+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 48

  1. #1

    The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    I Found this letter and recently watched the Aaron Russo video on you tube. Is it true there is no law? And that no one is defined as "Required" in the state staues but the word is there as if there is a "Qualifier" Good stuff.


    The Letter:

    A Former IRS Commissioner's Statement

    T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s. Following his resignation, he made the following statement:

    "Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment] went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion."

    "The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be @#$%& is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."

    "The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."

    "The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."

    [As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.]

    "The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."

    "I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves..."{4}

    REFERENCES:

    Congressional Record-House, July 12, 1909, p.4404

    Congressional Record-House, July 12, 1909, p.4390

    Original edition, p.626

    The Utah Independent, March 29, 1973

    SEE 16th Amendment Not Legally Ratified

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Once you convince the three branches of government, and most importantly "our" elected "representatives" it is according to the law they are sworn to uphold, get back to me!?!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    I Found this letter and recently watched the Aaron Russo video on you tube. Is it true there is no law?
    Huh? That statement from T. Coleman Andrews just says he doesn't like the income tax, not that it is illegal. Why did you include it in your post?

    You're going to have to make your question more specific. There certainly are laws, many of them at all levels of government. Perhaps you meant to ask if there is a law imposing an income tax. There is. 26 USC §1 imposes a tax on income.

    And that no one is defined as "Required" in the state staues but the word is there as if there is a "Qualifier" Good stuff.
    So you're talking about some state's income tax law? Which one?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    The Supreme Court already said that income tax was unconstitutional, pertaining to the 16 amendment.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...cumentary&hl=en

    Take the time to sit down and watch this video. The most comprehensive documentary on how our government is failing us as citizens, and a clear description of who is actually running the show! I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t the people!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    The Supreme Court already said that income tax was unconstitutional, pertaining to the 16 amendment.
    No, they haven't. If they had, you could cite the case in which they had done so.

    If that's Russo's video link (my employer's firewall won't allow a link to streaming video), I quit watching that after I realized that the first half is 100% fact free. One of Russo's lies is so absurd, and accompanied by such an ironic graphic, that I suspect he made the film as a joke.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
    The Supreme Court already said that income tax was unconstitutional, pertaining to the 16 amendment.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...cumentary&hl=en

    Take the time to sit down and watch this video. The most comprehensive documentary on how our government is failing us as citizens, and a clear description of who is actually running the show! I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t the people!!!

    actually that is false:

    http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
    http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    I must admit I am still trying to absorb most of this, but the contention of the tax law is that based on the fact that every judge who reads the law, says that is what it says, but since "I" (the judge) have been paying taxes and we know the government needs taxes to survive, it doesn't matter what the law “says”, you "will" file and pay just like everybody else does. And since judges have ruled this way then it sets a precedence, therefore, even though the law says something we will go by the rulings of the court, and ignore the letter or intent of the law, based on that precedence???

    It is all too confusing, but it sounds like, we are being played however you wish to translate the law!

    This is why all laws need to be written based on an 8th grade level of reading, so there can be no mistake as to the intent, and grown adults do not have to rely on the discriminating interpretation of the law after the fact!!!

    Is it legal? I have absolutely no idea? Most people don't? Because of legal jargon and verbal psychobabble!! What they do know is if they don't file they will be arrested, and if they are allowed to present their case according to the written law, it will be the interpretation of that law by a jury of their peers that will determine their fate, unless a judge refuses to allow the letter of the law to be admissible in their court, and then they will be found guilty, and subsequently go to jail, without collecting $200!!

    This is why I asked people to watch the video and then make their own determination!! The intent of the video is to raise awareness, pay attention to what your elected officials spoon feed you, and be a part of the process or we are only cattle being lead from one point to another just before the slaughter!

    It is exactly like a written law that says obeying the jaywalking statute is voluntary, and should only be adhered to at the walkers desecration. Then have a judge says the walker is an idiot and it doesn't matter what the conditions were at midnight when the walker decided it was safe to cross the street, when I walked out on the street at 10 am this morning the conditions I saw would require "all" walkers to use the sidewalk and or crosswalk only?? So says I the judge therefore so says the intent of the law!!! Guilty, pay the fine!!! This sets the precedence and no other interpretation can be determined because of this precedence!!
    Last edited by Joe Sixpack; 03-17-2007 at 12:31 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Discretion not desecration?? Jeez I'll be glad when this site gets back to normal??? ;)

  9. #9

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
    I must admit I am still trying to absorb most of this, but the contention of the tax law is that based on the fact that every judge who reads the law, says that is what it says, but since "I" (the judge) have been paying taxes and we know the government needs taxes to survive, it doesn't matter what the law “says”, you "will" file and pay just like everybody else does. And since judges have ruled this way then it sets a precedence, therefore, even though the law says something we will go by the rulings of the court, and ignore the letter or intent of the law, based on that precedence???

    It is all too confusing, but it sounds like, we are being played however you wish to translate the law!

    This is why all laws need to be written based on an 8th grade level of reading, so there can be no mistake as to the intent, and grown adults do not have to rely on the discriminating interpretation of the law after the fact!!!

    Is it legal? I have absolutely no idea? Most people don't? Because of legal jargon and verbal psychobabble!! What they do know is if they don't file they will be arrested, and if they are allowed to present their case according to the written law, it will be the interpretation of that law by a jury of their peers that will determine their fate, unless a judge refuses to allow the letter of the law to be admissible in their court, and then they will be found guilty, and subsequently go to jail, without collecting $200!!

    This is why I asked people to watch the video and then make their own determination!! The intent of the video is to raise awareness, pay attention to what your elected officials spoon feed you, and be a part of the process or we are only cattle being lead from one point to another just before the slaughter!

    It is exactly like a written law that says obeying the jaywalking statute is voluntary, and should only be adhered to at the walkers desecration. Then have a judge says the walker is an idiot and it doesn't matter what the conditions were at midnight when the walker decided it was safe to cross the street, when I walked out on the street at 10 am this morning the conditions I saw would require "all" walkers to use the sidewalk and or crosswalk only?? So says I the judge therefore so says the intent of the law!!! Guilty, pay the fine!!! This sets the precedence and no other interpretation can be determined because of this precedence!!
    I guess that depends on your definition of "8th grade level of reading".

    This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas and was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

    8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, Kansas - 1895

    Grammar (Time, one hour)
    1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
    2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
    3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
    4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
    5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
    6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
    7. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

    Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
    1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
    2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
    3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
    4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month,
    and have $104 for incidentals?
    5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
    6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
    7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
    8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
    9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
    10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

    U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

    1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
    2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
    3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
    4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
    5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
    6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
    7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
    8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,1849, and 1865?

    Orthography (Time, one hour)

    1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
    2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
    3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
    4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
    5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
    6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
    7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
    8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball,
    mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
    9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
    10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

    Geography (Time, one hour)
    1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
    2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
    3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
    4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
    5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan
    Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
    6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
    7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
    8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
    9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
    10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
    I must admit I am still trying to absorb most of this, but the contention of the tax law is that based on the fact that every judge who reads the law, says that is what it says, but since "I" (the judge) have been paying taxes and we know the government needs taxes to survive, it doesn't matter what the law “says”, you "will" file and pay just like everybody else does. And since judges have ruled this way then it sets a precedence, therefore, even though the law says something we will go by the rulings of the court, and ignore the letter or intent of the law, based on that precedence???

    I'm not sure what your were trying to say. There seem to be several key words missing from the paragragh above. If you were trying to say that judges rulings are contradicted by the statutes as written, provide an example, because I'm not aware of any court decision involving the validity of the income tax that conflicts with any written law.

    It is all too confusing, but it sounds like, we are being played however you wish to translate the law!

    This is why all laws need to be written based on an 8th grade level of reading, so there can be no mistake as to the intent, and grown adults do not have to rely on the discriminating interpretation of the law after the fact!!!

    Adults who can't read above 8th grade level will just have to trust there better educated neighbors or get off their duffs and improve their reading level. I see no reason the rest of us should have to dumb down the law.

    Is it legal? I have absolutely no idea? Most people don't?

    Actually,most people know it's legal, because their common sense tells them that it wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't legal. A common characteristic of people in the tax dishonesty movement is a lack of common sense.

    Because of legal jargon and verbal psychobabble!! What they do know is if they don't file they will be arrested, and if they are allowed to present their case according to the written law, it will be the interpretation of that law by a jury of their peers that will determine their fate,

    Nope. The jury doesn't decide the law, the judge does.

    unless a judge refuses to allow the letter of the law to be admissible in their court, and then they will be found guilty, and subsequently go to jail, without collecting $200!!

    Your scenario assumed the defendant was guilty, so why would the judge have to misapply the law for there to be a conviction?

    This is why I asked people to watch the video and then make their own determination!! The intent of the video is to raise awareness, pay attention to what your elected officials spoon feed you, and be a part of the process or we are only cattle being lead from one point to another just before the slaughter!

    It is exactly like a written law that says obeying the jaywalking statute is voluntary, and should only be adhered to at the walkers desecration. Then have a judge says the walker is an idiot and it doesn't matter what the conditions were at midnight when the walker decided it was safe to cross the street, when I walked out on the street at 10 am this morning the conditions I saw would require "all" walkers to use the sidewalk and or crosswalk only?? So says I the judge therefore so says the intent of the law!!! Guilty, pay the fine!!! This sets the precedence and no other interpretation can be determined because of this precedence!!
    Where is there a jaywalking law that is voluntary? What possible purpose would such a law serve?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Parcival;
    Where is there a jaywalking law that is voluntary? What possible purpose would such a law serve?
    Exactly my point, and no where does the word voluntary come up for most laws on the books? But under the tax laws they use the word but then they tell you that's not what the word means?? Then why is that word used, it certainly isn't used any where else when they want you to comply???

    In the documentary, a couple things are presented. One of the top dogs in the IRS says all laws are voluntary, even traffic laws?? He says it is voluntary that you choose to stop at a red light, just like it is voluntary that you file and pay your taxes??? HUH? I have never seen this word used with any other meaning than the word as it appears in any college dictionary, yet the "law" has determined that it has a new meaning and evidently you, and them as well assume, we the people are all just too stupid to understand it?? Why is that do you think??

    The other (in the documentary) is that there is a case where an individual was found "not guilty" for not filing or paying his taxes??? How is this you say?? Well I'm glad you asked! The defense whole case was based on the fact that there is no federal law that says an individual is required to file? The jury was sure that the judge or the prosecutor would just show them the law and they could all wrap this up and go home, but guess what? DIDN'T HAPPEN!! Why? Because evidently there is no federal law on the books that establishes this requirement? The judge informed the jury that they would get a copy of the law, and after a deliberating for a while they requested again for the law to be presented for the jury to make a proper verdict according to the law. DIDN'T HAPPEN??? So the jury was left with no other choice but to find the individual not guilty???

    The IRS and some state laws say "in accordance with federal law", then people assume there is one? Then we fall into that, "well that's the way we have always done it so it must be the proper procedure, and it must be a rule (law) or something of the sort, cause why else would we do it that way???"
    Actually,most people know it's legal, because their common sense tells them that it wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't legal.
    Cause we are taught to be mindless drones that do not ask the appropriate questions, and demand from "our" employees, they do our bidding, not the other way around!!!

    I'm not sure what your were trying to say. There seem to be several key words missing from the paragragh above. If you were trying to say that judges rulings are contradicted by the statutes as written, provide an example, because I'm not aware of any court decision involving the validity of the income tax that conflicts with any written law.
    Since we are talking about the documentary, they provide several examples of cases where judges, refuse to make admissible the letter of the law, and instruct the jury to go by the guidelines he determines as the law?? You would/could argue that point by just showing us the federal law that "requires" (not by voluntary status) an individual to file!! If you can provide this federal statute, that no one else seems to be able to present, then this topic is over, and the documentary was a total waste of time for everyone involved!!

    Adults who can't read above 8th grade level will just have to trust there better educated neighbors or get off their duffs and improve their reading level. I see no reason the rest of us should have to dumb down the law.
    The government needs to say what they mean, in a very clear and concise manner so that there "is" no question as to the intent! The reason most laws are written the way they are, is so your better educated neighbors can be the only one's who can take advantage of the built in loopholes. Why else would there be a necessity to make them archaic and abstract so the common man couldn't understand them, without "having" to pay one of those over educated boobs $300 an hour to decipher, properly?? (place evil laugh here!!!)

    I find it remarkable that each and every government pamphlet, from military technical orders on how to disassemble a tank, all the way to the helpful hand book on how to fill out your tax form is written at an 8th grade reading level, but our laws (you know, those things that everyone is required to know because ignorance is no excuse) take 4 years of law school to be able to decipher the meaning and/or intent???

    Patrick in California?? Touché'!! But, even if the average 8th grader or the average adult for that matter, with a basic grasp of reading skills can go to the library and look these items up, finding the answer, with little effort. But even with a 12th grade education level under your belt, if you read the laws on the books the way they are written, in most cases you will need a team of lawyers and a judge to make their "intent", shine in the light of day!!! That is my point on the matter, not the fact that the majority college graduates cannot pass a simple Jr. High test from 100 years ago, even though that is a sad state of affairs as well!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Exactly my point, and no where does the word voluntary come up for most laws on the books? But under the tax laws they use the word but then they tell you that's not what the word means?? Then why is that word used, it certainly isn't used any where else when they want you to comply???
    Whose "they"? I've never heard anyone say that "voluntary" doesn't mean voluntary. I've heard them explain to illiterates that "compliance" doesn't mean "duty" or "obligation".

    One of the top dogs in the IRS says all laws are voluntary, even traffic laws?? He says it is voluntary that you choose to stop at a red light, just like it is voluntary that you file and pay your taxes??? HUH?
    Things may be different where you live, but in my city cops don't ride around with drivers and hold their feet on the brake at red lights. Stopping at a red light is voluntary, i.e., "Done or undertaken of one's own free will ..." American Heritage Dictionary, definition 1.

    I have never seen this word used with any other meaning than the word as it appears in any college dictionary, yet the "law" has determined that it has a new meaning ...
    No, as I said, it means exactly what every dictionary I've ever seen says it means. I'm surprised your college dictionary has only one meaning for "voluntary". I've never seen any dictionary that didn't have at least 3.

    ... and evidently you, and them as well assume, we the people are all just too stupid to understand it?? Why is that do you think??
    I assume most people understand plain English until they demonstrate otherwise. There is no epidemic of people who don't understand the meaning of the phrase "voluntary compliance", so my assumption is justified.

    The other (in the documentary) is that there is a case where an individual was found "not guilty" for not filing or paying his taxes??? How is this you say?? Well I'm glad you asked! The defense whole case was based on the fact that there is no federal law that says an individual is required to file? The jury was sure that the judge or the prosecutor would just show them the law and they could all wrap this up and go home, but guess what? DIDN'T HAPPEN!! Why? Because evidently there is no federal law on the books that establishes this requirement? The judge informed the jury that they would get a copy of the law, and after a deliberating for a while they requested again for the law to be presented for the jury to make a proper verdict according to the law. DIDN'T HAPPEN??? So the jury was left with no other choice but to find the individual not guilty???
    That's an interesting story. It is, of course, complete nonsense. It never happened. What was the name of the case? What court did it take place in? When did it happen? Which tax was the person accused of not paying? One of the tell tale signs of urban legends is that there is a lack of details or details that are inconsistent.

    Since we are talking about the documentary, they provide several examples of cases where judges, refuse to make admissible the letter of the law, and instruct the jury to go by the guidelines he determines as the law??
    I thought that was a statement until I saw the question marks. If you're asking me, then no, Russo provided no such cases.

    You would/could argue that point by just showing us the federal law that "requires" (not by voluntary status) an individual to file!!
    I don't see how that relates to the preceding sentence, but I supplied that information on another thread quite recently.

    § 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

    (a) General rule
    Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
    (1)
    (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, ...

    The government needs to say what they mean, in a very clear and concise manner so that there "is" no question as to the intent! The reason most laws are written the way they are, is so your better educated neighbors can be the only one's who can take advantage of the built in loopholes. Why else would there be a necessity to make them archaic and abstract so the common man couldn't understand them, without "having" to pay one of those over educated boobs $300 an hour to decipher, properly?? (place evil laugh here!!!)
    The government does say what they mean. The portion of the Internal Revenue Code that applies to most people is clearer that most federal statutes. Those portions that might be confusing are simplified and clarified in IRS publications and the instructions to the forms.

    BTW, your positions are inconsistent. You say that the IRC is too complicated for boobs, but that the boobs need to hire boobs to explain it to them. I suspect that you haven't given the subject much thought and are just parroting the conflicting opinions of others.

    I find it remarkable that each and every government pamphlet, from military technical orders on how to disassemble a tank, all the way to the helpful hand book on how to fill out your tax form is written at an 8th grade reading level, but our laws (you know, those things that everyone is required to know because ignorance is no excuse) take 4 years of law school to be able to decipher the meaning and/or intent???
    Ignorance is no excuse? You're kidding, right? Ignorance is not only an excuse, it's a defense. The Cheek defense, named for John Cheek, and often referred to as the "I'm too stupid to know I have to pay taxes" defense, is an ignorance defense. Only one person, Lloyd Long, has ever managed to convince a jury that he was too stupid to know he had to pay taxes, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Larken Rose tried it, but he was apparently too willfully stupid to convince the jury. Thomas Cryer is going to try to convince a jury that even though he is a lawyer, he is too stupid to know he has to pay taxes. He might convince them, but probably not.

  13. #13

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    That's an interesting story. It is, of course, complete nonsense. It never happened. What was the name of the case? What court did it take place in? When did it happen? Which tax was the person accused of not paying? One of the tell tale signs of urban legends is that there is a lack of details or details that are inconsistent.
    I believe he is referring to Vernice Kuglin who was recently charged with TAX EVASION and ACQUITED on those charges.

    Do a Google search.
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    I believe he is referring to Vernice Kuglin who was recently charged with TAX EVASION and ACQUITED on those charges.
    So he was wrong about the crime (tax evasion, not willful failure to file and pay), the defense stategy (Kuglin's defense was based on lack of willfulness. She acknowledged in pre-trial filings that she was liable for the tax), and interaction between the judge and the jury (the Kuglin jury was provided the law the same way all juries are, through the jury instructions).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!


    Therefor, VOLUNTARY implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion, or a need to comply.

    So it is my contention that the phrase “voluntary compliance” means it comes without an external compulsion. That is why “no” traffic laws offer the word voluntary in any of the laws on the books, only that you “must” comply.

    I am mainly curious as to the authors intent to include the word?

    Actually, the phrase "voluntary compliance" seems to be an oxymoron as the phrase “mandatory compliance” seems to be redundant?


    Quote:
    Since we are talking about the documentary, they provide several examples of cases where judges, refuse to make admissible the letter of the law, and instruct the jury to go by the guidelines he determines as the law??

    I thought that was a statement until I saw the question marks. If you're asking me, then no, Russo provided no such cases.
    The question marks are questioning the possibility that maybe you have not seen the documentary, or possibly you didn’t pay attention, or have selective memory, as to the court case that was mentioned??

    § 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

    (a) General rule
    Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
    (1)
    (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, ...
    Is this a federal statute (law), or an IRC guideline in reference to it’s authority, to the federal law that doesn’t exist??

    The IRC and state laws refer to their authority and ‘demand’ compliance according to federal statutes, my question is without quoting these entities, what federal law says we must file annual tax forms? If they use them casually as a reference then they should be able to sight the law??

    Which brings us to the Constitution & the 16th Amendment, and if it was properly ratified to make it legitimate according to the Constitution, giving the IRC the authority to make any demands of the citizens of the USA. Please stay with me on this point. If the 16th amendment was not established properly, stupidity and illiteracy aside, then it would be un-Constitutional and the income tax laws would be illegal. Is this not an appropriate assumption? Or are you saying it doesn’t matter if the 16th Amendment was ratified according to Article 5 of the Constitution???

    According to this individuals research;

    The Premise
    The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

    16th amendment
    "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."

    The Discovery
    Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.
    In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
    The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
     The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
     The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
     The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
     The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
    When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

    If this is true, the law the government uses as justification was never legal in the first place, and therefore should not be on the books and/or complied with “voluntarily” or otherwise!

    That would make the amendment itself unconstitutional, or are you simply standing by the old reliable, it doesn't matter if it is wrong, that's the way we always done it, no need to change it now, mentality.

    It doesn’t matter how the courts interpret, as long as it is actually legal?? If it's legal so be it, if it's illegal, then I guess the stupid/illiterate, and I might add gullible one's, are the one's who voluntarily comply!!!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!

    I am mainly curious as to the authors intent to include the word?
    The authors of what?

    Is this a federal statute ...?
    Yes. Since we were discussing the IRC, i.e., 26 USC, I thought the context was obvious. My mistake.

    The IRC and state laws refer to their authority and ¡¥demand¡¦ compliance according to federal statutes, (sic, presumably a period was intended)
    I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I have never seen a statute that referred to its own authority. That would be pointless. The IRC, like the rest of the US Code, was enacted by Congress. That is the source of its authority.

    [M]y question is without quoting these entities, what federal law says we must file annual tax forms?
    Fine. I won't quote from the IRC. I'll just provide the cite to the appropriate section from it, 26 USC ¡±6012. If you want to know what it says, see my post above.

    Which brings us to the Constitution & the 16th Amendment, and if it was properly ratified to make it legitimate according to the Constitution, giving the IRC the authority to make any demands of the citizens of the USA.
    I just realized that you are not aware that IRC is the standard abreviation for the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the US Code. The standard abreviation for the Internal Revenue Service is IRS.

    If the 16th amendment was not established properly, stupidity and illiteracy aside, then it would be un-Constitutional and the income tax laws would be illegal.
    Not necessarily. The SC in Brushaber said all income taxes are indirect taxes. So an unapportioned income tax could be perfectly legal, even without the 16th Amendment.

    If this is true, the law the government uses as justification was never legal in the first place, ...
    But it isn't, so why worry about a pure hypothetical?

    „h The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
    „h The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
    „h The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
    „h The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
    Suppose those were true statements. Then the newspapers and statehouses of Kentucky, Oklahoma, California and Minnesota would have been filled with the cries of the majority of those states' legislators, denouncing the fraud perpetrated in their names. But they were'nt. Surely, if there were even one newspaper article or one recorded speech in the statehouse, Benson would have found it and included it in his book. But he never found one, because there aren't any, because Knox recorded those states' votes exactly as the state legislators wanted them to be recorded.
    Last edited by Parcival; 03-20-2007 at 01:12 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Income Cloner is really Income Scammer!
    By gomarketing@att.net in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 09:59 AM
  2. The federal reserve.
    By howdy in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 09:33 PM
  3. Attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
    By sojustask in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 09:38 AM
  4. The Federal Income Tax Is Illegal?!
    By FairTaxNow in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2007, 08:07 AM
  5. The Federal Budget, National Debt, Federal Deficit explained
    By BatarngForce in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-14-2006, 06:48 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
$100, 2001, acceptance, account, acted, action, acts, adams, admit, admitted, advocates, affairs, agreement, alcohol, ale, alleged, allowing, ama, ame, amendment, american, annual, appears, approval, attorney general, attributes, authority, authorized, authors, axa, azul, based, be aware, beneficiary, blood, body, bogus, boots, bureau, business, capabilities, card, careful, carefully, cattle, charles, circuit, clark, class, clear, close, closes, code, coin, collect, columbus, commissioner, compensation, complain, complete, compliance, conceal, confirmed, conflicts, congressional, cons, constitutional, continue, conveniently, corporate, corporation, cost, costs, couldn, court, creates, criminals, david, day, dead, deciding, declared, defective, designated, diane, discount, district, documentary, documentation, doesn, drug, electio, ells, eme, enemy, england, entry, epochs, error, eugene, examples, exceptions, executive order, explained, expose, extreme, fails, fatal, federal, files, flat, flaw, foundation, fraud, fraudulent, fund, give, glad, global, gonna, government, grace, growth, guarantee, gullible, hamilton, hands, harder, held, hidden, higher, hire, home, html, huma, human, ici, idiot, illegal, imf, important, include, indicted, individuals, industry, insanity, interest, involved, involving, irs, issues, item, jackson, jail, jay, john, joint, joke, juan, judiciary, large, laugh, leaders, legal, letters, lincoln, line, lis, listen, manuals, manufacturing, marcus, martin, maryland, master, mea, members, midnight, million, multi, named, nathan, national, nations, nature, needed, nope, nullify, numbers, objects, office, operation, opposite, oral, ordered, orders, oregon, organizations, owned, pacific, paper, part, passage, patriot, pen, people, performance, person, post, posted, posts, power, price, prime, privacy, proceedings, profit, proposal, protection, public, pull, push, questions, raise, real, reason, rebellion, receiving, recorded, red, reform, refused, regime, regular, reliable, rendered, republics, research, resident, resignation, respect, returns, rio, riots, risk, robert, role, running, sacred, sad, seattle, secretary, secure, sell, selling, serve, service, services, sex, sho, show, shows, shut, slaughter, social security, solar, son, source, spam, specifically, start, steal, sti, streaming, stupid, submit, sued, super, taken, tax, tax fraud, taxes, taxpayers, tells, test, times, told, top, total, trade, transfer, transfers, treatment, treats, truth, u.s. government, unauthorized, united, united states, upper, urban, vicious, video, view, vince, walker, wanted, watch, watching, west, western, win, won, wrap, writing, www

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •