Cedric K. and Madelyn D. Nunn - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          read a prepared statement into the record.  The statement was               
          filed with the Court as petitioners’ trial memorandum.                      
               In the prepared statement, petitioners claimed that the                
          Federal income tax is unconstitutional.  Petitioners asserted               
          that their constitutional rights have been violated and they are            
          the victims of an elaborate fraud perpetrated by respondent.                
          Petitioners stated that respondent does not have jurisdiction               
          over them or their documents.  Petitioners claimed that the                 
          filing of a tax return is voluntary and that respondent                     
          fraudulently coerced them into believing that filing tax returns            
          was mandatory.                                                              
               After petitioners’ statement was read into the record, the             
          Court informed petitioners that the Supreme Court has held that             
          the imposition of a Federal income tax is constitutional and that           
          the arguments petitioners set forth have been rejected by every             
          court presented with these claims.  The Court warned petitioners            
          that proceeding with their argument could subject them to a                 
          penalty up to $25,000.                                                      
               The Court encouraged petitioners to conduct further research           
          and carefully read the caselaw before proceeding with their                 
          misconceived arguments at trial.  The Court repeatedly admonished           
          petitioners that their arguments have been consistently rejected            
          by all courts presented with the issue and that a penalty of up             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011