VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:56:49 06/25/03 Wed
Author: F. Lee B.
Subject: Perhaps those people understood the language of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," and determined that Irwin Schiff is a loon who can't comprehend and hence, should be institutionally committed.
In reply to: billstoddard 's message, "Book Banned In USA!" on 00:31:39 06/24/03 Tue


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Very Wrong! -- billstoddard, 01:23:23 06/26/03 Thu

You're overlooking the fact that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the
"power to lay and collect taxes, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES....but all duties, imposts and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States." (emphasis added)

This Clause permits an INDIRECT tax on goods and services that people buy (a sales tax), and it has to be the same amount of tax in all states and for all people. The "Income Tax" is not imposed this way.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Section 9, Clause 4 provide for DIRECT Taxes that have to be apportioned based on the population of the States. Congress has to decide the amount of money to be collected via the tax. Then Congress has to apportion a fixed percentage of that amount against each state based on its population. Then a tax rate would have to be assigned to each state, so that the states could collect the total dollar amount apportioned. THe "Income Tax" is not imposed this way either.

The "Income Tax" as imposed, falls into neither of these two categories of taxes, so on that basis, it cannot be imposed as a MANDATORY tax!

I should also point out that there is no Statute anywhere in the 9500+ page Internal Revenue Code that makes anyone LIABLE TO PAY AN INCOME TAX OR TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN! THAT'S why "The Federal Mafia" has been banned by the government! They don't want Irwin Schiff to infect people with the truth, so they've laid to waste the FIRST AMENDMENT and free speech!

And as for you assertion that he should be institutionally committed for his beliefs, this was one of the tactics perfected in Communist Russia. When they decided they didn't like the view points of any of their citizens, they would brand those citizens as mentally impaired, and those people would disappear, just as you're suggesting Irwin should!

Mr. Schiff has broken no laws, he's only published information and opinions that the government cannot refute, and therefore, DOES NOT LIKE!

If you go to his website, you can hear recordings of the court hearings where he virtually BEGS the judge to cross examine, under oath, the government attorneys who claim that Irwin broke laws! THE JUDGE DOES NOT DO THIS! Why? Because Irwin would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HIM!

Also, I would strongly suggest you buy one of his other books that is NOT currently banned (not yet anyway), "The Great Income Tax Hoax", in order that you may improve your understanding of the "Income Tax". http://www.paynoincometax.com

Is this the kind of country you want to live in, F. Lee?

[Edit]
[> [> [> I think this news article tells us all we need to know about this charlatan Irwin Schiff -- F. Lee B., 15:41:01 06/26/03 Thu

Author of 'Voluntary' Income Tax Theories Sued for Millions
By Jason Pierce
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 29, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - Former Libertarian presidential candidate Irwin Schiff, who maintains the federal income tax is optional, is being sued by a New Hampshire man who says he lost his business after following Schiff's tax advice.

Steven Swan, a former real estate agent in Auburn, N.H., is suing Schiff for $1 million in compensation for the loss of earnings from his real estate business since 1997, $1 million for physical and emotional distress for the loss of his business and earning ability and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed May 23 in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nev., currently lives.

"If you do something where you encourage people to do something to their detriment, whether they believe it or not, it is called a tort, and so I filed a lawsuit for the torts I believe [Schiff] committed," Swan said.

Swan claims in his lawsuit that he first met Schiff at a Libertarian luncheon in New Hampshire in 1995 where Schiff was speaking. Afterwards, according to the suit, the two spent approximately three hours in the hotel lobby, during which time Schiff told Swan about his theories that the federal income tax was voluntary.

Swan says he then bought the books Schiff had authored on how to legally avoid paying income taxes, and even began teaching others about Schiff's theories at seminars.

In 1996, Swan's suit alleges, he used Schiff's theories to try to convince the Internal Revenue Service that he owed the government nothing and planned to pay nothing

Later, Swan was forced to close his business and IRS employees levied his bank accounts. When Swan used Schiff's theories to file two lawsuits against IRS employees, the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire dismissed both.

Last week, Swan directed his legal action at Schiff.

"He honestly believes what he is saying," Swan said. "But I think he is misconstrued. I don't think it is anything he is trying to do purposely, but he is guilty of misrepresentation, fraud and negligence."

Schiff, who ran unsuccessfully for the 1996 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, said Swann's lawsuit is "nonsense."

"My books point out that I went to jail for four years," Schiff said. "My books point out that I sued the government.

"There are disclaimers in all my books, but I stand by everything in my books," he said.

Schiff added that in teaching people about his theories, he gives those who listen the information necessary to avoid paying taxes, but has no control over what is done with the information.

"It can't take Steve six years to learn I am wrong," Schiff said. "Here's what I do: I bring them the law, the statutes and the code, but I tell them they are dealing with the federal government, which is a criminal government.

"If I told [Swan] to go rob a bank, would he do it? What is he, an idiot?" Schiff said.

Swan admitted Schiff did not force him to take any action.

"It's true that I didn't have to listen to him," Swan said. "I didn't have to listen to the guy, but he was so convincing that I did listen to him".

[Edit]

[> [> [> http://www.schiffiswrong.info/ -- F. Lee B., 15:53:31 06/26/03 Thu


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> Steven Swan -- Howard Roark, 20:15:45 06/26/03 Thu

Steven Swan is a cheat and a liar. He was doing fine following the law and then decided to branch out and create his own theory, which has NOTHING to do with Mr. Schiff. When Swan got in trouble for whatever crap he was promoting, he BLAMED everything on Schiff.

He most likely cut a deal with the government to sue Schiff in return for them going easy on him.

Swan is a crybaby. See the FACTS at http://www.paynoincometax.com

And if you REALLY need clarification, WALK into an IRS office with a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and ask them to show you the LAW that makes you liable for the "income tax" and then to SHOW you the LAW that requires you to pay the "income tax".

By the way, you will most likely have to bring your own code book, because, NO IRS office that I ever visited had a copy of the law!

Guess what, they CANNOT do it. I know first hand. And before anyone posts any disagreement on here, you first MUST personaly visit an IRS office.

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> Look In The Internal Revenue Code Index For Income Tax LIABILITY! -- billstoddard, 23:30:37 06/26/03 Thu

If you look in the index to the Internal Revenue Code, you can look at the lists of statutes that apply to taxes other than income, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc., and you will see that there are statutes under each that provide for liabilites, as well as penalties for non payment of, those particular taxes.

If you look at the statutes that according to the index, apply to "Income Taxes", you will see that there are NO STATUTES LISTED THERE FOR "LIABILITIES" OR "PENALTIES"!

The same thing if you look in the index under "Liabilities" and "Penalties". You will see a long list of taxes that have liability and penalty statutes connected with them, but a liability or penalty statute for INCOME TAXES is conspicuously ABSENT!

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

F. Lee, maybe you should be more sure of your facts before you go around accusing people of being crazy!

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. The federal code is similar, so give us some code numbers. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Details are so pesky, ain't they?), 03:38:51 06/27/03 Fri


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> No No No you got it backwards, you show some law numbers -- Fernando Powers, 05:01:34 06/27/03 Fri

I believe that the burden falls on the accuser so if one person tells another that they are liable for anything. The person accusing should be able to point to the law or site it right? So you Mr. Vince villenova it's a lot like getting a ticket for a moving violation and on the ticket the officer sites on the ticket the actual law that you have violated right? Non of this will you know government can do this and that and so on. Just site the law, regulation to be exact. Personally the IRS has not been able to show me the law in their office and their mission statement says that they have to show and explain the law to taxpayers (yes I pay taxes please stay focused) and their job description tells me that the irs employees are suppose to know the law extensively so just show me . Pleassssssssssssssssssse. How did you say it bada beem baadaboom or something of sort. BAMM!
Semper Fi, Fernando Powers

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I replied to the wrong message. In Bill Stoddard's "Code Index" post, he said he'd found mentions of the penalties attached to other tax laws. I was asking him to provide THOSE code numbers so that we could see what to look for exactly. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Geez, work with me here...), 03:18:32 06/28/03 Sat


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Details Are Pesky Only When They're Not Needed. What Law Requires One To Pay The "Income Tax"? -- billstoddard, 02:20:52 06/30/03 Mon

Vince, the exact Internal Revenue Code statutes that create liabilities for, and penalties for nonpayment of, taxes OTHER than "Income" are of no concern here. I don't argue the point that they do exist because they do. The point is that there are NO similar penalties or requirements listed in the Internal Revenue Code index in connection with "Income Taxes".

Basically, there are NO Internal Revenue Code sections that REQUIRE one to FILE an "Income Tax" return, or to PAY an "Income Tax". Additionally, the word "income" is not defined in the IR Code either.

Of course if that's incorrect, then I'm sure you can use some of those "pesky" little details that you may have at your disposal to prove me wrong.

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a simple request: if you can give me specific examples of penalty provisions for other taxes, then I'll know what to look for in the income tax statutes. I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm asking you for more information. Why not give it to me? You seem more interested in demagoguing this issue than in actually changing anyone's minds. Notice that you haven't convinced anyone yet with your current methods? That might be a sign to try a different tactic. -- "Vince From Villanova" (If it doesn't work, don't keep doing it.), 21:10:59 06/30/03 Mon


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're Missing The Point, Vince! -- billstoddard, 00:08:47 07/01/03 Tue

The details of the statutes that provide filing requirements for, and payment of, these other taxes are unimportant because I haven't questioned their existence or validity. What's important here is that by comparison, I cannot provide you similar statutes that provide filing requirements for, or payment of, "Income Taxes" because they do not exist! IRS employees and government attorneys cannot show them to you either for the same reason! The banning of Mr. Schiff's book has occured because of what he has written about the "INCOME" Tax, but not these "other" taxes.

They have claimed that Irwin Schiff has broken the "law" by teaching details he has uncovered regarding the "Income Tax" in his book "The Federal Mafia", though they cite no proof of his alleged malefaction. It's rather interesting to me that you don't ask for proof of the GOVERNMENT'S claims instead!

It's also interesting that the abridgement of Mr. Schiff's First Amendment rights to free speech by our government, which was the original point of this thread of messages, doesn't seem to bother you, particularly that as a former talk radio host (if you really were), the same criminal disregard of the First Amendment provisions of the Constitution by the US government could be brought to bear against YOU as well, if the government decides that you have said something they don't like, or hadn't you considered that?

BTW, a "demagogue" is a "person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc, in order to win them over quickly and so gain power."

I'm not trying to gain "power" over anyone. I have nothing to sell. I'm not calling anyone names. I'm not being emotional, and I'm not appealing to any prejudice! I merely stated the events concerning Mr. Schiff and the unlawful suppression of his book.

Vince, do you file an "Income Tax Return"? Do you pay an "Income Tax"? If you do , who told you to? Did you ever ask to see proof that you were required to pay the "Income Tax"? If you didn't, then how do you know that you are supposed to?

If you can point to a statute that makes Americans LIABLE for an "Income Tax", why not cite it for us? Better yet, as per Mr. Schiff's challenge to the lawyers at the Toledo Law School (see http://www.paynoincometax.com), why not cite the statute for Mr. Schiff and collect $50K?

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I give up. If you want to convince someone of something, and they ask you for more information, the standard response is to give them that information. Your continued refusal to do so has convinced me of nothing, except for this: you're more interested in watching yourself type than you are in winning anyone over on this issue. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Questions are meant to be answered.), 08:07:18 07/01/03 Tue


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> They believe your questions can be answered by buying Schiff's book first. This push to sell someone's book is probably more of a scam that possibly paying income tax. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:03:27 07/01/03 Tue


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Side Issues Are Not Important! FOCUS! -- billstoddard, 17:37:29 07/01/03 Tue

If it was possible to condense Mr. Schiff's book into a few paragraphs, there would be no need for the book in the first place!

The Internal Revenue Code Index sections I refer to total several pages of small print. It would not be practical for me to reproduce them here, particularly since mentioning all of them and describing their contents does not serve to further the REAL issues at hand, specifically, WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BANNING MR. SCHIFF'S BOOK WHEN THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME BY PUBLISHING AND SELLING THE BOOK?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution has been destroyed in this process! Why as a former broadcaster (if you really were, Vince, which I seriously doubt) does this not bother you as the government could just as easily censor YOU as well?

And Vince, a few posts ago, you claimed that the "Federal Code" is similar to the "Florida state code". Were these statutes that related to "Income", or some other types of statutes?

Additionally, as a supposed authority on the "Income Tax", or at least Florida's state version of the "Income Tax", if there really is a statute REQUIRING the filing of an "Income Tax" raturn, as well as the payment of the "Income Tax", you should be able to cite these statutes. No need to go to the trouble of reproducing them here, JUST POINT THEM OUT TO US, THAT'S ALL!

If you or anybody else reading this post has their own personal tax attorney or CPA, please ask these people to cite for you the Internal Revenue Code statutes that REQUIRE you to file an "Income Tax" return, or that REQUIRE you to pay the "Income Tax". You could go down to your local H&R Block office as well and ask these questions. You may be very surprised at how they respond!

And Vince, if you find the answer, please post it here, then call Irwin and claim your $50K prize!

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> VINCE OF VILLANOVA IS A FAKE PHONY FRAUD! HERE'S WHY: -- billstoddard, 16:03:49 07/03/03 Thu

Anybody who's been viewing these posts can now safely disregard ANYTHING and EVERYTHING "Vince Of Villanova" says, because he is a disinformation artist!

In a post above he claims that while he was a talk show host in Florida (GIVE ME A BREAK!), he queried a local political candidate as to specific details concerning the Florida State Income Tax codes. He then asks me to cite certain Federal "Income" Tax codes, since he claims that the Florida Code is similar to the Federal Code.

Well, guess what? THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX!!!!

AND IF THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX, THEN HOW CAN THE FLORIDA "CODE" BE SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL CODE?

And Vince, now that you've been caught in this lie, don't try to claim that you were comparing code sections for other types of laws, because you know damned well that you were speaking of "INCOME" Tax laws, STATE V. FEDERAL!!

Additionally, this explains why the abrogation of Irwin Schiff's free speech rights doesn't bother Vince, who as a supposedly former talk radio host, could have the same unconstitutional restrictions imposed on HIM. This is of no consequence to "Vince" because "Vince" ain't NEVER BEEN, and NEVER WILL, be a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!

So, Vince, now that you've been unmasked as the fake, phony, fraudulent, lying disseminator or disinformation that you are, tell us, WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME" TAX? AND HOW COME THE GUBMIT CANNOT PROVE THAT IRWIN SCHIFF HAS ACTUALLY BROKEN A LAW?

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, you can't give me the info I want, so now you're going to misquote me, eh? Too bad the quote is right there for all to read... "For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code..." I was referring to ELECTION LAW. Geez, dude, no wonder you're not convincing anyone. Grow up. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Bill... is your last name really Clinton?), 16:40:21 07/04/03 Fri


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Vince Was Misquoted Accurately! -- billstoddard, 17:57:01 07/04/03 Fri

Here is Vince's COMPLETE post from above:

"It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. THE FEDERAL CODE IS SIMILAR, SO GIVE US SOME CODE NUMBERS." (emphasis added)

This whole thread of posts is about "Income" Taxes and the trashing of the Constitution! It has NOTHING to do with "ELECTION LAW", and you know it! You made no mention of "election law", even though I gave you a chance to clarify yourself two posts prior. I caught you in your lie and you don't like it. Too bad!

I don't mind a fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist, but being a CUT RATE fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist as you are, Vince, is really retrograde! Pretending to have been a radio host is pretty lame too. Shame on you!

And you still haven't told us WHY IRWIN SCHIFF'S FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STOLEN, nor have you explained WHAT LAW MAKES AMERICANS LIABLE FOR AN "INCOME TAX"!

Irwin is waiting to write you the $50K check.

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, let me spell out the point I was trying to make real simply: Both. the. Florida. codes. and. the. federal. codes. use. statute. numbers. to. make. referring. to. specific. laws. easier. to. do. Okay? I. was. using. Florida. election. law. as. an. example. of. this. simple. concept. Now. turn. on. your. brain. and. read. my. posts. again. and. you'll. see. the. point. I. was. trying. to. make. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Hooked on phonics worked for me!), 05:06:50 07/05/03 Sat


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your "Point" Is Moot! THINK!!! -- billstoddard, 14:03:11 07/05/03 Sat

I'm sure we're all impressed to know that you mastered "Hooked On Phonics", Vince. From the level of non-reasoning you display on this board, I figured "Hooked On Crack" was more your speed (no pun intended).

Now that you have "Hooked On Phonics" under your scholastic belt, you should consider developing your reading and comprehension skills to a POST-second grade level for a change. Then in a few years, you may be ready to harness your formidable intellectual gifts to help us answer the PERTINENT questions I have raised here several times now:

1) WHY IS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CENSORING IRWIN SCHIFF WHEN THEY WON'T EVEN CITE A SINGLE LAW THAT HE HAS BROKEN?

2) WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"?

I don't really have anything against you, Vince. Even though you lied about having worked in radio as an on-air personality, your're probably not a bad guy, but you just don't have your priorities straight. This is not about YOU! It's about THE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE LOSS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES! If the government can silence Irwin Schiff not because he broke any laws, but because they merely don't like what he says, what protection do ANY OF US have then?

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I'm a liar, I'd say that makes me a bad guy, so you can quit patronizing me. Oh, except for one thing: I'm not a liar. Ask Gary, a.k.a. Surf. As for your original point, exactly how many new Irwin Schiff allies have you lined up from this message board with your ridiculous, heavy-handed tactics? Time to re-think your "strategery," my friend. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Flies? Honey? Remember that?), 17:00:25 07/05/03 Sat


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vince, Take A Valium. Better Yet, Take Two! -- billstoddard, 23:48:32 07/05/03 Sat

Okay, you're a bad guy, Vince. Does that make you feel better? Geez, you're a paranoid solipsist. Everything revolves around YOU, or so you think.

And why do you need Gary/Surf to intervene on your behalf? Aren't you capable of handling your own verbal battles, especially when you start them? Well, you can HANDLE them, you just can't WIN them.

If I'm wrong about your having been a radio host, apparently your friendship with Gary/Surf isn't sufficiently strong enough, nor does he hold you in high enough esteem to feel the need, without being prompted by you, to have corrected me on this point so far. But I'll keep an open mind if that changes.

Also, I am not being condescending to you, nor am I patronizing you. And if you ever WERE to broadcast on the radio, I wouldn't patronize your station either, nor would anyone else, I suspect.

As far as your reference to honey, it tastes good, and it greatly enhances the sweetness of breads, cereals, and other edibles to which it's added. Some people even claim that honey has agalgesic properties when applied to minor, open flesh wounds. As for flies? Well Vince, I think if you start to shower with water AND soap more than once a week, preferably every day, you'll find that the flies will eventually leave you alone.

BUT WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Again, Vince, you display absolutely no ability or inclination to STAY ON TOPIC! Your extreme states of paranoia and solipsism lead you to believe that everything in this thread is ultimately about YOU. It's not! It's about FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EVERY AMERICAN'S GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PRACTICE IT! It's also about the fact that there is NO LAW REQUIRING AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"!

I don't know how many "Irwin Schiff allies" I've "lined up from this message board" so far. And I really don't care! I just want to make sure that as many of the people who view these posts as possible know that FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK IN THIS COUNTRY, and that this is a clear and present danger to each and every one of us!

BTW, Vince (or anyone else), DO you pay taxes that you are NOT LIABLE for?

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I invoked the name of Surf because he once called into my show when it was still on the air. As for the rest, I'm going to now do what I meant to do 2 days ago: leave you to have the last word and stop keeping this thread active. Go re-group, re-think your strategy, and troll around some other message board. Maybe you'll have better luck there. -- "Vince From Villanova" (It's been fun...), 05:43:38 07/06/03 Sun


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> Let's put it this way, you'll have to come up with something more credible for your defense of lawlessness than the personal website of a convicted felon like Mr. Schiff. -- Ellsworth Toohey, 02:28:17 06/27/03 Fri


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 21:37:02 06/28/03 Sat


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 22:36:23 06/28/03 Sat

The man quotes law and that is lawlessness? The man is a convicted felon for asking "show me the law" that requires me to file. Now why can't it be, "here is the law it is right here". It has never happenned? Come on that's not a hard question to answer.

Unless your Joe Banister former special agent of the IRS he couldn't find it either and shortly afterwards left and well as Sherry Peel Jackson former IRS agent and CPA. If you honestly look you might run into some problems. You can find these names on the internet and then make your own conclusions if you dare. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023

http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/

Do you pay bills right off if you can't understand the charges? If upon receiving a bill from your mechanic and there is something in the bill you don't understand or didn't agree to, you just pay the bill don't you. You have this same belief for taxes too then.

Well the Federal Crop Insurance case (Supreme Court) verifies the right to question and have answers to those questions before agreement or action can be taken.

You can look up this case on the internet and you will be able to verify the exact words. You'll will find it's legal and lawful.

What is lawless. The lack of law or misapplication of it. Where is the law making me liable for the imposition of tax in section 1. as is outlined in Section 6001 and 6011 as referenced in the Privacy act of a 1040 Instruction booklet almost to the exact wording.

If you can't find the law that makes you "liable", since this is a lawful requirement, this is lawless.

The imposition of a penalty regarding Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearm (ATF)upon someone who is filing an income return is also lawless. Would you pay someone for putting lawn mower spark plugs in your car and then pay him on top of that for the repairs now necessary for trying to shove those into your engine? Well if you would pay the penalty, can I be your mechanic.

You should first start reading the other side of the issue. Be skeptical of course I know I am. "The Great Income Tax Hoax" by Irwin Schiff is a very technical and precise history of the income tax. www.paynoincometax.com

Mike Powers

[Edit]

[> [> Perhaps those people (if F Lee B) understood -- Mike Powers, 20:05:55 06/27/03 Fri

Perhaps if you just understood without arguments from fractured and isolated statements of misunderstanding.

I will summarize for you for in a moment mathematically a real very simple explanation to the tax problem. 1 + 1 = 2 AND THIS PROBLEM CANNOT BE WRITTEN INTO THE MAKING OF ANY LAW. Politician thinks and comes up with a + a = b. The House, Senate and President pass this new law. Of course a =1 and b = 2. Courts confirm that this is legal and lawful for years. Finally, a good court sees the obvious and says nay, nay no more. Lawmakers get together again and come up with a˛ + a˛ = (b˛ / b˛) * b. Again, the House, Senate and President pass this new law. Do you get the formula yet? I certainly get it. It is simply an end around the basic law 1 + 1 = 2 may not be used. You and I can make this formula so large as to attempt to stymie a college mathematics professor. At the end of it he will still say for all you have written 1 + 1 = 2 and you can’t use it no matter how big you make the problem.

So that this will make sense to you please see the following:

US Tax 101

Direct and indirect are the ONLY TWO classification of taxes according to the Constitution.

You can tax anything you want to as long as if it is DIRECT by APPORTIONMENT and if it is INDIRECT it must be UNIFORM. That's it end of 101.

Now several attempts have been made to do an end around the APPORTIONMENT provisions of our constitution. My question to you is an "income" tax a direct tax or and indirect tax? Which is it and how do you support your conclusion?

There is great clarity in the following quotes from the Brushaber Supreme Court decision as to what the "income" tax is:

“[…] the Amendment (16th) contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case […] But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. […] In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.’ It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. […]

It seems here that the court tip its’ hat far and long, by what has been quoted above, to the apportionment and uniformity provisions of our Constitutions and now somehow it is turned around again and 1 + 1 = 2 is being used in our laws. How is it, that in the face of the language quoted above and the Pollock decision that has never been reversed, we have out present arbitrary, oppressive and lawlessly (often times with criminal intent) applied and administered tax system? There is more from Brushaber and history of the 16th Amendment.

“This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.”

Yes, I agree that it was the “intent” of the 16th Amendment to make a “direct” tax on incomes. It clearly shows that the original intent was adverted because of the “apportionment” provisions of the constitution.

Our lawmakers can only make up laws for either direct or indirect taxes as outlined previously by the Brushaber, Pollock and the Constitution. Now can you tell me, are the taxes endorsed by a 1040 are they “income” (the common term, not the constituitonal term) or “excise” taxes? If they are an 'income' (direct) taxes then why are they not apportioned and if an excise (indirect) why are they not “uniform” as in Art 1, Section 8 of our Constitution? Ask the courts whether the tax is “income” or “excise”. They are not sure either depending on the district or decision. I do believe there will be a time when court decisions will be necessary to determine that oxygen and water is needed to live or that the sky is indeed blue. In the mean time I guess I’ll stop breathing and drinking.

(If the word "income" has not thoroughly confused you then you understand that it has at least 2 definitions: 1) The everyday definition 2) Supreme Court definition considered to be the Constitutional definition. Otherwise, a reliance from someone who wants your money and also helped write or support the laws to interpret them in the way they want you to believe for their own misguided or outright deceitful purposes is the final outcome. When you read the IRC laws you in fact cannot find the definition for the word income. Please explain to me how a definition or “income” ‘finally’ settled by the Supreme Court cannot makes it’s way into Section 7701? Section 61 defines Gross Income and that is another story. Suffice it to say that most people ask for an “income tax” form not a “Gross Income Tax” form. It is the obvious lack of a definition to income that is perplexing. “[…] gross income means all income […]” Using a word in the definition to define itself? You would have to be brain dead, drunk, drugged or just plain stubborn to not question these clear and obvious problems.)

Can you or someone explain to me what is the classification of tax that appears to be neither uniform or apportioned that requires someone to complete a 1040 that is not in-between the two great classifications taxes called for in the Brushaber decision quoted above?

To the uninitiated Eisner vs. Macomber would seem to say it all as is usually misquoted. However, the quote normally used does not go far enough. Let me expand, "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case pp. 183, 185.

What is the “…gain derived from …labor…” that would “…include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets…”? What is the profit gained that is taxable? Labor is normally undervalued to promote a profit or gain for someone other than the laborer, is that not true? In fact, if someone “volunteers” to do work for you an undeclared value, benefits you as an undeclared gain or profit. Do you claim that as income? You certainly realized a gain with no investment or trade. Of course I’m talking in common sense terms which normally has nothing to do with most court decisions so I will move on.

To quote “Eisner” then the following should also be quoted, as it is more recent. Please note the part of the last sentence with red letters. It seems to say that the definition of income is definitely settled. Notice how it refers to the latter half of the “Eisner” quote I used previously and then conclusively defines the meaning of income which is stated obviously a “corporate profit” as an excise tax.

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

The following reiterates the previous.

Burnet vs. Harmel, 287 US 103 ... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ... what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.

These are a few of this type of decision and all of them seem to refer back to Pollock and Brushaber. All of them claim “income” as a corporate profit.

The reference to Section 61 as the one that makes someone liable is extremely ambiguous. Furthered research indicates that the language using words like “wages” included in the 1939 Code has been omitted in the 1954 code.

Section 22, 1939 Code
“Gross Income—(a) General Definition. “Gross Income” includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service[…]” (These terms are missing below) (emphasis added)

“TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (note. January 22, 2002 based on 1954 Code)
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE
INCOME, ETC.

Sec. 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, (note. Is this the same as personal services)
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”


All that remains is mostly a list for a corporate profit and loss statement. Even so is there something in Section 61 in my 2002 IRC that I’ve missed telling me I’m liable and then points me to Section 1 as will be demonstrated further in the next paragraph? For a moment it seemed that the DOJ, IRS and the Treasury were about to reveal all to Mr. Schulze, however they failed on their promise to show and tell. Go figure.

You should consider reading the 1040 Instruction Booklet you referred to. There is only three code sections mention in this booklet in its direction for completing a 1040? Of the three, these two Code Sections 6001 and 6011 use the words...”liable for any tax imposed”…in both sections. It’s also clear that in Code Sections 5054, 5703, etc. tells who is liable and respectively point to sections 5051, 5703 etc. for the tax imposed. The laws refer from the code section of liability to the code section imposed. Can you point to the code section that makes anyone liable for the tax imposed by Section 1? If you find the code section that does please inform me as well as the Congressional Research Service as they couldn’t find it either. How is anyone legally or lawfully directed to even read Code Section 1 unless directed to do so as shown? I really don’t understand. To do otherwise would seem to require magic math as I used to tell my daughter regarding her early math skills. Do you really need a court decision to see there is a problem?

For all that has been written here 1 + 1 = 2 and although it is not to be used in any law that is exactly what we have.

Since your house of cards is built on some arbitrary reasoning regarding "income", and now that I have sorely corrected you, there is no other misunderstanding to correct until you can answer some rather pointed questions placed before you in this post. Time for you to get a new deck of cards. Try getting a fresh pack without folded corners in some of the cards.

It is absolutely stubborn for anyone to argue a definition of “income” while vaulting over the many Supreme Court decisions that tell you clearly what it has been defined as. If fact the Supreme Court can really only verify what it is. The Constitution has really already defined how and when income can be taxed.

Mike Powers

[Edit]
[> [> [> Nothing is more boring to read that a long winded diatribe from an attorney wannabe to support their impossible agenda. -- Jackie Chiles, 17:52:14 06/28/03 Sat


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> Glad you were bored -- Mike Powers, 18:58:52 06/28/03 Sat

>;-)Of course you can't refute or disprove anything so why don't you try cheap shots or character assassination next time if it makes you feel better. That takes great insight and thought.

Mike Powers

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> Wannabe fake -- Mike Powers, 19:15:12 06/28/03 Sat

"Jackie Chiles" is a fictitious wannabe like attorney Johnnie Cochran on the sitcom "Seinfeld". You’re laughable to chicken to use your real name. Just a fakes fake. I was right you want to be a wannabe fake and you are.

Mike Powers

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> George Castanza aka Jackie Chiles -- Mike Powers, 21:37:54 06/29/03 Sun

Hey George where are you. I love your short winded, George Castanza, type logic. What was it too cold for you and your brain shrunk too. Double the embarrassment. You’re a funny guy. I miss you. Caught you with your pants down so to speak. HA HA

Mike Powers


Mike Powers

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> If libertarians ever expect to be embraced by the mainstream of America they need to stop leading these freak fringe causes that will go no where. Having a convicted felon leading their cause doesn't help, either. Oh well, America needs comic relief, it might as well be you guys plus the black helicopter/cattle mutilation crowd. -- "Art Van DeLay", 22:16:29 06/29/03 Sun


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> What a clown -- Mike Powers, 01:01:44 06/30/03 Mon

George,

1) I'm a registered Republican

2) If your mechanic gives you a bill that includes charges you don't understand, do you have the right to question the bill?

a) Do you need a court order to know you have that right?

b) If the mechanic sues you in court, should you have the opportunity to challenge the charges in the bill? Shouldn't the court attempt to get your legitimate challenges answered? In fact isn't the burden of proof placed upon the accuser or the one that sues?

c) If you went to jail because you wanted proof or verification of the mechanics' and were labeled a felon that would be OK with you?

d) That’s how Irvin Schiff as you say became the dark, sinister felon. He asks a court to show him the law that he couldn't find. THE COURTS ANSWER WAS, YOU ARE A FELON FOR ASKING?

3) You’ve employed a typical liberal or political ploy.

a) Don’t address the questions. (Which you sorely are incapable of)

b) Label and name call.

c) Then dismiss.

Wow isn't that original.

4) Your favorite leader is Bill Clinton a certified liar. (So the court said) That makes me want to be a Democrat.

5) You are now dismissed George. Stick to being a clown.

Mike Powers

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Comparing the fed govt to a car repair shop is a joke. I didn't know that employees of car repair shops are elected representatives that assemble to pass to create and vote on legislation that affects this nation's citizens. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:22:58 07/01/03 Tue


[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There ARE Differences Between Car Repair Shops And The Federal Government! -- billstoddard, 16:33:01 07/01/03 Tue

Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen is correct. There are MAJOR differences between auto repair shops and the gubmit:

1) Auto repair shops provide a useful and necessary service to the general population.

2) Auto repair shops don't have the power to forcibly extort money from citizens at the point of a gun.

Mr. Powers did not say that the two entities were identical. He is explaining the difference between the LAWFUL actions of a retail establishment (in his example he used an auto repair shop, but it could be any other type of service oriented business as well) which has to provide to their customers an explanation of what they expect their customers to pay for services rendered, while the gubmit merely announces that Mr. Schiff has said things the gubmit doesn't like and so uses the power they wield to silence him WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION!

What Mr. Powers illustrated above is called a COMPARISON, LATPC. I realize that the teaching of reasoning and logic (as well as most other useful subjects) was long ago abandoned in the public (gubmit) schools, and the responses to me and Messrs. Powers confirm this sad truth, but like Vince of Villanova, you're missing the point.

Maybe you could answer this question LATPC: as a "Law Abiding Taxpaying Citizen", I assume that you pay all taxes that you are liable for, correct? The important question is: do you pay taxes that you ARE NOT LIABLE for as well?

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keep wavin' that freak flag! This is the problem when people take Ayn Rand's "philosophy" too seriously. But I must ask .... -- Law Abiding Tax Payer (and proud Neo-Con), 21:55:07 07/01/03 Tue

....are these the pithy subjects discussed at meetings of the Libertarian Futurists Society? (insert laughs here) The purpose of pointing out Powers' lunatic assertion is that the government can't be thought of as a service oriented business designed to serve your individual wants and needs. It's to serve the broader needs of the nation's huge industial complex and provide for a strong military presence. As long as the government (by the guiding influence of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, along with Cheyney, Rove and Bush) promotes a strong military force to go over to the Middle East and kick as much towel headed ass as possible so we can control the oil, I'm happy with what that. Bullets cost bucks, sparky. So does national security. Your whining about taxes is way way down on the this government's priority scale. So sit back and enjoy the ride. No one that can do anything about it is paying attention to you.
If you don't like it, I'm sure some third world countries with relatively low taxes would accept you for citizenship. Perhaps a few years of gnawing on on boiled grapefruit rinds for dinner would temper your whining somewhat.

The concept of true "freedom" in America does not mean freedom to do what you what when you want. Some of you need to learn that the Constitution shouldn't be taken so literally. It is interpreted as certain groups see fit to interpret it. It's up to the group with the most power that gets to interpret it the way they want. So far, the neo-cons are in control and hopefully will be for years to come.

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are You For Real? -- billstoddard, 01:06:07 07/03/03 Thu

So far LATP (Neo-Con), you've completely ignored the issues I've validly put before the readers of this message board, specifically, WHAT LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF "INCOME TAXES", AND WHAT LAW HAS IRWIN SCHIFF BROKEN THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO TRASH THE CONSTITUTION AND SUBVERT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Instead, you're professing your love of big oppressive government that commits any illegal acts against US citizens it wants to in the name of "national security". Howzabout "NATIONAL FREEDOM"? Does "freedom" mean anything to you?

The same "strong military force" that we sent to Iraq can be used against YOU if the government decides that it either doesn't like what you say, or decides that it wants to extract more money from you!

You are a truly sorry character, LATP! You have absolutely no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on. The Colonists who founded this country went to war to be free from England because England was taxing them at only a SMALL FRACTION (I think 7% or so) of what Americans pay today!

I believe the reason that you're not bothered by the fact that American taxpayers currently have to work until the middle of JUNE every year to pay all of the "Income Taxes" supposedly "owed" to the government is because you yourself are probably on some sort of public assistance and do not contribute anything to society!

The third world countries that you claim I would be more happy residing in don't take THEIR Constitutions "so literally", as you put it, either. Oh, I forgot: these other countries don't HAVE Constitutions, or any sets of laws that protect their citizens from their oppressive governments. In all the communist countries, the laws are whatever their dictators SAY the laws are, at any given time. Our Constitution, along with the Bill Of Rights are what protect us from being enslaved by LIMITING the power government can exercise over us! That's why we became a world power in the first place: FREEDOM!

You call yourself a "neo-con", but in reality you are truly clueless as to what ANY form of conservatism really entails! You value "security" more than you do FREEDOM, so eventually you will lose BOTH!

You speak glowingly of "national security". HOW MUCH "NATIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS WELL DOCUMENTED BELIEFS, AND THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE VALID (OR ANY) REASONS WHY? HOW MUCH "NAIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN CLAIM YOU OWE THEM 50% OF WHAT YOU EARN, NOT POINT TO A LAW TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM, AND THEN SEND ARMED JACKBOOTED THUGS TO YOUR PROPERTY TO CONFISCATE WHAT YOU OWN, AND WITHOUT A COURT ORDER?

That someone like you has the same vote as I do is not only pathetic, it's scary!

[Edit]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cheerleading again, oh how wonderful! -- Mike Powers, 23:55:15 07/01/03 Tue

If you could see me laughing now? You're funny. You completely vaulted over "The Federal Crop Insurance Case" Supreme Court decision is probably too technical for you, so I made a simple comparison for a man of the law like yourself. Law abiding means you know the law, well thank you.

Well "Mr. Man O'Law" what does the case cited above say that would allow or confirm my right to know if the IRS agent attempting to enforce something has the authority to do so and/or and my right to know the law he believes applies to me. Wow that sounds like common sense, just the same as if I question a charge on a bill I don't understand. If I wave the flag will it make more sense to you?

Oh, by the way, I'm forwarding your email to the IRS, Department of Treasury. I'll suggest to them that any bill or penalty you receive will willingly (and will not be questioned) to be paid by you and double if you wave the flag and sing God Bless America.

I thought it was "government for the people and by the people"? How does the obvious escape you so badly? I suggest to you Mr. Man O'Law you re-read "A Declaration" a.k.a.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as the case cited.

Further Mr. Man O'Law I need this question answered. I'm sure you understand terms like 'direct', indirect, apportionment, uniformity, The Pollock, Brushaber, Eisner, Merchants, and Burnett US Supreme Court decisions and will happily put me in my place when you answer it. Here goes.

Can you or someone explain to me what is the classification of tax that appears to be neither uniform or apportioned that requires someone to complete a 1040 that is not in-between the two great classifications taxes called for in the Brushaber decision and the other decisions that support the Pollock decision (still holding) through the Brushaber decision?

I'm sure that is not a tuffy for you Mr., Man O'Law. Have you considered cheerleading, as a career I believe it doesn’t require much thought either you just go along with everything your told I think?

Mike Powers

PS. Why don't you read the post at the very end titled "Is the IRS the final word? Then read this." Then let's see you cheerlead your way out of that one too. Yes, Santa Claus is traditional fiction too.

[Edit]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.