Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

BOBT12 · #3 05-11-2008, 07:14 PM

Court Corruption Continued

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

I don't ignore it. I find it difficult to believe that a lawyer - both of those I mentioned are lawyers - could believe the stuff they espouse.

Do you know him?

I know of his ideas and positions that he took in is motions in the case against him, the case that he prevailed in. I have read many of his other statements. Am I expected to know him in some other fashion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

What is the basis for your belief?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy Cryer

TAX LAWS SUBJECT TO STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Tax laws are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are, therefore, subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax. In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:
"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any
ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583;...

The absence, or near absence, of a statutory provision specifying exactly who is liable for a tax imposed is not customary. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the Estate Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the FICA tax;: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the Railroad Retirement Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability for Employment Taxes;... to name a few.

Considering the "standard in the drafting of taxation laws industry", particularly in view of the requirement of strict construction, the limitation of liability to those five instances cannot be assumed to have been an oversight. In this instance the only ones liable are those specifically named as liable, just as in any other tax provision.

Emphasis added.

I agree with Cryer. Where does it state that a wage earner is liable for a Schedule A tax? I feel that the code is void for vagueness among many other problem.

Quote:

”It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made be men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” –James Madison, Federalist no. 62, 1788

Emphsis added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

I don't know him either. However, the basis for my belief is that courts have unanimously held that Cryer's contentions are wrong, including the judge in his own case. As a lawyer, he had to know this history.

Yes, play follow the leader, I understand. However, if that history is in error it should be challenged. And I think this is what Cryer is trying to do.

Quote:

”The Only sensible reason for entering into political society is to protect natural rights. [L] Cato’s Letters, #62

Why should anyone be forced to waive their forth and fifth Amendment protection by filling out a confession form for strictly personal business? Why shouldn't these protections stand above other taxing concerns, being that the Bill of Rights were from the people, and the provisions of the Constitution from their representatives.

Quote:

The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986).

Yes, well:

Quote:

”No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” -- Thomas Jefferson, Speech to New London Methodists, 1809

Quote:

"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established." --VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

Which "lies" are those?

See above. The court, all government, misleads the public, and robs them through unjust taxes.

Quote:

"The problem with mankind is that too many of them learn that more can be stolen by law that against it." --Durant, i, 839

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

Ah, Galileo. Do you know how many outright wackos compare themselves to Galileo?

And does this change the facts regarding Galileo?

Quote:

The safety of the people is the supreme law.... The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.... Unjust is State power where the law is either uncertain or unknown. -- Maxims of Common Law

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

Which provision(s) of the Constitution and which "unalienable rights" do you see taxes (and the courts which uphold them) violating?

Amendments 4, 5, 13, etc. With taxes the government take life liberty and property. This is certainly true of a tax upon right, such as wages, without which one cannot provide for ones-self, or family. Thus, this is a direct tax, and if taxed, should be done according to an apportionment as indicated in the Constitution. This was certainly considered a direct tax under common law, prior to the Constitution, can you show where the people intended to give up this protection (apportionment)? The question is why would a free people want to be hunted down like dogs by the likes of the IRS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

Please cite proof that any juries were ever "intimidated" in the tax cases which concern you. While you're at it, please cite current law - I'm aware that English common-law was somewhat different - that holds that a jury can "judge the law itself".

Where did the people ever knowingly gave up this right and duty?

Quote:

The defining characteristic of a tyrant is a belief that a power not expressly denied is granted by implication; that a right not expressly reserved is surrendered by implication -George Mason

Emphasis added.

Quote:

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

Quote:

As Lysander Spooner pointed out regarding the questioning of jurors to eliminate those who would bring in a verdict according to conscience (a practice effectively accomplished today through the jurors' oaths) "The only principal upon which these questions are asked, is this -- that no man shall be allowed to serve as juror unless he be ready to enforce any enactment of the government, however cruel or tyrannical it may be.... A jury like that is palpably nothing but a mere tool of oppression in the hands of the government."

Quote:

Supposedly, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. Irvin v. Dowd, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642 (1961).

Quote:

United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1980), in an opinion which I wrote for a unanimous panel we stated:
In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position. It has a general veto power, and this power should not be attenuated by requiring the jury to answer in writing a detailed list of questions or explain its reasons. The jury's veto power was settled in Throckmorton's case in 1544 according to Professor Plucknett:

Quote:

”The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” –Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. supreme Court, 1941

Quote:

Originally Posted by wserra

Actually, no. If you are correct, it is hard to picture a more decidedly legal question that government violating the Constitution.

The "quote" function omitted your Jefferson quote. Yes, Jefferson was a well-known opponent of a strong, independent judiciary. You understand that Jefferson was opposing what he viewed as a judiciary which imposed its will on that of the majority of the people. The nearly two hundred years which have passed since Jefferson wrote that letter have (to phrase it politely) certainly cast doubt on his thesis. In the great personal-liberty struggles of this country's history, who has it been who have protected the minority from majority tyranny? Civil rights? Speech? Religion? Time and again, when popular will (Congress) would have suppressed people or dissent, and the executive would have enforced that will, it is been the courts which have stood in the way.

Be careful what you wish for.

True, the court are sometime less tyrannical then the other branches of government, it seems that they still tend towards tyranny.

Quote:

”Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” –George Washington

Jefferson was a good observer of human nature, that nature doesn’t change as fast as you seem to suggest.

Quote:

The End of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom. –Locke