I've been doing alot of research about income tax...and wanted to know, can anyone tell me if there's a law that requires us to pay income taxes? If there is, will someone please show it to me?
There has long been argument about the federal income tax laws, both pro and con.
While in fact, there is no law requiring you to pay Income Tax, if you don't and get caught, you may as well be an Arab terrorist for all the rights you will enjoy in court against the IRS.
Here is a link that may be helpful for you.
On November 8, 2002, all 535 Congressmen and the President were formally served four Petitions for Redress of Grievances charging our government with extensive violations of the U.S. Constitution and abuse of the People’s unalienable rights. The Government has repeatedly refused to answer these
well documented, specific charges. Among our assertions is that this nation has gone to War
without a formal Congressional declaration, that the Government lacks any legal jurisdiction to impose a direct income tax upon the People and that the IRS uses fraud and unlawful force in order to
extort income taxes that are not owed under US law.
In addition, we endure the “USA Patriot Act” that openly degrades the unalienable Rights of the People, an unconstitutional, privately owned central bank (i.e., the “Fed”) and a currency backed by nothing but limitless debt. Our Republic is faltering — and this is WHY.
THE SOLUTION: Thousands of Americans are joining together to bring a history altering, professionally litigated class action lawsuit to force the U.S. Government to abide by the Constitution and to answer the People as they are required by the 1st Amendment Right to Petition.
America’s future awaits your decision. Nothing less than our Republic and our Freedom are at stake.
This is Your Invitation
to Join the History Making
Class Action Lawsuit
The Constitution is all that stands between the
People and total government tyranny and loss of
our liberty. It is a set of principles and a legal
construct designed to restrain our limited, servant
government and guarantee the protection of the
People’s unalienable rights for all time.
The Constitution does not defend itself.
We, the American People, MUST DEFEND IT.
We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
www.GiveMeLiberty.org
Try this Amendment to the Constitution:
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And you can followup with US Code Title 23 which is federal law and applicable to everyone. If someone is telling you no such law exists, they and you, are not looking very hard and seem to have an express desire to be willfully deceived.
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 4:37:43 PM
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 4:39:38 PM
You're wrong; it is a law. It's contained within the United State Code which is a compilation of all federal laws.
Exactly right, no matter what they call it, it is part of US Code which is by definition, the laws of the United States. Those who are trying to claim otherwise fall under the part of willfully deluding themselves.
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 5:12:13 PM
If that is the case, why do they such difficulty explaining it to the people that confronted them?
they don't, the ones that are doing the confronting that are not liking the answers.
that's where you've been brain washed by feds to believe otherwise. Yeah they got guns and will stick you behind bars and make other sovereigns believe you're a criminal.
and it would be the same if you break any laws of the US Code. Why would US Code 26 be any different? You got hot bee up your butt about any other part of the US Code? No? I thought not. But yet somehow US Code 26 you feel does not apply to you. I noticed you used the word "sovereigns" which tips me off to the fact that you have swallowed some tax scam artist's scheme hook, link, and sinker. None of these, not one of these, have stood up in any court. Who's the one that is really being brain-washed?
And you haven't given me any reason to think that I'm wrong except "no it's not"
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 5:36:48 PM
If you did a little more research you can find cases that have won in the Supreme court, they just didn't tell the media or advertised like they do everything else to make them look good. Sweetheart please don't take it to the heart, I don't want you to loose your mind debating with me. 
So tell me what those cases are then...
And also add a synopsis of why that case is important, so I'll know what position you are arguing from.
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 5:56:43 PM
Do your research... I'll be back on this later
"It is settled that when the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant -- actually or imputedly -- lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Id., at 1162.
This single case is an adequate demonstration that there is at least one part of the tax code which is unclear and that lack of clarity caused the reversal of Mrs. Critzer's criminal conviction. But there are others; see United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1985) (a prosecution for violating an unclear legal duty abridges principles of due process); United States v. Garber, 607 F.2d 92, 97-98 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Dahlstrom, 713 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Heller, 830 F.2d 150 (11th Cir. 1987); and United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1991). Unclear legal duties in other fields of law besides tax likewise prevent criminal convictions on due process grounds; see United States v. Insco, 496 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1974); People v. Dempster, 396 Mich. 700, 242 N.W.2d 381 (1976); United States v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676, 681-82 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Denemark, 779 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986); and United States v. Larson, 796 F.2d 244 (8th Cir. 1986).
Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, Sect. 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, Sect. 2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, Sect. 9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax?
No I'm not doing the research for you. You've made the claim that these cases exist and it is incumbent upon you to present them. And it seems your research is limited to cutting and pasting from some other site.
So what is the importance of what you pasted? Commentary please.
As for the last paragraph the author seems to have forgotten all about the Sixteenth amendment to the Constitution, thus illustrating another example of willful delusionment.
like, if you're so cocksure about the answer, why in the fuck did you come on here and ask the question?
That's okay you can keep your position until the guy in the white house comes to claim it.
Just goes to show your knowledge of punditry. That was HBO not Comedy Central, and besides it's been shown that viewers of Comedy Central knew more about current events than say the viewers of Faux News. You really know the country's gone to hell when a sock puppet is more credible than the evening anchor on the CBS nightly news.
-- Modified on 12/8/2006 8:53:23 PM
1.pundit schmundit
2. i'm sure you have data
3 i agree
have a nice weekend
1. Appears you have a callous disregard for facts
2. The google search link will give you plenty to chew on: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=comedy+central+viewers+better+informed&spell=1
3. A sock puppet could have done a better job than the currrent pResident.
It seemed you did for a moment. What changed? I really like that attitude, aw shucks, I didn't really care.
"it seemed" "you appear"
you were wrong, that's not my fault
you can still have a nice weekend though
you really have a bug up there...well have a Blessed weekend!!!
...and cannot provide me with a simple law that shows why I have to pay income taxes...to my understanding in these cases, if I'm not a corporation and not making any profits, why should I pay for an even trade???
"... manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation."
The Court clearly held that income taxes inherently belonged to the indirect/excise tax class, but had been converted by Pollock to direct taxes by considering the source of the income; the 16th Amendment merely banished the rule in Pollock. See also Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916), decided the same day.
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 12:13:23 AM
1. Yes, its US Code 26, plain and simple. The fact that you wish to ignore it indicates your incredible desire to remain deluded.
2. Again tell me what your cut and paste stuff means. Otherwise I have to conclude you have no idea what is going on with this stuff.
There are volumes and volumes of gun legislation across this land. The anti-gun faction is behind them as well as the unremitting semantics of "what is a “militia” and to whom does it apply" in regards to the Second amendment. Curiously the Supreme Court has relentlessly refused to rule on this simply worded civil right and its direct message of "The right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed".
I'm an iconoclast by nature; but that does not debase the fact that overall; politicians are self serving crooks who use the obfuscatory nature of law to empower themselves and their benefactors.
Well Said!! At least someone here can relate to me...
I'm sure some of our resident corporatist parasite globalists will balk; but a well done movie on the subject.
If you would like a more 'Hollywooded' movie on the income tax get a copy of "Harry's War"
Very entertaining; yet it only ran for about 3 days in mostly drive-in theaters. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
http://www.amazon.com/Harrys-War-Kieth-Merrill/dp/6301006763
Yeah that documentary brought shivers up my spine at how we the people been deceited!
I will definitely check out Harry's War... thanks!
Oh, btw, I would like to know if you can teach me how to live TAX FREE! Please email me at [email protected]
Thanks Again!
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 5:36:31 PM
That may well be but that has no bearing on whether you have or have not any legal obligation to pay taxes. If you do not like the income tax then elect representatives that will repeal the 16th amendment. It could be done, after all they did repeal the Prohibition Amendment.
On November 8, 2002, all 535 Congressmen and the President were formally served four Petitions for Redress of Grievances charging our government with extensive violations of the U.S. Constitution and abuse of the People’s unalienable rights. The Government has repeatedly refused to answer these
well documented, specific charges. Among our assertions is that this nation has gone to War
without a formal Congressional declaration, that the Government lacks any legal jurisdiction to impose a direct income tax upon the People and that the IRS uses fraud and unlawful force in order to
extort income taxes that are not owed under US law.
In addition, we endure the “USA Patriot Act” that openly degrades the unalienable Rights of the People, an unconstitutional, privately owned central bank (i.e., the “Fed”) and a currency backed by nothing but limitless debt. Our Republic is faltering — and this is WHY.
THE SOLUTION: Thousands of Americans are joining together to bring a history altering, professionally litigated class action lawsuit to force the U.S. Government to abide by the Constitution and to answer the People as they are required by the 1st Amendment Right to Petition.
America’s future awaits your decision. Nothing less than our Republic and our Freedom are at stake.
This is Your Invitation
to Join the History Making
Class Action Lawsuit
The Constitution is all that stands between the
People and total government tyranny and loss of
our liberty. It is a set of principles and a legal
construct designed to restrain our limited, servant
government and guarantee the protection of the
People’s unalienable rights for all time.
The Constitution does not defend itself.
We, the American People, MUST DEFEND IT.
We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
www.GiveMeLiberty.org
A number of people I know have appointed me to numerous websites and I've been reading upon it. I even ordered a book Federal Mafia by Irwin Schiff at www.paynoincometax.com
About two weeks ago I get a link from another friend to this video on google, and it seems that in a way it all starts to make sense. Are we really doing it "voluntarily"???
to pay income taxes...trust me...(knock! knock!)...Oh wait! Who's that at the door? Hel...
Of course, everyone should obey the law. Anyone who is liable to file and pay income taxes should do so. But what if *you personally* come to the good-faith decision that such statutes do not apply to you? Because there's no law...I mean have you seen it? If they coming knocking at my door, that means that my civil and sovereign rights are being violated, am I right?
your civil rights being violated behind bars for the next twelve years. The argument has been tried and failed many times through the years. You can argue it until you are blue in the face but you will still go to jail for a very long time.
...it's funny how we allow the government rule our lives. If there would be enough people to stand up and say enough is enough, we wouldn't have to go through this torture.
it is called revolution and a lot of people would be shot and killed. What country do you think you live in anyway?
...but I doubt that it will be by the way things are. Unless someone takes action!
couldn't pick and choose the laws you wanted to follow. How old are you that you can remember fondly the days without income tax?
...telling me. God gave me life, only he can judge me not the law!
But the law can put you in hell till you die.
The simple answer: you'd listen to your servants because otherwise you'd get lonely.
You don't need God to rationalize that.
...you meant behind bars right? I've been there done it because I did not obey a traffic regulation not a law (that's another story, my attorney kicked ass, he made the judge look stupid, LOL) $$$ talks. Seriously though, if someone violates your rights will you be quiet? I know myself, so therefore, I wouldn't be an easy target, I would make sure I would do whatever that is possible to bring my servant to justice! I love myself and my freedom! I fear no soul!
God has always been there for me, through thick and thin. I have faith in him, always!
-- Modified on 12/14/2006 1:14:44 AM
My answer was based on a guess as to what you were talking about. Your question came out of left field. I thought you referred to a thread I posted to with a different subject. I thought you were referring to my atheism and anti-spiritualism.
So, you're writing about public servants. I have seen this before that objection to taxes and objection to traffic laws come from the same person. So, I know they've been reading it from the same source.
I don't like the way traffic is regulated, but it does absolutely nothing for you to make the distinction between it being a "regulation," and a "law" and a "statute." All it really does is block communications, and make you think you've discovered that one of them is sacred and the other isn't. None of that is real.
In some cases, you can oppose LE directly and win. In most cases, you are in a losing position.
I know a guy who did what you did Except he ended up in the clink for eight months afterward. At the end of that, his career at conscientious objection was over.
I really hate to inform you that you didn't "bring your servant to justice." Did you get anybody fined? Did the officer who arrested you lose his job or get a suspension? Did the judge have to resign. You spent a night in jail. You're servant, the judge, had maybe 20 minutes of embarrassment.
You didn't win, I'd say you got a draw. Congratulations for winning that much. Choose your battles carefully. I've chosen my disobedience with the hobby, and I'm willing to go to jail for that.
I don't fault anyone for wanting to stop paying taxes and pooring good money after bad into the black-hole of spending this or any nation engages in... once our Military protection from other agressive countries is paid for, then Fed spending should be cut off. All other matters of convenience should be handled at a state and local level... That way if we don't like conditions or the tax-burden we can move to an area different area that meets our liking (libs can all move to the high-tax districts and pay to support the "causes" they believe in unstead of forcing the bill up our asses dry for all their welfare bullshit!)
We need a "war-machine" to hold our enemies at bay (and secure oil!, LOL!) other than that fuck the Fed and FUCK the IRS!!!
They will come knocking, and take your stuff, they do it everyday, and they don't need a "law" by which to do it... they can simply because they have more guns... (again, thank's to the anti-gun commie-pinko-fags!)
I agree with you to a certain extent
your alley. It's called Afghanistan. I would prefer to leave here, thank you.
... Of course my statement is just as foolish as yours!
Afganistain is no more desriptive of the place I descibed in my post than you are capable of covering my tax bill!
But what I decribed is in brief the country our founder established! The federal gov. was LIMITED in many ways by them in an attempt to prevent it from growing into what it's become!
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in Afganistain? Seeing how their entire nation is held together by our federal gov. and they are virtually supported by us in a welfare-like system of hand-outs! Sound like your kind of place!
Kabul is held together by our federal government. The rest of the country is ruled by warlords and financed by the heroin trade and we have very little influence over it.
If you want to live in the country our founders established I guess you could move to Amish country. That might be a little closer to what you are looking for. I don't think that they will allow you to have slaves, though.
...You inject "slavery" into your post in an effort to paint me a matching color to the only argument you've got!
Where the fuck did you get "slavery" out of any thing I said???
Ok, you brought it up, here goes... You love to toss aside this nations fundamentals when it serves your purposes, but where would you (or the "slaves")be today without this phrase:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"??
Where do you suspose Lincoln based his thoughts when he saw the injustices of the slave trade?? What do you think those of us in the "North" faught so damn hard to enforce over the "South"???
I'd say those dusty old ideas have served you well...
Before you paint everyone as a "wannabe slave owner" consider that some of us have tall family-trees in this country with deep roots, none of which extend South of the Masion/Dixon line!
was not one of the founding fathers. You are the one who said you wanted to go back to those times.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Those words were around for a long time while the U.S. still had slavery so obviously I'd be in the same place. It was the Civil War that freed the slaves not the Constitution. Sorry but the founding fathers had nothing to do with it.
Honestly, unless you are 160 years old and are the last surviving Union Army soldier, I'd pipe down about how you fought against the South.
Nothing happens overnight in government or history FOOL!
Obviously Lincoln wasn't a founder of this great nation, but he built upon the foundation they layed to bring it to pass!
As far as me having anything to do with freeing slaves, well of course no! I hadn't been born yet! Neither did I have anything to do with enslaving them either, neither would I want any slaves today if it were somehow possible... Your previous post implying that "slavery" would somehow be the deturing factor for me not wanting to become Omish is the most foolish argument ever made on this board!
waxing nostalgically for the government of our forefathers. You have now repudiated your initial premise and resorted to name calling. I don't expect you to acknowledge your error, just to see you sputtering and muttering like a chagrined Donald Duck. Thank you for playing.
If the Fed is limited in the way you give, Corporations will step into the power vacuum. They will diddle with the States governments like pawns. They won't have any more power against Corporate interests than Nigeria or Hondorus. You'll take our nation and turn it into a bunch of 3rd world countries. A military won't stand under those circumstances, because the States supporting it would be economically ruined.
Thanks Ben. I could see there are probably worse people to have in control than the neocons.
...by people who will comply with the tax codes themselves while they will make money putting you behind bars. It is a fraud, and very immoral one, take my word for it. As a provider, if you run afoul of paying taxes, you will find things reported to every other level of LE. They will take every liberty searching your premises for "other crimes." Don't do this!
There is not a government that has ever existed, anywhere period, that does depend on taxes, including this one. They are all dead serious about collecting them. This government is no exception. You make yourself a "conscientious objector" over this and guess what? It will go nowhere else. You don't hear any outcry for the release of Wesly Snipes. That's about as high level a materially interested conscientious objector as you could get.
The statutes are the law of the land. The IRS was established by Congress and is run by the executive taxes. No, people did not start paying taxes simply through inattention. The court rulings you could cite are for loopholes that were *later closed by Congress.*
I will last appeal to your morality: the government and everything it does cannot run without tax revenues. Think of a nation as a club. You pay *dues* to stay in this country and enjoy benefits for being here. If you don't like it, think of a way to run a government without taxes first. Nothing in life is free, including a country around you.
If you don't like how the nation spends money, come up with ways to save it, programs to cut, and agitate against those and call it to the attention of Congress.
I may not be involved politics as alot of people are on this particular board. I am however willing to learn, to learn the truth and know the difference from what is right and wrong. I don't mind the criticism here about the simple question I asked, in all reality I did not think that I was up against a whole lot of men trying to push a woman around. (that does not apply to you but to those that have and still are making "retarded" comments) I am however one person that is willing to work with those and just as you suggested come up with the way our nation spends our money. But then again, there's no real money (gold) such as someone has already mentioned in one of the posts, so I guess I would be talking about the Federal Reserve notes. I am however filing taxes, but untill the day that I know I can do something about, I guess I will retain to be a "good" citizen and keep feeding the IRS so they stay off my back.
What a bunch of Rah-Rah, flag waving, surreptitious sycophantic ass-kissing to a system that allows multi-millionaires to pay as low as 7% while the quickly dying middle class pays as much as 30%.
All the petitioning of Congress for redress of grievances in the world is not going to change the "Golden Rule"
"Those who have all the gold make the rules"
It's not a injustice that could be redressed by opting out of it, either. Civil disobedience isn't very inspiring when you have immediate financial gain. That's not what Thoreau or Gandhi had in mind.
Besides, in being non-compliant, aren't you just getting more gold so you could make the rules?
The rich usually win, but if they always won, we wouldn't have social security, a forty-hour work week, or welfare of any sort. Think of you will of them, but that's true.
Do you know that the original reason for the income tax was as a check on the power of the wealthy? That's why states ratified it. It was a populist/progressive agenda. It did raise government revenues, obviously, but that could have been done enough under apportionment. However, the reason for it was to keep the rich from getting richer. That's why you had 90 percent tax brackets. It's when they tampered with the tax brackets and lowered them that the wealthy became more powerful. It was then that the tax code began to turn into the mess we see today.
And do you know who started it? Not Ronald Reagan. John Kennedy. It was after that where the wealthy began to gain wealth again, which multiplied their political power about 10 times. Now the rich are much richer and have a ridiculous amount of political influence.
Like it or not, I'm a member of a club and have been since birth. That club is a nation-state: the US. It demands dues. Except for Antarctica, there's no space on earth that isn't administered by a nation-state. You'll obviously be free there, there won't be any "injustice" either. You'd freeze to death within the year.
Given those circumstances, being in the club is a far better way to protect my life and liberty.
And I've made the hobby my disobedience of choice-- because it is a matter of freedom.
was founded by tax protestors.
Don't get all pious on me MoFo ;0)
True enough, but what was the rallying cry?
"No taxation without representation".
That was the issue, not taxes per se, but levying of taxes without representation. We now have the representation, which through the US Constitution and its amendment by Congress and the ratification by state legislatures got us to where we are today.
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 2:06:44 PM
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 2:08:03 PM
We are pacified and brainwashed by two ruling political parties answering to the same corporatist machine.
Honestly! What chance do the people or a third party "wild card" major political candidate have in altering the status quo of the present money/power machine. We the people can vote on an issue or a president. If the real powers that be don't like the outcome they ignore it, Put who they wanted in office, and or tie up the decision in the courts indefinitely.
That's true I will agree with you there. But the machinery of democracy is still lying about, you have get up and use it. Over half the people don't vote in any elections, imagine what might be done if they could be motivated. Slouching in your cave hoping that corporate machine doesn't notice you doesn't cut it.
But when all the representatives we elect are approved by the "machine" because they'll support the machine; what chance do we have for real change.
The 10th amendment has all but been scuttled
The 5th is being ignored
The 4th is all but dead
The pussified panty-waists have gutted our 2nd and won't quit until we have to register our kitchen knives with the ATF.
And BUSH-CO has done more to erode our 1st and privacy than I care to think about
Ten or more years back California voted YES on legal medical marijuana use, trade and growing.
The Feds came near too sending in fighter jets in reprisal to the people's vote.
It is no longer what the people want; it is only what big brother wants.
You're not to get much argument from me there, alto I think you maybe too touchy about the 2nd. Last I checked I could still buy handguns, rifles and shotguns, unless you think you have an inaleinable right to own a Sherman tank.
An M1 Abrams tank should be considered common, personal home protection.
Fat lot of good that will do you if they decide to nuke you. But hey I'll let you have a tank, you'll go broke trying to maintain it and that'll fix ya.
I'll settle for a HK MP5 in 40S&W with the full monty suppressor.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 3:20:43 PM
Fat lot of good that will do you if they decide to nuke you. But hey I'll let you have a tank, you'll go broke trying to maintain it and that'll fix ya.
We no longer have a Parliament across an ocean without elected representatives.
What we do have is a populace that disregards the importance of politics. Americans are the most practical people since the Romans. If something does not have immediate importance, it is not considered. We delegate responsibility about it too much.
If representation is failing now, then it's not taxation that's the problem. A government is going to tax regardless. (We might find a way to fix that, however.) Fix the representation.
If you think taxes are bad now, BTW, you should read Thomas Payne's description of the taxes in *Britain* at the time of the revolution. Or you should read how the peasants in Tsarist Russia were taxed. Now that was an example of literally being taxed "to death."
Evading taxes now simply deprives the government of any means to change. The machinery simply begins to break down.
"Evading taxes now simply deprives the government of any means to change. The machinery simply begins to break down."
By this logic we should just give more crack to crack addicts.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 3:26:18 PM
Choose a different metaphor and your perspective changes. Unlike crack, deprive the government completely of money, and you are fucked. Since you agree that the government has to operate on money, the food metaphor is the better one.
In all truth, though, you shouldn't change the subject to crack or food. The metaphor brings you further, not closer to what's happening. It's money that's being talked about, stick with money here.
Otherwise, tax protest leads to weakening or dissolving the government. If it was our only policy, we could have never founded the US.
And I am well aware that you cannot have the security, comforts and services that we do in America with out paying back some to Uncle Sam.
If an accross the board flat tax(no exemptions) of around 10% works; Cool!!
If a national sales tax as demonstrated in the link works; Cool!!
What we have at the present is definetely NOT Cool.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 6:33:38 PM
How often in life have you been able to name your price?
Suppose it turns out that 10 percent is not enough? What would you choose to cut? Payments on the debt?
The government can be more efficient, taxes could be lowered, but the nation is now buried in debt, which ruins all those plans.
Unless you default, in which case, it will bring us into serious depression.
...our country is currently in (and has been)with the bankers but the innocent people are stuck with paying a debt, a mistake that's been done a long time ago by our govt.
much more a soap box than a question.
I agree. Usually the person who raises the issue has just discovered the wonderful world of tax scams.
I kinda lump these people together with creationists, ufologists, psychics and other new age mumbo jumbo.
Is that like the mountain of yearly revisions to the code that only the rich and connected can exploit because they can pay a $500+/hour attorney and accounting firm to weed through and define.
The new American credo:
If it feeds the Corporatists; its legal
If it doesn't; it’s a "scam"
We're talking tax resister scams here. All of them are baloney, bunk and so much blowing smoke up the ass of the perp. The rich and connected have the means and assets to "weed and define" and the stuff they find and do us poor dweebs don't have the assets required to even be concerned about trying to do these loopholes. But yes they should be and could be closed. But that is more the function of uncorrupting Congress so that they vote in the interests of us poor dweebs rather than the privledged few.
The Constitution states that there shall be NO direct capitation.
The Income Tax was written to tax "income". Congress defined "income" as a gain or profit (IE:money made from money)
back.in1909 (4 years before the 13th amendment was ratified)
Wages were defined as a direct barter of time /labor for money and NOT a gain or profit.
The Income Tax taxes 'Dollars' There has not been any 'legal' US "Dollars" in circulation for decades.
ALL of our paper monies are promissory 'notes' and by strict definition of such no longer even constitute a legal "note"
There are no longer ANY legal coins in circulation containing the prescribed weight in either gold or silver as set forth by the coinage act of the late 1700s.
If your money is not derived from interest from bank accounts, stocks, bonds, etc or basic capital gain; by Congressional definition it is NOT taxable.
If you have not been paid in gold or silver dollars or fractions thereof, or in legal silver certificates “notes” redeemable in silver or gold Dollars you are by definition not liable for taxation.
The IRS code mandates all tax debts to be paid in “Legal US Dollars”. Since there are none in circulation NONE of us can legally pay the debt if we somehow incur it.
Our ever benevolent and always venal Federal government has however done an expert job of double talking and dumbing down the masses so that attempting to live and thrive outside of the duplicative system ratified and corrupted over the last 93 years has all but become impractical and marginalizing.
sounds like every tax scam artists MO rolled up into one. thanx for the summary.
First, the clause in the constitution you cite was changed by direct amendment. Here is the text of the 13th Amendment ratified by 3/4's of the states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
So Congress has the right to impose income taxes, and it has, and the executive branch is obligated to collect them. It has through the IRS.
As for how Congress defines income: believe me, they re-defined again since 1909. You can't pick and choose. They've passed tens of thousands of laws since then. Find out the definition since.
The "definition of the dollar" is another false argument. The science of economics was in its infancy then. They thought the only way to have money was to base it on metal. Why? If you study it, you'll find that people first used metals as money because they were regarded as having magical powers. There is no good argument for basing money on metal. Period. Metal doesn't hold it's value; it's more volatile in the markets as the dollar.
We won the Revolutionary and Civil Wars by issuing paper money. So, it lead to the birth of the US. Efforts to go back to "real dollars" from paper money after the Civil War led to major economic depression.
Legal US dollars are US dollars made by statute of Congress. Period.
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 8:43:33 AM
The "corrupted' and never truly legally ratified con job the Feds have played has been progenitor of a multi-billion Dollar tax preparation industry.
Ask 5 different tax attorneys and 5 different IRS agents the same tax question and you'll get a minimum of 10 different answers.
"O' what a tangled web we weave; when we practice to deceive".
26 years a proud non-filer/non-contributor to the con job.
Evasion is Illegal; but avoidance isn’t!!
That's a strange statement. Let me ask which is missing in the process:
Does the Constitutional amendment exist? Read it to verify. Put it into Google. Was is passed by 3/4's of the States? If so, it was ratified.
Now the laws:
Were the laws voted on by the House? Did they pass?
Were they voted on by the Senate? Did they pass?
Did the Congress Committee vote on the final form? Did it pass?
Did the President sign the law?
If so, it's a law, not a con job. I don't blame you for feeling ripped off, but in saying it's a con, or it wasn't ratified, be prepared to check on it.
As for the "answers" being different: Congress passes a ton of these laws every year. The laws contradict other laws. When you pass omnibus appropriations bills 1500 pages long at a stroke, written by staff and lobbyists, this is what happens. The problems aren't so much with the tax code, the problems are with Congressional organization and procedure.
I would chuck the entire thing and start again. Maybe totally rewrite a whole new unified tax code. When it's finished, throw out the old, pass the new one into law. You could do this as a citizen, or a group of citizens and then present it to Congress. BTW, that's really how I think the writing of laws should be done.
It would, however, entail far more involvement by citizens than what is now present. I think it's practical though. You want Congress to do less? That's how.
Meanwhile, I believe that the payment of taxes is as important a service to your country as serving in the military. They are the dues for being a member of our nation-state.
That's not to say you can't have conscientious objection to a statute, and that's not to say that you shouldn't pay the minimum demanded, if you could determine it.
Oh, the tax industry: I think it's far better than most tax procedures in almost all countries, past and present.
too ratify it at the time was legally entitled to do so.
We can always point at other countries with less than salubrious taxation methods/laws. That does not give license for ours to run amok extorting as much from it's citizens as some modern socialist countries while not offering the benefits of guaranteed housing, healthcare etc.
I pay a boatload of taxes per year just by being a homeowner and consumer. This is just how our forefathers intended I/we should be taxed.
Second, how could a state not be legally entitled to ratify? Reconstruction was over. Oklahoma was a state already. Alaska and Hawaii weren't joining till the '60s.
That would seem to be a simple thing to test in court. If it was even possible, I'd have to think it has been ruled on.
What you fail to grasp is that the income tax was **popular**. It was a populist reform. Not only did it equalize the wealth, but it prevented corporations from switching assets from one State to another to evade apportionment. See my other post.
He is referring to the fact that thru some clerical error in 1803 the process of admitting Ohio as a state is somehow invalid. Somehow they think that nullifys the 16th amendment even though without Ohio there were enough states to make the 3/4ths majority needed for ratification.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
It's based on just a formality? I thought maybe the Cherokee Indian Nation was one of the States that ratified or something.
That's got to be the stupidest excuse for "conscientious objection" I've ever heard of. People buy this?
I was "doubtful" on the particulars.
You mean you never looked into what the particulars were? How can I take anything you say seriously if you can't be bothered to do the minimun research to defend your position? This took me less than 5 minutes of google research to find. Do you have any clue how silly you sound? Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick no wonder the country is going to hell! 99% of the population can't be bothered to check whether or not what there being told is accurate and the rest of us have to put up with it.
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 1:38:14 PM
I stated I was "doubtful" of it and never hinted at it not being contestable.
What were you "doubtful" about? That it was Ohio? Something else? You spout off all this clap trap with only a seemingly passing familarity with the subject matter.
I've been living it for 26 years.
After the last 15 years of the Gestapo essentially looking for a more docile slave's cage to rattle Its been a long time since I revisited my library on the subject(it's all pre-computer age).
You bandy around the word "Gestapo" and then get prissy about "disparaging epithets"? Man I'd like to have your balls. You probably don't go dry for days!
I don’t see where having distaste for the boorish practice of argumentum ad hominem is "prissy".
Acts carried out by the IRS against citizens of the United States have been in all too many instances "Gestapo" like.
If you are comfortable (and supportive) of living under such rule; fine. I personally march to the beat of a different drummer.
And using terms to describe the IRS as the "Gestapo" is not as well? You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder. I support the rule of law, your drummer is the drummer of deceit. I do not support that.
I find myself no more deceitful than the IRS or its constantly changing tax codes and the finite privileged class that profiteer from them.
Anyway; why is exercising my 5th amendment right against self incrimination deceitful?
It’s voluntary compliance!
They can only truly have a leg to stand on if I decide to later volunteer.
Why do you take such umbrage at my comparing the IRS and its well known strong arm tactics and contempt for citizen’s rights like that of the "Gestapo"?
Enjoy your servitude, I'll live my moniker
Total bullshit.
The codes are changing because Congress can't stop fiddling with them, the privledged classes profit because they own Congress. Fight to uncorrupt Congress and be a true patriot rather than hiding in your spider hole.
5th amendment and taxes? Bullshit!
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/admendment_claims.htm#taking
Voluntary Compliance? Bullshit!
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/federal_income_tax_system.htm#filingVoluntary
Why should I have anymore sympathy for you than the guy down the street selling drugs? You're both criminals.
Save the "Gestapo" for the ones who would come and get you and put you in a concentration camp or the ovens like the real ones did.
All this stems from the fact you have a total disregard for the facts of the matter and continue to persist in a delusional behavior.
There is no freedom where deceit lies.
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 7:31:18 PM
I'm not at all disregarding the facts. Many people have won against the IRS on several of the issues I have brought up. The IRS however usually places a "blackout" on promulgating such wins.
" There is no freedom where deceit lies."
I guess that is why America's freedom is only lip service anymore.
Then share those cases with the rest of us. Surely you know which ones they are. The idea that the IRS can blackout judicial rulings is laughable at best. Either they exist or they don't. And when you do post a little summary of why they support your cause so at least I'll have a little start to seeing how you have mischaracterized the case.
Your idea of freedom means ripping off the rest of us. In this regard you are no better than a welfare cheat.
to research cases for a prejudiced plebeian bent on sophomoric name calling.
You'll certainly accuse me now of pusillanimous behavior; but why would I worry about a minion like you when flipping the bird to the treasury department causes me no concern.
Merry Christmas
Take off your blinders
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=america+to+fascism
-- Modified on 12/9/2006 11:30:03 PM
Yep as much as I thought, they aren't any. There never is. I dealt with your kind so often I can just chart how these things go. I've never had a single one of you ever present any coherent explanation of your positions. You shouldn't have to research them, aren't they just at your fingertips? I've wondered if you really knew the backing for your positions and I know now that you don't. Being called a criminal doesn't sit well, does it. But that's what you are.
Just watch the movie/video provided and you'll see not only one case but a former head counselor to one of the many government/IRS bureaucracies trip himself up with the contradictions of IRS rule vs the Bill of Rights.
As stated elsewhere in this thread; blatant wins against the IRS are most often "blacked out" and the court records destroyed so as not to be used by others in defense in similar prosecutions by either their precedent or facts.
The Government owns the court houses; it signs the pay checks of the judges, the District Attorneys, and ancillary employees. I’m no attorney but there seems to be a fairly blatant “conflict of interest” here.
WHY do you allege me as "criminal" and group me as one when I have not been so much as charged; let alone convicted.
Filing a tax return is VOLUNTARY!!
If you bring forth written documentation proving that filing a tax return is mandatory by LAW I will humbly concede to you and this entire board for engaging in a criminal activity.
Until such time that you provide the necessary evidence I would appreciate being viewed under the common American precept of jurisprudence as “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=america+to+fascism
"Just watch the movie/video provided and you'll see not only one case but a former head counselor to one of the many government/IRS bureaucracies trip himself up with the contradictions of IRS rule vs the Bill of Rights."
Good editing will make anyone look stupid. See Michael Moore. Please outline these contradictions.
"As stated elsewhere in this thread; blatant wins against the IRS are most often "blacked out" and the court records destroyed so as not to be used by others in defense in similar prosecutions by either their precedent or facts."
Please provide instances of this happening.
Well, duh, the judiciary is part of the government. Where else are they are going to try cases?
"WHY do you allege me as "criminal" and group me as one when I have not been so much as charged; let alone convicted.
Filing a tax return is VOLUNTARY!!
If you bring forth written documentation proving that filing a tax return is mandatory by LAW I will humbly concede to you and this entire board for engaging in a criminal activity."
You're already admitting engaging in criminal behavior. The confession is in. Next.
Define "voluntary" as in I don't have to if I don't what to? But the courts, ah those pesky courts, have found that "voluntary" means you can fill out your own return and send it in verus having the IRS doing it for you.
"If you bring forth written documentation proving that filing a tax return is mandatory by LAW I will humbly concede to you and this entire board for engaging in a criminal activity."
Ah, but the problem here is you recognize no law. That's the mantra of the tax cheat, "there is no law..." But anyway here it is
TITLE 26: Subtitle F: CHAPTER 61: Subchapter A: PART II: Subpart A: § 6011
§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html
"Until such time that you provide the necessary evidence I would appreciate being viewed under the common American precept of jurisprudence as “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”"
You've already confessed. It doesn't apply to you anymore.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 12:19:16 PM
But I have not been deemed liable for taxation.
I can only be deemed liable for the income tax if I voluntarily previously filed.
If you wanna' volunteer to file have at it.
I'll plead the 5th; thank you.
You asked for the law. what did you expect? I also noticed no support for any of the previous claims you have made about the IRS blacking out court cases or any court case supporting any of your positions. You want to know why? THERE AREN'T ANY!!!!
I know that I expected complete disregard for the law from you. You are a cheat and a thief and I have nothing but utter disdain for you. I'll bet only a few people know that you don't file and pay your taxes. If more did you wouldn't have such a uppity attitude.
you got imcome you're liable. makes no difference what you have or have not done in the past. send me your social security number and i'll see to it.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 4:02:56 PM
Or being tortured, being denied council. or disappearing due to the IRS. That would be very much like the Gestapo. (Sounds very much like the powers Bush secured for the Republican Congress.)
It's gestapo-like, I guess, in the way people don't consider tax-evasion to be really anything criminal, and so to be treated like a criminal shocks them.
Arresting you and searching/seizing your property without due process,
Then you are held to stand trial for violation of an unwritten law, and the mention of Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not allowed in your defense, and your bank accounts are frozen without due process of law we are dealing with a very close similarity to Hitler's "Gestapo"
NOTE: The information you provide in a tax filing is signed by you under "Penalty of perjury "This is where the word" Evasion" comes in
If you do not "voluntarily" file you are supplying NO information to hold you accountable of perjury for. The 5th amendment gives you the "RIGHT" to not be forced to give information that could be held to prosecute you by either content or perjury.
This is 'Avoidance'; not "Evasion"
It is legal to "avoid" the police
It is illegal to "evade" the police
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 12:30:48 PM
That is, those who arrogantly refuse to deal with the government, and refuse to get a tax lawyer. Then they complain the loudest and play the martyr when anyone with a brain could see what was going to happen. Get the other side of it. Look into those cases and see what those people did beforehand.
Moreover, try some non-compliance with an ordinary police officer who pulls you over for a traffic violation and see what happens. If you really try, you could turn any brush with the law into a complete personal disaster. That's what those people did, and then they whine about it afterward.
There are many things you sign that hold you to penalties of perjury. The 5th Amendment is not there to protect you from charges of perjury. Much the opposite. It's there to protect you from being forced to confess. You are free to perjure yourself.
It does provoke a response from people, mostly because it has something in common with other topics like religion vs atheism or creationism vs evolution in that there are strong opinions on either side with a "no prisoners taken" kind of attitude. And the likelyhood of anyone's mind actually being changed is remote.
It's not about attitude and not about changing anyone's mind, it's about the truth that somehow got covered up in between through out many many years, and it is up to you to seek and see it.
Your mantra seems to be that there isn't any law but you seem unable to refute US Code 26. All your protestations to the contary doesn't remove the fact that there are laws requiring you to pay income taxes. You don't even have to seek it out, I'm giving it to you.
...but can you give me the LAW? You still haven't given it to me, neither did the Govt. I suggest stop being so ignorant and stop arguing over something that you nor your fellas at the white house cannot provide to the Public!!! End of Story!!
Happy Holidays!
They're synonyms. They're the same things. They are dried plums and prunes. They're tits and breasts.
Really, in the US legal system, they refer to the same thing. When you are charged for breaking the law, they cite the "statute" you've broken.
If you don't know that, then no wonder tax evader arguments are going to convince you.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 10:47:31 AM
or by manipulation with others against the Constitution or Bill of Rights they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
and contradiction with which ones? The 5th is already excluded by rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in this regard. Lots and lots of claims but no real substance to back it up.
You have yet to present evidence of this.
The courtroom is on THIS board at present.
Find the Law, copy & paste it.
I'm not going digging through a quagmire of legalese to find it.
Anyway; any good attorney will say that ANYTHING is contestable.(that is how they make their money)
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 6:29:43 PM
Here you go. Case law and all.
3. Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file
returns or provide financial information
because of the protection against self-
incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment.
Some argue that taxpayers may refuse to file
federal income tax returns, or may submit tax
returns on which they refuse to provide any
financial information, because they believe that
their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination will be violated.
The Law: There is no constitutional right to
refuse to file an income tax return on the
ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. In United
States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927),
the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer
Acould not draw a conjurer=s circle around the
whole matter by his own declaration that to
write any word upon the government blank would
bring him into danger of the law.
The failure to comply with the filing and
reporting requirements of the federal tax laws
will not be excused based upon blanket
assertions of the constitutional privilege
against compelled self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2d
Cir. 1979) B the court said that Athe Fifth
Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert
as to each particular question that the answer
to that question would tend to incriminate them
are protected. … [T]he questions in the income
tax return are neutral on their face ... [h]ence
privilege may not be claimed against all
disclosure on an income tax return.
United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10th
Cir. 1979) B noting that the Supreme Court had
established Athat the self-incrimination
privilege can be employed to protect the
taxpayer from revealing the information as to an
illegal source of income, but does not protect
him from disclosing the amount of his income, the court said Brown made Aan illegal effort to
stretch the Fifth Amendment to include a
taxpayer who wishes to avoid filing a return.
United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980) B the
court affirmed a failure to file conviction,
noting that the taxpayer Adid not show that his
response to the tax form questions would have
been self-incriminating. He cannot, therefore,
prevail on his Fifth Amendment claim.
United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) B the
court affirmed a failure to file conviction,
rejecting the taxpayer=s Fifth Amendment claim
because of his Aerror in ... his blanket refusal
to answer any questions on the returns relating
to his income or expenses.
Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995) B the
court affirmed tax assessments and penalties
for failure to file returns, failure to pay
taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court
also imposed sanctions for pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had failed to provide any
information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment
privilege on each line calling for financial
information.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 7:44:22 PM
Answers to what? You're great at cutting and pasting but can you put together a coherent thought of your own?
First, there's no way the Founders intended this interpretation of the 5th Amendment.
Second, if that's the slogan, and it's generalized, it will paralyze the whole government and maybe the entire nation. If you can simply escape conviction by simple non-compliance of necessary information, first government bureaucrats are going to use that to protect themselves. Anything communication that could be construed as dangerous will simply not be made.
The 5th amendment applies only when an investigation has been opened. Otherwise, it could be extended to things like incriminating emails.
This has got to be the stupidest anti-tax argument ever made. I'd say only greed, not civil disobedience, could motivate this.
except the cases that they lost, then blacked out & destroyed.
I guess by your evidence I'm a heinous criminal; just like the rest of the scofflaws around this place; except' as you noted 'a very big set of balls'
No worry; I have a boatload of additional arguments, just like the rich and the corporations have a boatload of loopholes and special tax breaks.
Which cases have they lost? Have been blacked out and destroyed? Please present evidence of this happening. This a about 4th or 5th time I've asked you for it.
What you have is a boatload of shit, not one of them would stand up in a court of law, not a single one and you know that otherwise you and everyother tax cheat would be beating down the doors of the court rooms across America.
"What you have is a boatload of shit, not one of them would stand up in a court of law, not a single one and you know that otherwise you and everyother tax cheat would be beating down the doors of the court rooms across America."
THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE BEING INGNORANT AGAIN. IF YOU WAS TO GO THE LINK I PROVIDED WHERE AT THIS POINT OVER 2000 PEOPLE HAVE FILED A PETITION WITH THE SUPREME COURT SINCE 2004. I WILL PROVIDE A LINK SO YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE TO THIS DAY. HERE IT IS SO YOU CAN EDUCATE YOURSELF.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm
2000 people is not an earthshaking number.
I personally suspect that this is a money making enterprise by WTP. www.gimmemoney.org.
Let's say that they "win" I don't think you're going to recognize the country the day after.
See above for suggestions on taxes.
...it may not be an earthshaking number but enough to raise an eyebrow. I believe that they will Win! I will pray for them! LOL
I may even join them ...
"Which cases have they lost?" biggertitman.
Just the cases that I or anyone else cannot bring forward because the cases have been sealed and/or destroyed by order of IRS/government.
Time and time again good citizens of this country have attempted to file redresses of grievance about many of the issues raised in this thread and more. Repeatedly the courts refuse to hear the cases. If the civil and "legal" way to change the system is censored and ignored by the courts then civil disobedience is the only recourse.
" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and provide new guards for their future security."
(Declaration of independence).
Man!! Our forefathers were a bunch of criminal minded, civilly disobedient scofflaw motherfuckers weren’t they?
Please provide evidence that cases have been sealed or destroyed by government.
The cases have been refused because they are without merit and involved frivolous claims. All the things you have mentioned fall under this category plus probably every other thing you have up your sleeve.
Yep, our forefathers bad mofo's for sure. They were willing to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for their cause. When will you be willing to do the same?
You want to settle this once and for all. The courts are not your answer you should be realizing that now. You need to create a grassroots level effort to repeal the 16th Amendment. End of income tax. That's what you want, right?
I suggest talking to a lawyer, I'm sure you meet some, and tell him that the US Code is not the law of the land. Let me know what his reaction is. This a prime example again of allowing yourself to be absolutely willfully delusional.
It is nothing but abstruse, obfuscated legalese and intended to be so by it's authors.
The 5th Amendment guarantees us the right against being forced to bear witness against ourselves.
There is NO law, and there can be no law mandating filing a tax return as long as the 5th Amendment is in force. This is because any number of Government agencies including law enforcement can use the information provided by the filer against the filer in a criminal prosecution.
I brought up the 2nd Amendment earlier in this thread, and for good reason. Here also is a case where there are 28 words in this "The law in the land" and yet there are books upon books upon books of lesser laws trying to limit what the Law of the land succinctly expressed "The right keep & bear arms shall not be infringed"
There is a reason why the tax codes are so wordy and abstruse. They're trying to surreptitiously instill fear and awe with 'RULES' that if looked at objectively neither merit law or if are actual law are in contradiction with the Supreme Law of the Land.
Well there it is. You can't refute it, all you can throw at me is your own mumbo jumbo of some delusional paranoid. And I've given you links to Supreme Court rulings where the 5th Amendment does not apply in regards to filing a tax return. You're the one that doesn't have jackshit. You think you are a law unto yourself. Well buddy you ain't. Your so-called freedom rests on the backs of others and I'd gladly throw you off if I could.
for years and you demand that everyone allow the same.
OR
You have a vested interest in nothing changing with the present system.
I never said I didn't or won't pay taxes that I legally owe.
A flat tax with no fancy exemptions.
You could keep the percentage WAY down and the Gov' would still make bank
A national sales tax:
Every body needs to buy shit. How much you buy is your business. You can always lower your tax bill by buying a Corvette rather than a Porsche. Although businesses will pay a lot of taxes on capital and supplies the onerous payroll accounting service costs and corporate taxes will no longer be of concern.
whatever my interest is, is irrevelent. What is pertinent is that you are advocating a system of behavior that has no legal justification and you continue to refuse to provide any reason it should be so. Despite your protestations you ignore, at your peril, the US Constitution, its Amendments, the US Code, all judicial rulings as is if none of these things apply to you. Who buttfucked you so badly you turned out to be the kook you are? Your daddy?
I won't cave to your brainwashed fascist regimentation so you now include my genealogy in your personal disparagements of me.
My father is a well respected, well practiced, and now retired attorney in both civil and criminal law.
Where else could I have garnered such a distrust of government?
Let me remind the gentle readers that you opened the issue of "buttfucking". Maybe you shouldn't start what you can't finish. It is not a wise idea to engage in turd slinging contests with me.
YOU'RE VERY WELCOME, FREEDOMRIDER
...if you start counting how much you pay every year in taxes to the Fed. Then come to find out that there's no law, becomes very chilling. Knowing that if you don't pay they make a fuk'n criminal out of an innocent person is Huge and destroy everything that you worked for all your life.
-- Modified on 12/10/2006 10:37:30 AM
If you are not paying your taxes you are breaking the law, specifically US Code 26. You no longer are an "innocent person".
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(Draft 7-03)
The federal government is committing wrongful, unconstitutional acts resulting in injuries, loss and damage to millions of American citizens.
In spite of Constitutional prohibitions, the Executive branch is taxing the labor of the working men and women of America, forcing companies to withhold that direct tax from the wages and earnings of their workers, and Congress has acquiesced.
In spite of Constitutional prohibitions, the Executive branch has applied the armed forces in hostilities in Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, taxing the labor of the People to pay for the mischief, and the Congress has acquiesced.
In spite of Constitutional prohibitions, the Executive branch is printing paper money without regard to any stockpile of gold or silver, then selling that paper money to a cartel of private banks for the cost of the ink and paper, then borrowing back that paper money from that cartel with principal equal to the face amount printed on the paper money and at an interest rate determined by the cartel, then taxing the labor of citizens to pay the interest on that "debt," and the Congress has acquiesced.
In spite of Constitutional guarantees, the Executive is collecting its tax on labor through a nationwide campaign of fear, intimidation and coercion and by the use of swarms of armed agents to search and seize the private property of working Americans, and the Congress has acquiesced.
In spite of Constitutional guarantees, the Executive and the Congress have refused to hear the citizens' Petitions for Redress of these grievances.
In spite of Constitutional guarantees, the Executive is harassing and penalizing those citizens whose Petitions for Redress have gone unanswered and who now are acting to stop the withholding and payment of the illegal direct tax on labor, and tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court are cooperating in this abuse of government power.
The Constitution is hanging by a thread - the First Amendment Right to Petition, which includes the Right of Redress "BEFORE TAXES", is the only non-violent means by which the American people can directly confront unlawful government conduct. This Right to Petition is essential to the protection and preservation of individual liberty and equal justice under the law. The American People are being systematically denied this unalienable Right by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government.
We The People have Petitioned the Executive and the Legislative branches. We now Petition to test the attitude of the Judiciary. We seek a declaration of our Rights and injunctive relief.
....wouldn't it be nice?
However; there would be a whole lot of parasites to the present system who would adamantly protest. Curiously it is the ones who write, define, minister, and profit from the current system that we must lobby.
The cost of all taxes levied on a coproration is simply passed on to its customers.
PEOPLE pay ALL taxes.
(I just thought this thread needed some life since it looked like it might be dying out.)
Adroit use of our 1st Amendment will win back what a couple of recent generations let slip through their fingers.
"We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty"
(Edward R. Murrow)
More useless drivel. Any dummy can cut and paste shit from the net and pass it off as intellect. I want to read it your own words then I can judge your understanding. If you can't then you don't know jackshit about it. You are big on claims and bluster but surprising little in weight.
First you're pissed at me because I told the IRS to shove it up their ass 26 years ago rather than trying to change the system I protest by redress of grievance while still dutifully paying into it.
Now you state that a filed redress of grievance by a score of well read plaintiffs is "More useless drivel"
You don't give a lick about bettering the system. You just want people to bend over and quietly take it from the current system.
Let me guess whose side you would have taken during the Revolutionary War.
.
it is useless drivel because it is all cut and paste without comment. what is the docket? why is it important? what does have to do with taxation? If you can't tell me any of these things I have to assume you haven't read it or understand it. Thus it is nothing more than useless drivel. and that's what's all about. And I have asked for comments all cuts and pastes never get any.
I MAY COPY AND PASTE FACTS, I MAY NOT SIT HERE AND FEED INTO YOUR BULLSHIT OR THE GOVT, FEDERAL RESERVE AND WHAT THE BANKERS TELL THEM TO DO AND PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF THAT ARE LEAD TO BELIEVE.
I'M NOT IGNORANT, I DO READ, LEARN AND MAY NOT BE POLITICALY SAVVY, BUT I AM EDUCATED, WITH SEVERAL COLLEGE DEGREES...HONEY I CAN (IF REALLY WANTED TO WASTE MY TIME ON "DUMMY" SUCH AS YOURSELF) PUT THINGS IN MY OWN WORDS...I DO HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION AND HAVE AN EXPERIENCE OF PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER FOR CEO'S AND VP FOR SEVERAL COMPANIES I WORKED IN, AS MATTER OF A FACT, I WAS A VP MYSELF (THE FIRST LADY) AND HAVE HAD OFFERS TO BE A BUSINESS PARTNER. BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS.
I JUST CHOOSE NOT TO, WASTE MY TIME ON PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF, BECAUSE IT SENSELESS. HOWEVER, I'M SHOWING YOU WHERE YOU CAN FIND FACTS NOT SOME BULLCRAP. PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES AND TAKE THE TIME TO SIT DOWN AND ACTUALLY READ THROUGH WHAT I'VE COPIED AND PASTED.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH YOU, BUT WHY WASTE MY POSITIVE ENERGY ON SUCH A NEGATIVE INDIVIDUAL SUCH AS YOURSELF?
THAT IS SAID...HAVE A GOOD ONE!
Then show me some. Just cutting and pasting is a meaningless display. Give some analysis on what it is and why is important and germane to the question. And I have asked you to do so several times but you never did. The conclusion I have to draw is maybe you don't really understand what you pasting, and even your "facts" don't survive scrutiny.
And you certainly don't "look dumb" lol! You look pretty damn good, actually, but that's just my humble opinion! ;>
How refressing to have a beautiful, free-thinking woman join-in and more-than-hold-her-own with the rubes! I hope you keep this board as your regular stop @ TER, I certainly enjoy your contributions!
(Congrats on starting the longest-running thread in poli-board history!)
...stick around here and make My comments from time to time, I just can't do it everyday. LOL
Thanks for your honesty and compliments, I take them very well! 
Thanks to you and FreedomRider for all the support
And last but not least, I'm glad that I was "the first lady" in starting the longest thread in political board here at TER I honestly did not even imagine for it to be continued...LOL but more so amazed.
...whether it was right or wrong, mean or nice, argumentive or informational, I appreciate your responses...I may have learned something from you and you may have learned something from it as well...I wish all of you Happy & Healthy Holidays, a wonderful New & Prosperious Year to come, may it be X-mas, Hanukkah or Kwaanza I wish you much joy!
OXOXO
ANJIE