http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1940I've filed CtC returns since 2005. Regarding 2005, I fought the IRS for two years and the Tax Court for one year. After getting into Tax Court, I took a paralegal course, and then Jurisdictionary. I have had hard-headed conversations with two lawyer friends, one of them pro-CtC (but not willing to take it to court) and the other neutral, but they both taught me the reality of how the Courts operate. My tax court experience was nearly identical to HXO's, described in the CRACKING THE COURT thread.
Here's what I learned - explained in terms that make sense to me. If the terms don't make sense to you, arguing won't help - it's the IDEA that's important, not the terminology:
I have learned, thanks to Pete, that three "branches" of Law - the Constitution, The Supreme Court, and the Statutes - very clearly do not impose a federal tax on my private-sector earnings. THOSE LAWS made me unable to sign a 1040 claiming taxes owed, unless I perjured myself.
I have learned through my experience in Court and in Class that there is a fourth branch of law that CtC does not cover. For lack of a better term, I will call this the "Law of the Courts."
The "Law of the Courts" is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, it just simply "is." It's made up of many components - a many-headed hydra, and to prevail in court you need to deal with ALL of the heads. An example of one head is stare decisis - the Law of the Courts is made up of precedent. Stare decisis results in some good decisions, some bad decisions, but the doctrine itself is not evil, in fact it is GOOD to be able to depend that the court will act the same way that it always has. But stare decisis does not work the way you think it does. Read the following, emphasis added:
Quote:I and others like me have gone into court, pulled out our "citations," and the court has completely ignored them. Why? How can they get away with that? Corrupt Judge? Scumbag IRS Lawyer? "Silent Judicial Notice?""One of the basic tenets of analysis of case law is that, in terms of PRECEDENT, or STARE DECISIS, or the HOLDING (or holdings) in a case, a court case is important only for what was actually DECIDED -- not for what was SAID by the court in making its decision. I know that sounds strange, or even contradictory, but this is one of the little secrets of the study of law. Under the U.S. legal system, a court case is important, insofar as PRECEDENT is concerned, ONLY for the DECISION -- for the "detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts." See United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996)."
None of the above. It's simply that way because of the sum total of all the "little secrets," and you don't learn these things unless you go to law school, or somebody cares enough to tell you, because the judge and your opponent are NOT going to tell you. Acting without such knowledge will get you hung. Bringing an action in court without such knowledge is, in its own way, frivolous. Is this the way it should be? I don't think so, but that doesn't matter. It's like complaining that earthquakes kill people. It simply is, and to change it is going to require dealing with it, not denying it.
Again, that's a grossly simplified version of only one of many facets. Jurisdictionary plus a paralegal class will teach you a lot, but only BEGINS to scratch the surface. Law school, and experience in court, is the only way anyone could even begin to comprehend the depth and complexity of this Law. There is a reason they call it the "practice" of Law. Good lawyers keep practicing over, and over, and over again, and still don't get it right.
I have learned that, for better or worse, the "Law of the Courts" is REAL LAW, and sadly, THAT LAW requires the private ordinary citizen to pay income tax.
(bolding added).
Pete Hendrickson is not gonna like that.
Rusty continues (again, bolding added by me):
Not exactly. The tax is currently being litigated in a separate case -- in U.S. Tax Court.The only way to change THAT LAW is to come into court with a proper cause of action and competent facts and evidence, and get a jury to change THAT LAW, and have that change survive the inevitable appeal.
I have humbly learned that I am not ready or competent to do that.
Therefore I have decided to quit this battle. THAT LAW now enables me to sign a 1040 claiming taxes owed without perjuring myself. THAT LAW is what I am going to follow from now until THAT LAW is changed. Does that mean I'm giving up? I hope not. I've been on the front lines, but my .45 is out of ammo, and it wasn't working very well against WMD's anyway. So it's time for me to retreat and re-arm. It will take awhile. I will continue paralegal studies, might get a job as a paralegal, hope to start law school, and maybe in 10 years I'll be able to affect change to THAT LAW. If someone beats me to it, then praise God! I'll start filing CtC again, and use those acquired legal skills and the extra money to fight some other battle for Liberty. Pete has called for CtC-educated lawyers to step up. Have you seen any? So if the lawyers won't become CtC-educated, then the CtC-educated will have to become lawyers.
KNOW YOUR OPPONENT: If you want to get familiar with THAT LAW, then go to the Freedom Watch CtC Thread and start reading the comments by "Larry Williams." The quote above is from that thread. It will be very painful, but Larry knows THAT LAW very well. Larry's position is EXACTLY what you are going to encounter in the courtroom, therefore you should include Larry's knowledge in your decision-making.
Pause, and let that sink in - Larry's position is EXACTLY what you are going to encounter in the courtroom. It is wise to know your opponent. A jury will not likely help us, because the jury will be instructed by the judge in THAT LAW. Recall that even though the jury acquitted Tommy Cryer of failure to file, that SAME JURY forced him to PAY THE TAX.
Rusty continues:
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1940The only way a jury will defy the judge will be if the jury pool, i.e. the general public, believes the truth of the Fundamental Law as taught by CtC. That's going to take a lot of educating.
This decision is right for me, but everyone has to make their own decision based on their own knowledge and resources, and those that want to continue the frontline battle have all my respect and support. However, before you continue, please consider this possibility - I have concluded that mine and others' losses have already created additional precedent under THAT LAW that will be used against you. ARE YOU PREPARED? If not, you have no business in court - if you don't KNOW that you are going to win, then you will lose, just like Jurisdictionary teaches. Be Prepared. In the courtroom, truth alone is not enough.
FWIW - I believe the strategy outlined in CRACKING THE COURT is the most appropriate way to deal with THAT LAW, and hope to get in touch with Randy and John and help them in their efforts. I just need to get off the front lines - for now.
