Irwin Schiff vs. IRS on Fox TV News
www.GiveMeLiberty.org — Fox TV News interviews taxation protester Irwin Schiff. Watch as important NY taxation profession is incompetent to bring any law requiring normal Americans for record or pay. Schiff’s website is www.paynoincometax.com.
« If my auto accident case is dismissed, will I have to pay defense attorney costs? | Home | needed MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY FOR NWARKANSAS? »
Comments
Here are some more facts you’ll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS,
Because the government breaks the law and denies it, the government is not your friend.
Content of Part 1
Rights and Liberties
Chapters
1 Breaking the law to enforce it
2 Attacking the Innocent
3 Creating Crime
4 Grabbing Guns, Endangering Citizens
5 Filching Property
6 Gagging Free Speech
7? Bribing Witnesses, Buying Convictions
8 Assaulting the People
Poor good man Irwin. He thought that because he could actually read the code and statute of legalized plunder that if presented as written, case closed and he be left alone.
As that some commissioners of the IRS haven’t understood the code, I can see where it would drive a normal man insane.
In RetSquids though case you’d just have to be a low level wannabe legal thief to believe you understand the code.
Of course I understand “not subject to law” that legally steals or legally murders.
On January 21st, 2004 Schiff filed a brief in the District Court of Nevada Civil Case CV-S-01-0895-PMP (LRL) claiming “Insanity” in his defense for failing to pay his Federal Income Taxes! He contends he suffers from a mental disease or defect and exhibits symptoms of chronic severe delusional personality disorder!
I can’t believe fox covered this lol. of course they make it seem like a big joke with the humor.
Here are some more facts you’ll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS,
Because the government breaks the law and denies it, the government is not your friend.
Content of Part 1
Rights and Liberties
Chapters
1 Breaking the law to enforce? it
2 Attacking the Innocent
3 Creating Crime
4 Grabbing Guns, Endangering Citizens
5 Filching Property
6 Gagging Free Speech
7 Bribing Witnesses, Buying Convictions
8 Assaulting the People
RetSquid believes that legal stealing and legal murder is not stealing & not murder.
Under his belief system, you can call a man or woman anything you want by opinion. Whereas the code, as is plainly self-evident, defines employee the court as well could call livestock an employee too or give equal status to people. “All very legal”.
While Yick Wo plainly confirms the self-evident as to “…not subject to law…” it is very interesting how people accept such garbage by their servants.
“the term “employee” includes”
…[M]ade certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).
Sims v. United States
This is just further evidence of what should be self-evident; that is people are not subject to law that steals from them.
However, under legalism the courts and government give the impression that it includes others than the words expressed here.
Eventually there can only be a logical conclusion in the midst of pretended code and opinion.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law…
No problem! Glad you asked:
TITLE 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C – Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 24 – COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.”
Here are some more facts you’ll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS,
Because the government breaks the law and denies it, the government is not your friend.
Content of Part 1
Rights and Liberties
Chapters
1 Breaking the law to enforce it
2 Attacking the Innocent
3 Creating Crime
4 Grabbing Guns, Endangering Citizens
5 Filching Property
6 Gagging Free Speech
7 Bribing Witnesses, Buying Convictions
8 Assaulting the People
RetSquid quoting more law that steals legally is not the same as saying what makes you subject to your law of stealing.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while? sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
“Remember, wages are recieved by “employees” ”
Do you have a job? Are you employed? Do you get paid? If you do then you are getting wages.
Legal Thief RetSquid quoting more law that steals legally is not the same as saying what makes you subject to your law of stealing.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
Yes, it was.
The Seventh Circuit noted that the information compiled in The Law That Never Was has been known since 1913, and the court found that it presented no grounds for invalidating the Sixteenth Amendment.
Thomas, 788 F.2d at 1253.
The 16th amendment was never properly ratified.
“Wages may be from but those sources are defined aren’t they?”
It doesn’t need to define the sources because it says “whatever source derived”.
“employee:a worker who is hired to perform a job.”
Can you find ANYPLACE (in law) that defines an employee as ONLY working for the Government?
Wages may be from “whatever source derived” but those sources are defined aren’t they? One of such sources are “employers” to their “employees” for services…thats right, its not so much “services” as it is “voluntary servitude”. Do you still voluntarily serve the government? No? Why are you still paying a wage tax. Oh thats right, because some dimwit told you that you are being paid wages huh? hahahahahaha, yeah, I’ll take some desk jockey’s word for it…cause they are smart. hahahaha
Hey Retsquid, here is more truth for you to chew on. Since you are so bent on not being free…”Sec. 218. [42 U.S.C. 418] (a)(1) The Commissioner of Social Security shall, at the request of any State, enter into an agreement with such State for the purpose of extending the insurance system established by this title to services performed by individuals as employees of such State or any political subdivision thereof.” -are your SURE you have wages? Remember, wages are recieved by “employees”
“We are free men, free of any government including our own.”
Now THAT is an idiotic statement.
The truth of the matter is, the federal government, state, local etc. has absolutely no power of the people. As soon as Americans start understanding what they are, the government will lose its ill gotten control. That is a simple way to put it. As a retired military person, you should understand that.
“The end result is that the IRS is a creature of “positive law” because it was created through congressionally mandated power.”
Retsquid, the congress does not control the people, only government people directly working for them. Are you sure you were in the military? Have you read the Declaration of Independence and constitution yet? We are free men, free of any government including our own. The federal government was created by the people, to protect the rights we inherently have.
U.S. Supreme Court
The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including ‘income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service … of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,’ LUCAS v. EARL, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Porcaro v. United States
The term “taxpayer” in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a) (14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A “non-taxpayer” is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY,
GATLIFF COAL COMPANY, and PREMIER ELKHORN COAL COMPANY,
v. UNITED STATES
Leave a Comment