Irwin Schiff's Secrets of Living an Income Tax-Free Life
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2208477968446177859
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2208477968446177859
Irwin Schiff's Secrets of Living an Income Tax-Free Life
- Thread starter FrankRep
- Start date
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
You get free food, water, shelter and whatever privileges you can "earn" while in there too!
God preserve the State!
The judge/jury can rule NOT GUILTY. It's that easy.
Ninja Homer
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,290
Who took away the jury's RIGHT to declare Not Guilty?
Mister Grieves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 742
I think that they took way his right to trial by jury and tried him in front of a hand selected tribunal of judges, or something, who, of course, found him guilty.
Fox McCloud
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,726
John of Des Moines
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,736
What happens (from what I understand) is the judge stopped Schiff from showing the jury the Supeme Court cases showing the 16th amendment was meant to tax the "profit/gain" of corporations and not the wages an individual receives in exchange for his/her labor. Watch America: Freedom to Fascism and it's discussed in there.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
"However, it is an idiosyncrasy of our federal criminal justice system (codified in rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure) that unless the accused demurs to an indictment for failing to allege an essential element of an offense in a preliminary hearing, the prosecution is excused from an obligation to prove the truth of that specific element during trial. Challenge regarding any such defect, if not made upon presentation of the indictment (or by way of motion for a bill of particulars within 10 days or arraignment), is deemed to be waived. Only challenges to jurisdiction, or an outright failure to allege an offense, must be subsequently entertained by the court; and only the elements alleged in the final indictment must be proven at trial.
For instance, consider a hang-glider charged with flying below an altitude of 100 ft. and thus violating a law against such behavior. If he allows the matter to go to trial with such an indictment left unchallenged, the prosecution will be obliged to prove only that he was indeed flying below 100 feet. If this is proven, the hang-glider can expect to be convicted. If, however, the hang-glider challenges the indictment, pointing out that the authority under which the law in question is promulgated is confined in its application to powered aircraft, he can then oblige the prosecution to include, as an essential element of the offense, that he was flying below 100 ft. AND that he was doing so in a powered craft. Now, the prosecution must prove BOTH elements of the offense during the trial.
Sadly, it appears that Irwin and his associates left the indictment's defects as to their receipt of "income" unchallenged. Although the memoranda of law Irwin posted suggest that his motion to dismiss did seek to contest the government's presumptions as to his liability for a tax on the "income" that he was alleged to have received (along with a few other things), these are losing arguments if his receipt of "income" above a threshold amount is left to stand as a given, and it seems clear form the court's instructions to the jury that this was the case. "
For more, see:
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/TheSchiffTrial.htm
For instance, consider a hang-glider charged with flying below an altitude of 100 ft. and thus violating a law against such behavior. If he allows the matter to go to trial with such an indictment left unchallenged, the prosecution will be obliged to prove only that he was indeed flying below 100 feet. If this is proven, the hang-glider can expect to be convicted. If, however, the hang-glider challenges the indictment, pointing out that the authority under which the law in question is promulgated is confined in its application to powered aircraft, he can then oblige the prosecution to include, as an essential element of the offense, that he was flying below 100 ft. AND that he was doing so in a powered craft. Now, the prosecution must prove BOTH elements of the offense during the trial.
Sadly, it appears that Irwin and his associates left the indictment's defects as to their receipt of "income" unchallenged. Although the memoranda of law Irwin posted suggest that his motion to dismiss did seek to contest the government's presumptions as to his liability for a tax on the "income" that he was alleged to have received (along with a few other things), these are losing arguments if his receipt of "income" above a threshold amount is left to stand as a given, and it seems clear form the court's instructions to the jury that this was the case. "
For more, see:
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/TheSchiffTrial.htm
Since there's no law requiring you pay income tax, I'll bet Irwin will be the modern day William Wallace and defend the Constitution by not paying this illegal tax.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
"No Law" Yes there is a law. This misinformation hinders the Tax Honesty movement.
Exactly which law are you referring to?
Kalifornia
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 887
Im 20 minutes into this video. So far Mr. Schiff has not made a valid legal argument.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
I have responded to this claim for as long as I have been posting here. It gets a bit tiring. You need to do a little leg work on this one.
Otherwise, keep making your claims but at the same time keep faithfully filing your tax returns and paying up to Uncle Sam.
I've looked into this as well, and it seems that there is in fact a law. Even if there was not, don't you think Congress could easily modify the tax code to include wages as "income". I think we would do better to talk about the consitutionality of the tax code rather than if there's a law or not because clearly Congress could make any law it wants at this point. Anyway, I refer you to USC Title 26 Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART I > § 861.
There is also Title 26 Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61:
The Internal Revenue Code Title 26 can be read at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
Last edited:
Also, I have watched Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism and while I think he makes a lot of good points in there, the movie is so clearly biased. Unfortunately he presents the argument against taxes as such a conspiracy theory I don't think it serves the tax honesty movement as well as it could. If he had made the documentary in a more fact-based manner - ie: just giving us the facts and not putting a conspiracy "spin" on everything I think the movie could be much more mainstream.
For example I don't think Russo even tells people about Title 26 (The internal revenue code) and he certainly doesn't address the fact that title 26 appears to have addressed the matter of taxing "wages" - although T 26 doesn't use the term "wages" it says "compensation for labor" instead. Russo should have talked about this in his movie but the fact that he didn't to me makes his work not very credible.
I think there are some very good arguments against paying income tax, but to say that there "is no law" is pretty naive I think. Clearly if there needs to be extra wording in Title 26 relating to personal wages, Congress could easily put that in at any time it wants to. I think a better way to attack the income tax is the constitutionality argument relating to the 16th amendment and the relevant supreme court cases. I don't think "there is no law" is the right way to go here.
For example I don't think Russo even tells people about Title 26 (The internal revenue code) and he certainly doesn't address the fact that title 26 appears to have addressed the matter of taxing "wages" - although T 26 doesn't use the term "wages" it says "compensation for labor" instead. Russo should have talked about this in his movie but the fact that he didn't to me makes his work not very credible.
I think there are some very good arguments against paying income tax, but to say that there "is no law" is pretty naive I think. Clearly if there needs to be extra wording in Title 26 relating to personal wages, Congress could easily put that in at any time it wants to. I think a better way to attack the income tax is the constitutionality argument relating to the 16th amendment and the relevant supreme court cases. I don't think "there is no law" is the right way to go here.
Last edited:
Similar threads
