Williams v Boulder dam CU continued

This will be a long read, but here goes:

To set the stage the original case here concerned the Boulder Dam Credit Union taking money out of the Williams's account and giving it to the IRS pursuant to a "Notice of Levy". This was the only issue before the original court, the Justice Court of Boulder Dam. That court gave some very credible background regarding whether a Notice was a levy. The Williams' attorney left out a few things regarding how previous statute provisions carried forward to subsequent statutes, which probably would have helped them considerably.
During the court case bits I will post here, my own comments will be in [ ].
The Credit Union appealed to the next higher court:

Clark County District Court [Nevada state court]
Case # A388959
Dept. # XV
Filed 9-17-98
Judge Sally Loehrer

On Page 9, the Lawyer for the Respondent [Williams's]makes a statement about not finding a statute making the Williams's liable for the income tax. [Interesting statement, too bad it was not an issue in the original trial, the judge stated that the respondent attorney raised all the proper facts, however, they were not the issue]
Appellant Credit Union lawyer states that the Justice Court judge only ruled on the Notice of Levy not being a levy, and relied on an outdated, old, and no longer precedent case in making that decision. [Must have been the O'Dell case] Their appeal was that Judge Miller made an error in law that the notice of levy, which was the only ruling the judge made in that case was in error and that the Credit Union was in fact protected from suit for complying with the Notice under 6332 (e) of the IRC.
Judge Sally [appeals judge] states on page 17 that the issue of the opposition to the Notice of Levy "are going to have to be resolved at the US Tax Court or US Supreme Court level" and that she "is not sure this is the vehicle to take the case that far". [In reading parts of some of the cases cited, a statement was made that state courts have no authority over federal taxing statutes, that it is reserved for the federal courts, which is also in accordance with what I have read elsewhere] She states that the Notice of Levy is "regular on it's face" and is sufficient to trigger the protections of the federal statutes protecting banks, and that the Credit Union can be considered a bank.
She states that the issues framed by the Williams' attorney are adequetly framed, and that the ultimate decision on the Williams' position regarding this will ultimately be determined by a much higher court.

[End of commentary on the appeal.]

My personal take on the matter is that the Williams erroneously allowed the courts to ignore the core issue, mainly whether or not what they earned was taxable. I am of the opinion (and my opinion counts as I am in a similar situation as the Williams) that what a natural born individual earns merely to exist is not taxable. The definitions of what "income" for tax purposes and who earns it certainly indicate that an "at-will" employee, or one who merely works for others without a license etc. earns does not fill the bill of one who earns income for tax purposes.
I have found a few cases that indicate that a right cannot be taxed. One that goes into some detailed discussion in this regard is Jones v City of Opelika, 319 US 105 (1943), also known as Murdoch v Pennsylvania, where it was found that the right to distribute religous dogma was a right that could not be taxed via a license. Given that case and a few others such as Coppage v Kansas and the Butchers Union case, it should be obvious that the right to earn a living cannot be taxed given how the definition of income for tax purposes and who earns it reads in other court cases.

I think too many "silver bullet" fixes are presented by some which clouds the core issue, which is simply can a person be taxed for merely existing, and does earning a living as an at-will employee constitute income for tax purposes? A lot of the original material presented in the Williams case that I have read so far was indicative of tax protestor material that is consistently found to be bogus.

Given the fact that it has been noted in this case and elsewhere that there is no statute written which has imposed a tax on that type of earnings, then it can easily be said that there is, in fact, no such tax. No statute authorizing a tax = no tax.
Those who argue over the definition of an employee, and wages are not income, etc. or other bits of the IRC are avoiding the main issue. Arguing over bits of the IRC is worthless. The issue should be whether or not the thing (IRC) pertains AT ALL. If you argue about parts of it, it is the same thing as saying you earned income for tax purposes but you disagree with how the statute reads. The issue of working to exist as a matter of right which cannot be taxed has never, so far as I can find, been an issue in court. This is the direction I am headed that I will bring up when I sue the IRS. All the cases I have read in the last fourteen years regarding the taxing issue tells me that this is what needs to be argued. Not silly arguments such as are found on the many tax protestor sites. If you are going to argue anything, argue your rights, not the construction of a statute. If anyone knows of any court cases which addresses the issue in this light, please let me know.
By the way, I highly recommend purchasing the Williams case. It is full of great cites and insights into this issue. You can obtain it for 40.00 from the Justice Court, 505 Ave G Boulder City, NV 89005.

It is interesting to note that states that have an income tax rely heavily on the IRC for their substance. Those of you who live in those states may want to consider attacking the issue as I have stated it, rather than arguing whether something was delegated properly, etc. All the court cases I have read in that regard have failed those who have argued that so and so did not have authority to this or that, or that you were not an employee as that term was defined, etc. Certainly if there is nothing that says that what you do to earn a living has been identified as a taxable activity you stand a considerably better chance than those who say that a missing number on a government form means you don't have to pay a tax.

It is my belief that there are entirely too many people making money off of "fixing" your tax problems, many of which only dig you deeper into trouble, and not enough people defending their position as a matter of right. Perhaps a suit for a declaratory judgement or similar would bring the matter to court in the proper light. (Still learning the how's concerning that) The recent Vernice Kuglin case was pretty close, but so far in my reading of it, the issue of that case was in whether or not she was willfully evading taxes, filing, etc., and not whether what she earned was really taxable.

My opinion is that the IRC, since it only applies to those created entities (who are allowed to exist by the state via a license, etc) who operate for profit, cannot be argued against. Those entities who do fall under the purview of the tax laws as taxpayers (those who have been identified by statute imposing a tax are in my opinion those who are liable for a tax) have little recourse against it. Those who are not taxpayers as that term has been defined in court, need not fear it at all, and should cease to argue about it's provisions. As I stated earlier, to argue over parts of the IRC tells a judge that you are a taxpayer and owe a tax, but you disagree with how the code reads, or what parts of it means. The tax code applies to taxpayers. If you are not obligated to pay a tax, why argue about what the tax code says?
How about arguing about what it DOESN"T say, like the part that is missing about making you liable?

Anyway, the long and short of the Williams case is that they were arguing about what the tax code said instead of whether or not they were even liable in the first place. Hopefully, they have the resources to carry on in the latter vein, and in the proper venue.
Kurt

[BOBT12]

Thanks for your review and comments, Kurtw.

I agree with your overall views, and the direction that you are going.

I hope that your suit goes well. Please update us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

BOBT

[mrg]

Thank you for your posts.

Posted by KurtW

My personal take on the matter is that the Williams erroneously allowed the courts to ignore the core issue, mainly whether or not what they earned was taxable.

I am of the opinion (and my opinion counts as I am in a similar situation as the Williams) that what a natural born individual earns merely to exist is not taxable.

The definitions of what "income" for tax purposes and who earns it certainly indicate that an "at-will" employee, or one who merely works for others without a license etc. earns does not fill the bill of one who earns income for tax purposes.

I have found a few cases that indicate that a right cannot be taxed.

One that goes into some detailed discussion in this regard is Jones v City of Opelika, 319 US 105 (1943), also known as Murdoch v Pennsylvania,

where it was found that the right to distribute religous dogma was a right that could not be taxed via a license.

Jones v. Opelika, 319 US 105 (1943) aka Murdoch v. Pennsylvania
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=319&page=105



Given that case and a few others such as Coppage v Kansas,

Coppage v. State of Kansas 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=236&page=1

and the Butchers Union case,

it should be obvious that the right to earn a living cannot be taxed given how the definition of income for tax purposes and who earns it reads in other court cases.

Posted by KurtW

can a person be taxed for merely existing, and does earning a living as an at-will employee constitute income for tax purposes?

Given the fact that it has been noted in this case and elsewhere that there is no statute written which has imposed a tax on that type of earnings,

then it can easily be said that there is, in fact, no such tax.

No statute authorizing a tax = no tax.

I do not know if this will help:

There are essentials to any case or controversey, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III section 2, U.S. Constitution, "arising under" clause).

See Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 US (2002)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...00&invol=01-46

The following elements are essential:


1. When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record.

2. Facts of the case must be established in record.

3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).

4. The LAW of the case must affirmatively appear in record,

which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarilly includes taxing and liability statutes

with attending regulations

(See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F. Supp. 784at 787, and United States of America v. Community TV Inc., 327 F. 2d 79 (10th Cir., 1964)

5. The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

6. The trial court, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.

BobT, Mrg,
Thanks for your kind words, and the encouragement. I also greatly appreciate the court info, every little bit surely helps. I am about done with reading court cases (after 14 years of it, kinds tired of it too) and am now beginning to read up on the federal rules of civil procedure, so I can put together the actual case.
Thanks again
Kurt

I wonder how many people would sign up for a class action suit in this regard?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Kurtw

BobT, Mrg,
Thanks for your kind words, and the encouragement. I also greatly appreciate the court info, every little bit surely helps. I am about done with reading court cases (after 14 years of it, kinds tired of it too) and am now beginning to read up on the federal rules of civil procedure, so I can put together the actual case.
Thanks again
Kurt

Basic court procedure with the appropriate FRCP's copied out and inserted where they go in the procedure:
COURT PROCEDURE (CIVIL)
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...procedure.html

I have put a lot of info, resources and links, including a link here:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...udy-guide.html

Look at the section on FILA (concise writing)

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Kurtw

I wonder how many people would sign up for a class action suit in this regard?

I just want to mention that WTP have an ongoing suit that you may want to review, if you have not already done so.

Originally Posted by We The People

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES


RELATING TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX



WHEREAS, The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reneged on their July 2001 written agreement to appear at a public forum to answer the People’s Remonstrance and questions regarding the alleged lack of statutory or Constitutional authority for the federal income tax, and the alleged gross and systemic violations and deprivations of the People’s Constitutionally protected rights, and

WHEREAS, On February 27 and 28, 2002, in Washington DC, at the public forum, with the government in absentia by their refusal to appear, the People conducted a Truth-in-Taxation Hearing, taking testimony, under oath, from credible professionals including former IRS agents, tax attorneys, CPAs, tax law researchers and a former IRS Counsel, whose testimony was supported by recorded irrefutable evidence, finding that the Department of Justice, the IRS and the Courts have been acting in gross violation of the Constitution and the most fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded, and

WHEREAS, On April 15, 2002, each U.S. Congressman in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate was served with a copy of the full record of the Truth-In-Taxation Hearing, including a certified transcript of the Hearing, and

WHEREAS, the record of the Hearing produced the 532 statements of fact that are attached to, and made a part of this Petition for Redress, and

WHEREAS, On April 15, 2002, along with the copy of the full record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing, each member of Congress received letters from constituents, respectfully petitioning the elected representative to:

"Move to direct the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service to, 1) stop forcing employers to withhold and stop forcing Americans to file an income tax return and 2), place a moratorium on civil and criminal prosecutions of income tax laws and furlough the people currently in prison on convictions of failure to file income tax returns, OR, in the alternative, schedule a full congressional hearing, requiring IRS and DOJ to answer the questions and address the evidence", and

WHEREAS, only 65 of the 535 Congressmen responded to those petitions and each of the 65 responses was a non-responsive response, utterly failing to address the evidence from the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing or the constituent’s respectful letter-petition, and

WHEREAS, On June 10, 2002 at the daily White House press briefing, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked specifically in regard to the Peoples’ petition for redress concerning the income tax, if the President would direct IRS and DOJ, (which are Executive branch agencies), to honor their July, 2001 agreement with Bob Schulz (Chairman of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.); Fleischer, speaking for President Bush, replied "I'm not familiar with the specific case, and these questions are decided by the people involved", and

WHEREAS, All men are created equal and are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights, and

WHEREAS, If the Creator has, in fact, gratuitously provided, equipped and enriched the People with Rights, it follows that those Rights belong to the People and to the Creator, and it follows that any affront to the Constitution (as when government attempts to violate an unalienable Right) is an affront to the Creator, and

WHEREAS, If our Rights come from the Creator, only the Creator can frustrate and deny or defeat our Rights -- that is, government cannot abridge what God has put in place, and

WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States of America is a strongly worded, Divinely inspired, set of principles expressly intended to govern the government, not the People, and

WHEREAS, By the terms and provisions of the Constitution, the People have established their government and authorized it to act in certain ways, and have purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain ways, and

WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees to every American citizen and to those lawfully on our soil, the right to privacy and to due process of law, and

WHEREAS, The Constitution prohibits and restricts the Federal Government from infringing on those rights, and

WHEREAS, The Constitution guarantees each and every American citizen the unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, and

WHEREAS, Each of the Constitution’s prohibitions and restrictions on government’s power is, in fact, another unalienable right enjoyed by every citizen and legal resident on American soil, and

WHEREAS, The People of this nation are entitled, by right, to a system of taxation that does NOT violate any of their Constitutionally protected unalienable rights, now therefore


WE THE PEOPLE hereby petition the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government for a redress of grievances relating to the federal income tax.

WE THE PEOPLE respectfully request that the President of the United States of America, each member of Congress’ House of Representatives and each member of Congress’ Senate honor their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, by honoring their obligation to respond to this Petition for Redress of Grievance.

WE THE PEOPLE respectfully request, that by December 31, 2002, the President of the United States of America:

1) Direct the Department of Justice to immediately cease all civil and criminal investigations, grand jury activity and prosecutions related to enforcement of federal Individual Income Tax laws; and

2) Direct the Internal Revenue Service to immediately cease all investigations, enforcement and administrative activity related to the payment of taxes on individual income; and

3) Immediately order the release of all persons currently in prison on convictions of crimes related to the individual income tax, including "failure to file", even if other non-violent crimes were committed in an effort to protect property or avoid payment of taxes on individual income; and

4) Grant immediate Presidential pardons to any individual that has been convicted of an income tax crime, either federal or state, even if other non-violent crimes may have been committed in an effort to protect property or avoid the payment of taxes on individual income; and

5) Direct the IRS to inform the general public, all employers and tax payers that wage withholding, filing of returns and payment of monies for individual income tax purposes is not mandatory, and may be stopped immediately without further legal obligation or penalty; and

6) Submit to Congress a bill calling for the formal repeal of the federal Individual Income Tax laws.

WE THE PEOPLE, respectfully request the Congress of the United States of America, in order to maintain the flow of adequate revenue to the government, to implement a fully Constitutional system of taxation, which may include modifications to the current mix of uniform indirect taxes (excise taxes, tariffs, duties and imposts) and the implementation of apportioned direct taxes, as explicitly provided for, and limited by, Article 1 of the Constitution.

ATTACHMENT: Statements of Fact from the Citizens' Truth-in-Taxation Hearing held February 27 and 28, 2002, in Washington, DC.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2006-03-31.htm

http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/infocenter.htm

http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...etitionTax.htm

Boy, when you guys get rolling you go all out. Thanks again for all the info the Vasectomy guide is great.
BobT, I think what WTP are trying to do is a good thing, however, I find I have to disagree with most of the positions they have taken. I have been to their web site many times in the past, and I think they are just going in the wrong direction. I may be also but, after having read so dang many court cases, where the judge all but comes out and says "Look, if you would just state your case this way, I can do something to help you", I think I have a pretty good grasp of what I need to do. I guess nobody knows how right they are until they actually get to court. My only court battle so far was a six month affair with the Okanogan County, Wash. district court over the building codes. (I don't think someone builidng a home on their own property should be required to get one). I think I held my own, even though I lost that case, mostly due to ignorance on my part, but hey, it was a great learning experience.
Anyway, I think I need to stick with what I consider the core issue as I discussed in my other post, I think that is what needs to be brought out.
Also, I think that a redress of greivance can be achieved in the courts, at any time. And a person only needs to get the ball rolling by filing his case in the proper court. I am unsure of what the redress is that WTP is saying they don't have, or are seeking.
Thanks again though, all information is useful to me.