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

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by sheisaceo

I have to ask that in any of this with Sherry Jackson, didn't she claimed her reservation of rights under UCC 1-207?

I am curious regarding the connection that this case has with this thread, the Snipes case?

How is it that she was dragged out this far for violation of rules with the IRS if she claimed this?

OR-

Did she not originally claim this and then have to fight this all the way to appellate as a result where she later claimed these rights? Thoughts?

I do believe that if anyone engages with any court using a bar attorney that all reservation of rights under UCC 1-207 are waived because the attorney is oathed to protect all interests other than ours. Thoughts please?

Thank you.

Most IRS/DOJ cases are based on prejudice and fraud. In Ms. Jackson's case, I believe, agents/witnesses committed perjury. I am not sure how U.C.C. 1-207 (now 1-308) will protect one's rights in this situation.

[indago]

BOBT12 wrote:

It is clear that when there is no evidence that an individual is "liable", the jury must/should give an acquittal, based upon innocent until proven guilty.

Jeffrey A. ****stein, Counsel for James Hall, was questioning Patricia A. Shaffner from the Internal Revenue Service during a redirect examination in the Court. He was attempting to determine where in the Internal Revenue Code was it declared that his client was made liable for the tax that the Internal Revenue Service declared that he was liable for. She was referred to various sections of the IRC but could not find a section which made Mr. Hall liable for the tax. She finally admitted that there was no statute which made him liable for a tax, and that the Internal Revenue Service Regulations were regulations upon the Service itself. If he had filed a "return", then he could be assessed the amount of the tax that he had declared that he owed.

-------------------------------------------------------
PS: I don't know why this WebSite removed part of Jeffrey's name from the post.










-

[mrg]

Originally Posted by indago

BOBT12 wrote:

Jeffrey A. ****stein, Counsel for James Hall, was questioning Patricia A. Shaffner from the Internal Revenue Service during a redirect examination in the Court.

He was attempting to determine where in the Internal Revenue Code was it declared that his client was made liable for the tax that the Internal Revenue Service declared that he was liable for.

She was referred to various sections of the IRC but could not find a section which made Mr. Hall liable for the tax.

She finally admitted that there was no statute which made him liable for a tax, and that the Internal Revenue Service Regulations were regulations upon the Service itself.

If he had filed a "return", then he could be assessed the amount of the tax that he had declared that he owed

Do you have a case cite and any documentation?

Most grateful if you do.



Funny but "the media" is suddenly SILENT re: Wesley Snipes.

Seemed to be a one day blip on the "major media" radar screens.

Wonder why?


Hey if the jury acquitted him of writing a "bogus" "check," then that "check" wasn't so bogus was it?


What are the first 4 letters of Jeffrey's last name?

[ezrhythm]

Wesley's Misdemeanor convictions are ticking across the screen of our local NBC station every so often today. At least they are also proclaiming his federal tax fraud acquital.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by mrg

Do you have a case cite and any documentation?

Most grateful if you do.



Funny but "the media" is suddenly SILENT re: Wesley Snipes.

Seemed to be a one day blip on the "major media" radar screens.

Wonder why?



Hey if the jury acquitted him of writing a "bogus" "check," then that "check" wasn't so bogus was it?


What are the first 4 letters of Jeffrey's last name?

For some reason the administrator or one of the moderartors removed them just after it was posted. The original poster mentioned it. If you will email me at design@dream-home.com. I will supply the four letters and how to get in touch with him. Or in the alternative, I suppose you could contact the original poster who I am sure has the same information.

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Wesley's Misdemeanor convictions are ticking across the screen of our local NBC station every so often today. At least they are also proclaiming his federal tax fraud acquital.

Thus an embarrassment? I'm a big conspiracy theorist so everything is by design and I do believe that citizens will now get a stick poked at them to incite to protest...riot. This in tandem by what will soon be a massive drop in the stock market (Elliot Wave theorist here). This makes the IRS look bad, purposefully.

[ezrhythm]

It's no theory, the conspirators come up with those!

Wouldn't be surprised if we see a poking after April 15th.

[mrg]

See Extramural's video post and Judge Napolitano's commentary concerning the misdeamors.

The anchor wanted to gloss over that.

Wesley Snipes will likely not even appeal those.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by 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.

JG: U.S. passport IS evidence of citizenship IF one wishes to prove that status. It does not exclude any other status, including dual nationality or dual citizenship. Examine any U.S. Passport and it will read national/citizen of the U.S.A. An American national, noncitizen can hold a U.S. Passport. In fact, I've contacted the State department on that issue, and they admitted that they do issue passports to American nationals. Basically use the same form, omit sections that do not apply, and attach addendum, if you wish. And I know of people who received their noncitizen passports, traveled abroad, and returned without hassle.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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

JG: Persons liable should pay all taxes that they are liable for. Persons not liable are not liable.
Are you a "person liable"?
To file any form with the Eye Are Us, one must inscribe a SSN/TIN. They will not accept unnumbered forms. There is no law compelling one to enroll into national so******m, nor get a TIN. One may voluntarily apply for said number.
If one has NOT ASKED for an account and a number one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file."

If one is not a participant in national so******m, there is no obligation to pay the FICA income tax on wages.

If one has no number, one cannot open an interest bearing personal account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve Corporation. (Bless their hearts)

If one has no number, no account, one has no "agreement" to file an annual financial statement in the form that "BANK" requests.
The following image is from an application for a VISA card (benefit of usury). In all the years people have had credit cards, do you recall ever being ASKED to file an annual financial statement? Could that be the Form 1040 that protesters argue about?
(Somebody goofed when they placed this rule out in the open for all to see.)

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

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-

JG: One researcher (now deceased) explained it to me this way - there are no banks dealing in lawful money. Everything they deal in are securities underwritten by "volunteers".

In that light one can understand why the former USSR ruble was not convertible. The ruble was not a security, borrowed into existence, at usury. It was a case of apples and oranges. Coincidentally, one of the first things Yeltsin did, was to petition for membership in the IMF and borrow the new "ruble" into existence - thus making their currency usable in the international security banking system.

So when we contract with banks, we're not dealing with lawful money (a right) but with securities ( a privilege).
Gain (usury) from securities IS definitely revenue taxable income.

Best analogy is to presume there are two board games, both using money tokens. One game board is for "lawful money" and the other is for "legal tender".

Most sincere researchers are often unable to discern which is which, and are misled to argue the "rules" from the "wrong board".

Suffice to say, if you want to play in the "real world", buy your private property with a minimum of 21 dollars (silver or gold), and give due notice where appropriate. Then you won't come under the rules of the "funny munny world" of so******t liability.

Do not engage in usury in either system.

There's probably more ways to muck things up, but I think this is sufficient for now.
:-)