Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[bobbinville]

I assure you that I am well familiar with how our court system works. As for the rest of your post -- I didn't come on here to stir up trouble or get into debates; so I'll just say that I disagree with you and leave it at that.

[bobbinville]

Well, you can believe that Jennifer Lopez is your lawful wedded wife, but that doesn't make her your wife. Likewise, Doreen can believe in the principles of CtC; but unless a court rules in her favor, that law is what the courts say it is, like it or not. The courts are essentially saying to her "you can believe X, but the law requires you to submit a tax return based on Y." She doesn't have to like it, and no one expects her to like it; but when a court tells her to file a tax return according to certain standards, and she insists that she can't do that because she doesn't believe that the court is correct, she is asking for trouble.

It's not what's in the motion that's important; it's what's in the court's decision that's important.

[JohnnyCash]

You are none too happy with Doreen, myself, nor anyone standing up to the IRS, are you?

[John Howard]

I think I hear crickets...

[bobbinville]

You are none too happy with Doreen, myself, nor anyone standing up to the IRS, are you?

Whatever floats your boat, Johnny. If you want to do so in a way which, like Doreen's way, is guaranteed to fail. go right ahead. Doreen can believe that the IRS and the courts are wrong, wrong, wrong when they reject a CtC-educated return; but unless she can come up with a way to make an appellate court see that her position is correct, she is going to lose again, and suffer in the process. The IRS and the courts are telling her that she has no legal basis for believing as she does; so unless she can convince them otherwise, she has as much of a chance to prevail, in this proceeding, as the Houston Astros have of winning the rest of the games in their season and sweeping their way to a World Series championship.

You don't have to like that; but that's the cold, hard way it is. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone standing up to the IRS; but I have little sympathy for someone who keeps on repeating the same old mistakes.

[John Howard]

I would believe that J-Lo was my lawfully wedded wife, if she and I had signed ze paper.

The law is not Bigfoot, it is not a space alien, it is not a secret, allowed to be viewed by only the favored few. It is written in English, and is readily available online for all to see, as are the court cases Doreen cited. Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[John Howard]

Granted, Doreen is in for a fight. No slave owner was ever happy when some presumptuous upstart said let my people go.

[JohnnyCash]

I assure you that I am well familiar with how our court system works.

Rather than your assurances, do you have experience with how the court system works in some capacity?

[bobbinville]

Yes -- but that's only my assurance. I doubt that you'd believe anything I offered you.

As for your opinion/facts dichotomy: when it comes to court cases, the law is what the court decisions say it is - unless and if there is a new decision overturning the first one. Doreen can say all she wants; but until she can elicit a new court decision which overturns the previous adverse decisions, she is doomed.

[David Lyn]

The courts don't care what the law says. Anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves. I have seen a judge personally say the "16th amendment gave Congress the right to tax income" in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court says ".... the 16th Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation.

[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 Merrill]

Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.

I like that.

[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).