ShadesOfKnight wrote:Funny. If ever you have to use "in that sense" and "100% accurate" in the same sentence, it seems that someone isn't being wholly forthright. Unfortunately, this kind of wordplay seems to be common on BOTH sides of the fence, which is why I find myself unable to accept either argument. Neither side seems able to simply state objective fact clearly and succinctly ....
See, that's what makes no sense to me. She was aquitted, and yet still got penalized. That's the kicker to the American Justice System. You can "win" legally and still be punished (over and over again, even) by your opposition going to civil court. Seems to me (again, not a lawyer), if you are not guilty then you're not to be punished ....
Given that information, it sounds to me like it was a simple case of economics then... The IRS could bring to bear near-infinite funds to fight her while her own resources were sharply restricted. This situation leads any individual to "roll over" in order to simply survive... principle tends to diminish when your family is starving, don't you agree?
As I said on the other thread, I'm a tax honesty advocate, so in the minority here, but hopefully fair and balanced enough.
As someone said above, there are many many wins against the IRS on the books. The forum regulars believe that most of them are by people who believe mainstream tax theory but successfully catch IRS in a real error (such as disallowing a deduction). The forum regulars believe that the remaining minority portion of wins, by people who espouse various mythical and/or realistic tax theories, might be classified as wins so far as the IRS does not get everything it asked for, but are never wins in the sense that any of the tax theories is thereby established.
I would tend to agree that I've seen no clearcut cases (and only a few borderline cases) that ever establish ironclad that a particular minority theory is valid. In the borderline cases, often the IRS claims conveniently that it knew the theory declared valid was valid all along. For example, in Schulz v IRS I and II, it was established pretty thoroughly that the IRS cannot enforce an administrative summons or other administrative process without obtaining a court order. The IRS claims in response to the court that it never intended its administrative summonses to be treated as more than mere requests and since they can always go get a court order nothing has changed. Then the tax beneficiary crowd (meaning e.g. this forum) points out that Schulz's tactical maneuver invalidates his case: since he deliberately made a motion which would be rejected if his theory (about administrative summonses requiring court orders) were true, when that motion was rejected he "lost" the case in normal parlance. This is merely a special pleading that ignores the fact that he got exactly what he wanted: he victoriously and rightly announced that his position was soundly vindicated, and strengthened the second time around (Schulz II). Thus you can see all kinds of doublespeak and spin that might ensue.
On this forum you'd better have a good constitution and be prepared for everything to be flung at you. Psyops are not uncommon. Trust no one (including myself) except your own conscience. You seem to have a good head for spotting ludicrosity, including that of the convoluted court system, and that of many self-serving tax theories. Keep in mind that the only conscientious position is tax honesty: to follow the laws as written (with a very occasional exception for civil disobedience, which you should regard as more limited than you might think). In that case you will steer clear of the convolutions of both tax beneficiary myths and tax patriot myths, and you will be unaffected by any convolutions the courts or the IRS throw in the way of justice. (And please don't get worked up when they make fun of you.) It is well-known that true heroes follow their consciences, their principles of right, even if it takes them to jail or death; while the vast majority do roll over and (as Imalawman said of himself here) much prefer the temporary benefits of slavery.
For years I read Larken Rose (who is now back out of jail) and could never quite put my finger on whether he was right or wrong, and still have a fond hope that he'll come out all right. However, I think the evidence Pete Hendrickson has accumulated at losthorizons.com counts as relatively victorious. That is, hundreds of checks, refund letters, and credit notices, totalling nearly $2 million, given to people who have filed their forms in what we believe is the most lawful and proper fashion. I would be remiss not to plug the forum which is available at
http://www.losthorizons.com/Forum3/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3 . (Full disclosure: the DOJ entered 10 suits against Pete and direct followers to my knowledge, of which the first 3 were "won" by Pete (DOJ requested dismissal), and of the later flurry of which, 4 were settled by Pete's followers and 3 "lost" and under appeal by Pete, Joy Ferguson, and Jim Spitzer. There are a few other suits which mention Pete in passing which I'm not counting.)
Note that we definitely support Russo's well-researched and wide-reaching movie, but we believe he made a significant error in tax position (which does not invalidate the tax honesty movement or his movie at all, but does vitiate his arguments if brought to court). I don't know Kuglin's position, but she may have made the same error. However, you might find this paradigm shift easy to make. It's not that "there is no law making me liable"; it's that there IS a law (26 USC 1) which makes SOME people liable, and there is (possibly false) evidence that you are one of those people. So all you need to do is correct that evidence if it's false. The paradigm shift includes the comforting realization: it's not that the scheme is unjust, it's that it's perfectly Constitutional and will serve you and other Americans well if used rightly instead of deceptively.
Now watch how they spin me.
