Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[bobbinville]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

[David Merrill]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

My impression of the appeals process is much more that Doreen has to convince the appeals justices that there was a major flaw in the process of the trial court; which is to say an even tougher task. Especially considering the charge against her is more along the lines of contempt of a court order, which she pretty much admits to by signature on the papers.

[David Lyn]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. .

The courts don't care what the law says. They make bogus decisions. The Supreme Court has NEVER said that a direct yet unapportioned tax is constitutional, yet the IRS says this is what they are imposing on us. In fact the Supremes have said in Brushaber that a direct unapportioned tax is UNconstitutional. The courts can't let us know the truth.

[shikamaru]

The courts don't care what the law says. They make bogus decisions. The Supreme Court has NEVER said that a direct yet unapportioned tax is constitutional, yet the IRS says this is what they are imposing on us. In fact the Supremes have said in Brushaber that a direct unapportioned tax is UNconstitutional. The courts can't let us know the truth.

Income taxes are classified as excise and ultimately indirect taxes.

Only two items in federal history have been taxed directly, land and slaves (U.S. v. Springer 1880).

[David Lyn]

I understand that. I can't help what the IRS says. It CLEARLY states that Brushaber says the 16th authorized a direct unapportioned tax. Google "the truth about frivolous tax arguments" and scroll to the "some say the 16th amendment does not authorize a direct yet unapportioned tax" and see for yourself. I understand it is an indirect tax. I can't help what the IRS claims to understand. I can also find places where they say it is an indirect tax under Article 1 Section 8. They are, you might say, schizophrenic