Joey Smith Almost Engages With Me

Subjugation by taxation

Table of Contents

Another lesson on how "they" debate
Predictable result, not unlike hundreds if now thousands of others. When will TPs finally learn?	Joey Smith's words will be the same color as the border color. If the color reminds you of anything in particular, it's deliberate. The "Predictable result" referred to was the Art Farnsworth travesty of truth. Please take note of the issues and topics Mr. Smith chooses to engage, and the issues and topics which he chooses to ignore in his replies below.

Predictable result, not unlike hundreds if now thousands of others. When will TPs finally learn? Please, tell us what is it that you want the TPs to finally learn Joey Smith? David Jahn	Mr. Jahn is the owner of Trial Logs and Trial Logs Blog Spot. The Blog Spot is mostly inert since it does not require registration. The Blog Spot is the source of the dialog shown on this web page.

That their theories are wrong. Simple as that.	An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Mr. Smith is wrong. I've a web site the examines the WRITTEN words of law. (As well as the lies and spin of people like Mr. Smith such as this page.) It's not "theories", it's what is WRITTEN in the law. Something people like Joey Smith don't want you to read.

That their theories are wrong. Simple as that. Joey, Okay! I understand your point of view. Unfortunately, there really isn't a determination of "theories" at these trials. It wasn't Art's view of the law that was examined as much as it was the jury's view. There were actually very few points of laws raised in the case. The government continues to avoid the best venue for resolving the issue once and for all which would be an open meeting. That would provide the government an opportunity to listen and consider what the tax honesty folks point to as faults or flaws in the law. The representatives would then have the understanding they need to develop legislative remedies. After that, the requirements for everyone to submit to the oppression would be unquestionable. Everyone would understand it's best to kneel and present their wallet and checkbooks whenever a government official enters the room. Instead we have this string of trials that does little more than prove that the government has a distinct advantage in these cases when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of carefully selected jurors. Issues of law are generally avoided and when presented they are far too complex for most jurors to comprehend. This loss will discourage some, but it won't bring an end to the issue. The system as it is being enforced is repugnant to the ideals of liberty and needs to be abolished. There are other less intrusive forms of taxation out there. What will it take to get this government to consider them? And what will it take, short of bankruptcy, to get this government to live within its means? Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum. Thanks, David Jahn	Mr. Jahn was at some (or maybe even all) of the Farnsworth trial. His words on what happened in this specific trial carry far more weight than any assertion made by Mr. Smith. In this statement, Mr. Jahn sums up the entire interaction between Citizen and IRS organized crime racket: "Issues of law are generally avoided and when presented they are far too complex for most jurors to comprehend." Actually I differ with Mr. Jahn on the issues being too complex. I think the jurors could understand the issues quite well if they were ever allowed to see ALL the WRITTEN evidence of the law... Like the very WRITTEN words of the law itself. Something my (this) web site is devoted to supplying. Mr. Jahn asks this parting question: "Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum." The bold emphasis is mine. Let us count the number of times it is asked before it is even acknowledged. Asked once.

Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum. Yes. The author of that post would love to read the feedback. P.S. If he cites 7701(c), I've got a canned answer waiting in the wings, ready to copy, paste, and post.	Since I was the author of the post Mr. Jahn linked, I re-iterated the question. The question is asked twice. The canned answer I mention is never addressed, since the M.O. is to distract when the truth appears, or character assassinate with name calling and other belittling techniques to disparage the messenger and thus the message. Since Mr. Smith opens the door to the canned answer below, I'll supply a link to the canned answer below.

Why should the government waste time with such a meeting? There is NO credible legal or constitutional scholar, or even credible groups like the ACLU or Cato Institute, that believe that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.	Paragraph one, Sentence one is addressed in my dialog reply below. Paragraph one, Sentence two shows the DELIBERATE mis-representation of the truth these cretins will go to, in order to convince the novice that there is nothing worth looking into in regard to the WRITTEN WORDS of law. No Tax Honesty Researcher believes the WRITTEN WORDS of law enact any unconstitutional tax. What we have in sentence two is a TCP. TCP is an acronym for Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. So long as the reply appears as if it is somehow connected to the topic at hand, and, so long as the reply is itself correct, it is supposed to trick the unwary into believing the point of contention has been refuted. Mr. Smith, it doesn't matter what you state in sentence two, because nobody, and myself especially, in the Tax Honesty Movement is claiming the WRITTEN tax LAWS are unconstitutional.
As far as the IRS answering questions about the most typically asserted tax-protestor type arguments, the IRS has answered those questions at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/f...tl/ friv_tax.pdf which it updates every year.	The subtle technique used in this sentence is the denigrating use of the name "tax-protestor". The purpose of such name calling, is to raise doubts in the mind of the reader that the "tax-protestor" would have anything worth reading. Hence the wonderful color of Mr. Smith's commentary. I do consider the source of the insult, which is a Vichy France type of IRS Collaborator. Thus Quid Pro Quo the insults are equal and we can move on. Mr. Smith is asserting in general, that the IRS has answered questions with the cited document. Perhaps the document does answer some questions, HOWEVER, the document does not answer specific questions about specific WRITTEN WORDS of law. The document most certainly DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. "Should I use..." and "What law, clearly and concisely..." I cover other 'problems' with that document in my dialog reply.
Again, NO credible legal or constitutional scholar disputes the debunking of frivolous arguments contained in this paper.	I separated this sentence from the other sentence in the paragraph, because of the amount of text I had to write in reply to Mr. Smith's very good obfuscation. This is an excellent innuendo post. I notice the statement is lacking in proof that any "credible legal or constitutional scholar" has even read the document. Nor is there proof that any "credible legal or constitutional scholar" has read my questions, and the WRITTEN WORDS of law I cite that I am asking specific questions about.
Tax protestors may not agree with the IRS's positions, but disagreements are settled in court, and -- as the Farnsworth case most recently shows -- the courts (and usually juries too) have found that the position of the IRS is right and the position of tax protestors are wrong.	An IRS Collaborator calls everybody that doesn't agree with the collaborator a "Tax protestor". Mr. Smith says: "but disagreements are settled in court". Really Mr. Smith? It settled nothing for me. It didn't answer my specific questions about specific WRITTEN words of law. As Mr. Jahn pointed out, "Issues of law are generally avoided..." Mr. Jahn was at the Farnsworth trial. So were others. The reports by these witnesses to the doings in the court make it very clear that judges and prosecutors are NOT interested in the truth. Just like you.
If you want to change the law, start an initiative petition or something. But simply repeating the same old tried-and-failed theories over and over in the hopes that by sheer repetition they may some day come true, isn't going to work and TPs are going to keep going to jail and/or getting slammed with large fines.	Why would I want to change a law that does not tax my compensation for labor? It's not a theory, it's the WRITTEN words of law. This entire folder on my web site is made up of dialogs I have had with those on your side of the fence. As of this reply, Mr. Smith has ignored the question of logic twice raised above.

Why should the government waste time with such a meeting? To settle the issues raised.	Well... Duh...
Like D.Jahn has pointed out, if it's all legit as you baselessly assert, then the "errors" of the Tax Honesty Advocates could be addressed and explained. "Because we're bigger than you and can hurt you" is the method of explaining that organized crime and terrorist organizations use. Oops, my bad. The IRS IS an organized crime and terrorist organization.	Mr. Smith has chosen to ignore this point Mr. Jahn raised and I reintroduced: "if it's all legit ... then the "errors" of the Tax Honesty Advocates could be addressed and explained." Observe how Mr. Smith does or does not address the issue raised.
There is NO credible legal or constitutional scholar, or even credible groups like the ACLU or Cato Institute, that believe that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. There are no Tax Honesty Advocates that believe "the federal income tax is unconstitutional" either. So either A, you don't know what you are talking about, or B, you are a LIAR. There is no other rational explanation for your ignorant inability to concisely articulate what "WE believe.	Mr. Smith either really does not have a clue as to the issues raised by the Tax Honesty Movement, or Mr. Smith DOES know and must do anything at his disposal to keep those issues from becoming more widely known.
As far as the IRS answering questions about the most typically asserted tax-protestor type arguments, the IRS has answered those questions at http://www.irs.unofficial_irs_lies.pdf which it updates every year. The document linked has no document "ID" number, no author, no publication date and is not listed as an official publication of the U.S. Government or U.S. Department of Treasury. The linked document no more addresses tax laws than JABBERWOCKY by Lewis Carroll does.	The failure to have a document "ID" number means the crap in the document is NOT "OFFICIAL". This means said document HAS NO FORCE OF LAW upon anyone. Without an 'official' author, who do I direct questions to about the document? NOBODY! If there are flat out errors in the document, who is responsible for correcting them? NOBODY! If there are lies in the document, who is accountable? NOBODY! The document that is being pointed to, is a scam job to make it look like questions have been answered when they have NOT been answered. The purpose of this document is to keep people just learning of the Tax Honesty Movement from reading the WRITTEN words of law.
I have it straight from an honest lawyer's mouth (yes, that's rare), that a senior lawyer advised, "Do not take IRS cases. The IRS will go after you, and your family." When I first learned of the 861 EVIDENCE I took a copy of Larken's report to two different lawyers trying to find out if this report was valid. Both lawyers flat out REFUSED to look at the report --- Just like the church officials REFUSED to look through Galileo's telescope. (and usually juries too) "Because we're bigger than you and can hurt you" is a good reason for jurors to get self-protectively dumb.	Mr. Smith does not comment on the issue raised, that juries vote guilty to avoid trouble even if they know the accused is innocent.
And I noticed you ignored the post D.Jahn linked to. (Hint: You don't need to register to read the forum.)	This is the third time the question regarding the logic on this page has been questioned.

Joey Smith's defense of the long and error ridden IRS paper on the 'truth' about frivolous tax arguments is not well founded. For instance, in the central argument on the 16th Amendment (chapter D-6 'The 16th Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on U.S. citizens' - this argument is countered by references to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR case by lower courts (9th, 10th, and 7th Circuit plus a tax court decision). They dare not quote Brushaber itself as that Supreme Court decision stated that the 16th Amendment granted no new taxing powers to the government and that it referred only to apportioned taxes. Brushaber stated that for the 16th Amendment to grant the government the power to directly tax citizens without apportionment would set one part of the Constitution at war with another part. So the authors avoided confrontation with the Supreme Court by only citing incorrect lower court and tax court decisions. This does not smack of honesty. Roy Tuckman	Well said, Mr. Tuckman, however, the 16th Amendment does act, and only acts upon "Constitutional" or "Sixteenth Amendment" "income". Compensation for labor is not "Constitutional income", therefore compensation for labor is still under the rule of apportionment. For the novice, I cover that in this chapter. "This does not smack of honesty." That's putting it politely. There are those who call it TREASON.

The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand. THAT is the best evidence of what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks of tax protestor arguments. The reality is that tax protestors lose cases because they are simply WRONG. They just don't want to believe they are wrong, and they want to self-determine that they are right in their own selfish self-interests. But in our system, the courts decide disputes, and the courts have routinely decided that tax protestors are WRONG. Moreover, NO credible legal or constitutional scholars disagree with the courts. Instead, it is the pro-wrasslin' crowd who have self-decided that they are right.	Since Mr. Smith is a Supreme Court Justice, his statement as to what the Supreme Court thinks on anything is exactly correct. NOT! "But in our system, the courts decide disputes..." That presumes the system is not broken, which it provably is. Click to read the Trial Logs mission explanation. In paragraph 3, proof that "credible legal or constitutional scholars" have even looked at the specific issues is missing. Another denigrating insult, "pro-wrasslin' crowd" by an IRS Collaborator. I've also replied in the dialog below.

"This does not smack of honesty." American Radio: December 2, 2006 "Quatloos - continuing to prove they are unethical and misleading." http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive.html

Joey Smith discharged da denoted digital diarrhetic diatribes: "The U.S. Supreme Court has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand." "Cert. Denied" simply means the court has chosen other cases to work on. You'll have to do better than that.	Please take note of the issues and topics Mr. Smith chooses to engage, and which he chooses to ignore in his reply below. Point: " "Cert. Denied" simply means the court has chosen other cases to work on."
"The reality is that tax protestors lose cases because they are simply WRONG. They just don't want to believe they are wrong, and they want to self-determine that they are right in their own selfish self-interests." Just because you say so, don't make it so. Or, in other words: An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong. You'll have to do better than that.
"But in our system, the courts decide disputes, and the courts have routinely decided that tax protestors are WRONG." And when the courts rule 2+2=7 I should show $22 deposits to account in this way: $622+$22=$677 ? You'll have to do better than that.	Point: If the court makes a ruling that is so wrong... Wrong and self-evidently so, should I follow the court's incorrect ruling?
"Moreover, NO credible legal or constitutional scholars disagree with the courts." Just because you say so, don't make it so. Or, in other words: An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong. You'll have to do better than that. "Instead, it is the pro-wrasslin' crowd who have self-decided that they are right." Yep. Name calling and insults will convince people you are right. You'll have to do better than that.

When somebody who matters cares what you think, be sure to let me know.	Direct insult, aimed directly at me, for the purpose of creating uproar. You see dear reader, you are not supposed to think I have anything worth saying. And you most certainly are supposed to lose your interest in what the WRITTEN words of law actually say.
Certainly, the courts don't. Nor the accredited legal scholars. Nor really anybody else who has an ounce of credibility. In fact, the total failure of the tax protestor movement to attract any truly credible person who believes in their theories speaks volumes.	More assertions without proof. Mr. Smith is making a subtle libel, slander, and/or calumny that I am not credible.
But I'm sure you'll easily find some out on the fringe who will think you are correct, which is about all the tax protestor movement consists of. Well, those that aren't in jail or working to pay off their frivolous penalties that is.	Dismissive insults. That's what one gets from quatlosers. Notice what Mr. Smith has dismissed and ignored so far: 1. Hey, ... maybe you could ... point out the error ... in this post to the forum. 2. " "Cert. Denied" simply means the court has chosen other cases to work on." 3. If the court makes a ruling that is so wrong... Wrong and self-evidently so, should I follow the court's incorrect ruling?

"When somebody who matters cares what you think, be sure to let me know." Likewise. "Well, those that aren't in jail or working to pay off their frivolous penalties that is." "Because we're bigger than you and can hurt you..."? You'll have to do better than that.
And I noticed you ignored the post D.Jahn linked to. " Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum." I bow before your lack of substance. You may have the last word, unless you actually do have something of substance to post. Otherwise you are dismissed and are free to return to the quatloosers forum where name calling and insults are the raison d'être. quatlosers/quatloos1.html quatlosers/quatloos2.html	This is the fourth time (4th.) that Mr. Smith has been asked to comment on the LOGIC in the cited post. It was my intention to just ignore this boring waste of time.

Remember Joey is a government lap puppy. He will live an die for his master. Anthony	Snicker. You didn't fool Mr. Anthony did you, Mr. Smith?

Substance is argued in court, not on some internet bulletin boards.	This statement really makes me wonder what Mr. Smith is about, because it isn't about the substance of the WRITTEN words of law. Perhaps this was his response to being challenged on the LOGIC in the cited post for the fourth time? Or perhaps his lack of substance means Mr. Smith has no credibility.
The courts have agreed with the IRS.	Not all of them. http://www.newswithviews.com/Hart/phil.htm
The courts have not agreed with tax protestors.	Doesn't he just knock you over with all the detail in his assertion. When the courts rule 2 + 2 = 7, it is quite obvious that the courts do not agree with those who state 2 + 2 = 4.
No credible legal or constitutional scholar agrees with tax protestors. Why can't tax protestors get a professor at Harvard or Georgetown or Stanford or somewhere to agree with them? Because tax protestors are WRONG.	Phil received a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Utah and a master's degree in Business Administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2004, Phil Hart was elected by the Citizens of North Idaho to represent District 3 in the Idaho Legislature. District 3 encompasses the northern part of Kootenai County. Phil Hart is actively seeking re-election for the 2006 legislative term. Phil has dedicated a significant amount of personal time for the past ten years in trying to resolve the constitutionality Income Tax. His efforts have resulted in the publication of his book Constitutional Income, which is in its third edition. His book has been steadily covering ground across the United States. He also litigated the issue with the IRS and petitioned the Supreme Court.
No need to argue with you, as you can't be convinced. But for all practical purposes, your opinion is as relevant as a forecast for yesterday's weather.	No need to argue with me, because you don't have a LOGICAL reply that answers the LOGIC on this page. It's not opinion, it's LOGIC. And it SCARES you.

Substance is argued in court, not on some internet bulletin boards. Your admission that you have no substance actually has important substance.

You want substance? How about the Cheek case where the U.S. Supreme Court said that tax protestor theories were "surely frivolous"?	Please notice that Mr. Smith has still NOT addressed the logic contained on the page that has been brought to his attention FOUR TIMES. Instead of dealing with the issues already standing, Mr. Smith has chosen to divert attention to somewhere else. This type of dishonest discussion by cockroaches of Mr. Smith's ilk is part of the reasoning that led to my creating this web site. When you read my web site, you don't have these cockroaches attempting to distract you from those ever so important WRITTEN words of law.
Funny how you continue to dodge that NO serious legal or constitutional scholar at Harvard, Georgetown, Stanford or anywhere else thinks that tax protestor theories are worth any more than a chuckle.	Please notice what Mr. Smith does NOT give detail to. Do you see any of the "tax protestor theories" in evidence that Mr. Smith is slurring? And why does the IRS Collaborator always refer to them as "tax protestor theories"? Doesn't he have any other way to communicate other than to be insulting? If Mr. Smith was honest, Mr. Smith would address the WRITTEN words of law the TAX HONESTY Researchers want to discuss.
Now, Art Farnsworth can join Meredith, Schiff, Simkanin, Rose, etc., etc., etc., in jail while he ponders this question. Where is the ACLU? Where is any other credible group? Why is the tax protestor movement predominantly constituted of fringe nuts?	I have some transcripts of the Simkanin trial. The presiding judge is provably corrupt. I have web pages saved from Rose's web site where he asked simple questions of the IRS, which they REFUSED to answer. I will be putting those transcripts up on this site eventually.

You want substance? How about the Cheek case--- Yes, how about the Cheek case which states the government is required to show the written words of the law.	Foolish me. I took his distraction bait. Please notice the points I bring up as a result of this case that Mr. Smith chooses to ignore... Starting with: "The Cheek case ... states the government is required to show the written words of the law."
=CHEEK= Cheek V. U.S. 498 U.S. 192: Petitioner Cheek was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return in violation of 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and three counts of willfully attempting to evade his income taxes in violation of 7201. Although admitting that he had not filed his returns, he testified that he had not acted willfully because he sincerely believed, based on his indoctrination by a group believing that the federal tax system is unconstitutional and his own study, that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions were lawful. In instructing the jury, the court stated that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness, and that Cheek's beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Code were not objectively reasonable. It also instructed the jury that a person's opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. Cheek was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
=COMMENT= The above is a good summary of the case. I have highlighted the point that applies to all Tax Honesty researchers; "the tax laws were being unconstitutionally [illegally] enforced". The next part I highlighted is where the court erred in stating basically, 'The court will decide if your belief is unreasonable.' Now, Even though Cheek was convicted, his case contains some important points.	Notice that Mr. Smith has ignored the charge that the enforcement of the tax laws is the source of the claims of non-Constitutionality. Notice also, that Mr. Smith is ignoring the Supreme Court's statement that a court is NOT allowed to judge a belief as unreasonable.
=CHEEK= Held: 1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 . Thus, if the jury credited Cheek's assertion that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Characterizing a belief as objectively unreasonable transforms what is normally a factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury from considering it. And forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision, which this interpretation of the statute avoids. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's claim, the jury is free to consider any admissible evidence showing that he had knowledge of his legal duties.
=COMMENT= Held: 1. A good faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief is objectively reasonable. 2. Statutory willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. 3. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision. Item three above is of importance when coupled with the details within the case itself.	I even numbered these points to make them stand out. 1. Good faith negates willfulness. 2. Willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. 3. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that negates willfulness is a Constitutional violation. Since Mr. Smith ignored these points, I didn't get to point out to him that not allowing the jury to see the WRITTEN words of law that create the "legal duty" negates willfulness also, since there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY legal duty. Mr. Smith is welcome to prove to me that the legal duty exists, using the WRITTEN words of law. I doubt he will... That would be discussing substance.
=CHEEK= JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Title 26, 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U.S.C. 7203, "[a]ny person required under this title . . . or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This case turns on the meaning of the word "willfully" as used in 7201 and 7203.
=COMMENT= As does any case under 7201 or 7203. And any Chapter 75 case turns on the definition of person covered here.	The information is also covered here on this web site.
=CHEEK= I. Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973. He filed federal income tax returns through 1979, but thereafter ceased to file returns. ... Petitioner's income during this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to trigger the statutory filing requirement.
=COMMENT= What is the definition of income as used in this sentence? What is the definition of the word income used in the IRC? What is the definition of income "in it's constitutional sense"?	Three more points Mr. Smith has chosen to ignore.
=CHEEK= In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that, to prove "willfulness," the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence.
=COMMENT= There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty".	Notice how Mr. Smith avoids discussion of the proof of this "known legal duty".
=CHEEK= II. The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term "willfully" as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. ... Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
=COMMENT= There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty".	Mr. Smith is not the only collaborator that avoids discussion of the proof of this "known legal duty".
=CHEEK= III. Cheek accepts the Pomponio definition of willfulness, but asserts that the District Court's instructions and the Court of Appeals' opinion departed from that definition. In particular, he challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect.
=COMMENT= Cheek challenges the trial court's ruling that a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law must be objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court agrees. So no matter how ridiculous a belief is, it negates willfulness.	Another point Mr. Smith ignores: No matter how ridiculous a belief is, it negates willfulness.
=CHEEK= A. Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.	This is key, and CRITICAL: Willfulness ... requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant... So how about it Mr. Smith, Do you think you can prove the law imposes a duty on me?
=COMMENT= The only way to prove that the law imposes a duty on a defendant is for the government to SHOW THE JURY the statute that creates the duty. Never is proof shown to the jury that there was a duty created by a statute. Never is the statute the creates the duty shown to the jury.	Of course, Mr. Smith won't discuss this.
=CHEEK= We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals' requirement that a claimed good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government's evidence purporting to show a defendant's awareness of the legal duty at issue. Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury. Characterizing a particular belief as not objectively reasonable transforms the inquiry into a legal one, and would prevent the jury from considering it. ... forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision.	"[F]orbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision" Wouldn't the failure of the government to "prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant" be evidence that might negate willfulness? I believe the catch-phrase for a lot of Tax Honesty Proponents is "Show us the law!" Well Mr. Smith, "Show us the law!" Oops, nevermind. That would be a discussion of substance, something you don't engage in.
=COMMENT= Yeah, like sanctioning Irwin Schiff every time he brought up the law in the Corrupt judge dawson's Court.	Dawson was quoted as saying something akin to "The law will not be discussed in my court". A direct contradiction of "Willfulness ... requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant..." as stated by the Supreme Court.
=CHEEK= It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.
=COMMENT= "Evidence" of "understanding".... Like the actual freaking written words of the statutes and regulations..... The Corrupt judge dawson sanctioned Schiff every time Schiff voiced "evidence of Schiff's understanding".
=CHEEK= B. Those cases [Murdock-Pomponio] construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in "our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law" and "`[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.	"[T]he willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law." How can there be knowledge of a law and the duty imposed if the law is never proven to exist? Care to address that, Mr. Smith?
=COMMENT= Yet that "frank difference of opinion" and the reasons supporting it was not allowed before the jury. Here is a summary of points: 1. A good faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief is objectively reasonable. 2. Statutory willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. 3. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision. 4. The government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty. 5. Willfulness ... requires the government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant. 6. The only way the government can prove #5 is to show the jury the written words of law. 7. Without #5, #4 can NOT happen. 8. When a court does not allow the defendant to force the government to show the written words of law that the government claims imposes a duty on the defendant (#5) the court has effectively forbidden the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness. 9. The government did NOT do #5 or allow #6 in the Simkanin trial, the Rose trial, or the Schiff trial, and from what Mr. Jahn says, it sounds like it didn't happen in Mr. Farnsworth's case either.	I've listed a bunch of points that come from the Cheek case. Some in my comments to the original dialog, and additional points plus highlighting the points of the original that Mr. Smith ignores. In the original post, I also summarized and numbered the points of interest in the Cheek case. Please observe what Mr. Smith chooses to address in his replies below.
Funny how you continue to dodge... Yes it is funny how you continue to dodge this: Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum.	This is the fifth time (5th.) that Mr. Smith has been asked to comment on the LOGIC in the cited post.

I'm definitely not a nut. I want the government to meet with "the people" and to answer the people's questions. When a federal court judge rules that the government no longer has to answer to the people our country is in real trouble. I endeavor to find the truth. I believe the govt. is out of control. Everyday they engage in unconstitutional activities. I just wonder what it will take for the people to say enough is enough. Mr. Smith your posts sure do seem to be that of a govt employee. Perhaps you could answer some of the questions that have been posed, rather than continue to post similar messages over and over. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. Ask the 100 plus death row inmates that were wrongly convicted. liberty	Snicker. You didn't fool Mr. Liberty either, did you Mr. Smith?

Cheek was convicted on remand. Cheek re-appealed his conviction, but was rejected. The Supreme Court let Cheek sit in prison, RIGHTFULLY convicted like so many other tax protestors. Meredith, Schiff, Rose, Simkanin, Rose, Farnsworth, etc., etc., etc., all got to argue Cheek. And yet they sit in jail, RIGHTFULLY convicted.	More assertions, and nothing of substance. All those points about the Cheek case, and Mr. Smith can only threaten the uninitiated that bad things will happen if you read the WRITTEN words of law. My scroll bar says I'm 1/3rd through this web page and I have yet to read anything really of substance on the law written by Mr. Smith. This post here reminds me of my child hood: "My daddy can beat your daddy up."

The government HAS answered WTP's questions,	An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
see my previous post.	You keep asking the godfather why you should keep paying tribute. Vinny here is going to answer your questions... Vinny, don't kill him. Just hurt him enough to make him into an example for the other shopkeepers.
The "Petition of Right" lawsuit is simply a cheap ploy by Bob Schulz to try to slow down his own upcoming prosecution.	And that sentence is just a cheap shot by a cockroach coward.
Also, there are methods of asking tax questions to the IRS -- tax attorneys do it every day by what is known as a request for a "Private Letter Ruling".	The questions being asked are questions of common application, therefore a private letter ruling is inappropriate. It really is a very simple question. And the answer is either yes, or the answer is no. "Should I use..." The second question is, If the answer is no, prove it.
Now, why is it that Bob filed his Petition of Right lawsuit instead of simply asking his questions through a request for a PLR?	Mr. Smith doesn't even understand the questions being asked.

Funny how you continue to dodge... Yes it is funny how you continue to dodge this: Hey, before you leave maybe you could save another poor soul by pointing out the error in their logic in this post to the forum. Oh, wait... That's because the WRITTEN words of IRC 7343 unequivocally show that Chapter 75 penalties DO NOT APPLY to Schiff, Rose, or Farnsworth.	This is the sixth time (6th.) that Mr. Smith has been asked to comment on the LOGIC in the cited post.

	It took six tries to get Mr. Smith to address the cited page. See if he ever addresses the LOGIC on the page.
You don't know what the term "person" means?	Emphasis mine. I know exactly what the TERM person means. The TERM "person" means exactly what the WRITTEN words of the statutory definition say it means. No more. No less. And since it is a statutory definition, The dictionary definition DOES NOT APPLY. I know exactly what the term means because I have read the WRITTEN words of the statutory definition. I have posted the WRITTEN words of the statutory definition here, and here. The WRITTEN words of law trump your assertions.
Hmmmm. Looks like the public schools HAVE failed you.	Remember folks, this is an attempt to discredit me by insult so that you won't click the links and read the actual WRITTEN words of law, in this case the WRITTEN words of the statutory definition.
Certainly, the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) haven't had any difficulty in determining what "person" means, as they routinely allow tax protestors to sit in jail. Nor have the accredited legal and constitutional scholars, etc.	Notice how Mr. Smith avoids those WRITTEN words?
But wait! The pro wrasslin' crowd has found that Silver Bullet!	Another insult. Quid Pro Quo, collaborator.
	I think he actually believes he has managed to get some of you to skip reading the page in question. Note his change in tack when I post those WRITTEN words so that they are in his face instead of at the other end of a link. (He apparently has never seen the GEICO commercial where the lizard says something like, 'visiting GIECO is like what, you standing up?' Really. How hard does Mr. Smith think it is to click a link?)

	Since the page linked above has text styles, I can just paste in the HTML text as it appeared on the Trial Logs forum. I could not do this on the page where this dialog originally took place.
Internal Revenue Code CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES Subchapter A - Crimes PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS The following four sections of the IRC are found in chapter 75. (Highlighted in red to show important connections between the chapter 75 IRC penalty statutes and the ever so important definition section.) Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.] Bad things can only happen if there is, in fact, actually a tax imposed upon the person named by the IRC. This IRC section does NOT create the duty listed.
Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.] Bad things can only happen if there is, in fact, actually a requirement by the IRC upon the person named to collect, account for, and pay over any tax. This IRC section does NOT create the duty listed.
Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.] Bad things can only happen if there is, in fact, actually a requirement by the IRC upon the person named to pay a tax. This IRC section does NOT create the duty listed.
In this next IRC section, we are going to look at the person(s) to whom the above penalty statutes apply.	The reason section (7343) is so important is not clear to some people. To make it clear, let us presume: That you are over the age of 18; Your locality has curfew laws for minors; For purposes of the curfew laws, the term "person" includes any person that has not attained the age of 18; The penalty statute says, any person who is apprehended in public between the hours of 22:00 and 05:00 the next day shall be fined $50. You have just been arrested in public at 22:15 for violation of curfew law. Are you a person to which this law applies? According to Mr. Smith, the answer is yes, because "If they wanted to limit the definition of "person" they would have said "person means"."
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
The "person" named by statute, to which the chapter 75 penalty statutes apply, are: An officer of a corporation who as such officer is under a duty to perform the required act; An employee of a corporation who as such employee is under a duty to perform the required act; A member of a partnership who as such partner is under a duty to perform the required act; An employee of a partnership who as such employee is under a duty to perform the required act.
Do you see an individual in their private capacity? Do you see an individual NOT in their capacity as an officer, partner, or employee?	Here are two questions Mr. Smith chose to ignore. The questions go to the point of who chapter 75 applies to.
To argue that includes is a word of expansion is to argue that the term expands to include individuals that are already contained within the generic meaning of the word "person". If the generic meaning of the word person is meant, there would be no need for expansion.	Here is the LOGIC Mr. Smith was invited to comment upon. His answer totally ignores the point made. There is no need to define the term "person" if the dictionary definition is what the penalty statute was meant to apply to.
If officers, partners, and employees are NOT persons until IRC section 7343 activates, then neither are you and I. And if it takes the activation of this IRC section to bring the listed officers, partners, and employees within the term person, it will likewise take the activation of a statute to just as specifically bring you and I within the term.	Here is more LOGIC Mr. Smith was invited to comment upon. His answer totally ignores the point made. Officers, partners, and employees are already "persons" according to the dictionary definition. Why would the term be defined to "include" items that are already in the set alleged by Mr. Smith to be subject to Chapter 75 penalties?
The root word of includes means to enclose. Much like the fence of a corral includes (encloses) the herd of horses, the term "person" includes (encloses) the specific officers, partners, and employees listed. Unless used with supporting words such as "includes but is not limited to" or "also includes", the term *includes* is a word of limitation.	Mr. Smith ignores what the naked word "includes" means in the first place.
Free clue: Link.	The original page of dialog posting did not have color text styles available. The purpose of the free clue was to get his eyes on the color pages since that does help understanding.

If they wanted to limit the definition of "person" they would have said "person means". Instead, they say "includes" which means part of but not exclusively. Thus, your whole theory goes down the flusher right there.	Emphasis mine. Compare Mr. Smith's words here with the WRITTEN words of the law above. I said at the top of this page, "Since Mr. Smith opens the door to the canned answer below, I'll supply a link to the canned answer below." Well, this is the "below" referred to. Mr. Smith has opened the door to this canned answer. And this one also.
Has one court EVER interpreted "person" in such a limited fashion? Of course not. Your definition is absurd, and it is not keeping anybody out of jail, nor has anybody avoided jail because of it. Nice attempt at a Clinton-esque spin, though. Maybe you can work on the definition of "is" next. Like the rest of your theories, nobody who matters agrees with you.	Since Mr. Smith opened the door to what the term "includes" means, I posted a reply with a bunch of court cases dealing with the meaning of includes, which obviously determines what is meant by "the term person includes". Mr. Smith chose to ignore all those court cases that deal with the meaning of the word "includes".

Instead, they say "includes" which means part of but not exclusively.	Emphasis mine. Mr. Smith is wrong in his naked assertion. So I posted a bunch of citations impeaching his lie.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 (1990): “Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. “Including” within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228.”	Mr. Smith chose to ignore Black's Law Dictionary definition of "includes".
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Sixth Edition: “INCLUDE (Lat. in claudere to shut in, keep within). In a legacy of ‘one hundred dollars including money trusted’ at a bank, it was held that the word `including' extended only to a gift of one hundred dollars; 132 Mass. 218...” “INCLUDING. The words `and including' following a description do not necessarily mean `in addition to,' but may refer to a part of the thing described. 221 U.S. 425.” -----------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore Bouvier's Law Dictionary definition of "includes".
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581: “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581] -----------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore Black's Law Dictionary definition of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", a rule of statutory construction.
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452 (1911): "The determining word is, of course the word 'including.' It may have the sense of addition, as we have seen, and of 'also;' but, we have also seen, 'may merely specify particularly that which belongs to the genus.' Hiller v. United States, 45 C. C. A. 229, 106 Fed. 73, 74. It is the participle of the word 'include,' which means, according to the definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) 'to confine within something; hold as in an inclosure; inclose; contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part, or as something incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . . the Roman Empire included many nations.' 'Including,' being a participle, is in the nature of an adjective and is a modifier." ... "...The [lower] court also considered that the word 'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power attributed to it. It gives in connection with 'including' a quality to the grant of 110,000 acres which it would not have had,-the quality of selection from the saline lands of the state. And that such quality would not exist unless expressly conferred we do not understand is controverted. Indeed, it cannot be controverted.... ----------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore the Supreme Court's decision regarding the meaning of the word "includes". Red highlight emphasis wasn't in the original post.
Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: “(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.” ------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore the Secretary of Treasury's decision regarding the meaning of the word "includes".
Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’. “Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement.” -------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore this lower court decision regarding the meaning of the word "includes". Red highlight added for emphasis on THIS page.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153 (1917). “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.” [NOTE: See also American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 35 L.ed. 821, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Rice v. United States, 4 C. C. A. 104, 10 U. S. App.670, 53 Fed. 910, enziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct.189.] --------	Mr. Smith chose to ignore the Supreme Court which stated in effect, implication don't get it in tax law.
"As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'" [Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10] -----	Mr. Smith ignored a point here he could have attempted to stretch to his purpose, showing that he doesn't read what he replies to.
*"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction--that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there--is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 249 (1992)	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979), and we assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962)	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances." FREYTAG v. COMMISSIONER, 501 US 868 (1991), 115 L Ed 2d 764, pp. 767	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning--in all but the most extraordinary circumstance--is finished; courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written." Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 US 469, 120 L Ed 2d 379, 112 S Ct. 2589 (1992)	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended." AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. v PATTERSON, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." FEDERAL TRADE COM. v SIMPLICITY PATTERN CO., 360 US 55, p. 55, 475042/56451	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation." Fuller v. United States 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985) , West’s Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States, 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1962)	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"The starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself; absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." PRODUCT SAFETY COMM'N v. GTE SYLVANIA, 447 US 102, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980)	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
*"Words used in the statute are to be given their proper signification and effect." Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 115, 25 L. Ed. 782, 783 (1879).	Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person" The [statutory] term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
	What were the comments of Mr. Smith above regarding "credible" and "substance"? Mr. Smith is starting to look a little light in both categories to me.

Mr. Smith in one of your previous posts you state that the government has answered WTP questions. Can you please tell me where and when? Im interested in seeing their answers. Thanks. Liberty	A direct question from Mr. Liberty.

Ignoring of course that the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand. So, neither the Supreme Court nor the Courts of Appeals gives "includes" the interpretation that you so desperately want it to have.	Ignoring of course that Mr. Smith ignored ALL the citations concerning the word "includes". (Approximately 16 by my count.) "So, neither the Supreme Court nor the Courts of Appeals gives "includes" the interpretation that you so desperately want it to have." Yeah right.

Joey, What concerns me is the underlying celebratory tone in your posts which raises suspicion about your motives and morality. Even if the tax protestors are wrong, there are still some very fundamental issues about the income tax system that should concern EVERYONE. The second plank of the communist manifesto is ... 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The communist mantra "from each according to ability, to each according to their need" is fed via the income tax which offers the most efficient means of wealth redistribution necessary for advancing communism. It taxes those that dare to produce for the benefit of those who don't. It punishes anyone that dares to rise above the crowd, and rewards those who fail to contribute. It is a system that discourages work and it has failed wherever it has been attempted including the Jamestown settlement where many settlers died of starvation as a result of the communist experiment there. For over a hundred years, the people and industries of this nation were free to prosper and grow without government interference, but that is no longer true. Today, those who dare to work and prosper are drained for much of their worth. They need attorneys to assure they are in compliance with a growing number of governmental regulations. They need CPA’s to assure they comply with numerous tax laws. And, they must surrender over 20% of what they produce to fund our ever growing government which apparently has no bounds. Perhaps, this is why we have gone from the world's leading producing nation to the world's leading debtor nation. A growing number of citizens are repatriating to other countries to escape the growing police state. Those that remain find their bank and investment accounts are monitored and any sizable transactions along with most of their incomes are reported to the federal government. Citizens, regardless of their mental capacities, are required to maintain financial records and receipts throughout the year to comply with government regulations. They're required to file annual declarations of income under penalty of perjury after which many cower in their homes waiting to see if they have been selected for a random audit this year. Most citizens boast of living in a free nation, while ignoring the fact that they shutter in fear at the thought of receiving a letter from the IRS or having an agent knock at their door. Those that fail to comply along with some of those who make a sincere attempt to comply find their assets seized and their homes and offices raided by abusive government commandos armed with assault rifles often without the benefit of due process. Underlining all of this is the reality that there is absolutely no reason or justification for a progressive income tax in a free nation. After cutting spending by reducing the size and scope of our government, our country could continue to rightfully tax the incomes of corporations and they could increase other tax streams if necessary. There is absolutely no reason to harass American citizens, beyond the governments increasing desire to number and monitor each and every one of us. People like you seem to think the proper role of government is to oppress, monitor and steal from its citizens. Perhaps, you could tell us when that became the proper role of government. To me, the income tax as you see it is contrary to the principles this nation was founded upon and it conflicts with every ideal of liberty. People that support such un-American systems of oppression are traitors. Whether the tax protestors are right or not about their interpretation of the law really doesn't matter. In reality, the true Americans are those who recognize how repugnant this system of taxation is and are working to abolish it. On the other hand, those who applaud the persecution of those who dare to speak out against it and those that embrace the suppression of freedom and the growing cancer of communism that has brought this nation to the brink of bankruptcy are truly un-American. Consider this. If we were to abolish the income tax, we could probably cut the number of parasitic tax attorneys and CPA's in this nation by half, reducing the drain they impose on business and society. The resulting exodus of tax attorneys, CPA's and unemployed government workers forced to seek work abroad might cripple production in other nations, further strengthening our nation here at home. Such a restoration of freedom and the boost to our economy might be worth a try. We shouldn't maintain this system just to enrich tax attorneys and CPA's, nor should we wait until the nation is completely bankrupt to recognize our experiment with communism was a failure. I wonder if the impending financial collapse of this nation will change peoples tolerance for these repugnant practices. Will people of your ilk will still be applauding the system then? David Jahn

Personally, I would do away with the income tax in favor of one of several alternative tax regimes. But that is a POLITICAL question, and not a LEGAL one. The political criticisms of the income tax does not make it any less constitutional or legal. People go to jail not because the income tax is inefficient, but because they wrongly believe that it is illegal -- usually falsely inspired by the paytriot types who make money telling the gullible a lie. This is a great country. You are 100% free to vote Libertarian, and I am 100% free to vote however I choose to vote (I am not wed to any particular political party or belief). However, the system set up by the Founders is that the majority rules whether you or I individually like it or not, and the majority has not shown any great propensity for changing the tax regime anytime soon. What would be your alternative to the income tax? I could not support either a flat tax or a national sales tax as that hurts the poor (although it would personally cut my own tax burden quite a bit). I could possibly support a VAT, but have not been enthralled by the European experience with the VAT. I concur that reducing the number of those engaged in the tax profession would be a good thing, but point out that those are generally smart people who would displace the dumb here rather than go abroad.

Ignoring of course that the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals has routinely allowed the convictions of tax protestors to stand. Ignoring of course that your naked assertions are meaningless. So, neither the Supreme Court nor the Courts of Appeals gives "includes" the interpretation that you so desperately want it to have. Your failure to read what I posted is noted. paytriot types Your insult is noted. Also noted is that the owners of http://www.synapticsparks.info http://whatistaxed.com/ and http://www.triallogs.com/ do not charge for, or sell, anything. This is a great country. The Grand Canyon, The Rocky Mountains, The Great Lakes, The Mississippi River. Yes, This is a great country. So is every other country with beautiful natural wonders. If you're speaking of politics, laws, and justice, you're full of shit. According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US, and 1,330,000 more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. As posted on the real Forum. You are 100% free to vote Libertarian, and I am 100% free to vote however I choose to vote A child knows Mom has some cookies and candy. The child says, "Mom I'm Hungry. Can I have a snack?" Mom gives the child a choice. Mom allows the child to VOTE so to speak. Mom allows the child to choose an apple or some celery. (I am not wed to any particular political party or belief) HA HA HA HA. You don't get to choose the candy or cookies. You only get to choose between an apple or celery. However, the system set up by the Founders is that the majority rules... You are an ignorant one. Is our form of government a democracy? (It's a trick question. The answer is NO.) If our form of government is not a democracy, what form of government is it? (Hint: Recite the pledge of allegiance to yourself. If you don't know it, you can find it here: PLEDGE What would be your alternative to the income tax? Cut the monster down to the minimum size required JUST AS THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED. Then we can discuss how to fund it. those are generally smart people who would displace the dumb here rather than go abroad. So what do you do now? And if you are one of the displaced, what would you choose to do instead?

The IRS has answered WTP's questions through a variety of notices and publications, including those at http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/ 0...=136751,00.html In other words, WTP could easily find the answers to its questions, but instead chooses to repeat over and over "Our questions have not been answered!" as if by sheer repetition that statement might someday change from false to true.	This is Mr. Smith's answer to Mr. Liberty's question. I've dealt with his BS citing of the unofficial packet of half truths above.

Meredith, Schiff, Simkanin and many others. Those are the convictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to stand. Ignore them as you do all other reality. Since you Hate America so much, then why not leave? Nobody forces you to stay here.	This post was aimed at a post of mine. Mr. Smith's talks of ignoring things... P-K-B How many things has Mr. "waste of time" Smith ignored?

The IRS has answered WTP's questions through a variety of notices and publications, including those at irs.gov/irs/article/ 0...=136751,00.html I'm ignoring the paragraphs on that page that I don't have a problem with. The rest, I am going to post, one paragraph at a time per post, to let you explain the IRS' lies. I am further going to breakup the paragraph into each single sentence to address each sentence.
SECTION 2. COMMON FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS. This section sets out some of the most common frivolous arguments used by taxpayers to avoid or evade tax. “A taxpayer can avoid tax by filing a return that reports zero income and zero tax liability.” One needs to understand who or what a taxpayer is to understand who or what is required to make a return in the first place.
Sec. 1313. Definitions (b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. Sec. 7701. Definitions (a)(14) Taxpayer The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.	Mr. Smith chooses to ignore the definition of a taxpayer.
Ah ha! If one is a "taxpayer" then one is subject to the tax. But what if one is NOT a "taxpayer"?	Thus Mr. Smith chooses to ignore that not everybody is a taxpayer.
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added] Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)
So if one is not a "taxpayer" then there is no requirement to file a return in the first place. Lesson #1: Nontaxpayers do not file returns in the first place. Filling a return is a form of admitting that one is a taxpayer.
All taxpayers who receive more than the statutory minimum amount of gross income, from whatever source derived, must file returns and pay tax.	If one is not a taxpayer, then statutory minimums do not apply.
In order to understand this, we must determine what "gross income" actually is.	There I go, wanting to look at the WRITTEN words of law that define the terms used again. Run Joey Run! He's talking about substance and WRITTEN law again.
The phrase "from whatever source derived" does not mean all money from everywhere. This is covered in detail in this chapter: evidence/c03/ index.html on this page: evidence/c03/ irc61.html	The linked pages speak for themselves, and as Mr. Smith has proven, his index finger is broken. He don't do links.
Cutting to the chase are these WRITTEN words of a regulation:
...and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax.	WRITTEN words of law Mr. Smith ignores.
And:
For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.	WRITTEN words of law Mr. Smith ignores.
And:
Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:	WRITTEN words of law Mr. Smith ignores.
What are they trying to hide? Exempt = Not Taxable; Eliminated = Not Taxable; Excluded = Not Taxable Not considered to be Exempt = Not considered to be Not Taxable; Not considered to be Eliminated = Not considered to be Not Taxable; Not considered to be Excluded = Not considered to be Not Taxable Double Negatives cancel. Not considered to be Exempt = Considered to be Taxable; Not considered to be Eliminated = Considered to be Taxable; Not considered to be Excluded = Considered to be Taxable
Now let's parse the original with a proper understanding of what they are saying: The following items are considered to be taxable income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them: Compensation for labor is not on the list that follows except as earned in another country.
No law, including the Internal Revenue Code, permits a taxpayer who has received wages or other income to file a return with zero income and zero tax liability.
Correct. Provided one has actually received wages (a statutorily defined term) or income (a constitutionally defined term). If the word income means money coming in, then the statement is a lie. The statutory definition of wages is covered on this page in detail: evidence/05/ irc3401.html	Also correct providing one is actually a "taxpayer" as that term is statutorily defined. Oops. More questions on substance and the WRITTEN words of the law.
If a taxpayer has received income subject to federal tax, a return showing only zeroes for income and tax liability is not a valid return. NOTE: "If a taxpayer has received income subject to federal tax" Scroll up and re-read: "for federal income tax purposes."	Mr. Smith has ignored this point also.
Further, inclusion of the phrase “nunc pro tunc” or other legal jargon on an income tax return does not serve to validate an otherwise improper return. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n083.htm Nunc pro tunc literally means "now for then." Occasionally, a court or party to a divorce forgets to file the papers necessary to obtain the final decree (after the interlocutory judgment has been granted), and the result is that the divorce never becomes final. If the oversight presents a problem (for example, one party has already remarried, or there is a tax advantage to being divorced earlier), the court may agree to issue a nunc pro tunc order, which grants the final divorce retroactive to the earlier date. This phrase is used to express that a thing is done at one time which ought to have been performed at another. Leave of court must be obtained to do things nunc pro tunc, and this is granted to answer the purposes of justice, but never to do injustice. A judgment nunc pro tunc can be entered only when the delay has arisen from the act of the court.	"legal jargon"? This is just as slimy in its failing to show evidence of just what it is addressing as a certain other cockroach's bland inuendo.
I notice they did not address an addendum to the jurat stating: "signed under duress".	I notice Mr. Smith failed to address the "legal jargon" of "signed under duress".

Meredith, Schiff, Simkanin and many others. Those are the convictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to stand. Post the links that prove any of those cases were even brought before the Supreme Court. A link to the Cert. Denied by the Supreme Court in each of the stated political prisoner's cases is just as adequate. Since you Hate America so much, then why not leave? You're the one attempting to shit on the Constitution's principles. YOU LEAVE INSTEAD Komrade. I don't want any part of your socialism/communism.	Mr. Smith has repeated his diatribe to the point of... Joey! Go to your room until your father gets home! Keep in mind as you read his response to this particular post below, all of the points, items, and topics Mr. Smith has outright ignored above. And this second sentence of his is so... quatloosian. As you can tell, this cockroach is starting to become annoying.

SECTION 2. COMMON FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS. This section sets out some of the most common frivolous arguments used by taxpayers to avoid or evade tax. “Wages are not taxable income, pursuant to section 1001, because taxpayers have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed.” Wages are only received by government employees. This is covered in detail on this page: evidence/05/ irc3401.html Nontaxpayers do NOT have wages as that term is statutorily defined. The rest of the sentence can therefore be ignored as having no bearing upon a nontaxpayer.	This post was a continuation of my analysis of the other end of a link Mr. Smith kept trying to say had meaning.
All compensation received, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income under section 61.	Code of Federal Regulations From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income. (b) Cross references. Cross references to other provisions of the Code are to be found throughout the regulations under section 61. ... To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder.
See: evidence/c02/ allinc.html and the following page. Also see: evidence/c03/ irc61.html This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received from services performed or to be performed in the future.	Chapter 2 of the Evidence (link to the left) files steps the reader through the WRITTEN statutes and regulations from section 61 to section 861. Only in the case of statutory wages, is that compensation taxable. This is detailed in the Evidence files. Details, that thing of substance Mr. Smith chooses to ignore.
Code of Federal Regulations From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access Sec. 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items. (a) In general. (1) [statutory] Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are [statutory? generic? Constitutional?] income to the recipients unless excluded by law.
evidence/03/cfr61- 2.html
Section 1001 governs gain or loss on the disposition of property, and has no application to compensation for services.	Compensation for labor is the exchange of property for like value property. The value is the same as evidenced by the transaction itself. Would you exchange $100 worth of labor for $20? How about $100 worth of labor for $100? Three Supreme Court cases speak to the fact that labor is property. One speaks to the fact that changing the form of property does not change its essence. And one speaks to what an excise tax is.
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) It has been well said that 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10. Labor IS property. Labor is a "most sacred property".	Quote: "The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable."
Adair v. U S, 208 U.S. 161 (1908 ) In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment. Such liberty and right embrace the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others, and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor; each right, however, being subject to the fundamental condition that no contract, whatever its subject-matter, can be sustained which the law, upon reasonable grounds, forbids as inconsistent with the public interests, or as hurtful to the public order, or as detrimental to the common good. … The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this Amendment, unless there are circumstances which exclude the right. … In every case that comes before this court, therefore, where legislation of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family? Of course, the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it. The one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.' Personal Liberty and Personal Right embrace the Right to make contracts to sell one's own labor.	Quote: " Personal Liberty and Personal Right embrace the Right to make contracts to sell one's own labor."
Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.	Quote: " Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."
* The rights of personal liberty and private property are "fundamental and vital". * The right of making of contracts for acquisition of property is "fundamental and vital". * Personal (natural person) employment is such a contract of "fundamental and vital" right. * "Labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." * Labor (a form of property) is exchanged for money (a form of property). * Exchanging Labor for money is a "fundamental and vital" right.
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918 ) When the act took effect, plaintiff's timber lands, with whatever value they then possessed, were a part of its capital assets, and a subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence.	Quote: "Change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence."
"Subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence", Nor could it. Timber lands are property, money is property, labor is property.
Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.'
evidence/c04/ labor.html

Cert. denied in Irwin's first criminal conviction, just as one example (there are many, many others): cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, 94 L. Ed. 2d 789, 107 S. Ct. 1603 (1987) Now let's see lots of your cutting-and-pasting irrelevant and out-of-context quotes in response.	I asked for a link so that Mr. Smith's naked assertions could be checked for validity. Mr. Smith did not post a link. Again, you can see Mr. Smith making naked assertions that have no foundation to stand on. Just because Mr. Smith ASSERTS that my quotes are out of context, don't make it so... As those of you who have actually taken the time to read those quotes can see.

Mr. Smith have you watched America Freedom to fascism? I'm curious to know because there are 4 congressmen in the movie that say there is no law that requires you to file an income tax return. Should I not believe these men? Also I would like to know your comments on the case in Illinois where the prosecution failed to state such law and a group of intelligent jurors filed a verdict of not guilty. Are they wrong? Thanks Liberty	I took the liberty of correcting the spelling and punctuation of Liberty. Editor type work. Mr. Liberty's second paragraph is the one that elicited the outright lie of Mr. Smith whereupon I terminated my wasting my time with him.

Yes, and I found it boring.	Well of course you would say that. The movie impeaches your unstated assertion that the Tax Honesty Movement is wrong.
Which case are you talking about?

Meredith, Schiff, Simkanin and many others. Those are the convictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to stand. Post the links that prove any of those cases were even brought before the Supreme Court. A link to the Cert. Denied by the Supreme Court in each of the stated political prisoner's cases is just as adequate. cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, 94 L. Ed. 2d 789, 107 S. Ct. 1603 (1987) Perhaps I typed it too fast for you to comprehend the first time. I'll type it slower this time. _P_o_s_t_ _t_h_e_ _l_i_n_k_s_ _t_h_a_t_ _p_r_o_v_e_ _a_n_y_ _o_f_ _t_h_o_s_e_ _c_a_s_e_s_ _w_e_r_e_ _e_v_e_n_ _b_r_o_u_g_h_t_ _b_e_f_o_r_e_ _t_h_e_ _S_u_p_r_e_m_e_ _C_o_u_r_t_._ _A_ _l_i_n_k_ _t_o_ _t_h_e_ _C_e_r_t_._ _d_e_n_i_e_d_ _b_y_ _t_h_e_ _S_u_p_r_e_m_e_ _C_o_u_r_t_ _i_n_ _e_a_c_h_ _o_f_ _t_h_e_ _s_t_a_t_e_d_ _p_o_l_i_t_i_c_a_l_ _p_r_i_s_o_n_e_r_'_s_ _c_a_s_e_s_ _i_s_ _j_u_s_t_ _a_s_ _a_d_e_q_u_a_t_e_._	I asked for links so that Mr. Smith could validate his assertions. Without those linkS, (plural), Mr. Smith is doing nothing more than "blowing smoke". So I emphasized what I requested.

Mr. Smith, Thanks for the reply. Everyone that I know that has watched the movie has found it fascinating. However, you didn't answer my other questions, I asked if I should not believe the 4 congressmen who say there is no law that requires the average american to file an income tax return. As far as the case I believe the gent's name was Whitey Harrol (sp). Liberty	Punctuation and capitalization corrected. Mr. Liberty is calling Mr. Smith on his ignoring of the questions asked.

They didn't say "there is no law" but rather they didn't know where the law was.	Emphasis mine. The IRS doesn't seem to know where the law is either. IRS Commissioner Mark Everson doesn't know where the law is. The SB/SE division head doesn't know where the law is. Taxpayer advocacy division head Nina Olson doesn't know where the law is.
As for Whitey Harrell, he didn't win by proving he had no obligation to pay taxes, but rather avoided conviction under the Cheek defense that he didn't understand he had an obligation to pay taxes.	This is a flat out lie. On THIS website is a speech by one of the juror's that acquitted Whitey Harrell. The juror herself impeaches Smith's LIE. The We The People group wanted to have a hearing to discuss the WRITTEN words of law with the 'government'. The 'government' agreed and was going to attend... Until they got the advance copies of the questions to be answered. Then the 'government' backed out. It is a common theme for the 'government' to refuse to address the WRITTEN words of law... Just like Mr. Smith and the rest of his ilk. The We The People group attending the hearing is the group that Mr. Schulz is affiliated with. The same Mr. Schulz that Mr. Smith cockroached above. The video source of the Whitey Harrell juror was recorded during the "Truth In Taxation" hearings.
This defense works about 1 time in 100, and also worked in the Long and Kuglin cases.	The transcripts of the Long and Kuglin cases also show that Mr. Smith is a LIAR. Link to transcripts
Notably, the defense didn't work for Cheek himself, who was convicted on remand. As for Harrell, Long, and Kuglin, their acquittals did not relieve them of their tax liabilities. Long worked for years to pay his back taxes, interest, and penalties, and Kuglin ended up giving up most of her FedEx retirement pension as part of her settlement (she is still working the rest of it off).	Mr. Smith still has NOT proven any liabilities exist according to the WRITTEN words of law. Show us the law! Vinny here is going to answer your questions... Vinny, don't kill them. Just hurt them enough to make them into an examples for the other shopkeepers.
BTW, Russo's documentary has received terrible reviews in the mainstream press.	I don't pay attention to mainstream press because I know they lie to the American Public.
	In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. ... In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. ... When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. ... In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. Cite
Of course, TPs love it, but the vast majority of other viewers didn't. He's now having to give it away for free just to try to attract viewers. It would have been a better documentary had he now strayed off into the nutso federal reserve conspiracy junk.	Again, Mr. Smith ASSERTS his opinion. To quote your own words back at you Mr. Smith: "When somebody who matters cares what you think, be sure to let me know."

Dale: I gave you the cite; get off your intellectually lazy ass and look it up yourself.	I just love this cockroach's insult... LMAO... "intellectually lazy" Hee, hee. I've not only looked stuff up, I've created a web site to inform other of what I have looked up. www.synapticsparks.info

As far as the case i believe the gent's name was Whitey Harrol (sp) Whitey Harrell. Here is a transcript of one of the speeches given by a juror with a link to the video if you want to hear the words instead of read them: tax/ghacquit.html
As for Whitey Harrell, he didn't win by proving he had no obligation to pay taxes, but rather avoided conviction under the Cheek defense that he didn't understand he had an obligation to pay taxes.	I'm "intellectually lazy" according to Mr. Smith... Yet right there in that post is a link to a web page I made with the transcription I made, of the video of the Harrell juror, and a link to my video source that proves Mr. Smith is a LIAR. Or maybe he is just "intellectually lazy" and didn't bother to research what he is blathering about.
I've got you cold in a lie. Folks, click the link, read the transcript, and see where THE ACTUAL JUROR IMPEACHES MR. SMITH'S LIE. Fletcher Reid, I don't dialog with prevaricating pissant bullshit kings. Dialog is terminated. Mr. Jahn, there is no longer any reason to let LIAR JOEY'S posts onto this forum.	At this point, I'm basically done with the little cretin.

Richard M. Simkanin, Petitioner v. United States. No. 05-948. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 126 S. Ct. 1911; 164 L. Ed. 2d 663; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3659; 74 U.S.L.W. 3617 May 1, 2006, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16199 (5th Cir. Tex., 2005) JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito. OPINION: Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Simkanin's Supreme Court case \|

You're still a liar, joey.	The only reason I posted this is because Joey LIAR Smith assumed that Mr. Jahn would follow my suggestion immediately and ban him from the forum, thus Mr. Smith changed his name to get around the block he thought was there.

You are the one who implied that none of these cases had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court	Another lie by this little cockroach. I did not imply any such thing. I held the little cockroach's feet to the fire (all 6 of them) in regard to substantiating his naked assertions. Please notice that he only substantiated the Simkanin case as having been brought before the Supreme Court. Red emphasis below is mine.
	Cert. Denied . The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited. Someone with a legal claim files a lawsuit in a trial court, such as a U.S. District Court, which receives evidence, and decides the facts and law. Someone who is dissatisfied with a legal decision of the trial court can appeal. In the federal system, this appeal usually would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is required to consider and rule on all properly presented appeals. The highest federal court in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Someone who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals can request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This request is named a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court can refuse to take the case. In fact, the Court receives thousands of "Cert Petitions" per year, and denies all but about one hundred. If the Court accepts the case, it grants a Writ of Certiorari. "Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Rule 10, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process is covered in Rules 10-16, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. The effect of denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is often debated. The decision of the Court of Appeals is unaffected. However, the decision does not necessarily reflect agreement with the decision of the lower court. Cite
	Oops. It looks like Mr. Smith is confused about what Cert. Denied means.
AND you are the one who keeps giving out-of-context quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court even though they have shown no inclination to buy the goofy TP theories.	An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. My quotes are NOT out of context.
So whose really the liar, Dale?	You are. And I have proof. All anybody has to do is read what you said about the Harrell case, and then read the transcript of the Harrell juror's speech.
BTW, Harrell is STILL liable for his taxes, just like Long and Kuglin, etc.	Another naked assertion.
He just avoided jail, unlike Meredith, Schiff, Rose, Simkanin, Farnsworth and the list goes on and on and on.	I'm still waiting to see the law that creates this liability. If a judge tells me 2+2=7, I know that judge is full of shit. If a judge tells me I am liable for a tax without showing me the law that creates this liability, I know that judge is full of shit also. In fact, your entire string of posts is nothing but subtle threats to the novice reader... You are stating in effect; If you go to court they will beat you up. Until you show me the law that makes me liable, you are full of shit also.
So not only are you a liar, but you are nuttier than a full can of Blue Diamond almonds.	I leave it to the reader to decide. And I'm sorry for the language but after having to read Smith's tripe for a second time to create this page....

bye liar.	Mr. Smith had some parting discussion with a few others, and I could analyze those statements the same as I have done with all the rest.... I'm tired, and one can only stomach so much of the spew Smith hurled at the forum.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Joey Smith Almost Engages With Me