Posted on 03/06/2002 7:46:33 PM PST by one2many
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Sherry Peel Jackson. I became a Certified Public Accountant in 1987, I was an Internal Revenue Agent in the Atlanta District for 7 years, and I became a Certified Fraud Examiner in 2001. I am here to summarize the tales of ignorance and deception that you have heard over the last two days and I am here to inform you of the state of the nation so that you may choose your next course of action.
You have heard the truth of how the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve and politicians have perpetuated this smoke and mirrors - dog and pony show on you the American people for over 88 years. You have heard of American families devastated by the invasion of privacy and unbridled fear placed upon them through threats of liens, levy's and even jail time. In my tenure as an IRS agent, I personally saw marriages broken, families torn apart, homes confiscated and businesses destroyed - all while my colleagues and I were out making unjust demands on the American people - without the proper authority. Now, you be the judge.
You have seen that Commissioner Charles Rosatti, Dan Bryant, the majority of our congressional delegation and other civil servants have refused to do their jobs. It would have been as simple as answering the questions of these well-educated researchers in a public forum, such as this one. But they have reneged, so you be the judge.
You have learned that the Constitution of the United States of America has been trampled on and ignored through allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve to create paper currency and charge you 47 million dollars in interest per hour - money coming from the mouths of your children and the college education funds of your grandchildren, all the while the children and grandchildren of the owners of the Federal Reserve will never have to work a day in their lives, and that is wrong, on so many different levels.
And let me tell you, that as a black woman I am keenly aware of the history of slavery. But do you understand that we are all slaves to this system? Do you understand that the media and Hollywood play a part keeping the American people so fixated on Alley McBeal, WWF Smackdown, Moeisha and the Practice that we don't take time to read the Creature from Jekyll Island, study the Internal Revenue Code and learn the Constitution?
Now, let me spend just a minute to address my culture. Do you realize that the so called black leaders make millions of dollars every year playing the "us against them" role - keeping blacks focused on the race card and away from the real issue - the theft of our future through taxation.
These publicity mongers are well aware of the oppression brought on by income taxation, they love to march on Washington about racial profiling and civil rights, not to say that these are not real problems, but these leaders have been too afraid to approach the powers that be and have a million man, woman, boy, girl march about economic freedom from income taxation and restoration of constitutional rights.
(And they have the nerve to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom.)
Also, there's been a lot of talk about reparations lately, but know this: If all Americans were able to keep the money withheld from their paychecks every year, that money would enable them to home school, start their own business and boost the economy, save for college and retirement, even buy that 40 acres and a mule. So, you be the judge.
You need to understand that with an Internal Revenue Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and other "official documents" spouting off several different definitions of United States, Internal Revenue Service and other important terms, this deception that keeps people ignorant is not a coincidence. The writers of the Code used semantics and legalese to make us think that we are required to pay the income tax and file an income tax return. Former IRS commissioner Shirley Peterson even stated that, and I quote, "Eight decades of amendments….to (the) code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze….The rules are unintelligible to most citizens….The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law." End quote.
This fraud was strung together by people like the former president that said "it depends on what your definition of is is" and "it depends on what your definition of sex is". This incident showed us that definitions are very important to politicians and lawyers, and no word is meaningless. For example, it does depend on what the definition of "source" is.
The opposition, in an attempt to keep the sheeple in the flock, will scoff at us and encourage unaware Americans to ridicule those of us who have been informed, saying, "these people just don't want to pay their fair share." We have already learned from a speech by former Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Rhuml that this country doesn't need income taxes for revenue. This money collected from our sweat and tears is used to perpetuate redistribution of wealth, among other things. But the powers that be keep beating the people over the head with this "fair share' garbage. Well, what is fair share? Haven't the families of the victims in New York City and the pentagon paid their fair share? Haven't the men and women that lost sons and daughters, husbands in wives in Vietnam, Korea and the other battles paid their fair share? So you see, this tactic to pit those that are uninformed of the income tax fraud against those who have seen the light is baseless and must be eliminated!
The opposition also uses our religious faith to twist the meaning of authority and to create unjust statutes. People, I know godly authority and our current system does not reflect godly authority. Many of our past and present religious leaders have been jailed for questioning authority. They have been beaten, starved and even killed for their faith and their defiance of injustice. People of America - is what you're living for worth dying for? Are you willing to take a stand? It's your choice.
The creators of this Creature called the income tax, engineered their system to manipulate you into staying in your comfort zones. With a little bit of patriotism and a little bit of fear tactic mixed into a pot of inflation and deflation, they have been able to keep the people confused, intimidated and obedient for over 88 years.
But now the truth about the fraudulent origin and operations of the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service have been revealed to the American people. You can no longer claim ignorance of the truth. You must acknowledge it or reject it. The choice is yours. And the consequences of your decision will rest on the shoulders of your children and future generations of Americans.
You can remain an informed slave or you can get off of the plantation. You can remain engrossed in fear, or you can take a stand like Patrick Henry who shouted "give me liberty or give me death." You can stay hypnotized by "As The World Turns" and "The Guiding Light", or you can turn off the bube tube and read the Constitution, then go ask your elected representatives why they refuse to follow it. Remember that those elected representatives have sworn to uphold and defend our constitution.
Remember that each of our elected representatives has pledged to serve our country first-not a political party, or certain privileged and special interests groups-but you, the American People. They are our public servants.
In closing, we have shown you the truth. Now, for the sake of our Country and our children, we ask you to choose justice over injustice, unity over division, courage over fear, truth over ignorance, and liberty over economic slavery.
We ask you to stand with us and let the voice of freedom be heard from every corner of our great country. It is time to end this long-standing injustice and tyranny over the American People.
Thank you.
Sherry Peel Jackson, CPA
Note: These comments were presented at the Close of the Citizens' Truth-In-Taxation Hearing. Washington D.C., February 27-28, 2002
That form you should have submitted for a raise 6 wks ago?
It will be here from the publisher's three weeks from now.
Cheer's from accounting :o)
One last thing however, please show me where Schultz has "profitted" from his exposure of the scam.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Schulz has exposed no scam, so what profit is to be made of that?
By my estimation Schulz is just the front guy, the dupe to the professional TPr's(i.e. con artists) pulling in marks for their scams.
He does add a great deal to the jeopardy of others that try to apply his backer's, materials in the Courtroom or to try to justify evasion of taxes.
Caveat Emptor is the rule.
I'm sure their message sounded good to Mr. Sloan too:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
I think it works the other way around. Ancient has debated scores of folks like you who posted this garbage on FR. Many are still regular posters but they all have one thing in common, they don't try to push this crap.
We have seen them come and we have seen them go. The normal cycle is they cannot argue with the facts so they end up calling AG, myself and others IRS agents, unpatriotic etc.
You seemed to be getting close to that level of frustration I have seen in others when their arguments are shot down and the next phase is calling us paid fed agents.
BTW, you still didn't comment on whether you want in on the bridge. This is a perfect deal for you.
Oh! darn, accounting just informed me that they moved the cot. Won't know till the next pay cycle as to where it was placed.
Karen in accounting, says have a good day, lover boy. Inquire at her desk if you need to find the new location :o)
Thanks
But we know the drill. Only jerks who agree to withholding or aliens are liable, right ?
More semantic games from people desperate to evade taxes.
Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word "liable"). However, that is not what the law requires.
In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."
As explained in the regulations:
"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one is liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?
"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
"Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).
"Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);
United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).
Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was "no law imposing an income tax" on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was "frivolous" and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner's costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).
Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six month after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning "Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?" The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients). "It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments, Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions." Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985). The court also referred to Mr. Carley's arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that thoroughly defy common sense."
How about one of you experts posting exactly WHERE in the IRS code, I am made liable for federal income tax.
The courts have made the answer to that very clear:
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).
All looks rather clear to me.
I suggest to read this article in the New American:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
Not one of them since 1913 has had an honest bone in his body.
Nah your wrong!
it goes back before 1880
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
Springer got to pay the tax on his salary too!
Dem Judges have been scallywags since granpappy got his side arm stuck in the alligator's craw. (unfortunately he was hold'n it at the time.)
Yeah they are great guys. I assume you have several of them in your family. Aren't they the same ones that are allowing infanticide through wholesale abortion; particularly partial birth abortion. Yeah, real sages, real fine folks.
That is quite obvious jack boot.
Where is paragraph A of the notice of intent to levy?
A paragraph "A" is irrelavent is could be named anything in the 1880 statutes.
However notice of intent and levies were all filed with the Courts and served on Mr. Springer when he refuse to pay the tax, as regards the attachment of his property for collections of the tax owed.
Don't you bother to ever click on links provided?
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
In June, 1866, the deputy assessor of internal revenue for the proper district in Illinois delivered to William M. Springer a notice in writing, with certain accompanying forms, requiring him within ten days to make out and return, according to those forms, a list of his income, gains, and profits for the year 1865. In compliance therwith, Springer made out the necessary statement, dated June 21, 1866, and delivered it to the deputy, together with a written protest against the authority of the latter to demand the statement, on the ground that the acts of Congress under which that officer acted were unconstitutional and void. The statement, showing that the net income received by Springer for the year 1865, and subject to taxation, amounted to $50,798, upon which the sum of $4,799.80 was assessed as tax, was transmitted to David T. Littler, the collector, who, Nov. 17, 1866, payment being refused, served a notice upon Springer demanding payment, and warning him that, unless it should be made within ten days, the law authorized the collection of the tax, together with a penalty of ten per cent additional by distraint and sale.
Payment being again refused, and Springer having no goods or chattels which were known to the collector or his deputy, the collector, Jan. 24, 1867, caused a warrant for $5,279.78, the amount of the tax and penalty, to be issued and levied upon certain real estate in the city of Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois, consisting of two pieces of lots in the same enclosure without any division fence, and belonging to Springer, upon one of which pieces was located his dwelling-house and upon the other his barn. The property was advertised, and, on March 15, 1867, sold, the United States becoming the purchaser for the amount of the tax, penalty, and costs. On that day Littler, as collector, made and executed to the United States a deed of the property, which, Nov. 28, 1868, was recorded in the recorder's office of that county. Jonathan Merriam, his successor as collector, made and executed, April 17, 1874, another deed to the United States for the same property. This deed was duly recorded April 23, 1874. It recites the assessment of the tax, the demand therefor, the seizure and sale of [102 U.S. 586, 588] the property 'by virtue of an act of Congress of the United States of America, entitled 'An Act to provide internal revenue to support the government, and to pay interest on the public debt,' approved July 1, 1862, and the act of March 30, 1864, as amended.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.