02-01-2008, 02:23 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,128
|
|
|
Wesley Snipes acquitted of tax fraud, convicted of failing to file tax return
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/a...staxtrial.html
Despite the misdemeanors this is a HUGE win!!!
YES!!!
__________________
Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.
|
02-01-2008, 05:29 PM
|
 |
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
|
Video
|
02-01-2008, 05:54 PM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 63
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-tax.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
this is an excerpt from the above linked article that is interesting on many levels....
Last year Congress passed a law drafted by Ms. MacNab empowering the Internal Revenue Service to impose $5,000 fines on people who assert tax denier claims not just in court, but also in papers sent to the agency. The law gives tax deniers one opportunity to withdraw the papers after the agency sends them a list of tax denier theories rejected by the courts.
|
02-01-2008, 06:54 PM
|
|
Waking Up
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
|
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.
|
02-01-2008, 07:14 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,128
|
|
|
They even figure a way to think dismissals/acquittals are a win for their side. "Oh, we just let that one go." Wait til the beast even turns on them, then we'll see what they have to say.
__________________
Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.
Last edited by ezrhythm : 02-01-2008 at 07:16 PM.
|
02-01-2008, 07:35 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: judicial district of tens: Milwaukee the county: Wisconsin the land
Posts: 2,613
|
|
Is that McNabb the same scumbag that graced us with her presence here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kaptnjack
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-tax.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
this is an excerpt from the above linked article that is interesting on many levels....
Last year Congress passed a law drafted by Ms. MacNab empowering the Internal Revenue Service to impose $5,000 fines on people who assert tax denier claims not just in court, but also in papers sent to the agency. The law gives tax deniers one opportunity to withdraw the papers after the agency sends them a list of tax denier theories rejected by the courts.
|
__________________
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ...
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)]
|
02-01-2008, 08:18 PM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 59
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
|
JG: NO - it is not a win.
Point #1 - conviction for willful failure to file means he has an open, interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve Corporation.
Point #2 - Kahn misled him to file forms (with "the number") in order to get "refunds" for past taxes paid. (dumb move).
Point #3 - As Mr Snipes has agreed, via "signature card", to abide by the rules of "The Bank", whose U.S. governor is the Secretary of Treasury, he had no grounds to disobey the rules of his "master".
Point #4 - He still has to file "returns" -and- pay back taxes, fines, etc.
Point #5 - He is still a "contributor" equally liable for the national debt (unpayable due to usury).
Point #6 - As one engaged in usury, via bank account, he is a self condemned man (see Ezekiel 18:13 KJV). He has no expectation of "Divine Justice" on his behalf, and the government can rightly assume (In God We Trust) that they're absolved of any blame for 'kicking him around'.
Point #7 - He's still a pauper at law, and thus excepted from the protections normally available to free citizens (see Art IV of Confederation, 1777).
For more indepth, See post #77, #94
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...-income-8.html
Re: pauperization
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/361
|
02-01-2008, 09:31 PM
|
 |
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 63
|
|
I agree its not a win, but for different reasons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
JG: NO - it is not a win.
Point #1 - conviction for willful failure to file means he has an open, interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve Corporation.
|
I agree its not a win, but for different reasons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #2 - Kahn misled him to file forms (with "the number") in order to get "refunds" for past taxes paid. (dumb move).
|
Agreed, he essentially admits the form is valid by doing that!!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #3 - As Mr Snipes has agreed, via "signature card", to abide by the rules of "The Bank", whose U.S. governor is the Secretary of Treasury, he had no grounds to disobey the rules of his "master".
|
Nah, can't agree here. It could be true, but there other theories are equally provable. War powers, trust, strawman, etc. And if we go on the assumption that there is some hidden reason why they don't have to answer questions, this servant master theory could be based on anything!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #4 - He still has to file "returns" -and- pay back taxes, fines, etc.
|
Right, because he never entered evidence, that is part of the public record, that IRS Form 1040 is a "proposed" form and he never gave notice that 26 USC 6011(a) gives him the option to file a statement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #5 - He is still a "contributor" equally liable for the national debt (unpayable due to usury).
|
Maybe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #6 - As one engaged in usury, via bank account, he is a self condemned man (see Ezekiel 18:13 KJV). He has no expectation of "Divine Justice" on his behalf, and the government can rightly assume (In God We Trust) that they're absolved of any blame for 'kicking him around'.
|
Maybe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #7 - He's still a pauper at law, and thus excepted from the protections normally available to free citizens (see Art IV of Confederation, 1777).
|
Probably, since there is no "lawful money" these days.
Last edited by Chinese Panda : 02-01-2008 at 09:38 PM.
|
02-01-2008, 09:49 PM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 59
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chinese Panda
I agree its not a win, but for different reasons.
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Point #7 - He's still a pauper at law, and thus excepted from the protections normally available to free citizens (see Art IV of Confederation, 1777).
Probably, since there is no "lawful money" these days.
|
JG: Pauperization is not imposed because of the lack of lawful money. A pauper is one who accepts charity from the public treasury. Since the only people who are eligible for entitlements, are those who are enrolled into national so******m, the numbered account is proof of pauperization.
Ergo, Mr Snipes has made his election to be a pauper at law. Paupers are excepted, pursuant to Art IV of Confederation, 1777.
He's toast.
:-( |
02-01-2008, 09:56 PM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 63
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
JG: Pauperization is not imposed because of the lack of lawful money. A pauper is one who accepts charity from the public treasury. Since the only people who are eligible for entitlements, are those who are enrolled into national so******m, the numbered account is proof of pauperization.
Ergo, Mr Snipes has made his election to be a pauper at law. Paupers are excepted, pursuant to Art IV of Confederation, 1777.
He's toast.
:-(
|
Hmmm. I never considered that! IF Art IV of Confederation, 1777 actually does say that, then I would have to agree! |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
