Quote from: Sage on April 28, 2014, 06:52:51 AM

Quote from: turvarya on April 28, 2014, 06:47:59 AM

Quote from: Sage on April 26, 2014, 09:13:10 AM

Quote from: bbeagle on April 25, 2014, 02:58:07 PM

Quote from: Sage on April 25, 2014, 01:55:31 PM

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.

Sage, I guess I'm on the other side of the fence than you are, therefore I see this differently. There is nothing for me to 'Wake Up' to - I have a different philosophy than you do. I would say the same 'Wake Up' to you before you end up in jail.

I agree that Americans need to pay the income tax. I know the court MUST use skullduggery because, technically, income tax is not in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with that - because I feel that Americans must all pay income tax for the good of the country, I do not support the idea that you can question this in the court.

There have been numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has ruled that people must pay their taxes. For example, Cheek vs. United States: ' The Court ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.'

OMG what's this waffling?

Now you're openly admitting to the skullduggery used to railroad a man that was exposing the fraud. Whereas before you tried to use lawyer tricks to justify Dawson's skullduggery?

WTF???

It's okay in your book to subvert the Constitution? To do away with the right to due process? To use skullduggery in a courtroom? For a federal judge to railroad a man. Putting him jail for life, because it would expose that fraud?

All because you believe that system is justified? All for the "greater good"...

Where have we heard that kind of logic before... Hint: Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, & every genocidal regime before & since.

Which is exactly what the powers behind the Federal Reserve & the income tax scam are conducting right now... genocide.

Good Lord...bbeagle are you that ignorant? Or just brainwashed beyond hope? Or have they bought you off too?

You obviously don't understand laws.
It's not like every law is written in a constitution. That's not the function of a constitution. A constitution just has some Basic laws.
I don't think, that in your (US) constitution there is anything written about driving too fast. Still, if a cop caught you driving too fast, would you just refuse to pay up, because it "subverts" the constitution?

No turvarya YOU obviously don't understand laws.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights supersedes ANY & all laws of the land. Any law that is unconstitutional is null & void! Otherwise why the hell would we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights?

Perhaps you should stick to commenting about your own country's system of law & not one you're completely ignorant about.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the "The Constitution & Bill of Rights" says, that you are not allowed to drive too fast?

Quote

Otherwise why the hell would we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights?

I already answered that question. Look closely.