Thillum wrote:
Famspear wrote:Thillum wrote:The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong, but that in effect, the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.
No, the fact of the matter is that with respect to Banister, Rose, and Hendrickson, these people are indeed inherently wrong about what the federal income tax law is. Understanding federal tax law is not a matter of approaching it from a political philosophy. The law is the same, regardless of how you feel about it.
You in effect didn't refute my point but altogether ignored it and substantiated your claim by using arbitrary statements with little to no relevance.
Wrong. You said that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, and Pete Hendrickson are not inherently wrong. Famspear stated that those people are in fact wrong. The reason Famspear knows they are wrong is because he knows tax law and the courts have said they were wrong. If court after court says that a particular position about the law is wrong, then it is wrong.
Thillum wrote:Within a court room, the etiquette of law is bound to evidence. How do you refute evidence? With conflicting evidence that on its face denies the validity of the preceding position. You all are far more well informed of the law in understanding the mechanics to building a case and how, readily, the case is not about what is true in so much that it is in PROVING how the defendants position is WRONG, or providing evidence PROVING that your position is valid. Lets not argue semantics.
That is part of your problem, you are confusing evidence or a person's position with law. In a tax case, a defendant can testify and provide evidence showing what he BELIEVED the law to be. However, he does not get to say what the law IS. Neither does the prosecution. The court makes the determination of what the law says.
Also, a person can CLAIM that they did not receive income. However, if the prosecution presents a W-2 showing that the person received income and then can show verified bank statements or other financial statements of the individual showing amounts close to the amount on the W-2, then it is obvious the person received the amount shown on the W-2 regardless of what the person claims.
Thillum wrote:Famspear wrote:
That doesn't change the point that the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be.
The law is still what the courts rule the law to be
Somewhat inaccurate, "the law is not what the courts have ruled the law to be", in so much that the court rulings apply the law for a given court case in order to distinguish its judicial scope as it pertains to the given circumstance. In other words, court rulings can more clearly distinguish the ambiguous extent of the law.
Already explained and the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be.
Thillum wrote:Famspear wrote:Thillum wrote:In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. ......
Wrong. Completely wrong. There is no rule of law that says that.
For an obvious reason, it is implied by the constitution. How do you think we determined the validity of all these statutes?
Because the courts have ruled that the statutes are constitutional.
Thillum wrote:Once and for all, Federal Income Tax is completely constitutional, there is no doubt in my mind.
Good, probably one of the first correct things you have said.
Thillum wrote:The point of emphasis is that the federal income tax is constitutional because it is an excise tax and not an direct tax; if income tax were a direct tax, it would violate the constitution.
Don't get hung up on excise, direct taxes, indirect taxes, etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER. The income tax is constitutional whether it is considered a direct tax or not. BTW, you are probably confused about what an excise tax is.
Thillum wrote:I'm not a Tax Denier, nor a Tax Protester either. I think this comment might go beyond all of your heads. I'm not denying or protesting income tax. Again, federal income is completely constitutional. I'm educating myself as it pertains to the law and extracting myself from the limited legal binding system explicitly defined in the statutes and regulations.
I hope that you are not a tax protester. However, if you are following Pete Hendrickson, then you are a tax protester.
If you want to educate yourself about income taxes, why don't you listen to tax lawyers and CPAs? Instead, you reference an ex-CPA who claims there is no law, a gardener turned medical transcriptionist who claims only foreign source income is taxable, and a two-time loser when it comes to income taxes. Like I mentioned earlier, you prefer to ask a first-grader how a nuclear reactor works instead of asking a nuclear engineer.
Thillum wrote:My reasoning is sound, the problem is not that either of us are wrong but that some of us do not understand the greater scope of what is implied or, for very obvious reasons, not implied at all. Your not breaking any laws if you understand the law and know how to work around them. Wake up, how do you think corporate entities operate for the sake of maximizing profits? They scrutinize the law so that they can manipulate and work outside of its jurisdiction.
I doubt your reasoning is sound. Though, for the most part, what you said in the above paragraph is correct. The problem arises when a person who is untrained in tax law attempts to take advantage of a loophole that doesn't exist. Also, corporations do not work outside of the jurisdiction of the law. To the contrary, they work within the law to find the legal methods to reduce their income tax burden. Individuals can do some of that too. However, Pete Hendrickson is breaking the law. There is a difference.
Thillum wrote:The Operative wrote:
However, if a person argues that there is no law making anyone liable (Joe Bannister) or argues that the only taxable income is income from a foreign source (Larken Rose), or ignores the meaning of ordinary words in an attempt to justify their belief that the income tax laws do not say what they really say (Pete Hendrickson), those people are simply wrong.
First of all, have you heard, upon multiple accounts, of the IRS denying to answer questions? If you like, I can even furnish video footage for you to consider... Now, why do you think this is? But not to get off topic. Lets continue, Have you even reviewed these three cases?
The IRS answers questions all the time. However, when a person is ambushed at a podium or other event where they do not have direct access to the law, it is difficult to answer some questions. Also, some of those "questions" are so asinine that they do not deserve an answer. Of course an IRS bureaucrat isn't going to answer some moron in the audience shouting, "Show us the law!" First, the law is available for those willing to look. Second, the moron wouldn't accept the answer anyway, so there is no point in answering.
Thillum wrote:If you did even the slightest bit of research you would put more weight in your words. Court rulings or citations do not support any concrete evidence and are a 'moot' point until you review the case. Information is useless until it is utilized accordingly...
Suffice is to say Joe Bannister won the case against the IRS on June 23, 2005; Thompson on the other hand didn't fair as well.. Conveniently there is limited evidence, but this will have to do:
http://joebanister.blogspot.com/2005_06 ... 0829911128
I know how to research just fine. I could cite case after case and you would probably still deny whatever I told you. However, you will accept the words of others, seemingly without question.
You need to go back and read all of my posts. I never said that Joe Bannister lost his criminal case. However, an acquittal doesn't mean that he was right. It only means that he was able to convince the jury that he was too stupid to understand that he had to pay taxes.
Vernice Kuglin was acquitted in her criminal case too. However, you should read the end of the transcripts. Here is the pertinent part...
19 MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin
20 on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court
21 ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got
22 to file returns and --
23 MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be
24 cleaned up totally.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not
1 incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also
2 saying is there will still be civil penalties.
3 MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters
4 to be coming pretty quick.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil
7 proceedings, and she is going to being take
8 responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to
9 respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.
Right there you can see that even though she was acquitted that she still had to pay her taxes and her acquittal changed nothing.
Thillum wrote:
In regards to Larken Rose, I extracted the following:
"Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose’s Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law. In convicting Rose, the jury rejected Rose’s claim that he held a good faith belief that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax."
Review the full article here:
http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv05626.htm
Notice that Section 861 does not pertain to filing federal income tax returns. It pertains to defining 'source' as it is utilized in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 1, Section 61(a), "gross income means all income from whatever source derived."
In effect what this means is that this court ruling did not prosecute on the basis that his position in regards to 861 was incorrect, but that he failed to file.
If you review the DOJ article it clearly states that "Larken Rose of Hollywood, Pennsylvania was sentenced in federal district court to 15 months imprisonment
for failing to file tax returns for the years 1998 -2002." In effect the evidence boiled down to failing to file tax returns. Is there any other evidence that refutes section 861? How bout looking up the code for yourself instead of using third party evidence?
Yes, Larken Rose was charged with "Willful failure to file". I never said he wasn't. However, what was HIS REASON for not filing tax returns? I'll give you a clue, he said he didn't have to since his income wasn't from a foreign source, which is also known as the '861' argument. Notice that the Judge instructed the jury that Rose's argument was "incorrect as a matter of law." That is part of the Judge's job. Usually, neither the prosecution or defense can tell the jury what the law is. That is for the Judge to do. Note: I am not a lawyer and if I am incorrect on that part, one of the many lawyers here will correct me.
I have looked at the code. Anyone with adequate reading comprehension skills can see that Larken Rose is wrong.
Thillum wrote:And Finally, in regards to Pete Hendrickson, the IRS's case is the following:
Mr. Hendrickson received a Form W-2 that provided a [presumptive] basis that he earned wages. Mr. Hendrickson, instead, chose to ignore the evidence from his employer and declare that he earned zero wages.
Supporting evidence that he earned zero wages can be found in his very own LostHorizons forum here:
http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... ght=stocks
To summarize, furnish a "Certificate of Fact" and any presumption that the employer was a federal entity comes falling down, because the filing of an SS-4 does not substantiate the claim.
I covered this a few paragraphs back. A person can CLAIM all they want that they did not receive income. However, a W-2 and further evidence that the money was deposited in that person's account is all the evidence required to refute the person's claim. What it amounts to is that Pete Hendrickson lied when he filed his income taxes, he lied on the stand, and he is trying to convince all of his followers to lie too.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.