• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another IRS tax case.

boyntonstu

Banned
B
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
908
Another IRS tax case
http://www.penaltyprotester.org/files/GJCourtOrder10.12.09.pdf

Why don't the IRS attorneys show the Court what the Law is that requires Springer to file a 1040?

To the guys who are so sure about the Income Tax, why don't you help the government attorneys?

“The court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars because the

government, in its trial brief, wrote (under the heading “Required to File by Law”)

that “Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder)

specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 138, at 12. The

court was of the opinion when it entered its order on October 8, and is still of the

opinion, that if regulations are important enough to the government’s case to be

referred to at all, then they should be cited specifically. It seems passing strange that,

in this criminal tax case, the government would see fit to refer generally to operative

regulations, but resist informing the defendant (and, by the way, the court) as to what

it refers to when it writes about “the regulations thereunder.”

Just asking.
 
Last edited:
What are you just asking? Why Springer won't pay the penalties acquired over years of these silly lawsuits? Your question isn't clear. Springer makes the issue the 1040, but the penalties have nothing to do with the 1040. Springer uses the PRA to avoid paying taxes, period. I don't understand what you are asking.

Or are you trying to imply that there is no federal law requiring us to pay income taxes?
 
sugarb said:
What are you just asking? Why Springer won't pay the penalties acquired over years of these silly lawsuits? Your question isn't clear. Springer makes the issue the 1040, but the penalties have nothing to do with the 1040. Springer uses the PRA to avoid paying taxes, period. I don't understand what you are asking.

Or are you trying to imply that there is no federal law requiring us to pay income taxes?
Click to expand...

Law? What specific Law?

From the same Judge's order.

"Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s motion is a motion for extension of time, it is GRANTED. "

The government asked for an extension of time to produce the Law that requires Springer (or you) to file a 1040.

Why is that?

You seem to know the Law.

Why don't you show the Law to the government attorneys so that they do not have to ask for additional time to look for it?
 
Last edited:
ktesibios said:
The portion of the ever-useful Tax Protester FAQ concerning the validity of the Internal Revenue Code as a whole may be helpful:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

Another good source for information about TP claims is the Quatloos forum:

TAX FRAUD, TAX PROTESTERS, & SOVEREIGN CITIZEN SCAMS
Click to expand...

Why don't the attorneys ask Evans or Quatloos for their answers?

Better yet, use the deja vu argument.

Deja vu seems enough for many here.

Ask yourself this question:

"Why is the prouction of the Law that requires anyone to file a 1040 so difficult for the government attorneys to find that it requires them to ask for an extension of time?"


An IRS question that is answered here in minutes cannot be answered by government attorneys in weeks.

Do you not find that interesting?
 
boyntonstu said:
Ask yourself this question:

"Why is the prouction of the Law that requires anyone to file a 1040 so difficult for the government attorneys to find that it requires them to ask for an extension of time?"
Click to expand...

What do you think the answer to that is?

An IRS question that is answered here in minutes cannot be answered by government attorneys in weeks.

Do you not find that interesting?
Click to expand...

Not particularly.

Of course, I've long since gotten tired of the "leading question" method of arguing conspiracy theories.
 
boyntonstu said:
Law? What specific Law?

From the same Judge's order.

"Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s motion is a motion for extension of time, it is GRANTED. "

The government asked for an extension of time to produce the Law that requires Springer (or you) to file a 1040.

Why is that?

You seem to know the Law.

Why don't you show the Law to the government attorneys so that they do not have to ask for additional time to look for it?
Click to expand...

Why does anybody ask for an extension?

You are really stretching here, people ask and have cases continued all the time!
 
boyntonstu said:
\
"Why is the prouction of the Law that requires anyone to file a 1040 so difficult for the government attorneys to find that it requires them to ask for an extension of time?"


An IRS question that is answered here in minutes cannot be answered by government attorneys in weeks.

Do you not find that interesting?
Click to expand...

Not especially. Drafting legal documents is a time-consuming process. I can simply print out a FAQ, but it wouldn't fit the proscribed form.
 
Dancing David said:
Why does anybody ask for an extension?

You are really stretching here, people ask and have cases continued all the time!
Click to expand...

Question to IRS attorneys: "What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?"

Answer: "We can't answer that question today, please give us some time to look for the answer".

No problem?
 
boyntonstu said:
Law? What specific Law?

<snip>
Why don't you show the Law to the government attorneys so that they do not have to ask for additional time to look for it?
Click to expand...

The government's case is fine. The fact that you are misusing the term "the law" is of no concern to them. They will win this case and Springer will lose.

From the FAQ link ktesibios provided:
Not understanding the legal process, or the meaning of “law.” (E.g., “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong? Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?”)

I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.”

Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases.

So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897).

The process of law is also a process of consensus. We have a variety of procedures, some political, some judicial, and some bureaucratic, for determining what the law should be and how it should be applied. If we don’t like the results, we have ways of changing the results and, when there are conflicts, we have ways of resolving conflicts. However, when the courts, the legislatures, and the voters all agree on what the law is, then that is what the law is. The fact that some people believe that the law should be different that what courts have said it is doesn’t mean that the law is different from what the courts have said, but only that they should argue their positions within the political system and attempt to change the results.

In the case of the income tax, there is no conflict. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it.

So this FAQ states what “the law” is, because a judge will rule against the tax protester arguments described in this FAQ 100% of the time. Not 95% of the time, or even 99.999% of the time. 100.00%.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
boyntonstu said:
Question to IRS attorneys: "What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?"

Answer: "We can't answer that question today, please give us some time to look for the answer".

No problem?
Click to expand...

Well, one problem I see is you making up answers and putting them in quotation marks to pretend that's really what someone else said.
 
boyntonstu said:
Question to IRS attorneys: "What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?"

Answer: "We can't answer that question today, please give us some time to look for the answer".

No problem?
Click to expand...

So, it happens all the time, you don't like stays, continuances and motions to extend, too bad.

They are more common than dirt.
 
boyntonstu said:
Question to IRS attorneys: "What Law requires anyone to file a 1040?"

Answer: "We can't answer that question today, please give us some time to look for the answer".

No problem?
Click to expand...
Obviously you think there's a problem. What problem do you have with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom