Sunday, September 23, 2018

Closing Arguments

by Credo (writer), I practice living in the Spirit, October 29, 2007


The Weapons of the Tax Court and the Defense and Rebuttals of their Contentions.

"Your honor I object to these proceedings as it is a violation of jurisdiction in which I hold myself under the constitution of the law and not of private law. I am a state Citizen of the state of New York a resident of queens and not a member or citizen of the commonwealth."

Judge: "Objection denied."



My Response:

"I wish to make an objection your honor and that, that objection be noticed on the record. On the grounds that the statement is injurious to the case and it purports to make a ruling before the conclusion of law. Suggesting a foregone conclusion and further calls for an opinion, I motion to strike."

Court Anylasis:
In response to the prosecutions assertions that the defendant/petitioner's arguments are reminiscent of tax protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts first implies that in this court the defendant will not be allowed an ear of jurisprudence, that the court is establishing or has already established a case of narrow-mindedness against the defendant without the independent reexamination of the law which is expected during each and every individual case.

To cite previous cases is however valid only if the opposing cases are taken into consideration as well and a fair legal standard can not be applied otherwise. If any statement or argument that the defendant/petitioner has asserted in these court proceedings is considered as rhetoric by the courts then it would be lawfully impossible to sustain a fair trial in such a repugnant atmosphere.

To be branded a tax-protester further signifies the offensive and vile enmity that the prosecution feels towards the defendant, or towards any so called tax protestor's cases and towards any true sense of reasoning.

If we are truly here in the capacity of legal discovery it must be granted that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty without the repugnant implications of guilt nor guilt by any associations to others who may have used some of the same arguments in the past. I formally reject the slander against me used by the prosecution and the detestable nature in which it was applied, I firmly believe that laws and courts where instituted to seek and clarify the legal obligations which are instituted by such laws and not to slander defame or miss-characterize guests of the court without proof and without merit.

Court Judge:

The court was concerned that by rejecting such a ridiculous contention with "copious citation," it might lend the appearance that the 861 argument, and others employed by PETITIONER, are rational, or viable arguments, so they just dismissed it all as "tax-protestor rhetoric." The court also specifically stated that other courts have rejected these arguments. If the court will not address them, how can you offer it to people as a viable defense?

My Response:

Your Honor it is by nature and by general consensus that we should shut off our ears when we have heard an intense sound for a long time. However when we do so we can no longer hear, we have lost the capacity to here the many different sounds or their motivations because we have already judged sound to be annoying repugnant and even frivolous, and in doing so we have become death and unable to hear similar sounds from a different perspective. If the courts will not entertain any of my reasoning's and will not formally address my arguments because of past judgments on others of a similar nature then there is no rightful jurisprudence available, to hear and make a proper ruling according to the law. By ruling in this way the courts limits the opportunity for justice to prevail and it further suggest that irrational behavior now rules, while that those who the prosecutor has deemed as Tax Protestors have a valid claim against the government and against the law. The 861 argument is a claim that is growing in this nation; it is one claim among many that I am sure that the courts are filled to capacity trying to delegate. It is cases like these that filament collective future cases of this nature in view of the fact that your lack of discussion and debate on these issues continues to send the message to the public that the government has something to hide. If the income tax and the laws which delegate them are verifiable then debate it in open court, present the laws as it pertains to common law the supreme law of the land and demonstrate to the world that the law for such experiments firmly exist. It is essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income", and to apply that distinction according to truth and substance, without regard to form. In that instruction, the high Court has told Congress that it has absolutely no power to define "income" because that term was considered by the Court to be a part of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

[[Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189]
[emphasis added]


Strike the last statement from the record, counselor inform your client that if he ignores instructions of this court he will be in contempt. I am the judge and I will instruct the jury, in this court I am the law. you may continue however don't cite any laws here.

Defending lawyer:

Yes sir

My Response:

It is extremely cankerous towards our moral nature to legally administrate on the assumption of the definition of gross income or income tax, when the laws remain unclear and the judicial branch of government hasn't the power to define, characterize or legislate the meaning of income or purpose such constitutional amendments.

(Trail continues and so on but for the interest of this story we shall convene to the closing stages )

Closing arguments:

(Petitioner's assertions)

I fear that as a legal shadow within the scope of government and its judicial process I will be unable to receive a speedy yet fair trail. I fear that because of the nature of my venue and the regime of my persecutors who by all preponderance of the law has no jurisdiction over my person nor over this case and who find themselves in conflict with the interest and outcome of this case will make it fiendishly incorrect-able a ruling of excellent law. I am accused like many of my comrades of tax evasion, and of being a tax protester, yet I wager to decent as I have paid taxes during my sleeping and waking hours of my life, paying for services in every quarter with road, and poll, savings and loan, buy and sale, to real estate and property, to travel, and state, city and FICA, to purchases and investments; Sir taxes cannot be evaded. There is no escape from such taxes we all pay them, but it is tyranny and enslavement that we should be usurped and stripped from what remains of our labor. That we should pay the government as if we pay the extortionist, the crime syndicate, mobsters or the mob who have historically rob us of our labor. And should you find the ruling that you seek it will only stand to notify the general public that there is no true law which resides in the land, it will further stimulate the curiosity of millions of people throughout the country and among the world as it already has, who now realize that income taxes is constructively illegal and secretly fraudulent. Cases like this one will continue to motivate many citizens to search for the truth of the law, a law that they will never find, one that you will never present, and a law that is extremely repugnant to all Americans. If the law is not readily available then how can it be followed, if we can not discuss the law then how can the truth be clarified and declared, if by the Codes of the IRS the law has been made perplexing and mystifying then how can it be understood by inmates of the system and carried out by such police forces within our government? It will become increasingly insolvent to save the future from mounting cases as our children will certainly be snared in this same web of legal misconduct. Soon it will be apparent that no cause is greater than the truth that all men are created equal, and no law can suppress the tides of such truth.

My Response:

The validity of the 16th Amendment- The fact that this Amendment was not ratified by the accumulated states makes this law unconstitutional and not valid. In addition we must note the processes that denote the ratification of any new proposed laws in order to clarify such procedure evident of any misconduct in proceedings. This Amendment as legally defined does not create or institute any new laws of taxation. Yet while the Constitution continues to hold the key to the doors of congressional sanctions the preponderance of actual laws inherent its attributes from that Constitution. Therefore had the 16th amendment been ratified it still would not be considered actual law unless it specifically complies with the attributes of the Constitution. The attributes and attitude of the Constitution implies the powers of the government to be used as such that they service the people and the rights of the people as the actual power of the government and therefore because of all the various short comings to the income tax system we as the people submit that the American citizen can not legally be taxed by way of the income tax, as it has prevailed as an instrument of obstruction to the purpose and reason of the Constitution (life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness of the people).

Without reason and constructive commonality of understanding the laws presented by the IRS and its IRC has placed a veil of confusion on the face of law that never before confused the law makers and its keepers. Any law that is constructed has to be verified by the federal register it has to seek council with congress and it has to undergo the trials of state ratification and should they find that these new proposals of law does not meet with the precedent already established by the constitution then it is concluded that not even congress has the power to make it a law, in effect congress hasn't been given the power to change a single word of that esteemed document. Therefore with out due process it is unconscionable that we should seek the opinions of Judges who are our servants or their master the IRS who are not even Americans but mere foreign corporations and bankers who dance politically for the unseen narrators and the criminally insane or congress who has conceded to this larceny and the extortion of this nation.

Generally in these cases the courts and Judges have already sided with the government (IRS) and this in and by itself serves as a major conflict of interest and formulates a wall that is established firmly against any justice. To me justice is the truth of all matters which is adhered to by law, to these people justice and the constitution which serves it is considered not of their jurisdictions and as they say "doesn't apply in these proceedings". Some cases will not tolerate law spoken in the courts while others simply prohibit you from presenting your evidence, yet the ultimate aim is to win the case regardless of justice truth or the law. And by reason of these considerations the courts system has become foreign to the law while legislating from its bench. They have maintained that the people's legal complaints to be frivolous and fraudulent while the biggest fraud in the history of the earth continues to copyright the laws of this land.

As the end justifies the means they have imprisoned people who's rights were violated and their legal misconduct has further led the campaign of misappropriation as they use the income tax to fund wars and foreign causes. Al Capone was as reported a man of reproach who was said to be actively involved with the crime syndicate yet even he has been USED by the IRS because if the truth be told he was not arrested for income tax evasion, he was imprisoned for liquor taxes. This lie had served to suggest to the population that the IRS had the legal right to claim your income which they never had before the 14th and the 16th Amendments were forced into private law. You may be serene enough (old enough) to remember the Brown Bomber better known as Joe Louis who was one of the greatest prize fighters in our history, he also was one of America's greatest patriots who by allowing himself to be inducted into the army likewise inducted millions of black and white men who loved and respected him (something that the government was counting on). But his patriotism didn't stop there, when he returned from the army he gave millions of dollars to the government to help support them, his faith in the government was seen in his active participation to represent his country even when he fought Max Schmeling (Schmeling fought Joe in and out of the ring as he too had joined the army in Germany). Their lives and fights intersected while Europe was at war and the rest of the world was about to join in (World War II, 1939-1945), and Joe the American and Max the German became proxies for their rival nations. When Louis visited the White House at the President's request, FDR told him, "Joe, we need muscles like yours to beat the Nazis." (Joe Louis had the muscles of millions of men and they knew if he joined then they would join too)

Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler's henchmen, wrote to Schmeling after he won the first fight with Louis on June 19, 1936 saying, "I know you fought for Germany, that it was a German victory. We are proud of you. Heil Hitler'" Such was the heated atmosphere of the Louis and Schmeling fights.

After the climactic Louis-Schmeling rematch (Joe had lost the first fight with Schmeling and he later returned to win in the second match) on June 22, 1938 in Yankee Stadium, the film "Save Us Joe Louis" will follow the fighters into their postwar and post-boxing lives , and such is the patriotism of both men.

However because we have two governments((the one who represents the Citizens of the 50 states and the One who represents the Feds, the IRS and the Commonwealth) Joe Louis was indicted for income taxes he did not owe, and so in scuffling to pay these crooks he was seen struggling to recoup from this scam, he died a very poor man. In conclusion: as it were, to beseech the courts in recollection of the many suicides, runaways, the many people who have been illegally levied, who had their homes raided and bank accounts imposed; out of respect for those who have lost their homes or their businesses to an unclear authority under a misguided law, and to the uncountable few who we include herein we struggle against principalities that spouts political wars. Where it is honored truth will prevail, if it is available and where justice is equitable the laws will finally contain the presents of its people.

In reference

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people,
or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power,
they put themselves into a state of war with the people,
who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience..."

John Locke -- 1690

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is
absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when we
realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one
way or another, by a few very powerful men at the top, you
will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate.”
-- U.S. President James Garfield.
A few weeks after making this statement, he was assassinated on July 12, 1818

“There is no distinctly native, American criminal class, except Congress”.
Samuel Clemens, a/k/a author “Mark Twain”:

The use of the word Federal in the name federal Reserve leads the public to believe that the Federal Reserve is a government institution, when it is really a private corporation owned by foreign and domestic banks and operated for profit. The FED controls nation’s money supply and interest rates, and thereby manipulates the entire economy, in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution that expressly charges Congress with power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution says: No State shall make any thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts.
“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a
tender in payment of debts.”
-- Article One, Section 10, of the U. S. Constitution
It has never been repealed.


“The Fed is NOT part of the government. It is privately owned
by a select group of powerful individuals and private banking
cartels. Its express purpose is to fleece the American people
by stealing our money under the pretext of “central banking
system” that calls itself “Federal.” Yet it is no more a part
of, or controlled by, the Federal Government than is Federal
 Devvy Kidd


We shall not painstakingly address petitioner's assertions "with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the deficiency determined by respondent." (Emphasis added)

Jury convenes and brings back a unanimous decision, of guilty

Judge: it is clear that you have attempted to evade the income tax. In this case jail time is certain. I hope you learned something here today, and let this be a lesson to our citizens to keep in mind that paying the income tax is law.

About the Writer

Credo is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

1 comments on Closing Arguments

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By Credo on December 02, 2007 at 12:05 am
Never seen it, but the intention is there though. Thanks Credo
 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us