Saladino / Fuselier criminal trial 11/3/2009

[Famspear]

More from the writings of Bob Hurt:

I [ . . . ] believe the internal revenue code in Subtile [sic] A makes federal employees liable for a return of part of their income to the government, as a kickback for the privilege of having a cushy government job, but that Subtitle A does not apply to the rest of us.

Moreover, I believe Article I Section 8 Clause 17 limits the power of the Congress to tax anyone outside its federal zone territory, and that the 16th amendment did not repeal that provision, which the 9th and 10th amendments support. That is why AIS2C3 and AIS9C4 prescribe for direct taxes the rule of apportionment among the states based on population, and the 16th Amendment puts the income tax into the category of an excise (which Congress can lawfully levy only upon an activity, event, occurrence, or happening, but not on one's head, existence, property, income, or labor. The income does not constitute the item taxed, but only the means of measuring the tax owed upon the execution of a taxable activity.

No one has managed to lay the matters of the above paragraph properly before the Supreme Court. I believe them a pack of cowards for allowing Americans to languish under an oppressive and illegally implemented system of income taxation that the Constitution specifically prohibits. These arguments constitute the heart and soul of the matter and they are anything but frivolous.

In all the case law you have cited, I have seen an evolution in the Supreme Court's rulings (and therefore in the characters of its members) from something approaching common sense on this subject to something resembling treason against the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobhurt
--Bob Hurt, August 16, 2007.

[LPC]

Unlike all of you, I don't hide my identity.

Which is true only for relatively small values of "all."

That might seem like a small mistake, but it's typical of the mindset I've seen in your postings here and on your website. First you reach a conclusion and then you make up "facts" to support that conclusion. You want to feel superior to everyone else who posts here, so you want to believe that you don't hide your identity and we do, therefore "all of you" hide your identity.

The only "truth" you seek is the one you've already decided you want to believe in; no other truths need apply.

By the way, can any of you law practitioners tell me where to find the English law of Florida? See Florida Statute 2.01 if you don't know what I mean. The folks at the Stetson University College of Law Library don't seem to know.

I suspect that the folks at Stetson University College of Law Library thought you were joking.

You'll find the "common and statute laws of England" that were in force on July 4, 1776, in the court decisions and statutes that were issued or enacted in England before that date. My recollection is that English court decisions are published in a set of books titled "The Laws of England," which a university law library should have. I'm not sure of the title of the published statutes, but the information won't do you any good because the volumes from 1776 were either never purchased (for example, Stetson wasn't even founded until the volumes from 1776 were more than 100 years old) or were thrown out a long time ago (yes, the conspiracy goes back that far).

And might I suggest that the odds of finding an English court decision or statute that both (a) has not been cited by a Florida court in the last 233 years, and (b) has not been explicitly or implicitly contradicted by a Florida or federal statute or court decision in the last 233 years, are (to say the least) slim?

But don't let me discourage you. Please start reading those court decisions and statutes, and let us know what you find.

[wserra]

Because the source had zero likelihood of blabbing,

Why? Because he's in jail? OK, how about before he was in jail? Here's a guy who discovers the Holy Grail of govt perfidy. If you're in the killing business, why give him a platform - a trial - from which to spread the word? Why not kill him before the word gets out, rather than his lawyer after the fact?

The more you explain, the less sense you make.

while the p.d. may have expressed an intent to expose the truth.

Oh, she "may have"? Well, if that's the world we're in, she "may have" seen the shape-shifting lizards who rule the world just as they were changing into Obama and Putin. Or she "may have" discovered the real "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and was assassinated by the International Jewish Conspiracy. Or she "may have" discovered the secret of perpetual motion and been whacked by the car manufacturers' hit squads.

Why, the possibilities are endless.

[Duke2Earl]

Whenever I see a rant against case law I usually refer the "person" to:

http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/CaseLaw.htm

This an essay by tax protester defender L. Becraft explaining is some detail (too much if truth be told) why case law is both necessary and is in fact what is keeping their sorry butts out of jail. Seeing I am viewed as a shape shifting tool of the oppressors I thought they might at least read the "wisdom" of someone who has spent what passes for their career defending tax protesters. And in fact if one explores Mr. Becraft's site he debunks quite a few of the myths that infect the "truthseekers" community as Mr. Hurt might say. Not that there isn't other madness on Mr.Becraft's site but at least he doesn't buy into all the crap.

[bobhurt]

Glad to hear you've changed, Bob. In your very first internet interaction with me some years ago, you called me a "coward" -- showing both your own mean nature and your willingness to belittle someone with whom you had had essentially no previous interaction, and you showed that you were willing to use an epithet like "coward" indiscriminately.

Still licking that grievous wound in your emotional craw? You denigrate from anonymity, silence one who cannot fight back, and then mercilessly spam from a sham email address. Does that not smack a just little of cowardice coupled with bullying?

Let's get more to the point. Wikipedia presents the government view about the income tax in its US income tax page, not a balanced view. Learners have the right to read the truth about it from an unbiased presentation. For many reasons, the court rulings don't constitute a reliable view of the truth about income tax. and since at best they constitute profound prejudice, backed by a profound motive for bias, Wikipedia's topic authors should tell the public about the matter without demeaning either side. Yet Wikipedia labels as tax protesters opponents of the government view.

Many thousands of people who actually study the issues disagree with your (Wikipedia) view and agree with Tom Cryer's, as expressed in his Memorandum http://www.truthattack.org/j ... RANDUM.pdf. A jury acquitted Cryer in spite of the judge's obvious hostility to him. So you might want to give his memorandum the same credence they gave it. You would see far more verdicts like the Cryer verdict if judges and DOJ attorneys did not prevent the juries from reading the law for themselves and from seeing all the evidence, or, as in the Sherry Jackson case, if witnesses did not lie in their testimony.

The tax article might mention the fact that the law allows managers in government to give HUGE, secret cash awards (up to $35,000 cash plus pay grade elevations) to employees, to people outside their chain of command, and even to ex-employees, for doing a good job. That means government workers have a powerful motive to crush so-called tax protesters in order to receive a secret cash bribe. Congress allocates at least half a billion dollars a year for such bribes. That might have a little effect on the outcome of tax crime cases. A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

In spite of the blatant bias and dishonesty of the Wikipedia article on US income tax, I do appreciate your trying to show people clearly the errors in their arguments and beliefs. Someone knowledgeable should explain the truth to people who trust others' misquotations from Supreme Court rulings.

But people of senior knowledge have at least an ethical obligation to treat dissenters ingenuously. Expelling figurative dragon breath at them, as do most of the writers at Quatloos, destroys whatever dignity, and no small measure of credibility, that might otherwise exist in your effort. You can and should do better than that.

And so should I. I wrote wrongly to denominate you a coward in a public forum, not because of any lack of truth in the appellation (after all, you do hide behind a pseudonym), but because of its impoliteness and its tendency to bias others against you before they get a chance to form their own opinions of you based on their personal observations or interactions. I apologize to you and everyone for it, and I do hope you can get over it and not let it fester in your emotional craw throughout eternity. Famspear, can you ever forgive me? Can we ever become friends?

[Famspear]

Glad to hear you've changed, Bob. In your very first internet interaction with me some years ago, you called me a "coward" -- showing both your own mean nature and your willingness to belittle someone with whom you had had essentially no previous interaction, and you showed that you were willing to use an epithet like "coward" indiscriminately.

Still licking that grievous wound in your emotional craw? You denigrate from anonymity, silence one who cannot fight back, and then mercilessly spam from a sham email address. Does that not smack a just little of cowardice coupled with bullying?

No, I don't suffer from a "grievous wound," Bob. Try to keep up with the group. You complained about your treatment here in Quatloos. I pointed out your hypocrisy by citing the example of your irrational use of an epithet in your very first interaction with me some years ago.

Let's get more to the point. Wikipedia presents the government view about the income tax in its US income tax page, not a balanced view. Learners have the right to read the truth about it from an unbiased presentation.

Baloney.

For many reasons, the court rulings don't constitute a reliable view of the truth about income tax....

Baloney.

....and since at best they constitute profound prejudice, backed by a profound motive for bias, Wikipedia's topic authors should tell the public about the matter without demeaning either side. Yet Wikipedia labels as tax protesters opponents of the government view.

Baloney.

Many thousands of people who actually study the issues disagree with your (Wikipedia) view and agree with Tom Cryer's, as expressed in his Memorandum http://www.truthattack.org/j ... RANDUM.pdf. A jury acquitted Cryer in spite of the judge's obvious hostility to him. So you might want to give his memorandum the same credence they gave it.

Baloney. Cryer's arguments were rejected by the Court in his own case. The case then went to the jury. The jury found him not guilty.

You would see far more verdicts like the Cryer verdict if judges and DOJ attorneys did not prevent the juries from reading the law for themselves and from seeing all the evidence, or, as in the Sherry Jackson case, if witnesses did not lie in their testimony.

Well, in the American legal system, a jury is not allowed to "read the law for themselves." Sorry, but that's the rule in all cases, not just federal tax cases. I like the rule as it is. If you want it changed, Bob, then write to your representatives.

The tax article might mention the fact that the law allows managers in government to give HUGE, secret cash awards (up to $35,000 cash plus pay grade elevations) to employees, to people outside their chain of command, and even to ex-employees, for doing a good job. That means government workers have a powerful motive to crush so-called tax protesters in order to receive a secret cash bribe.

Baloney. Is this what passes for analysis in your neck of the woods?

Congress allocates at least half a billion dollars a year for such bribes. That might have a little effect on the outcome of tax crime cases. A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

Baloney.

In spite of the blatant bias and dishonesty of the Wikipedia article on US income tax, I do appreciate your trying to show people clearly the errors in their arguments and beliefs. Someone knowledgeable should explain the truth to people who trust others' misquotations from Supreme Court rulings.

But people of senior knowledge have at least an ethical obligation to treat dissenters ingenuously. Expelling figurative dragon breath at them, as do most of the writers at Quatloos, destroys whatever dignity, and no small measure of credibility, that might otherwise exist in your effort. You can and should do better than that.

Baloney.

And so should I. I wrote wrongly to denominate you a coward in a public forum, not because of any lack of truth in the appellation (after all, you do hide behind a pseudonym), but because of its impoliteness and its tendency to bias others against you before they get a chance to form their own opinions of you based on their personal observations or interactions. I apologize to you and everyone for it, and I do hope you can get over it and not let it fester in your emotional craw throughout eternity. Famspear, can you ever forgive me? Can we ever become friends?

"Fester" in my "emotional craw"? Throughout "eternity"?

Come on, Bob. Your apology is accepted, but I would like to point out that you're still essentially arguing that anyone who does not use his or her real name on the internet is somehow a "coward."

No, there's nothing to "get over", Bob. Again, remember the context: You complained that you weren't being treated nicely in Quatloos, and I simply pointed out your hypocrisy -- your failure to point out that you yourself have engaged in name-calling in the past -- at another web site, on the very same subject: the income tax.

[Famspear]

Oh, I almost forgot:

You denigrate from anonymity, silence one who cannot fight back, and then mercilessly spam from a sham email address. Does that not smack a just little of cowardice coupled with bullying?

I "silence one who cannot fight back"???? Who is it that I have "silenced"? And why couldn't that person "fight back"??

What do you mean when you say I "spam"??? And what is a "sham email address"?

[Pottapaug1938]

I love this quote from Bob Hurt:

"In all the case law you have cited, I have seen an evolution in the Supreme Court's rulings (and therefore in the characters of its members) from something approaching common sense on this subject to something resembling treason against the Constitution."

Since Bob is such an Expert on the Constitution, I look forward to his showing us that 1) the crime of "treason against the Constitution" exists at all, and 2) how this so-called crime squares with the Constitutional definition of treason in Article III, Section 3.

By the way, Bob -- those among us who use pen names on this site use them because we do not want people like you tracking us down and harrassing us off-site. If you have something to say to us, say it here, and we will do the same for you. And, BTW -- instead of attacking us for using pen names, why don't you try attacking the substance of what we say? Try to do better than you've done already, though, because you've yet to come up with a worthwhile argument to present to us.

[The Observer]

The tax article might mention the fact that the law allows managers in government to give HUGE, secret cash awards (up to $35,000 cash plus pay grade elevations) to employees, to people outside their chain of command, and even to ex-employees, for doing a good job. That means government workers have a powerful motive to crush so-called tax protesters in order to receive a secret cash bribe. Congress allocates at least half a billion dollars a year for such bribes. That might have a little effect on the outcome of tax crime cases. A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

Wow, a SECRET slush fund to crush tax protestors. But it makes me a little curious - if it is a SECRET, how does everyone know about it? And why can't Mr. Hurt explain why this hasn't submitted as evidence in court to show that the defendant was set up and targeted unfairly by the government and indicates that the evidence provided by the government against the defendant is tainted and suspect? Would it be too much to ask Mr. Hurt to provide some actual evidence of this slush fund that can be independently corroborated, that would actually show how it can be both known about and still SECRET at the same time? Or is Mr. Hurt going to claim that he is only the person that knows about this SECRET?

[Prof]

To Bob Hurt:

1. While some post anonymously, Dan openly discloses his name and where he can be found. Others, like me, post anonymously but anyone with half a brain could figure out who Prof is. And, most of the regulars, including Stevesy, have my personal e-mail address, name, physical location, etc.

2. Your knowledge of American legal history is about as non-existant as your reading comprehension.

3. Subsequent to the Revolution, the States and then ultimately the US courts adopted the common and statutory law of Britain circa at various points, from the Revolution up until importations into MA in the 19th Century. The common law and the codification movements went to war in the mid 19th century. The common law proponents wanted the dynamic nature of the commonlaw, for judges could adopt new law to new conditions. The codifiers (see, e.g., Field), wanted to organize the law, make it clear, and give most law making to the legistures (i.e., the "people," not the judges and lawyers). The codifiers won. Common law traditions continue, however, with judicial decisions interpreting statutes being "stare decisis." See Lawrence Friedman, A History of American Law.

4. And, if you think the Constitution somehow limits the federal government to regulation of the District, you know nothing of the adoption and implementation of the Constitution, you have never read the Constitution and its various provisions that, from 1789, allowed the central government power over the states and the persons living in those states.

5. You can "believe" what you wish; facts seem to just get in your way.

[Nikki]

Mr. Hurt

Just to keep yourself current on significant events in the tax evasion community, you really should check out, and follow, US Tax Court case 008118-09.

The plaintiff in the case is one you have touted as a major victor versus the government. Why, then, is he back in court, on his own initiative, contesting income taxes that he owes?

[Famspear]

Mr. Hurt

Just to keep yourself current on significant events in the tax evasion community, you really should check out, and follow, US Tax Court case 008118-09.

The plaintiff in the case is one you have touted as a major victor versus the government. Why, then, is he back in court, on his own initiative, contesting income taxes that he owes?

Yes, Bob, and please don't repeat your mantra that the IRS is corrupt, the courts are corrupt, etc., etc.

Nikki is, of course, speaking of Tommy K. Cryer.

From something I wrote in another place on the internet:

In 2009, Cryer's federal tax problems continued. On April 2, 2009, Cryer filed a petition in the United States Tax Court. Cryer's petition includes a copy of three statutory notices of deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service, all dated January 5, 2009, in which the IRS asserts that Cryer owes $1,719,436.71 in taxes and penalties for the years 1993 through 2001.

The IRS asserts that Cryer owes $848,806.00 in Federal income tax plus $615,384.37 in section 6651(f) penalties for fraudulent failure to file tax returns, $212,201.50 in section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely pay the taxes, and $43,044.84 in section 6654 penalties for failure to timely pay estimated taxes. See Statutory Notice of Deficiency dated January 5, 2009, as attachment to Petition, filed April 2, 2009, Tommy K. Cryer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case no. 8118-09, United States Tax Court, Washington, D.C.

Cryer's statement in the petition, in explanation of why he disagrees with the IRS determination, is: "The amount of the claimed deficiency is disputed. The correct amount is $0.00." Cryer has requested that the trial be held in New Orleans. No trial date has yet been set. Cryer v. Commissioner, United States Tax Court, case no. 8118-09.

Cryer's only victory was that the jury in his federal criminal tax case found him not guilty. And that is a substantial victory for Cryer. He got to go home.

But in that same case, Cryer lost on his tax protester arguments -- as has every other tax protester, without a single exception. Here's what happened.

Cryer filed four motions to dismiss the case against him.

The government responded by stating that Cryer, “asserted various tax protester claims...and courts have rejected and discredited these claims”, and countered Cryer's claim that the income generated from his law practice is not taxable, citing Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) (payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayer has complete dominion); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) (Court of Appeals rejecting taxpayer's contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction”); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) (monies received from the sale of one's services constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment). See Government response to Cryer motions to dismiss. See also Government's in Globo Response to Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Compel Discovery, and Motion in Limine, Feb. 15, 2007, docket entry 26, United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

The District Court rejected Cryer's first motion, in which Cryer had contended that the indictment had failed to allege "affirmative acts." See Memorandum Order, March 19, 2007, docket entry 35, United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

The Court rejected Cryer's second motion, in which Cryer had argued that the Secretary of the Treasury had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act by not publishing certain information in the Federal Register.

The Court rejected Cryer's third motion, in which Cryer had asked for dismissal on the ground that he had not created a trust for the purpose of evading taxes.

The Court rejected Cryer's fourth motion to dismiss -- in which Cryer incorrectly contended that his income, derived through the practice of law in Louisiana, was not "taxable income" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code -- with the Court ruling Cryer's contention to be "without merit."

Cryer and his supporters love to point out that Cryer was found not guilty (which indeed he was) -- but how often do we hear Cryer and his supporters pointing out these rulings in that very same criminal case?

[Quixote]

The tax article might mention the fact that the law allows managers in government to give HUGE, secret cash awards (up to $35,000 cash plus pay grade elevations) to employees, to people outside their chain of command, and even to ex-employees, for doing a good job. That means government workers have a powerful motive to crush so-called tax protesters in order to receive a secret cash bribe. Congress allocates at least half a billion dollars a year for such bribes. That might have a little effect on the outcome of tax crime cases. A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

Bob's right about those huge, secret cash awards and pay grade increases. Just look at IRM §6.451.1. They're so super secret that IRS has posted information about them on the internet. Diabolical.

[LPC]

The tax article might mention the fact that the law allows managers in government to give HUGE, secret cash awards (up to $35,000 cash plus pay grade elevations) to employees, to people outside their chain of command, and even to ex-employees, for doing a good job. That means government workers have a powerful motive to crush so-called tax protesters in order to receive a secret cash bribe. Congress allocates at least half a billion dollars a year for such bribes. That might have a little effect on the outcome of tax crime cases. A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

Bob's right about those huge, secret cash awards and pay grade increases. Just look at IRM §6.451.1. They're so super secret that IRS has posted information about them on the internet. Diabolical.

But where's the part about *judges* getting "secret cash awards"?

Am I the first to point out that a "secret cash award" to a judge for his/her rulings in a case would be a bribe, which is a crime, and so would result in jail time for both the judge and the government employee paying the "award"?

It will take more that Hurt's say-so to convince me that there is any such law allowing such "awards" to judges, or that Congress would ever appropriate money for any such purpose.

[illiterati]

As an infrequent interloper perusing this forum, I ask a basic question...What are the times listed on the posts. Is it GMT?

[illiterati]

Ah, forget it, I see the time of my post and get it.

[illiterati]

Actually, forget it, forget it. How come I'm PT and the system shows 6 hours ahead, when GMT is 8 hours ahead, and the time of my post is one hour ahead of when I posted (approximately)? I'm very confused, and if you couldn't tell, have a very simple mind. If you don't respond with a coherent explanation, I may not be able to sleep tonight.

[Quixote]

But where's the part about *judges* getting "secret cash awards"?

OK, that part is secret.

It will take more that Hurt's say-so to convince me that there is any such law allowing such "awards" to judges, or that Congress would ever appropriate money for any such purpose.

Are you asking Hurt to show you the law?

[wserra]

A judge, the DOJ attorneys, and the IRS agents might all receive such bribes, especially in high-profile cases.

Or a "bobhurt", in payment for leading his sheep to the shearing. It's at least as likely as a judge - if discovered, a judge would get indicted, "bobhurt" would get a medal.

Think about it.

[Noah]

Baloney. Cryer's arguments were rejected by the Court in his own case. The case then went to the jury. The jury found him not guilty.

Cryer's arguments were good enough for the Government to drop the tax evasion charges the morning of the trial. That left only the failure to file charges for trial. At the trial the Court did not reject any of Cryer's arguments. The only issue for the Jury to decide was...did Cryer believe what he said he believed?. Whether his beliefs were correct or not was not an issue. Even if they were correct he still had to prove to the Jury he believed them. One should read Cryer's Motions to Dismiss , Memorandum and his Notebook . There must have been something in them for the Government to drop the evasion charges at the last minute before the trial started. Now I bet they wished they had dropped the failure to file charges also. The Jury found him not guilty before the second cup of coffee was finished. I gotta be wrong somewhere but I am sure I will hear where...