knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1

p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com..n knews4u2c...@yahoo.com

Dear Subscriber,

It's time to look at what little substance there was in the radio
debate between myself and Professor Siegel.
His guess was that those regulations were referring to the issue
addressed by the Supreme Court
dividends discussed in Eisner were, BY STATUTE, identified as
dividends in question WERE NOT EVEN INCOME. (When I pointed this
obviously only a guess), because he knew that even a bad guess
would look better than saying "I don't know," which obviously would
what all is taxable (non-exempt), yet he has the gall to insult you
and me for wanting to have a "reasonable debate" about it.
with the purpose of Section 861.aspects of taxation." His main
position is that, as a U.S. citizen
living and working in the U.S., use 861 and its
regulations
from 26 CFR 1.1-1, which says that U.S. citizens are "liable to the
only upon "TAXABLE income" (not all income). Mr. Siegel agreed. I
then quoted from 26 CFR 1.863-1, which says that a taxpayer's
accurate, make note of his position CHANGE. He went from saying
that 861 is just for international stuff--you don't need to look
the entire exchange), Professor Siegel QUOTED directly from the
regs at 1.861-1 and 1.861-8, which clearly state that one SHOULD be
looking to 861 and related regs to determine his taxable domestic
not, can use section 861 and following of the code to figure your
gross income from sources within the United States, and then your
taxable income from sources within the United States. Go righ
taxation"? What happened to us just looking at Section 61, and
assuming that the "source" of income doesn't matter? Now we AR
you "can," whatever that means) by saying that, "If you are like
most U.S. citizens, you will discover, if you do this, that it
makes no difference as to your ultimate tax." In the next message
I'll show why he is dead wrong about that. But don't overlook the
significance of the classic lawyer-think stunt here: have one
argument, and have a back-up, CONFLICTING argument to justify th
buried in so many citations saying the opposite that they revert
to, "Well, even if you DO look there, it says your income is
taxable." Then, to keep the water as muddy as possible, they say it
doesn't "matter" whether you use those sections or not.
say our income is taxable? On the other hand, why argue that thos
are dead wrong, so they want to be able to jump back and forth
between them each time one is proven incorrect. It's the classic,
"Well, even if that's true" obfuscation technique. The truth is, we
each time one of their two huge mistakes is exposed, they change
the subject to the OTHER argument. They can jump back and forth
regulations say that "you, or anyone else, whether a U.S. citizen
or not, can use section 861 and following of the code to figure
your gross income from sources within the United States, and then
your taxable income from ALL sources" Don't
forget that.
Sincerely,

Larken Rosewww.larkenrose.com/scam

"Shyster1040" <Shyster1> wrote:
"Larken Rose hates having reality pointed out to him, as you can see
his
position is a 0-4 loser and I haven't even left the letter "C". He
needs to
realize that Regulations have no power except that given to them by
statute:""
Actually, what Larken Rose (and every other tax protestor) needs to
realize is
that tax protestors cannot take a single sub-provision from a
regulation
out of context, ignore the limitations placed on the scope of that
sub-provision by the remainder of the regulation from whence it was
taken,
and then argue that it embodies a proposition that is antithetical to
both
the regulation from which it was taken as well as the statute under
which
it was promulgated. For example, when read in context, Treas. Reg.
1.861-8(f) makes perfect
sense and does not contravene Code Sec. 861 and, in particular, Treas.
Reg. 1.861-8(f)(vi) makes perfect sense as merely a listing of other
sections of the Code (called "operative sections") for which the rules
of
Sec. 861 must be applied because such operative sections depend on the
geographic source of the items of income to which they apply.
This applies a fortiori to favorite sub-provision of the regs,
Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). By taking this sub-provision out of
its
context and quoting it in utter isolation, has repeatedly claimed
that this sub-provision necessarily implies that wages from working in
the
US are not taxable because not included on the list of income items
that
are "not considered to be exempt, ...."
Once that provision is read within the overall context of the entire
text
of Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T, it becomes obvious to anyone other than a tax
protestor who prefers his theories to reality, that 1.861-8T(d)(2)
(iii)
only lists items of income that, for purposes of allocating and
apportioning deductions against income items after those items have
themselves been classified as US-source or non-US-source, are not
considered to be tax exempt; however, to emphasize for those who are
inclined to be blind, this consideration ONLY applies for purposes of
allocating and apportioning deductions, and not for any other purpose
under the Code.

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlwww.quatloos.comwww.quatlosers.com
Larken Rosewww.larkenrose.com/scam

When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of
the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of
Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting who
runs tax scam websitewww.larkenrose.comhttp://www.taxableincome.net.
Not being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own,
Larken has simply latched on to the "861" or "Income Can't Be Defined"
arguments that end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are
required to pay income tax. Larken Rose's argument has been exploded
more times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see
below) but this hasn't stopped Larken from marketing his video on his
other websitewww.larkenrose.comandhttp://www.theft-by-deception.com

The Constitution of the United States of America
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and
Excises

Amendment XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration.

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

Section 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a
married individual

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single
return jointly with his spouse

You may like this one..............

Section 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be
made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross
income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

Section 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
( Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Section 62. Adjusted gross income defined (a) General rule
For purposes of this subtitle, the term "adjusted gross income"
means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the
following deductions:
(1) Trade and business deductions
(2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees
(C) Certain expenses of officials
(D) Certain expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers
(E) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of the
Armed Forces of the United States
(3) Losses from sale or exchange of property
(4) Deductions attributable to rents and royalties
(5) Certain deductions of life tenants and income beneficiaries
of property
(6) Pension, profit-sharing, and annuity plans of self-employed
individuals
(7) Retirement savings
(9) Penalties forfeited because of premature withdrawal of funds
from time savings accounts or deposits
(10) Alimony
(11) Reforestation expenses
(12) Certain required repayments of supplemental unemployment
compensation benefits
(13) Jury duty pay remitted to employer
(14) Deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling
property
(15) Moving expenses
(16) Archer MSAs
(17) Interest on education loans
(1 Higher education expenses
(19) Health savings accounts

Section 63. Taxable income defined (a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this
subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
deduction).
(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his
deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the
term "taxable income" means adjusted gross income, minus -
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

"Shyster1040" <Shyster1...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

"Dale hates having reality pointed out to him, as you can see his
position is a 0-4 loser and I haven't even left the letter "C". He
needs to
realize that Regulations have no power except that given to them by
statute:""

Actually, what Dale (and every other tax protestor) needs to realize
is
that tax protestors cannot take a single sub-provision from a
regulation
out of context, ignore the limitations placed on the scope of that
sub-provision by the remainder of the regulation from whence it was
taken,
and then argue that it embodies a proposition that is antithetical to
both
the regulation from which it was taken as well as the statute under
which
it was promulgated.

For example, when read in context, Treas. Reg. 1.861-8(f) makes
perfect
sense and does not contravene Code Sec. 861 and, in particular, Treas.
Reg. 1.861-8(f)(vi) makes perfect sense as merely a listing of other
sections of the Code (called "operative sections") for which the rules
of
Sec. 861 must be applied because such operative sections depend on the
geographic source of the items of income to which they apply.

This applies a fortiori to Dale's favorite sub-provision of the regs,
Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). By taking this sub-provision out of
its
context and quoting it in utter isolation, Dale has repeatedly claimed
that this sub-provision necessarily implies that wages from working in
the
US are not taxable because not included on the list of income items
that
are "not considered to be exempt, ...."

Once that provision is read within the overall context of the entire
text
of Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T, it becomes obvious to anyone other than a tax
protestor who prefers his theories to reality, that 1.861-8T(d)(2)
(iii)
only lists items of income that, for purposes of allocating and
apportioning deductions against income items after those items have
themselves been classified as US-source or non-US-source, are not
considered to be tax exempt; however, to emphasize for those who are
inclined to be blind, this consideration ONLY applies for purposes of
allocating and apportioning deductions, and not for any other purpose
under the Code.

On Jun 5, 11:50 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1

p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com..n knews4u2c...@yahoo.com

Dear Subscriber,

It's time to look at what little substance there was in the radio
debate between myself and Professor Siegel.
His guess was that those regulations were referring to the issue
addressed by the Supreme Court
dividends discussed in Eisner were, BY STATUTE, identified as
dividends in question WERE NOT EVEN INCOME. (When I pointed this
obviously only a guess), because he knew that even a bad guess
would look better than saying "I don't know," which obviously would
what all is taxable (non-exempt), yet he has the gall to insult you
and me for wanting to have a "reasonable debate" about it.
with the purpose of Section 861.aspects of taxation." His main
position is that, as a U.S. citizen
living and working in the U.S., use 861 and its
regulations
from 26 CFR 1.1-1, which says that U.S. citizens are "liable to the
only upon "TAXABLE income" (not all income). Mr. Siegel agreed. I
then quoted from 26 CFR 1.863-1, which says that a taxpayer's
accurate, make note of his position CHANGE. He went from saying
that 861 is just for international stuff--you don't need to look
the entire exchange), Professor Siegel QUOTED directly from the
regs at 1.861-1 and 1.861-8, which clearly state that one SHOULD be
looking to 861 and related regs to determine his taxable domestic
not, can use section 861 and following of the code to figure your
gross income from sources within the United States, and then your
taxable income from sources within the United States. Go righ
taxation"? What happened to us just looking at Section 61, and
assuming that the "source" of income doesn't matter? Now we AR
you "can," whatever that means) by saying that, "If you are like
most U.S. citizens, you will discover, if you do this, that it
makes no difference as to your ultimate tax." In the next message
I'll show why he is dead wrong about that. But don't overlook the
significance of the classic lawyer-think stunt here: have one
argument, and have a back-up, CONFLICTING argument to justify th
buried in so many citations saying the opposite that they revert
to, "Well, even if you DO look there, it says your income is
taxable." Then, to keep the water as muddy as possible, they say it
doesn't "matter" whether you use those sections or not.
say our income is taxable? On the other hand, why argue that thos
are dead wrong, so they want to be able to jump back and forth
between them each time one is proven incorrect. It's the classic,
"Well, even if that's true" obfuscation technique. The truth is, we
each time one of their two huge mistakes is exposed, they change
the subject to the OTHER argument. They can jump back and forth
regulations say that "you, or anyone else, whether a U.S. citizen
or not, can use section 861 and following of the code to figure
your gross income from sources within the United States, and then
your taxable income from ALL sources" Don't
forget that.
Sincerely,

Larken Rosewww.larkenrose.com/scam

"Shyster1040" <Shyster1> wrote:
"Larken Rose hates having reality pointed out to him, as you can see
his
position is a 0-4 loser and I haven't even left the letter "C". He
needs to
realize that Regulations have no power except that given to them by
statute:""
Actually, what Larken Rose (and every other tax protestor) needs to
realize is
that tax protestors cannot take a single sub-provision from a
regulation
out of context, ignore the limitations placed on the scope of that
sub-provision by the remainder of the regulation from whence it was
taken,
and then argue that it embodies a proposition that is antithetical to
both
the regulation from which it was taken as well as the statute under
which
it was promulgated. For example, when read in context, Treas. Reg.
1.861-8(f) makes perfect
sense and does not contravene Code Sec. 861 and, in particular, Treas.
Reg. 1.861-8(f)(vi) makes perfect sense as merely a listing of other
sections of the Code (called "operative sections") for which the rules
of
Sec. 861 must be applied because such operative sections depend on the
geographic source of the items of income to which they apply.
This applies a fortiori to favorite sub-provision of the regs,
Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). By taking this sub-provision out of
its
context and quoting it in utter isolation, has repeatedly claimed
that this sub-provision necessarily implies that wages from working in
the
US are not taxable because not included on the list of income items
that
are "not considered to be exempt, ...."
Once that provision is read within the overall context of the entire
text
of Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T, it becomes obvious to anyone other than a tax
protestor who prefers his theories to reality, that 1.861-8T(d)(2)
(iii)
only lists items of income that, for purposes of allocating and
apportioning deductions against income items after those items have
themselves been classified as US-source or non-US-source, are not
considered to be tax exempt; however, to emphasize for those who are
inclined to be blind, this consideration ONLY applies for purposes of
allocating and apportioning deductions, and not for any other purpose
under the Code.

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlwww.quatloos.comwww.quatlosers.com
Larken Rosewww.larkenrose.com/scam

When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of
the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of
Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting who
runs tax scam websitewww.larkenrose.comhttp://www.taxableincome.net.
Not being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own,
Larken has simply latched on to the "861" or "Income Can't Be Defined"
arguments that end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are
required to pay income tax. Larken Rose's argument has been exploded
more times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see
below) but this hasn't stopped Larken from marketing his video on his
other websitewww.larkenrose.comandhttp://www.theft-by-deception.com

The Constitution of the United States of America
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and
Excises

Amendment XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration.

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

Section 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a
married individual

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single
return jointly with his spouse

You may like this one..............

Section 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be
made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross
income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

Section 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
( Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Section 62. Adjusted gross income defined (a) General rule
For purposes of this subtitle, the term "adjusted gross income"
means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the
following deductions:
(1) Trade and business deductions
(2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees
(C) Certain expenses of officials
(D) Certain expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers
(E) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of the
Armed Forces of the United States
(3) Losses from sale or exchange of property
(4) Deductions attributable to rents and royalties
(5) Certain deductions of life tenants and income beneficiaries
of property
(6) Pension, profit-sharing, and annuity plans of self-employed
individuals
(7) Retirement savings
(9) Penalties forfeited because of premature withdrawal of funds
from time savings accounts or deposits
(10) Alimony
(11) Reforestation expenses
(12) Certain required repayments of supplemental unemployment
compensation benefits
(13) Jury duty pay remitted to employer
(14) Deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling
property
(15) Moving expenses
(16) Archer MSAs
(17) Interest on education loans
(1 Higher education expenses
(19) Health savings accounts

Section 63. Taxable income defined (a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this
subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
deduction).
(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his
deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the
term "taxable income" means adjusted gross income, minus -
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

"Shyster1040" <Shyster1...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

"Dale hates having reality pointed out to him, as you can see his
position is a 0-4 loser and I haven't even left the letter "C". He
needs to
realize that Regulations have no power except that given to them by
statute:""

Actually, what Dale (and every other tax protestor) needs to realize
is
that tax protestors cannot take a single sub-provision from a
regulation
out of context, ignore the limitations placed on the scope of that
sub-provision by the remainder of the regulation from whence it was
taken,
and then argue that it embodies a proposition that is antithetical to
both
the regulation from which it was taken as well as the statute under
which
it was promulgated.

For example, when read in context, Treas. Reg. 1.861-8(f) makes
perfect
sense and does not contravene Code Sec. 861 and, in particular, Treas.
Reg. 1.861-8(f)(vi) makes perfect sense as merely a listing of other
sections of the Code (called "operative sections") for which the rules
of
Sec. 861 must be applied because such operative sections depend on the
geographic source of the items of income to which they apply.

This applies a fortiori to Dale's favorite sub-provision of the regs,
Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). By taking this sub-provision out of
its
context and quoting it in utter isolation, Dale has repeatedly claimed
that this sub-provision necessarily implies that wages from working in
the
US are not taxable because not included on the list of income items
that
are "not considered to be exempt, ...."

Once that provision is read within the overall context of the entire
text
of Treas. Reg. 1.861-8T, it becomes obvious to anyone other than a tax
protestor who prefers his theories to reality, that 1.861-8T(d)(2)
(iii)
only lists items of income that, for purposes of allocating and
apportioning deductions against income items after those items have
themselves been classified as US-source or non-US-source, are not
considered to be tax exempt; however, to emphasize for those who are
inclined to be blind, this consideration ONLY applies for purposes of
allocating and apportioning deductions, and not for any other purpose
under the Code.

Yup, after one determines if their income is taxable under 861.

Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse
U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn
in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose's
Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law.

In convicting
Rose, the jury rejected Rose's claim that he held a good faith belief
that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.

On Jun 7, 3:18 am, <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ECONOMY SNIP


Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse

in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose's
Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law.

So, the judge never let the jury hear his argument and facts about the
law.
Back in the old days the jury decided what was law, or if a law was
bad to determin in favor of the "defendant" no matter what the law
said.
Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.

In convicting
Rose, the jury rejected Rose's claim that he held a good faith belief
that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.

Sham court case a usual.

On Jun 7, 3:18 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ECONOMY SNIP
Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse
U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn
in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose's
Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law.

So, the judge never let the jury hear his argument and facts about the
law.
Back in the old days the jury decided what was law, or if a law was
bad to determin in favor of the "defendant" no matter what the law
said.
Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.

In convicting
Rose, the jury rejected Rose's claim that he held a good faith belief
that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.

The jury was not "informed."
Sham court case a usual.

The jury was not "informed."
Sham court case a usual.

So, the judge never let the jury hear his [Roses] argument
and facts about the law.

Back in the old days the jury decided what was law,

or if a law was bad

to determin in favor of the "defendant" no
matter what the law said.

Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.

The jury was not "informed."

On Jun 7, 10:31 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

The jury was not "informed."
Sham court case a usual.

You do realize, don't you, that Rose was so cowardly that he declined
to argue his idiotic 861 position with the court, but instead relied
on a Cheek defense where he tried (and failed miserably) to convince
the jury that he had a good-faith belief that he owed no taxes? The
jury didn't buy his BS, but you've swallowed the entire sack of it.
Gawd, you're pitiful.

Got a link to the transcript?

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:18 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ECONOMY SNIP
Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse
U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn
in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose's
Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law.

So, the judge never let the jury hear his argument and facts about the
law.
Back in the old days the jury decided what was law, or if a law was
bad to determin in favor of the "defendant" no matter what the law
said.
Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.

In convicting
Rose, the jury rejected Rose's claim that he held a good faith belief
that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.

The jury was not "informed."
Sham court case a usual.

You have absolutely no idea what ever of the nature of the legal system
in this country. It is the privilege and actually the duty of the judge
to instruct the jury about the law. It is not assumed that the jury is
reliably informed about the law when they are seated. It is the
privilege of the counsel for prosecution and for defendant to attempt to
convince the jury based on evidence and rhetoric that the defendant has
either been demonstrated to have broken the law or for the defendant has
not broken the law or that the law as interpreted by the government is
not applicable or is unconstitutional. The judge then has the duty to
evaluate such aspects of defense so that he can then either direct a
verdict to the jury or dismiss a motion to dismiss the charges or can
advise the jury as to what the law says and how it is to act based on
the evidence produced by both sides. The appeals process can be used if
there is an error in what the judge does such actions. Your failure to
understand our legal system leads you to claim that judges are
"dictating law". This clearly is not so. As to interpretation of the
law and to its constitutional validity that is ultimately a function for
the supreme court of a state or of the Supreme Court of the USA. Many
arguments are presented about whether the supremes have written law as
they have interpreted old constitutional clauses or old statutes that
were formerly thought to be constitutional (e.g., ideas such as
"separate and equal" education) and all your crazy screaming about the
courts not ruling as you wish will not change things a whit. Stop
embarrassing yourself. You do this so often about subjects about which
you know nothing that it smacks of mental defectiveness.
FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:18 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ECONOMY SNIP
Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse
U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn
in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose's
Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law.

So, the judge never let the jury hear his argument and facts about the
law.
Back in the old days the jury decided what was law, or if a law was
bad to determin in favor of the "defendant" no matter what the law
said.
Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.

In convicting
Rose, the jury rejected Rose's claim that he held a good faith belief
that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.

The jury was not "informed."
Sham court case a usual.


You have absolutely no idea what ever of the nature of the legal system
in this country.

It is the privilege and actually the duty of the judge
to instruct the jury about the law. It is not assumed that the jury is
reliably informed about the law when they are seated.


It is the
privilege of the counsel for prosecution and for defendant to attempt to
convince the jury based on evidence and rhetoric that the defendant has
either been demonstrated to have broken the law or for the defendant has
not broken the law or that the law as interpreted by the government is
not applicable or is unconstitutional.


The judge then has the duty to
evaluate such aspects of defense so that he can then either direct a
verdict to the jury or dismiss a motion to dismiss the charges or can
advise the jury as to what the law says and how it is to act based on
the evidence produced by both sides.

The appeals process can be used if
there is an error in what the judge does such actions.

Your failure to
understand our legal system leads you to claim that judges are
"dictating law". This clearly is not so. As to interpretation of the
law and to its constitutional validity that is ultimately a function for
the supreme court of a state or of the Supreme Court of the USA.

Many
arguments are presented about whether the supremes have written law as
they have interpreted old constitutional clauses or old statutes that
were formerly thought to be constitutional (e.g., ideas such as
"separate and equal" education) and all your crazy screaming about the
courts not ruling as you wish will not change things a whit. Stop
embarrassing yourself. You do this so often about subjects about which
you know nothing that it smacks of mental defectiveness.
FK

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
So, the judge never let the jury hear his [Roses] argument
and facts about the law.


Rose didn't try to present his argument, and he didn't intend to provide
facts at all, let alone about the law. At best, Rose wanted to present his
beliefs about what the law says. The Judge prohibited him from presenting
false "facts" about what the law actually says.


Back in the old days the jury decided what was law,


They actually didn't. They only decided guilt or innocence. Just like they
do today.


or if a law was bad


Nope. They don't decide if laws are bad. That's always been up to the
legislative branch, or higher courts, and at that Judges have made that
call - not a jury.

to determin in favor of the "defendant" no
matter what the law said.



Well clearly not. Just like they can't determine against the defendant
regardless of what the law says.

The responsibility of the jury is to hold up the facts presented at trial
against the law to see if guilt has been proven. Notice that no one is ever
found innocent. They may be found "not guilty", but they are never to be
found innocent.




Now we jhave judges "dictating" law.


And Judges have that right, as well as obligation, to instruct the jury as
to what the law says. The law wasn't on trial, and needn't be litigated in
that venue.

The jury could have found Rose "not guilty" for a variety of reasons, but
the facts presented at trial proved him guilty of breaking that law.

And notice that Rose's only defense was "I was stupid", by claiming that he
held a belief that ran contrary to common sense and the basic beliefs of
every Jurist on that panel.

The IRS proved he knew better, but intentionally followed another path
instead.



The jury was not "informed."


Then appeal the verdict.

He'll lose of course, but he'll have fun trying. Maybe get another nail in
his coffin, and another court fine for trying it. But it's all for a "good
cause", right? Hell, he can beg on the internet for donations to "fight the
good fight", and maybe make a few bucks out of the deal. Much more than he
made on selling tapes and CD's.

Fred Kasner wrote:
You have absolutely no idea what ever of the nature of the legal system
in this country.

Well, we have a pretty good idea of what it is supposed to be.

It is the privilege and actually the duty of the judge
to instruct the jury about the law. It is not assumed that the jury is
reliably informed about the law when they are seated.
It is the
privilege of the counsel for prosecution and for defendant to attempt to
convince the jury based on evidence and rhetoric that the defendant has
either been demonstrated to have broken the law or for the defendant has
not broken the law or that the law as interpreted by the government is
not applicable or is unconstitutional.

The judge then has the duty to
evaluate such aspects of defense so that he can then either direct a
verdict to the jury or dismiss a motion to dismiss the charges or can
advise the jury as to what the law says and how it is to act based on the
evidence produced by both sides.

In other words, the judge "has the duty" to "direct" the outcome.

The appeals process can be used if
there is an error in what the judge does such actions.

Or, if the defendant is lucky there will be one or more
jurors who know the law and will prevent the judge or
prosecutor from railroading the guy.

Your failure to
understand our legal system leads you to claim that judges are "dictating
law". This clearly is not so. As to interpretation of the law and to its
constitutional validity that is ultimately a function for the supreme
court of a state or of the Supreme Court of the USA.

No, that is also the job of the jury.

knews4u2chew's general criticism is well taken.

Some judges attempt to run the jury, some don't. One thing
is clear, juries are often mis-informed as judges disallow
evidence and testimony and prosecutors withhold or hide
evidence.

Between the machinations of police, prosecutors and judges,
a just criminal trial is infrequent. This is born out by the
number of convicts later found to be innocent of charges as
well as the misgivings of jurors who after the fact heard
evidence which would have effected their decision.

For a jury, the law is always on trial.

A court may accept as law a charge that is on it's face, unlawful.

This seldom happens but the jury must be alert to the possibility.