Otto Skinner

[grixit]

David:

Let me caution you further so you do not repeat the mistakes that others have made.

The only quotes that count here are authoritative quotes. As you have been informed, quoting from the Congressional Record, is just a quote of what someone in Congress said, it is not necessarily the text of a law. The Congressional Record may help in an argument over changing the law, but as for applying it, it has no more weight than the words of some random person on the street.

So quote the laws, not someone's description of them, and make sure you are quoting actual laws that have been passed and not repealed or superceded.

Court decisions are also authoritative, but understand what a decision is. It is not a statement by one of the participants. It is not the dissenting opinion of the minority in a panel of judges, even if it is the Supreme Court. It is not a document filed as part of the process. It is not the statements of witnesses. What it is, is the concluding opinion of the majority of a panel of judges or in the case of a single judge court, of that judge.

You'll save yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you keep this in mind.

[Brian Rookard]

Haven't seen an Otto enthusiast in a long time. I remember, back in the day, destroying these arguments.

Simply put, F. Morse Hubbard is wrong.

Otto Skinner, Larken Rose, and a host of other tax protesters cite the words of this former legislative draftsman quoted in the Congressional Record when he says:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax."

F. Morse Hubbard, Congressional Record; March 27, 1943; page 2580.

An income tax, then, is supposedly a tax on activities or privileges, with the measure of the tax being the amount of income received.

Under Hubbard's definition the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 must be an income tax ... it is a tax on a privilege and the measure of the tax is the amount of income derived. The case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. confirms this view of the Corporation Tax Act.

As a matter of fact, if you check his earlier statements in that same part of the federal register (which I have) F. Morse Hubbard even says, in reference to the Corporation Tax Act, that: "The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax"

However, the Supreme Court has clearly said that:

As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909 ... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.

U.S. v. Whitridge, 231 U.S. 144

And again ...

As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.

Stratton's Independence Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399

And again ...

As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court in previous cases ( cites omitted) the act of 1909 was not in any proper sense an income tax law, NOR INTENDED AS SUCH, but was an excise ..."

Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway, 239 U.S. 69

So, Hubbard (in accordance with his definition of an "income tax") says that the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 was an "income tax."

However, the Supreme Court says it was not.

Obviously, something is not right, and if you tried to use Hubbard's definition of an income tax, you would find yourself on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. Since Hubbard thought that the Corporation Tax Act was really an income tax ... and the Supreme Court said it was not ... then we can conclude that Mr. Hubbard's definition of an income tax is wrong ... since he relied on that definition to claim that the Corportion Tax Act was an income tax ... when it was not.

People who follow this line of thinking also believe that the subject of an income tax is an activity or privilege ... and that income cannot be the subject of the income tax.

However, the author of the 1913 income tax, Congressman Cordell Hull, stated that:

Under the proposed measure income is both the subject and the measurement of the tax. The recent amendment gives Congress power to tax all classes of income without apportionment. Certainly, then, Congress may measure the tax by the same income. * * * The constitutional amendment simply exempts the entire tax to which it relates from the rule of apportionment. It then becomes utterly immaterial to inquire whether the tax is direct or indirect or as to the origin or source of the income or its disposition -- the only inquiry pertinent is, What amount of net income accrued to an individual during a given taxing period.

Memorandum prepared by Representative Hull, of Tennessee, August 5th, 1913

And one court has clearly stated:

The Supreme Court, without advancing any precise definition of the term 'income tax,' has unmistakably determined that taxes imposed on subjects other than income, e.g., franchises, privileges, etc., are not income taxes, although measured on the basis of income.

Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894 (1942)

So, a tax on subjects other than income (like franchises, privileges, etc.) are not "income taxes."

Where does that put Mr. Hubbard's notions? The man who said that the income tax was a tax on activities and privileges ... and that income wasn't the subject of the income tax.

The courts disagree with Hubbard's notions. That's why I said ... Hubbard is wrong.

[david]

I found this in a 2013 Ron Paul discussion forum when searching "Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)." "In sum, no one in the history of the country has ever avoided federal income tax by arguing that income from private-sector, non-privileged activity isn't subject to the income tax. That is not and never has been the law." the mouse cliks felt familiar. Anyway, did you read the Gail Sanoki stuff at the end of Otto's "If you Are the Defendant"? starting on page 205? I think Otto discusses the Sanoki case in a little more depth in his TBTLHA. I can't get to California to double check it but I have developed a partial trust of stuff Otto cites. Furthermore, in cases where the IRS brings a failure to file complaint to court against some poor slob, not licensed by the US to do something, he can't get the complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, so at trial he demands plaintiff "SHOW THE JURY THE LAW" and, the IRS refuses to show the law, the jury will sometimes realize that just maybe there is no law, the poor slob was not required to file anything, he is therefore NOT GUILTY. If the IRS dosen't appeal it, the case won't be cited, and I have no idea how to find it. HOWEVER, a guy named Allen Ruso made a vidio called "America, Freedom to Fascism". It might still be a free download on Google, I wish I had bought the cd. In that video, he did find a case (supposedly) exactly like the poor slob above. Maybe Arron fabricated the case, maybe he didn't, I don't know, but, I do know that what he presents in most of his vidio I can support with US Supreme and Appeal Court decisions . His chip insertion part I will not discuss for my own personal and private reasons and beliefs. For some reason, I feel that you may have suffered a serious unsatisfactory experience with the IRS. I'm sorry if that happened. The sole reason I am here corresponding on this page with you and your gang is because I don't want that to happen to myself and/or others, I'm looking for open, honest intelligent dialog, biased or not, so that at least I can make better informed decisions concerning taxes of all kinds. This site seems to fit my needs. And, I will guarantee you that ONLY I WILL BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS. I got paper copies of those 3 letters I spoke of last post. I'm going to try to get them to you now. I'll stay on site if anyone has some suggestions. Then I'll continue working with those citations listed in your replys above.
Thanks for engaging, David

[Famspear]

I found this in a 2013 Ron Paul discussion forum when searching "Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)." "In sum, no one in the history of the country has ever avoided federal income tax by arguing that income from private-sector, non-privileged activity isn't subject to the income tax. That is not and never has been the law." the mouse cliks felt familiar.

That's correct. The "private-sector non-privileged" nonsense did not begin surfacing in court cases until about the year 1980 -- some sixty-seven years after the advent of the modern U.S. federal income tax in 1913. No one was silly enough to dream up such nonsense prior to about 1980.

Anyway, did you read the Gail Sanoki stuff at the end of Otto's "If you Are the Defendant"? starting on page 205? I think Otto discusses the Sanoki case in a little more depth in his TBTLHA......

Here's what Dan Evans writes about Sanocki:

Gail Sanocki is another mythical (and unpublished) case, the facts of which are not clear. Apparently, the IRS was proceeding against her and her husband and, at some point in the proceedings, the IRS dropped its case against her (but not her husband). She had made many of the usual tax protester arguments, but the government probably dropped the case against her because of doubts about whether she was an “innocent spouse” and so was not responsible for the tax returns filed by her husband. Although tax protesters like to claim that the government was conceding the validity of her tax protester arguments, there is simply no reason to believe that it was anything but a case of the government deciding not to prosecute because of doubts about the evidence, not doubts about the law.

--Daniel B. Evans, from The Tax Protester FAQ.

Furthermore, in cases where the IRS brings a failure to file complaint to court against some poor slob, not licensed by the US to do something, he [the defendant] can't get the complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, so at trial he demands plaintiff "SHOW THE JURY THE LAW" and, the IRS refuses to show the law, the jury will sometimes realize that just maybe there is no law, the poor slob was not required to file anything, he is therefore NOT GUILTY. If the IRS dosen't appeal it, the case won't be cited, and I have no idea how to find it.

You're speaking of federal criminal tax cases, I presume. Occasionally a criminal tax defendant is found not guilty. Example: the late Tommy K. Cryer.

Note: A "not guilty" verdict in a criminal tax case is not a ruling by the Court that the defendant was correct on his tax protester theory. So, although there are ways to find a citation to the case in terms of style of the case, case number, name of court, etc., there is nothing to "cite" in terms of judicial precedent. A common mistake among tax protesters is to claim that a "not guilty" verdict is a ruling that the tax protester's claims about the law were correct.

The reason the defendant in a federal criminal tax case cannot get the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is that the defendant is in a U.S. District Court. That court has subject matter jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. section 3231. Period. End of discussion.

HOWEVER, a guy named Allen Ruso made a vidio called "America, Freedom to Fascism". It might still be a free download on Google, I wish I had bought the cd. In that video, he did find a case (supposedly) exactly like the poor slob above. Maybe Arron fabricated the case, maybe he didn't, I don't know, but, I do know that what he presents in most of his vidio I can support with US Supreme and Appeal Court decisions . His chip insertion part I will not discuss for my own personal and private reasons and beliefs.

Aaron Russo is old, old news here. He was pretty clueless about federal income tax law. His film was full of the usual nonsense.

For some reason, I feel that you may have suffered a serious unsatisfactory experience with the IRS.

A "serious unsatisfactory experience with the IRS"?? What do you mean? Who is the "you" to whom are you referring?

[david]

Famspear,, are you still here? Guess I'm a babe in da woods here. I have the letters on file now , how do I get them displayed for you to see?
Thanks, David

[Famspear]

Famspear,, are you still here? Guess I'm a babe in da woods here. I have the letters on file now , how do I get them displayed for you to see?
Thanks, David

I confess I don't know enough about the technical aspects of this web site to be able to say. Perhaps someone else can provide information??

[grixit]

David, there is no file upload ability for regular users, but Webhick, our chief programmer, might be able to do something. Separate from that, though, you could upload the images to any of the free file sharing sites out there, such as Photobucket, Flickr, or Scribd, then post a link here.

[webhick]

David, there is no file upload ability for regular users, but Webhick, our chief programmer, might be able to do something. Separate from that, though, you could upload the images to any of the free file sharing sites out there, such as Photobucket, Flickr, or Scribd, then post a link here.

No upload means no upload. He does what everyone else here does: upload to a third-party service and link to it.

[wserra]

I got paper copies of those 3 letters I spoke of last post. I'm going to try to get them to you now.

If you wish, you may email them to me - tell me OK in public, and I'll send you the email in a PM - and I will link to them just as you send them. Or not - I remind you of the rule here that any such documents must contain sufficient information to be verifiable. In other words, please redact your social security number, but any other redaction renders it likely not to be posted.

[morrand]

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the 7th Circuit came out with a decision in USA v. Gronvall that might be relevant. In pertinent part:

Gronvall filed this direct appeal and is proceeding pro se after turning down the services of two attorneys. He maintains that, for various reasons, his earnings were not subject to federal income tax. All of his contentions are typical of tax protestors and are frivolous. The Internal Revenue Code applies to Gronvall even though it provides for a direct, nonapportioned tax on wages that he did not earn as a federal employee or by trading in specially regulated goods. See United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-01 (7th Cir. 1991); Coleman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Beale, 574 F.3d 512, 519 n. 3 (8th Cir. 2009).

My ear for the subtleties may not be the best, but I would suggest the following points:

• The fact this is a nonprecedential decision indicates that the court didn't consider any of this to be new law, and was more interested in settling the appeal before it than in interpreting the laws.
• The fact that it's one paragraph long indicates that the court really didn't consider this case to be worth much time explaining.
• The fact that the court could put its basic rationale into one sentence indicates that there's no subtlety to this point at all: that income is taxable, federal employment or privilege or not.
• The fact that the court could string together six citations for this point indicates, quite strongly, that indeed this is the settled law in this country, or at least this circuit.

[david]

wserra, I created an e-mail address quatlooie@outlook.com so that I can send the letter copies to anyone who asks politely. However, after I signed out of it, I tried to get back to sign in but Outlook is reporting technical difficulties right now. Please have patience.

The "YOU" I referred to earlier are those individuals who responded quickly to my blathering with citations and thoughtful responses. I did not perceive a red face, crossed eyes, fire and brimstone rocketing from ears, nose, or mouth, no finger waggling or stomping of feet, and no burps or farts. Something about those responses triggered a feeling in me that these thoughtful persons have experienced something before a court that hurt. Maybe not, but to those individuals, I say thank you for your help pushing me to a better more comprehendible understanding of my position " I'm not licensed ". I believe in my position. I will be issuing a response to the earlier reply's later today. David

[david]

I an not going to express any opinion with regard to Billy Bob being liable for taxes with regard to his il-accumulated property.
I have looked at most of the cases cited above. Some I could not access through Google Scholar. However, the overwhelming problem each individual encountered is that he either signed a W-4, sent in some form of 1040, signed or not, and, (sorry, I forgot to copy next ) that was enough for the court to conclude that those individuals had knowlege and were subject to and liable for some imaginary tax without the gov. first proving that fact. As far as I can tell, none rescinded their previous signatures with regard taxes. Take a look at the following
I copied this from my word pad and the original emphasis is gone. Good Luck.
Cheek v. United States, 498 US 192 - Supreme Court 1991
@ p. 193 "Title 26, § 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax ( purported to be ) imposed by this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U. S. C. § 7203, "[a]ny person (purported to be ) required under this title . . . or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 194*194 This case turns on the meaning of the word "willfully" as used in §§ 7201 and 7203." ( emphasis and (explanation) added dk)
@ p. 198 "Petitioner appealed his convictions, arguing that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that only an objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the statutory willfulness requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the convictions. "
@ p. 206 "There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U. S. C. § 7422. Also, without paying the tax ( that the law purported to require) , he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, § 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. § 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§ 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong." (emphasis and (explanation) added dk).
@ p. 206/207 "We thus hold that in a case like this, a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury, and, if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance. It was therefore not error in this case for the District Judge to instruct the jury not to consider Cheek's claims that the tax laws were unconstitutional. However, it was error for the court to instruct 207*207 the jury that petitioner's asserted beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code should not be considered by the jury in determining whether Cheek had acted willfully.[11]
For the reasons set forth in the opinion above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. ".......
Ok, so he won his appeal, but, he will loose anyway because he does not understand that he must force gov. somehow to prove the existance of the tax law purported to exist.
One other thing. Otto suggests one rescinds their signature to remove the ass u me tion one is subject to some undefined statute. I agree, and, so does the IRS in those letters I spoke of earlier. If you want to see them, feel free to inquire politely at quatlooie@outlook.com. Caution, at the moment (11:03 am, 1/25/14 ) Outlook is experiencing tecnical difficulties, I can't even get into my old account right now. So, please, have patience.
Addressing an earlier post that Jack Cole v McFarland, 337 S.W.2d, 453, at 456, 206 Tenn. 694 (1960) was only dealing with state taxation, corporations and such, no bearing with regard to The US Gov.. Ya missed it.
Jack Cole v McFarland, 337 S.W.2d, 453, at 456, 206 Tenn. 694 (1960) @ p 454 "It appears that complainant is engaged in the business of transporting freight by motor truck in interstate commerce. Its activities in Tennessee are exclusively in interstate commerce and it has never paid corporation excise or franchise taxes under Chapters 27 and 29, Title 67, Tennessee Code. " ( note, He was NOT exercising the privilege of "incorporation" I'll deal with 'corporation' citing Flint below dk )
@ p455 "It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege"
@ p 455 "Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed."
@ p 455, 456 "A privilege is whatever business, pursuit, occupation, or vocation, affecting the public the Legislature chooses to declare and tax as such." Corn et al. 456*456 v. Fort, 170 Tenn. 377, 385, 95 S.W.2d 620, 623, 106 A.L.R. 647.," [emphasis added dk]
@ p 456 "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body." Lonas v. State, 50 Tenn. 287, 307."
@ p 456 " Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.
It results that we find no error in the decree of the Chancellor holding the Act in question invalid and it is affirmed.".........
Where the heck do you think the Fed. Gov. got it's authority from? God? That's what the government RULING the previous 13 colonies thought. I think not and neither did a lot of other people (Declaration of Independence). Judging by the Preamble(?) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where it holds that ""all ( the whole and the individual, explanation added dk) shall be governed by certain laws"", if a person couldn't be held accountable for the consequences of that person's actions, that person didn't exist. Corporations and such exist, not because they can be hung by the neck until dead like me, but because they legally hold properey, that property can be reached in a court of law, and they can cease to exist by choice or by court action. Those brand new free, independant, soverign nations believed they had a limited list of authorities government could do, thru its elected, appointed or delegated employees, like state sponsored religon, qualified to vote according to what one's real or imaginary monetary worth was, lots more. Those Governments just didn't know where those limits were. We are continually learning those limits thru court actions. Look thru those constitutions and one will find certain rights revoked by the Amendment to the various new government Constitutions by ratification of the US Const., the Supreme Law of the Land. The Goverment is the People Registered To Vote, NOT the employees elected or appointed or delegated to perform various occupations or duties IN THE NAME OF the Government. And it was the State Governments that formed and empowered the US Government. So, if state government courts recognized that " Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege "( Jack above @ p 456 ), there's no way in heck it could have been gifted to the US Government by the Original Governments.
Now, lets take a look at Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 1911
@151 And in the same connection the late Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, in speaking of the words duties, imposts and excises, said:
"We think that they were used comprehensively to cover customs and excise duties imposed on (with regard to) importation, consumption, manufacture and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations and the like. ( affecting the public, Jack above, @ p 455, 456) ((explanation) added dk)
Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on (with regard to) the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are "taxes laid upon (with regard to) the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon (with regard to) licenses to pursue certain occupations,and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680." [emphasis and (explanation) added dk]
@152 Thomas Case, 192 U.S. 363 supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of 152*152 privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.[emphasis added dk].......
guess this should be a footnote [dk],,,In the Courts discussion of the particular taxing statute in question, one will find @ p. 162 "The thing taxed is not the mere dealing in merchandise, in which the actual transactions may be the same, whether conducted by individuals or corporations, 162*162 but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity of those taxed, and which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals." [some emphasis and (explanation) added dk]...... please continue
@ p. 162 "It is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods which may be the same, whether done by corporations or individuals." (emphasis added dk)
@ p. 173 " the decisions of this court from an early date to the present time have emphasized the right of Congress to select the objects of excise taxation, and within this power to tax some and leave others untaxed, must be included the right to make exemptions such as are found in this act."........
I do not advocate that I am and will always be entirely free of any tax with regard to my income. And I do not advocate that ONLY corporations and such are subject to and liable for taxes, income or otherwise. I am only asserting that the US Gov. has not seen fit to tax my particular activity. The element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable (Flint @ p 152 above) Had the US Gov. imposed a tax with regard to my occupation, it could be found. As an example, if I decided to manufacture booze, sooner or later someone would bring my attention to 26 USC 5001 and/or 27USC.. And even in 27 USC there are provisions for exemption of certain obligations.
No, I am NOT entirely immune from taxation. Most property and it's fruits are subject to taxation. To understand that, one must slowly read BOTH Pollock citations, 157 US 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759 - Supreme Court, 1895, and, 158 US 601, 15 S. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108 - Supreme Court, 1895.......
In conclusion, I have previously recinded my name on all documents implying that I was subject to or liable for any so-called income tax or so-called social security tax ( copies of that process will be available shortly after April 4, /14 as I posted earlier). I am not licensed to engage in any activities by the US Gov. At this time, I am not required by any US law to file any returns, including 1040's, with any office of the US Gov..
I hope I am not abusing the privilege of using this site that has so graciuosly been opened to me. Thank you to who ever runs it and to all the reasonable colorable argument and noting of ""rules here"".
Just a note, if too many requests come to my e-mail posted earlier, I may have to limit it to only the previouse responders.
So, maybe I'm wrong. Any reasonable, colorable argument?
David (3:09 Outlook is working!!!!)

[Famspear]

I an [sic] not going to express any opinion with regard to Billy Bob being liable for taxes with regard to his il-accumulated property.

That's fine, but your opinion wouldn't count anyway. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that funds received by an embezzler are taxable as income to the embezzler for federal income tax purposes. Billy Bob would be liable for U.S. Federal income tax.

I have looked at most of the cases cited above. Some I could not access through Google Scholar. However, the overwhelming problem each individual encountered is that he either signed a W-4, sent in some form of 1040, signed or not, and, (sorry, I forgot to copy next ) that was enough for the court to conclude that those individuals had knowlege [sic] and were subject to and liable for some imaginary tax without the gov. first proving that fact. As far as I can tell, none rescinded their previous signatures with regard taxes. Take a look at the following
I copied this from my word pad and the original emphasis is gone. Good Luck.
Cheek v. United States, 498 US 192 - Supreme Court 1991....

We don't need quotes from the Cheek decision. I was studying the Cheek decision long before you ever even heard of it. It's one of the most famous U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving federal income taxes. The Wikipedia article on the Cheek case lays it out clearly. I know that because I myself wrote most of the Wikipedia article.

Ok, so he [John L. Cheek] won his appeal, but, he will loose [sic] anyway because he does not understand that he must force gov. somehow to prove the existance [sic] of the tax law purported to exist.

Well, John L. Cheek did indeed end up losing. He lost because, when the case was re-tried, the jury concluded that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the offenses with which he was charged.

One other thing. Otto suggests one rescinds their signature to remove the ass u me tion one is subject to some undefined statute. I agree, and, so does the IRS in those letters I spoke of earlier. If you want to see them, feel free to inquire politely at quatlooie@outlook.com. Caution, at the moment (11:03 am, 1/25/14 ) Outlook is experiencing tecnical [sic] difficulties, I can't even get into my old account right now. So, please, have patience.

Addressing an earlier post that Jack Cole v McFarland, 337 S.W.2d, 453, at 456, 206 Tenn. 694 (1960) was only dealing with state taxation, corporations and such, no bearing with regard to The US Gov.. Ya missed it.
Jack Cole v McFarland, 337 S.W.2d, 453, at 456, 206 Tenn. 694 (1960) @ p 454 "It appears that complainant is engaged in the business of transporting freight by motor truck in interstate commerce. Its activities in Tennessee are exclusively in interstate commerce and it has never paid corporation excise or franchise taxes under Chapters 27 and 29, Title 67, Tennessee Code. " ( note, He was NOT exercising the privilege of "incorporation" I'll deal with 'corporation' citing Flint below dk )
@ p455 "It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege"
@ p 455 "Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed."
@ p 455, 456 "A privilege is whatever business, pursuit, occupation, or vocation, affecting the public the Legislature chooses to declare and tax as such." Corn et al. 456*456 v. Fort, 170 Tenn. 377, 385, 95 S.W.2d 620, 623, 106 A.L.R. 647.," [emphasis added dk]
@ p 456 "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body." Lonas v. State, 50 Tenn. 287, 307."
@ p 456 " Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.
It results that we find no error in the decree of the Chancellor holding the Act in question invalid and it is affirmed.".........

Please do not copy and paste long passages from court cases that not only do not support your position about U.S. federal income tax, but also don't have anything to do with federal income tax.

No, we didn't miss anything. I've already explained this to you. I read this case long before you ever discovered it. I've been studying tax protesters for nearly 15 years. This is one of the cases that tax protesters cite. And I explained that this was not a federal tax case. What the Tennessee court said about Tennessee taxes does not apply to U.S. federal income taxes.

Where the heck do you think the Fed. Gov. got it's authority from? God? ....
[snip the rest of david's irrelevant rambling]

OK, david you're way off in the weeds. None of that ranting has anything to do with the application of U.S. federal income tax law. The Federal government gets its authority from the United States Constitution, which was ratified a long time ago. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to impose federal income taxes. Period.

Now, lets take a look at Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 1911...

No, let's not look at Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

David, there is no need to litter the post with extensive quotes from these cases. We've been studying these cases for years. There is nothing in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., that negates anyone's liability for U.S. federal income taxes, or limits the application of the Internal Revenue Code in any way.

Again, all this may be new to you, but it's not new to the regulars here at Quatloos.

We also don't need to read both Pollock decisions. We've already read them -- many times. THESE ARE VERY FAMOUS CASES. Did you think we hadn't read these cases? I'm fairly sure I've read these cases more often than you have.

In conclusion, I have previously recinded [sic] my name on all documents implying that I was subject to or liable for any so-called income tax or so-called social security tax...

No, you have not rescinded your name on those documents. David, there is no such thing as "rescinding" your name or "rescinding" your signature -- not in the way you are describing.

Further, trying to "rescind" your name on various documents does not negate your liability for U.S. federal income tax.

At this time, you are subject to the internal revenue laws of the United States. You are classified under the Internal Revenue Code as a "taxpayer", whether you pay your tax or not. You are required by the Internal Revenue Code to file federal income tax returns -- including Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ -- with the Internal Revenue Service.

[Famspear]

David, you wrote:

So, if state government courts recognized that " Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege "( Jack above @ p 456 ), there's no way in heck it could have been gifted to the US Government by the Original Governments.

I'm sorry, but that's completely incorrect.

The mere fact that a state cannot impose a state income tax on a right that is a privilege does not mean that the "original state governments" could not "gift" that same power to the U.S. Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

You are completely wrong.

You have some serious problems with your "logic", my friend.

[wserra]

I do not have a copy of my letter to the US Sec. Tres. on this computer.... If you would like, I will also include the entire process of letters between me, my bank, and the IRS that began a month later.
...
As I said, I'll try to get you copies of the entire process of my letter to the Sec. Tres. in April. Until then, any help getting my files out of sky cloud would be helpful.

I agree, and, so does the IRS in those letters I spoke of earlier. If you want to see them, feel free to inquire politely at quatlooie@outlook.com.

Something shifted in davidland over the last few days. The potentate there went from "I'll post the proof here if I can figure out how" to "ask me nicely and maybe I'll show you". My offer to link to them was ignored.

I think, david, that you've misinterpreted the level of interest here. I have no need to see the magic letters to know that you're wrong. If you want to post them (or take me up on my offer to post them) in an effort to prove that you're right, zei gesunt. I have a feeling that I know what they're going to say, because we've seen this claim made before. But don't let that stop you.

[david]

webhick, grixit, Famspear, wserra, Thanks for your help, I just posted my new e-mail above. If you'd like, I'll delete each the messages after responding.
Brian Rookard, I don't know Otto's intention, but, I used mention of Hubbard to instill a WTF moment like I experienced. As far as I'm concerned, only the 10 Commandments were written in stone, everything else is merely reasonable colorable arguments with reference to opinions expressed with pen ON paper. Some opinions simply carry more weight.
Famspear ( 1/23 @ 6:40 pm) re: Gail Sanocki; Mythical or not, in Otto's IYAD, Exhibit: Sanocki... you will find a copy of a document stating "dismissed without prejudice..." possibly because plaintiff could not produce something like 26 USC 5001 as Gail was claiming had not been done. I'll never know for sure unless I experience an indictment similar to Gail's.
As to "subject matter jurisdiction". ANY INHABITANT within the reach of the US Const. is subject to examination before a US Court and liable for the consequences of that examination, except maybe accredited delegates of a foreign State.
With regard to "subject matter jurisdiction", I was thinking along the avenue expressed in Gail's motion mentioned above regarding lines 12 thru 23 of page 11.
With regard to Russo, I guess I'll just have to try to find that jury forelady he interviewed and interview her myself. Wish me luck.
morrand, personally I would never turn down court appointed meaningful and competent assistance of counsel to inform me of my rights and the law and to guide me in navigating the rules of procedure. HOWEVER, I would appear before the court in my own person supported by that court appointed assistance of counsel. Maybe that assistance of counsel might have guided him to request the law similar to 26USC 5001 before the court proceeded (Sanocki above). I don't know but you guys are helping me learn.
Thanks, David

[david]

Apologies, just trying to be helpful. Asking politely only meant please keep it like we're doing here. I'm not familiar with PM yet so I was hesitant. Does OK work now? Oh, how do I work PM?
Thanks, David

[grixit]

Apologies, just trying to be helpful. Asking politely only meant please keep it like we're doing here. I'm not familiar with PM yet so I was hesitant. Does OK work now? Oh, how do I work PM?
Thanks, David

I sent you a message about PM. Look up at the top of this window. Just about the banner with the pirate flag, llama, and the word "Quatloos!" in curly script, there is a menu. The leftmost entry says "Logout[david]" Just to the right of that it says "x new messages", where "x" is the number of new messages you have. Click there to see your messages, including the one from me.

[morrand]

morrand, personally I would never turn down court appointed meaningful and competent assistance of counsel to inform me of my rights and the law and to guide me in navigating the rules of procedure. HOWEVER, I would appear before the court in my own person supported by that court appointed assistance of counsel. Maybe that assistance of counsel might have guided him to request the law similar to 26USC 5001 before the court proceeded (Sanocki above). I don't know but you guys are helping me learn.

26 USC 5001 seems to be neither here nor there: it imposes a tax on distilled spirits, and while the uncharitable might suggest that Mr. Gronvall consumed some of those before writing his briefs (at one point, he "declined the invitation" of the court to appear on a certain date, the humor of which the court failed to appreciate), it's otherwise not relevant.

You are speaking, then, I assume, of having standby counsel. Mr. Gronvall did have standby counsel at various points during trial. Counsel, presumably, failed to advise Mr. Gronvall to ask for the text of the law, probably on the basis that it makes no difference. The indictment charged a violation of 26 USC 7201, the general tax evasion statute, and explained how he was accused of doing this (by having taxable income and evading the payment of those taxes). That's all the court needs to have a triable case.

It's not a fair defense to the case to say that the tax applies only to federal-wage or federal-privilege income. This is exactly what the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is saying. They are saying that that is not the law, and therefore that a defense based on that position has no legs to stand on, not even enough to warrant serious discussion. Believe it or not, they actually have the prerogative of saying that.

[wserra]

It's not a fair defense to the case to say that the tax applies only to federal-wage or federal-privilege income. This is exactly what the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is saying. They are saying that that is not the law, and therefore that a defense based on that position has no legs to stand on, not even enough to warrant serious discussion. Believe it or not, they actually have the prerogative of saying that.

It also means - and the Court also has the prerogative to decide - that such a non-defense doesn't even go to the jury. You don't get to tell the jury that something that isn't the law, actually is the law.