Quote from: bbeagle on April 25, 2014, 01:32:54 PM

Quote from: Sage on April 25, 2014, 06:40:44 AM

You really think you'll get any rule of law in the tax court?

Here's a few quotes from the tax court for you to ponder...

"I will not allow the law in my courtroom"
U.S. District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson

And another quote by the same traitor to the Constitution & the American people...
"You must follow the law as I give it to you."

Wake up. They don't follow the law.

The only solution to the Federal Reserve scam & their collection agency the IRS is to refuse to participate.

Treat them like you would the mob. Keep all assets out of their reach. And simply refuse to participate in that scam.

Okay. I read what you wrote. It sounded unbelievable, so I looked it up myself.

Yes, Judge Kent J. Dawson did indeed say, "I will not allow the law in my courtroom". But what he said is being misinterpreted. He did NOT say that his court is lawless, but instead was following the laws of the court.

Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted.

It would take too much of the court's time to (a) prove that the crime was actually a law broken, (b) prove the defendant guilty/innocent. So, after an incident is brought up to the court - part A is decided BEFORE THE TRIAL. Part B is decided upon AT THE TRIAL. All lawyers know this. Otherwise every single trial would take 10 time what it does now, because the law would have to be proven again and again and again.

So, when you go to court to fight 'not paying your taxes', you CANNOT claim that 'there is no law that says you must pay your taxes'. There is assumed to be a law (or the court case would have been thrown out previously).

Anything Sage says in the future, I'll have to verify, or I won't believe now. He's taking things out of context.

Yes, you won't get the 'rule of law' in the tax court, i.e. whether the tax law is legal or not - you only get to defend yourself against the existing tax code.

Spoken like a lawyer who tries to twist the truth.

"Assumed to be a law"... What kind of court is that won't even allow the law (or lack of) to be introduced into the case that the defendant is said to be breaking.

"I will not allow the law in my courtroom" was Dawson's response to Irwin Schiff's attempt introduce supreme court rulings to support his case. Completely relevant rulings to his case.

Yes, they used every dirty trick in the book in that case. Every dirty trick. It could not be more blatant a railroad job. Read the transcripts yourself, bbeagle. Then reread your last post, and laugh at your logic... cause it's laughable to try to use that logic to justify Dawson's own comments.

Lastly, if there was a law that obligated the average American to pay the income tax they most certainly would allow it in the court room... rather then using all this skullduggery.

Wake up! There's a reason tax cases aren't tried in a true criminal court.