WTP Lawsuit Dismissed

[upnylou]

shoonra,
"Schulz seemed to think that his right to petition the govt also include a guarantee that the govt would respond to his petition"

would you mind explaining what the sense of Petitioning is if it doesnt include the guarantee it'll be heard?

its ludicrous to suggest that founders of the constitution would have this right inserted if it didnt assume the right to be responded to!

[citizensoldier]

To understand the ruling and why the federal "government" doesn't have to respond to a petition, you must review the District of Columbia Act of 1871, 1874, and then 1878. What most people believe to be our "government" today is in fact a private municipal corporation. Just like HP or IBM, they are under no obligation to answer any petition submitted to them.

[PANICPASS]

SIMPLY PUT, the government cannot answer the petition because, if it did, it would expose the system being a fraud; and that is the ONLY reason it does not answer. They cannot ANSWER. It has nothing to do with the D.C. Act of 1871, or 1874, or any court case. It's all about not EXPOSING the FRAUD.

Shoora wrote:

There had been previous cases, and the courts had held that the only things the right to petition guaranteed was the right to send complaints and requests to the govt and nothing in return from the govt was guaranteed.

Yes, you can send complaints and the government will continue to IGNORE those complaints until they are ready to expose the system being a fraud.

Don't hold your breath.

[Shoonra]

One of the serious questions is who pays for, or does the work, answering all the petitions? Lincoln once said that he bothered responding to criticism, he'd have absolutely no time to do anything else.

This might be especially true in the case of issues that are complained about again and again, including completely bogus issues.

In Schulz's case, probably the only thing that would have adequately covered his blizzard of petitions would be a complete, 3-year fulltime, legal education at taxpayer expense. And, since Schulz is making a living from not understanding tax laws, such an expense might still be wasted.

In any case, Mark Lane knew, going in, that this was a hopeless issue, so he used the opportunity to be paid up front an enormous sum, probably more than a full year's salary.

[PANICPASS]

One of the serious questions is who pays for, or does the work, answering all the petitions?

They wouldn't have to answer all the petitions. Just answer a few questions and the fraud would be exposed. Just a few questions answered, that's all it would take.

I doubt Mark Lane did the work just for the money. He is probably just as ignorant as everyone else as to why they don't answer petitions.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In any case, Mark Lane knew, going in, that this was a hopeless issue, so he used the opportunity to be paid up front an enormous sum, probably more than a full year's salary.

I have heard this BS before on Quatloosers. It is just that BS, unless you can prove otherwise, hmm?

[Shoonra]

If Mark Lane was not aware that previous court decisions had already torn apart this argument, then he really is as incompetent as I believe him to be.

But he demanded his money up front - more than most lawyers' annual salaries - which suggests to me that he knew from the start the lawsuit was doomed. Evidently, even though the lawsuit was tossed out after only a few months, he still wants to be paid the full sum. Nobody's ever accused Lane of having a conscience.

[Freedomless]

Shoorna, please show me the law that requires me to pay income taxes. Many have written letters to our government officials, including Treasury Secretary John Snow. To date no answers has been given.

SHOW ME THE LAW

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Freedomless

Shoorna, please show me the law that requires me to pay income taxes. Many have written letters to our government officials, including Treasury Secretary John Snow. To date no answers has been given.

SHOW ME THE LAW

The law has been shown to tax protestors.

However, like the Flat Earth Society ... tax protestors cover their eyes and ears and shout "la la la la la la la la".

The tax is imposed in section 1 on taxable income.

Taxable income is gross income minus deductions. Section 63.

Gross income is (generally) all income from whatever source derived. Section 61.

Section 6012 requires that a return of income be made.

Section 6151 requires that the person making the return "shall pay" the tax shown as due on the return.

Shall pay = liable for. (And even Irwin Schiff agrees with that proposition - see pg 83 of the Federal Mafia.)

Now, you can pretend all you want that there is no law ... but the law is there ... you just have to read it.

Section 6012 requires that a return of income be made.

Section 6151 requires that the person making the return "shall pay" the tax shown as due on the return.


Except for the fact that IRS never cites those statutes in their communique. They instead, cite statutes that have enforcement regulations from Title 27.

I really wish they would cite a statute from section 1, but they never do.