Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6986The term "revenue law"

Expand Messages
  • reb
    Nov 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      David appears to swat at a gnat while running over the log in the road.
       
      There has been no indictment, or civil process, in the recent 50 years that has averred the income tax is a direct tax or an indirect excise tax. Why should we quibble among ourselves over the nature of the income tax when it is not used by the IRS to obtain convictions ??
       
      But Angela's major point is valid.  Federal court have jurisdiction of criminal cases only when a statutory lawful duty is averred in an indictment/information and put into contestation with the defendant being accused of violating that duty. . Thornhill v Alabama, 310 US 88, 96;  Cole v Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201; United States v. Pomponio, 429 US 10.  Is a current federal indictment/information that cites 26 USC ##7201 thru 7209  citing a statutory duty??  Of course not.  Those statutes are penalty statutes in Subtitle F.  They have been used to punish wagering and occupational tax violations, illegal selling of bolita tickets, a stamp tax on stocks, bonds and playing cards, for an admissions tax, a marijuana tax, for untaxed distilled spirits, and others. The lawful duty imposed upon the citizenry is established within the provisions of the tax subchapter, i.e., Subtitle A, B, C, D, or E.  A lawful duty is never averred in criminal process.
       
      Does civil process fulfill requirements to vest jurisdiction in the District Courts?  I don't think so.  A pleading must aver a "viable legal theory" as to how the defendant has a lawful duty to the plaintiff.    Scheid v Fanny Farmer Candy, 859 F2d 434, 436 ; Lewis v ACB Business Services, 135 F3d 389, 406; SmileCare Dental v Delta Dental, 88 F3d 780; Car Carriers v Ford Motor, 745 F2d 1101; many others available.  Civil process by the IRS NEVER avers a statute that requires a citizen to pay an income tax.  There is no legal theory established as to why a defendant must comply with Title 26; i.e., Why is the defendant a "taxpayer" ? Remember, only taxpayers are subject to the provisions of Title 26. Opinions that taxes can only be imposed by statutes are abundant.
       
      Without a claim of a lawful duty being violated by a defendant, there has been no cause of action made in civil process or a crime claimed to have been committed in criminal process. Without a cause of action or a crime presented to the court, there is no case brought to the court. This is a requirement of Due Process.  A Motion to Dismiss would be in order for any case presented by the IRS. The IRS never cites a statute that requires a defendant to pay an income tax.  Unfortunately, too many litigants attempt to prove to the court the income tax is an excise tax, or a direct tax, or is not authorized by the 16th. Amendment, or is not authorized by Section 861, or some other defense.  They have shifted the burden of proof from having the government prove the existence of a tax (Unitarian Church v Los Angeles, 357 US 545;  Speiser v Randall, 357 US 513, 529) to proving the tax is invalid.  The required proof means they must show there is no possible way the tax MIGHT be valid.  It is impossible to meet that burden of proof. They are destroyed by their own petard.
       
      Reb
       


         From: "David L. Miner"
      Subject: The term "revenue law"


      Angela --

      In light of no less than 5 US Supreme Court cases and no less than two
      Congressional references, all acknowledging that the so-called income tax is
      an indirect excise tax, why do you say "No" to the question? Other than the
      fact that Irwin Schiff has erroneously referred to the so-called income tax
      a direct tax for at least 14 years, and went to jail many times because of
      his views, that is...

      Yours in freedom,

      Dave Miner


      FROM ANGELA:


      " In the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Hill, 123 US 681 the Supreme
      Court said"

      "The term `revenue law' when used in connection with the jurisdiction
      of the courts of the United States, means .a law which is "directly
      traceable" to the power granted to Congress by 8, Art. I of the
      Constitution, `to lay and collect taxes duties, imposts, and
      excises.'"

      Is the income tax as now imposed and collected "directly traceable"
      to any power granted to Congress by Article 1 of Section 8 of the
      Constitution?
      The answer to that is "No" - which means federal courts never had
      jurisdiction (on this and other grounds) to prosecute anybody in
      connection with alleged income tax crimes. Which means that all
      criminal trials over the last 50 years involving income taxes - and
      also civil lawsuits brought by the government ? HAVE ALL BEEN ILLEGAL!

      Angela
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic