Chief Justice William Rehnquist of
the United States Supreme Court Admits No 'Failure To File'
Income Tax Law Exists!
It can all be found here: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2001/january.html#00-1831 http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-1831.pdf Read all of page 5 & 6, lines 9 thru
24 of the oral argument! Read the case here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html In the transcript of the Oral Argument:
He (Chief Justice Rehnquist) and the United States attorney (Kent
Jones) admit there is NO statute (LAW) that makes it a crime for
"failure to file" an income tax return! QUOTE:
"I'm not familiar with a statute that makes that a crime by
itself" ..."but the fact that you didn't
file...frankly...it's my impression that that would not by itself
be a crime". ..then it says on pg. 6 lines 20-25 of the
transcript, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
William Rehnquist said: "We'd better not let the word get
out"..."We'll keep it just among ourselves"... and
they have the nerve to laugh about it! The attorney then defers
all Title 18 (??) questions to Justice Kennedy. UNITED STATES V.
CRAFT (00-1831) Web-accessible at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UNITED
STATES, PETITIONER v. SANDRA L. CRAFT No. 00 1831 Justice Thomas,
with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.
"That the federal tax lien did not attach to the Grand
Rapids property is further supported by the consensus among the
lower courts. For more than 50 years, every federal court
reviewing tenancies by the entirety in States with a similar
understanding of tenancy by the entirety as Michigan has
concluded that a federal tax lien cannot attach to such property
to satisfy an individual spouses tax liability.8 This consensus
is supported by the IRS consistent recognition, arguably against
its own interest, that a federal tax lien against one spouse
cannot attach to property or rights to property held as a tenancy
by the entirety.9" Footnote 8: See IRS v.
Gaster, 42 F.3d 787, 791 (CA3 1994) (concluding that the IRS is
not entitled to a lien on property owned as a tenancy by the
entirety to satisfy the tax obligations of one spouse); Pitts v.
United States, 946 F.2d 1569, 1571 1572 (CA4 1991) (same); United
States v. American Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 255 F.2d 504, 507
(CA5), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 835 (1958) (same); Raffaele v.
Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 622 623 (CA3 1952) (same); United States
v. Hutcherson, 188 F.2d 326, 331 (CA8 1951) (explaining that the
interest of one spouse in tenancy by the entirety property is not
a right to property or property in any sense ); United States v.
Nathanson, 60 F. Supp. 193, 194 (ED Mich. 1945) (finding no
designation in the Federal Revenue Act for imposing tax upon
property held by the entirety for taxes due from one person
alone); Shaw v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 245, 246 (WD Mich.
1939) (recognizing that the nature of the estate under Michigan
law precludes the tax lien from attaching to tenancy by the
entirety property for the tax liability of one spouse). See also
Benson v. United States, 442 F.2d 1221, 1223 (CADC 1971)
(recognizing the Government s concession that property owned by
the parties as tenants by the entirety cannot be subjected to a
tax lien for the debt of one tenant); Cole v. Cardoza, 441 F.2d
1337, 1343 (CA6 1971) (noting Government concession that, under
Michigan law, it had no valid claim against real property held by
tenancy by the entirety). Footnote 9: See, e.g.,
Internal Revenue Manual §5.8.4.2.3 (RIA 2002), available at
WESTLAW, RIA IRM database (Mar. 29, 2002) (listing property owned
as tenants by the entirety as among the assets beyond the reach
of the Government s tax lien); id., §5.6.1.2.3 (recognizing that
a consensual lien may be appropriate when the federal tax lien
does not attach to the property in question. For example, an
assessment exists against only one spouse and the federal tax
lien does not attach to real property held as tenants by the
entirety. ); IRS Chief Counsel Advisory (Aug. 17, 2001) (noting
that consensual liens, or mortgages, are to be used as a means of
securing the Government s right to collect from property the
assessment lien does not attach to, such as real property held as
a tenancy by the entirety (emphasis added)); IRS Litigation
Bulletin No. 407 (Aug. 1994) ( Traditionally, the government has
taken the view that a federal tax lien against a single
debtor-spouse does not attach to property or rights to property
held by both spouses as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS
Litigation Bulletin No. 388 (Jan. 1993) (explaining that neither
the Department of Justice nor IRS chief counsel interpreted
United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983), to mean that a
federal tax lien against one spouse encumbers his or her interest
in entireties property, and noting that it do[es] not believe the
Department will again argue the broader interpretation of
Rodgers, which would extend the reach of the federal tax lien to
property held by the entireties); Benson, supra, at 1223;
Cardoza, supra, at 1343.
**********************************************************************************
LET'S STOP
KIDDING OURSELVES! 9-11 was an Israeli-backed spanking on
our
collective American bottom! A Boeing 757 DIDN'T pierce through
six walls of the
Pentagon (impossible + no aircraft debris), a late model cruise
missile did the job;
the Twin Towers DIDN'T collapse due to heat (impossible),
demolition charges
did the job; there were NO Arab hijackers (the jets were
guided electronically);
and the Zionists/Judeo-Christians now in control of the United
States are traitors
to the U.S. Constitution... as well as being mass murderers.This
has been a Zionist
WAG THE DOG operation from the start, deadly serious for our
elected leaders
WHO KNOW WHO'S GUILTY, and an Arabian Nights charade for Mom and
Pop
in Littletown, U.S.A.! It's an info war! Forward this to the
world! henri@alaska.net