Press Release: Group Beats the IRS in Court

[Duke2Earl]

There always seems to be lambs that voluntarily want to be slaughtered. I really have no idea why. Perhaps Mr. Due Diligence would want to look into Mr. Long's retrial. Or perhaps he ought to look up the levys filed against Ms. Kuglin since her "glorious victory." Perhaps he can furnish a citiation to a court case, any court case, in any court, in any year since 1913 that has ever held that the Federal income tax was unenforcable or unconstitutional. Isn't it amazing how he wants to debate issues that were finally and conclusively settled generations ago. Isn't it amazing how desperately he wants to ruin his life.

Good Luck with those arguments... you will need it.

[Dr. Caligari]

Unfortunately I don't have time to reply fully but I certainly will this weekend.

I suspect we will never see Adam again.

[Leftcoaster]

Unfortunately I don't have time to reply fully but I certainly will this weekend.

I suspect we will never see Adam again.

I disagree, I think we'll see a response much like his initial foray onto the board that we don't understand the "real law"...and then we will never see him again.

I would like to think that this one can still be saved. After all his is still capable of coherent sentence structure, if not entirely coherent thought. If he applies real critical thinking skills over the course of the weekend, and sees what the truth is, and not what he would like it to be, then there might yet be hope. That said, from his posts, it seems that he quite desperately wants to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to keep the truth about taxes (so-called) from the public at large.

I hope he realizes just how expensive that particular brand of Kool-Aid is.

[notorial dissent]

What our current case of fresh meat seems to have missed, either intentionally or otherwise(although who am I kidding here???), aside from the fact that Tommy Cryer is first, last, and foremost a liar, is that he was acquitted of willful failure to file, not that he didn’t have to file. Despite what Cryer would like to and does claim, all the jury verdict said was that he, an attorney, supposedly learned in the law was too stupid to know he had to pay taxes, not that he didn’t have to pay taxes in the first place.

As to the constant plaint that "they will never show the law", quite the contrary, the law in question is trotted out every time they are charged, as it is part of the charge. To which the Tax deniers immediate response is to immediately stick fingers in ears, close eyes and start chanting "no there isn't, no there isn't".

[Gregg]

I am fascinated with your argument. I truly respect your intelligence and would love to know what undergraduate and graduate school you attended. Unfortunately I don't have time to reply fully but I certainly will this weekend.

The way you attempt to rationalize your belief is astounding to me because you have no consideration for if you are wrong -- to the degree that it appears that you know you are indeed wrong and are merely arguing technicalities and twisting logic in a concerted effort to color the truth.

Do you realize that you essentially said that I if believe sincerely that there is no law to require me to file taxes then I will never be charged with willful failure to file tax returns because I will never willfully fail to file. I have no liability because I believe so, thus I am innocent?

Besides, every juror I've read on big tax cases that have acquitted didn't say the defendant was "too stupid". Rather they say the government could never produce a law that says to file (there's a statute that says "make a return" but not "file a return") thus they believed the defendant was too smart and knew he had no liability.

I will review the websites posted and post a detailed reply to your so-called facts.

Thanks again for providing such intriguing insight but I would suggest reading about econometrics, military keynesianism and economic integration before you wholeheartedly dismiss the private Federal Reserve and the IRS as great benefits to the nation. Also I love how you merely disregard the warnings of a private Central Bank and fiat currencies from Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Woodroow Wilson.

Question -- who profits when trillions of dollars of new money are created? There is no profit from the banks who own the Fed by keynesianism? Who profits from NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT? Who profits from the SPP.GOV? Who profits from the Treaty of Lisbon / the New Federal European Union?

The full Grace Commission excerpt:

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

* One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
* Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
* With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

Perhaps we can have a new Grace Commission to see where that HALF TRILLION (!) in interest payments goes to. And the Fed is not as open as you say, there are Congressman on the Banking Committee that don't even get all the details of what goes on in their secretive meetings.

My aren't we a demanding little man?

Not that it's any of your business, but
Harvard College, Accounting
Xavier University, MBA, Finance
London School of Economics, PhD, Economics
University of Michigan., PhD, Manufacturing

and for good measure I was once a part time grad student/intern at the Federal Reserve bank of Cleveland. My NWO credentials are immpeccable and I fully expect my invite to the next Bilderberger Conference.

I cannot begin to point out the fallacy of your arguments, I leave it to others for most points, but what you and your ilk often don't get is the real significance of Cheek.

Do you realize that you essentially said that I if believe sincerely that there is no law to require me to file taxes then I will never be charged with willful failure to file tax returns because I will never willfully fail to file. I have no liability because I believe so, thus I am innocent?

What that means is you may be aquitted of the felony of saying you don't owe any taxes and refusing to pay them, but you still owe the taxes and they'll come and get them. These 'heros" get off exactly as otheres here have said, by convincing a jury of their peers that even though 99% of the population understands that there is a law that requires a lot of people to pay income tax, for some reason this person, in good faith, was too thick to realize it applied to him.

[LPC]

Perhaps Mr. Due Diligence would want to look into Mr. Long's retrial.

I think you mean Cheek's retrial.

Lloyd Long was acquitted by a jury and so, like Vernice Kuglin and Tommy Cryer, he could not be tried again.

John Cheek's conviction was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and he was retried. And convicted again. 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993). F******g jurors.

[Paul]

For those who keep asking, a juror in the Gaylon Harrel case was reported to have said that they acquitted him because the judge would not "show them the law" when they asked for a copy of the statutes. Of course, that was a STATE tax case, not federal, and dear ole Whitey has lost in federal court more times than Irwin Schiff.

[LPC]

dear ole Whitey has lost in federal court more times than Irwin Schiff.

Nonsense. No one has lost more often than Schiff.

Seriously. I think he holds some kind of record. Like Joe DiMaggio's consecutive hitting streak, it'll probably never be broken.

[grixit]

Notice how even this person's handle is part of their conceit of being better read than we are. They invoke the name of arch conspiracy figure Adam Weishaupt but use an initial, thinking we won't get it. Then they can congratulate themselves on putting one over.

So 'o's a clever child, eh? eh?

[Gregg]

Is it just me or is the village idiot missing here?

[ASITStands]

Maybe not being able to access the forum Saturday or Sunday had something to do with it? 'AdamW' might suggest a conspiracy not to hear his views. I was looking forward to it.

[Gregg]

No, I mean posts are missing. It appears the little guy took his ball and went home.

[Judge Roy Bean]

No, I mean posts are missing. It appears the little guy took his ball and went home.

There are users missing as well.

Webhick will likely come forth and provide some better expertise-based opinion, but the database error message that was popping up may have something to do with not only posts disappearing, but actual user records.

Methinks the sprites and elves are to blame. Either that or it's the guys who speak in acronyms, wear weird shoes and shave infrequently.

[Famspear]

No, I mean posts are missing. It appears the little guy took his ball and went home.

There are users missing as well.

Webhick will likely come forth and provide some better expertise-based opinion, but the database error message that was popping up may have something to do with not only posts disappearing, but actual user records.

Methinks the sprites and elves are to blame. Either that or it's the guys who speak in acronyms, wear weird shoes and shave infrequently.

I knew that this whole computer technology thing was really just little men running around inside the wires in the wall. Nobody would believe me.

Or maybe it was just gerbils....

Anyway, they need to be fed.....

[ASITStands]

No, I mean posts are missing. It appears the little guy took his ball and went home.

Wow! I hadn't noticed, but you're right. All his posts seem to be missing.