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

The term "revenue law"

Expand Messages
  • Angela Stark
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      " 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
      See my new page listing over 70 court decisions re the income tax
      http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html
    • David L. Miner
      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
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        www.FreedomSite.net


        " 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
        See my new page listing over 70 court decisions re the income tax
        http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html
      • <:John-Howard: Freeman>
        Angela, The statement that all civil lawsuits have been illegal is not true. When people voluntarily sign things they have not read, they get what they
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 16, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Angela,

          The statement that all civil lawsuits have been illegal is not true. When people voluntarily sign things they have not read, they get what they deserve. The I.R.S. (Instant Robbery Squad) requires people to place their signature on the 1040 income tax forms under penalty of perjury. What is absolutely astonishing is that people do apply their signature voluntarily to these forms. Knowing full well that they "DID NOT EXAMINE" the form and "accompanying schedules and statements." All the while, not knowing what the logical consequence might be or even how this incriminates them and makes them subject to the income taxes and other governmental rules, regulations, laws & statutes.

          Unsworn Declarations Under Penalty Of Perjury!

          Angela Stark wrote:
          " 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
          See my new page listing over 70 court decisions re the income tax
          http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html
          --
          Steadfastly in service to Yahu'shuah
          
          :John-Howard: Freeman
          
          Ecclesiastes 12:13
          Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
          Fear Yhwh, and keep his commandments:
          for this is the whole duty of man.
          
          Web site: Sovereign Man
          http://autarchic.tripod.com/
        • Bob law
          Angela, I am not a professional, nor do I give advise, but I will help you to understand something here; which may, or may not, make things a bit clearer, and
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Angela,
            I am not a professional, nor do I give advise, but I
            will help you to understand something here; which may,
            or may not, make things a bit clearer, and for sure
            will arouse the ire of others on this list who will I
            am sure disagree.
            You appear to be making several presumptions of facts
            not in evidence, as do others on this list, as to the
            same is concerning the nature of the Federal Courts.
            The first is that you think you have "judicial
            courts". You see, the current courts known as United
            States District Courts, are not judicial in nature,
            they are legislative (i.e. Article I Administrative
            tribunals), not judicial Courts under Article III.
            Therefore, they can hear "Tax Matters" as only the
            legislative branch of government can "lay and collect"
            taxes.(In what may appear to be happening in
            contradistinction to the separation of powers
            doctrine, it is truly within their branch
            [legislative] of governments authority.) However;
            this, in and of itself, creates a separation of powers
            controversy, as these Article I courts only have
            authority within the federal zone over such things and
            places where the Congress has exclusive legislative
            authority. Therefore, any incursion into the states of
            the Union outside the federal zone is in want of
            lawful authority as you previously stated. You were
            right, but for the wrong reasons.
            Later,
            Bob L.



            --- Angela Stark <angelastark@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > " 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.'"
            >




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
            http://my.yahoo.com
          • reb
            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
            Message 5 of 6 , 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
            • <:John-Howard: Freeman>
              Angela, The statement that all civil lawsuits have been illegal is not true. When people voluntarily sign things they have not read, they get what they
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 20, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Angela,

                The statement that all civil lawsuits have been illegal is not true. When people voluntarily sign things they have not read, they get what they deserve. The I.R.S. (Instant Robbery Squad) requires people to place their signature on the 1040 income tax forms under penalty of perjury. What is absolutely astonishing is that people do apply their signature voluntarily to these forms. Knowing full well that they "DID NOT EXAMINE" the form and "accompanying schedules and statements." All the while, not knowing what the logical consequence might be or even how this incriminates them and makes them subject to the income taxes and other governmental rules, regulations, laws & statutes.

                Unsworn Declarations Under Penalty Of Perjury!

                Angela Stark wrote:
                " 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
                See my new page listing over 70 court decisions re the income tax
                http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html
                --
                Steadfastly in service to Yahu'shuah
                
                :John-Howard: Freeman
                
                Ecclesiastes 12:13
                Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
                Fear Yhwh, and keep his commandments:
                for this is the whole duty of man.
                
                Web site: Sovereign Man
                http://autarchic.tripod.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.