Another IRS case WON


Paul Thomas, CPA

CONtrary (emphasis on con) to posts made by a known liar, tax cheat, former
pilot, former bus driver, convicted racist, convicted of violently attacking
a law enforcement officer, and just a plain loser; the facts tell a
different story:

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 93-3171






Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 93 CR
285--William T. Hart, Judge.


Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and WELLFORD,*
Circuit Judges.

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.

After conviction by a jury in the district court for
tax evasion (violation of 26 U.S.C. sec. 7201) and for
failure to file tax returns for the calendar years 1988
through 1991 (violation of 26 U.S.C. sec. 7203), defendant,
Thomas E. Hauert, has appealed his convictions and sentences
to this court.

Conceding that he had failed to file federal income tax
returns since 1986, Hauert first maintains that the
district court erred "in allowing the government to
introduce evidence of defendant's compromise and settlement
negotiations in a 1984 civil tax case." Next, he asserts
error by the trial judge in "denying defendant an
opportunity to present lay opinion testimony . . . relevant
to the issue of good faith." Hauert also challenges certain
jury instructions given by the district court applicable to
his claimed "good faith" defense. He avers, moreover,
prosecutorial misconduct denying him a fair trial, and,
finally, that the government erroneously shifted the burden
of proof from the prosecution. We discuss these grounds of
Hauert's appeal seriatim.


So, Thomas E. Hauert was found guilty and he appealed his conviction.

So, now, let's skip down to the finale:


For the reasons indicated, we AFFIRM the jury verdict and the judgment of
the district court.


That guy lost, just as you have lost Eldon.




This article on Hauert was apparently dredged up from:

By the poster on this website:

Practical Application
Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code (tax code of
the Infernal Revenue Stealers) starts with the words,
"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated
tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made
under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records,
or supply any information..." So who is a "person required?"
This article appeared in the August 1991 issue of The

"Patriot, Tom Hauert - charged with five counts of 7203
willful failure to file returns in March 1990 - put the prosecuting
U.S. Attorney on the spot in Federal District Court, Chicago. Ill.
At a hearing before the court on October 1st, 1990, Tom
stated that he did not understand the charges. Tom read
from the Internal Revenue Code the first three words of
Section 7203, "Any person required." Then he asked,
"How is it established in this section that I am one of those
persons required?" The judge read and reread that section,
and finally admitted that he understood that Tom was asking
for the statute that creates the determination of who is required.
The judge said, "Mr. Prosecutor, you can provide a copy of
that statute, can't you?" At that point the prosecuting attorney
started stammering and stuttering, and said he wasn't familiar
with that part of the Code, and the judge told him to find
someone to help find it. Well, it's now May 1991... and the
government has not provided the information. For ten years
Tom wrote many letters to the IRS, asking what statute made
him liable? Neither the IRS, nor the government attorney has
ever told him or shown him the statute that made/makes him
liable. Could it be there is none? That's correct, there isn't any
statute that makes a citizen within the fifty states liable.

That's why Congress said, "Our tax system is based on
voluntary self-assessment." So don't gripe about high taxes
if you voluntarily assess yourself."

Most people living in the so-called "USA" automatically take
it for granted that they are referents of the term "person required."
Tom Hauert didn't. In a criminal case the judge has to ask the
accused if he or she understands the charges. Mr. Hauert
effectively said, "No. I don't understand the charges because
I don't see how they could possibly apply to me. For the
charges to apply to me, the prosecution will have to show that
I am a "person required."" It so happens that there's nothing in
the tax code that establishes that Mr. Hauert is a referent of
the term (symbol) "person required." End of court case.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The fact that a jury recently found Tom Cryer
of Louisiana "NOT GUILTY" of failure to file
shows that another "scheme' is in place
whereby Mr. Hauert was evidently convicted
and his appeal failed.

And, that scheme is exposed by Eldon' Warman's
factual information regarding the "Name Game",
whereby, if the accused party uses and accepts
the State owned birth certificate name, the accused
human party becomes of the status of "plantation
slave" - a "person".

And, as an accused "disobedient slave", the
party is treated as the following blog shows
Roman disobedient slaves were treated:

Under Roman law they called "disobedient slaves"
"homo sacer". This was a human who could be
killed by anyone, without the killer ever being
guilty of homicide.

In fact, the idea of "homo sacer" was contrived
as an excuse to impose justitium, or a state of
exception, that is to say a suspension of civil
liberties and the imposition of martial law.
"The so-called sacred and unalienable rights
of man prove to be completely unprotected
at the very moment it is no longer possible
to characterize them as rights of the "citizens"
of a state." Unquote

[Remember: ]
The USA is under Roman Municipal Law.
Roman Law = make-believe ship (corporate)
Municipal Law = Law governing a DEBTOR State
Body Politic = Corporate body (make-believe ship)

In the Roman system, all statutes and laws are
applicable to "persons" only, and not to free will
humans. "Person" means a false or fictional
status imposed upon a free will human. That
status is "subject/citizen/slave".
Citizen = slave with granted privileges.

Further notes:
The American Government imposed this Roman
law on escaped slaves, and their statute says
- Section 6, Fugitive Slave Act 1850:

"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the
testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted
in evidence;" And then continues to say that
the "certificate" of the agent is sufficient
for conviction (guilty as charged), and that
no suit can be brought against the agents
of the master/owner of the slave.


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question