proof, Rule 142(a), since the amendment to answer contains
well-pleaded facts which support respondent's claim. Martin v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. 894(1987).
Finally, we deal with the question of whether damages should be awarded
under section 6673. Petitioner was warned that such damages might be awarded
by the Court's order dated June 3, 1988, and by respondent in a letter to
petitioner dated December 14, 1987. We think it clear that the contentions
of petitioner as set forth in his petition and his Motion to Dismiss are
"frivolous or groundless" within the meaning of section 6673. Accordingly,
we hold that the United States is entitled to an award in the amount of
$5,000. Larsen v. Commissioner, supra at 941.
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
FOOTNOTES
/1/ All station references are to the Internal Revenue Code at amended and
in effect during the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
/2/ Petitioner was also warned by the order that such action might result if
he failed to comply with Rule 91(a), a warning that had previously been
given by the notice of trial and memorandum accompanying the notice of
trial.
Wes Parker
United States Tax Court
RICHARD D. RUNION,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
T.C. Memo. 1986-176
Docket No. 2917-84
Date of Decision: April 29, 1986
Judge: Drennen, opinion
Full Text
Filed April 29, 1986.
Richard D. Runion, pro se.
Gloria Gooding, for the respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DRENNEN, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Helen A.
Buckley pursuant to section 7456 of the Code /1/ and Rules 180 and 183 of
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court agrees with and
adopts her opinion which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
BUCKLEY, Special Trial Judge: This case presents yet another instance of
abuse of the processes of this Court. Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner's 1980 Federal income tax in the amount of $12,183, together with
additions to tax under section 6651(a) of $2,406.50, under section 6653(a)
of $609.15 and under section 6654(a) of $572.59. Petitioner timely filed his
petition to this Court. He then was, and is, a resident of Huntington Beach,
California.
Petitioner filed a form petition, substantially identical with those filed
by several hundred other persons in California. /2/ The petition contains
allegations of a tax protestor nature. Thus, petitioner alleged that he was
not required to file an income tax return or pay an income tax for 1980,
that he was not a taxpayer, that he received nothing during those years of
known tangible value, that he enjoyed no grant of privilege or franchise and
that he did not volunteer to self-assess himself for taxes. Petitioner filed
a request for a jury trial which was denied; he filed a motion for summary
judgment that was denied.
The deficiency determination was based upon petitioner's failure to report
$35,341 in income from wages received by him as follows:
Catalytic, Inc. $ 2,272
Biggs Drayage 16,131
Babcock Wilcox 9,360
Scott Buttner 3,476
Westinghouse 4,102
Petitioner agreed that he worked for the five companies so listed, he
admitted that he received compensation for his labor in the amounts shown on
the notice of deficiency. He also admitted that he did not file a tax return
for 1980.
Petitioner was advised at the call of the calendar that compensation for
services constituted an element of gross income, that he was required to
file a return and that our income tax system is not voluntary. He was
advised not to pursue the frivolous arguments set forth in his petition. The
Court ascertained that he had been given a copy of the opinions of this
Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), and Cleveland v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-209, and petitioner admitted at trial that he
had read the two cases. He nevertheless continued with his various frivolous
tax protestor arguments ad absurdum. We have discussed the law at length in
Rowlee and many other cases.
As we stated in Cleveland:
We would do a disservice to those taxpayers who have brought to this Court
genuine controversies with respondent were we to devote time to any extended
discussion of the lack of merit to petitioner's arguments. McCoy v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1029 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.
1983).
We decline to restate that which has been so long settled and we hold for
respondent in regard to the deficiency and the additions to tax.
Petitioner's arguments are completely groundless and frivolous and he knew
that they were. Petitioner at trial stated that he had at all times
faithfully tried to obey the laws of the United States of America. He made
this statement after reading Rowlee and Cleveland, and he then proceeded
once again with his protestor arguments. Petitioner did not strike this
Court as an unintelligent person. We can therefore only conclude that he had
no intention of obeying the internal revenue laws of this country, that he
was intent upon wasting the time and energy of this Court and that he filed
and maintained his petition primarily for purposes of delay. Accordingly, we
award damages of $5,000 to the United States under the provisions of section
6673 for the filing of a frivolous petition and maintaining such position
primarily for purposes of delay.
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
FOOTNOTES
/1/ Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended,
unless otherwise indicated.
/2/ We take judicial notice of this fact. See, e.g., Africa v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1984-95; Dragoun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-94; Urban v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-85; Ross v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-624;
Langseth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-576, to cite but a few of the
cases considered.
Wes Parker
CAROL A. LEWIS,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
T.C. Memo. 1992-76
Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 18204-91
Date of Decision: February 6, 1992
Judge: Buckley, Helen A.
DAVID T. LEWIS,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
Docket No. 18205-91
Filed February 6, 1992
Carol A. Lewis and David T. Lewis, pro se.
John Altman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUCKLEY, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: These two cases were assigned pursuant to the
provisions of section 7443A(b) and Rules 180-182 /1/ for purposes of hearing
respondent's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted as well as respondent's motions for damages. We will
grant respondent's motions.
Petitioners are part of a group of petitioners in the Seattle area who filed
identical petitions and read identical statements to this Court upon the
hearings on respondent's motions.
Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax as follows:
Petitioner Carol A. Lewis, Docket 18204-91:
Additions to Tax
____________________________________________
Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6654
____ __________ __________ __________ __________ ____
1983 $3,140 $397 $157 50% of the $74
interest due
on $1,590
1984 2,976 385 149 50% of the 74
due on $1,538
1985 3,211 319 161 50% of the 45
interest due
on $1,275
6653(a)(1)(A) 6653(A)(1)(B)
_____________ _____________
1986 3,445 408 172 50% of the 58
interest due
on $1,633
1987 1,961 401 98 50% of the 83
interest due
on $1,605
Sec.
6653(a)(1)
__________
1988 1,729 386 86 -- 99
Petitioner David T. Lewis, Docket 18205-91:
Additions to Tax
____________________________________________
Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6654
____ __________ __________ __________ __________ ____
1983 $3,140 $397 $157 50% of the $74
interest due
on $1,589
1984 2,976 385 149 50% of the 74
due on $1,538
1985 3,211 319 161 50% of the 46
interest due
on $1,274
6653(a)(1)(A) 6653(a)(1)(B)
_____________ _____________
1986 3,445 408 172 50% of the 58
interest due
on $1,632
1987 1,961 401 98 50% of the 83
interest due
on $1,604
6653(a)(1)
__________
1988 1,729 386 86 -- 99
Petitioners resided at Sultan, Washington, when they filed their petitions
herein.
The petitions filed by petitioners, who are husband and wife, are identical
in nature. Each requests "dismissal of illegal assessment of fraudulent or
understatement tax return penalties without a taxpayers return, and for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, for the years ending December 1984 through
1988." /2/ The gist of petitioners' argument is that a notice of deficiency
can only be issued to taxpayers who file tax returns, and that a taxpayer's
own return is required to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioners
go on to contend that they were not required to and did not file a tax
return, or an estimated tax return for any of the years at issue.
Petitioners did not contest that they received income for the years at
issue. Their sole argument appears to be based upon the discreditable theory
that the system of income taxation in this country is voluntary in nature.
Prior to the hearing herein, the Court held a chambers conference with both
petitioners and respondent in order that petitioners might be fully informed
that the Court considered their petitions to be frivolous, and that if they
persisted in such arguments the Court would be inclined to impose sanctions
under the provisions of section 6673. Petitioners, in open Court,
acknowledged that the Court had duly warned them that their petitions were
frivolous and failed to state a cause of action. Nevertheless, petitioners
persisted in their frivolous arguments that our taxation system is voluntary
in nature, that self-assessment is required before a notice of deficiency
can be issued, and that petitioners had not chosen to self-assess their
taxes. Petitioners went on to argue that there can be no deficiency in tax
until there has been an assessment.
Petitioners' arguments are no more than stale tax protestor contentions long
dismissed summarily by this and all other Courts which have heard such
contentions. Our system of taxation is not voluntary in nature. See, e.g.,
Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983). Petitioners had an obligation
to file Federal income tax returns in each of the years at issue, and their
failure to meet their obligations does not serve to insulate them from the
issuance by respondent of a notice of deficiency. See, e.g., Ebert v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-629. There is simply no point to an extended
discussion of the law in this regard. As we stated in McCoy v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 1027, 1029-1030 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983):
The time has arrived when the Court should deal summarily and decisively
with such cases without engaging in scholarly discussion of the issues or
attempting to soothe the feelings of the petitioners by referring to the
supposed "sincerity" of their wildly espoused positions.
Respondent's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are well taken.
We note in particular that petitioners do not contest that they earned the
income in question, and they admit that they did not file tax returns. Our
Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency
action shall contain "Clear and concise assignments of each and every error
which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in
the determination of the deficiency or liability" and "Clear and concise
lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments
of error". Neither petitioner has satisfied this standard. The facts upon
which they rely are not facts, but rather their mistaken legal theory of the
basis for their claim. Neither petitioner has asserted any justiciable
errors of law or fact in respondent's determinations. We further note that
Rule 34(b)(4) provides "Any issue not raised in the assignment of errors
shall be deemed to be conceded."
The determinations by respondent in the notices of deficiency are presumed
correct; the burden of proof is on petitioners to show those determinations
are incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933);
Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1972-133. There are no justiciable issues for trial in either case,
and petitioners have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
afforded. Accordingly, their petitions will be dismissed.
We turn now to respondent's motions for damages under the provisions of
section 6673. We went to great pains to advise petitioners prior to the
hearing herein that their positions were frivolous in nature, and that if
they persisted in them we would impose sanctions to the United States. Each
petitioner, however, chose to adhere to their preconceived view. "Fere
libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." /3/ These petitions are frivolous
and groundless and were filed primarily for purposes of delay. Accordingly,
we will grant respondent's motions and require each petitioner to pay a
penalty to the United States in the amount of $4,000.
Orders and decisions will be entered for respondent.
FOOTNOTES
/1/ All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for
the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
/2/ We note that both notices of deficiency determined deficiencies for
petitioners' 1983 taxable year. We consider that they have not placed that
year at issue.
/3/ "Men willingly believe what they wish." Julius Caesar, "De Bello
Gallico", I. iii. 18.
Wesley Serra
>it was not implied that the court ruled Long was not liable for the taxes.
>i merely indicated that the IRS was unable to provide certain facts.
The IRS was not "unable" to provide anything. Long was acquitted because
his own lawyer convinced the jury that he was an honest but not too bright
bubba who really didn't understand what the jury knew - that he had to pay
taxes.
The transcript at the URL posted earlier in this thread is clearly not the
official one. Even so, it makes this "Yup, yup, Ah rully thot Ah didn't
hafta pay the rev'nooers" defense clear. For example, when the prosecutor
opened on how Long had a master's degree (and thus wasn't all *that*
stupid), defense counsel replied:
Begin transcript excerpt.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now, Lloyd has some education behind him. But
I think you're going to find that the evidence in this case
is going to show that, you know, what Lloyd has done
basically in his lifetime, he's been a shop teacher. The
first couple of jobs that he had was mechanical. He would
teach students in school how to, I guess, turn wood and how
to make metal instruments. But, you know, that's Lloyd's
background.
And he did that for a number of years. And
then I think in the mid '80s he didn't do this, and he was,
I think, selling Shakley products. And later on, for the
years that we're dealing with, he went back to teaching, and
he went over here to Saturn. He lived about a hundred miles
away from the Saturn plant. But they needed somebody to
teach people that worked at Saturn how to make tools, how to
make parts, things of that nature. So, Lloyd is very
mechanical and he teaches. And that, in essence, is who
Lloyd Long is.
-----------------------------------------------------
End transcript excerpt.
And, in summation, Becraft (to his credit, actually) never argued that
Long *in fact* did not have to file or pay taxes. He went to great pains
to repeat that, "right or wrong", poor unsophisticated Long did not act
willfully because he "believed" that he did not have to do those things.
In fact, Becraft framed the issue for the jury as whether Long in good (if
stupid) faith *misunderstood* the law:
Begin transcript excerpt.
-----------------------------------------------------
And I might be a little bit so bold right here,
but I'm going to give you an advance -- you know, the Court
has given us some instructions. I'm going to kind of read
to you what the Court is going to say about willfullness.
It says, "The defendant's conduct was not willful if he
acted through negligence, inadvertance, mistake, or due to
good faith misunderstanding of the law." If the defendant
had a subjective good faith belief, no matter how
unreasonable, that the law did not require him to file tax
returns, he didn't act willfully. The Court will instruct
you in that respect.
**Now, the inquiry that you are facing is did
Lloyd Long have a good faith misunderstanding of the law.**
.. . .
Willfulness. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
listen to what the Court has to say. If you've got a good
faith belief that the law doesn't apply to you, it doesn't
matter whether it's reasonable or unreasonable, right or
wrong, it'll be your duty to acquit him.
.. . .
what the evidence has shown is that Lloyd Long had a good
faith belief he wasn't required to file a return. And since
he had a good faith belief, right or wrong, if he --
THE COURT: Your time is up.
----------------------------------------------------------
End transcript excerpt.
The only possible jury take on Becraft's "good faith misunderstanding"
argument is, "Sure, folks, we all have to pay our taxes, but ol' Lloyd
really didn't get this".
I didn't come close to reading the entire transcript, but came away from
what I read thinking more of Becraft than I did before I began reading.
He put on a good defense. But the defense was decidedly *not* that
Long really did not have to pay taxes or file returns. *That* defense
would have quickly lost. And anyone who, after reading even this
transcript, believes that Long's acquittal was anything other than a
lightning strike, is likely to share a cell with a 300-pound guy named
"Bubba".
>please read the emails more carefully before you start foaming at the mouth...
>and spraying about.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
http://www.panix.com/~wserra/
in-propri...@tuguys.com
<wasp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>That was your clear implication. Don't try to squirm out of your lie based
>on your own faulty grammar.
>-- Wes Parker
"Wes Parker: Defender of the indefensible."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
in-propri...@tuguys.com
I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
It's just my constitutionally protected opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
They rattle their chains to remind
themselves of their freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Wales
read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty"
for willfull failure to file for 1989 and 1990. the
government was unable to provide facts that made him
subject to or liable for a federal income tax. it's
in the transcript.
The Lloyd Long case has been discussed on the net over and over again.
It is utterly misleading to suggest that Long's acquittal constituted
any sort of vindication of the tax protestor arguments. All the Long
acquittal shows is that the jury members (assuming they were doing their
job in a conscientious fashion) were not convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that Long knew he should have filed the tax returns in question,
and yet voluntarily and intentionally chose not to do so.
I've reproduced, below, some excerpts from the judge's instructions to
the Long jury, outlining the questions of law and fact pertaining to the
charges against Long. (I took this excerpted material from a copy of
the Long trial transcript, which someone posted to alt.society.sovereign
on 30 April 1996. Unfortunately, you won't find it on Deja News because
it was posted as a uuencoded ZIP file, and Deja News deletes uuencoded
text from its archives -- presumably to save disk space.)
Long was charged with "willful" failure to file tax returns, so the
jury was obliged to acquit him if they were not all convinced that he
realized he had to file. Note, however, the following in the judge's
instructions to the jury:
(1) He described Long's requirement to file solely on the basis of
Long's "gross income" -- and he stated that "wages, fees, and
interest, and compensation for services received by the defendant
constitute gross income." As I read the judge's instructions,
he left no room for the jury to debate whether or not Long was
in fact a "person required to file" a tax return, except on the
basis of how much "gross income" he received by this definition.
(2) He stated that Long's failure to file was "not willful" if he
"had a subjective good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable,
that the law did not require him to file tax returns . . . .
However, if the defendant failed to make a return either because
he disagreed with the tax laws or he thought the tax laws to be
unconstitutional, these beliefs would not amount to a good faith
misunderstanding of the law so as to excuse his failure to make
tax returns." This sort of instruction is quite in line with
the Supreme Court's holding in Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
I don't see a shred of evidence to suggest that the judge in the Long
trial accepted any sort of "tax protestor" or "sovereign citizen" argu-
ment. As I read it, the judge gave the jury no leeway at all on the
question of whether the tax law was valid, or if Long felt the tax law
was valid, or if Long had a legal obligation to file a return. To be
sure, he didn't come right out and =say= that Long was obligated to
file as a settled matter of law, but he defined the issue so narrowly
that I don't see how any conscientious jury could have concluded that
Long didn't have to file under the terms of the tax law. The only basis
on which the judge gave the jury any legitimate grounds for acquitting
Long was if they remained unconvinced that he understood that the law
required him to file.
Finally, no matter what the judge might have said, or what arguments
may have been presented by prosecution or defense in the Long case, an
acquittal in a criminal case does =NOT= constitute any sort of legally
binding precedent. That is, no one charged with "willful failure to
file" can legally demand to be found not guilty because Lloyd Long was
found not guilty. Even Long himself, if he were to be charged with
"willful failure to file" a tax return for a year not covered in his
first trial, could not cite his earlier acquittal as a reason why he
ought to be acquitted on new charges.
Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
(a "14th Amendment US federal citizen" and proud of it!)
========================================================================
[from the judge's instructions to the jury in the Lloyd Long trial:]
Count 1 charges that the defendant, Lloyd R. Long, had and received
a gross income of $49,303 during the calendar year of 1989; that,
by reason of such income, he was required by law following the
close of the calendar year 1989 and on or before April 16, 1990,
to make an income tax return; that the defendant willfully failed
to file an income tax return for the calendar year 1989, in violation
of Section 7203 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
Count 2 charges that the defendant, Lloyd R. Long, had and received
a gross income of $49,518 during the calendar 1990; and that, by
reason of such income, he was required by law following the close
of the calendar year 1990, and on or before April 15, 1991, to make
an income tax return; and the defendant willfully failed to make
an income tax return for the calendar year 1990, in violation of
Section 7203 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
Both counts contained in the information are based upon alleged
violations of Section 7203 of Title 26, United States Code. Title
26 is the Internal Revenue code. This section provides in part as
follows. And I'm quoting here.
"Any person required... by law or regulation... to make a return...
who willfully fails to .. make such return... at the time required
by law or regulations..." shall be guilty of an offense against
the United States.
In order for the government to prove the defendant guilty on Count
1 of the information, three essential elements of the offense must
be proved beyond a reasonable degree:
First, that the defendant was a person required by law or regulation
to make a return of his income for the taxable year ended December
31, 1989;
Second, that the defendant failed to make such return at the time
required by law, which was on or before April 16, 1990;
Third, that the defendant's failure to make the return was willful.
In order for the government to prove defendant guilty on Count 2
of the information, three essential elements of this offense must
be proved beyond a resonable doubt. You'll recognize these as
being the same elements, but with different dates.
First, that the defendant was a person required by law or regulation
to make a return of his income for the taxable year ended December
31, 1990;
Second, that the defendant failed to make such return at the time
required by law, which was on or before April 15, 1991;
Third, that the defendant's failure to make the return was willful.
The burden is on the government to prove every element of the
offense as charged beyond a resonable doubt. The law never imposes
on the defendant in a criminal case the burden of producing any
evidence or calling any witnesses.
Remember that a separate crime or offense is charged in each count
of the information. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it
should be considered separately.
Let's talk now about the first element. A person is required to
make a federal income tax return for any calendar year in which he
had gross income in excess of an amount set by law. For the
defendant, that amount in 1989 was $9,200. In 1990, the amount
was $9,550.
Gross income is defined by law as "all income from whatever course
derived, including... compensation for services." Gross income
includes the following:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions and similar
items; gross income derived from business; gains derived from
dealing in property; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; alimony
and separate maintenance payments; annuities; income from life
insurance and endowment contracts; pensions; income from discharge
of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership gross income;
income in respect of a decedent; and income from an interest in an
estate or trust.
Therefore, with respect to the phrase "gross income" as used in
the information, you are instructed that wages, fees, and interest,
and compensation for services received by the defendant constitute
gross income.
The defendant is required to file returns if his gross income for
the calendar year of 1989 exceeded $9,200, and the calendar year
1990 exceeded $9,550, even though he may be entitled to deductions
from income in sufficient amount so that no tax would be due. The
government is not required to show that a tax is due and owing as
an essential element of the offense charged in the information.
Nor is the intent to evade payment of taxes an essential element
of the offense charged.
The proof need not show that the defendant received the exact amount
of gross income as alleged in the information. The evidence must
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received
sufficient gross income during the tax year to require him to file
a tax return as required by law.
Turning now to the second element. The second element of the
offense of failure to file is that the defendant failed to file a
timely income tax return for each of the years charged in the
information 1989 and 1990.
The law provides that a return made on the basis of the calendar
year shall be made on or before the 15th day of April following
the close of the calendar year, except when April 15th falls on a
Saturday, Sunday or legal holidays, returns are due on the first
day following April 15th which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday.
For the offense charged in Count 1, the date of a timely filing of
the required tax return for the calendar year 1980 was April 16,
1990. For Count 2, the calendar year 1990, the date of timely
filing was April 15, 1991.
Turning now to the third element of this offense. You are instructed
that the government must prove beyond a resonable doubt that the
defendant's failure to make a return was willful. Willfulness is
the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.
The defendant's failure to make a return was willful if the law
imposed a duty on defendant to file a return; he knew of this duty;
and he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
The defendant's conduct was not willful if he acted through
negligence, inadvertence, mistake, or due to a good faith
misunderstanding of the law. If the defendant had a subjective
good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable, that the law did
not require him to file tax returns, he did not act willfully.
However, if the defendant failed to make a return either because
he disagreed with the tax laws or he thought the tax laws to be
unconstitutional, these beliefs would not amount to a good faith
misunderstanding of the law so as to excuse his failure to make
tax returns.
The defendant's state of mind is something that you, the jury, must
determine. There is no way that a defendant's state of mind can
be proved directly, but no one can read another person's mind and
tell what the other person is thinking -- because no one can --
let me start over on that.
The defendant's state of mind is something that you, the jury, must
determine. And there is no way that the defendant's state of mind
can be proved directly, because no one can read another person's
mind and tell what that person is thinking. But the defendant's
state of mind can be proved indirectly from the surrounding
circumstances. This includes things like what the defendant said,
what the defendant did, how the defendant acted, and any other
facts or circumstances in evidence that show what was in the
defendant's mind.
The defendant acted willfully if he deliberately intended not to
make his tax returns which he knew ought to have been filed. The
government is not required to prove that the defendant had any
intention to defraud the government or to evade the payment of
taxes. The government must prove only that it was the defendant's
deliberate intention not to make tax returns which he knew he was
required to file, at the time that he was required by law to file
them.
There is a distinction between the civil liability of the defendant
and his criminal liability. This is a criminal case. The defendant
is charged under the law with the commission of a crime, and whether
or not he has settled any civil liability for the payment of taxes
claimed to be due to the United States is not to be considered by
you in determining the issues in this case.
If you find that the government has carried its burden of proving
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a person required
by law or regulation to make a return of his income for the taxable
years in question, that the defendant failed to make such returns
and the times required by law, and that the defendant's failure
make the returns was willful, then the defendant would be guilty
of the offense charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the information.
On the other hand, if you find the facts to be otherwise, or if
you have a reasonable doubt with respect to any of the elements of
the crimes charged, then it would be your duty to return a verdict
of not guilty.
========================================================================
Wes Parker
materials advocating these hokey, always-defeated lies. I get sick of seeing
folks get burned (penalties, fines, sanctions, garnished wages, lost houses
and cars) because they believe this crap. But I guess you either support the
scam artists, or are one.
--
-
-- Wes Parker
-
in-propri...@tuguys.com wrote in message
<35a7dd27...@news.zebra.net>...
Courageous
> materials advocating these hokey, always-defeated lies. I get sick of seeing
> folks get burned (penalties, fines, sanctions, garnished wages, lost houses
> and cars) because they believe this crap. But I guess you either support the
> scam artists, or are one.
Wes, virtually all of these people are intensely delusional.
I have spoken with numerous 'tax objectors', and more than
half the time, the 2nd topic after taxes that comes up in
conversation is the Kennedy Assasination or the Holocaust
Scam or, well, or... pretty much anything you might find in
the X files.
Looney toons, without a doubt.
My point? Delusional thinking can't be reasoned with.
C.
p.s. taxes suck! but if you try any of this shit, the
government will *CRUSH* you.
Wes Parker
and that the lowest tax rate commensurate with having basic governmental
functions is the best. What makes me sick are scammers who are selling
information which has a 0% chance of success.
-
As for most of the *tax protestors* you're absolutely correct -- its the
Kennedy assassination, Roswell, Area 51, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot,
etc. These folks will believe ANYTHING . . . except of course the truth.
--
-
-- Wes Parker
-
Timothy I. McCrory
>
> Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
> (a "14th Amendment US federal citizen" and proud of it!)
>
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
-HEAD-
Sec. 1982. Property rights of citizens
-STATUTE-
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property.
-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 1978.)
-COD-
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 1978 derived from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, Sec. 1, 14
Stat. 27.
Section was formerly classified to section 42 of Title 8, Aliens
and Nationality.
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/
mailto:tim_m...@bigfoot.com
"Tyranny has no enemy so formidable as the pen."
William Cobbett
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely
believe they are free."
Goethe
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose
its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or
money that it values more, it will lose that too."
Somerset Maugham
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Yoda
>
> read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
> to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
> that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
>
> it's in the transcript.
>
> >
> > >Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
> > >of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
> > >loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
> > >Tennessean named Lloyd Long.
> >
> > Lloyd Long's "victory" was that he didn't have to go to prison. He
to file, then it stands to reason, that no evidence of a liablity was
shown. WIHOUT such a liablity being show, how can he befound anything BUT
not guilty?
And without such a liablity being shown in this CRIMINAL Case, how can
he still be liable?
Get a clue people.. take yer heads outta the sand, and use them brain
cells for something other than haveing a place to rest your ballcap on.
Sheesh!
--
Every Politician wants change..
It's all I have left in my pockets after congress finished
failing at fixing the Internal Revenue Code.
Yoda
>
> In article <35A6B2...@northwest.com>,
> lar...@northwest.com wrote:
> > read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
> > to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
> > that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
>
> "WILLFUL failure to file". Big difference. He still owed the taxes. He
> just convinced the jury he was a good ole boy who was too stupid to know the
> difference.
Have you ever met loydd Long? I have.. he told me he hasn't paid a dime
on those 2 "liablities" you fools out there keep saying he is still
liable for..
Yoda
>
> Complete lie. While Long won his criminal case -- on the somewhat bizarre
> theory that he was too stupid to understand the IRC and thus truly believed
> that he was right -- he lost his tax case and had to pay his taxes.
Cite the case please!
> -
> Anyone who says the court ruled that he was not liable for his taxes is a
> liar, and demonstrably so.
> lar...@northwest.com wrote in message <35A6B2...@northwest.com>...
> >read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
> >to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
> >that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
Rich Wales
What a bloomin idiot. If the man was found NOT GUILTY of
willful failure to file, then it stands to reason that no
evidence of a liability was shown. WIHOUT such a liablity
being shown, how can he be found anything BUT not guilty?
It really isn't as cut and dried as you seem to feel it is. Long was
indeed found "not guilty" of willful failure to file, but there are
still several reasonable explanations of how this could have happened.
For example:
(1) Maybe the jurors accepted that Long should have filed, but decided
that Long didn't really understand that he had to file -- or were
unsure (i.e, had "reasonable doubt") as to whether he understood
his obligation.
(2) Maybe the jurors decided that Long didn't actually owe any tax,
or else were unconvinced as to whether he owed tax.
(3) Maybe the jurors accepted that the law said Long owed tax and
should have filed returns, but decided to engage in "jury nulli-
fication" by finding him not guilty in defiance of the evidence
and the judge's instructions.
Most "mainstream" legal minds would assume #1 happened. I assume most
"sovereign" types would assume #2 (or possibly #3) happened. But since
all the jury said was "not guilty", there is no way for anyone else to
know unless one or more of the jurors decide to go public.
If you'll read the excerpts from the judge's instructions to the jury,
BTW, it should be very clear that the judge left the jury no legitimate
room to consider whether the tax law was valid or whether Long's earn-
ings were "gross income" for purposes of the tax law. He instructed
the jury to accept, without question, the Internal Revenue Code's defi-
nition of "gross income", and he also instructed the jury that disagree-
ment with the validity of the tax law did not qualify as a "good faith
misunderstanding of the law" excusing his failure to file. Now, of
course, it's still possible that the jury decided to nullify the law
-- but Occam's Razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is
the most likely) suggests that they simply decided Long honestly might
not have understood that his earnings constituted "gross income".
And without such a liability being shown in this CRIMINAL
case, how can he still be liable?
Two reasons.
First, the point at issue is different in a civil case as opposed to a
criminal case. Long's criminal prosecution was for =WILLFUL= failure
to =FILE= tax returns. In any civil action to recover unpaid taxes
from Long, the questions would be (1) how much Long actually owed and
(2) how much Long actually paid. Intent with relation to why Long did
not file would be completely irrelevant in a civil action (except per-
haps with regard to penalties owed in addition to tax).
Second, the required standard of proof is different in a civil case as
opposed to a criminal case. In order for Long to be convicted in his
criminal case, he would have to be found guilty (of =willful= failure
to file) beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., no reasonable alternative
explanation). In order for Long to be found liable in a civil case,
his liability would only need to be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence (i.e., more likely that he did owe tax than that he didn't).
The reason Long could still be civilly liable for the unpaid taxes,
despite his acquittal, is basically the same reason O.J. Simpson could
be found civilly liable for the wrongful death of his ex-wife despite
having been acquitted of her murder. And the reason Long's acquittal
is of no use to anyone else sharing his views is basically the same
reason murder is still illegal even though O.J. Simpson was found not
guilty of it.
Get a clue people.. take yer heads outta the sand, and
use them brain cells for something other than having a
place to rest your ballcap on. Sheesh!
FWIW, I fully agree.
Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer or professional tax adviser. My
comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to
be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
Wes Parker
standard than being CRIMINALLY liable for evasion, which is a much higher
standard -- i.e., you only need "preponderance of the evidence" for the
first, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof for the second. Long was held
civilly liable for his taxes (posted time and time again, just see Deja
News), but the judge went easy on him -- probably because he felt sorry for
Long because he was so stupid -- so the jury didn't find the "beyond a
reasonable doubt" required for the criminal conviction.
-
The fact that you would even make such a stupid argument demonstrates, in
spades, how little real knowledge you have of how the legal system works.
--
-
-- Wes Parker
-
"I feel too blue and disgusted to write any more now, so I will smoke a
cigar and try to get into a better humor." -- Gen. George McClellan
-
See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
-
Yoda wrote in message <35A7C5...@net-link.net>...
>lar...@northwest.com wrote:
>>
>> read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull failure
>> to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
>> that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
>>
>> it's in the transcript.
>> ===================
>>
>> >
>> > >Also as noted above, the IRS rarely goes to trial unless they are sure
>> > >of victory. They can cease their action at any time, and they do if a
>> > >loss looks likely. At least one person has won a court victory, a
>> > >Tennessean named Lloyd Long.
>> >
>> > Lloyd Long's "victory" was that he didn't have to go to prison. He
>> > remained liable for the income tax.What a bloomin idiot. If the man was
found NOT GUILTY of wilfull failre
>to file, then it stands to reason, that no evidence of a liablity was
>shown. WIHOUT such a liablity being show, how can he befound anything BUT
>not guilty?
> And without such a liablity being shown in this CRIMINAL Case, how can
>he still be liable?
> Get a clue people.. take yer heads outta the sand, and use them brain
>cells for something other than haveing a place to rest your ballcap on.
>Sheesh!
>
>
Wes Parker
essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too, Yogurt).
-
But the fact that he didn't pay doesn't meant that there isn't an IRS
judgment against him, which kills his credit. I bet he ain't living in a
nice house or driving nice cars or having much of a lifestyle (which
probably describes 99% of the *tax protestor* crowd).
--
-
-- Wes Parker
-
"I feel too blue and disgusted to write any more now, so I will smoke a
cigar and try to get into a better humor." -- Gen. George McClellan
-
See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
-
>> > read the court transcript. he was found "not guilty" for willfull
failure
>> > to file for 1989 and 1990. the government was unable to provide facts
>> > that made him subject to or liable for a federal income tax.
>>
>> "WILLFUL failure to file". Big difference. He still owed the taxes. He
>> just convinced the jury he was a good ole boy who was too stupid to know
the
>> difference.
>
>Have you ever met loydd Long? I have.. he told me he hasn't paid a dime
>on those 2 "liablities" you fools out there keep saying he is still
>liable for..
>
>
>
be...@bigfoot.com
name-calling that goes on here the majority of the time. Whatever happened
to common courtesy? Disagreeing agreeably? Why do people have to be so
uncouth and resort to name-calling whenever they cannot agree?
Rich Wales wrote:
> "Yoda" wrote:
>
> What a bloomin idiot. If the man was found NOT GUILTY of
> Get a clue people.. take yer heads outta the sand, and
> use them brain cells for something other than having a
> place to rest your ballcap on. Sheesh!
>
Yoda
>
> "Yoda" wrote:
>
> What a bloomin idiot. If the man was found NOT GUILTY of
> willful failure to file, then it stands to reason that no
> evidence of a liability was shown. WIHOUT such a liablity
> being shown, how can he be found anything BUT not guilty?
>
> It really isn't as cut and dried as you seem to feel it is. Long was
> indeed found "not guilty" of willful failure to file, but there are
> still several reasonable explanations of how this could have happened.
Never said it was cut and Dried.. I did say that the IRS did not prove
that he had a liablity.
I have the transcript here.. Remember 2 things:
1. The IRS's IMF file on Long had the code MFR-01 on it.
2. The IRS witness testified that it ment "Filing not required".
Therefore, the jury had at that time, no course of action but to
find him not guilty for willfailre to file when the IRS's OWN paper
work said he was not required to file.
Without a requirement to file, it then stands to reason, that he was not
obligated to pay the tax.. From the IRC itself, (not quoting it), those
who are required to pay, are ALSO required to file..
Thus the reverse also applies.. If you are not required to file, it
stands to reason that you are not required to pay.
> For example:
>
> (1) Maybe the jurors accepted that Long should have filed, but decided
> that Long didn't really understand that he had to file -- or were
> unsure (i.e, had "reasonable doubt") as to whether he understood
> his obligation.
I see by the above that you did not read the transcript, did you?
>
> (2) Maybe the jurors decided that Long didn't actually owe any tax,
> or else were unconvinced as to whether he owed tax.
Again, proof that you did not read the transcript..
>
> (3) Maybe the jurors accepted that the law said Long owed tax and
> should have filed returns, but decided to engage in "jury nulli-
> fication" by finding him not guilty in defiance of the evidence
> and the judge's instructions.
I doubt that very much..
>
> Most "mainstream" legal minds would assume #1 happened.
Most main stream legal minds are brain dead. As the people are starting
to realize. Most are so far out of touch with reality, that people just
brush them off as spammers.
>
> If you'll read the excerpts from the judge's instructions to the jury,
> BTW, it should be very clear that the judge left the jury no legitimate
> room to consider whether the tax law was valid or whether Long's earn-
> ings were "gross income" for purposes of the tax law. He instructed
> the jury to accept, without question, the Internal Revenue Code's defi-
> nition of "gross income", and he also instructed the jury that disagree-
> ment with the validity of the tax law did not qualify as a "good faith
> misunderstanding of the law" excusing his failure to file. Now, of
> course, it's still possible that the jury decided to nullify the law
> -- but Occam's Razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is
> the most likely) suggests that they simply decided Long honestly might
> not have understood that his earnings constituted "gross income".
>
again, refer to my above comments: The IRS's own admitance, got Long
aquitted.
> And without such a liability being shown in this CRIMINAL
> case, how can he still be liable?
>
> Two reasons.Ok.. lets see them.. (reading below)
>
> First, the point at issue is different in a civil case as opposed to a
> criminal case. Long's criminal prosecution was for =WILLFUL= failure
> to =FILE= tax returns. In any civil action to recover unpaid taxes
> from Long, the questions would be (1) how much Long actually owed and
> (2) how much Long actually paid. Intent with relation to why Long did
> not file would be completely irrelevant in a civil action (except per-
> haps with regard to penalties owed in addition to tax).
Good point.. accepable logic.
>
> Second, the required standard of proof is different in a civil case as
> opposed to a criminal case. In order for Long to be convicted in his
> criminal case, he would have to be found guilty (of =willful= failure
> to file) beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., no reasonable alternative
> explanation). In order for Long to be found liable in a civil case,
> his liability would only need to be proved by a preponderance of the
> evidence (i.e., more likely that he did owe tax than that he didn't).
Ah.. Good one.. sounds like being tried twice for the same thing, but
that is a matter of personal opinion, which as we all know, has no
basisin law what so ever.
> Get a clue people.. take yer heads outta the sand, and
> use them brain cells for something other than having a
> place to rest your ballcap on. Sheesh!
>
> FWIW, I fully agree.
>
> Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
> *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer or professional tax adviser. My
> comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to
> be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
Well, I for one, would like to see some cases where long was then held
civily liable, and ordered to pay.. No one mentions those cases..
If nothing else, such cases would serve to put an end to the "tax
protester" movement..
Also, it is a fact, that many people who are labled "tax proteter" by the
IRS, do not meet ANY of the 10 qualifications necessassary for the
distinction, per the IRS's own manual determining who is a tax protester
and who is not.
And that is why we have the national Tax protest movement going on full
force now.
Yoda
>
> It's quite likely that he didn't have a dime to pay, since after all
> essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
> understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too, Yogurt).
Wess, You are a federal ass kisser who never read the transcripts of the
trial. Your reply proves it. and the name is Yoda, not yogurt. Your
childish antics further gives creadance to the opinion that you are
talking out your ass..
Try reading the transcripts. The IRS's own admitance that Long was not
required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
guilty.
As for the Diffeance between Civil and Criminal, At least some people in
this newsgroup still know now to carry on a conversation.
Rich Wale's Reply on this same subject is an example of how a GOOD
discussion where information, not ignorance, is being exchanged.
As Rich pointed out the differances between the two, whithout relying on
childish antics as you have done.
> But the fact that he didn't pay doesn't meant that there isn't an IRS
> judgment against him, which kills his credit. I bet he ain't living in a
> nice house or driving nice cars or having much of a lifestyle (which
> probably describes 99% of the *tax protestor* crowd).
And just where did the IRS get the judgement against him, if not in
court? Back up your statement Wess..
I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
So far, since I sent the last of my letters to the Secretary of Treasury,
4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
Be advised, I did a lot before I came to that point though, you can't
just "quit" the system.
Why haven't they came after me yet? Because they know that if they do, I
will will in court, and then I will prosecute any IRS employee under IRC
7214.
IRSProb
>> willful failure to file, then it stands to reason that no
>> evidence of a liability was shown. WIHOUT such a liablity
>> being shown, how can he be found anything BUT not guilty?
This is akin to someone being found not guilty of murder by reason of mental
defect. The not giulty verdict does not mean that murder is ok!
Mike Wellman, CPA
For information to help with liens, levies, seizures, audits,
appeals, delinquent returns, installment agreements, offers
in compromise or payroll tax problems, see my Website
at http://www.IRSOS.com
Wes Parker
>Wes Parker wrote:
>>
>> It's quite likely that he didn't have a dime to pay, since after all
>> essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
>> understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too,
Yogurt).
>
>Wess, You are a federal ass kisser who never read the transcripts of the
>trial. Your reply proves it. and the name is Yoda, not yogurt. Your
>talking out your ass..
>
>Try reading the transcripts. The IRS's own admitance that Long was not
>required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
>guilty.
>
>As for the Diffeance between Civil and Criminal, At least some people in
>this newsgroup still know now to carry on a conversation.
>Rich Wale's Reply on this same subject is an example of how a GOOD
>discussion where information, not ignorance, is being exchanged.
>As Rich pointed out the differances between the two, whithout relying on
>childish antics as you have done.
I don't have to read the transcripts to know a fundamental precept of
jurisprudence -- that Long's acquittal in the criminal case didn't mean
anything in respect to his civil case. As for being civil, don't expect me
to show patience and good will towards folks who -- as you have done -- make
continual misstatements of law and fact even after having been shown to be
in error, post materials out of context, post superceded materials, and --
as you recently did in response to Joel -- post forgeries.
-
>> But the fact that he didn't pay doesn't meant that there isn't an IRS
>> judgment against him, which kills his credit. I bet he ain't living in a
>> nice house or driving nice cars or having much of a lifestyle (which
>> probably describes 99% of the *tax protestor* crowd).
>
>And just where did the IRS get the judgement against him, if not in
>court? Back up your statement Wess..
-
The cite for his civil tax case is in Deja News -- look it up yourself.
-
>I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
>nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
-
Great! Post your real name and address. Since you are such a defender of the
constitution you will of course welcome the opportunity to prove yourself
right and the rest of the US wrong.
-
>So far, since I sent the last of my letters to the Secretary of Treasury,
>4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
>not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
>
>Be advised, I did a lot before I came to that point though, you can't
>just "quit" the system.
>
>Why haven't they came after me yet? Because they know that if they do, I
>will will in court, and then I will prosecute any IRS employee under IRC
>7214.
-
Yeah -- See how successful your fellow *protestor* buddies have been, at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/ (don't drop the soap!).
-
-- Wes Parker
IRSProb
>I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
>nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
>
>4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
>not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
>
>Be advised, I did a lot before I came to that point though, you can't
>just "quit" the system.
>
>Why haven't they came after me yet? Because they know that if they do, I
>will will in court, and then I will prosecute any IRS employee under IRC
>7214.
>
>
>
happen. Your ramblings here will make excellent testimony as to your
willfullness.
Wes Parker
>Rich Wales wrote:
>>
>> "Yogurt" wrote:
>>
>> What a bloomin idiot. If the man was found NOT GUILTY of
>> willful failure to file, then it stands to reason that no
>> evidence of a liability was shown. WIHOUT such a liablity
>> being shown, how can he be found anything BUT not guilty?
>>
>> indeed found "not guilty" of willful failure to file, but there are
>> still several reasonable explanations of how this could have happened.
>
>Never said it was cut and Dried.. I did say that the IRS did not prove
>that he had a liablity.
>
>I have the transcript here.. Remember 2 things:
>1. The IRS's IMF file on Long had the code MFR-01 on it.
>2. The IRS witness testified that it ment "Filing not required".
>
>Therefore, the jury had at that time, no course of action but to
>find him not guilty for willfailre to file when the IRS's OWN paper
>work said he was not required to file.
Complete lie. They didn't find him innocent on this basis, and you don't
have any authority for this lie.
-
[[[snip]]]
-
>> Most "mainstream" legal minds would assume #1 happened.
>
>Most main stream legal minds are brain dead. As the people are starting
>to realize. Most are so far out of touch with reality, that people just
>brush them off as spammers.
Like Yogurt, who consistently miscites authorities, takes them out of
context, or simply makes them up out of thin air.
-
>> If you'll read the excerpts from the judge's instructions to the jury,
>> BTW, it should be very clear that the judge left the jury no legitimate
>> room to consider whether the tax law was valid or whether Long's earn-
>> ings were "gross income" for purposes of the tax law. He instructed
>> the jury to accept, without question, the Internal Revenue Code's defi-
>> nition of "gross income", and he also instructed the jury that disagree-
>> ment with the validity of the tax law did not qualify as a "good faith
>> misunderstanding of the law" excusing his failure to file. Now, of
>> course, it's still possible that the jury decided to nullify the law
>> -- but Occam's Razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is
>> the most likely) suggests that they simply decided Long honestly might
>> not have understood that his earnings constituted "gross income".
>>
>
>
>again, refer to my above comments: The IRS's own admitance, got Long
>aquitted.
And, again, this is a complete lie.
-
>> And without such a liability being shown in this CRIMINAL
>> case, how can he still be liable?
>>
>> Two reasons.Ok.. lets see them.. (reading below)
>
>>
>> First, the point at issue is different in a civil case as opposed to a
>> criminal case. Long's criminal prosecution was for =WILLFUL= failure
>> to =FILE= tax returns. In any civil action to recover unpaid taxes
>> from Long, the questions would be (1) how much Long actually owed and
>> (2) how much Long actually paid. Intent with relation to why Long did
>> not file would be completely irrelevant in a civil action (except per-
>> haps with regard to penalties owed in addition to tax).
>
>Good point.. accepable logic.
>
>
>>
>> Second, the required standard of proof is different in a civil case as
>> opposed to a criminal case. In order for Long to be convicted in his
>> criminal case, he would have to be found guilty (of =willful= failure
>> to file) beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., no reasonable alternative
>> explanation). In order for Long to be found liable in a civil case,
>> his liability would only need to be proved by a preponderance of the
>> evidence (i.e., more likely that he did owe tax than that he didn't).
>
>Ah.. Good one.. sounds like being tried twice for the same thing, but
>that is a matter of personal opinion, which as we all know, has no
>basisin law what so ever.
And another lie by Yogurt. The criminal case was for criminal conduct, and
the civil case was for a tax debt, and the two cases had different issues
and different standards of proof and were not the same case -- not to
mention that it has been consistently held that there is no "double
jeopardy" for criminal cases tried on top of civil cases (because the issues
aren't the same).
-
[[[ snip ]]]
-
>Well, I for one, would like to see some cases where long was then held
>civily liable, and ordered to pay.. No one mentions those cases..
>If nothing else, such cases would serve to put an end to the "tax
>protester" movement..
So you're saying that if proof is made that Long was ordered to pay his
taxes that you would pay yours and the entire *protester* movement would
end? Is this a promise?
-
>
>Also, it is a fact, that many people who are labled "tax proteter" by the
>IRS, do not meet ANY of the 10 qualifications necessassary for the
>distinction, per the IRS's own manual determining who is a tax protester
>and who is not.
>
>And that is why we have the national Tax protest movement going on full
>force now.
-
militia types who should be spending their time trying to get on welfare
because they are so poor (as a natural product of being dumb).
-
-- Wes Parker
Wesley Serra
>Wes Parker wrote:
>>
>> It's quite likely that he didn't have a dime to pay, since after all
>> essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
>> understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too, Yogurt).
>
>Wess, You are a federal ass kisser who never read the transcripts of the
>trial. Your reply proves it. and the name is Yoda, not yogurt. Your
>childish antics further gives creadance to the opinion that you are
>talking out your ass..
I read the transcript - at least enough of it to see exactly what
Becraft's defense of Long was and was not. It was decidedly *not* that he
had no obligation to file. I posted the following yesterday - you either
ignored it, or it never made it to your server.
=============================================
good faith misunderstanding of the law." If the defendant
had a subjective good faith belief, no matter how
unreasonable, that the law did not require him to file tax
returns, he didn't act willfully. The Court will instruct
you in that respect.
**Now, the inquiry that you are facing is did
Lloyd Long have a good faith misunderstanding of the law.**
... . .
Willfulness. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
listen to what the Court has to say. If you've got a good
faith belief that the law doesn't apply to you, it doesn't
matter whether it's reasonable or unreasonable, right or
wrong, it'll be your duty to acquit him.
... . .
what the evidence has shown is that Lloyd Long had a good
faith belief he wasn't required to file a return. And since
he had a good faith belief, right or wrong, if he --
THE COURT: Your time is up.
----------------------------------------------------------
End transcript excerpt.
The only possible jury take on Becraft's "good faith misunderstanding"
argument is, "Sure, folks, we all have to pay our taxes, but ol' Lloyd
really didn't get this".
I didn't come close to reading the entire transcript, but came away from
what I read thinking more of Becraft than I did before I began reading.
He put on a good defense. But the defense was decidedly *not* that
Long really did not have to pay taxes or file returns. *That* defense
would have quickly lost. And anyone who, after reading even this
transcript, believes that Long's acquittal was anything other than a
lightning strike, is likely to share a cell with a 300-pound guy named
"Bubba".
>please read the emails more carefully before you start foaming at the mouth...
>and spraying about.
Physician, heal thyself.
----------------------------------------------
Do you want to try with me that I didn't read the transcript?
>Try reading the transcripts. The IRS's own admitance that Long was not
>required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
>guilty.
I read it. Perhaps you could quote the part where the IRS admitted that
Long was not required to file.
[snip]
>I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
>nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
>
>So far, since I sent the last of my letters to the Secretary of Treasury,
>4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
>not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
And that's why you post anonymously, right? Because you have nothing to
fear?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>Wes Parker wrote:
>>
>> It's quite likely that he didn't have a dime to pay, since after all
>> essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
>> understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too, Yogurt).
>
>Wess, You are a federal ass kisser who never read the transcripts of the
>trial. Your reply proves it. and the name is Yoda, not yogurt.
Actually, the name is Greg McNeil, of Michigan. And how's the trading
card business doing?
>Try reading the transcripts. The IRS's own admitance that Long was not
>required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
>guilty.
Hardly. Especially since the IRS did no such thing.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>Rich Wales wrote:
>>
>> "Yoda" wrote:
>>
>> What a bloomin idiot. If the man was found NOT GUILTY of
>> willful failure to file, then it stands to reason that no
>> evidence of a liability was shown. WIHOUT such a liablity
>> being shown, how can he be found anything BUT not guilty?
>>
>> It really isn't as cut and dried as you seem to feel it is. Long was
>> indeed found "not guilty" of willful failure to file, but there are
>> still several reasonable explanations of how this could have happened.
>
>Never said it was cut and Dried.. I did say that the IRS did not prove
>that he had a liablity.
>
>I have the transcript here.. Remember 2 things:
>1. The IRS's IMF file on Long had the code MFR-01 on it.
>2. The IRS witness testified that it ment "Filing not required".
No she didn't. Becraft tried desparately to confuse her but on
redirect Ms. Jeu said (speaking of MFR01):
"It does not mean that he is not liable for a tax return. Your income
would determine whether you're liable for a return."
Anyone who does not file a return has their MFR code changed to 01.
Wesley Serra
>
>Never said it was cut and Dried.. I did say that the IRS did not prove
>that he had a liablity.
>
>I have the transcript here.. Remember 2 things:
>1. The IRS's IMF file on Long had the code MFR-01 on it.
>2. The IRS witness testified that it ment "Filing not required".
Wrong. Let's quote the transcript, instead of a paraphrase from someone
with an agenda.
Begin transcript excerpt:
---------------------------------------------
Q Now, Mr. Becraft asked you some questions about
a code. And I think he said that, according to his book,
that code may mean that there was not a requirement to file
taxes. You don't mean to tell the jury that Mr. Long is not
required to file taxes, do you?
MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, object to leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Repeat the question.
THE COURT: Repeat the question.
Q Your responses to Mr. Becraft's questions did
not mean to leave the jury with the impression that Mr. Long
was not required to file his taxes, was it?
A No, sir. The mail file requirement is changed
by certain transaction codes or the return that you file.
One year you may file a Form 1040A, but the next year you're
required to file a Form 1040, then our mail file requirement
would change.
In the tax year 1989, there are transactions
codes. These codes that we refer to as, like the 150 for
the return, is in this account. There is a transaction coda
there that changed the mail file requirement to 01, which
just, it's for -- I really don't know why. That's from
programming. But it was programmed to change the mail file
requirement. It does not mean that he is not liable for a
tax return. Your income would determine whether you're
liable for a return.
------------------------------------------------
End transcript excerpt.
Does that really sound to you as though the IRS' position was that Long
was not required to file?
>Therefore, the jury had at that time, no course of action but to
>find him not guilty for willfailre to file when the IRS's OWN paper
>work said he was not required to file.
You seem to be the one who did not read the transcript. As I wrote at
some length in another post in this thread, complete with transcript
excerpts (not paraphrases), Becraft managed to raise enough smoke with
this "codes" confusion that he could (and did) argue to the jury that if
the IRS was confused, how could it conclude that his honest but not too
bright good ol' boy client acted wilfully? He tried a good case,
especially to a good ol' boy jury. But he (wisely) *never* argued that
Long did not legally have to file, and in fact characterized Long's state
of mind as (in his words) "a good faith misunderstanding" of the law.
What law? The law that required Long to pay taxes. No other
interpretation is rational.
Yoda
> >>
> >> It's quite likely that he didn't have a dime to pay, since after all
> >> essentially both the judge and the jury decided that he was too dumb to
> >> understand the law (a defense which might well work for you, too,
> Yogurt).
> >
> >Wess, You are a federal ass kisser who never read the transcripts of the
> >childish antics further gives creadance to the opinion that you are
> >talking out your ass..
> >
> >required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
> >guilty.
> >
> >this newsgroup still know now to carry on a conversation.
> >Rich Wale's Reply on this same subject is an example of how a GOOD
> >discussion where information, not ignorance, is being exchanged.
> >As Rich pointed out the differances between the two, whithout relying on
> >childish antics as you have done.
> -
> I don't have to read the transcripts
BINGO! proof from your own mouth that you have no idea what you are
spouting about.
Why waste the bandwith here then? You need some attention or something?
> The cite for his civil tax case is in Deja News -- look it up yourself.
Whats the matter boy? Can't stand the heat?
Cite the case..
> >I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
> >nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
>
> -
> Great! Post your real name and address. Since you are such a defender of the
> constitution you will of course welcome the opportunity to prove yourself
> right and the rest of the US wrong.
The IRS knows where I am, they are the only ones that need to know.
> -
> >So far, since I sent the last of my letters to the Secretary of Treasury,
> >4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
> >not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
> >
> >Be advised, I did a lot before I came to that point though, you can't
> >just "quit" the system.
> >
> >Why haven't they came after me yet? Because they know that if they do, I
> >will will in court, and then I will prosecute any IRS employee under IRC
> >7214.
> -
> Yeah -- See how successful your fellow *protestor* buddies have been, at
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/ (don't drop the soap!).
> -
> -- Wes Parker
I have.. and I have seen their mistakes.. The smart buisness man does not
learn by his mistakes - he learns by the mistakes of others.
If you are so smart answer these questions:
What law can force me to surrender my constitutional rights not to
testify aginst my self, when filing a 1040 for, (requirement to sign
under penalty of perjury)?
What is INCOME.. Describe it. Use law cites please.
Why is the 1040 form, a suplemental form for IRS form 2555, Foriegn
earned income?
What section of the IRcode makes a US citizen, who mearly works for a
living, within the USA, who is not a corporate officer, employee of the
government, or has money comming in from outside the USA?
How can a citizen file a 1040 form, if that citzen has no SSN, or TIN?
What law can constitutionaly order a citizen to apply for a SSN or a TIN?
Face it Wes.. The IRS and its law is done.. Too many people are becomeing
aware of the 10 thousand page fraud it represents.
Yoda
> >it was not implied that the court ruled Long was not liable for the taxes.
> >i merely indicated that the IRS was unable to provide certain facts.
>
> The IRS was not "unable" to provide anything. Long was acquitted because
> his own lawyer convinced the jury that he was an honest but not too bright
> bubba who really didn't understand what the jury knew - that he had to pay
> taxes.
You are injecting an assumption there.. That the jury knew he had to pay
the tax..
>
>
> And, in summation, Becraft (to his credit, actually) never argued that
> Long *in fact* did not have to file or pay taxes. He went to great pains
> to repeat that, "right or wrong", poor unsophisticated Long did not act
> willfully because he "believed" that he did not have to do those things.
> In fact, Becraft framed the issue for the jury as whether Long in good (if
> stupid) faith *misunderstood* the law:
Yes, that is true..
> The only possible jury take on Becraft's "good faith misunderstanding"
> argument is, "Sure, folks, we all have to pay our taxes, but ol' Lloyd
> really didn't get this".
Did he? Sounds like the court is trying to take a case it knows it will
fail, and blame the victim, (long) and thus, aquit him on that basis,
instead of admitting it (the IRS) was wrong in the first place.
>
> I didn't come close to reading the entire transcript,
Try it.. I have.. Entire thing..
> Do you want to try with me that I didn't read the transcript?
>
> >Try reading the transcripts. The IRS's own admitance that Long was not
> >required to file, was the keystone that caused the Jury to find him not
> >guilty.
>
> I read it. Perhaps you could quote the part where the IRS admitted that
> Long was not required to file.
it was the part where they were talking about his IMF file.. and the
meaning of the MFR=01 status.
>
> [snip]
>
> >I stopped paying and filing 5 years ago. I own my own home, and drive a
> >nice 4x4 truck.. and I work 40-60 hours per week as a Machinist..
> >
> >So far, since I sent the last of my letters to the Secretary of Treasury,
> >4 years ago, I have not heard one word. Not a threat, not a form letter,
> >not a "notice of intent to levy" , nothing from them..
>
> And that's why you post anonymously, right? Because you have nothing to
> fear?
I post anonymously for 1 reason only: Spam..
I currently am subscribed to 5 Email newsgroops, which generate over 80
mnessages per day. I have found, that when I post with my real Email
addy, I end up getting an extra 4-20 spam messages per day for weeks.
And I have had to "remove" the email addy from various spammer sites,
again and again. One in particular "removed me" from their list, once a
day for a week..
Wes Parker
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/ for a list of *successful*
protests by non-payment.
-
And I note in typical *protester* fashion that instead of addressing the
several US Circuit Court of Appeals cases I posted yesterday that you simply
come back with the same old questions, just like a parrot that can repeat
some eloquent phrase, but can't understand what he hears in reply.
-
-- Wes Parker
Wesley Serra
[I wrote:]
>> And, in summation, Becraft (to his credit, actually) never argued that
>> Long *in fact* did not have to file or pay taxes. He went to great pains
>> to repeat that, "right or wrong", poor unsophisticated Long did not act
>> willfully because he "believed" that he did not have to do those things.
>> In fact, Becraft framed the issue for the jury as whether Long in good (if
>> stupid) faith *misunderstood* the law:
>
>Yes, that is true..
Now, let's take this in small steps. You agree that Becraft's defense for
Long was that he was a relatively unsophisticated guy who in good faith
misunderstood the law. He believed in good faith, according to the
defense, that he did not have to pay taxes. If that belief is a
misunderstanding, as you agree Becraft represented it to the jury to be,
then in reality he *did* owe taxes. He was only not guilty, according to
the defense, because he in good faith did not understand this.
How in God's green earth do you turn this verdict, then, into a victory
for tax protester theories? How can *anyone* interpret the Long verdict
as a jury agreeing that Long had no legal obligation to pay, when in fact
his lawyer all but conceded to them that he did?
Wait a second. I see my error. I'm using *logic*.
Yoda
>
> In article <35A934...@net-link.net>, Yoda <nos...@net-link.net> wrote:
>
> [I wrote:]
>
> >> Long *in fact* did not have to file or pay taxes. He went to great pains
> >> to repeat that, "right or wrong", poor unsophisticated Long did not act
> >> willfully because he "believed" that he did not have to do those things.
> >> In fact, Becraft framed the issue for the jury as whether Long in good (if
> >> stupid) faith *misunderstood* the law:
> >
>
> Now, let's take this in small steps. You agree that Becraft's defense for
> Long was that he was a relatively unsophisticated guy who in good faith
> misunderstood the law.
Maybe.. I agree that Beacraft presented it that way..
> He believed in good faith, according to the
> defense, that he did not have to pay taxes.
No.. He believed in good faith that he did not have to pay INCOME taxes.
Please be specific Wesly. Even my state constitution allows the state to
tax the citizens..
Remember, SOME of the taxes we pay do go towards ligitamate and
constitutional government expendatures..
> If that belief is a
> misunderstanding, as you agree Becraft represented it to the jury to be,
> then in reality he *did* owe taxes.
No.. I do not agree with that..
> He was only not guilty, according to
> the defense, because he in good faith did not understand this.
No. I disagree..
>
> How in God's green earth do you turn this verdict, then, into a victory
> for tax protester theories? How can *anyone* interpret the Long verdict
> as a jury agreeing that Long had no legal obligation to pay, when in fact
> his lawyer all but conceded to them that he did?
Humm.. I never said it was a victory for tax protester theories.. YOU
said that..
Fact is, is that if you apply the 10 items of what a tax protester is,
according to the IRS's own manual, Long was not a tax protester..
> Wait a second. I see my error. I'm using *logic*.
Naw.. I think we are just seeing this differently..
--
Stop the Abuse by a non-government agency acting on what appears to be on
the
behalf of the US Federal government: The Internal Revenue Service.
Repeal the 16th amendment, Abolish the IRS.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<snip>
>
>Face it Wes.. The IRS and its law is done.. Too many people are becomeing
>aware of the 10 thousand page fraud it represents.
And one day, sooner or later, you're going to find out exactly what
kind of fraud you are.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<snip>
>>
>> I didn't come close to reading the entire transcript,
>
>Try it.. I have.. Entire thing..
Too bad you can't comprehend English then, because you missed this
part (and my apologies to Wesley Serra, but this stuff has to repeated
again and again. Even then they don't get it.):
A Repeat the question.
<snip>
>> And that's why you post anonymously, right? Because you have nothing to
>> fear?
>
>
>I post anonymously for 1 reason only: Spam..
>I currently am subscribed to 5 Email newsgroops, which generate over 80
>mnessages per day. I have found, that when I post with my real Email
>addy, I end up getting an extra 4-20 spam messages per day for weeks.
>And I have had to "remove" the email addy from various spammer sites,
>again and again. One in particular "removed me" from their list, once a
>day for a week..
>
But he doesn't always posts anonymously. He uses his real name and
email address when he wants to sell you something, like trading cards.
BTW, Brighteyes, when you send a spammer back email to "remove" you
from their list, all you do is confirm to them that they have a valid
email address that they can sell to other spammers. Bright, real
bright......
I could be...Elvis?
>>>an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or
>>>resident of the United States. . . ."
>>
>>The tax protestor argument is that that's not liability.
>
>The tax protesters, as usual, are wrong. If a tax is imposed,
>liability for that tax is imposed as well.
Not just because you say so, it's not. The Supreme Court determined
that liability must be explicitly stated. Otherwise it's a case of
"who pays it?" I'll ask again, are you liable for the distilled
liquor tax? No, because the manufacturere is explicitly liable for
the tax, as specified by the code. If no liability is specified, then
it's "void for vagueness".
>
>>Section 1 states something similar to what you wrote above:
>>
>>§ 1. Tax imposed
>>There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
>
>>This states what is to be taxed: the taxable income. But who,
>>legally, is required to pay it?
>
>"Every" individual.
again, just because you assert it doesn't mean it's true.
>
>>It's possible that somewhere in there is a misplaced statement
>>implying liability.
>
>Section 1 not only implies liability, but clearly imposes it.
It's not clear to me. I might decide that you're liable for it, and
you'd be unable to refute me based on section 1 because it doesn't say
who's liable.
>
>> But it's not likely. If you can find it you can make a lot of money,
>>because lots of people offer a reward to anyone who can prove that the
>>tax code imposes liability.
>
>Untrue. Generally, tax protesters are liars who won't pay up. See,
>e.g., Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985).
First off, Schiff won that case. Both originally and in appeal. It
was obvious, and the court agreed, that that particular offer was
valid for the duration of the TV show he was on. He, and plenty of
other people, have standing rewards that you can take advantage of
right now.
Now, you could have called in and won *that specific* award. He made
the claim that no-one is liable which technically isn't true. The
code does assign liability in some specific cases, like hiring
non-residents, and other issues involving foreign workers or
companies. But, for the vast majority of citizens, who live and work
in the US, the code doesn't impose liability. Before you reply and
say "of course it does", read the other excise sections, see how they
impose liability, and then try to find a similar section in subchapter
A.
>
>> But wait, (as they say), that's not
>>all! What's the definition of this "taxable income" referred to in
>>section 1? Here it is in section 63:
>>
>>So taxable income depends on "gross income". What's that?
>>
>>§ 61. Gross income defined
>>
>> (a) General definition
>>
>> Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
>>all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
>>to) the following items:
>> (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
>>fringe benefits, and similar items;
>>
>> But what is income? That's not defined, or circularly defined, by
>> the code.
>
>But "compensation for services" surely meets the test.
"Gross income means all income from compensation for services" is how
the sentance would read if you strung it together. Income must be
defined in order to determine what "gross income" is. You might say
that everyone knows what income is, but in contracts every word must
be defined. If there's a distinction between "will" and "shall", and
in contract law there is, then a word like "income" certainly has to
be defined.
>
>>Here's a court decision you referred to:
>>
>>>On the contrary, the answer is clear: "the gain derived from capital, labor,
>>>or from both combined," or "accessions to wealth."
>>>See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Corp., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31 (1955).
>>
>>Gain from capital is easy. What about gain from labor? My salary
>>isn't free, I have to eat, have to have a place to live, have to have
>>some means of getting to work, etc.
>
>You ignored "accessions to wealth." You also ignored the fact that you'd
>have to eat and need some place to stay even if you didn't work. Those
>are costs of living, not costs of working.
An employee has a different standard of living than a homeless person.
That difference is the cost of working, and it usually includes
shelter, transportation, clothes, education, etc. etc. etc.
>
>>Finally, if you look through Chapter 1, you won't find a section that
>>talks about penalties. That's the third and final portion that is
>>either missing or vague.
>
>The penalties are quite clearly set out in Title 26. See, e.g. s. 7201.
I'll have to concede that point. I remember the tax protestor
argument included a claim that there are no penalties, but I can't
remember the specifics. But, there is a consolation prize. All the
clauses in sec 7201 have wording similar to the following:
"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax,
or required by this title or by regulations made under authority
thereof to make a return, keep any records,..."
Therefor the penalties depend on being made liable. That's the reason
the protestors harp on liability so much, because it is so important.
How would you like to go to jail because your employer made a mistake
in your withholding? How would your employer like to go to jail
because you lied about how much should be withheld. Liability must be
specifically implied, by common sense and the Supreme Court.
>
>>Here's that WWW page again:
>>>More info: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>>
>>It's called the tax protestor hall of fame, and details some cases
>>where people lost to the IRS. If you visit it, be sure to visit the
>>mailbox also, where people have alternately heaped praise and scorn on
>>him. In there, you can find cites of cases of people who have won
>>court victories agains the IRS. As I said above, court victories are
>>few, because the IRS doesn't want winning arguments in a court of
>>record.
>
>False. The IRS loses in court all the time.
Really? I thought they won 24,999 out of 25,000 (remember, Lloyd Long
was the lone victor in your estimated 25,000 cases). If there are so
many you might submit them to the "tax protestor hall of fame" to
present a more balanced view of the situation. I'll make the
unsubstantiated claim that very few "Schiff defense" cases end up with
an IRS loss because that's obviously sets a very bad legal precedent
(for the IRS, that is, not for citizens).
--steve
--
Steve Ravet st...@imes.com.spamarama
International Meta Systems http://www.imes.com
(512) 795-8825
The default return address has been spamitized for my
protection. Remove ".spamarama" if replying via email
Ronald Cole
> Notice the word willful. He wasn't not guilty of "failure to file", but
> "WILLFUL failure to file". Big difference. He still owed the taxes. He
> just convinced the jury he was a good ole boy who was too stupid to know the
> difference.
How do you know what he convinced the jury of? Did you talk to any of
the jury members? Do you have a cite?
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My PGP fingerprint: 15 6E C7 91 5F AF 17 C4 24 93 CB 6B EB 38 B5 E5
Ronald Cole
> (I took this excerpted material from a copy of
> the Long trial transcript, which someone posted to alt.society.sovereign
> on 30 April 1996. Unfortunately, you won't find it on Deja News because
> it was posted as a uuencoded ZIP file, and Deja News deletes uuencoded
> text from its archives -- presumably to save disk space.)
That zip file was OCR'd and had numerous transcription errors. I
scanned the entire transcripts and all the exhibits with WinFax in
1995. You can easily get WinFaxLite and view the pages. Or, perhaps
OCR technology is a lot better now than it was in 1995-6 and someone
wants to re-OCR them. Anyway, you can download them from:
<ftp://ftp.ecst.csuchico.edu/users/zippy/lloyd-long>
Yoda
>
> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:12:48 -0400, Yoda <nos...@net-link.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >
> >> fear?
> >
> >
> >I currently am subscribed to 5 Email newsgroops, which generate over 80
> >mnessages per day. I have found, that when I post with my real Email
> >addy, I end up getting an extra 4-20 spam messages per day for weeks.
> >And I have had to "remove" the email addy from various spammer sites,
> >again and again. One in particular "removed me" from their list, once a
> >day for a week..
> >
>
> But he doesn't always posts anonymously. He uses his real name and
> email address when he wants to sell you something, like trading cards.
Please do not confuse me with my kid brother Greg, who is a trekkie.
Like you he thinks I am nutty and will end up in jail.. So be it..
>
> BTW, Brighteyes, when you send a spammer back email to "remove" you
> from their list, all you do is confirm to them that they have a valid
> email address that they can sell to other spammers. Bright, real
> bright......
Perhaps, but this email addy expires in a few weeks and I will be getting
a new one..
Yoda
> >aware of the 10 thousand page fraud it represents.
>
> And one day, sooner or later, you're going to find out exactly what
> kind of fraud you are.
Fraud? or informed?
I got a good one for ya.. I want your opinion on something..
Read the newsgroup and find the message entitled Petition De droit..
I sincerly want your opinion..
Also, Be advised.. My brother who is like most computer users, is the
Card Trader..
I set up his netscape and his System. I used the fake ID as Yoda, there
as well.. My sister and Mom and Dad also use that same Id, but as you
probbaly can guess, Our Email addy's are different..
My Name is Al. Not Greg.
Wes Parker
-
-- Wes Parker
-
Wes Parker
-
A little advice: Flee the Country.
-
How good are your defenses likely to be? Probably about as effective as
those were in http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
-
If that comforts you any.
-
-- Wes Parker
Brett Weiss
up and bit you on the nose.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
David Goldman wrote in message <35aac5cd...@news.erols.com>...
>>Furthermore, the duty to file returns and pay income taxes is
>>clear. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the
>>taxable income of every individual
>
>What you mean to say is that there is some unknown law that allows the
>government to confiscate any portion it likes of your earnings without
>due process. This is not America, you are talking about, but the USSR.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:03:39 -0400, Yoda <nos...@net-link.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Face it Wes.. The IRS and its law is done.. Too many people are becomeing
>> >aware of the 10 thousand page fraud it represents.
>>
>> And one day, sooner or later, you're going to find out exactly what
>> kind of fraud you are.
>
>Fraud? or informed?
> I got a good one for ya.. I want your opinion on something..
>Read the newsgroup and find the message entitled Petition De droit..
>I sincerly want your opinion..
(a) It doesn't appear to be in any of the FOUR newsgroups of this
message. Care to suggest a search pattern that would turn it up?
(b) Even given (a), it is a meaningless collection of
militia/patriot/NWO/etc. drivel, strung together.
(c) Michigan stole it from Colorado.
>Also, Be advised.. My brother who is like most computer users, is the
>Card Trader..
>I set up his netscape and his System. I used the fake ID as Yoda, there
>as well..
Over the past several months, maybe as long as a year, you've used any
number of "fake" IDs, like "Freedom Loving American", "John Doe",
"Private Citizen", etc. IIRC. It's still you.
> My sister and Mom and Dad also use that same Id, but as you
>probbaly can guess, Our Email addy's are different..
>My Name is Al. Not Greg.
>
Sure it is. So your name is Al McNeil from Michigan. Doesn't matter,
you've just identified yourself to the IRS lurkers who probably
monitor this newsgroup. So they have two names to check instead of
one. Big deal. But then you might want to talk to Mike "lquest"
Transue. He suddenly had a change of heart and decided he wasn't
himself either. Didn't work for him, I really don't think it will
work for you. And of course, your "brother" posted the following:
"Subject: Protesters SHUT UP, Club Fed is right!
From: Greg McNeil <wild...@net-link.net>
Date: 1998/03/03
Message-ID: <34FCA3...@net-link.net>
Newsgroups:
misc.taxes,alt.society.sovereign,misc.legal,alt.society.revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution
IGNORE The TRUTH
Never mind the truth, as it gets in the way of Progress..
Never mind the fact that of 50 tiles of the United States code,
only 24 have been enacted into positive law (what ever that
designation
really means)..
Never mind the fact that Title 26, the Internal revenue code,
has
NOT been enacted into positive law, and is only PRIMA FACIE law. (
Prima-facie, blacks law, 6th ed, "at first sight; on the first
appearance
of it; so far as cab be judged from the first disclosure; PRESUMABLY a
fact, presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the
contrary"
Never mind that Title 26 has NOT been enancted into law,
according
to the Internal Revenue code itself. (see entire section of IRC 7851)
Ignore the fact that Subtitle C taxes, are a seperate tax from
Subtitle A taxes, as are subtitle D taxes, and Subtitle E taxes.
Ignore the fact that the 1040 form, is a supplemental worksheet
to
Form 2555, which is the Foriegn earned income form - and that there is
no
proper form for Income earned from Sources within the US.
Never Mind the fact that When you sign the 1040 form, you are waving
your Constitutional garenteed rights aginst self incrimination.
Ignore the fact that the 16th amendment did not create any new
powers
of taxation, change any existing taxing powers, or repeal any taxing
limitations which existed in the Constitution at the time of the
16th's
ratification and acceptance as the 16th amendment.
Pay no attention to the fact that I.R.S. Publication No. 525
(Revised Nov. 1981) acknowledges the above, and it reads:"Wages and
salaries are the main source of incomefor most people." It does not
say
that wages ARE income; it says a SOURCE of income.
The I.R.S. specifies the subjects of wages and salaries to be a
"source". Please note the wording of the 16th Amendment taxes incomes
"FROM "WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED - not ON the source.
The result intended from the 16th Amendment was to keep the
incometax subject to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, by
keeping
it an INDIRECT (excise) TAX FROM THE SOURCE, thereby preventing a
direct
tax ON the source, by separating the source from the income. The 16th
Amendment PROHIBITS the "SOURCE" of profit or gain (such as wages) to
be
taxed.
Say "Bah humbug" to the FACT, that Wages are not listed as an
item of Gross income, under IRC 61, which describes Gross Income.
Say "double bah humbug" to the fact that the IRC described 5
different types of income, yet does not define Income itself, anywhere
within the 9,000 plus pages of its text.
Ignore the historical rantings of the US Supreme Court In
that
they have ruled in both the Brushaber and Stanton cases (supra) that
federal income taxes are indirect taxes, why is the IRS collecting
income
tax directly from U.S. citizens and residents? Could it be the IRS is
misapplying the federal income tax law? Could the IRS be perpetrating
a
tax scam in order to get around the limited application of the
federal
income tax law?
Just brush under the rug, or throw into your computer's trash
bin, the fact that Section 1 of Title 26, U.S. Code imposes a tax on
thetaxable income of individuals. If there is taxable income, then
isn't
it reasonable to conclude there is nontaxable income?
A relevant question is, "Does Section 1 make anyone liable for
federal income tax?" No, it does not. Read it for yourself. Section
1
of Title 26 merely imposes a tax on the taxable income of
individuals.
Section 1 does not contain a liability statute. Section 1 does not
make
anyone liable for federal income tax.
Just stick your head in the sand, when someone tells you that you
HAVE
to get a social security number, because the fact is that no one can
be
required by any law, to apply for one.
Close your eyes, when you see that Section 1461 of Title 26 U. S.
Code
is the only section which makes anyone liable for federal income tax.
After all, you should now know how badly you have been screwed over,
and
how much it has cost you over the years..
Turn your head, when someone tells you that You don't have to sign a
w-4 form, in order to get paid from your job, as there is no law that
requires you to do so.
Put on your Rose colored glasses, when people show you the law
itself,
and court cases such as US Verses Long, where Loydd long was found not
guilty of failure to file, enven though he had over 20 thousand
dollars
worth of "income" during the 3 years they prosecuted him for.
Shut your eyes, when someone shows you the letter from the Senator
from Hawaii's office, that says their people could not find any
liablity
statute for citizens of the US to file or pay income taxes.
Forget how to read, when you are shown statements by
congresspeople,
from the congressional record, testifing that the income tax is being
applied wrong, and that there is no law requiring most of us to file.
Call the conspiratists' when CNN news, shows the IRS hearings, and
people testify about the IRS's unlawfull seizures of property without
due
process..
Ignore the fact that the IRS is not a law enforcement agency, and
has
no enforcement authority what so ever.
And don't ask yourself the question, "by what authority, can
congress
pass a law, that says my property belongs to them?"
Just shut your ears, turn the volume on your Headset to full, when
you hear that the income tax is an excise tax, subject to uniformity,
and
as such the apportionment clause does not apply.
Ignore the fact that an excise tax is a tax applied to the sale
and/or manufacture of specific items, and on privileged (licenced)
occupations, and that it is NOT on the excercise of common rights.
Nevermind that in 1893, the US Supreme court declared an income tax
law, that congress passed, unconstitutional as the tax was a direct,
unapportioned tax.
Never mind the knownfact that since 1933, we have not lived under
Constitutional law, and and have in fact, lived under Emergancy War
Powers, making our "president" nothing more than a 4 year rotating
monarchy, which our founding fathers would have rebelled aginst, as
soon
as they saw it happening.
Never mind the fact that "shall not be infringed" means that
anything,
however slight, small, inconvienient, or impedment, is an infringment,
and is unlawfull according to our Constitution, with regards to the
people's ownership and bearing of arms. (guns).
Close your eyes, to the fact that property forfeture laws, without
due
process, and on the spot theft of privatly owned property is on the
increase in all 50 states, not only by the Federal government, but by
the
State agencies themselves.
Lets just all hold hands, sing kum-buy-yaah, while the Federal
Congress
votes away our soveriegnty to the United Nations.
Join hands, and praise the all mighty moron, when The President is
now
trying to compell (Force thru fraud and coercian) the states to accept
a
.08 blood alcahol level as being "drunk" while driving.. - You get
that
from just ONE Beer! Tea anyone?
Let us all Rejoice, that each year, Federal And State Governments,
pass
over 300 new laws each, making it impossible for the avarage citizen
to
keep up with the new laws, and in the end, making criminals out of
most
of us.
Let us Praise the Demi-Gods in Washington DC, who each year, Empower
more and more Federal Agencies to carry firearms, - in direct conflict
with our Constitution's forbiddance of standing armies.
Ignore the frightening fact that the US Forsest service, AKA Smokey
the
Bear people, are now armed and dangerous.. Maybe they want to shoot
the
guy who is using a poloroid with Fuji film, instead of Kodak
film..after
all, the Fuji film may be dangerous to that hungry bear about to bite
off
your arm for offering him a snack.
Play stupid when you hear the well publized fact that most people
pay
over 30% of their income in taxes in one form or another, and that our
forefathers had only a .02% tax, when they rebelled.
Burn the History books, when you read about the Founding fathers,
and
their writtings, warning us of The powers of the Constitution and to
be
watchfull of congress' abuse of it.
No. Just do as you are told, you SLAVE.. and give the efforts of
your
labor to your government for them to waste.. Some day you will be
released from this burden.. either at your death, or when you get off
your rear end and decide to reclaim our Constitutional heratage - the
heratage that made us the envy of the world, and a world leader by
example.
Ignore the reality that nations which have ruled by might, died by
something mightier.
Yes, Ignore the truth people.. Because it gets in the way of progress
-
the progressive slavery of our people, of our nation and next, our
world."
>
And then of course, you posted this:
"Subject: FS/FT Nonsports cards.
From: Yoda <Light...@dagobah3.net>
Date: 1998/04/12
Message-ID: <35312B...@dagobah3.net>
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.cards.non-sports
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to rec.collecting.cards.non-sports]
Non Sports cards for trade: Updated 04-10-98
Basic sets: (no chase cards) Comes in Plastic box.
Xfiles season 2
Babylon 5, Series 2
Babylon 5, Speical Edition
StarTrek Voyager Series 1,
StarTrek Voyager Series 2.
STTNG Season 2
STTNG Season 3
STTNG Season 4
STTNG Season 5
STTNG Season 6
Deep Space 9 Profiles
Batman Master Series,1995
ST: First contact
Starship Troopers
Startrek Original Series 1
Lost In Space.
> Note: I also have individual cards for these sets too, incase you are missing one<
Individual Chase cards:
Babylon 5, Series 2,
Various Trivia Cards.
Comming of shadows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
Creators Collection 1, 2, 3, 5, 10.
1 set of posters, and singles of others.
Babylon 5 Speical Edition,
Various triva cards,
Costume cards 1 set of 18 and
C1, C4, C8, C9, C13, C15,
Wolds W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6
Faces of Delenn D1, D2, D4
Batman Master searies, 1995
3 sets, (1 and 2) of Batman and Joker,
2 single Batmans'
Master Villians cards, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, Of 10
3 Sets of 6, Batman Fantasy
Individual fantasy cards 1, 2, 4, 5.
Single, Artisits Proofs: Inquire with Card Number I have lots of
them.
STTNG Seasons:
S15, S17, S18, S27, S29
one set of Season5, S25-30 (3klingon, 3Federation)
ST Voyager, season 1 & 2
S-2 Chakotay, S6-Ensigne Harry Kim, S-9 Kes.
X1,X2,X3 Expand a set offer
Strange new worlds set, 197,198, 199
24th Technology 194, 195, 196,
(1) Expired Sky Motion mail in card for Season1, Series 2
(2) Expired Sky Motion mail in cards for Season 1.
(Expired cards are marked for $45.00 in November Issue
of Tuff Stuff's collectables Magazine) A must for the serious
collector.
SST: First Contact, Cards C1 (picard_ and E5 (evacuation corridor)
ST: Deep Space Nine Profiles:
Quarks bar (5), 9 card sets.
Individuals:(1)#2, (4)#3, #4, #5,(2)#6, #8
Gold press latinum #2 (worf), #3 (kira), #4 (dax), #8 (Quark)
Trials and Tribble-ations:
1 Set
And, individual #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9
Complete sets of Quarks bar, and Trials/Tribbleations also available
Star Wars galaxy, Chase cards L1,L4,L5,L6,L7,L8,L9
William Shatner's Tech world, cards T3 and T4 (chase cards)
Startrek 30 years:
Phase ?
Under Cover, l6, Worf
24th Century Technology E2 E6
Dopple ganger F1 F4
Phase 3
Mail in poster cards that makes B&W cut out poster,
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9.
1 set of above, all 9 cards)
2 sets of star trek card game cards.
Mural cards S1, S3, S4, S5,
2 of M1 Apollos Hand, 1 of M3, Badlands
and 1 set of all 3 cards , Apollo hand, Crystalline entity, and
the
bandlands.
2 Skymotion Mail in cards (expired of course).
Star Trek Original Series, 1998
Season 1
G5 Gold Plaque of The Enemy within
Starwars Finest, 3.
Clear plactic "characters" E3 E4.
metalic cards, 15, 16, 17, 18.
StarShip Troopers,
BugWars 8 (of 9)
Lost In space:
2 sets of Movie preview cards, M1-9
Note: I use the latest copy of the magazine "Tuff Stuff's Collect" as
my
pricing guide.
Willing to deal, make offer, counter offer, etc..
I need:
Babylon 5, Series 2,
Autographed card by JMS..
Star Trek Survey Cards from:
StarTrek Master Series 2,
StarTrek NExt Gen Season 1, 2, 3, 4
StarTrek 30 years, Series 1, and 2
StarTrek Voyager 2
Willing to BUY these cards.
Startrek Master Series, 1994: F04, F07, and F09
Startrek Next Gen Seasons:
Season 1, Sp2 HG1, HG2
Season 2, H3, H4 S10, S11
Season 3, H5
Season 4, S19, H68
Season 6, S31, H11
Startrek 30 years,
phase 1, Need E8,
Phase 2, Need F7,F9 L1, L3, L4, L7,
Phase 3, Need S6, S9
BatMan Master Series 1995,
Master Villians 2 and 7
Artisits Proofs #'s 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 29,
33, 37, 38, 46, 49, 54, 55, 56, 59, 65, 68, 69, 78, 79, 80,
81, 84, 85,
If interested in buying, selling or trading, please email me at
wild...@net-link.net I don't necessarly read this newsgroup every
day,
so email for a responce.
All offers considered. All cards I have are in Mint condition. I Have
a
few that
are in Near Mint condition and all will be shipped in hard plastic
covers
to protect them while being shipped.
Thanks.
Also, I have successfully completed deals with "warp9 cards", SDcards"
and 2 other
individual people here. Thought ya might want to know. "
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid "patriots" think the rest of
the world is. The only thing I can figure is that they think everyone
else is as stupid as they are.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:12:48 -0400, Yoda <nos...@net-link.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>
>> >> I didn't come close to reading the entire transcript,
>> >
>> >> And that's why you post anonymously, right? Because you have nothing to
>> >> fear?
>> >
>> >
>> >I post anonymously for 1 reason only: Spam..
>> >I currently am subscribed to 5 Email newsgroops, which generate over 80
>> >mnessages per day. I have found, that when I post with my real Email
>> >addy, I end up getting an extra 4-20 spam messages per day for weeks.
>> >And I have had to "remove" the email addy from various spammer sites,
>> >again and again. One in particular "removed me" from their list, once a
>> >day for a week..
>> >
>>
>> But he doesn't always posts anonymously. He uses his real name and
>> email address when he wants to sell you something, like trading cards.
>
>Please do not confuse me with my kid brother Greg, who is a trekkie.
>Like you he thinks I am nutty and will end up in jail.. So be it..
Why didn't you comment on the transcript, GREGG.
I guess this isn't you either:
Bill of no rights
By Greg McNeil
We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone
get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots,
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the
blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great
grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some
common-sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden,
delusional, and other liberal, commie pinko bedwetters. We hold these
truths to be self- evident, that a whole lot of people were confused
by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No
Rights.
etc.....
David Goldman
Paul Maffia
>Have you ever met loydd Long? I have.. he told me he hasn't paid a dime
>on those 2 "liablities" you fools out there keep saying he is still
>liable for..
The funny thing is that if everyone who has claimed to have met Mr. Long,
just counting those like you in this newsgroup, the line must be miles
long even if Mr. Long never ate, slept or never performed any other
necessary bodily function.
--
Paul M.
SPAMMERS who send unsolicited ads of any kind to me have assumed the
position of client. My minimum charge to any client is $2,500.00. The sum
will be billed and if unpaid will be put into collection at your expense.
I could be...Elvis?
>In article <35A79A...@northwest.com>, <lar...@northwest.com> wrote:
>>it was not implied that the court ruled Long was not liable for the taxes.
>>i merely indicated that the IRS was unable to provide certain facts.
>
>The IRS was not "unable" to provide anything. Long was acquitted because
>his own lawyer convinced the jury that he was an honest but not too bright
>bubba who really didn't understand what the jury knew - that he had to pay
>taxes.
The only fact we have about the jury is that they aquitted Long. Any
statement other than that is opinion, not fact. As someone else said,
they could have thought he was dumb, they could have thought he was
right, or they could have nullified the case because of their own
opinions.
Long took the stand in his own defense and faced a lengthy
cross-examination from the IRS counsel. Long made the point
repeatedly that he did not believe that he was liable. He wrote
letters to the IRS asking if he was liable, and either received no
response, or a vauge statement. No one ever clearly stated "yes you
are liable" or "no you're not liable" and here's the section of code
that says so.
>
>The transcript at the URL posted earlier in this thread is clearly not the
>official one. Even so, it makes this "Yup, yup, Ah rully thot Ah didn't
>hafta pay the rev'nooers" defense clear. For example, when the prosecutor
>opened on how Long had a master's degree (and thus wasn't all *that*
>stupid), defense counsel replied:
[transcript excerpts deleted]
To be fair, your excerpts were from opening and closing arguments, not
examination.
To convict Long, the IRS had to prove three things. He was required
to file, that he didn't file, and that it was "willful" on his part.
He obviously didn't file. In my opinion after reading the transcript
(the whole thing, although several months ago), the IRS didn't make a
convincing case that it was willful, and didn't make the case that he
was required to file at all, and that's why he was aquitted. Showing
that he was required to file, or that he was even liable for taxes,
should have been easy for the IRS.
Instead, their examination of Long was "all your neighbors pay taxes,
what makes you think you don't have to?" Here's an excerpt:
Q: is Mr. Collier, IRS counsel. A: is Lloyd Long
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q Mr. Long, did it concern you that these other
people were paying their taxes and you weren't paying your
taxes? Did that ever concern you?
A Are we saying -- you just called it a
contribution a minute ago.
Q Did that concern you, that they were --
A If it's a contribution, why should it concern
me if I choose not to contribute?.
Q That didn't concern you at all, that they
were paying their donation?
A No, sir.
Q Okay.
A That's their choice.
Q That's their choice.
A Certainly.
Q And it didn't concern you? You didn't care?
A Why should I care? That's their choice.
Q Now, some of these people, the same year that
you were making what, forty-seven something and forty-eight
thousand dollars, were making a lot less money than you, had
two jobs, trying to put kids through college, having a tough
time. They were making their donations. But you weren't
making your donation.
A I'd been there before, too, sir.
Q So, that didn't concern you?
A Sure, it concerned me.
Q But you were willing to let them carry their
share of the American government and also your share? The
fact that you weren't paying meant they had to pay more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't the IRS produce a code section that showed that Long was
explicitly liable, or required to file? The MFR number, and the book
it came out of, aren't legally binding. Neither are IRS publications.
Only the tax code matters.
As far as what Longs defense consisted of, this excerpt make is pretty
clear: Q: is IRS counsel, A: is Long
-----------------------------------------------------------
Q Now, another element in this offense is that
you were required to file income tax returns. You heard Ms.
Sherard from the Internal Revenue Service testify that you
were required to file income tax returns. And you concede
that's true, don't you?
A No, sir.
Q You don't concede that?
A No way.
Q So, your defense is not necessarily that you
were mistaken about the law at that time? Your defense is
that, as you sit here right now, you still don't have a
requirement to follow the law, you know, to file an income
tax return?
A That's correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And regarding the letters Long wrote to the IRS asking if he was
liable:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Q Well, your question number one, "Am I required
to file a federal income tax return?"
A Right.
Q Isn't that your question?
A That's the question.
Q Am I misleading you? Am I misstating anything?
A That's the question.
Q That's what you say, "Am I required to file a
federal income tax return?"
A That's right.
Q There no way anybody can answer that if you
don't tell them how much money you made, is there?
A Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. 6001, 6011 talks
about persons liable, sir. I'm trying to find out if I'm a
person liable.
Q Well, if you'd made $5,000, under these
circumstances, according to the evidence in this case, you
would not have been required to file an income tax return.
So, the answer to the question would've been no, if you'd
made $5,000. The correct answer would've been no.
A If I was a person liable, yes, sir.
Q And you didn't provide them with any
information about how much you made, did you?
A I didn't think I had to. I'm asking them to
tell me if I am a person liable for any kind of tax, federal
tax.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The largest single section of the transcript is IRS cross examination
of Long. Long makes the point repeatedly that he did not believe he
was required to file or pay taxes, and the IRS was unable to
demonstrate otherwise.
I could be...Elvis?
>I've reproduced, below, some excerpts from the judge's instructions to
>the Long jury, outlining the questions of law and fact pertaining to the
>charges against Long. (I took this excerpted material from a copy of
>the Long trial transcript, which someone posted to alt.society.sovereign
>on 30 April 1996. Unfortunately, you won't find it on Deja News because
>it was posted as a uuencoded ZIP file, and Deja News deletes uuencoded
>text from its archives -- presumably to save disk space.)
type "lloyd long" (with the quotes) into altavista -- it'll pull up
several online copies.
>
>Long was charged with "willful" failure to file tax returns, so the
>jury was obliged to acquit him if they were not all convinced that he
>realized he had to file. Note, however, the following in the judge's
>instructions to the jury:
This isn't really related to Long, but I'd like to quote a recent
editorial column from Vin Suprynowics:
---------------------------
Instead, in this fantasy, we might do better to start by reversing the
1895 Supreme Court decision in Sparf and Hansen vs. United States,
which acknowledged juries had the right and POWER to "judge the law as
well as the fact,"but ruled judges have no obligation to TELL jurors
that ... the pragmatic effect being that judges now frequently LIE
OUTRIGHT, telling juries "You will judge only the facts, deciding
whether the law has been broken, as I explain it to you. You are not
permitted to worry about whether the law is right or wrong, or whether
the likely punishment is fair, or anything like that. The law is up to
the Legislature, and the Supreme Court. ..."
Obviously, this is nonsense, or we would never have had the John Peter
Zenger verdict, let along the eventual abandonment of such evil laws
as those against witchcraft, harboring runaway slaves, and purchase of
alcohol, which no jury would enforce, no matter how thoroughly the
prosecution proved "she done it."
---------------------------
So if jurors know their rights, they are free to ignore all the judges
instructions. Unfortunately, as Vin notes, judges won't inform juries
of this right and most don't know that it exists.
>I don't see a shred of evidence to suggest that the judge in the Long
>trial accepted any sort of "tax protestor" or "sovereign citizen" argu-
>ment.
That is exactly the defense Long used. The judge may have defined the
question narrowly, but that doesn't mean the jury gave him any
credence.
Yoda
> >> >Face it Wes.. The IRS and its law is done.. Too many people are becomeing
> >> >aware of the 10 thousand page fraud it represents.
> >>
> >> And one day, sooner or later, you're going to find out exactly what
> >> kind of fraud you are.
> >
> >Fraud? or informed?
> > I got a good one for ya.. I want your opinion on something..
> >Read the newsgroup and find the message entitled Petition De droit..
> >I sincerly want your opinion..
>
> (a) It doesn't appear to be in any of the FOUR newsgroups of this
> message. Care to suggest a search pattern that would turn it up?
Humm.. You are impaitent, eh?
>
> >Also, Be advised.. My brother who is like most computer users, is the
> >Card Trader..
> >I set up his netscape and his System. I used the fake ID as Yoda, there
> >as well..
>
> Over the past several months, maybe as long as a year, you've used any
> number of "fake" IDs, like "Freedom Loving American", "John Doe",
> "Private Citizen", etc. IIRC. It's still you.
No argument there.
> > My sister and Mom and Dad also use that same Id, but as you
> >probbaly can guess, Our Email addy's are different..
> >My Name is Al. Not Greg.
> >
>
> Sure it is. So your name is Al McNeil from Michigan. Doesn't matter,
> you've just identified yourself to the IRS lurkers who probably
> monitor this newsgroup. So they have two names to check instead of
> one. Big deal. But then you might want to talk to Mike "lquest"
> Transue. He suddenly had a change of heart and decided he wasn't
> himself either. Didn't work for him, I really don't think it will
> work for you. And of course, your "brother" posted the following:
No, I posted that from his system, before I got my own computer, and my
own Copy of Netscape..
>
> "Subject: Protesters SHUT UP, Club Fed is right!
> From: Greg McNeil <wild...@net-link.net>
> Date: 1998/03/03
> Message-ID: <34FCA3...@net-link.net>
> Newsgroups:
>
> And then of course, you posted this:
No, Greg posted that, I did not..
>
> "Subject: FS/FT Nonsports cards.
> From: Yoda <Light...@dagobah3.net>
> Date: 1998/04/12
> Message-ID: <35312B...@dagobah3.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.collecting.cards.non-sports
> [More Headers]
> [Subscribe to rec.collecting.cards.non-sports]
>
> Non Sports cards for trade: Updated 04-10-98
I find it laughable that you are assuming so many things..
Things you know nothing about..
Fine.. Doesn't bother me..
But, I cannot help but want to set the facts Right..
I lived with my brother, Sister, and Brother in law for over 8 months,
during which time I finished college. I also Set up by brothers 486
machine with netscape 3.0 and got him on Netlink. Between the 2 of us, we
had our own phone like just for it..And it was busy more than 10 hours a
day.
Then, I moved out, and got this computer, swiped a copy of netscape, to
get me online, then went out and bought a copy of 3.0Gold, and run it
now.
See, You assume a lot but you don't know anything.. No more wasting time
with you.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
And it was, too bad you couldn't comprehend what was said.
From the testimony of Virginia Sherard, IRS Agent:
"Q I'm going to show you what's been marked as S-8. What is that?
A This is a summary of Lloyd R. Long's gross income from 1989. If you'll
notice Maury County, we received a great deal of testimony and also
documents admitted into evidence which show that as an instructor at the
Saturn plant there was $47,750 in contract labor income. You heard
testimony, Grower's Chemical Corporation, also received documents, that
showed commissions for being a sales representative in 1989 was $742.50. You
also heard testimony and received documents that show from AEDC Federal
Credit Union there was interest income of $810.91. The total gross income
was $49,303.41. And if you'll notice, compare it to the other exhibit, this
is more than five times the required filing amount.
Q Now I'll show you S-9.
A For 1990, you heard testimony and also received documents and evidence,
from Maury County, being an instructor at the Saturn plant, contract labor
income was $48,675, and interest income from AEDC federal Credit Union of
$843.02, means total gross income is S49,518.02. Again, this is more than
five times the filing requirement for 1990.
Q Ms. Sherard, based upon your training and experience and your knowledge,
and also the evidence that you've just testified to in these charts, can you
tell us whether Mr. Long was required to file an income tax return for 1989?
A Mr. Long was required to file an income tax return for 1989.
Q And can you tell us whether Mr. Long was required to file an income tax
return for 1990?
A He was required to file for 1990."
> Instead, their examination of Long was "all your neighbors pay taxes,
> what makes you think you don't have to?"
<snip>
That's because they had already demonstrated that he was liable. The
prosecutor was trying to prove your third point, that he knew he was liable.
> The largest single section of the transcript is IRS cross examination
> of Long. Long makes the point repeatedly that he did not believe he
> was required to file or pay taxes, and the IRS was unable to
> demonstrate otherwise.
The prosecutor amply proved that Long was liable and Long freely admitted he
didn't pay. What he couldn't do was shake Long's "good old boy" attitude that
he didn't have to pay, despite the fact that Long HAD paid for some 18 years
(1969-1987), despite the fact that he knew all his neighbors paid their income
taxes, etc. In other words, Long convinced the jury he was stupid just as Wes
said.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
lar...@northwest.com
why dont you folks leave out the catcall bullshit?
==============
> The prosecutor amply proved that Long was liable and Long freely admitted he
> didn't pay. What he couldn't do was shake Long's "good old boy" attitude that
> he didn't have to pay, despite the fact that Long HAD paid for some 18 years
> (1969-1987), despite the fact that he knew all his neighbors paid their income
> taxes, etc. In other words, Long convinced the jury he was stupid just as Wes
> said.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
*************************
" I think I need a soma."
*************************