Wesley Snipes acquitted of tax fraud, convicted of failing to file tax return

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Why do you think a no interest bearing account is excluded from creating this liability? It still has a signature card.

JG: I presume that since usury is not involved, the government does not wish to incur the wrath of God.
(In God We Trust is their motto. And pursuant to Ezekiel 18:13 KJV, usurers shall surely die, their blood be upon them. Which I interpret to mean that if gubmint kicks usurers in the teeth, no Divine Wrath is due them.)

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Are you saying that in your experience, people with funds in an account of this type were left undisturbed by the IRS?

JG: If you mean - those who have NO INTEREST BEARING PERSONAL ACCOUNTS nor active SSN/TIN, yes.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Since ss#'s are permanent and belong to the government, is there a known time limit to establish "dormancy", ie "nonparticipation"?

JG: I do not know of any time limit. I know of no effective way to "prove" that the SocSec admin considers our wishes in this matter. It's their system for tracking paupers eligible for charity. As long as you no longer wish to participate, and you DO leave all related benefits, it's a done deal.

In my own case, I gave notice, via Writ of Error Coram Nobis to the court imposing the judgment.
I merely stated three facts - their authority to compel was the SocSec Act of 1935, it was against my religion to participate in their abomination, and I was a religious man, civilly dead.
Within 48 hours of the timestamp, the State dropped their contempt, and the Feds tossed me from jail - one day before trial.

From another source, I learned that the Eye Are Us does an annual credit check to verify that "I" am not exercising any benefit tied to the account.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

What practical steps do you think Mr Snipes could take if he wants to withdraw from the system?

JG: Phew... that's a tough one.

With 20-20 hindsight, before Kahn, et al, fubared his life, I'd strongly suggest that Mr Snipe:
(a) get educated about status at law,
(b) acquire a domicile,
(c) exit all compacts, programs, etc, tied to impaired status of pauper, vagabond, citizen, usurer, and so forth,
(d) correct the record, where applicable,
(e) never, ever exercise any benefit tied to national socialism and usury.

Once he has a domicile (a legal home), he is no longer at risk, as a resident. He is fully capable of exercising natural and personal liberty.

I'd probably also get documentation that payment was not in lawful monies, but in worthless repudiated securities with no par value. And since Title 26 excludes losses from worthless securities, he has no "dollar" income in any case.

(Without consent to be a contributor, he has the right to object to the tender of FRNs. Once he can establish that he had been defrauded of the value of his labor, it's a no brainer.
I once did something similar. I took one of my biweekly paychecks to a coin dealer and got it "cashed" for lawful money - $67 in gold and silver dollars. Armed with the receipt, I was successful in rebutting the presumption that I was paid more than $1742 per annum. I also asked if the judge would rule that FRNs were dollars. He demurred...)

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham
What practical steps do you think Mr Snipes could take if he wants to withdraw from the system?
------------------

Not many options:
(1) He can cease to make any income.
or
(2) He can leave the United States, renounce his US citizen in compliance with the federal law, stay away from the US, earn all his money from foreign sources -- but he may well end up paying taxes to another country.

[ezrhythm]

Only if one voluntarily claims "income" according to what the definition is in the U.S code!

YES, he can leave but that can just be the corporate U.S.!

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra/Bernie with your anti sui juris posts!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics:

From another source, I learned that the Eye Are Us does an annual credit check to verify that "I" am not exercising any benefit tied to the account.

(e) never, ever exercise any benefit tied to national socialism and usury.

hose who have NO INTEREST BEARING PERSONAL ACCOUNTS nor active SSN/TIN

So a mere deposit of funds on account w/ bank is still considered "outside"- does this include an account that bears, not interest, but a tax#?

It's difficult to get an account w/o a #, though it is quite possible using the W8 form. Is this what you mean?

And now I am wondering what counts as "benefits" here- since the IRS is running credit checks (and yes, they do, thats a fact), are they looking for loans, etc? Bank accounts may show up on a credit check, especially if there was any overdrafts or something like this. Just owing money is now considered a benefit? Quite possibly, but this would depend to some extent on the nature of the claim.

Fed chartered banks by law must offer a standard mortgage to "non us persons" ie W8 situations. Which makes me think that some basic credit is excluded from these "benefits".

but being a "foreign person" doesn't exclude making income...

The whole thing is arbitrary and esoteric anyway.

Shoonra:

options:
(1) He can cease to make any income.

which is of course very true. Looks like if W. Snipes had cut his ties, basically held nothing in his name, and just kept quiet, he would have been left alone. Mainly the govt seems to find these refund requests to be irritating.

Along the lines proposed by the reasoning in this thread it seems that a passport alone may not create a tax status, although "income earned" overseas could be subject by this nexus.

As implied by Shoonra, we must strictly handle property instead of income. I am wanting to understand where some link might cause property to be presumptively converted to "income"

[Shoonra]

A US passport is evidence of US citizenship. The law for renouncing US citizenship requires surrendering one's US passport at a US embassy in a foreign country. As long as one is a US citizen, he is liable to the US income tax no matter where he lives or obtains income.

As for "claiming" income: There are plenty of people in prison for "claiming" they didn't have income when they actually did.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by sebrame

The Quatloosians are really going through some strange gyrations to act like this was a win in their court(pun intended).

They claim that if there is a conviction, then there MUST have been a law to be broken. Strange that they have never been able to produce such a law...as haven't any US Attorney in trial.

Now there's a dumb assertion.

The laws a person is accused of violating are listed in the indictment or accusation. Snipes was indicted for the felony crimes under 18 U.S. Code sections 287 and 371. He was acquitted of those charges. The charges for which he was convicted were 26 U.S. Code section 7203, failure to file a return (three counts), a misdemeanor.

In fact, you can read the entire indictment for free here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61snipes1.html

Any other questions, class?

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra/Bernie and your anti sui juris posts!!!

EZRhythym,

I think this attitude is misguided. It is not possible to win the war until it is possible to completely understand how the enemy is winning some of the battles.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As long as one is a US citizen, he is liable to the US income tax no matter where he lives or obtains income.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Since the incpme tax is a complete scam, there is more than one way to truthfull
not submit to the deceit.

As for "claiming" income: There are plenty of people in prison for "claiming" they didn't have income when they actually did.

And there are people in prison for acts they didn't commit too. WEAK ARGUMENT!

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra/Bernie with your anti sui juris posts!

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Now there's a dumb assertion.

The laws a person is accused of violating are listed in the indictment or accusation. Snipes was indicted for the felony crimes under 18 U.S. Code sections 287 and 371. He was acquitted of those charges. The charges for which he was convicted were 26 U.S. Code section 7203, failure to file a return (three counts), a misdemeanor.

In fact, you can read the entire indictment for free here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61snipes1.html

Any other questions, class?

IT IS A GREAT ASSERTION and reading the indictment doesn't rebutt; just because there is a conviction doesn't mean a law was broken.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Now there's a dumb assertion.

The laws a person is accused of violating are listed in the indictment or accusation. Snipes was indicted for the felony crimes under 18 U.S. Code sections 287 and 371. He was acquitted of those charges. The charges for which he was convicted were 26 U.S. Code section 7203, failure to file a return (three counts), a misdemeanor.

In fact, you can read the entire indictment for free here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61snipes1.html

Any other questions, class?

Yes, Lawdog, I have a question for you. But before I ask it; I direct you attention to the exact wording of 26 US 7203:

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 be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 years” for “1 year”.

This section of the Title plainly describes the penalties which are to be place on some person with some undefined, alleged requirement. It refers, vaguely, to somewhere else in Title 26 or the regulations by the first 65 words, or so, to find out just what the acts committed or omitted are which would give rise to criminal charges.

This section is not a charging one. In an honest system noone can be brought to bar by the description of the penalty for doing or not doing something else required to do, or barred from doing.

In an honest system a person is brought to bar by the charging section of a statute. The charging section would, with specificity describe the acts to be, or not to be, done, and state, with specificity, the person is liable to conform to the conduct as described by the section.

Please note the first few words of section 7203, to wit: "Any person required...."

So part 7203 does not specify who is required. A person needs to look somewhere else to find out who is required, and under what conditions.

With a proper search, a person can find section 6011 which appears to place a requirement. However, a close reading of section 6011 states you are only required if you are liable, as shown below:

"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title....."

It correctly uses, throughout the section, the legal term, "shall" which connotes requirement, and in some sentences of the section uses the word require, or one of its many forms.

What it does not do is, with specificity, describe a person who is liable.

That must be somewhere else in Title 26. Perhaps it is here in this subchapter:

"Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability"

It has to be here, doesn't it? After all, the title of this subchapter states it is here. But is it?

"PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS-- § 1. Tax imposed".

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— "

All throughout this section are the descriptions of various level of tax impositions on various conditions of taxable income.

What is not to be found anywhere in the section is who is the person liable to pay taxes on this taxable income. This despite the title of the subchapter in which all these other words appear. Additionally, in none of the other parts or sections of this subchapter is the description, with specificity, of the person liable to pay the tax imposed on the various taxable incomes described.

I defy you to find and post to this thread the parts of Title 26 referred to by the first 65, or so, words of the penalty part. Just where in Title 26 is the person required because he/she/they are made liable?

In case this question is too far removed from my first statement in this post; this is the question to which I was referring at the beginning.

Please excuse me in advance for splitting hairs again.