LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

No redeeming value.

Table of Contents

Mr. Buckner only please.
Frank Buckner said...

I'm going to answer that one, CJ.

Trapped? How? Like what you say has any meaning beyond your own twisted view of reality?

I come here for the sole purpose of torturing the retards such as yourself - there I admit it. It's amusing to me to watch you come out with idiotic statements, proclaiming them to be the one truth in the universe.

That's it - you're a source of amusement to me.

10/13/2005 11:27 PM


What news? The only news that will coming out of that courtroom is guilty on all charges.

And then you will be able to gloat, is that your position? Why? Has Mr. Schiff harmed you in some way in the past to the point that you wish him ill will?

If you don't know him, it seems that you are taking a perverse pleasure in a stranger's misfortunes. Why the interest in seeing a guily verdict, Frank Buckner? How does this benefit you?

___________________________________

It doesn't "benefit" me at all. My interest is in seeing a snake-oil salesman get his due. People like eastman, or "cj" or hankie, haven't the brains to come up with this patently stupid crap on their own. Schiff destroys lives and sleeps like a baby. If you really wanted to know the pathos of schiff, you'd read the 90+ page palimony suit that Cindy filed against him. That's your hero, a manipulative, self absorbed, delusional sociopath. I pity those that follow him.

If you don't know him, it seems that you are taking a perverse pleasure in a stranger's misfortunes. Why the interest in seeing a guily verdict, Frank Buckner? How does this benefit you?

It doesn't "benefit" me at all.

You sure are putting a lot of effort into namecalling on something that doesn't benefit you.  Or is it that you are nothing but a troll... Your benefit must be the jollies you get from calling names and doing character assassination.

My interest is in seeing a snake-oil salesman get his due.

Like calling people "snake-oil salesman". 

People like eastman, or "cj" or hankie, haven't the brains to come up with this patently stupid crap on their own.

Just for your information, Mr. Buckner, I don't "follow" Mr. Schiff. But you didn't know that did you?  If you did, you wouldn't have made such innuendo. 

So the next thing you might say, is that I'm stating the same things Mr. Schiff has. 

Maybe I am. I don't know. I've never read his books.  For those that have read his books, you know where I say what he does, and you know where I differ.

Let me help you figure this out Mr. Buckner.  I don't read Mr. Schiff's books, yet you think I'm a follower of his.... Didja' ever stop to think that maybe I read the same code sections he has?  You know, the code sections you're too damn chicken to debate with me about.

Why is that Mr. Buckner?  Why won't you answer questions I post that are directed at you?  If you have so many more "brains", you should be able to easily refute what I post.

Schiff destroys lives and sleeps like a baby.

More personal attacks.  What law are you citing with the above 8 word sentence?  What TP did you just refute by citing that law?

If you really wanted to know the pathos of schiff, you'd read the 90+ page palimony suit that Cindy filed against him.

Another sentence of innuendo, personal attack, irrelevance, and character assassination.  Calling everybody 'poopy pants' impresses only you.

That's your hero, a manipulative, self absorbed, delusional sociopath.

And another ad hominem personal attack that refutes NOTHING.

I pity those that follow him.

And yet another innuendo.

Now about that section 61(a) income, Mr. Buckner...
Is that "income in the constitutional sense?


CJ said...

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. YOU TALK THE TALK, NOW WALK THE WALK F.B. and others....

INCOME IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTTER OF THE TAX!

-The language in 26 USC 1 states, “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual, every head of household, etc…”
Taxable income is the subject matter of the above sentence, but it IS NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26 USC 1 taxation, since INCOME is only the MEASURE of the tax, and NOT the subject matter of the tax and income cannot include inalienable rights excluded by law from taxation.
- Individual is NOT and cannot be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation on taxable income since capitation taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- Property, real or personal, in NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of 26USC1 taxation since property taxes are direct taxes and subject to the rule of apportionment.
- The common business callings of life, the property which every man has is own labor is NOT and can NOT be the subject matter of taxation since inalienable rights of contract, our labor being our property, and the fruits thereof our property are excluded by law from being tax and would also be subject to apportionment or capitation.

No section of the Code IMPOSES a tax on everyday normal activities.

The Supreme Court, not a US DISTRICT COURT, has ruled in a minimum of 15 decisions that the word income as set forth in all of the income tax acts of congress, has the same definition or meaning that was given IT in the corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909.

Subject matter can confuse one so let’s see what the Congressional Research Service said, ya know the Very CRS the prosecution used…
The 1980 CRS report made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:
“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”
In 1989, the revised and updated their report:
What does the court mean when it states that
the income tax is in the nature of an excise tax?
“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.”
“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.”
So now we ALL KNOW and MUST AGREE that the federal income tax is not a tax on income right? Finally we have agreement amongst all who read the blogs! Who can dispute the CRS, for that would ruin the prosecution and who can dispute the CRS for it would render Irwin wrong. OUR AGREEMENT - It is a privilege tax measured by income! Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the income tax.
Now that we agree that income tax is an excise or privilege tax, then what’s the privilege? This “privilege” must be one of the most closely guarded secrets in American history. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor members of Congress NOR THE COURT will identify the privilege.
Let’s see what Congress said, after all they wrote it – and they clearly and concisely stated it: In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” The fore stated excerpt of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for determining its Amount.”
So there you have it. The question before you is: Name the Privilege that the individual personal 1040 income tax is upon as measured by the income produced from that privilege and do so with cite from 1. court case, 2. IRS, 3. Department of Treasury, 4. Congress!

YOU HAVE HAD ALL DAY TO ANSWER SUCH AN EASY QUESTION...DO IT!
DO IT NOW! ON POINT! CJ

And Mr. Buckner's reply is:




So, please continue to pontificate...

Thankee Mr. Buckner.

[Brings hand to chin and resting chin in hand says] Hmmm. Whatever shall I pontificate about in my command performance for Mr. Buckner...

[Dropping hand from chin in a start] A HA! I know what I shall educate Mr. Buckner upon.

[Turning to face Buckner]
Mr. Buckner, Can a person have a state property tax LIABILITY if no state property tax has been ASSESSED?

Lurkers, please note the following silence from Mr. Buckner proving he's got no game. (The purpose is to leverage him into interaction if only to make my statement about his silence incorrect.)

And even if he does reply to this one, please go back through the prior blog threads and notice the times Mr. Buckner has ignored specific posts directed at him.

Mr. Buckner, I'll even extend the same offer I extended to JG to you.

buckner.html
Dale,

Attached are all of Buckners comments rolled up into one email. The title
includes the date and time of the comment.

Hopefully, they didn't choke your dial up connection.

David Jahn






Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/30/2005 01:03:20 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:06:01 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

psst, dale. I'm going to let in you in on a secret, gather round.

I really don't care what you "think" is right. How's that for a secret. I'm not trying to "convince" you that your tortured reading of the law is incorrect and plain stupid. I want you to continue to believe what you believe. The amusement factor that you generate is beyond description. So, please continue to pontificate as to how the entire legal community is wrong and dale eastman is right. Love this stuff.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/30/2005 01:03:20 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/30/2005 01:51:14 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:53:52 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

hmm

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/30/2005 01:51:14 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/29/2005 11:26:50 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:29:29 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

Hmmm, still sounds pretty straightforward, still waiting for a pair of super-dooper tax protesting glasses so that I can see the "real" truth behind the words.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/29/2005 11:26:50 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/29/2005 06:31:38 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:31:40 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

§ 61. Gross income defined

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services,
including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

Title 26 USC

§ 63. Taxable income defined
Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

Since I apparently don't own a pair of "THM" cross-eyed glasses, I don't see the wiggle room that you "TC[heater]M" types see. Seems rather straightforward.

But, please let your insanity rule the day and show me the workings of several deluded minds. Please.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/29/2005 06:31:38 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/28/2005 05:23:17 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:25:52 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

My opinion on Eastman et al

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/28/2005 05:23:17 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/28/2005 03:52:11 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:54:44 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

"you know who"? Why didn't you post under your real name of Goldman? You're still an idiot.

Will Irwin's prison number be all zeroes? Inquiring minds want to know!

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/28/2005 03:52:11 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/27/2005 03:11:44 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:14:16 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Bummer. The link just takes you to a blank page, I guess the information doesn't remain. Should you be interested in learning the truth, use the "Party Search" feature on the left hand side and search "Neun". But, why do I get the feeling that people such as dale won't allow anything like the truth to get in their way?

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/27/2005 03:11:44 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/27/2005 03:08:44 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:11:18 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

I'm sorry. How - exactly - is pointing out that Shifty's "girlfriend" thinks he's a deceitful piece of waste matter, a "diverson". The matter of the law suit that Cindy filed is a matter of public record. It's not an "allegation" it's a properly filed lawsuit against Schiff filed by Cindy. Department 10 of the Clark County District Court, Judge Jessie Walsh is where the case is assigned.

Cindy's case

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/27/2005 03:08:44 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/27/2005 02:15:00 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:15:04 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Irwin Schiff - what a "hero" for you guys. From Cindy' lawsuit:

Irwin moved into my home under the pretence that he was my boyfriend. We were never "engaged", but Irwin said several times that he intended marriage at some point. He said this in front of other people who liked me and who chided him for not making an "honest woman" out of me. These statements were a part of the fraud. His deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying and conning others for personal profit or pleasure, to remain in honor for those students, customers, friends and family who expressed their fondness for me

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/27/2005 02:15:00 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/27/2005 01:33:33 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:33:34 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Mike Goldman the "radio idiot" is more like it.

That's the rules of evidence you frigging moron, it's not "bias" on the point of the judge, it's not "kangaroo" - it works both ways, the Government can't introduce evidence without following the same procedures.

Did you know that Cindy is suing Irwin?

Cynthia Lynn, Neun, sui juris
Plaintiff-Complainant

V.

Irwin Allan, Schiff and
Michael Stein

CASE NO A489213
Filed Jul 22, 2004

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/27/2005 01:33:33 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/27/2005 12:29:17 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:31:46 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

I'm sorry dale, did I inadvertently pull your chain? If so, please forgive me. I haven't the stamina to attempt to speak to a wall today. But gee, thanks for playing.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/27/2005 12:29:17 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/26/2005 07:32:52 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:32:53 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Hank,
It wouldn't matter to you if God himself strode down from on high and told you that the IRS was right and the zero return is bogus. You would find some nuance in the way he said it, or some small typed word to see exactly what you want, I don't know at this point maybe it's need to see. I'm not a legal scholar and I strongly suspect neither are you - so why bother pointing out a law, if you're hell-bent on it being something else?

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/26/2005 07:32:52 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/26/2005 07:20:05 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:20:06 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

OH MY GOD!. The judge is FORCING Irwin to comply with the rules of the court. What nerve! The judge is FORCING Irwin to comply with the rules of evidence. What a government plant! The judge is FORCING Irwin to follow the proper procedures on direct and cross examining witnesses. What a government stooge!

Ain't it funny when the only side you hear is Irwin cheerleaders? Some might say that the posters are biased in favor of Irwin, sorta like the judge is biased in favor of the law and following court procedures. Yeah yeah, I know, if it was up to you, Irwin would be on the jury as well. Start spinning away - the verdict will be guilty - you heard it here first!

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/26/2005 07:20:05 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/24/2005 02:18:55 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:18:56 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

The operative word in all this is "cash". Cash withdrawals done in such a way as to avoid the reporting requirements of title 31 is against the law. You can be charged, but they still have to prove you intentionally violated the statute.

Seriously though, why would a hard-core member of the "THM" have to worry about A) a bank account and B) having enough money to trigger title 31 requirements?

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/24/2005 02:18:55 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/23/2005 06:10:56 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:10:57 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

"That's right. Those patriots did not try to evade and cheat the legal taxes they were paying, they rebelled because they believed the taxes were immoral."

If you say it enough, it becomes believable. The colonists did not rebel against taxes, they rebelled against taxes levied by a far away government. They understood the necessary requirement of taxation, but they wanted the taxes to be under local control. Truth is, if the King hadn't started cracking down on the widespread evasion of taxes, we'd probably still be part of the United Kingdom. This is historical fact, not tax protestor rhetoric, which is probably why you've never heard of it. Put down the cup of kool-aid and read for yourself on the origins of the War of Independence.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/23/2005 06:10:56 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/23/2005 02:57:14 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:59:34 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Today, people can be arrested and charged with a crime for simply withdrawing money from there own bank accounts.

Of all the remarkably moronic statements that Jahn has made, this one takes the cake. Please oh great scholar, show me instances where that's happened.

"Withdrawing money from your own bank account" (that's rich, like tax protesters have bank accounts)

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/23/2005 02:57:14 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/23/2005 02:25:25 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:27:45 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

"mosquito bite on Irwin's ankle"

How rich. Anon (again love those that have enough courage in their convictions to post under their real name), Shifty will be found guilty, because he is guilty. He's a used car salesman that found willing marks in the "THM". Heck, you idiots searched him out and begged him to lead you down the path of ruin. Some hero.



PS. Doug Kenline is still a p***y.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/23/2005 02:25:25 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/22/2005 02:01:11 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:14 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

PS,

Doug Kenline is a p**sy.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/22/2005 02:01:11 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/22/2005 01:59:13 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:32 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

I want to ask a serious question, I really want to know the answer to this question, I don't want people heading off into rants about "Show me the law". Here goes:

He can't complete a coherent sentence, he can't remember a point from one minute to the next. Can you honestly believe he's anything other than someone suffering from a mental disorder?

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/22/2005 01:59:13 PM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/22/2005 12:36:03 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:36:04 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

If it was Demo, she wouldn't hide behind an "anonymous" name, unlike this moron:
"Anonymous libertarian sounds like JJ "Demo" McNabb to me. If so, I'm still waiting for you to email those court cases you mentioned in Philadelphia....or are you all talk and no substance, JJ?

9/21/2005 11:49 PM"

Apparently the above idiot is unable to recognize irony when he/she types it.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/22/2005 12:36:03 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:12:44 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

In a word Jahn, Bullshit.

Dale - since you choose to use the Glenshaw to "prove your point", you have to use it all.

" SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that 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

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

Income is taxable, no matter how you choose to believe.

But, truly speaking, I don't give a jahn's ass if you pay your taxes or not. The "thm", all hundreds of you, don't amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis. Choose to live in a state of paranoid delusion if that is what makes you happy.

Schiff will be found guilty and will be sent to jail. If your cash job pool cleaning income manages to catch the attention of the IRS, I promise - if the drive isn't too far - to attend your trial to see you prove your "case" to a jury.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:10:34 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

In a word Jahn, Bullshit.

Dale - since you choose to use the Glenshaw to "prove your point", you have to use it all.

" SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that 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

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

Income is taxable, no matter how you choose to believe.

But, truly speaking, I don't give a jahn's ass if you pay your taxes or not. The "thm", all hundreds of you, don't amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis. Choose to live in a state of paranoid delusion if that is what makes you happy.

Schiff will be found guilty and will be sent to jail. If your cash job pool cleaning income manages to catch the attention of the IRS, I promise - if the drive isn't too far - to attend your trial to see you prove your "case" to a jury.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:46:39 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

What they are trying to tell you Dale is that the communist have taken this country over, and they would prefer that liberty minded folks like you would leave.

In a word Jahn, Bullshit.

Dale - since you choose to use the Glenshaw to "prove your point", you have to use it all.

" SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that 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

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended

Income is taxable, no matter how you choose to believe.

But, truly speaking, I don't give a jahn's ass if you pay your taxes or not. The "thm", all hundreds of you, don't amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis. Choose to live in a state of paranoid delusion if that is what makes you happy.

Schiff will be found guilty and will be sent to jail. If your cash job pool cleaning income manages to catch the attention of the IRS, I promise - if the drive isn't too far - to attend your trial to see you prove your "case" to a jury.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/20/2005 12:44:28 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/19/2005 01:17:47 AM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <anonymous-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

There is no such thing as "income in it's constitutional sense".

Same way there is no such thing as "income in it's Christian sense" or "income in it's Muslin sense" or "income in it's Thursday sense". Income is income and income is taxable.

But, I did do some research for you and here you go:

Nations with no personal income tax:

Andorra
Bahamas
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
Vanuatu

Have a safe trip.

--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/19/2005 01:17:47 AM



Subject:
[Trial Logs] 9/18/2005 07:34:04 PM
From:
"Frank Buckner" <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date:
Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:34:04 -0400
To:
<djahn@comcast.net>

Gee Dale,
I see your lack of imagination extends to using TNG analogies to make your "point".

www.irs.gov has all the regulations and laws you need, should you refrain from reading them with a cup of tp kool-aid in your hand. Heck, I don't like paying taxes, but just because you don't like a law, isn't an excuse to find reasons to not obey it.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

§ 61. Gross income defined



Release date: 2005-08-31

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).


--
Posted by Frank Buckner to Trial Logs at 9/18/2005 07:34:04 PM

Table of Contents