anti-triallogs.blogspot.com

Dale Eastman talking out of his ass - again

2006-02-10T11:29:00.000-08:00

The ass-talking one left a comment on triallogs in response to another post.

In the midst of his comments, was this little gem:

As far as the 861 issue, right or wrong, the failure of the IRS to address the questions with substantive answers is significant proof that the questions are on point...

What a load of juvenile thinking that is. Could it be that the IRS has answered your questions, but you choose to not hear it? Could it be that the IRS is tired of speaking to "people" that will never change their minds. As a great post on Quatloos pointed out tax protesters can never accept that they are wrong and will believe the most pretzel logic to keep believing.

Dale is a maroon.

Latest from Detective Tommy at triallogs

2006-02-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

This guy is quickly becoming my favorite idiot in the entire TP world. When he's not fawning over Dale Eastman, he's putting forth these words of wisdom?

RG, have you noticed the difference in this blog since FB gave us his word that he would stop posting?

I have.

You can continue to post if you want, but no one takes you seriously.

You are not one of us.

you have not suffered like we have.

We know a slave when we see one.

Can you imagine how many slaves there would have been if they were all armed to the teeth?

If you were on a plantation, you would work in the kitchen, and sleep in the master's house.

If you slept with the rest of us, you would die before the sun came up.
Tom Enfield | 02.09.06 - 11:29 pm | #

The only difference I've noticed in that idiot blog is that it's gotten a lot more boring without my input. Yes, I know that sounded stuck up, but the truth is the truth.

Tommy, go back to kissing Dale Eastman's ass. When you try to be "cute", you just come across as a stupid piece of shit. Or is that your normal self imposing itself?

Detective Tommy (repost)

2006-02-09T10:38:00.000-08:00

Tommy Enfeld has been a busy little beaver on triallogs - since I left - wonder why that is? Could it be that I smacked him down every time be posted? Nah...TP's aren't cowards, are they? Here's your proof Detective Tommy, use it well, moron.

I've noticed on triallogs that...

2006-02-08T21:15:00.000-08:00

Dale Eastman has been pestering a commenter named Perspective about some stupid shit that Eastman is becoming famous for repeating ad naseaum.

I noticed that Eastman's "questions" have been circulating around the internet for decades. As a matter of fact, perusing Eastman's site, I find nothing that appears to be original. He is, apparently, archiving the "work" of others and then taking ownership by proxy.

I would suggest that any tax protestor, before downing too much kook-aid, visit the Tax Protesters FAQ at this address.

If after reading through it, you still wish to explore life as a deadbeat - Good Luck.

Since I stopped commenting on the jahn blog,

2006-02-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

Tommy "Detective" Enfeld has become more bold in his comments. I have to figure he noticed that I left, so it was safe for him to come out from under his desk. Nice try Detective Tommy, I still intend to have fun with your idiocy for as long as I can. Here's a comment he left on the censor blog:

If I were a gov spy I would not worry about our little band of merry men and their blog.

I would report to my master that their numbers are so small, and insignificant, that I am wasting my time monitoring their blog.

I would say,

“Master, I can count on one hand the number of men (there are no women that post) with any brains.

One or two of them appear to be knowledgeable in the law, and can write a decent letter, and a sound rebuttal to our correspondence to them, but with judges like Dawson, we don't have to worry about any of their correspondence ever being seen by a jury.

Case in point Master, the jury asked to see the code book in Schiff’’s trail. Judge Dawson refused, and the jury went ahead an convicted him on every charge we threw at him. They even thought it was good that we had banded his book.

With the disgust most people have for sitting on a jury, only our dumbest sheeple ever make it into our jury pool. It’s like a private club for dummies.

Hey master, is it ok if I contact Wiley books about writing a book with that title? “JURY DUTY FOR DUMMIES”?

Master, we control the news, the jury selection, the judges, public opinion, the schools, the police.

Why do you want to control a handful of broke old men, that like to vent to each other.

Most of the time they just argue with each other.

Everyone of them is hoping that we just leave them alone to vent.

They are all broke, have no friends, their family thinks they are crazy, talk radio cuts them off, they are all too old to be productive workers in prison, so why do I have to monitor their tiny blog?

Dale Eastman wrote me a letter asking for advice. I wrote him back our standard letter, that he should avoid taking advice from tax protestors, but there was nothing in my answer that he can show a jury that would be detrimental to our mission.

He might say that I didn’t answer, and I would just paint him as a tax cheat, trying to get away from paying his fair share, and the jury will find him guilty, so back to my original questions, why do I have monitor these poor old white men?

Master: “BECAUSE I WANT 100 PERCENT OBEDIENCE
Tom Enfield | 02.08.06 - 11:05 am | #

I figure that took him about 2 weeks [and a bottle of asprin to counter the headaches that writing so much had to have caused his pea brain] to put together.

His whole premise was how awful it is that the Government wants 100% obedience to the law?

Wanting and having are 2 entirely different things Detective Tommy. The Government wants obedience to the law because that's what they do. I'm sure there's enough intelligent people (please consider yourself excluded from that group Tommy) that understand that 100% compliance with all the laws isn't exactly possible.

Heck, I break a law every time I jaywalk - but there's degrees of disobedience.

To the heart of your problem with the government - Paying your income taxes is the law and you can't make it not the law by cock-eyed reading of sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

the censor himself pulls out the "victim" card ~

2006-02-08T07:16:00.000-08:00

From triallogs:

Here is the one I love from the MSN articles list of schemes to avoid.

Return Preparer Fraud: Dishonest people who prepare tax returns, some promising big refunds, can cause big headaches for taxpayers. Some skim from refunds or prepare fraudulent returns. No matter who prepares the return, the taxpayer is ultimately responsible for its accuracy.

In Larken's trial, the prosecutors asserted that tax laws are very complicated and that citizens can't interpret tax laws on their own. They said Larken should have consulted attorneys or CPA's. The prosecutor went onto say soemthing to the affect of "imagine the mess we would have if every citizen read the law for themselves"

Well, as evidenced in the excert above, you can consult all the experts you want. But when there is a problem on your return, the experts shrug there shoulders and walk away. You are the one that is accountable.

I don't imagine many Americans have read the law and actually know what they are signing each year.

David Jahn | 02.08.06 - 7:49 am | #

He is such a predictable tax protester. He takes the Governments stance that people can not "interpret tax laws for themselves" and turns it into a "something to the effect" quote of "citzens can't read the law for themselves". You can read the laws all you want - you just have to leave the interpretation of those laws to the courts.

Dale Eastman over at Jahns censored blog

2006-02-07T09:09:00.000-08:00

likes this saying:

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are a liar.

What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a kindergarten kid reciting "sticks and stones" when she's being teased by a bully. What a maroon.

Over at triallogs...

2006-02-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

there's another coward using the alias of "Ben Gera". gera had this to say:

In regard to Mr Buckner.
Allow me to quote the Bible:
Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge

Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him
Ben Gera | 02.06.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Allow me to quote from my book of proverbs.

Frank Buckner 01:01 - Kiss my ass Gera.

Thank you Dale

2006-02-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

I wasn't aware that moderation was turned on. I don't have nearly the time to sit and moderate each post. Thanks for pointing it out and it's now been turned off.

Then there's this moron

2006-02-06T15:02:00.000-08:00

He/She/It calls him/her/itself "lifetimenonfiler". Of course, as I've pointed out to coward2, billy boy,The Constitutionalists, The Law, and the myriad others who perform the equivelent of drooling at traillogs - it's so easy to proclaim yourself as "taxfree" or some other moronic appellation - under the cloak of anonymous cowardice.

This is just a sample from "lifetimenonfiler" for your amusement.

"The crux of it all" yes, I agree. The crux of it all is that if you are an able bodied american citizen male you are REQUIRED to provide information to the selecive service for the DRAFT..if you do not,you may be subject to fine of no more than $10,000,or imprisonment of no more than 5 yrs,or both. It says so on the "selective service privacy act notice"that all men of this country get in the mail at age 18. Of course I must point out that no such statement exists in the privacy act statement available from I.R.S....... so tell us all here,at what point exactly were you drafted by the I.R.S.? or did you volunteer? is there an age limit?..say 18 yrs?.. I will say that only when every man and woman gets something from govt, at age 16-18 or from I.R.S.in the mail that informs us that we I am required to pay taxes under penalty of prison time or fine of no more than...then we will be a part of this imaginary taxpayer army you speak of. bye-the-way, If you work for govt,you joined up. If you work for a company that requires you to have money withheld in exchange for employment,you joined up too. Just like when you register your corporation with govt,you agree to pay taxes on that corps profit.When was I drafted?
lifetimenonfiler | 02.06.06 - 5:27 pm | #

He may never have been "drafted", but he is daft. I shudder to think that people of his obviously low intelligence may be driving a car on the same road I am. Of course, maybe not - since obtaining a drivers license would be just like "joining up", ey retard?

April 15th is coming around boys and girls.

2006-02-06T12:27:00.000-08:00

For those "tax disabled" folks, you might want to remember that the IRS has a rather large club and knows how to use it.

Topic 653 - IRS Notices and Bills, Penalties and Interest Charges

April 15th is the deadline for most people to file their individual income tax return and pay any tax owed. Tax returns are checked for mathematical accuracy. If there is any money owed, you will be sent a bill. Generally, interest is charged on any unpaid tax from the due date of the return until the date of payment. The interest rate is determined every three months and is the federal short–term rate plus 3 percent. Interest is compounded daily. If you file on time but don't pay all amounts due on time, you'll generally have to pay a late payment penalty of one–half of one percent of the tax owed for each month, or part of a month, that the tax remains unpaid from the due date, until the tax is paid in full or the 25% maximum penalty is applied. The one–half of one percent rate increases to one percent if the tax remains unpaid 10 days after the IRS issues a notice of intent to levy. For individuals, who file by the return due date, the one-half of one percent rate decreases to one-quarter percent for any month in which an installment agreement is in effect.

If you owe tax and don't file on time, the total late–filing penalty is usually four and one-half percent of the tax owed for each month, or part of a month, that your return is late up to five months. If your return is over 60 days late, the minimum penalty for late filing is the smaller of $100 or 100 percent of the tax owed.

You must file your return and pay your tax by the due date to avoid interest and penalty charges. Often the funds necessary to pay your tax can be borrowed at a lower effective rate than the combined IRS interest and penalty rate.

To ensure your payment on a bill for tax is credited properly, be sure to return the tear–off stub on your bill and use our return envelope. Please make your check or money order payable to the United States Treasury. Enter the primary social security number or employer identification number, the tax year and form number and your telephone number on your check or money order.

The penalties for filing and paying late may be abated if you have reasonable cause. If you're billed for either penalty and feel you have reasonable cause, send your explanation along with the bill to your service center, or call the IRS at 1–800–829–1040 for assistance. Generally, interest charges may not be abated; they continue to accrue until all assessed tax, penalties, and interest are paid in full. Generally, any reasonable cause exception to the penalty for failure to pay tax cannot be determined until the tax is first paid in full.

If you believe there is an error on your notice or bill, write to the IRS office that sent it to you within the time frame given. You should provide photocopies of any records that may help correct the error. Also, you may call the number listed on your notice or bill for assistance. If you are correct, we will make the necessary adjustment to your account and send you a corrected notice.

For more information about IRS notices and bills, refer to Publication 594 (PDF), Understanding the Collection Process. More information about penalty and interest charges is contained in Chapter 1, Filing Information, of Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax.

Dale has his ass handed to him, film at eleven.

2006-02-06T10:31:00.000-08:00

Perspective, who I have to admit I don't really know anything about- has challenged the Court Jester, Dale Eastman. If you put Eastman's posts side by side with Perspective, you'll see that Eastman comes across as the shrill one. Here's a comment that perspective left for Dale and I figured it was worth saving before Jahn had the chance to delete it as "being off topic" or some other excuse he'll use to delete posts that attempt to shine light into his rose colored world.

Dale,
I guess you have nothing to offer Art. As for the quotes I was expounding them most likely long before you even heard of the Freedom movement. You're legally bankrupt and directionless as to having any solutions!! Spinning your wheels, staying off point, along with being out of context is bad form. The bad news is you’re not getting any better. Your ego and fears are showing you’ve become dogmatic and fanatic.

“The dogmas appear related. Holding rigidly to a point of view, no matter what evidence flies in one's face to contradict or temper it, is dogmatic. Dogma is based on denial, which is rooted in fear. It can be called blind faith, or a faith that blinds, but it short-circuits the thinking process.” W. Frazier

I wouldn’t even know where to start to get you to think beyond you square box. What the hell do you think I’ve been talking about—chop liver—returning to inalienable rights has been my goal ever since day one.

What the hell are you reading? As for “proof,” haven’t you been watching the courts trash people in the so-called tax movement ZERO WINS in courts, unless you’re counting delays of time as wins? Oh but what about the Banister case? That case has nothing to do with resolving the tax issue—the facts only showed he did not assist people to evade taxes.

No the courts are not corrupted that’s an excuse you and everyone on this site like to believe. Of course there are oversights, mistrials, etc., and yes even bad judges. But when you have a righteous cause with real on point issues the courts have a duty to support the Constitution as the superior law.

Perspective
Perspective | 02.06.06 - 1:20 pm | #

It finally happened

2006-02-06T09:33:00.000-08:00

David Jahn over at triallogs has decided to start deleting posts that "didn't conform to the message" that the blog is for. The message? Blind obedience to tax protesting theories, of course.

I going to ask all of you to review your comments. Are they relevant to the message that was posted on the blog to which your comment is connnected or to the missioin of this blog? If not, I will begin deleting them.

Surely, we've tolerated this nonsense far to long.

Connected to the "missioin"' of the blog is tax protesting speak for "parroting views that have been disproven in every court of law in the land, but if we repeat it enough, we can declare the courts corrupt because they don't see it our way".

Yeah, I know Eastman will have something to say about that, but geej, that guy is such a pain in the ass. Apparently he's figured out that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. He writes tomes of crap designed to make your eyes glaze over halfway through, so you can't argue with him about his juvenile reading of the law.

Coward2 is such a worthless prick and Jahn holds him up as a shining example of what the purpose of his blog is. That's gotta tell you something right there.

I'm going to add haloscan (it will be shared with my other blog for simplicity sake) to this blog as well. Once I remember how, that is. That should allow the morons (yes coward2, yes the law, it's of you I speak) to post comments under their chosen coward names. Oh and yes Coward2 - this now will have haloscan - to which I banned Bobby Sue under. So, if you're not bobby sue, I look forward to your next post. Yeah right, huh? You'll never leave a comment coward2, because you can't.

I will no longer allow "anonymous" comments on my blogs

2006-01-31T06:50:00.000-08:00

So Bobby Sue, you'll have to register with Blogger should you wish to continue leaving your moronic comments. This isn't censorship as you are more than welcome to post your normal drivel. I'm just removing the cloak of cowardice you post under. I await your shrill tirade on triallogs.

In what can only be described...

2006-01-30T16:23:00.000-08:00

...as a stroke of good fortune, I managed to again come up with an exclusive bobby sue/a2 photo. This is it at work. I'm surprised the moron had enough sense to wear safety glasses...way to go bobby sue/a2

NEWS FLASH!!!

2006-01-30T07:18:00.000-08:00

After a long grueling stake out, I managed to obtain a photo of Bobby Sue/A2 "creating" one of his/it's insightful postings: Here - in a triallog exclusive - is BobbySue/A2.

Yoo Hoo, A2...

2006-01-26T21:31:00.000-08:00

Perhaps comprehension isn't your strong suit. Listen up bobby sue, this blog uses the blogger comment field. I'm not able to block IP's and I don't really want to futz with putting haloscan on this one.

THE OTHER BLOG, of which the link has been renamed to assist the mentally deficient (you a2) in finding it - does have haloscan and I have blocked bobby sue's IP address.

This is your big moment moron. Post on my other blog and I will state on triallogs that I was wrong about you being Bobby Sue. Don't and you're not just a moron, you're a lying moron to boot.

Found out by A2/Bobby Sue

2006-01-23T20:30:00.000-08:00

Over at triallogs, (be warned the comments on the linked thread is over 300 long) there' s a coward using the name of A2. (See his photo at left) He/she/it has been ragging forever about me allegedly censoring on this blog. I've not allowed one puke (bobby sue/a2) to not post because of his obscene "blowjob" references. It had no use at all, so I banned him.

Katie bar the door time. He's on a tirade over at triallogs about how I'm a liar and blah de blah de blah.

Ok, the proof as they, is in the doing. I banned the morons IP address. A2 (idiot squared right?) post here and post at my other blog. Go ahead, leave a comment. If you leave comments on both blogs, I will forever refrain from calling you a moron. I still reserve the idiot name for you, it just seems to fit.

Ball is in your court bobby sue.

I want to set the record straight

2006-01-12T22:19:00.000-08:00

Over on the other triallogs, there's a poster by the nick of "the law". He's really a bit of a moron, but I let that go because, well, have you ever seen a tax protester that wasn't somewhat of a moron? But, I digress.

"The Law" was mouthing off about something rather asinine and it all boiled down to this moron wanting my address so he can come to my house and "show me the error of my ways". I realize that all he has is his idiot buddies for comparison, but really - how stupid would you have to be to give your home address out to a frrrrreak that posts under an assumed (and not very creative) nickname on a blog? Gene Chapman and Doug Kenline stupid, that's how much!

I am many things~ Opinionated Republican Conservative Smart-Ass Politically INcorrect~ to quickly rattle off a couple of descriptors that I've been known to confess to - but I HAVE NEVER been known to be stupid. I mean drooling on yourself stupid - never. That's how stupid you would have to be to give your personal information to a known freak.

So, I compromised. I offered to meet this yutz in a public place in my town (Laughlin Nevada Pop. 10,000 or so) - Casino preferably since I happen to know that Security in those joints are pretty good (not great, but good) - he could pick the time, the date and the place. How more reasonable can I be?

So "the fre.." ah-hem, sorry - "the law" makes a counterproposal of sorts. He comments that he would agree to meet me...provided I send David Jahn $200 as surety that I would show...OK, I already asked the "how stupid would I have to be" question, but really, isn't it time for it again?

HOW Stupid would I have to be to send money to someone I don't know and have no reason to trust?
HOW f'ing stupid would I have to be to send money to an avowed Tax Protestor?

How stupid? Really, I'm asking for an answer here.

So, "the law" - you're a pussy. You made a condition that you knew I would never accept knowing that you could puss out and look like a "hero" to your tax protesting idiot friends.

Moron.

I've been posting on triallogs.blogspot.com

2005-12-03T21:20:00.000-08:00

for the amusement factor more than anything else. Buried in some of the comments is little smart assed remarks from "Robert Ingle". The little prick is, as far as I can tell, the comfort bitch for Doug Kenline and Gene Chapman. I can't see as he's ever done anything "noteworthy" in the tax protesting world. I suppose it's necessary to have someone to wipe asses and suck dicks. Congrats Ingle, you've found your lot in life.

open Letter to the law and other losers on triallogs.blogspot.com

2005-12-01T18:24:00.000-08:00

Dear losers,

I first started visiting loserblog in an attempt to understand how people could fall for such stupid theories. After a full year of triallogs, kenline, chapman, rose, schiff et al, I'm still unable to figure it out.

The Government writes the laws, to think that they have to resort to verbal trickery to enforce laws that they have the ability to write and enforce, is totally idiotic. Yes, they have to remain consistent with the Constitution, but nothing in the Constitution forbids, or ever forbid, the laying of taxes, Personal or otherwise.

The idiots (the law, dale eastman; et.al) asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money.

The reality:
For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. ' 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded.

Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955)- referring to the statutes words "income derived from any source whatever," the Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field 'the full measure of its taxing power.' ... And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) - the court stated that "[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) - the court rejected as
"meritless" the taxpayer's contention that the "exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction."

McCoy v. United States, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2001) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that wages received were not income and described this position as meritless.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) - the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Cheek's conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns and willfully attempting to evade income taxes solely on the basis of erroneous jury instructions. The Court noted, however, that Cheek's argument, that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional, "is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [law regarding willfulness in criminal cases] does not support such a position." Id. (emphasis added). On remand, Cheek was convicted on all counts and sentenced to jail for a year and a day. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980)- the court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F. 2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985) – the court affirmed the Tax Court’s rejection of the taxpayers’ argument that taxing wage and salary income is unconstitutional because compensation for labor is an even exchange, not gain. The Fifth Circuit noted that “the frivolity of this argument is patently obvious, and the other contentions raised in the Stellys’ briefs are equally meritless.” The court also fined them for bringing a frivolous appeal.

United States v. White, 769 F. 2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985) – the appellate court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction to prevent the promotion of any plan based on the false representation that there is no tax imposed on an even exchange of property (labor) for property (wages) of equal value.

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) - the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer's contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is "totally lacking in merit."

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981) - the court affirmed Romero's conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that "[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of ["income" and "person"]. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a 'person' and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not 'income' is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect."

Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) - the court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless ... and maintained primarily for delay."

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) - noting that "[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor," the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating that "[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause."

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that "[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)" is not subject to income taxation. The court stated that such claims have been "consistently and thoroughly rejected" by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 - the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that “wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ‘time reimbursement transactions’, a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable.” The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising “only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric.”

Would you like more?

Flash in the pan!

2005-11-03T14:44:00.000-08:00

Which is what the Schiff trial turned out to be.

When it first started, and then during the trial itself, the bloogers (sic on purpose) on the triallogS blog were furious in their defense of the "Great and Wonderful Irwin Schiff". It didn't take long before they were hedging their bets by announcing with complete authority that the trial was "rigged" a "plant was on the jury" or some other whacky belief that the Government help such fear for Schiff that hundreds of years of juris prudence would be tossed out of the window to convict this "dangerous" man. During the trial they obsessed over the fact that "Irwin isn't being allowed to show the jury the law".

Well, that's simply not true. Irwin wasn't allowed to tell the jury his opinion of what the law is.

Major difference.

He was, of course found guilty of all the charges. Not because of a "vast government conspiracy", but simply because he was guilty of all the charges brought against him.

With the guilty verdicts and Mike the Radio Retard making Irwin and himself look like a fool [though to be fair, it isn't that difficult of a task], the comments on triallogS are become almost non-existent.

They have a few of the die-hard "anti-everything" crowd still posting, but nobody is paying any attention. Peymon is trying to steal Irwin's client base, and giving wrong advice in the process. (The bankruptcy laws have changed Peymon)

Best part? Doug Kenline (Deadbeat) has disappeared once again from the "blogosphere". (this will be posted on my other blog as well)

5 limits in the constitution according to Schiff

2005-10-30T19:17:00.000-08:00

Here's the audio blog link: http://triallogs.blogspot.com/2005/10/cohen-schiff-neun-trial-mike-golden.html

He first stated said that Article 1 Section 9 (Clause 2) , he said it reads that "no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin in tender and payment of debt" Article 1, Section 9 (Clause 2) says nothing of the sort - of course I don't have the Irwin Schiff decoder ring/eyeglasses with me. Here's the entire Section 9 of Article 1:

Section 9:The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

Strike One....

He then went on to say about Article 1 Section 8 (Clause 5)..."Government shall coin money and regulate the value thereof in other weights and measures" The entire Section 8 of Article 1 says:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This one he got right, of sorts. It does say exactly what he said, but I don't see how the Government has violated the provisions of this Article.

What really pisses me off? How Mike the radio Retard was trying to elicit tales of mistreatment from Schiff, who kept telling him that he was being treated ok for being in jail.

Is the beginning of this blog?

2005-10-30T18:40:00.000-08:00

If I am banned at triallogs.blogspot.com, I will use this blog to continue to ridicule the tax protesting misguided misfits, this one will be specifically aimed at trial logs.