PDA

View Full Version : in tax debate, need help.




garrettwombat
02-21-2008, 09:46 PM
SOL yuo may want to read this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

Also the United States Code which is a consolidation of laws specifically outlines income tax

You can elect not to pay taxes but that is evasion and eventually you will go to jail. Al Capone thought he was untouchable but he forgot one thing to pay his taxes. Guess what he went to jail not for all the other illegal activities but for taxes.

debating if there is a law requiring you to pay an income tax

aside from being unconstitutional as an argument

Chester Copperpot
02-21-2008, 09:50 PM
YOu definitely cannot go to wikipedia to get accurate information on a topic like this.

berrybunches
02-21-2008, 09:54 PM
Taxes go against the idea of liberty because you are allowing the government to tell you how much of your own money you are legally entitled to. This is giving the government complete control and power over the fruits of your labor.

Edit: what exactly about taxes are you debating anyway? Would help to know lol

garrettwombat
02-21-2008, 10:06 PM
sorry, whether there is a law or not...

EndTheFed
02-21-2008, 10:24 PM
Get the video by Arron Russo

America: Freedom to Fascism

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

It tells all about it and the history of the income tax.

You can also see it online but having the video (quality wise) is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M19jzF8AwEA

jjank11
02-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Well there is no law to pay income tax unless you willing sign your tax form when you start to work. You are not required by law to sign the forms either and if a company cites that they fired you or did not hire you for that reason you can sue them, i believe, since there is no law that gives them the authority to fire anyone over that issue.

So the moral of the story is to not sign your tax forms. If they ask why you do not you can give them an affidavit telling why.

Federal Income Tax as it stands now is completely against the law and unconstitutional.

If you want a great source for this issue you can go to this link, it is very exhaustive.
www.originalintent.org/fedincometax.shtml

Also, i would check our Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" or a movie called "Zeitgeist". Some of the content in the movies is not for the faint of heart. Just be warned
www.freedomtofascism.com
zeitgeistmovie.com

If you find the message compelling and factual then go spread the word, especially "Freedom to Fascism".

Good Luck

Mr. White
02-21-2008, 10:26 PM
Freedom to fascism is a nice bit of propaganda. If you're debating whether you HAVE to pay them, give up because you do. If you're debating whether it's RIGHT that you have to pay them, that's an argument you can win.

berrybunches
02-21-2008, 10:33 PM
Well there is no law to pay income tax unless you willing sign your tax form when you start to work. You are not required by law to sign the forms either and if a company cites that they fired you or did not hire you for that reason you can sue them, i believe, since there is no law that gives them the authority to fire anyone over that issue.

So you can really just not sign tax forms to get out of paying and they can not garnish your wages? Really?

and what if you are self employed?

Edu
02-21-2008, 10:42 PM
It's actually a jurisdiction issue. The "US codes" (which are not law, just codified laws and RULES mostly applying to government entities) only apply to things the government creates, owns and has jurisdiction over.

Did the sovereign people give the government jurisdiction over them? Hell no! No one is that stupid! (well, they are now)

The constitution restricts the government from doing that. They have never had the people's permission to directly tax them, never. Indirect, OK.

My oh my how people have forgotten about why we broke away from the king. Tell them to get a clue about what country they are living in!

Basically if you are under their jurisdiction then you better go find out why.

Mr. White
02-21-2008, 10:42 PM
So you can really just not sign tax forms to get out of paying and they can not garnish your wages? Really?

and what if you are self employed?

Don't listen to a word he says. Vast majority of employment is "at will" Which means the employer can fire you....at will. Any reasonably legitimate paying job will let you go if it looks like you aren't paying income taxes. I believe that their is a default garnishment assumption as well.

As for self-employment... good luck, you can stay under the radar, but the second the IRS finds out you owe back taxes, your business will grind to a screeching halt fast than you can say audit.

Paul10
02-21-2008, 10:44 PM
...

Mr. White
02-21-2008, 10:46 PM
It's actually a jurisdiction issue. The "US codes" (which are not law, just codified laws and RULES mostly applying to government entities) only apply to things the government creates, owns and has jurisdiction over.

Did the sovereign people give the government jurisdiction over them? Hell no! No one is that stupid! (well, they are now)

The constitution restricts the government from doing that. They have never had the people's permission to directly tax them, never. Indirect, OK.

My oh my how people have forgotten about why we broke away from the king. Tell them to get a clue about what country they are living in!

Basically if you are under their jurisdiction then you better go find out why.

I assure you the United States Code is indeed law... the Code of Federal Regulations are your agency rules... As for the "soverign people" They gave them over when they and their represntatives did that whole "we the people in order to form a more perfect union" bit...

Paul10
02-21-2008, 10:46 PM
...

berrybunches
02-21-2008, 10:52 PM
Wesley Snipes didn't pay his for a few years. He owes millions. It went to court, was honest in his reasoning and got 0 jail time. I think he has to pay it back tho. Not sure.

rvkpa
02-21-2008, 10:58 PM
There is a $5000 dollar penalty for Frivolous Claims in the IRS code. This is one of the specifically enumerated friovlous claims. It sucks, but you live here so you gotta follow their rules.

randolphus maximus
02-21-2008, 11:12 PM
debating if there is a law requiring you to pay an income tax

aside from being unconstitutional as an argument

Well whether it's unconstitutional or not, one thing that is for sure is that the way the IRS COLLECTS the tax is unconstitutional. That is something that cannot be argued. There was a book that came out a number of years ago by Senator William Roth (for whom the ROTH IRA is named after) called "The Power to Destroy (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Destroy-William-H-Nixon/dp/0871137488)" and if you read that thing it will piss you off more than anything.

It does make you wonder about how far our country has gotten away from our roots when slaves, at the most, would have to give 10% of the fruits of their labor to their masters. We work half the year now to pay our "fair shair" to the government.

And also, wasn't our country founded on a tax rebellion? Wasn't it fashionable to tar and feather the tax collectors? I'm not advocating violence but in 200 years, we've fallen pretty far off the mark from what the founding fathers envisioned a free society to be.

humanic
02-21-2008, 11:24 PM
THEFY BY DECEPTION by Larken Rose
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/ (Free PDF download of all information presented in the film)
Watch it on Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=thefy+by+deception&total=38&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

"The product of years of exhaustive research and development, Theft By Deception clearly shows how the current Federal Income Tax law and its legislative history never intended to tax the average American’s domestically earned income.

Combining 3-D animations with a methodical, step-by-step approach, Theft By Deception will unravel the complicated tax law to reveal the very limited nature of the federal income tax. The evidence paints a clear picture that agents of the United States government orchestrated, executed, and then attempted to cover up the most monumental financial fraud in history."

ionlyknowy
02-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Well there is no law to pay income tax unless you willing sign your tax form when you start to work. You are not required by law to sign the forms either and if a company cites that they fired you or did not hire you for that reason you can sue them, i believe, since there is no law that gives them the authority to fire anyone over that issue.

So the moral of the story is to not sign your tax forms. If they ask why you do not you can give them an affidavit telling why.

Federal Income Tax as it stands now is completely against the law and unconstitutional.

If you want a great source for this issue you can go to this link, it is very exhaustive.
www.originalintent.org/fedincometax.shtml

Also, i would check our Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" or a movie called "Zeitgeist". Some of the content in the movies is not for the faint of heart. Just be warned
www.freedomtofascism.com
zeitgeistmovie.com

If you find the message compelling and factual then go spread the word, especially "Freedom to Fascism".

Good Luck

says the man with 2 posts... all from this thread... lol..:D

ionlyknowy
02-21-2008, 11:31 PM
General Rule

As a result of the delay caused by those who have abused the judicial system, Congress codified certain penalties. Under Section 6673(a)(1), when a taxpayer pursues an action in the Tax Court and the Court determines that either:
(1) the taxpayer instituted or maintained litigation in the Court primarily for delay;
(2) a taxpayer's litigating position is frivolous or groundless; or
(3) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies before pursuing judicial relief in the Court, the Court may impose a penalty of up to $25,000.[FN1]

Sanction Not Limited to Tax Protestors

Although liability for the penalty is usually imposed upon “tax protestors” who raise frivolous arguments because of their basic disagreement over whether there should be tax laws or whether there should be tax laws which recognize special exceptions for certain taxpayers, the penalty can also be imposed for frivolous actions even without a showing that a particular taxpayer had such motivation. In the Golub case, for example, the Tax Court imposed a $10,000 sanction after it determined that a CPA used the Tax Court as a forum for arguing that certain persons named as defendants in his previous unsuccessful lawsuits had wronged him.[FN8]
26 USCS § 6673

ionlyknowy
02-21-2008, 11:37 PM
There is a $5000 dollar penalty for Frivolous Claims in the IRS code. This is one of the specifically enumerated friovlous claims. It sucks, but you live here so you gotta follow their rules.

You are correct but it is $25,000
Here is the cite to the Internal Revenue Code
26 USCS § 6673

It allows the govt. to move for a summary judgment on you before you even see a jury. They will now invoke this code, deem your arguments as "tax protest" and therefore, frivolous then the judge will then fine you and then game over.

Try it, and come back here and tell us how it goes.. :cool:

pinkmandy
02-21-2008, 11:45 PM
If you don't pay you are practicing civil disobedience and *could* go to jail. Whether the income tax is legit, whether it is constitutional doesn't matter when they will still send you to jail. Yes, we need to clarify the law (or the lack thereof, lol) and do something about this. If you plan on not paying your taxes, hire a damn good tax attny first and plan your strategy. I wouldn't walk into it blindly. Good luck!!! If I'm on your jury you will be NOT GUILTY. :)

ionlyknowy
02-21-2008, 11:50 PM
If you don't pay you are practicing civil disobedience and *could* go to jail. Whether the income tax is legit, whether it is constitutional doesn't matter when they will still send you to jail. Yes, we need to clarify the law (or the lack thereof, lol) and do something about this. If you plan on not paying your taxes, hire a damn good tax attny first and plan your strategy. I wouldn't walk into it blindly. Good luck!!! If I'm on your jury you will be NOT GUILTY. :)

did you not read my last post... the post right before yours.... you cant get to a jury now. The tax protest args have been deemed frivolous and the govt. will move for a summary judgment BEFORE you even see a jury. Then you will be fined and then you will lose.

Go back and read my post to see a cite and the actual IRS code that says this. Yeah, dont get a good tax attorney because it wont help... I am a law student so I deal with this on a regular basis... I have researched this very topic and this is what I came to. I dont like it but that is just how it is.... sorry







Taxpayer who challenges final notice of intent to levy without stating any specific allegations and who later raises only taxpayer protest arguments may be subject to penalties for engaging in actions primarily for delay or for raising frivolous and groundless arguments. Pierson v Commissioner (2000) 115 TC 576.

Even though taxpayer's deficiency was reduced substantially during trial, court may impose full penalty on its own motion if deficiency reduction was achieved in spite of, not because of, taxpayer's actions, such as where taxpayer refused to cooperate with IRS during audit and filed tax-protester type petition with court, he showed his books and records to IRS only when court ordered him to produce them, he refused to stipulate to figures conceded by IRS and refused to offer records or anything else into evidence during trial, and he also raised frivolous constitutional claims at trial, attempted to oust court of jurisdiction, and submitted protester materials as brief after trial. Stafford v Commissioner (1983) TC Memo 1983-650, RIA TC Memo P 83650, 47 CCH TCM 172.

Tax court assessed $ 2,500 in damages under 26 USCS § 6673 against taxpayer where his proceedings were instituted and maintained for delay, his position was frivolous and groundless, and proceedings were continuation of tax-protester pattern, despite court's warning all such taxpayers at calendar call of likelihood of such damage award. Watt v Commissioner (1986) TC Memo 1986-22, RIA TC Memo P 86022, 51 CCH TCM 293.

Penalty of $ 1,200 was imposed on taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where (1) on several occasions before parties submitted case, court: (a) informed taxpayer that petition contained statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments that court found to be frivolous and groundless, (b) reminded taxpayer about 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1), and (c) admonished taxpayer that, in event that taxpayer were to continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments, court would have imposed penalty under § 6673(a)(1); (2) nonetheless, in brief that taxpayer filed, taxpayer persisted in making frivolous and groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments; and (3) taxpayer's position was frivolous and groundless and taxpayer instituted and maintained proceeding primarily for delay. Milby v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-15, 89 CCH TCM 698.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 10,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-60, 89 CCH TCM 942.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 12,500 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-61, 89 CCH TCM 945.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with collection where taxpayers advanced tax protestor arguments and IRS Office of Appeals properly verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed; taxpayers were assessed $ 15,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments. Meyer v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-82, 89 CCH TCM 1049.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with proposed levy where taxpayer advanced universally rejected tax protestor arguments; taxpayer was assessed $ 2,000 penalty for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments and for instituting and maintaining proceedings primarily for delay. Poe v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-107, 89 CCH TCM 1248.

Taxpayer was warned that if he continued to pose frivolous and irrelevant issues for discussion at hearings pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330 or requested such hearings for purposes of delay, he would be penalized in accordance with 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Delgado v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-186, 90 CCH TCM 108.

Penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 was appropriate where taxpayer was warned his tax protestor rhetoric made him potentially liable for penalty and, as professional tax return preparer, taxpayer knew or should have known that his arguments were frivolous. Wetzel v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-211, 90 CCH TCM 266.

Penalty of $ 1000 was assessed against taxpayer after suit he brought in U.S. Tax Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because arguments raised by taxpayer fell into category of typical tax protestor arguments, taxpayer had been warned by IRS that arguments he was raising had been found to be frivolous, and it was evident that taxpayer petitioned court primarily to delay levy proceedings against him. Parker v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-231, 90 CCH TCM 349.

U.S. Tax Court imposed penalty of $ 10,000 against taxpayer for asserting universally-rejected "tax protestor" arguments that were frivolous and groundless and because record compelled conclusion that proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay. Bonaccorso v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-278, 90 CCH TCM 554.

Tax court imposed $ 25,000 penalty upon taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where taxpayer continued to assert arguments that court warned were frivolous, such as deficiency assessed against him was not based on statutory law and therefore amounted to violation of his due process rights; further, taxpayer had been penalized for asserting frivolous arguments in previous petitions and appeared to be using these arguments as delay tactic. Stallard v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-42, 91 CCH TCM 881.

Tax Court did not impose penalty under I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) despite fact that substantial portion of taxpayer's contentions were classic, shopworn tax protester arguments; taxpayer also sought review of notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination for which Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself eventually conceded remand was appropriate. Sapp v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-104, 91 CCH TCM 1177.

In collection review proceeding pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330, no genuine issue of material fact existed requiring trial where taxpayer raised only frivolous tax protester type arguments; $ 10,000 penalty against taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 was warranted where, despite being warned, taxpayer persisted in his arguments. Clampitt v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-161, 92 CCH TCM 99.

When U.S. Tax Court concluded that taxpayer's position was patently frivolous and it was convinced that he invoked 26 USCS § 6330 protections in bad faith, it imposed substantial penalty under 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Schwersensky v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-178, 92 CCH TCM 177.

Sanctions under 26 USCS § 6673 were warranted where taxpayer had made concentrated effort to avoid payment of his federal tax obligation; he did not file return his withholding was limited, he advanced only well-worn tax protestor arguments, and at trial, taxpayer attempted to thwart litigation process by attempting to withdraw from his agreed stipulation at last minute. Cooper v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-241, 92 CCH TCM 415.

Taxpayer's petition was dismissed penalty of $ 5,000 was imposed pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer failed to include in his petition clear and concise statements of facts on which he based his assignments of error; petition contained only type of frivolous tax protestor arguments that had been repeatedly rejected. Harris v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-275, 92 CCH TCM 533.

randolphus maximus
02-21-2008, 11:56 PM
So what the law is saying is that the government can deny you your property (your wages) without due process. Which, to me, sounds un-Constitutional


did you not read my last post... the post right before yours.... you cant get to a jury now. The tax protest args have been deemed frivolous and the govt. will move for a summary judgment BEFORE you even see a jury. Then you will be fined and then you will lose.

Go back and read my post to see a cite and the actual IRS code that says this. Yeah, dont get a good tax attorney because it wont help... I am a law student so I deal with this on a regular basis... I have researched this very topic and this is what I came to. I dont like it but that is just how it is.... sorry







Taxpayer who challenges final notice of intent to levy without stating any specific allegations and who later raises only taxpayer protest arguments may be subject to penalties for engaging in actions primarily for delay or for raising frivolous and groundless arguments. Pierson v Commissioner (2000) 115 TC 576.

Even though taxpayer's deficiency was reduced substantially during trial, court may impose full penalty on its own motion if deficiency reduction was achieved in spite of, not because of, taxpayer's actions, such as where taxpayer refused to cooperate with IRS during audit and filed tax-protester type petition with court, he showed his books and records to IRS only when court ordered him to produce them, he refused to stipulate to figures conceded by IRS and refused to offer records or anything else into evidence during trial, and he also raised frivolous constitutional claims at trial, attempted to oust court of jurisdiction, and submitted protester materials as brief after trial. Stafford v Commissioner (1983) TC Memo 1983-650, RIA TC Memo P 83650, 47 CCH TCM 172.

Tax court assessed $ 2,500 in damages under 26 USCS § 6673 against taxpayer where his proceedings were instituted and maintained for delay, his position was frivolous and groundless, and proceedings were continuation of tax-protester pattern, despite court's warning all such taxpayers at calendar call of likelihood of such damage award. Watt v Commissioner (1986) TC Memo 1986-22, RIA TC Memo P 86022, 51 CCH TCM 293.

Penalty of $ 1,200 was imposed on taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where (1) on several occasions before parties submitted case, court: (a) informed taxpayer that petition contained statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments that court found to be frivolous and groundless, (b) reminded taxpayer about 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1), and (c) admonished taxpayer that, in event that taxpayer were to continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments, court would have imposed penalty under § 6673(a)(1); (2) nonetheless, in brief that taxpayer filed, taxpayer persisted in making frivolous and groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments; and (3) taxpayer's position was frivolous and groundless and taxpayer instituted and maintained proceeding primarily for delay. Milby v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-15, 89 CCH TCM 698.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 10,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-60, 89 CCH TCM 942.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 12,500 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-61, 89 CCH TCM 945.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with collection where taxpayers advanced tax protestor arguments and IRS Office of Appeals properly verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed; taxpayers were assessed $ 15,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments. Meyer v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-82, 89 CCH TCM 1049.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with proposed levy where taxpayer advanced universally rejected tax protestor arguments; taxpayer was assessed $ 2,000 penalty for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments and for instituting and maintaining proceedings primarily for delay. Poe v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-107, 89 CCH TCM 1248.

Taxpayer was warned that if he continued to pose frivolous and irrelevant issues for discussion at hearings pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330 or requested such hearings for purposes of delay, he would be penalized in accordance with 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Delgado v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-186, 90 CCH TCM 108.

Penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 was appropriate where taxpayer was warned his tax protestor rhetoric made him potentially liable for penalty and, as professional tax return preparer, taxpayer knew or should have known that his arguments were frivolous. Wetzel v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-211, 90 CCH TCM 266.

Penalty of $ 1000 was assessed against taxpayer after suit he brought in U.S. Tax Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because arguments raised by taxpayer fell into category of typical tax protestor arguments, taxpayer had been warned by IRS that arguments he was raising had been found to be frivolous, and it was evident that taxpayer petitioned court primarily to delay levy proceedings against him. Parker v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-231, 90 CCH TCM 349.

U.S. Tax Court imposed penalty of $ 10,000 against taxpayer for asserting universally-rejected "tax protestor" arguments that were frivolous and groundless and because record compelled conclusion that proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay. Bonaccorso v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-278, 90 CCH TCM 554.

Tax court imposed $ 25,000 penalty upon taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where taxpayer continued to assert arguments that court warned were frivolous, such as deficiency assessed against him was not based on statutory law and therefore amounted to violation of his due process rights; further, taxpayer had been penalized for asserting frivolous arguments in previous petitions and appeared to be using these arguments as delay tactic. Stallard v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-42, 91 CCH TCM 881.

Tax Court did not impose penalty under I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) despite fact that substantial portion of taxpayer's contentions were classic, shopworn tax protester arguments; taxpayer also sought review of notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination for which Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself eventually conceded remand was appropriate. Sapp v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-104, 91 CCH TCM 1177.

In collection review proceeding pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330, no genuine issue of material fact existed requiring trial where taxpayer raised only frivolous tax protester type arguments; $ 10,000 penalty against taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 was warranted where, despite being warned, taxpayer persisted in his arguments. Clampitt v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-161, 92 CCH TCM 99.

When U.S. Tax Court concluded that taxpayer's position was patently frivolous and it was convinced that he invoked 26 USCS § 6330 protections in bad faith, it imposed substantial penalty under 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Schwersensky v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-178, 92 CCH TCM 177.

Sanctions under 26 USCS § 6673 were warranted where taxpayer had made concentrated effort to avoid payment of his federal tax obligation; he did not file return his withholding was limited, he advanced only well-worn tax protestor arguments, and at trial, taxpayer attempted to thwart litigation process by attempting to withdraw from his agreed stipulation at last minute. Cooper v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-241, 92 CCH TCM 415.

Taxpayer's petition was dismissed penalty of $ 5,000 was imposed pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer failed to include in his petition clear and concise statements of facts on which he based his assignments of error; petition contained only type of frivolous tax protestor arguments that had been repeatedly rejected. Harris v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-275, 92 CCH TCM 533.

pinkmandy
02-22-2008, 12:04 AM
Well how can they deny a trial by jury? You are entitled to be tried by a jury of your peers, no? And when did this change take place with tax protestors?

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:06 AM
So what the law is saying is that the government can deny you your property (your wages) without due process. Which, to me, sounds un-Constitutional

It may be so, but the courts are NOT the venue to use to get change... That is what a frivolous lawsuit is... it has already been decided.

There are other ways to change the law. The court avenue has been exhausted and unless you want to be fined with no chance, then pursue these elsewhere.. just trying to help.. people get misled by the tax protest movement and they end up like one of the above cases....

You wonder why all of the cites to the cases above dont have the correct citing.

Here is a quick lesson. A court case cite looks like the following...

Roberts v. C.I.R., 329 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 2003)
Jenkins v. Comm'r, 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007)

The __ F.3d ___ part is the reporter where you can find the case
the numbers that surround the F.3d are the volume and section.
The 11th Cir. part is the federal circuit of appeals court. The eleventh circuit.

Notice that all of the above tax cases that are listed in the post above have none of these... this is because they never went to trial... there was summary judgment meaning the judge makes the decision as a matter of law before the trial even starts.

And in the tax protest instance, after the judge decides in favor of the IRS's motion for summary judgment, then they fine you money.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:11 AM
Damages may be awarded against taxpayer under 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer asserts frivolous constitutional objections, such as claim that Sixteenth Amendment to Constitution is invalid since not properly ratified. Pollard v Commissioner, IRS (1987, CA11) 816 F2d 603, 87-1 USTC P 9314, 59 AFTR 2d 1074.

Double costs are assessed against taxpayer who makes appeal on basis that he is exempt from tax because he is war tax resister and that IRS was interfering with his exercise of religious beliefs by disallowing claimed exemptions. Schehl v Commissioner (1988, CA6) 855 F2d 364, 88-2 USTC P 9493, 62 AFTR 2d 5567.

After prior warning to taxpayers and their counsels that litigating frivolous issues and presenting no credible evidence could result in fine for instituting proceedings for delay, imposition of maximum fine is proper where petitioner refused to address merits of case and proceeded on constitutional grounds that he knew were without substance. Wilkinson v Commissioner (1979) 71 TC 633.

Tax Court properly imposes delay penalty on taxpayer who asserts constitutional and statutory arguments which have been rejected by other courts prior to his suit, and who concedes single substantive issue in case by stipulation and offers no evidence to show that various additions to tax are inapplicable. Froeber v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-139, RIA TC Memo P 84139, 47 CCH TCM 1329.

Taxpayers were properly assessed with damages pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673, where they took "World Peace Fund Tax Credit," depositing amount of credit claimed in escrow account, and where court rejected their arguments based on free exercise clause and on Supreme Court cases involving self-employment tax and unemployment compensation. Hollingshead v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-158, RIA TC Memo P 84158, 47 CCH TCM 1390.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:12 AM
Tax Court properly imposed penalty against taxpayer who filed suit but refused to substantiate deductions challenged by IRS on ground that doing so would violate his privilege against self-incrimination. Lukovsky v Commissioner (1984, CA8) 734 F2d 1320, 84-1 USTC P 9525, 54 AFTR 2d 5143.

Taxpayer who purported to be well versed on law and was aware that he could not make blanket Fifth Amendment claim on his return is subject to full penalty where he files exemption certificate claiming he owes no taxes on ground that he could assert blanket Fifth Amendment claim on his return. Froeber v Commissioner (1982) TC Memo 1982-81, RIA TC Memo P 82081, 43 CCH TCM 576.

Government was properly awarded $ 4,000 in damages, pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673, where taxpayer filed return with no income data and persisted in asserting Fifth Amendment argument before Tax Court even though he had been informed by court in prior case that argument was groundless. Wright v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-183, RIA TC Memo P 84183, 47 CCH TCM 1493, affd (1985, CA5) 752 F2d 1059, 85-1 USTC P 9191, 55 AFTR 2d 890.

Tax protester's persistence in asserting Fifth Amendment claim even after notification that such claims are meritless in cases where possibility of criminal prosecution is unlikely or remote is grounds for penalty for instituting frivolous action. Walters v Commissioner (1988) TC Memo 1988-530, RIA TC Memo P 88530, 56 CCH TCM 664.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:12 AM
Penalty is properly assessed against taxpayer who did not report his compensation as income, refused to provide information about his exemptions, deductions, or credits, and continued to press frivolous and meritless claims about lack of constitutionality of Internal Revenue Code. Dragoun v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-94, RIA TC Memo P 84094, 47 CCH TCM 1176.

Penalty is upheld where taxpayer, despite conviction of willful failure to file returns, argues against imposition of fraud penalties by claiming that Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional and that by revoking his social security number he had made himself immune to tax laws. Jentzsch v Commissioner (1987) TC Memo 1987-513, RIA TC Memo P 87513, 54 CCH TCM 850.

randolphus maximus
02-22-2008, 12:13 AM
Well, then you would agree that the way that the IRS is "enforcing" the law is unconstitutional?


It may be so, but the courts are NOT the venue to use to get change... That is what a frivolous lawsuit is... it has already been decided.

There are other ways to change the law. The court avenue has been exhausted and unless you want to be fined with no chance, then pursue these elsewhere.. just trying to help.. people get misled by the tax protest movement and they end up like one of the above cases....

You wonder why all of the cites to the cases above dont have the correct citing.

Here is a quick lesson. A court case cite looks like the following...

Roberts v. C.I.R., 329 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 2003)
Jenkins v. Comm'r, 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007)

The __ F.3d ___ part is the reporter where you can find the case
the numbers that surround the F.3d are the volume and section.
The 11th Cir. part is the federal circuit of appeals court. The eleventh circuit.

Notice that all of the above tax cases that are listed in the post above have none of these... this is because they never went to trial... there was summary judgment meaning the judge makes the decision as a matter of law before the trial even starts.

And in the tax protest instance, after the judge decides in favor of the IRS's motion for summary judgment, then they fine you money.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:15 AM
Well how can they deny a trial by jury? You are entitled to be tried by a jury of your peers, no? And when did this change take place with tax protestors?

Here is your answer

The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). A motion for summary judgment may be granted where there is no dispute as to a material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(a) and (b). 4 HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question of genuine material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations [*8] or denials in the pleadings. See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

randolphus maximus
02-22-2008, 12:18 AM
Well whether it's unconstitutional or not, one thing that is for sure is that the way the IRS COLLECTS the tax is unconstitutional. That is something that cannot be argued. There was a book that came out a number of years ago by Senator William Roth (for whom the ROTH IRA is named after) called "The Power to Destroy" and if you read that thing it will piss you off more than anything.

It does make you wonder about how far our country has gotten away from our roots when slaves, at the most, would have to give 10% of the fruits of their labor to their masters. We work half the year now to pay our "fair shair" to the government.

And also, wasn't our country founded on a tax rebellion? Wasn't it fashionable to tar and feather the tax collectors? I'm not advocating violence but in 200 years, we've fallen pretty far off the mark from what the founding fathers envisioned a free society to be.



Here is your answer

The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). A motion for summary judgment may be granted where there is no dispute as to a material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(a) and (b). 4 HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question of genuine material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations [*8] or denials in the pleadings. See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:19 AM
If you go to court, this is what your case will look like.... I copied and pasted this:


Petitioner has failed to set forth any grounds on which we could find that the Appeals Office erred in its determination that respondent could properly proceed with collection of petitioner's 1996 tax liabilities. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to summary judgment.

HN9Go to the description of this Headnote.Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000 whenever the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless or the taxpayer has instituted or pursued the proceeding [*12] primarily for delay.

SEC. 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.

HN10Go to the description of this Headnote.(a) Tax Court Proceedings. --

(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc. --

whenever it appears to the Tax Court that --

(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or

maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,

(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is

frivolous or groundless, or

(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue

available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in

its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the

United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.

Petitioner appears to have instituted or maintained the instant case primarily as a protest against the Federal income tax. See, e.g. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986)(taxpayer's argument that he is not a taxpayer is frivolous); Tolotti v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2002-86 [*13] (taxpayer's argument that Commissioner must identify constitutional and statutory provisions that make taxpayer liable for Federal income tax is frivolous), affd. 70 Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003). HN11Go to the description of this Headnote.We shall not refute frivolous arguments with copious citation and extended discussion. Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139 (2000) (citing Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)). Respondent informed petitioner that petitioner risked monetary penalty by making such arguments, but petitioner continued to waste the limited resources of the Federal tax system. Consequently, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty of $ 10,000.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

randolphus maximus
02-22-2008, 12:23 AM
Also, keep in mind, if you take on the IRS, you have to bear the consequences of your actions. They do act like a criminal organization, they lie, steal, cheat, and ARBITRARILY enforce the law. I'm telling you, read Senator Roth's book "The Power to Destroy" and it will make you throw up and piss you off at the same time.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:30 AM
Well whether it's unconstitutional or not, one thing that is for sure is that the way the IRS COLLECTS the tax is unconstitutional. That is something that cannot be argued. There was a book that came out a number of years ago by Senator William Roth (for whom the ROTH IRA is named after) called "The Power to Destroy" and if you read that thing it will piss you off more than anything.

It does make you wonder about how far our country has gotten away from our roots when slaves, at the most, would have to give 10% of the fruits of their labor to their masters. We work half the year now to pay our "fair shair" to the government.

And also, wasn't our country founded on a tax rebellion? Wasn't it fashionable to tar and feather the tax collectors? I'm not advocating violence but in 200 years, we've fallen pretty far off the mark from what the founding fathers envisioned a free society to be.

for the most part I agree that America has fallen way away from our founders original intent. No one likes paying so many taxes. But, there is an economic argument for the income tax.

Suppose they cut all of these taxes for everyone, then everyone has more money all of a sudden... In the short term, everyone will have a much much larger purchasing power...(kinda like when the fed prints the money and loans it to the govt. for military spending, more purchase power, then it trickles down to the people who see the inflation and less purchase power, RP talks about this) But just like when money grows on trees, money will lose it's value since everyone has more of it, and there is only a finite amount of goods and people to perform services. Then prices will rise, so supply will meet demand again, in the long run. Then you have no income tax, but you are back where you started with the same purchasing power....

Edu
02-22-2008, 12:42 AM
Stop quoting tax court. Stop!

That's the same thing as agreeing to arbitration. You go to their court (which isn't a court) where they make the rules and you lose. Should never go to tax court, no one has to. Go read about it.

And just recently snipes got a jury, so give up on that line of thought.

And STATUTES are the law, not codes. And law only applies where there is jurisdiction, it can't apply everywhere, and mostly fed stuff is within their 10 square miles. Do more research please.

Congress has never amended the constitution to allow direct taxes, and the amendment you are thinking of does not create any new taxing power, SCOTUS said so, look it up. And it makes sense since they are actually using their power to tax what they own (you let them own you and keep confirming it over and over, go do research please).

However, the argument of "there is no law" works because they don't want to drop to the next level and just tell people that they are slaves, owned, property of the government (with a SS Serial Number, property tag, mooooo cattle tag). They don't have to tell you.

Oh, and when jurisdiction is challenged it must be answered and proved, and if you are wondering where all the case law is, if it gets dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where does it end up? And really it never gets started since you can move against them for messing with you in the first place, especially if they know they don't have authority in the first place.

Property shouldn't argue with their master, property must do what it is told to do.

Do you get it yet?

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:48 AM
Stop quoting tax court. Stop!

That's the same thing as agreeing to arbitration. You go to their court (which isn't a court) where they make the rules and you lose. Should never go to tax court, no one has to. Go read about it.

And just recently snipes got a jury, so give up on that line of thought.

And STATUTES are the law, not codes. And law only applies where there is jurisdiction, it can't apply everywhere, and mostly fed stuff is within their 10 square miles. Do more research please.

Congress has never amended the constitution to allow direct taxes, and the amendment you are thinking of does not create any new taxing power, SCOTUS said so, look it up. And it makes sense since they are actually using their power to tax what they own (you let them own you and keep confirming it over and over, go do research please).

However, the argument of "there is no law" works because they don't want to drop to the next level and just tell people that they are slaves, owned, property of the government (with a SS Serial Number, property tag, mooooo cattle tag). They don't have to tell you.

Oh, and when jurisdiction is challenged it must be answered and proved, and if you are wondering where all the case law is, if it gets dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where does it end up? And really it never gets started since you can move against them for messing with you in the first place, especially if they know they don't have authority in the first place.

Property shouldn't argue with their master, property must do what it is told to do.

Do you get it yet?

UM, not all of the cites are tax court guy.

Dont come here and make claims without citing the case. I need case cites.... If you want more cases deciding Tax Protest args, that arent tax court then just let me know I will be happy to post them..

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:52 AM
Read this, this is a case where the guy brought up the 16th amendment arg.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 242 (7th Cir. 1989)
16th Amendment not ratified correctly

The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that in this case as well as in his two previous actions, Miller has sought to turn the judicial review procedure of § 6703 on its head by making it a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality [**10] of the sixteenth amendment. Miller's repeated abuse of § 6703 to press his stale constitutional claims has confounded Congress' larger and unquestionably legitimate aim of maintaining the integrity of the income tax system. Senate Report, at 1025.

Our research into the practice employed by Miller and the issues he has attempted to raise reveals a troubling pattern of similar cases. Schoffner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 812 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1987) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and series of constitutional objections); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket constitutional objections); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1984) [**11] (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment and other constitutional objections); Parker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984) (challenge to tax deficiency determination and penalty for filing an inappropriate return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection).

As best we can surmise, Miller, like the plaintiffs in the foregoing cases, has followed the advice of those associated with the "tax protester movement." The leaders of this movement conduct seminars across the country in which they attempt to convince taxpayers that the sixteenth amendment and assorted enforcement provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional. See, e.g. United States v. Hairston, 819 F.2d 971, 972 (10th Cir. 1987). Members are encouraged to defy the income tax filing requirements through returns like those noted above. They are then instructed to obtain a jury trial so that potentially like-minded jurors may be persuaded to acquit in the exercise of their power of jury nullification. See, e.g., United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 236-237 (10th Cir. 1979). [**12] The movement's manifesto, Benson and Beckman's The Law That Never Was, is a collection of documents relating to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, and is intended to be both a call to arms for the movement and "exhibit A" in the trials of tax protesters who argue that the sixteenth amendment was illegally ratified. Id. at xvii ("The tax protestor will be the great American hero of 1985 just as in 1776. It was tax protestors, not any political party, or judge or prosecutor who gave us our great Constitutional Republican form of government. The tax protest is more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie or Chevrolet!!").

In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir. 1986) HN5

[**13] (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal [*241] instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State. . . . Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. . . . [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized [**14] to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . [his] decision is now beyond review.

Id. at 1253 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1036, 93 L. Ed. 2d 840, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987) (propriety of the ratification process is a political question).

We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n.6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the [**15] authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from HN6

the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

Miller would have us disregard this principle and overturn almost three quarters of a century of settled law and declare [**16] the sixteenth amendment unconstitutional. He has asked us and the district court to do that which we have no authority to do. He would have us substitute one brand of lawlessness (from his perspective) with a form of lawlessness of our own. Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.

This advice has been offered on other occasions. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986) (tax protesters "must choose other forums, and there are many available"). In the circumstances, the sanctions imposed by the district court were appropriate. With particular reference to the injunction limiting Miller's access to the federal courts, we note that the district court was struggling with a persistent tax protester who was undaunted by his failure in two previous cases in as many years. A monetary sanction of $ 500 in the latter of those two cases did not prevent Miller from returning to the federal courthouse for yet a third time with the identical claims. The district court was thus faced with a plaintiff as intransigent as the tax protester we [**17] sanctioned in Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987), and properly drew upon the injunctive relief we imposed in Lysiak to fashion a remedy to address the parallel strains that Miller's frivolous filings were having on its crowded docket and limited [*242] resources. Id. at 313. Miller may exercise his right to access the federal courts upon a simple showing that his claim is colorable. See Coleman, 791 F.2d at 72 (there is no constitutional right to bring a frivolous suit). We therefore reject Miller's claim that the sanctions were excessive and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The present appeal is a patently frivolous one that has generated additional costs for the defendants and this court. Five years ago we warned plaintiffs like Miller that while the doors of the courthouse are open to good faith appeals, "we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments . . . In the future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax [**18] appeals and will not hesitate to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances." Granzow v. C.I.R., 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1984). This is such a circumstance. Although Miller is acting pro se, he knew or should have known that his position was groundless. Coleman, 791 F.2d at 71 (a court may and should impose sanctions if a person knows his position is groundless). Each of the three district judges before whom Miller has appeared have taken pains to explain the meritlessness of his position. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984) (reassertion of issues disposed of in prior proceedings is sanctionable). In conformity with our policy for such tax protester cases, Coleman, 791 F.2d at 73, we hereby sanction Miller $1500 in lieu of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

The judgment of district court is affirmed, with double costs and $1500 in damages imposed against the plaintiff-appellant. Miller is ordered to make payment to the Clerk of this court within thirty (30) days by a check made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

So ordered.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:54 AM
want another one?

Notice the bold words at the end of the court case above... WHICH IS A FEDERAL COURT, NOT TAX COURT,

They fine the guy for making the arg. Just like Tax Court.

randolphus maximus
02-22-2008, 12:54 AM
That's an argument similar to when a tornado or other natural disaster hits someplace and "the bright side" is that the economy will be boosted from the rebuilding. Which on its face sounds like a plus but doesn't take into account the fact that the people have to replace what they've lost. In other words, some parts of the economy may benefit, but overall the total economic benefit is usually nil or a negative.

Also, there is NEVER any economic argument for an income tax. NEVER. Especially the POS income tax that we have. It's arbitrary, capricious, and has NO place in a free society. It's a tool that is used by the government to control the people through fear. Disagree? Show me your tax return and I will show you who you are. No government needs that much information about its citizens. At least not one that's supposed to be limited in its power.


for the most part I agree that America has fallen way away from our founders original intent. No one likes paying so many taxes. But, there is an economic argument for the income tax.

Suppose they cut all of these taxes for everyone, then everyone has more money all of a sudden... In the short term, everyone will have a much much larger purchasing power...(kinda like when the fed prints the money and loans it to the govt. for military spending, more purchase power, then it trickles down to the people who see the inflation and less purchase power, RP talks about this) But just like when money grows on trees, money will lose it's value since everyone has more of it, and there is only a finite amount of goods and people to perform services. Then prices will rise, so supply will meet demand again, in the long run. Then you have no income tax, but you are back where you started with the same purchasing power....

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 12:59 AM
That's an argument similar to when a tornado or other natural disaster hits someplace and "the bright side" is that the economy will be boosted from the rebuilding. Which on its face sounds like a plus but doesn't take into account the fact that the people have to replace what they've lost. In other words, some parts of the economy may benefit, but overall the total economic benefit is usually nil or a negative.

Also, there is NEVER any economic argument for an income tax. NEVER. Especially the POS income tax that we have. It's arbitrary, capricious, and has NO place in a free society. It's a tool that is used by the government to control the people through fear. Disagree? Show me your tax return and I will show you who you are. No government needs that much information about its citizens. At least not one that's supposed to be limited in its power.

No I agree with you, that we are taxed too much... And that we would be better off if we didnt have the income tax. It's just I had to give the other side of the arg. in preparation for my exams coming up..lol..

randolphus maximus
02-22-2008, 01:08 AM
No I agree with you, that we are taxed too much... And that we would be better off if we didnt have the income tax. It's just I had to give the other side of the arg. in preparation for my exams coming up..lol..

Dude, you really got me going there.

Seriously, just like with the FED, we should really be questioning the government about the tax system, every step of the way. Because once the government has our money, what do they care if we complain about it? They already have our money.

Edu
02-22-2008, 01:09 AM
want another one?Yea, find one where the guy doesn't have a SS#, he isn't property of the government and the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

If you can't figure this out, I'm sorry. The information is out there and it's actually pretty simple and basic.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:10 AM
Oh and Snipes got a jury because he didnt bring the tax protest arguments, he just said that he was waiting on the IRS to tell him he needed to file, or to grant him an interview or conference.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN0146117820080202

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:13 AM
Yea, find one where the guy doesn't have a SS#, he isn't property of the government and the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

If you can't figure this out, I'm sorry. The information is out there and it's actually pretty simple and basic.

Why would you want to find a case where someone doesnt have a social security number?

Every American has one. Even the people in charge. Even the President.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:14 AM
Yea, find one where the guy doesn't have a SS#, he isn't property of the government and the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

If you can't figure this out, I'm sorry. The information is out there and it's actually pretty simple and basic.

You asked for another one....

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 73 (7th Cir. 1986)
Wages not income
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead -- so tax protesters think -- to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.

It is an important function of the legal system to induce compliance with rules that a minority firmly believes are misguided. Legal penalties change the balance [**3] of self-interest; those who believe taxes wicked or unauthorized must nonetheless pay. When the legal system depends on honest compliance as much as the income tax system does -- and when disobedience is potentially rewarding to those affected by the rule -- it is often necessary to impose steep penalties on those who refuse to comply. We have consolidated the cases of two such people.

[*70] Norman Coleman did not file tax returns for 1979, 1980, or 1981. The Internal Revenue Service reconstructed Coleman's income for these years and concluded that he owed taxes of $4,806 for 1979, $6,454 for 1980, and $3,692 for 1981. The IRS also concluded that Coleman owed additions to tax exceeding $2,300. Coleman sought review in the Tax Court, demanding that the IRS prove the correctness of its computations and arguing, among other things, that wages are not income. Coleman declined to offer any evidence concerning his income; he insisted that the IRS bear the whole burden of production. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS, concluding that Coleman had presented no evidence that might undermine the presumption that the Commissioner's notice of deficiency is correct. Because [**4] Coleman had filed tax returns for the years before 1979 and demonstrated through the briefing an awareness of the legal obligation to file, the court imposed a penalty of $5,000 under HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.26 U.S.C. § 6673, which authorizes the Tax Court to award damages when it concludes that the case has been "maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless . . . ."

Gary Holder filed a tax return for 1980 but then filed an amended return on which he subtracted his wages from his gross income, leaving only $68.13 in taxable income. Holder attached to the amended return a screed insisting that wages are not income. The amended return requested a refund of $4,555.20. The IRS imposed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous return. Holder paid 15% of the penalty and filed suit in the district court to recover the payment. 26 U.S.C. § 6703. There he argued not only that wages are untaxable but also that § 6702 is unconstitutional. The district court concluded that the suit is as frivolous as the tax return. It granted summary judgment [**5] to the government and ordered Holder to pay the attorneys' fees the government incurred in defending the action.

The billingsgate in appellants' briefs is customary in cases of this nature. Coleman says that wages may not be taxed because they come from his person, a depreciating asset. The personal depreciation offsets the wage, leaving no net income. Coleman thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment -- net income as Coleman defines it, rather than as Congress does. Holder, who styles himself a "private citizen," insists that wages may not be taxed because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excise taxes, and in Holder's world excises may be imposed only on "government granted privileges." Because Holder believes that he is exercising no special privileges, he thinks he may not be taxed. These are tired arguments. HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 2-3; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); [**6] Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267, 54 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5576 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 & n.1 (7th Cir. 1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916).

Both Coleman and Holder also argue that the income tax is a taking, which abridges their right to earn income. Taxes indeed "take" income, but this is not the sense in which the constitution uses "takings." Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the constitution grants to Congress "Power To lay and collect Taxes". The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement of Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3 from taxes on "incomes, from whatever source derived". Although the government might try to achieve through special taxes what the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids if done directly, the general tax levied by the Internal Revenue Code does not offend the Fifth Amendment. Brushaber, supra.

[*71] Coleman argues that the IRS had to prove the amount of his income; he needed to show nothing. The statute is otherwise. [**7] HN3Go to the description of this Headnote.People must make an honest report of their income to the government. If they fail to do this, they must establish any inaccuracies in the Commissioner's reconstruction of their income. 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). His further argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial in the Tax Court is empty. Even in ordinary litigation, the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial when there are no facts in dispute, and Coleman put none in dispute. The Seventh Amendment at all events does not apply to civil litigation against the United States. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 426, 440, 26 L. Ed. 189 (1880); see also Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 442, 450-51, 51 L. Ed. 2d 464, 97 S. Ct. 1261 (1977). Our circuit has apparently never held squarely that there is no right to a jury trial in the Tax Court, but other circuits have held this, and we agree with them. E.g., Parker v. CIR, 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984); Funk v. CIR, 687 F.2d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1982).

Both appellants challenge the penalties imposed on them, contending that "frivolous" is too vague a designation [**8] to support a penalty. This HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.is a staple term of civil litigation, however, and we have sustained against constitutional challenge 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which allows awards against counsel for "vexatious" conduct. In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 449 (7th Cir. 1985). Statutes need not be unambiguous in every application to be constitutional. Many words acquire meaning through judicial and administrative construction over the years, and this evolutionary process is constitutional. E.g., CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 93 S. Ct. 2880 (1973); cf. Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 46 L. Ed. 2d 185, 96 S. Ct. 243 (1975). Courts have been imposing penalties for frivolous litigation for hundreds of years, cf. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67, 65 L. Ed. 2d 488, 100 S. Ct. 2455 (1980), and the ambiguities that lurk in "frivolous" (or any other word) in marginal cases do not prevent the imposition of penalties. Uncertainty is a fact of legal life. The "law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury subsequently estimates [**9] it, some matter of degree." Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 377, 57 L. Ed. 1232, 33 S. Ct. 780 (1913). "Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is familiar to the . . . law to make him take the risk." United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 74 L. Ed. 508, 50 S. Ct. 167 (1930). See also, e.g., United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 46 L. Ed. 2d 228, 96 S. Ct. 316 (1975).

The purpose of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6673 and 6702 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate. HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.A petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law. This is the standard applied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for sanctions in civil litigation, and it is a standard we have used for the award of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the award of [**10] damages under Fed. R. App. P. 38. See Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1985); In re TCI, supra; Lepucki v. Van Wormer, 765 F.2d 86 (7th Cir.) (attorneys' fees awarded), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827, 106 S. Ct. 86, 88 L. Ed. 2d 71, damages awarded, 474 U.S. 992, 106 S. Ct. 403, 88 L. Ed. 2d 355 (1985); Steinle v. Warren, 765 F.2d 95, 102 (7th Cir. 1985) ($2,500 damages awarded); Oglesby v. RCA Corp., 752 F.2d 272, 279-80 (7th Cir. 1985). The inquiry is objective. If a person should have known that his position is groundless, a court may and should impose sanctions. See Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d. 687 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 5.

Things are otherwise under §§ 6673 and 6702, the appellants say; these statutes [*72] require not only a lack of objective support but also subjective bad faith. Coleman cites May v. CIR, 752 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1985), for this proposition. As originally published May used a subjective test, although the court found that May [**11] himself acted in subjective bad faith. The court later revised the opinion, stating the inquiry as whether the taxpayer "knew or should have known" that the claim, return, or argument was groundless. 55 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 747, 751 (8th Cir. 1985). HN6Go to the description of this Headnote."Should have known" is an objective test. We used an objective test for penalties under the tax laws in Lovell v. United States, supra, and there is no reason to change that approach. Section 6673, for example, states alternative tests: whether the suit was "maintained . . . primarily for delay" or whether the position is "frivolous or groundless." The former is a subjective inquiry, the latter is objective; either will support a penalty. See also In re TCI, supra, 769 F.2d at 445 (subjective bad faith is important under § 1927 only when the litigation is objectively colorable).

The purpose of §§ 6673 and 6702, like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of § 1927, is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless costs [**12] on other litigants. Once the legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things. They cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments. Both appellants say that the penalties stifle their right to petition for redress of grievances. But HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.there is no constitutional right to bring frivolous suits, see Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 76 L. Ed. 2d 277, 103 S. Ct. 2161 (1983). People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and there are many available. Taxes are onerous, no doubt, and the size of the tax burden gives people reason to hope that they can escape payment. Self-interest calls forth obtuseness. An obtuse belief -- even if sincerely held -- is no refuge, no warrant for imposing delay on the legal system and costs on one's adversaries. The more costly obtuseness becomes, the less there will be.

The contentions in this case are objectively frivolous. They have been raised and rejected so often that this circuit now handles almost all similar cases by unpublished orders. The Tax Court and the IRS were entitled to impose sanctions. We, too, regularly impose sanctions in these cases. [**13] In Van Wormer this court awarded attorneys' fees as a sanction for similar claims, and the Supreme Court added $1,000 in damages. Our unpublished orders in cases of this sort regularly end with awards of double costs and attorneys' fees in favor of the government. Precisely because the substantive claims are so weak, and the opinions are therefore unpublished, litigants may be unaware of our practice. The routine use of sanctions does not deter unless people know what lies in store. See also, e.g., Connor v. CIR, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985) (the argument that wages are not income "has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.").

Our usual practice has been to invite the government to submit an itemized request for attorneys' fees. The keeping of time and expense records, and the preparation of affidavits supporting requests for fees, are themselves avoidable costs of baseless litigation. The government's brief in No. 85-1601 informs us that the average amount of fees it has been awarded in tax protester litigation between July 26, 1984, and June 12, 1985, is $1,258 per case. This includes only the fees [**14] that can be directly attributed to litigation. In order to make simpler the task of computing and awarding fees, courts sometimes impose uniform sanctions on the authority of Fed. R. App. P. 38. The Supreme Court awarded a flat $1,000 in Van Wormer on top of the fees we had earlier granted. We, too, have occasionally named a penalty rather than requesting an individual computation of fees. E.g., Steinle, supra; Ruderer v. Fines, 614 F.2d 1128, 1132-33 (7th Cir. 1980); [*73] and Clarion Corp. v. American Home Products Corp., 494 F.2d 860, 865-66 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 870, 95 S. Ct. 128, 42 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1974), each of which imposes $2,500 as damages for frivolous appeals; and Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1985); and Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986), each of which imposes a $500 penalty for a frivolous appeal. And compare Hallowell v. CIR, 744 F.2d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 1984) ($2,000 per tax protest); and Crain v. CIR, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984) (same), with Knoblauch v. CIR, 749 F.2d 200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1984) [**15] (individual calculation).

Because average awards of actual attorneys' fees in tax protest cases exceed $1,000, we choose to impose sanctions of $1,500 in lieu of attorneys' fees. Even $1,500 cannot cover the indirect costs of this litigation -- including the costs that befall serious litigants, who must wait longer for their cases to receive judicial attention. The decision to name a penalty rather than invite proof of the government's actual attorneys' fees produces some imprecision, doubtless. Coleman's case is a little more complex than Holder's -- Coleman's brief is 38 pages, the government's 31; Holder's brief is 10 pages, the government's 16. There should be no weeping over this imprecision, however. Coleman and Holder could have avoided the penalty, and other people should avoid it, by the most minimal concern for settled rules. They knew or should have known that their claims are frivolous, and they (rather than their adversary) must pay the cost of their self-indulgent litigation.

The judgments are affirmed, with double costs and $1,500 damages in each case.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:14 AM
want another?

Notice how in each case, the tax protester gets fined for the arg. being frivolous.... hmm....

Edu
02-22-2008, 01:21 AM
Oh and Snipes got a jury because he didnt bring the tax protest arguments, he just said that he was waiting on the IRS to tell him he needed to file, or to grant him an interview or conference.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN0146117820080202He brought up the 861 argument and a lot of the other stuff. He had help getting the jury because of the guys who were giving him advice, they knew not to go to tax court and how to not be fooled into being talked out of a jury.

But again, and again, and again, all of these cases are property arguing with their master.

Have fun (but don't get in trouble with your teacher):
http://www.livetaxfree.com/trueland.htm
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/citizenship.htm
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/cases.html
http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://abrrp.us/

Edu
02-22-2008, 01:27 AM
Every American has one. Even the people in charge. Even the President. No they don't. And by saying this now I know you need to do more research. I know a number of people who never got one, their parents showed them how to live without one and they are doing just fine.

And they are more American than someone with a SS# !

A SS# doesn't prove you are an American, it proves you are government property.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:35 AM
No they don't. And by saying this now I know you need to do more research. I know a number of people who never got one, their parents showed them how to live without one and they are doing just fine.

And they are more American than someone with a SS# !

A SS# doesn't prove you are an American, it proves you are government property.

No, it proves that you live in the wilderness and never went to college.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:37 AM
No they don't. And by saying this now I know you need to do more research. I know a number of people who never got one, their parents showed them how to live without one and they are doing just fine.

And they are more American than someone with a SS# !

A SS# doesn't prove you are an American, it proves you are government property.

I know that some Americans in BFE probably never got a SS#, but the vast vast majority of Americans (not illegal aliens) have SS#'s

So the case you wanted me to find would not be applicable to the vast vast majority of people.. therefore, quite useless.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:42 AM
He brought up the 861 argument and a lot of the other stuff. He had help getting the jury because of the guys who were giving him advice, they knew not to go to tax court and how to not be fooled into being talked out of a jury.

But again, and again, and again, all of these cases are property arguing with their master.

Have fun (but don't get in trouble with your teacher):
http://www.livetaxfree.com/trueland.htm
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/citizenship.htm
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/cases.html
http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://abrrp.us/

Why dont you show me the case cite....

The first link I clicked on wasnt even active... it is apparent that you just copied and pasted a bunch of your favorite protest websites for me to go on a wild goose chase..

Edu
02-22-2008, 01:53 AM
No, it proves that you live in the wilderness and never went to college.They live in LA, California. And you can go to college without a SS# and do a lot of other stuff if you do the research.

Sorry one of the sites is down, I can't control the internet, it goes on and off as people cut underwater cables :)

I agree that the vast majority of people are owned and don't know it.

Are you going to stay owned?

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 01:54 AM
He brought up the 861 argument and a lot of the other stuff. He had help getting the jury because of the guys who were giving him advice, they knew not to go to tax court and how to not be fooled into being talked out of a jury.

But again, and again, and again, all of these cases are property arguing with their master.

Have fun (but don't get in trouble with your teacher):
http://www.livetaxfree.com/trueland.htm
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/citizenship.htm
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/cases.html
http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://abrrp.us/

1. website doesnt even work
2. has nothing to do with this discussion.. it is about citizenship and the 14th amendment.
3. only had one case the Supreme Court case Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199 (U.S. 1991), and they claim that this case shows that there is a defense, which is laughable. (will address and post this later)
4. another citizenship website... no tax info
5. another sovereignty page...no tax info...


Where are all the cases man???

Broadlighter
02-22-2008, 02:00 AM
From what I understand, there is no statute requiring individuals to pay the income tax, only corporations. However, individuals are led to believe they are required.

Problem is - the government has the courts and the guns to make you pay. The law is not about agreements by, of and for the people, it's what the bureaucrat, politician or judge says it is.

Does that make it morally right. No, IMO. In a free society, governments have no more right to take the fruits of an individual's labor to do with as it chooses than any other individual.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 02:06 AM
As promised, the Supreme Court case...

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 210 (U.S. 1991)
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

[3A]Title 26, § 7201 of the United States Code provides that HN1

any person "who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U. S. C. § 7203, "any person required under this title . . . or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [*194] This case turns on the meaning of the [***625] word "willfully" as used in §§ 7201 and 7203.

I

Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973. He filed federal income tax returns through 1979 but thereafter ceased to file returns. 1 He also claimed an increasing number of withholding allowances -- eventually claiming 60 allowances by mid-1980 -- and for the years 1981 to 1984 indicated on his W-4 forms that he was exempt from federal income taxes. In 1983, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a refund of all tax withheld by his employer in 1982. Petitioner's income during this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to trigger the statutory filing requirement.

FOOTNOTES

1 Cheek did file what the Court of Appeals described as a frivolous return in 1982.


As a result of his activities, petitioner was indicted for 10 violations of federal law. He was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 through 1986, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7203. He was further charged with three counts of willfully attempting to [**607] evade his income taxes for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 in violation of § 7201. In those years, American Airlines withheld substantially less than the amount of tax petitioner owed because of the numerous allowances and exempt status he claimed on his W-4 forms. 2 The tax offenses with which petitioner was charged are specific intent crimes that require the defendant to have acted willfully.

FOOTNOTES

2 Because petitioner filed a refund claim for the entire amount withheld by his employer in 1982, petitioner was also charged under 18 U. S. C. § 287 with one count of presenting a claim to an agency of the United States knowing the claim to be false and fraudulent.


At trial, the evidence established that between 1982 and 1986, petitioner was involved in at least four civil cases that [*195] challenged various aspects of the federal income tax system. 3 In all four of those cases, the plaintiffs were informed by the courts that many of their arguments, including that they were not taxpayers within the meaning of the tax laws, that wages are not income, that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize the imposition of an income tax on individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment is unenforceable, were frivolous or had been repeatedly rejected by the courts. During this time period, petitioner [***626] also attended at least two criminal trials of persons charged with tax offenses. In addition, there was evidence that in 1980 or 1981 an attorney had advised Cheek that the courts had rejected as frivolous the claim that wages are not income. 4


4 The attorney also advised that despite the Fifth Amendment, the filing of a tax return was required and that a person could challenge the constitutionality of the system by suing for a refund after the taxes had been withheld, or by putting himself "at risk of criminal prosecution."


Cheek represented himself at trial and testified in his defense. He admitted that he had not filed personal income tax returns during the years in question. He testified that as early as 1978, he had begun attending seminars sponsored [*196] by, and following the advice of, a group that believes, among other things, that the federal tax system is unconstitutional. Some of the speakers at these meetings were lawyers who purported to give professional opinions about the invalidity of the federal income tax laws. Cheek produced a letter from an attorney stating that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries but only on gain or profit. Petitioner's defense was that, based on the indoctrination he received from this group and from his own study, he sincerely believed that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions during the 1980-1986 period were lawful. He therefore argued that he had acted without the willfulness required for conviction of the various offenses with which he was charged.

In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that to prove "willfulness" the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. [**608] The court further advised the jury that an objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness, but mere disagreement with the law would not. The court described Cheek's beliefs about the income tax system 5 and instructed the jury that if it found that Cheek "honestly and reasonably believed that [*197] he was not required to pay income taxes or to file tax returns," App. 81, a not guilty verdict should be returned.

FOOTNOTES

5 "The defendant has testified as to what he states are his interpretations of the United States Constitution, court opinions, common law and other materials he has reviewed. . . . He has also introduced materials which contain references to quotations from the United States Constitution, court opinions, statutes, and other sources.

"He testified he relied on his interpretations and on these materials in concluding that he was not a person required to file income tax returns for the year or years charged, was not required to pay income taxes and that he could claim exempt status on his W-4 forms, and that he could claim refunds of all moneys withheld." App. 75-76.

"Among other things, Mr. Cheek contends that his wages from a private employer, American Airlines, does [sic] not constitute income under the Internal Revenue Service laws." Id., at 81.


After several hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge that stated in part:
"'We have a basic disagreement between some of us as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income taxes.

. . . .

"'Page 32 [the relevant jury instruction] discusses good faith [***627] misunderstanding & disagreement. Is there any additional clarification you can give us on this point?'" Id., at 85.

The District Judge responded with a supplemental instruction containing the following statements:
"[A] person's opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law. Furthermore, a person's disagreement with the government's tax collection systems and policies does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law." Id., at 86.

At the end of the first day of deliberation, the jury sent out another note saying that it still could not reach a verdict because "'we are divided on the issue as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income tax.'" Id., at 87. When the jury resumed its deliberations, the District Judge gave the jury an additional instruction. This instruction stated in part that "an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness," id., at 88, and that "advice or research resulting in the conclusion that wages of a privately employed person are not income or that the tax laws are unconstitutional is not objectively reasonable and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith misunderstanding of the law defense." Ibid. The court also instructed the jury that "persistent refusal to acknowledge the law does not constitute a good [*198] faith misunderstanding of the law." Ibid. Approximately two hours later, the jury returned a verdict finding petitioner guilty on all counts. 6


Petitioner appealed his convictions, arguing that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that only an objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the statutory willfulness requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the convictions. 882 F.2d 1263 (1989). In prior cases, the Seventh Circuit had made clear that good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness only if the defendant's [**609] beliefs are objectively reasonable; in the Seventh Circuit, even actual ignorance is not a defense unless the defendant's ignorance was itself objectively reasonable. See, e. g., United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987). In its opinion in this case, the court noted that several specified beliefs, including the beliefs that the tax laws are unconstitutional and that wages are not income, would not be objectively reasonable. 7 Because the Seventh Circuit's [*199] [***628] interpretation of "willfully" as used in these statutes conflicts with the decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, see, e. g., United States v. Whiteside, 810 F.2d 1306, 1310-1311 (CA5 1987); United States v. Phillips, 775 F.2d 262, 263-264 (CA10 1985); United States v. Aitken, 755 F.2d 188, 191-193 (CA1 1985), we granted certiorari, 493 U.S. 1068 (1990).

FOOTNOTES

7 The opinion stated, 882 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269, n.2 (CA7 1989), as follows:

"For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered 'objectively reasonable' in this circuit:

"(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;

"(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally;

"(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment;

"(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;

"(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;

"(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and

"(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.

" Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Buckner, 830 F.2d at 102; United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1987); Coleman v. Comm'r, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); Moore, 627 F.2d 830 at 833. We have no doubt that this list will increase with time."

II

The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. See, e. g., United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153, 5 Wheat. 153, 182, 5 L. Ed. 57 (1820) (Livingston, J., dissenting); Barlow v. United States, 7 Pet. 404, 411 (1833); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 167, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1879); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57, 68, 54 L. Ed. 930, 30 S. Ct. 663 (1910); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 228, 78 S. Ct. 240 (1957); Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 441, 85 L. Ed. 2d 434, 105 S. Ct. 2084 (1985) (WHITE, J., dissenting); O. Holmes, The Common Law 47-48 (1881). Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common-law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. See, e. g., United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 29 L. Ed. 2d 178, 91 S. Ct. 1697 (1971); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 119-124, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590, 94 S. Ct. 2887 (1974); Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 96 L. Ed. 367, 72 S. Ct. 329 (1952).

[5A]The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend [*200] the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common-law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term "willfully" as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 78 L. Ed. 381, 54 S. Ct. 223 (1933), the Court recognized that:
"Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as [**610] to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of [***629] conduct." Id., at 396.
The Court held that the defendant was entitled to an instruction with respect to whether he acted in good faith based on his actual belief. In Murdock, the Court interpreted the term "willfully" as used in the criminal tax statutes generally to mean "an act done with a bad purpose," id., at 394, or with "an evil motive," id., at 395.

Subsequent decisions have refined this proposition. In United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 36 L. Ed. 2d 941, 93 S. Ct. 2008 (1973), we described the term "willfully" as connoting "a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty," id., at 360, and did so with specific reference to the "bad faith or evil intent" language employed in Murdock. Still later, United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 50 L. Ed. 2d 12, 97 S. Ct. 22 (1976) (per curiam), addressed a situation in which several defendants had been charged with willfully filing false tax returns. The jury was given an instruction on willfulness similar to the standard set forth in Bishop. In addition, it was instructed that "'good motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime.'" Id., at 11. The defendants were convicted but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the latter instruction [*201] was improper because the statute required a finding of bad purpose or evil motive. Ibid.

We reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that "the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to an 'evil motive' in United States v. Bishop, supra, and prior cases," ibid., "requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty." Id., at 12. As "the other Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have recognized, willfulness in this context simply means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." Ibid. We concluded that after instructing the jury on willfulness, "an additional instruction on good faith was unnecessary." Id., at 13. Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."

III
[3B]Cheek accepts the Pomponio definition of willfulness, Brief for Petitioner 5, and n.4, 13, 36; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, 6-7, 11, 13, but asserts that the District Court's instructions and the Court of Appeals' opinion departed from that definition. In particular, he challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect.

A
Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. We deal first with the case where the issue is whether the [***630] defendant knew of the duty purportedly imposed by the provision of the statute or regulation he is accused of violating, a case in which there is no claim that the provision [*202] at issue is invalid. In such a case, if the Government proves actual knowledge of the pertinent legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness requirement. But carrying this burden requires negating a defendant's claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law, he had a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws. This is so [**611] because one cannot be aware that the law imposes a duty upon him and yet be ignorant of it, misunderstand the law, or believe that the duty does not exist. In the end, the issue is whether, based on all the evidence, the Government has proved that the defendant was aware of the duty at issue, which cannot be true if the jury credits a good-faith misunderstanding and belief submission, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.

[1C] In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, and the jury believed him, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income. 8

FOOTNOTES

8 Cheek recognizes that a "defendant who knows what the law is and who disagrees with it . . . does not have a bona fide misunderstanding defense," but asserts that "a defendant who has a bona fide misunderstanding of [the law] does not 'know' his legal duty and lacks willfulness." Brief for Petitioner 29, and n.13. The Reply Brief for Petitioner, at 13, states: "We are in no way suggesting that Cheek or anyone else is immune from criminal prosecution if he knows what the law is, but believes it should be otherwise, and therefore violates it." See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 11, 12, 15, 17.

[7]We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals' requirement that a claimed good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government's evidence purporting to show a defendant's awareness of the legal duty at issue. HN5

Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury. Characterizing a particular belief as not objectively reasonable transforms the inquiry into a legal one and would prevent the jury from considering it. It would of course be proper to exclude evidence having no relevance or probative value with respect to willfulness; but it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty, and forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's [***631] jury trial provision. Cf. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 85 L. Ed. 2d 344, 105 S. Ct. 1965 (1985); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39, 99 S. Ct. 2450 (1979); Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 96 L. Ed. 288, 72 S. Ct. 240 (1952). It is common ground that this Court, where possible, interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 99 L. Ed. 2d 645, 108 S. Ct. 1392 (1988); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 76 L. Ed. 598, 52 S. Ct. 285, and n.30 (1932); Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 465-466, 105 L. Ed. 2d 377, 109 S. Ct. 2558 (1989).

[3C]It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be. Of course, the more unreasonable the asserted [*204] beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple [**612] disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge.

[8A]Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. 9 Such a submission is unsound, not because [*205] Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [***632] Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. Those cases construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in "our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law," and "'it is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.'" United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360-361, 36 L. Ed. 2d 941, 93 S. Ct. 2008 (1973) (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 496, 87 L. Ed. 418, 63 S. Ct. 364 (1943)).

In his opening and reply briefs and at oral argument, Cheek asserts that this case does not present the issue whether a claim of unconstitutionality would serve to negate willfulness and that we need not address the issue. Brief for Petitioner 13; Reply Brief for Petitioner 5, 11, 12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 13. Cheek testified at trial, however, that "it is my belief that the law is being enforced unconstitutionally." App. 60. He also produced a letter from counsel advising him that "'Finally you make a valid contention . . . that Congress' power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U. S. Constitution, and not from the Sixteenth Amendment and that the [latter], construed with Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, never authorized a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain and profit." Id., at 57. We note also that the jury asked for "the portion [of the transcript] wherein Mr. Cheek stated he was attempting to test the constitutionality of the income tax laws," Tr. 1704, and that the trial judge later instructed the jury that an opinion that the tax laws violate a person's constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. We also note that at oral argument Cheek's counsel observed that "personal belief that a known statute is unconstitutional smacks of knowledge with existing law, but disagreement with it." Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. He also opined:

"If the person believes as a personal belief that known -- law known to them [sic] is unconstitutional, I submit that that would not be a defense, because what the person is really saying is I know what the law is, for constitutional reasons I have made my own determination that it is invalid. I am not suggesting that that is a defense.

"However, if the person was told by a lawyer or by an accountant erroneously that the statute is unconstitutional, and it's my professional advice to you that you don't have to follow it, then you have got a little different situation. This is not that case." Id., at 6.

Given this posture of the case, we perceive no reason not to address the significance of Cheek's constitutional claims to the issue of willfulness.

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. 10 They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid [**613] and unenforceable. [*206] Thus in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U. S. C. § 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, § 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. § 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§ 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who "willfully" refuse to comply [***633] with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.
[9A]We thus hold that in a case like this, a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury, and, if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance. It was therefore not error in this case for the District Judge to instruct the jury not to consider Cheek's claims that the tax laws were unconstitutional. However, it was error for the court to instruct [*207] the jury that petitioner's asserted beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code should not be considered by the jury in determining whether Cheek had acted willfully. 11

Cheek argues that applying to him the Court of Appeals' standard of objective reasonableness violates his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. Since we have invalidated the challenged standard on statutory grounds, we need not address these submissions.
IV
For the reasons set forth in the opinion above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE SOUTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.



DISSENT

JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage [***635] earner a taxpayer and are wages income?

The Court acknowledges that the conclusively established standard for willfulness under the applicable statutes is the "'voluntary, [**615] intentional violation of a known legal duty.'" Ante, at 201. See United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360, 36 L. Ed. 2d 941, 93 S. Ct. 2008 (1973), and United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12, 50 L. Ed. 2d 12, 97 S. Ct. 22 (1976). That being so, it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our [*210] present federal income tax system with the passage of the Income Tax Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.

The District Court's instruction that an objectively reasonable and good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness lends further, rather than less, protection to this defendant, for it adds an additional hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. Petitioner should be grateful for this further protection, rather than be opposed to it.

This Court's opinion today, I fear, will encourage taxpayers to cling to frivolous views of the law in the hope of convincing a jury of their sincerity. If that ensues, I suspect we have gone beyond the limits of common sense.

While I may not agree with every word the Court of Appeals has enunciated in its opinion, I would affirm its judgment in this case. I therefore dissent.

Edu
02-22-2008, 02:06 AM
Uhhh, citizenship, sovereignty, your status, if you are owned or not, subject or free. It's all I've been talking about.

Are you saying that your status isn't important to jurisdiction?

Got to go, hope you take the time to learn this stuff, it takes a little more than 10 minutes to grasp it all.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 02:09 AM
Notice how in the dissent, they predict what the tax protest movement will do next.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 02:16 AM
Uhhh, citizenship, sovereignty, your status, if you are owned or not, subject or free. It's all I've been talking about.

Are you saying that your status isn't important to jurisdiction?

Got to go, hope you take the time to learn this stuff, it takes a little more than 10 minutes to grasp it all.

I understand what you are trying to say, if you remove the US citizenship then the govt. and the courts have no jurisdiction over you.. etc.

First of all, I dont think that this could or would ever happen.

Second, I really dont think you can go backwards after you have already been in the system. oops sorry, I didnt mean to get that social security number or birth certificate stating I am a US citizen.

And even if you could, then you might do it, but 99.9999% of people would never end their citizenship in the US. People die trying to come to America. That may stop one day, but for now, people are still wanting to come here :p

EndTheFed
02-22-2008, 02:35 AM
Mr. White,

Exactly what is propaganda about Freedom to Fascism?

If you can show he is wrong, please elaborate.

Thanks

AMBurns
02-22-2008, 02:47 AM
ionlyknowy:

I took 20 minutes of my time and watched this video:

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=thefy+by+deception&total=38&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

All of the definitions for what is deemed a taxable "source" of income are in Chapter 1, Subsection N, Section 861 of Title 26: The Income Tax Code.

Our personal income not defined as taxable income in Section 861 (the only place where those definitions are housed).

The point that Edu is trying to make is that we are not citizens of the United States unless we choose to be. According to the Constitution, and general consensus at time the Constitution was written, people were (and still are) citizens of their given State (in my case Texas). Texas, and the other 49 states like it, is a member of the Union (read special club with certain set of rules, called The Constitution) known as the United States.

We are citizens of our given States which belong to a Union of States that is why we have driver's licenses and other State identification and not National ID Cards. Passports are not National ID, they are simply a way for other countries to know that we are members of the Union of the United States which represents itself to the world (with the member States consent) as a nation.

Aaron

AMBurns
02-22-2008, 03:01 AM
bump

Mr. White
02-22-2008, 03:34 PM
Bout time somebody brought up Miller...

Just as a clarification, the only means by which you can get out of a CRIMINAL tax prosecution is to prove to a jury that you were not culpable of the crime. Not that you didn't commit a crime, but that you HONESTLY BELIEVED you didn't have to pay taxes.

Edu is setting forth an argument of remaining entirely free of government and actively dodging the subject of this thread which is whether THE LAW requires you to pay income tax. It does and if you fail to, they will come after you. If you'd like a way AROUND the law, then by all means, follow Edu's links and internet videos. Breaking the law is a choice you make on your own, but don't let an internet video (or this thread) make you think you're an expert on the Constitution or Federal law.

Lots of ignorance parading around in the cloak of self-righteous justification. I'm not saying I don't think it's WRONG, but as the above case cite pointed out, the judiciary isn't going to dick around listening to your half-baked arguments. You want to change the tax law, fight it in congress not in court.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 03:45 PM
Bout time somebody brought up Miller...

Just as a clarification, the only means by which you can get out of a CRIMINAL tax prosecution is to prove to a jury that you were not culpable of the crime. Not that you didn't commit a crime, but that you HONESTLY BELIEVED you didn't have to pay taxes.

Edu is setting forth an argument of remaining entirely free of government and actively dodging the subject of this thread which is whether THE LAW requires you to pay income tax. It does and if you fail to, they will come after you. If you'd like a way AROUND the law, then by all means, follow Edu's links and internet videos. Breaking the law is a choice you make on your own, but don't let an internet video (or this thread) make you think you're an expert on the Constitution or Federal law.

Lots of ignorance parading around in the cloak of self-righteous justification. I'm not saying I don't think it's WRONG, but as the above case cite pointed out, the judiciary isn't going to dick around listening to your half-baked arguments. You want to change the tax law, fight it in congress not in court.

+1 and + the national debt in cents. :)

danberkeley
02-22-2008, 03:50 PM
You don't HAVE to pay the taxes the federal government says you must pay. If you do not, however, the federal government WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 03:55 PM
You don't HAVE to pay the taxes the federal government says you must pay. If you do not, however, the federal government WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns.

I guess you could say that about any law... you dont HAVE to pay a speeding ticket that the city says you must pay. If you do not, however, the city WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns. :p

phoenixzorn
02-22-2008, 04:01 PM
Get the video by Arron Russo

America: Freedom to Fascism

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

It tells all about it and the history of the income tax.

You can also see it online but having the video (quality wise) is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M19jzF8AwEA

Also available from http://www.onedollardvdproject.com

robert4rp08
02-22-2008, 04:13 PM
ionlyknowy:

I took 20 minutes of my time and watched this video:

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=thefy+by+deception&total=38&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

All of the definitions for what is deemed a taxable "source" of income are in Chapter 1, Subsection N, Section 861 of Title 26: The Income Tax Code.

Our personal income not defined as taxable income in Section 861 (the only place where those definitions are housed).

The point that Edu is trying to make is that we are not citizens of the United States unless we choose to be. According to the Constitution, and general consensus at time the Constitution was written, people were (and still are) citizens of their given State (in my case Texas). Texas, and the other 49 states like it, is a member of the Union (read special club with certain set of rules, called The Constitution) known as the United States.

We are citizens of our given States which belong to a Union of States that is why we have driver's licenses and other State identification and not National ID Cards. Passports are not National ID, they are simply a way for other countries to know that we are members of the Union of the United States which represents itself to the world (with the member States consent) as a nation.

Aaron

Not entirely true. You are born into this world as a citizen of the state. However, very early on, you surrender (unknowingly and "voluntarily") your state citizenship to become a federal citizen (14th amendment citizen). The Social Security program is usually the first thing that gets everyone. State citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution. Federal citizens are bound to the contracts made with the federal government.

State citizens have inalienable rights.
Federal citizens have civil rights.

There is a HUGE difference between the two. Check out this page: http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/On_State_Citizenship.html

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it is a good launch pad into doing your own research.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 04:24 PM
Mr. White, you are a lawyer or a law student correct?

If so, tell me if this is correct.

In order to raise of defense in a criminal proceeding of mistake of law as was in the Cheek Supreme Court case, under the Model Penal Code,

Section 2.04
Mistake of same law is no defense unless it falls under one of the exceptions
1. either the mistake is of a required Mens Rea (culpability) of the actual law.
2. or the law provides that a mistake of Mens Rea is a defense.
3. or the law is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably been make available prior to the conduct alleged.
(courts have interpreted this to mean that if the law that was not available AND it is not something that a reasonable person would know was a law requiring their action or inaction then it is a defense)
4. or the mistake was in reasonable reliance on an official statement of law such as a court, and afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous

The Cheek case fell within the 1. mistake above.

He tried to say that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful, meaning purpose to not file.
The Court ruled that just because he was part of the tax protest movement and they had convinced him that the law was unconstitutional didnt mean that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful.

The word "protest" in itself means that you know of the required action (pay taxes) but you are protesting it by some means.

Therefore, Cheek, had the required Mens Rea of willful to not file a tax return.


I know that it is hard to understand the Cheek case if you havent been to law school. Go to law school and you will see why these decisions are the way they are...

BravoSix
02-22-2008, 04:24 PM
Plenty of quoted case law in this thread, and the world is full of assinine case law decided by the courts. As a cop, I've seen plenty of nonsensical arguments made by attorneys and judges alike.

Just because a court, even the SCOTUS, renders an opinion does not mean that it's a logical, just, or accurate. Kelo v. City of New London, anyone?

Dumb it down for me. Someone show me the specific law - statute- that says you and I must pay taxes on our income earned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...I'm just asking for someone to save me from the circular arguments that prove nothing, and show me a specific law.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 04:31 PM
Plenty of quoted case law in this thread, and the world is full of assinine case law decided by the courts. As a cop, I've seen plenty of nonsensical arguments made by attorneys and judges alike.

Just because a court, even the SCOTUS, renders an opinion does not mean that it's a logical, just, or accurate. Kelo v. City of New London, anyone?

Dumb it down for me. Someone show me the specific law - statute- that says you and I must pay taxes on our income earned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...I'm just asking for someone to save me from the circular arguments that prove nothing, and show me a specific law.

The Kelo case was a property eminent domain case where the city was a crap hole and they wanted to revitalize the city with new projects. The arg. was that the revitalization even though through private means was a social benefit and therefore, sufficient to support the taking of the land.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 04:45 PM
Plenty of quoted case law in this thread, and the world is full of assinine case law decided by the courts. As a cop, I've seen plenty of nonsensical arguments made by attorneys and judges alike.

Just because a court, even the SCOTUS, renders an opinion does not mean that it's a logical, just, or accurate. Kelo v. City of New London, anyone?

Dumb it down for me. Someone show me the specific law - statute- that says you and I must pay taxes on our income earned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...I'm just asking for someone to save me from the circular arguments that prove nothing, and show me a specific law.

http://www.fraudsandscams.com/answer.htm
This Isn't Rocket Science
By: Bill E. Branscum
Copyright 2006

Some years ago, while serving as a federal agent, I stopped a Beechcraft King Air departing Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport en route to Colombia, I boarded the airplane without invitation, I demanded that the apparent owner of the airplane open his briefcase, I threatened to destroy the locked briefcase if he failed to comply, I examined the documents thereby produced, and I subsequently seized the airplane . . . all of which absent articulable probable cause.

Sometime later, a wonderfully arrogant defense attorney, sarcastically walked me thru my credentials, education, training and experience, and then asked me [with all manner of self-righteous indignation] to explain how it was that a federal agent with my experience, having a college degree in Criminal Justice, and being the Honor Graduate at the federal academy could have done all these intrusive and egregiously abusive things to his client, with no probable cause whatsoever, and expected to be able to get away with it.

It was a remarkably regrettable error on his part, and it afforded everyone present an opportunity to enjoy a little levity at his expense. I wonder if he is currently using that same tenor and tone when asking, "Do you want fries with that?"

Being able to spank him with the sections of Title 19 of the United States Code that apply to Special Agents of the United States Customs Service, and give the Customs Service a unique search authority at the borders, or functional equivalent thereof, was nothing to boast about. It was nothing more than demonstrating that I knew how to do my job. I cannot begin to imagine how any law enforcement officer can exercise any enforcement authority, impacting upon any citizen of the United States, without being able to explain how and why.

Therefore, it embarrasses me to see defense attorneys befuddle federal agents, especially Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service, with basic, fundamental questions that they should have anticipated, and should have been prepared to answer on the witness stand. "Can you show me where it says my Client is obligated to pay income tax," is not a trick question.

As Special Agents employed by the federal government, the highest paid criminal investigators employed by any governmental entity in the world, the American public has a right to expect a modicum of professionalism. Can you imagine seeing any traffic cop anywhere mumbling, "Gee, I dunno," in response to a motorist demanding to know, "Where does it say I cannot drive as fast as I want to go?"

Brothers and Sisters, please stop letting the circus performers of the courtroom make us all look stupid, by dramatically whipping out their trusty copy of the Internal Revenue Code, and demanding that you answer the simplest of all tax questions . . . especially when you have to know that the simple question is going to be asked. How could it not be, if you are proposing to put a man in jail for having the temerity to ask it?

I have news for you. If we are going to take the position that, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," we cannot use that as justification for our own ignorance. It's bad enough to put people in jail for asking a question you won't or didn't answer, and I have a real problem with that. The notion that any of us would have the audacity to presume to put a man in jail for asking a question we cannot answer seems asinine to me beyond all conception.

If we are going to do that, we might as well applaud the burning of Giordano Bruno, and push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

The question is asked, and will continue to be asked until you answer it, "Can you show me where it imposes upon my Client the obligation to pay income tax?"

If handed the IRC, start with line item number 5.

1. Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, provides that Congress has the power to tax.
2. Congress makes laws, and ultimately delegates the enforcement of those laws, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Internal Revenue Service -- that being the executive office agency that employs IRS agents.
3. The laws of the United States, as enacted by Congress, are published in a series of volumes, normally referred to as "Titles," collectively called the United States Code.
4. Title 26 of the United States Code is the Internal Revenue Code
5. Title 26, Subtitle A is entitled, "Income Taxes."
6. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 is entitled, "Normal Taxes and Surtaxes."
7. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1 is entitled, "Determination of Tax Liability."
8. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Part 1, is entitled, "Tax on Individuals." Depending upon whether the individual is Single, Married, Head of Household, . . . you will find the imposition of their tax obligation right there.

So please, when asked the most basic of all tax questions, for your sake, for our sake, and for the sake of those reasonable few who are genuinely seeking an answer . . . lose that "deer in the headlights" look, and answer the damn thing.

Personally, I understand that the die hard twit wits of the tax protester movement will not accept that as an answer, and they will go on, and on, and on . . . ad infinitum, ad nauseum, with their insufferably ridiculous arguments. You know that, and I know that but it's not your problem, it's not our problem, and the jurors looking to you for an answer won't care. It will be enough that you answered the question, that you have explained to the jury why THEY pay THEIR taxes, and demonstrated to the satisfaction of those who matter that you know how to do your job.

We'll all be wonderfully proud of you, and the circus performers can go home to stand in front of their mirrors to practice, "Do you want fries with that."

Oracle International
Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
OracleIntL@aol.com
(239) 304-1639

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 05:04 PM
To view the law in it's actual wording go here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
or
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/a/chapters/1/subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_1.html

Catatonic
02-22-2008, 05:17 PM
There are a number of threads on this already, just do a search.

Lots of people will quote tax code.

The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property.

Income tax laws/code are valid, when applied to corporate profit. To apply them to wages earned is a violation of supreme court rulings, or in other words, illegal.

How long before this ends up in hot topics?

danberkeley
02-22-2008, 05:23 PM
I guess you could say that about any law... you dont HAVE to pay a speeding ticket that the city says you must pay. If you do not, however, the city WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns. :p

exactly! :D

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 05:24 PM
There are a number of threads on this already, just do a search.

Lots of people will quote tax code.

The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property.

Income tax laws/code are valid, when applied to corporate profit. To apply them to wages earned is a violation of supreme court rulings, or in other words, illegal.

How long before this ends up in hot topics?

Oh God, here we go again... go back and read this entire thread.. we have already debunked your arg.


Until you can cite to that Supreme Court case, then I cannot believe your statement about
"The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property."

If you have read this thread then you will see a federal appellate court that struck down this very argument.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123197&page=5

Plus, even if the Supreme Court defines a term, that doesnt mean that they are deciding your particular argument. A definition of a term can have one meaning in one situation and another in a different situation.

So unless this argument was brought before the Supreme Court, and they defined income in that case then I can believe you. But it is likely that you are talking about a Supreme Court case that is distinguishable from the arg. you are trying to advance.

I am in law school so I have access to unlimited legal resources. And I have been researching this for months now, and I have not come across the case you speak of...

Give me the citation to the case and I will look it up and we can read it together... How about that?

The One
02-22-2008, 05:24 PM
I think I can help you win your tax debate. I'm a master debater.

ionlyknowy
02-22-2008, 05:44 PM
HAHA, I knew that this would get move out of the grassroots section as soon as I posted the actual law! It was at the top of the grassroots forum for almost 2 days then as soon as I post the law it gets moved to the smokey back room.

People need to learn this stuff so they dont make a mistake that will cost them an enormous amount of money and heartache. By moving this thread, it only perpetuates all of the anti-truth infesting this message board. :eek:

Truth-Bringer
02-23-2008, 07:47 AM
debating if there is a law requiring you to pay an income tax

aside from being unconstitutional as an argument

I explain the income tax fraud in detail on this thread. If you want all the facts, read my posts here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

There is a law, but it is being fraudulently and deceptively misapplied to every American citizen.

Truth-Bringer
02-23-2008, 07:49 AM
HAHA, I knew that this would get move out of the grassroots section as soon as I posted the actual law! It was at the top of the grassroots forum for almost 2 days then as soon as I post the law it gets moved to the smokey back room.

People need to learn this stuff so they dont make a mistake that will cost them an enormous amount of money and heartache. By moving this thread, it only perpetuates all of the anti-truth infesting this message board. :eek:

Your nonsense and ignorance are refuted here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

Here are some questions for you. Good luck disproving them:

What is a tax "Return"?

A "return" is NOT a piece of paper within the "Internal" Revenue Code: it only describes a "kickback" of a federal payments!

Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is the term "return" defined by itself. Consequently, there is no basis within the I.R.C. or the regulations which implement it to conclude that it means a paper document. Below is the most prominent place where it is mentioned, but not defined:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 7203

§7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

What is a "return" and what does it mean from a legal perspective to "make a return", then?

Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned. The body of the section says "make" instead of "file", so what they are really saying is that one must return to the government some amount of money. The section simply says it’s a crime to fail to do that which is never legally defined anywhere in the "code". There are many "presumptions" that people in the tax industry make about what a "return" is, but the only source we are allowed to rely upon as law abiding citizens are enacted, positive law statutes. Everything else is just second-hand, hearsay evidence upon which to base a good faith belief.

If you electronically search the entire IRC as we did, in fact, you will find several references to the phrase "return of income" but no references to "return" by itself anyplace but the above statute. Even more interesting is the definition of what a "return of income" is. After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government. Below are just a few examples from the "code" that prove that a "return" is actually a payment to the government, and not simply a paper document as the IRS would have you mistakenly believe:

26 U.S.C. §6012.i> 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, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -

26 U.S.C. §7508. Time for performing certain acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone

(a) Time to be disregarded

In the case of an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, or serving in support of such Armed Forces, in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a ''combat zone'' for purposes of section 112, ........, shall be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability (including any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax) of such individual -

1) Whether any of the following acts was performed within the time prescribed thereof:

(A) Filing any return of income, estate, or gift tax (except income tax withheld at source and income tax imposed by subtitle C or any law superseded thereby);

26 U.S.C. §6075. Time for filing estate and gift tax returns

(a) Returns relating to large transfers at death

The return required by section 6018 with respect to a decedent shall be filed with the return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the decedent's last taxable year or such later date specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) Gift tax returns

(1) General rule

Returns made under section 6019 (relating to gift taxes) shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.

(2) Extension where taxpayer granted extension for filing income tax return

Any extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return of income taxes imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year which is a calendar year shall be deemed to be also an extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return under section 6019 for such calendar year.

A "return" within the I.R.C. is therefore in effect and in truth a compelled "bribe" payment to the government for the "privilege" of having a federal job or receiving federal "payment". Recall that the U.S. government is defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) as a "federal corporation". As you will learn later, "income" is defined by the Sixteenth Amendment as "corporate profit". The IRS fakes most of us out into admitting we are "employees" of this federal corporation on the W-4 form, which says "employee" in the upper left corner. Under 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and 26 CFR §31.3401 (c )-1, only those who are "public officers", who are "officers of a corporation" can be "employees". All such corporate officers ("taxpayers") are described in the code as being involved in a "trade or business" in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). Therefore, nearly all "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. are engaged in a "trade or business", which is a "public office", within the "United States", which is the United States federal government. Receipt of a federal payment by a public officer is then counted as "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. and we as the recipients are in the custody of corporate profit which must be returned to the federal government. The "tax" on this "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. is effectively a "return" or kickback of a percentage of the privileged payment received from the federal government. Until federal "tax" is withheld and paid, we are acting as a "fiduciary" or "transferee" (see 26 U.S.C. §6901) over federal property, and "in rem" federal jurisdiction exists over the property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, an "income tax" is nothing but a federal employee kickback payment. Those private citizens who refuse to commit perjury on a W- 4 form by declaring themselves to be federal "employees" or who refuse to pay this illegal bribe and expose this fraud for what it is may be slandered, called a tax cheat, and/or fired with no law authorizing such treatment whatsoever.

QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:

If you disagree, please show us a section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that defines a "return" as anything OTHER than a kickback payment from federal employees to the federal government. You are not allowed to "presume" otherwise. In the legal field, every statement and belief must be backed up with evidence or it is frivolous.

Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn’t it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn’t impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".

Within the Internal Revenue Code, the only natural persons (biological people) who earn "income" are those who receive these federal payments. This is confirmed by examining 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), which says that only those who have "income effectively connected with a trade or business" can earn "gross income":

NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY

Tax on Individuals

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a)(2)(ii) For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, the tax imposed by section 1(d), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by a married alien individual who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year or by a foreign estate or trust. For such years the tax imposed by section 1 (c), as amended by such Act, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by an unmarried alien individual (other than a surviving spouse) who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year.

See paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.871-8." [26 CFR § 1.1- 1(a)(2)(ii)] "trade or business" is then defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as "the functions of a public office" in the U.S government.

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)

"The term 'trade or business' includes [is limited to] the performance of the functions of a public office."

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) also confirms that if we don’t earn any income from within the District of Columbia, which is called the "United States" in the I.R.C., and if that income is not connected to a "trade or business", then it is foreign to the I.R.C. and outside the jurisdiction of the I.R.S.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > §7701
§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(31) Foreign estate or trust

The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the [federal] United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

Therefore, only those who consent to be "taxpayers" and who receive a federal payments greater than the "exemption amount" indicated in 26 U.S.C. §6012 above must make a "return of income" to the government. The only way a person can earn such "income" and "gross income" is to have earnings "effectively connected with a trade or business in the [federal] United States", which is lawyer-trickery for saying that a person must be engaged in a political office (in the District of Columbia, which is the what "United States" is defined to mean in 26 U.S.C. §7701 (a)(9) and (a)(10)).

QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:

If you think we are wrong in our conclusions relating to a "trade or business" here, then please explain why 26 U.S.C. §6902(a) and 26 U.S.C. §6901(a)(1)(A)(i) places the burden of proof upon the Secretary of the Treasury in Tax Court Proceedings to prove that their opponent is a "transferee", which is a fiduciary of federal property connected to a "public office"? We assert that the only "taxpayer" who can litigate in Tax Court is one who is engaged in a "trade or business", which is a public office in the U.S. government.

ionlyknowy
02-23-2008, 02:54 PM
Your nonsense and ignorance are refuted here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

Here are some questions for you. Good luck disproving them:

What is a tax "Return"?

A "return" is NOT a piece of paper within the "Internal" Revenue Code: it only describes a "kickback" of a federal payments!

Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is the term "return" defined by itself. Consequently, there is no basis within the I.R.C. or the regulations which implement it to conclude that it means a paper document. Below is the most prominent place where it is mentioned, but not defined:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 7203

§7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

What is a "return" and what does it mean from a legal perspective to "make a return", then?

Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned. The body of the section says "make" instead of "file", so what they are really saying is that one must return to the government some amount of money. The section simply says it’s a crime to fail to do that which is never legally defined anywhere in the "code". There are many "presumptions" that people in the tax industry make about what a "return" is, but the only source we are allowed to rely upon as law abiding citizens are enacted, positive law statutes. Everything else is just second-hand, hearsay evidence upon which to base a good faith belief.

If you electronically search the entire IRC as we did, in fact, you will find several references to the phrase "return of income" but no references to "return" by itself anyplace but the above statute. Even more interesting is the definition of what a "return of income" is. After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government. Below are just a few examples from the "code" that prove that a "return" is actually a payment to the government, and not simply a paper document as the IRS would have you mistakenly believe:

26 U.S.C. §6012.i> 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, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -

26 U.S.C. §7508. Time for performing certain acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone

(a) Time to be disregarded

In the case of an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, or serving in support of such Armed Forces, in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a ''combat zone'' for purposes of section 112, ........, shall be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability (including any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax) of such individual -

1) Whether any of the following acts was performed within the time prescribed thereof:

(A) Filing any return of income, estate, or gift tax (except income tax withheld at source and income tax imposed by subtitle C or any law superseded thereby);

26 U.S.C. §6075. Time for filing estate and gift tax returns

(a) Returns relating to large transfers at death

The return required by section 6018 with respect to a decedent shall be filed with the return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the decedent's last taxable year or such later date specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) Gift tax returns

(1) General rule

Returns made under section 6019 (relating to gift taxes) shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.

(2) Extension where taxpayer granted extension for filing income tax return

Any extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return of income taxes imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year which is a calendar year shall be deemed to be also an extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return under section 6019 for such calendar year.

A "return" within the I.R.C. is therefore in effect and in truth a compelled "bribe" payment to the government for the "privilege" of having a federal job or receiving federal "payment". Recall that the U.S. government is defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) as a "federal corporation". As you will learn later, "income" is defined by the Sixteenth Amendment as "corporate profit". The IRS fakes most of us out into admitting we are "employees" of this federal corporation on the W-4 form, which says "employee" in the upper left corner. Under 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and 26 CFR §31.3401 (c )-1, only those who are "public officers", who are "officers of a corporation" can be "employees". All such corporate officers ("taxpayers") are described in the code as being involved in a "trade or business" in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). Therefore, nearly all "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. are engaged in a "trade or business", which is a "public office", within the "United States", which is the United States federal government. Receipt of a federal payment by a public officer is then counted as "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. and we as the recipients are in the custody of corporate profit which must be returned to the federal government. The "tax" on this "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. is effectively a "return" or kickback of a percentage of the privileged payment received from the federal government. Until federal "tax" is withheld and paid, we are acting as a "fiduciary" or "transferee" (see 26 U.S.C. §6901) over federal property, and "in rem" federal jurisdiction exists over the property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, an "income tax" is nothing but a federal employee kickback payment. Those private citizens who refuse to commit perjury on a W- 4 form by declaring themselves to be federal "employees" or who refuse to pay this illegal bribe and expose this fraud for what it is may be slandered, called a tax cheat, and/or fired with no law authorizing such treatment whatsoever.

QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:

If you disagree, please show us a section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that defines a "return" as anything OTHER than a kickback payment from federal employees to the federal government. You are not allowed to "presume" otherwise. In the legal field, every statement and belief must be backed up with evidence or it is frivolous.

Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn’t it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn’t impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".

Within the Internal Revenue Code, the only natural persons (biological people) who earn "income" are those who receive these federal payments. This is confirmed by examining 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), which says that only those who have "income effectively connected with a trade or business" can earn "gross income":

NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY

Tax on Individuals

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a)(2)(ii) For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, the tax imposed by section 1(d), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by a married alien individual who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year or by a foreign estate or trust. For such years the tax imposed by section 1 (c), as amended by such Act, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by an unmarried alien individual (other than a surviving spouse) who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year.

See paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.871-8." [26 CFR § 1.1- 1(a)(2)(ii)] "trade or business" is then defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as "the functions of a public office" in the U.S government.

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)

"The term 'trade or business' includes [is limited to] the performance of the functions of a public office."

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) also confirms that if we don’t earn any income from within the District of Columbia, which is called the "United States" in the I.R.C., and if that income is not connected to a "trade or business", then it is foreign to the I.R.C. and outside the jurisdiction of the I.R.S.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > §7701
§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(31) Foreign estate or trust

The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the [federal] United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

Therefore, only those who consent to be "taxpayers" and who receive a federal payments greater than the "exemption amount" indicated in 26 U.S.C. §6012 above must make a "return of income" to the government. The only way a person can earn such "income" and "gross income" is to have earnings "effectively connected with a trade or business in the [federal] United States", which is lawyer-trickery for saying that a person must be engaged in a political office (in the District of Columbia, which is the what "United States" is defined to mean in 26 U.S.C. §7701 (a)(9) and (a)(10)).

QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:

If you think we are wrong in our conclusions relating to a "trade or business" here, then please explain why 26 U.S.C. §6902(a) and 26 U.S.C. §6901(a)(1)(A)(i) places the burden of proof upon the Secretary of the Treasury in Tax Court Proceedings to prove that their opponent is a "transferee", which is a fiduciary of federal property connected to a "public office"? We assert that the only "taxpayer" who can litigate in Tax Court is one who is engaged in a "trade or business", which is a public office in the U.S. government.

You obviously dont know how our legal system works. You systematically go through IRS code, and CFR regulation and pick out words that "could" have another meaning.

YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES JUDGE. Only judges can interpret the law from the legislature. And they have done so NUMEROUS times.

Throughout your diatribe above, you took issue with the following:
return,make,file,presumptions,code,employees,emplo yer...(not an all inclusive list)

What the Courts have done, is realized that the Tax Protest movement will never give up, and as soon as they rule on one of the definitions of the words above, you will just move to the next word.

Therefore, they have deemed these arguments to be frivolous due to the fact that they have already ruled that you must pay an income (wage) tax.

By bringing these arguments in court it wastes the courts time, and OUR tax payer money. If you believe your own arguments then I know many lawyers that would love to help you as long as you pay up front... no contingency.

Every time I refute one argument with case law, another misinformed person shows up with a totally different argument. I refute another, then another person comes... etc. You get the point, and I now see why courts have deemed these to be frivolous so they can dispose of them BEFORE a huge trial erupts, which would waste your time and money and the courts time and OUR tax money.

Mr. White
02-23-2008, 03:25 PM
Mr. White, you are a lawyer or a law student correct?

If so, tell me if this is correct.

In order to raise of defense in a criminal proceeding of mistake of law as was in the Cheek Supreme Court case, under the Model Penal Code,

Section 2.04
Mistake of same law is no defense unless it falls under one of the exceptions
1. either the mistake is of a required Mens Rea (culpability) of the actual law.
2. or the law provides that a mistake of Mens Rea is a defense.
3. or the law is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably been make available prior to the conduct alleged.
(courts have interpreted this to mean that if the law that was not available AND it is not something that a reasonable person would know was a law requiring their action or inaction then it is a defense)
4. or the mistake was in reasonable reliance on an official statement of law such as a court, and afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous

The Cheek case fell within the 1. mistake above.

He tried to say that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful, meaning purpose to not file.
The Court ruled that just because he was part of the tax protest movement and they had convinced him that the law was unconstitutional didnt mean that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful.

The word "protest" in itself means that you know of the required action (pay taxes) but you are protesting it by some means.

Therefore, Cheek, had the required Mens Rea of willful to not file a tax return.


I know that it is hard to understand the Cheek case if you havent been to law school. Go to law school and you will see why these decisions are the way they are...

That looks like a correct analysis to me, but I'm only a student. Never ceases to amaze me that people take such great issue when someone else inteprets a word, but then fail to admit that their own interpretation is equally as arbitrary.

ionlyknowy
02-23-2008, 05:54 PM
I explain the income tax fraud in detail on this thread. If you want all the facts, read my posts here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

There is a law, but it is being fraudulently and deceptively misapplied to every American citizen.

There are many things that dont smell right with you...

You opened your account here on RP forums on 2/2/2008 with 230 posts and NEVER once posted in the RP grassroots section. ALL of them have been in the off topic forums or Ron on the issues forum.

What's up with that? Very fishy if you ask me... maybe an agent provocateur

ionlyknowy
02-23-2008, 06:06 PM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/media/article/irs-getting-tax-protesters-frivolous-claims_441982_15.html


LOS ANGELES -- "I'm a big supporter of fixing potholes and erecting swing sets ... I am more than happy to pay those taxes," Maggie Gyllenhaal's character says in the 2006 movie "Stranger than Fiction."

"I'm just not such a big fan of the percentage that the government uses for national defense, corporate bailouts, and campaign discretionary funds. So, I didn't pay those taxes. I think I sent a letter to that effect with my return," she says.

The audience can't help chuckle when Maggie Gyllenhaal charmingly utters those words. They laugh out loud when Will Ferrell replies: "Would it be the letter that begins 'Dear imperialist swine?'"

Of course, this is all in fun, just lines in a movie.

Somehow it's not nearly as funny when you learn that Wesley Snipes sent a $1 million fictitious "bill of exchange" to the U.S. Treasury Secretary with his IRS payment voucher, less than four months after he was notified by the IRS that he was under investigation. It's as though he was deliberately defying the Treasury Secretary, just asking to be prosecuted.

From 2002 though October 2007, when he was indicted on eight counts of tax evasion, Snipes persisted in taunting the IRS by not filing tax returns, and asking for refunds of taxes he'd paid in the past. You can see a copy of the indictment on TheSmokingGun.com. See the site.

That's exactly what Larken Rose, another tax protester, did, says Steven H. Kassel, a San Bruno, Calif.-based enrolled agent. Rose wrote a letter challenging the Treasury Secretary to prosecute him, and maintained a Web site challenging Section 861 and the constitutionality of the income tax.

Finally, Rose got his day in court. On Aug. 12, 2005, 12 jurors took about ninety minutes to have lunch and to convict him on five counts of failure to file federal income tax returns. You can read the details of the court proceedings on the Quatloos.com Hall of Shame page. Quatloos.com is a nonprofit site devoted to posting information on financial scams. See the Web site.

Full of holes

Even Irwin Schiff, the top member of the Quatloos Hall of Shame and voice of the tax protester movement, admits that the Section 861 argument is full of holes. This stubborn and optimistic man, with conviction after conviction, presently maintains a blog from prison, still convinced that income taxes are illegal. Schiff, serving a 12-year sentence, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, protesting the $2.6 million summary judgment against him. See the Quatloos page on Schiff.

You will find some amazing tales of resistance and civil disobedience in the cases repeatedly lost by people in the tax protester movement. Reading them, you will think the stories were written by screenwriters with fertile imaginations. They can't possibly be true. But not only are the cases true, they are the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of people, many who believe the tactics proposed have a basis in law, subscribe to the practices espoused by the promoters.

Kassel tells us of one client who bought into a scheme that promised to decode his IRS individual master file. Each person's IRS file contains entries with codes next to them instead of descriptions. This schemer promised to read the individual's master file printout and reveal the secret code information.

You've got to scratch your head here and ask why. After all, if you call IRS's toll free number and ask them to explain the codes on your record, they will. Or you can look them up on the Web site of Patrick J. Lynch, an insurance agent, and decipher your own record. See the site.

Incidentally, if you look at a printout of your master file these days, IRS is showing text next to the code. You can clearly understand what each line means.

The purveyors of these often costly services say you must file a Freedom of Information Act request to get this information about your own account. But generally, you can get practically everything you need by filing a Form 4506-T for all transcripts of tax returns, payment and assessment history, even W-2s and 1099s, related to a particular tax year.

Not only is it not adversarial, it's free. You should get most transcripts within two to six weeks. Transcripts of more recent years will arrive within about a week, depending on IRS's workload.

So why did Kassel's client, the one who paid to decode the master file, seek Kassel's services? Ah, there's the hook. Once you've been scared into believing there's something sinister and illegal about the whole tax system, it's not hard to believe, say, that setting up a trust will make your income tax-free, and safe from both IRS and creditors.

That's where the promoters make their real money - selling these trusts. The fact is, you cannot hide your wages and business income in a trust without paying taxes on them. Legitimate trusts either pass the income through the trustees, or the trusts pay rather high tax rates.

Getting serious about frivolity

The IRS is focusing on these types of frivolous arguments. In November, the tax agency issued a detailed document explaining what they mean by frivolous arguments. In it, you'll find information about the voluntary tax system, taxable income, an explanation of Internal Revenue Code terminology, the constitutional argument, and fictional legal arguments. See the IRS page.

The document also deals with another practice that's been eating up IRS time and resources, as well as those of the tax court. Once the frivolous statements are made on tax returns or frivolous arguments are advanced with regard to not filing at all, individuals who reject the tax code then use the very same law to file appeals and request due process hearings, requiring IRS collections and appeals staff to appear and hear their case.

Until the Tax Relief and Health Care Act passed in December 2006, IRS was required to hear these cases, but the TRHCA contains a provision that allows IRS to disregard all hearing requests based on frivolous arguments that are filed after March 15, 2007.

Just in case you're not sure exactly what arguments IRS considers frivolous, you can read IRS's 15-page explanation in Notice 2008-14. See the IRS document (PDF).

The tax court benefits from this provision of TRHCA because once a decision is reached in a Collections Due Process hearing, the taxpayer may file a Tax Court Petition within 30 days of the date of the letter. With no hearing, there's no opportunity for tax court, Kassel said.

To help reduce the incidence of frivolous arguments, the TRHCA also contained a provision increasing the penalties for frivolous tax returns to $5,000, up from $500. See the IRS page.

Truth or fiction?

So the IRS issues all these notices, pronouncements, explanations. Big deal. Are they right? After all, with all these protesters out there fighting so hard, citing so many cases, even going to jail certain that they are in the right, they can't all possibly be wrong can they?

The question so intrigued Pennsylvania estate attorney Dan Evans that he started listening to the arguments and reading the discussions on the topic. Whenever someone cited a case, he'd go look it up. Evans learned that most of the cases cited either had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue in question, or it was a case lost by a protester.

Evans saved his research on a segment of his Web site devoted to tax protester matters. Pretty soon, he'd built up the definitive file on a case-by-case basis. Evans analyzes the court cases and points out the flaws in each argument. See the Web site.

This is just a passion for him, not a vocation, so don't look to him for legal advice in frivolous filings. His Web site is open to the public as a free resource.

Do tax protesters lose every single case? Have they no victories whatsoever? Well, there is one. Tommy K. Cryer was acquitted of tax evasion in U.S. District Court in Louisiana on July 1, 2007. This was a monumental public relations victory for the tax protester movement. Until you read further -- and learn that he was only acquitted of misdemeanor charges for willfully failing to file his 2000 and 2001 tax returns. Cryer was not relieved of any tax debt. He still has to pay IRS all the taxes, penalty and interest for all the years.

Once again, a court case didn't touch on the constitutionality of income taxes. All it did was settle a civil matter of willfulness. Close, but no cigar.

Eva Rosenberg is the founder of TaxMama.com and an enrolled agent licensed to represent taxpayers before the IRS. She is the author of the new book, "Small Business Taxes Made Easy." Reach her at taxwatch@gmail.com.

Copyright © 2008 MarketW

ionlyknowy
02-23-2008, 06:12 PM
And finally, if you have any more Tax protest arguments please find your argument on this webpage.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

The website contains almost 100 Tax Protester arguments, and disproves them with facts and case law.


Have Fun!




Here are the args from the site:


*

Introduction
o

What is the purpose of this FAQ?
o

What is a “tax protester”?
*

Constitutional Fallacies
o

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a “direct tax” prohibited by the Constitution.
o

The income tax is a “direct tax” because it is collected from individuals who cannot shift the burden to others.
o

The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

Income taxes are not “Duties, Imposts, or Excises” and so must be “direct taxes” that must be apportioned.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

The authors of the Constitution (aka, the “Founding Fathers”) never intended to give Congress the power to tax incomes from labor.
o

Congress can only tax the exercise of “privileges” or the income from “revenue taxable activities.”
o

Congress can only tax income arising out of activities that Congress can regulate, such as alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, or from interstate commerce.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens because Congress has power only over states and not over individual citizens.
o

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I of the Constitution.
o

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.
o

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word “income” is not defined.
o

The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of those “federal areas.”
o

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born “sovereign state citizens” because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
o

The federal income tax cannot apply to wages, because forcing people to share the fruits of their labors would be the same as slavery or “involuntary servitude” prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
o

The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a court order is a violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Withholding of income tax from wages without consent and without any court order is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a trial by jury is a violation of the 7th Amendment.
o

You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
o

The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
o

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

The establishment of a “Pure Trust” can protect income and earnings from income tax, because a trust is a form of contract and is therefore protected from impairment by the contract clause to the Constitution.
o

Under the 1st Amendment, there is a right to withhold taxes from the government until the government has answered a “petition for the redress of grievances.”
*

Statutory Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Code is not a law.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not define “income.”
o

The Internal Revenue Code cannot define “income” because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.
o

Wages are not income.
o

Wages are not “income” because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a form of “property”) for money (another form of property), so there is no gain and no income.
o

Even if my wages are income, I can deduct deduct the ordinary costs of living in order to calculate the “gain” from my labor.
o

Even if my wages are gross income, I can deduct the full amount of the wages as a “claim of right” and not have any taxable income.
o

Wages are not income, but only a “source” of income (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code lists only sources of income), so wages are not taxable.
o

Wages paid within the United States are not a “source” of income defined by section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and so are not taxable.
o

The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way “United States” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.
o

The income tax only applies to the domestic income of nonresident aliens.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code requires an ordinary citizen to file a return.
o

The requirement to file a return is based on the receipt of income in excess of the exemption amount, but the exemption amount is not specified by the statute and so there is no enforceable obligation to file a return.
o

The income tax is voluntary.
o

The income tax is only binding on people who have entered into contracts with the government, such as by applying for a Social Security number, driver’s license, or other governmental benefit or privilege.
o

Form W-4 (i.e., the federal withholding certificate) is an agreement to be liable for the income tax.
o

There is no requirement to apply for a Social Security number.
o

The income tax applies only to government employees and corporate officers.
o

The income tax applies only to corporations.
o

I am not a “person” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.
o

The tax laws only apply to “taxpayers” and you are not required to file returns or pay taxes if you are not a “taxpayer.”
o

I cannot be prosecuted for failing to file a tax return if I have a good faith belief that the tax laws do not apply to me.
o

There is a difference between the “United States” and the “United States of America.”
o

There is a difference between “United States District Courts” and “District Courts of the United States.”
*

Procedural Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Service has never adopted any regulations imposing any income tax. Furthermore, failing to file a tax return is not a crime because the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have never been implemented by regulations.
o

The Office of Management and Budget does not require any form for the income tax imposed by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, and identifies section 1 of the Code as applying only to nonresident aliens.
o

Form 1040 does not bear a valid OMB control number and so no penalty can be imposed for failing to file a tax return.
o

Form 1040 and its instructions were not adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not require any payment of tax by individuals, and the Internal Revenue Service has admitted this by failing to include any reference to section 1 or section 6012 in the Privacy Act Statement included in Form 1040.
o

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the federal government, but a private corporation incorporated in Delaware (or, alternatively, an agency of the government of Puerto Rico).
o

The notices issued by the IRS are not valid because they were not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury personally and the Secretary has failed to properly delegate the authority to sign the notices.
o

The notices issued by the IRS are invalid because they are not signed under penalties of perjury as required by I.R.C. section 6065.
o

If I do not file a return, then the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess a deficiency without first preparing a signed “substitute for return” in accordance with I.R.C. section 6020(b).
o

I have revoked my consent to be a taxpayer.
o

I have a letter from the IRS saying that I am not required to file an income tax return.
o

I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “zero return” along with a statement explaining why I am not liable for any income tax.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “tax statement” instead of a tax return.
o

The IRS cannot levy on property or file a lien on property without first obtaining a judgment or order of a court.
o

A “notice of levy” (or “notice of lien”) is not the same as an actual levy (or an actual lien).
o

IRS employees can be sued for fraudulently issuing notices of lien or notices of levy.
o

Banks and employers that honor levies can be sued
o

The Tax Court is controlled by the IRS and always rules in its favor.
o

If you’re right, why don’t you claim the $________ reward that [name of tax protester] is offering to anyone who can show [insert tax protester gibberish here]?
*

Fundamental Misconceptions, Illiteracy, and Illogic
o

Not understanding the legal process, or the meaning of “law.” (E.g., “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong? Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?”)
o

Not understanding the meaning of “due process.”
o

Not understanding the meaning of “jurisdiction.”
o

Taking quotations out of context.
o

A belief that the word “includes” is restrictive.
o

An over-reliance on generalities and platitudes.
o

Rejecting simple explanations.
o

Ignoring the ordinary meaning of words.
o

Assuming that, if a statement is true, the converse of the statement must also be true.
o

Inconsistency in applying “ad hoc,” result-oriented arguments.
o

Not being able to see the forest for the trees.
o

A belief in the “magic” of words.
o

“Chaining” unrelated decisions together.
o

Lies and fabrications.
o

Legalistic gibberish.
*

Paranoid (and Other) Delusions
o

There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Vernice Kuglin.
o

There are many lawyers, accountants, former IRS employees, and other well-educated people who agree with tax protester arguments.
o

There are lots of court decisions favorable to tax protesters, but the judges always seal the transcripts, suppress the opinions, or issue “gag orders” against the parties so that the opinions are never published.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by ignorant, corrupt judges who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because their salaries are paid by the income tax and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by judges who are afraid of being audited by the IRS and so are afraid to rule against the IRS.
o

The IRS always wins against tax protesters because the IRS only litigates cases against ignorant, ill-prepared defendants it knows it can beat, and it always settles cases against the smart defendants who know how to beat the IRS.
o

The taxpayers who have challenged the tax system and lost all lost because they argued their cases badly.
o

If Congress really meant for Americans to pay taxes on their earnings, Congress would have changed to law to make our obligations and liabilities clearer, because then tax protesters would have no choice by to obey the law.
o

I would file returns and pay taxes if Congress, the IRS, or the courts would just show me the law that requires me to do so.
*

Related (But Non-Tax) Lunacies
o

The tax laws cannot be enforced against citizens in federal courts, because federal courts are “admiralty” or “maritime” courts or (alternatively) tax enforcement is governed by admiralty law and can be defeated by properly invoking admiralty procedures.
o

If the flag of the United States that is in the courtroom has a gold fringe, then the court is operating under martial law.
o

In a jury trial, the defendant can ask the jury to decide the validity of the law.
o

A name that is written all in capital letters (as in a court caption) is not the same as a name written in mixed case (upper and lower case).
o

Putting a comma or colon between your first and last names shows that you are a freeman not subject to governmental authority.
o

Using zipcodes on the mail you send, or accepting mail with zip codes, is what subjects you to federal jurisdiction.
*

More About Tax Protesters
o

A “tax protester” is only someone classified as a “tax protester” by the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the IRS definition of “tax protester.”
o

What penalties can be imposed on tax protesters?
o

Why do tax protesters keeping violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
o

Is tax protesting a cult?
o

The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because [________________]?
o

Other web sites with information on tax protester arguments.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 05:20 PM
You obviously dont know how our legal system works. You systematically go through IRS code, and CFR regulation and pick out words that "could" have another meaning.

This is a lie. See my first link again. There is no obfuscation on my part. The obfuscation and unnecessary complexity were introduced by the government.



YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES JUDGE.

Appeal to authority fallacy.


Only judges can interpret the law from the legislature. And they have done so NUMEROUS times.

And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.



What the Courts have done, is realized that the Tax Protest movement will never give up, and as soon as they rule on one of the definitions of the words above, you will just move to the next word.


What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.



Every time I refute one argument with case law,.

You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 05:21 PM
There are many things that dont smell right with you...

You opened your account here on RP forums on 2/2/2008 with 230 posts and NEVER once posted in the RP grassroots section. ALL of them have been in the off topic forums or Ron on the issues forum.

What's up with that? Very fishy if you ask me... maybe an agent provocateur

I'm here to tell the truth. And I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you here?

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 05:24 PM
The website contains almost 100 Tax Protester arguments, and disproves them with facts and case law.


Wow. Tax attorneys who support the income tax. That's shocking... No conflict of interest there...

None of there "proofs" disproves anything I've posted:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 05:41 PM
Wow. Tax attorneys who support the income tax. That's shocking... No conflict of interest there...

None of there "proofs" disproves anything I've posted:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

Um, dude, please stop.

I didnt even attempt to rebut any of your arguments because you pretty much offered an argument for every word in the code.

There were too many arguments, and not enough time. Therefore I posted a website that refutes all of your arguments.

And for your information the guy behind that website is not a tax attorney. If you read the news article that I posted then you would have realized this. The website is run by an attorney, but not a tax attorney. He does this in his spare time as a hobby.

I know that you think you are right, and that you have made it your duty to spread what you think is right all across the internet. But, I would like to caution you that you may be doing more bad than good. I am attempting to show you that if someone takes what you say to heart and goes to court with it, then they will end up getting burned pretty badly.

Find some other way to protest the income tax, dont use the court system. Run for office or something. The courts have already determined that you have to pay, take your losses and move on to the next avenue to facilitate change.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 05:44 PM
Here I will do the work for you so you dont have to read the article.

"Evans saved his research on a segment of his Web site devoted to tax protester matters. Pretty soon, he'd built up the definitive file on a case-by-case basis. Evans analyzes the court cases and points out the flaws in each argument. See the Web site.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

This is just a passion for him, not a vocation, so don't look to him for legal advice in frivolous filings. His Web site is open to the public as a free resource."


Go to the website, find your argument and read why it isn't correct. If you dont do this then you are advocating a lie.

You may be liable for criminal charges if you induce someone to break the law.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 05:54 PM
This is a lie. See my first link again. There is no obfuscation on my part. The obfuscation and unnecessary complexity were introduced by the government.



Appeal to authority fallacy.



And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.



What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.



You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.

Appeal to authority fallacy.
By no way was this an appeal to authority. In an appeal to authority you espouse an argument that in essence says that because (person in authority says so) then it is correct.

I am not arguing this. I am saying that in our legal system, what the judge says in his holding is the law of the land until it is overturned by another judge that has authority over him. Judges are people, and they can be wrong, I realize this. BUT you must obey what they say if you dont want to be punished. You are in America and if you dont like this, then leave.


And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.

I wasnt attempting to refute anything you posted. You posted enough arguments to make me give up in trying to refute them all. I am glad that you have unlimited time to come up with this stuff, but I do not have the time to refute every definition of a word in a code that you dont agree with. Take it to court, I know attorneys, but you must pay them up front, no contingency. If you really believe your arguments you will do this yourself. Have you?

What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.

Just because you say so... take it to court, I guarantee you will end up in debt.

You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.
you my friend are persistent, and I know that as soon as I refute one thing you will come up with another so I give up. By nature of this setup you have the advantage in this sense. If the tables were turned I could not offer you more refutations of arguments that you have not made yet, to make you drown in work.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 06:05 PM
I'm here to tell the truth. And I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you here?

No, you are here to act like a judge. You go through the code and say "
Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned."

or

"After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government."

What gives you the authority to determine this? You say "by preponderance of the evidence", YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS DECISION, ONLY JUDGES AND JURIES CAN DO THIS. Did you write the code? A lawyer cant even definitively decipher exactly what a law, code, or regulation says with complete accuracy.

Then you make the sweeping assumption, "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government." BUT YOU DO NOT OFFER ANY PROOF THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

Your arguments are full of this type of BS. These arguments would only work on people that are not very intelligent. You have a large audience though given that the average IQ is 100.

Judges and the courts are the only entities that can interpret the laws. The legislature writes usually ambiguous laws, then people bring cases where the facts may violate it.. then the judge and courts determine exactly what the law was meant to be. Lawyers dont even interpret the law, they just argue the facts and try to persuade the court to read the law such that it is favorable to their client.

This is how our judicial system works. You cannot go to a law or code and make your own inferences about it. By doing so you expose your naivety of the very law you attempt to master.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:35 PM
Judges and the courts are the only entities that can interpret the laws.

And nothing that I've posted has been interpreted in any other way than was implied. Many of the interpretations are cloaked as well to protect the fraud. The reasons the judiciary has been compromised in this regard were described in my posts.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:36 PM
Go to the website, find your argument and read why it isn't correct.

ROTFL. AGAIN - I've read through the website. His research is flawed and incomplete. It refutes nothing I posted earlier.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:37 PM
Um, dude, please stop.

You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.



I didnt even attempt to rebut any of your arguments

Because you can't.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 06:41 PM
You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.



Because you can't.

You forgot to address my post that took your particular statements in your argument and explained why they are flawed. Post #91

remember the preponderance of the evidence argument? You cannot make this decision, only a judge and jury can do this. The fact that you made the decision speaks volumes.

Did you come up with these arguments yourself? Or is it from a website or what? If it is a website, then please post it here so we can make a more informed decision.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:43 PM
By no way was this an appeal to authority.

Yes, it is - you're claiming only authority can determine the logical truth of a matter.



I wasnt attempting to refute anything you posted.

Then have a Coke and a smile and STFU.




Just because you say so...

No, because it's a fact that Title 26 and the IRS code and manuals are full of obfuscation and unnecessary complexity.


take it to court,

Why do you expect the government to rule honestly on a deception? It's a conflict of interest, for reasons I posted earlier. Why would you expect to win a suit on the income tax in a court system funded by the income tax?




You are the one who is persistent in refusing to address my arguments while claiming all the while that I'm wrong - "just because you say so..."

[quote]so I give up.

Then leave.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 06:46 PM
You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.



Because you can't.

No one can refute your arguments in your eyes because when they try you just say, "no, this doesnt refute anything" or you just ignore the attempt.

You totally skipped my attempt to refute 2 out of 1,000,000,000 of your arguments above in post #91.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:47 PM
You forgot to address my post that took your particular statements in your argument and explained why they are flawed. Post #91

remember the preponderance of the evidence argument? You cannot make this decision, only a judge and jury can do this. The fact that you made the decision speaks volumes.


A judge is not the final authority on law in the American legal system. I'm qualified to be a juror, so when can I get in on the action and make this decision?

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams, 1771

".....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact." - Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782

"Another apprehension [about the French Revolution] is, that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Tom Paine, 1789

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." - Alexander Hamilton, 1804

"Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict." - Noah Webster, Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." - 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969

"[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law." - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920

"It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issues of guilty or not guilty." - Justices Gray and Shiras, Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 1894, dissent

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/nullification.html

http://www.fija.org

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:49 PM
No one can refute your arguments in your eyes

"In my eyes" means nothing. Just another excuse.




You totally skipped my attempt to refute

You've skipped all mine. So why should I address yours when you skip mine?

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 06:53 PM
You want to talk about interpretation - what about when judges and politicians misinterpret clear original intent? You talk of these people as if they're infallible. Guess again:

Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes during his administration, (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=109573) and except for the temporary taxes levied during the War of 1812, America was tax free from 1800 to 1860. And that was the original intent of the Constitution, as clarified by Madison in Federalist 45, (http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed45.html) that the powers of the federal government were few and defined and that its revenue was to come solely from tariff revenue. Internal taxation was meant only as a temporary measure for emergencies.


"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 06:54 PM
"Why do you expect the government to rule honestly on a deception? It's a conflict of interest, for reasons I posted earlier. Why would you expect to win a suit on the income tax in a court system funded by the income tax?"

That is what I am trying to say... you might believe your interpretation of the tax code, but you refuse to attempt any avenue of change. You can tell people your view of the tax code until you are blue in the face but until you go to court or run for office and change it, then change will not happen.

I see your point of view, you think that there is a conspiracy in the courts to keep the income tax, and that if given your "evidence" in court then they will find a way to rule against it. So for you, it is easy to make up arguments that coincide with your goals, because even if a court rules against you, you will continue to believe your own arguments because "they are paid by the income tax"

THAT is why you cannot refute your arguments. No matter what I say, or what court case I cite, you will continue on... and on ... and on..

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 07:00 PM
you think that there is a conspiracy in the courts to keep the income tax,

There is a clear conflict of interest. For you to purport that this has absolutely no bearing on the judges' decisions is laughable.

Again:

Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn’t it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn’t impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".

Link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320&page=2)

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 07:02 PM
I agree with you broadly. I dont like the income tax as much as the next person. Who would? But I am saying that your arguments would not hold up in court unless you actually got to a jury and the entire jury were comprised of you. Or unless you convinced enough people to think as you do. Ever here of Jury Nullification?

BUT, that is why they now have a law that circumvents a jury trial when tax protest arguments are brought to court. I posted the law earlier in this thread.

They now can deem your arguments to be frivolous and then the IRS will move for summary judgment. This means that the judge makes his decision before the trail even starts. Therefore, no jury. On top of that, this particular law provides for a fine of up to $25,000 if someone brings a frivolous lawsuit such as this.

So, we can agree to disagree. But I warn you that going to court could cost you so it probably is good that you believe that every judge is part of this conspiracy.

And I caution you, that if you induce someone to break the law, then you could also be held criminally liable.

Truth-Bringer
02-24-2008, 07:04 PM
I agree with you broadly. I dont like the income tax as much as the next person. Who would? But I am saying that your arguments would not hold up in court unless you actually got to a jury and the entire jury were comprised of you. Or unless you convinced enough people to think as you do. Ever here of Jury Nullification?

BUT, that is why they now have a law that circumvents a jury trial when tax protest arguments are brought to court. I posted the law earlier in this thread.

They now can deem your arguments to be frivolous and then the IRS will move for summary judgment. This means that the judge makes his decision before the trail even starts. Therefore, no jury. On top of that, this particular law provides for a fine of up to $25,000 if someone brings a frivolous lawsuit such as this.

So, we can agree to disagree. But I warn you that going to court could cost you so it probably is good that you believe that every judge is part of this conspiracy.

And I caution you, that if you induce someone to break the law, then you could also be held criminally liable.

And all this proves is...you failed to read my first post on the first link... Where I addressed this.

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 07:06 PM
"A judge is not the final authority on law in the American legal system. I'm qualified to be a juror, so when can I get in on the action and make this decision?"

Just wait, you will get to do jury duty soon enough. Surprised you dont already know this....

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 07:09 PM
And all this proves is...you failed to read my first post on the first link... Where I addressed this.

All this proves... I made about 7 points in that post, and not all of it pertained to your previous postings... if you want to be more believable, then state what was ignored. And further describe what you mean by "first link"

ionlyknowy
02-24-2008, 07:15 PM
There is a clear conflict of interest. For you to purport that this has absolutely no bearing on the judges' decisions is laughable.

Again:

Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn’t it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn’t impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".

Link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320&page=2)




it is funny though, how when I ask you if these are your arguments that you realized, or if they are from a website, you dont answer..

Please provide a link to the website, other than RP forums, if you got this from another source. To be more believable, backing up your info with sources is necessary.

I also find it funny that the link to RPforums where you posted this same material, the conversation pretty much stopped after you entered.

No one agrees with you. No one even acknowledged that you were there. I should have done the same.

Truth-Bringer
02-25-2008, 02:13 PM
Surprised you dont already know this....

Surprised you don't realize I was merely refuting your point.

Truth-Bringer
02-25-2008, 02:35 PM
it is funny though, how when I ask you if these are your arguments that you realized, or if they are from a website, you dont answer..


Sorry, I missed that. They are from another source, but the website is currently being re-worked and the URL is down.



I also find it funny that the link to RPforums where you posted this same material, the conversation pretty much stopped after you entered.


That's because no one who disagreed could refute them. Quite simple. They didn't waste time throwing up Straw Men and other fallacies as you're doing.


No one agrees with you.

LOL. Grow up. Untrue. And regardless, that's an Appeal to the Majority fallacy.

If I say "2 + 2 = 4" and no one agrees with me, am I wrong because no one agrees with me?

These ridiculous fallacies say quite a bit about your credibility.

Truth-Bringer
02-25-2008, 02:37 PM
All this proves...

Is that you're not even reading the previous posts I made...


And further describe what you mean by "first link"

Go back to the first or second post I made in this thread and you'll see it. I'm not going to hold your hand through every step of this. Accessing a link is quite simple.

ionlyknowy
02-26-2008, 02:08 PM
Is that you're not even reading the previous posts I made...



Go back to the first or second post I made in this thread and you'll see it. I'm not going to hold your hand through every step of this. Accessing a link is quite simple.

It's hard to argue with someone that believes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. (stop taking my posts out of context please, it changes the meaning when you do that)

Even if you were "correct" in your argument, which by the way, it lacked any source to prove many of the args that you were bringing, you dont believe in the adjudication of these arguments because you think that all judges are corrupt.

It seems to me that you just have a problem with the entire system, and when someone tells you that it wont hold in court, like I have attempted to do, then you just dismiss it as "they are corrupt"

I refuse to try and refute your argument because most of it doesnt make any sense. I am trying to point out that your argument would not hold any water in court.

You go through each line of my posts looking for a way to refute my refutations to your argument. But only post #91 did I ever attempt to refute anything.

Anything else after that was me just getting frustrated with your lack of understanding of what I was saying.


Let me repost my problems with the first paragraph of your diatribe of arguments.
------------
You said the following:
"Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned."

- you say that since nothing defines "return" then we are not bound by it's implied meaning. Right?

There is no way to refute this argument because it is an opinion of yours. This is not a fact of our system we live in. And because you dont believe in the system no one can argue with you. IT IS YOUR OPINION. Courts determine the meaning of words of codes, and statutes. That is their job. Where is the law that requires the drafter of a law to define every word in the code or statute that they have written? But since you dont believe in the judicial system, you wont listen to this..

"After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government."

- So you are saying that the "return" mentioned in tax code doesn't mean return how we have implied it, because the IRS did not define it anywhere... so then you went on a search of every IRS code that mentioned "return" but only found others that said "return of income"
So then you assume that all "return"'s must mean "return of income"....
This doesnt make sense. Nothing says that these two terms must have the same meaning. Again, you are trying to interpret the code. And when I tell you that only courts can do this, then you say they are corrupt, and THAT is also your opinion.



So it seems to me, that you are arguing that there is no law that requires you to file a return. BUT your analysis is of the "Willful failure to pay" IRS code.

What you should be analyzing is the following. THIS is what requires you to PAY income tax. Your analysis is of the Code that imposes a penalty if you do not FILE A RETURN.

So even if you are correct and you are not required to file a return because "return" isn't suppose to mean what we think it means, then you still must pay tax on your income according to the law below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

§ 1. Tax imposed
How Current is This?
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400 $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.

ionlyknowy
02-26-2008, 02:32 PM
You mentioned 26 U.S.C. §6012 in your argument.

But you did not post the entire code.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007703----000-.html
(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, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or
(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.

The bold lines are what I want you to pay attention to.

"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual.

So in essence you are exempt if you do fit within the three categories AND you make less than the minimum exempt amount.

So your only issue is with the word "return".

So you must agree that you are responsible to pay income tax right under TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 right? Your only issue is with being required to file a return to get some of your money back right?

Truth-Bringer
02-27-2008, 09:15 AM
It's hard to argue with someone that believes every conspiracy theory that ever existed.

This is of course an absolute lie. I see that it's going to be impossible to have an honest debate with you.

Again,

The deceptive frauds that created this "law" used shifting definitions in Title 26. The words do not mean the same thing on each page or section.

This is why the code and title 26 are so complex - to keep that truth concealed. For example,

"26 U.S.C. § 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

In this section, the word Secretary refers to the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico - not the United States. Tricky, tricky, eh?

To find out the truth, you must do a Freedom of Information Act request on your IRS Individual Master Files.

From the Handbook for Special Agents, page 9781-51, 334.112
The Individual Master File Section:

"(1) The Individual Master File is a magnetic tape record of all individual income tax filers in Social Security Number sequence, and is maintained at the National Computer Center.

The Individual Master File is designed to accumulate in each taxpayer's account all data pertaining to the income taxes for which the taxpayer is liable. (Gets tricky when you start chasing down the definitions for exactly who is a "taxpayer" and who is "liable" for what)

The taxpayer information stored in the master computer for each IMF may be understood only by a careful and tedious process of decoding by references to the explanations contained in the IRS 6209 Manual, IMF Operations Manual, Law Enforcement Manual, and several other manuals published by the Service for the instruction and guidance of its personnel."

This creates a prime facie case against you in court, because the IRS takes these Individual Master Files in against you.

Prime facie cases must be REBUTTED.

The IMF files are a "Rebuttable Presumption" in the law of evidence.

If you do not rebut them, they are said to have "Presumptive Correctness" in any court action against you.

Why is this important? Because the courts have already ruled on the matter:

"Government prevails in challenge to individual’s appeals hearing in which master file transcripts were considered at hearing instead of tax returns." - Stanifird v. Wilcox et al. 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-1058 June 12, 2001.

Decode your IMF and you will find the truth. Listen to the truth that leaks out from a former chief of the IRS's Freedom of Information Act branch:

"The overwhelming majority of taxpayers appear to be perfectly willing to face serious adverse action without bothering to make any significant effort to learn what the agency knows about them or how they came to be in that situation. In fact, even subjects of major criminal investigation seldom bother to make such inquiries, apparently being willing to face trial and risk imprisonment without writing a simple letter which could produce information which could literally save their freedom.”

- Marcus Farbenblum, Chief of the Freedom of Information Branch, IRS National Office, from his book, “The I.R.S. and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of 1974,” regarding FOIA requests

Now if someone doesn't pay their taxes and is charged with a crime, why is this IRS chief at the FOIA office telling people they "could literally save their freedom" by writing a simple letter requesting information from a Freedom of Information Act?

Think about it. The only possible explanation is that something is indeed hidden in their Individual Master File which would prove they don't owe the tax.

As for how Congress could get away with passing such a deception into law? Easy - THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PASSING A DECEPTIVE LAW.

jason43
02-27-2008, 01:43 PM
There are laws requiring you to pay taxes.

Its just that those laws are immoral and need to be changed.

ionlyknowy
02-27-2008, 10:38 PM
This is of course an absolute lie. I see that it's going to be impossible to have an honest debate with you.

Again,

The deceptive frauds that created this "law" used shifting definitions in Title 26. The words do not mean the same thing on each page or section.

This is why the code and title 26 are so complex - to keep that truth concealed. For example,

"26 U.S.C. § 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

In this section, the word Secretary refers to the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico - not the United States. Tricky, tricky, eh?

To find out the truth, you must do a Freedom of Information Act request on your IRS Individual Master Files.

From the Handbook for Special Agents, page 9781-51, 334.112
The Individual Master File Section:

"(1) The Individual Master File is a magnetic tape record of all individual income tax filers in Social Security Number sequence, and is maintained at the National Computer Center.

The Individual Master File is designed to accumulate in each taxpayer's account all data pertaining to the income taxes for which the taxpayer is liable. (Gets tricky when you start chasing down the definitions for exactly who is a "taxpayer" and who is "liable" for what)

The taxpayer information stored in the master computer for each IMF may be understood only by a careful and tedious process of decoding by references to the explanations contained in the IRS 6209 Manual, IMF Operations Manual, Law Enforcement Manual, and several other manuals published by the Service for the instruction and guidance of its personnel."

This creates a prime facie case against you in court, because the IRS takes these Individual Master Files in against you.

Prime facie cases must be REBUTTED.

The IMF files are a "Rebuttable Presumption" in the law of evidence.

If you do not rebut them, they are said to have "Presumptive Correctness" in any court action against you.

Why is this important? Because the courts have already ruled on the matter:

"Government prevails in challenge to individual’s appeals hearing in which master file transcripts were considered at hearing instead of tax returns." - Stanifird v. Wilcox et al. 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-1058 June 12, 2001.

Decode your IMF and you will find the truth. Listen to the truth that leaks out from a former chief of the IRS's Freedom of Information Act branch:

"The overwhelming majority of taxpayers appear to be perfectly willing to face serious adverse action without bothering to make any significant effort to learn what the agency knows about them or how they came to be in that situation. In fact, even subjects of major criminal investigation seldom bother to make such inquiries, apparently being willing to face trial and risk imprisonment without writing a simple letter which could produce information which could literally save their freedom.”

- Marcus Farbenblum, Chief of the Freedom of Information Branch, IRS National Office, from his book, “The I.R.S. and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of 1974,” regarding FOIA requests

Now if someone doesn't pay their taxes and is charged with a crime, why is this IRS chief at the FOIA office telling people they "could literally save their freedom" by writing a simple letter requesting information from a Freedom of Information Act?

Think about it. The only possible explanation is that something is indeed hidden in their Individual Master File which would prove they don't owe the tax.

As for how Congress could get away with passing such a deception into law? Easy - THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PASSING A DECEPTIVE LAW.

You said the following:
"Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned."

- you say that since nothing defines "return" then we are not bound by it's implied meaning. Right?

There is no way to refute this argument because it is an opinion of yours. This is not a fact of our system we live in. And because you dont believe in the system no one can argue with you. IT IS YOUR OPINION. Courts determine the meaning of words of codes, and statutes. That is their job. Where is the law that requires the drafter of a law to define every word in the code or statute that they have written? But since you dont believe in the judicial system, you wont listen to this..

"After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government."

- So you are saying that the "return" mentioned in tax code doesn't mean return how we have implied it, because the IRS did not define it anywhere... so then you went on a search of every IRS code that mentioned "return" but only found others that said "return of income"
So then you assume that all "return"'s must mean "return of income"....
This doesnt make sense. Nothing says that these two terms must have the same meaning. Again, you are trying to interpret the code. And when I tell you that only courts can do this, then you say they are corrupt, and THAT is also your opinion.

Highstreet
02-27-2008, 11:29 PM
Freedom to fascism is a nice bit of propaganda. If you're debating whether you HAVE to pay them, give up because you do. If you're debating whether it's RIGHT that you have to pay them, that's an argument you can win.

Not true.

Check out the Tax Honesty movement.

There is no law on the books requiring you to pay a Federal Income Tax.

Other taxes, yes. State, Local, excise taxes like sales and gas, yes. But there is not one for the Fed Income Tax. That is why there are millions of people, many of them ex-employees of the IRS who do not file every year.

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 01:43 AM
Not true.

Check out the Tax Honesty movement.

There is no law on the books requiring you to pay a Federal Income Tax.

Other taxes, yes. State, Local, excise taxes like sales and gas, yes. But there is not one for the Fed Income Tax. That is why there are millions of people, many of them ex-employees of the IRS who do not file every year.

We already posted the law in this thread that requires you to pay income tax.
go back a couple pages, we had good discussion until Heather I mean Truth-Bringer started spamming the thread..

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 01:44 AM
This is of course an absolute lie. I see that it's going to be impossible to have an honest debate with you.

Again,

The deceptive frauds that created this "law" used shifting definitions in Title 26. The words do not mean the same thing on each page or section.

This is why the code and title 26 are so complex - to keep that truth concealed. For example,

"26 U.S.C. § 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

In this section, the word Secretary refers to the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico - not the United States. Tricky, tricky, eh?

To find out the truth, you must do a Freedom of Information Act request on your IRS Individual Master Files.

From the Handbook for Special Agents, page 9781-51, 334.112
The Individual Master File Section:

"(1) The Individual Master File is a magnetic tape record of all individual income tax filers in Social Security Number sequence, and is maintained at the National Computer Center.

The Individual Master File is designed to accumulate in each taxpayer's account all data pertaining to the income taxes for which the taxpayer is liable. (Gets tricky when you start chasing down the definitions for exactly who is a "taxpayer" and who is "liable" for what)

The taxpayer information stored in the master computer for each IMF may be understood only by a careful and tedious process of decoding by references to the explanations contained in the IRS 6209 Manual, IMF Operations Manual, Law Enforcement Manual, and several other manuals published by the Service for the instruction and guidance of its personnel."

This creates a prime facie case against you in court, because the IRS takes these Individual Master Files in against you.

Prime facie cases must be REBUTTED.

The IMF files are a "Rebuttable Presumption" in the law of evidence.

If you do not rebut them, they are said to have "Presumptive Correctness" in any court action against you.

Why is this important? Because the courts have already ruled on the matter:

"Government prevails in challenge to individual’s appeals hearing in which master file transcripts were considered at hearing instead of tax returns." - Stanifird v. Wilcox et al. 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-1058 June 12, 2001.

Decode your IMF and you will find the truth. Listen to the truth that leaks out from a former chief of the IRS's Freedom of Information Act branch:

"The overwhelming majority of taxpayers appear to be perfectly willing to face serious adverse action without bothering to make any significant effort to learn what the agency knows about them or how they came to be in that situation. In fact, even subjects of major criminal investigation seldom bother to make such inquiries, apparently being willing to face trial and risk imprisonment without writing a simple letter which could produce information which could literally save their freedom.”

- Marcus Farbenblum, Chief of the Freedom of Information Branch, IRS National Office, from his book, “The I.R.S. and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of 1974,” regarding FOIA requests

Now if someone doesn't pay their taxes and is charged with a crime, why is this IRS chief at the FOIA office telling people they "could literally save their freedom" by writing a simple letter requesting information from a Freedom of Information Act?

Think about it. The only possible explanation is that something is indeed hidden in their Individual Master File which would prove they don't owe the tax.

As for how Congress could get away with passing such a deception into law? Easy - THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PASSING A DECEPTIVE LAW.

"Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned."

- you say that since nothing defines "return" then we are not bound by it's implied meaning. Right?

There is no way to refute this argument because it is an opinion of yours. This is not a fact of our system we live in. And because you dont believe in the system no one can argue with you. IT IS YOUR OPINION. Courts determine the meaning of words of codes, and statutes. That is their job. Where is the law that requires the drafter of a law to define every word in the code or statute that they have written? But since you dont believe in the judicial system, you wont listen to this..

"After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government."

- So you are saying that the "return" mentioned in tax code doesn't mean return how we have implied it, because the IRS did not define it anywhere... so then you went on a search of every IRS code that mentioned "return" but only found others that said "return of income"
So then you assume that all "return"'s must mean "return of income"....
This doesnt make sense. Nothing says that these two terms must have the same meaning. Again, you are trying to interpret the code. And when I tell you that only courts can do this, then you say they are corrupt, and THAT is also your opinion.

PatriotG
02-28-2008, 09:56 AM
The validity of the 16th Amendment has never been clear. There is substantial evidence that it is not valid, and refusal by the court and congress to examine the issue makes a case for the fraud.

In one instance the court states that the income tax was un-constitutional, Farmers v. Pollack. So along comes the 16th Amendment, which the court states gave congress no new power to tax, Stanton v. Baltic. It is all very convoluted but here is a good explanation: http://www.jeffdickstein.com/

However, the most recent rumblings on the issue come from another case that was resolved in June of 2006, U.S. vs.. Robert Lawrence. Lawrence's defense was that the form 1040 was an illegal form in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act - 44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520. The DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice after receiving the defendants strategy.

That is the most poignant argument because it shows that not only does the government know that it is forcing a fraud, but every corporation that hands you those W4 forms is complicit in the fraud. The form must be properly labeled with the Office of Management and Budget's control numbers. The 1040 distributed by the IRS is a replica of the 1040 belonging to the Financial Management Service, the actual arm of the Treasury duly authorized to collect money owed to the U.S. government. The IRS form does not have a proper OMB control number, the FMS form does.

Underlying that is also the misconception that at any point the congress, or the people, had the power to enact a direct tax without repealing the requirement of apportionment from the Constitution. If they did not repeal the direct apportioned requirement then the income tax is an excise in fact, so: "A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege ... The right to acquire and possess property cannot alone be made the subject of an excise.... nor, generally speaking, can an excise be laid upon the mere right to possess the fruits thereof, as that right is the chief attribute of ownership." -- Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos

Ask your employer or prospective employer if the form W4 has a valid OMB number on it, and ask for the documentation to show that it is valid. Then ask why does the firm force you to sign a form that violates the Paperwork Reduction Act if the firm can't show you the validation from the OMB.

Then tell the human resources person or whoever that according to a constitutional attorney, there is no liability for the individual to pay a tax on wages, which is actually what the form is asking. It makes you liable for the tax. So with this in mind, yo could say that the income tax on wages is voluntary.

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 01:25 PM
The validity of the 16th Amendment has never been clear. There is substantial evidence that it is not valid, and refusal by the court and congress to examine the issue makes a case for the fraud.

In one instance the court states that the income tax was un-constitutional, Farmers v. Pollack. So along comes the 16th Amendment, which the court states gave congress no new power to tax, Stanton v. Baltic. It is all very convoluted but here is a good explanation: http://www.jeffdickstein.com/

However, the most recent rumblings on the issue come from another case that was resolved in June of 2006, U.S. vs.. Robert Lawrence. Lawrence's defense was that the form 1040 was an illegal form in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act - 44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520. The DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice after receiving the defendants strategy.

That is the most poignant argument because it shows that not only does the government know that it is forcing a fraud, but every corporation that hands you those W4 forms is complicit in the fraud. The form must be properly labeled with the Office of Management and Budget's control numbers. The 1040 distributed by the IRS is a replica of the 1040 belonging to the Financial Management Service, the actual arm of the Treasury duly authorized to collect money owed to the U.S. government. The IRS form does not have a proper OMB control number, the FMS form does.

Underlying that is also the misconception that at any point the congress, or the people, had the power to enact a direct tax without repealing the requirement of apportionment from the Constitution. If they did not repeal the direct apportioned requirement then the income tax is an excise in fact, so: "A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege ... The right to acquire and possess property cannot alone be made the subject of an excise.... nor, generally speaking, can an excise be laid upon the mere right to possess the fruits thereof, as that right is the chief attribute of ownership." -- Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos

Ask your employer or prospective employer if the form W4 has a valid OMB number on it, and ask for the documentation to show that it is valid. Then ask why does the firm force you to sign a form that violates the Paperwork Reduction Act if the firm can't show you the validation from the OMB.

Then tell the human resources person or whoever that according to a constitutional attorney, there is no liability for the individual to pay a tax on wages, which is actually what the form is asking. It makes you liable for the tax. So with this in mind, yo could say that the income tax on wages is voluntary.

You say that the courts have not addressed the 16th amendment, but if you were to look at page 4-5 of this thread you would have seen the case below actually deciding the issue.

And as far as your statement, "The DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice after receiving the defendants strategy.That is the most poignant argument because it shows that not only does the government know that it is forcing a fraud,"

Just because the court dismissed or ruled a summary judgment doesnt automatically mean there is fraud. You act like fraud is definately the case, when it could be anything. For instance, there is a law now that states if you bring a tax protest arg. to court they will deem the arg. frivolous, the IRS will file a motion for summary judgment, then the court will rule in their favor without a trail, then you get fined up to $25,000.



Read this, this is a case where the guy brought up the 16th amendment arg.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 242 (7th Cir. 1989)
16th Amendment not ratified correctly

The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that in this case as well as in his two previous actions, Miller has sought to turn the judicial review procedure of § 6703 on its head by making it a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality [**10] of the sixteenth amendment. Miller's repeated abuse of § 6703 to press his stale constitutional claims has confounded Congress' larger and unquestionably legitimate aim of maintaining the integrity of the income tax system. Senate Report, at 1025.

Our research into the practice employed by Miller and the issues he has attempted to raise reveals a troubling pattern of similar cases. Schoffner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 812 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1987) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and series of constitutional objections); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket constitutional objections); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1984) [**11] (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment and other constitutional objections); Parker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984) (challenge to tax deficiency determination and penalty for filing an inappropriate return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection).

As best we can surmise, Miller, like the plaintiffs in the foregoing cases, has followed the advice of those associated with the "tax protester movement." The leaders of this movement conduct seminars across the country in which they attempt to convince taxpayers that the sixteenth amendment and assorted enforcement provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional. See, e.g. United States v. Hairston, 819 F.2d 971, 972 (10th Cir. 1987). Members are encouraged to defy the income tax filing requirements through returns like those noted above. They are then instructed to obtain a jury trial so that potentially like-minded jurors may be persuaded to acquit in the exercise of their power of jury nullification. See, e.g., United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 236-237 (10th Cir. 1979). [**12] The movement's manifesto, Benson and Beckman's The Law That Never Was, is a collection of documents relating to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, and is intended to be both a call to arms for the movement and "exhibit A" in the trials of tax protesters who argue that the sixteenth amendment was illegally ratified. Id. at xvii ("The tax protestor will be the great American hero of 1985 just as in 1776. It was tax protestors, not any political party, or judge or prosecutor who gave us our great Constitutional Republican form of government. The tax protest is more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie or Chevrolet!!").

In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir. 1986) HN5

[**13] (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal [*241] instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State. . . . Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. . . . [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized [**14] to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . [his] decision is now beyond review.

Id. at 1253 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1036, 93 L. Ed. 2d 840, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987) (propriety of the ratification process is a political question).

We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n.6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the [**15] authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from HN6

the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

Miller would have us disregard this principle and overturn almost three quarters of a century of settled law and declare [**16] the sixteenth amendment unconstitutional. He has asked us and the district court to do that which we have no authority to do. He would have us substitute one brand of lawlessness (from his perspective) with a form of lawlessness of our own. Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.

This advice has been offered on other occasions. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986) (tax protesters "must choose other forums, and there are many available"). In the circumstances, the sanctions imposed by the district court were appropriate. With particular reference to the injunction limiting Miller's access to the federal courts, we note that the district court was struggling with a persistent tax protester who was undaunted by his failure in two previous cases in as many years. A monetary sanction of $ 500 in the latter of those two cases did not prevent Miller from returning to the federal courthouse for yet a third time with the identical claims. The district court was thus faced with a plaintiff as intransigent as the tax protester we [**17] sanctioned in Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987), and properly drew upon the injunctive relief we imposed in Lysiak to fashion a remedy to address the parallel strains that Miller's frivolous filings were having on its crowded docket and limited [*242] resources. Id. at 313. Miller may exercise his right to access the federal courts upon a simple showing that his claim is colorable. See Coleman, 791 F.2d at 72 (there is no constitutional right to bring a frivolous suit). We therefore reject Miller's claim that the sanctions were excessive and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The present appeal is a patently frivolous one that has generated additional costs for the defendants and this court. Five years ago we warned plaintiffs like Miller that while the doors of the courthouse are open to good faith appeals, "we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments . . . In the future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax [**18] appeals and will not hesitate to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances." Granzow v. C.I.R., 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1984). This is such a circumstance. Although Miller is acting pro se, he knew or should have known that his position was groundless. Coleman, 791 F.2d at 71 (a court may and should impose sanctions if a person knows his position is groundless). Each of the three district judges before whom Miller has appeared have taken pains to explain the meritlessness of his position. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984) (reassertion of issues disposed of in prior proceedings is sanctionable). In conformity with our policy for such tax protester cases, Coleman, 791 F.2d at 73, we hereby sanction Miller $1500 in lieu of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

The judgment of district court is affirmed, with double costs and $1500 in damages imposed against the plaintiff-appellant. Miller is ordered to make payment to the Clerk of this court within thirty (30) days by a check made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

So ordered.

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 01:34 PM
In this historic 16th Amendment litigation, the Government has sued Bill Benson seeking an injunction prohibiting him from falsely telling people the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not ratified and therefore people are not required to file an income tax return. The Government contends it is entitled to an injunction because Benson is promoting an abusive tax shelter, conduct made subject to a penalty per 26 U.S.C. Section 6700.
http://www.jeffdickstein.com/

The outcome of the case:

1/10/2008 115 MINUTE entry before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan :The Court having granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on 12/17/2007, enter permanent injunction. All matters having concluded, the instant action is hereby dismissed. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gej, )
1/10/2008 116 PERMANENT INJUNCTION Signed by Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/10/2008.(gej, )
1/10/2008 117 ENTERED JUDGMENT(gej, )


Then the poor guy appealed... and this is what came of it:

2/27/2008 158 MINUTE entry before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motions for order to show cause [147] and to quash summons [144] are denied. Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause [155] is denied without prejudice. Defendant is ordered to comply with the court's order of January 10, 2008, and to file an affidavit or declaration with this court within seven days detailing his compliance with the permanent injunction, specifically indicating that he has complied with the court's order by providing "a copy of the injunction order to every person and entity to whom he sold or furnished the 'Reliance Defense Package' or '16th Amendment Reliance Package.'" Failure to comply with this court's order will result in an order to show cause why Benson should not be held in contempt. Mailed notice (mw, )


Here is the law

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 6700
Prev | Next
§ 6700. Promoting abusive tax shelters, etc.
How Current is This?
(a) Imposition of penalty
Any person who—
(1)
(A) organizes (or assists in the organization of)—
(i) a partnership or other entity,
(ii) any investment plan or arrangement, or
(iii) any other plan or arrangement, or
(B) participates (directly or indirectly) in the sale of any interest in an entity or plan or arrangement referred to in subparagraph (A), and
(2) makes or furnishes or causes another person to make or furnish (in connection with such organization or sale)—
(A) a statement with respect to the allowability of any deduction or credit, the excludability of any income, or the securing of any other tax benefit by reason of holding an interest in the entity or participating in the plan or arrangement which the person knows or has reason to known is false or fraudulent as to any material matter, or
(B) a gross valuation overstatement as to any material matter,
shall pay, with respect to each activity described in paragraph (1), a penalty equal to the $1,000 or, if the person establishes that it is lesser, 100 percent of the gross income derived (or to be derived) by such person from such activity. For purposes of the preceding sentence, activities described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to each entity or arrangement shall be treated as a separate activity and participation in each sale described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be so treated. Notwithstanding the first sentence, if an activity with respect to which a penalty imposed under this subsection involves a statement described in paragraph (2)(A), the amount of the penalty shall be equal to 50 percent of the gross income derived (or to be derived) from such activity by the person on which the penalty is imposed.
(b) Rules relating to penalty for gross valuation overstatements
(1) Gross valuation overstatement defined
For purposes of this section, the term “gross valuation overstatement” means any statement as to the value of any property or services if—
(A) the value so stated exceeds 200 percent of the amount determined to be the correct valuation, and
(B) the value of such property or services is directly related to the amount of any deduction or credit allowable under chapter 1 to any participant.
(2) Authority to waive
The Secretary may waive all or any part of the penalty provided by subsection (a) with respect to any gross valuation overstatement on a showing that there was a reasonable basis for the valuation and that such valuation was made in good faith.
(c) Penalty in addition to other penalties
The penalty imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty provided by law.




So be careful in who you tell about these tax protest arguments. YOU may end up in court. Not only will they lose their case YOU may end up in a legal mess.

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 01:45 PM
United States v. Hempfling, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51697 (D. Cal. 2007)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Doc. 82)

Plaintiff's motion to strike demand for jury trial came on regularly for hearing on June 1, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. Robert D. Metcalfe, Trial Attorney, Tax Division for the U. S. Department of Justice, appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. William McPike, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant. The Court has reviewed the motion and memorandum in support thereof, the opposition and memorandum in opposition thereto, as well as Defendant's surreply filed in response to Plaintiff's oral argument at the hearing. Upon receipt of Defendant's surreply, the matter was submitted to the Court.

Procedural Background

On May 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint (Doc. 1) seeking [*2] a permanent injunction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408 for violations of the Internal Revenue Code § 6700. The prayer (at page 11) is for injunctive relief only and, "H. That the Court grant the United States such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate."

On June 29, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Doc. 7). On September 23, 2005, the motion to dismiss was denied on all grounds except under Rule 9(b), and Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file an amended complaint (Doc. 37). On October 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for permanent injunction (Doc. 39). On November 15, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 43), and a motion to strike certain portions of the amended complaint (Doc. 44), which motions were denied on February 22, 2006 (Doc. 56). On March 1, 2006, Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 58), which was dismissed on June 15, 2006 (Doc. 70-2). On March 19, 2007, Defendant filed his answer to the amended complaint (Doc. 75) alleging affirmative defenses. On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses (Doc. 79) which was granted in part and [*3] denied in part on May 1, 2007 (Doc. 89), granting Defendant leave to amend his fifth affirmative defense, with instructions. On May 15, 2007, Defendant filed his amended answer which included a demand for jury trial (Doc. 90). Plaintiff's motion to strike demand for jury trial, filed on April 9, 2007 (Doc. 82), is presently submitted to this Court for decision (Doc. 92).

Factual Background

Plaintiff's amended complaint seeks a permanent injunction against Defendant Steve Hempfling and his business, Free Enterprise Society.

Using the name Free Enterprise Society, Defendant conducted tax-related seminars where he promoted commercial tax products such as his previously-recorded seminars, the W4 package and the "Reliance 2000" package which Plaintiff alleges falsely purported to show that there is no law requiring individuals to file federal income tax returns or pay income taxes. He also offered for sale a "civil support service," which allegedly demonstrates that there is no law requiring individuals to file federal income tax returns or pay income taxes. He also allegedly offered a "civil support service" which entitled participants to obtain, for additional fees, customized tax-related [*4] legal briefs and correspondence, and a "legal defense fund" for non-filers that provided support for those charged with willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of IRC § 7203. He also is alleged to have counseled customers in seminars and elsewhere that there is no legal obligation to pay income tax.

The complaint states that Defendant's "Reliance 2000" program was used to facilitate, encourage and assist his customers to commit willful failure to file tax returns and tax evasion. That program included buying and reading a two-volume book The Law That Never Was by William "Bill" Benson for $ 80, which, Plaintiff alleges, falsely concludes that the Sixth Amendment was never ratified; buying, for $ 250, The Sixteenth Amendment Reliance Package from Defendant which purports to contain the "initial research" for The Law That Never Was; buying from Defendant for $ 50 to $ 75 and sending to the president, congressmen and senators copies of Defendant's Redress of Grievance Letter Package, which asked the recipients to answer questions about the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment; and, buying, for $ 150 and up, and filing Defendant's federal lawsuit package asking for the [*5] answer to the "16th Amendment question."

The amended complaint states that the United States is not seeking to prohibit Defendant Hempfling from advertising or distributing all books and other products listed in the website www.freeenterprisesociety.com. Rather, the complaint seeks to bar advertising and distribution only of those products and types of products identified in the complaint as being subject to penalties under IRC §§ 6700 or 6701, or, to injunction under IRC §§ 7408 or 7402. Defendant is alleged to have engaged in such conduct in count I of the amended complaint. In count II of the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that Defendant has engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and prays that Defendant be enjoined from such activity as he is likely to continue to do so.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Steven Hempfling individually and d/b/a Free Enterprise Society from engaging in conduct subject to penalty under IRC § 6700, any conduct that interferes with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and that injunctive relief against him, his representatives, agents, servants, [*6] employees, and those in concert or participation with him is appropriate to prevent recurrence of that conduct. Plaintiff requests that the injunction require Hempfling's representatives, agents, servants, etc., turn over to Plaintiff any records that identify individuals or entities who purchased or used any other tax shelter, plan or arrangements in which Hempfling individually or doing business as Free Enterprise Society has been involved. Plaintiff requests that the Court allow the Government full post-judgment discovery to monitor compliance with the injunction, and that the Court grant the United States such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Issues Presented

Plaintiff requests that the demand for jury trial be stricken because there is no constitutional or statutory right to trial by jury based on the allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff argues that HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.a jury trial applies only to suits at common law, not in equity. Curtis v. Loether, 415 US. 189, 193, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rind, 991 F.2d 1486, 1493 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff contends that suits at common law are defined as "suits [*7] in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined" in contraindication to those where equitable rights alone were regarded, and equitable remedies were administered." Pel-Star Energy, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 890 F.Supp. 532, 539 (W.D.La. 1995). Thus, Plaintiff asserts this is an equitable action seeking only injunctive relief, and thus there is no right to a jury trial. United States v. Westbanick Corp., 63 F.R.D. 366, 367,(E.D.Wis. 1974); Coca-Cola Co. v. Cahill, 330 F.Supp. 354, 356 (W.D.Okla. 1971). At hearing, Plaintiff pointedly declared it was not now nor would it be seeking any monetary penalties against Defendant.

Defendant contends that he is entitled to a jury trial as the Seventh Amendment provides that in HN2Go to the description of this Headnote."Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." U.S. Const.Amend. VII. Defendant argues that because of the government's allegation that they are seeking only an injunction against him under § 7408, the government must prove that he was engaging in conduct prohibited by § 6700, which provides a penalty of $ 1,000 per violation or some lesser amount if a defendant establishes [*8] a lesser amount by way of showing that 100% of the gross income derived by the person who violates its provisions is a lesser amount. The government argues multiple violations of § 6700, which requires proving false or fraudulent elements as well. Therefore, the amount at issue would be at least $ 1,000. Defendant contends that these penalties are "legal" or "at law" issues, and the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial, despite the government's "artful pleading" seeking only "an injunction."

Defendant further asserts that although the relief sought in the complaint is for an injunction only, Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c) specifically authorizes, if not requires, that the court grant whatever relief a party may be entitled to, regardless of whether or not is requested in the complaint. Defendant alleges that "[I]t is of no moment that the government's complaint only seeks injunctive relief. If it proves the elements of § 6700, as it is required to do to prevail on its complaint, it would be entitled to whatever monetary penalties are allowed under the statute." (Defendant's opposition, Doc. 91, p. 2:21-24) Defendant argues that because he may be liable for the penalties under § 6700, the issue [*9] becomes "legal" or "at law" and the Seventh Amendment entitles him to a jury trial based upon the legal issues involved.

He further argues that because this case may present both legal and equitable matters is no reason to deny a jury trial. Assuming theHN3Go to the description of this Headnote. case is a mix of legal and equitable claims, the court has limited discretion in determining the sequence of trial, and must, whenever possible, preserve the right to jury trial. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510, 79 S. Ct. 948, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959). He contends that only under the most imperative circumstances can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims. Id. This is true even in complex cases. In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411, 426 (9th Cir. 1979).

ANALYSIS

There is little dispute with regard to the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials. It provides that, "[I]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

Initially,HN4Go to the description of this Headnote. it must be determined if the right to trial by jury attaches to the particular statutory claim involved.

First, we must "compare the statutory action to 18th-century [*10] actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity." Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417, 107 S. Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987) (cites omitted). Second, we must "examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature." Id. at 417-18, (cites omitted). The second inquiry is more important. Id. at 421. (emphasis added)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rind, 991 F.2d 1486, 1493 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 963, 114 S. Ct. 439, 126 L. Ed. 2d 372 (1993). In this case, the court determined that joining an action for disgorgement of profits to the injunction action did not entitle a defendant to a jury trial because such joinder does not detract from the equitable nature of the action. See also Coca-Cola Company v. Cahill, 330 F.Supp. 354, 355 (W.D.Ok. 1971)(Claim for injunctive relief and an equitable accounting are suits in equity and equity courts have the power to decree complete relief; for that purpose equity courts may accord what would be otherwise a legal remedy).

HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.In assessing whether the Seventh Amendment provides for a jury trial in a specific case "depends on the nature of the issue to be tried rather than the character of the overall action." Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S, 531, 538, 90 S. Ct. 733, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729 (1970). [*11] In Ross, the Supreme Court identified a three-part test, that is, following the first two tests, evaluation of the practical abilities and limitations of juries can be considered. Id. However, in a later case the Supreme Court shifted the focus to the second issue -- the nature of the relief sought. Hildebrand v. Bd. of Tr. of Mich. State Univ., 607 F.2d 705 (1979), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 910, 102 S. Ct. 1760, 72 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1982). See also Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974). Thus, it is important to remember that the remedy sought is the more important element in deciding whether a claim is legal or equitable. Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417, 107 S. Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987).

The courts uniformly find that in cases such as this one, HN6Go to the description of this Headnote.where a statute authorizes injunctive relief for violation of another section of the statute, the action is equitable and that no jury trial is required. United States v. Ellis Research Laboratories, Inc., 300 F.2d 550, 554 (7th Cir. 1962)(No jury trial required in action to enjoin defendants from shipping misbranded device for diagnosis of disease under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as the action sought only injunctive relief).

In United States v. Westbanick, 63 F.R.D. 366 (E.D.Wis. 1974) the court [*12] discussed the right to jury trial under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Section 812(c) provides for damages, and if damages are requested, the 7th Amendment guarantees the right to jury trial. Section 813 makes no provision for damages whether compensatory or punitive in nature. Thus, in a case seeking only injunctive relief under the Act pursuant to § 813, there is no right to a jury trial. At 63 F.R.D. at 367, the Court stated:

This is generally true, no matter what the subject matter of a particular suit may be. Professor Moore, for example, has made the categorical observation that . . . "in an action solely for an injunction there is no right to jury trial" 5 Moore, Federal. Practice P 38.24[1], at 190.1 (2d ed. 1971). See generally United States v. Ellis Research Laboratories, Inc., 300 F.2d 550 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 370 U.S. 918, 82 S. Ct. 1558, 8 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1962); Adams v. Fazzio Real Estate Co., 268 F.Supp. 630 (E.D.La. 1967), affd. 396 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1968) . . .



In United States v. Conces, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7627, 2006 WL 356929 (W.D.Mich. 2006) the United States sought injunctive relief prohibiting Conces from violating internal revenue laws, that is, from organizing, promoting, marketing [*13] or selling abusive tax shelters under the same IRS statutes as here, and a demand for jury trial was denied as there is no right to a jury trial where the claims are equitable in nature.

Defendant argues that the government seeks an injunction under §§ 7402 and 7408 for violations of § 6700, which is a penalty statute. Thus, the case requires resolution of legal or at law issues of § 6700, and a jury trial is required under the 7th Amendment.

The argument is without merit. Further, it is presented without citation to any legal authority holding that reference to the violations, which provide for monetary penalties, in seeking an injunction under a statute that provides authority for such injunction, makes the action one at law. It also ignores the second inquiry set out in order to determine whether an action is legal or equitable. In this case there is no question that the relief sought here is equitable and would have been so in the courts of England prior to the merger of law and equity. The second, and most important inquiry, is whether the remedy sought is legal or equitable. Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417, 107 S. Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987). Here, all that is requested is an injunction and thus the [*14] matter is equitable and Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

Defendant next argues that under F.R.Civ.P. 54(c) the court is authorized, if not required, to grant whatever relief a party may be entitled, regardless of what is requested. Thus, if the government proves the elements of § 6700, as it must do to obtain an injunction, it would be entitled to monetary penalties. Because such penalties are legal, Defendant is entitled to a jury trial. He argues that Plaintiff's artful pleading cannot turn this legal case into one seeking only an injunction.

Again, Defendant cites to no authority in support of this circuitous argument. Further, United States v. Raymond, 78 F.Supp.2d 856 (E.D.Wis. 1999), illustrates that proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of conduct subject to penalty under § 6700, must be made by the government for it to obtain its injunction. On Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction, the court found the program involved was an abusive tax shelter, and injunctive relief was appropriate. Thus, having to prove underlying violations for issuance of an injunction does not turn an equitable action into one at law.

HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.The relief sought by Plaintiff [*15] is an important consideration and is given weight by the courts in determining if the matter is equitable or legal. In Anti-Monopoly v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1979), Plaintiff argued that the judge improperly denied it a jury trial. The original complaint contained two counts for damages as well as seeking equitable relief. Defendant counterclaimed for an accounting and damages. The counterclaim was withdrawn and without objection Plaintiff severed the two legal claims. There was no error in denying the jury trial since only equitable claims remained, and thus only equitable remedies were sought. In agreement is Francis v. Dietrick, 682 F.2d 485 (4th Cir. 1982) where Plaintiff amended the complaint dropping claim for damages, thereby leaving only equitable issues, and thus no jury trial required. Here, only equitable remedies are sought.

However, Defendant claims that by artful pleading, Plaintiffs thinly veil the real underlying legal claims which exposes him to penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6700. As Tull, and Ross, supra, set out, the relief sought by Plaintiff is the most important element to consider, and Plaintiffs only seek injunctive relief.

Indeed, it would [*16] be error if Plaintiff were awarded compensatory and/or punitive damages, as Defendant suggests, when only equitable remedies are sought. Harris v. Richards Mfg. Co., 675 F.2d 811, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1982), an action seeking only equitable relief, and "such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary and proper," was tried without a jury. In the post-trial brief Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal Defendant contended that such an award denied them a trial by jury. The appellate court held that it was error to award damages where they were never prayed for nor specifically proved, and when the pleadings gave Defendants no hint that damages were to be litigated. This was denial of the right to have legal issues tried before a jury and the court reversed the award of damages.

Therefore, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff, by artful pleading, is seeking legal as well as equitable remedies is meritless. Plaintiff seeks only equitable relief, and is entitled only to the relief prayed for.

Because Plaintiff will be required to prove factual questions [*17] concerning the alleged abusive tax shelters does not necessarily establish the claim is legal nor mandate a jury trial. If no monetary damages are sought by Plaintiff, there is no right to a jury trial. Anti-Monopoly v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1979); Louis Kemp, Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20202, 2001 WL 1636512 (D.Minn). HN8Go to the description of this Headnote.An equitable claim may involve a legal issue of fact or may turn on a question of fact, but the existence of an issue of fact does not per se create a legal claim which would entitle a party to a jury trial. Shubin v. U.S. District Court for the S.D. of California, 313 F.2d 250, 251 (9th Cir. 1963); Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12741, 1976 WL 20999 (N.D.Cal. 1976), reversed and remanded, 611 F.2d 296, 308 (9th Cir. 1979) (reversed on trademark issue, but affirmed on holding that existence of factual question of trademark validity does not necessarily mandate a jury trial., and if no monetary damages are sought, jury trial properly denied as complaint was for equitable relief). In agreement, Louis Kemp, Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20202, 2001 WL 1636512 (D.Minn).

It should be noted that HN9Go to the description of this Headnote.a prayer that includes [*18] language requesting "all relief to which the plaintiff may appear to be entitled" or "such further relief as may be deemed proper" is not somehow magical and all encompassing, and does not constitute a prayer for legal relief in the form of damages. Such catchall phrases are limited to relief of the same kind that is specifically enumerated, i.e., equitable relief. Deringer v. Columbia Transportation Div., Oglebay Norton Co., 866 F.2d 859, 863 (6th Cir. 1989); Harris v. Richards Mfg. Co., Inc., 675 F.2d 811, 815 (6th Cir. 1982).

Finally, Defendant argues that this case may present both legal and equitable matters, and thus the court is required to examine the case further. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S. Ct. 948, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959); In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411, 426 (9th Cir. 1970). However, as indicated above, there is no mixed issue here to analyze because Plaintiff seeks a purely equitable remedy, assuring the Court at hearing it would not be seeking any monetary penalties against Defendant.

In view of the above, there is no doubt that Plaintiff seeks only equitable relief and Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to strike [*19] demand for jury trial is hereby GRANTED.

Edu
02-28-2008, 08:18 PM
This site http://evans-legal.com/ is all this guy's opinion, he posts cases and tells you how he thinks it is. Just as you don't like people's opinions here on how they read the law and cases, I don't like the way this guy reads the cases.

It's so clear, I don't understand how anyone can miss it.

And I really don't want to spend the next month educating you on this, people get paid for that, so you should do some of your own research, which might include going to sites that you seem to not want to read because you may find that you really are mislead, sorry but that's life.

From now on, when you post a case, or "codes", when it says "United States", please indicate to us which United States they are talking about. [gov] [country] [states]

Also, let us know the status of these people, are they subjects under the jurisdiction of a government? (notice the word UNDER, as in owned), or are they the free original People who own the government, who give a government it's delegated powers, and the ones who retain ALL rights? You could use [owned slave] and [sovereign] if you like.

Like here: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside." (14th)

Which United States are they talking about? That's not geographical, is it? You can't be "subject to the jurisdiction" of geography can you? Can you be "subject to the jurisdiction" of all the states at once? Does that make any sense?

So I read it as "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [gov]" and "citizens of the United States [gov]".

I mean, congress can't say "you created us and now we own you", "the masters are now hereby the slaves". The government can't exist if there are no more "we the People" that created them and delegated them powers.

How do you read it? Let me know when you get it.

So keep reading this stuff with that in mind (if you got it yet that is).

This one is pretty clear: "The amended complaint states that the United States [gov] is not seeking to prohibit Defendant Hempfling from advertising or distributing".

And by the way, I mostly agree that these people who are [owned slave], are really butting their heads against a wall. Like I said before, don't mess with your master when you are owned by them and everything you do and "own" is really theirs.

Notes:

[gov] would mean the federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority. (notice the word LIMITED?)

[country] would mean the name of the sovereign nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

[states] would mean the collective name for the States united by the Constitution for (of) the United States of America.

Supreme Court definition
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S. Ct. 870, 89 L.Ed. 1252

And note that not everything shows up on "lexis nexis", a lot of the good stuff has been left off the database, you have to go to a law library and dig deep in the old stuff that is in a locked room in the back.

What would be really fun is if you found some cases that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the guy didn't have a SS#, and lived on the *land* in one of the several States. Come up with a list of those, that would probably be more constructive.

Shouldn't they have to get a court order in order to do ANYTHING now? Like taking your money? What if your first question was prove jurisdiction? What if you already notified them of such?
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-11-08.htm
He won appeal too http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-07-04.htm
Schulz v. IRS., 395 F.3d 463 (2nd Cir. 2005)
(and I don't think Schulz argued jurisdiction in anything he has done so far)

Lots of people posting cases since the 90's on a yahoo group about this, if you like that sort of thing. I am sure most people here are bored with this thread by now.

“The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus; any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties ‘so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,’ Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.“ [Page 10].

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 09:41 PM
This site http://evans-legal.com/ is all this guy's opinion, he posts cases and tells you how he thinks it is. Just as you don't like people's opinions here on how they read the law and cases, I don't like the way this guy reads the cases.

It's so clear, I don't understand how anyone can miss it.

And I really don't want to spend the next month educating you on this, people get paid for that, so you should do some of your own research, which might include going to sites that you seem to not want to read because you may find that you really are mislead, sorry but that's life.

From now on, when you post a case, or "codes", when it says "United States", please indicate to us which United States they are talking about. [gov] [country] [states]

Also, let us know the status of these people, are they subjects under the jurisdiction of a government? (notice the word UNDER, as in owned), or are they the free original People who own the government, who give a government it's delegated powers, and the ones who retain ALL rights? You could use [owned slave] and [sovereign] if you like.

Like here: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside." (14th)

Which United States are they talking about? That's not geographical, is it? You can't be "subject to the jurisdiction" of geography can you? Can you be "subject to the jurisdiction" of all the states at once? Does that make any sense?

So I read it as "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [gov]" and "citizens of the United States [gov]".

I mean, congress can't say "you created us and now we own you", "the masters are now hereby the slaves". The government can't exist if there are no more "we the People" that created them and delegated them powers.

How do you read it? Let me know when you get it.

So keep reading this stuff with that in mind (if you got it yet that is).

This one is pretty clear: "The amended complaint states that the United States [gov] is not seeking to prohibit Defendant Hempfling from advertising or distributing".

And by the way, I mostly agree that these people who are [owned slave], are really butting their heads against a wall. Like I said before, don't mess with your master when you are owned by them and everything you do and "own" is really theirs.

Notes:

[gov] would mean the federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority. (notice the word LIMITED?)

[country] would mean the name of the sovereign nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

[states] would mean the collective name for the States united by the Constitution for (of) the United States of America.

Supreme Court definition
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S. Ct. 870, 89 L.Ed. 1252

And note that not everything shows up on "lexis nexis", a lot of the good stuff has been left off the database, you have to go to a law library and dig deep in the old stuff that is in a locked room in the back.

What would be really fun is if you found some cases that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the guy didn't have a SS#, and lived on the *land* in one of the several States. Come up with a list of those, that would probably be more constructive.

Shouldn't they have to get a court order in order to do ANYTHING now? Like taking your money? What if your first question was prove jurisdiction? What if you already notified them of such?
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-11-08.htm
He won appeal too http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-07-04.htm
Schulz v. IRS., 395 F.3d 463 (2nd Cir. 2005)
(and I don't think Schulz argued jurisdiction in anything he has done so far)

Lots of people posting cases since the 90's on a yahoo group about this, if you like that sort of thing. I am sure most people here are bored with this thread by now.

“The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus; any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties ‘so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,’ Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.“ [Page 10].

you are too funny

Anti Federalist
02-28-2008, 11:02 PM
Ionlyknow wrote:


Wages are not “income” because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a form of “property”) for money (another form of property), so there is no gain and no income.
o

Even if my wages are income, I can deduct deduct the ordinary costs of living in order to calculate the “gain” from my labor.
o

Even if my wages are gross income, I can deduct the full amount of the wages as a “claim of right” and not have any taxable income.

Actually, a case just like this was won last year in Louisiana:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

The upshot of the argument is this:

Taxes are not due on investments that lose money. You buy a stock or real estate or whatever, and then sell it years later at a loss, that money that came in the year you sold is not taxable.

Since no one can place a "hard" value on what a day or hour of life is worth, indeed, once gone it can never be replaced, so it's value is priceless.

Therefore every hour you spend working is an hour of "invested" time that you are exchanging at a loss, and is not liable to taxation.

Anti Federalist
02-28-2008, 11:17 PM
ionlyknow wrote:


The Kelo case was a property eminent domain case where the city was a crap hole and they wanted to revitalize the city with new projects. The arg. was that the revitalization even though through private means was a social benefit and therefore, sufficient to support the taking of the land.

Not quite.

The argument was that the increased tax revenue would be the "net social benefit", not the revitalized area itself.

Which is why everybody, correctly, went batshit crazy about this ruling.

There is very little you could do with piece of property that would generate less tax revenue than a single family home. So it stood to reason that local and state governments would go on an orgy of eminent domain takings of single family homes to be turned over for large development projects.

And they did.

So now, unless you live in one of the states that passed real eminent domain reforms, if your home stands in the way of Global Ginormous Realty Developers LLC plans to build a condo complex on your family home or farm, be prepared for the state to step in and send men with guns to run you off.

And the Cossacks were bad, why again?

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 11:33 PM
Ionlyknow wrote:



Actually, a case just like this was won last year in Louisiana:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

The upshot of the argument is this:

Taxes are not due on investments that lose money. You buy a stock or real estate or whatever, and then sell it years later at a loss, that money that came in the year you sold is not taxable.

Since no one can place a "hard" value on what a day or hour of life is worth, indeed, once gone it can never be replaced, so it's value is priceless.

Therefore every hour you spend working is an hour of "invested" time that you are exchanging at a loss, and is not liable to taxation.

Every now and then you get a trial court like this where the tax protester gets to a jury and they acquit. In a criminal proceeding such as the one above, they cannot deny you a jury. But in a civil action, they most likely would have moved for a summary judgment, deemed the argument frivolous, then fined him up to $25,000.

But, since this case was only at the trial level, it is not binding authority on any other case, only persuasive.

Look, many of the arguments in this thread may be correct, but there is no way to know for sure about any of this stuff. I just am trying to show people that if you decide to act on your beliefs, that you dont have to pay income tax, then the courts will not hear your arguments, and you will be fined or criminally liable.

There are anomalies such as the case in Louisiana, it is called Jury Nullification.

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 11:38 PM
ionlyknow wrote:



Not quite.

The argument was that the increased tax revenue would be the "net social benefit", not the revitalized area itself.

Which is why everybody, correctly, went batshit crazy about this ruling.

There is very little you could do with piece of property that would generate less tax revenue than a single family home. So it stood to reason that local and state governments would go on an orgy of eminent domain takings of single family homes to be turned over for large development projects.

And they did.

So now, unless you live in one of the states that passed real eminent domain reforms, if your home stands in the way of Global Ginormous Realty Developers LLC plans to build a condo complex on your family home or farm, be prepared for the state to step in and send men with guns to run you off.

And the Cossacks were bad, why again?

ok, thanks for correcting me. But I think that post has cobwebs on it cause it was on like page 1 of this thread ;)

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 11:43 PM
ionlyknow wrote:



Not quite.

The argument was that the increased tax revenue would be the "net social benefit", not the revitalized area itself.

Which is why everybody, correctly, went batshit crazy about this ruling.

There is very little you could do with piece of property that would generate less tax revenue than a single family home. So it stood to reason that local and state governments would go on an orgy of eminent domain takings of single family homes to be turned over for large development projects.

And they did.

So now, unless you live in one of the states that passed real eminent domain reforms, if your home stands in the way of Global Ginormous Realty Developers LLC plans to build a condo complex on your family home or farm, be prepared for the state to step in and send men with guns to run you off.

And the Cossacks were bad, why again?

Do you know if the Kelo case actually said what you are saying?

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 11:47 PM
ionlyknow wrote:



Not quite.

The argument was that the increased tax revenue would be the "net social benefit", not the revitalized area itself.

Which is why everybody, correctly, went batshit crazy about this ruling.

There is very little you could do with piece of property that would generate less tax revenue than a single family home. So it stood to reason that local and state governments would go on an orgy of eminent domain takings of single family homes to be turned over for large development projects.

And they did.

So now, unless you live in one of the states that passed real eminent domain reforms, if your home stands in the way of Global Ginormous Realty Developers LLC plans to build a condo complex on your family home or farm, be prepared for the state to step in and send men with guns to run you off.

And the Cossacks were bad, why again?

Let me quote from the Kelo case:

In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas"


Sorry I didnt include the rest of the reasons for the taking... I was only recalling this from memory when I first posted about it.... sheesh..

Anti Federalist
02-29-2008, 12:09 AM
ionlyknow wrote:


Look, many of the arguments in this thread may be correct, but there is no way to know for sure about any of this stuff. I just am trying to show people that if you decide to act on your beliefs, that you dont have to pay income tax, then the courts will not hear your arguments, and you will be fined or criminally liable.

True enough, you run a great risk.

I know, I fought the bastards for over 15 years.

Point is though, that you can win one of these cases, at least on the criminal side.

Banister, Snipes and the case I cited are just few examples.

Granted they are few and far between.

But the first wave that storms the beaches are bound to suffer the greatest number of casualties.

Anti Federalist
02-29-2008, 12:17 AM
ok, thanks for correcting me. But I think that post has cobwebs on it cause it was on like page 1 of this thread ;)

I just found the thread and read the whole thing.:eek:


In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas"

Yes, that was the stated goal of the NLDC (New London Development Corp) and that is how it appeared in the initial brief.

But the decision was based on the tax revenue only.

In the past, ED rulings were made in favor of the railroads using the "social benefit argument". But in this case that argument could not be made, considering that the project was for private condos, offices, parking lots and marina complex.

The only way the fedgov could make an end run around the 5th Amendment in this case was to use the "tax revenue" argument, since nothing in the project could even remotely be considered "public".

Not to mention that the area in question was not "economically distressed".

I've been there, protested in front of New London city hall, (interesting side note: the people there in many ways are the same people that support Ron Paul, meaning an eclectic mix of people and political positions, all saying the same thing, "We are losing our freedoms, rapidly") and I can tell you the neighborhood that was decimated in no way was what you would consider "distressed".

Just an older middle class working neighborhood, close to the water front. That was the key, the high dollar waterfront access.

Edu
02-29-2008, 01:53 AM
Every now and then you get a trial court like this where the tax protester gets to a jury and they acquit. In a criminal proceeding such as the one above, they cannot deny you a jury. But in a civil action, they most likely would have moved for a summary judgment, deemed the argument frivolous, then fined him up to $25,000.

But, since this case was only at the trial level, it is not binding authority on any other case, only persuasive. That is one of the problems, or they dismiss cases they know they will lose and possibly set a precedent. The party on the other side normally lets them dismiss because they don't have unlimited resources. Then they delay, delay and try to put pressure on from other angles if you don't "give in". That's why the system is skewed and you don't see that many people "winning".


Look, many of the arguments in this thread may be correct, but there is no way to know for sure about any of this stuff. I just am trying to show people that if you decide to act on your beliefs, that you dont have to pay income tax, then the courts will not hear your arguments, and you will be fined or criminally liable. I understand, and by all means, pay any *lawful* taxes. It's a shame when people ask their government some simple questions that they get nothing but fines and penalties for trying.

Under common law things have to be simple and clear so anyone can understand. Can't they just do that? Is it really that hard? And since they don't, doesn't that set them up to be the ones who have to do all the explaining, even if it costs them a little more time to do it?

Some things bug me, like this one: United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n. 8 (9th Cir.1980) (court has jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how appearance is effected). (from Studley, 783 F.2d 934 1985)

Meaning if they can drag you off to one of their courts, they have jurisdiction, (if this is true, I didn't completely research it). But it looks in that case, that was the ONLY way they had jurisdiction and possibly someone with a habeas corpus could have stopped that, not sure.

It's also not clear if they had jurisdiction from something that happened before, if you want to research it, go ahead. I would call it a kidnapping.

And I would have really liked to hear your responses to my last post, other than "funny". I mean, what do you think about the principals behind what I was trying to say?

You might want to read a little at http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articles-news/ the info is a little hard to discover, you might want to use google to search and access it. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/

Edu
02-29-2008, 02:43 AM
Some good news:

"There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.

Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to attack a void judgment or sentence. See Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 224, 225 at n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d at 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (opinion on original submission); Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).

In a long and venerable line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that, without proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all, but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit. See, e.g., Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. ___, ___. Bell v. Hood, supra; National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 465, n. 13; Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 531; Secretary of Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 , 678 (per curiam); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 ; Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 721; and Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 86—88, distinguished. For a court to pronounce upon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, an ultra vires act. Pp. 8—17.

"There is a presumption against existence of federal jurisdiction; thus, party invoking federal court's jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. 28 U.S.C.A. §§1332, 1332(c); Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 12(h)(3), 28 U.S.C.A."

"If parties do not raise question of lack of jurisdiction, it is the duty of the federal court to determine the manner sua sponte. 28 U.S.C.A. §1332."

"Lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by consent, inaction, or stipulation. 28 U.S.C.A. §1332."

The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waived by a defendant. U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)

In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack. U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)

Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)

"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

Lots more:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/141-citizenship-jurisdiction-cites.html

PatriotG
02-29-2008, 09:42 AM
You say that the courts have not addressed the 16th amendment, but if you were to look at page 4-5 of this thread you would have seen the case below actually deciding the issue.

And as far as your statement, "The DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice after receiving the defendants strategy.That is the most poignant argument because it shows that not only does the government know that it is forcing a fraud,"

Just because the court dismissed or ruled a summary judgment doesnt automatically mean there is fraud. You act like fraud is definately the case, when it could be anything. For instance, there is a law now that states if you bring a tax protest arg. to court they will deem the arg. frivolous, the IRS will file a motion for summary judgment, then the court will rule in their favor without a trail, then you get fined up to $25,000.

Read this, this is a case where the guy brought up the 16th amendment arg.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 242 (7th Cir. 1989)
16th Amendment not ratified correctly

The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that in this case as well as in his two previous actions, Miller has sought to turn the judicial review procedure of § 6703 on its head by making it a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality [**10] of the sixteenth amendment. Miller's repeated abuse of § 6703 to press his stale constitutional claims has confounded Congress' larger and unquestionably legitimate aim of maintaining the integrity of the income tax system. Senate Report, at 1025.

Our research into the practice employed by Miller and the issues he has attempted to raise reveals a troubling pattern of similar cases. Schoffner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 812 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1987) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and series of constitutional objections); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket constitutional objections); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1984) [**11] (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment and other constitutional objections); Parker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984) (challenge to tax deficiency determination and penalty for filing an inappropriate return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection).

As best we can surmise, Miller, like the plaintiffs in the foregoing cases, has followed the advice of those associated with the "tax protester movement." The leaders of this movement conduct seminars across the country in which they attempt to convince taxpayers that the sixteenth amendment and assorted enforcement provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional. See, e.g. United States v. Hairston, 819 F.2d 971, 972 (10th Cir. 1987). Members are encouraged to defy the income tax filing requirements through returns like those noted above. They are then instructed to obtain a jury trial so that potentially like-minded jurors may be persuaded to acquit in the exercise of their power of jury nullification. See, e.g., United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 236-237 (10th Cir. 1979). [**12] The movement's manifesto, Benson and Beckman's The Law That Never Was, is a collection of documents relating to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, and is intended to be both a call to arms for the movement and "exhibit A" in the trials of tax protesters who argue that the sixteenth amendment was illegally ratified. Id. at xvii ("The tax protestor will be the great American hero of 1985 just as in 1776. It was tax protestors, not any political party, or judge or prosecutor who gave us our great Constitutional Republican form of government. The tax protest is more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie or Chevrolet!!").

In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir. 1986) HN5

[**13] (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal [*241] instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State. . . . Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. . . . [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized [**14] to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . [his] decision is now beyond review.

Id. at 1253 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1036, 93 L. Ed. 2d 840, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987) (propriety of the ratification process is a political question).

We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n.6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the [**15] authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from HN6

the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

Miller would have us disregard this principle and overturn almost three quarters of a century of settled law and declare [**16] the sixteenth amendment unconstitutional. He has asked us and the district court to do that which we have no authority to do. He would have us substitute one brand of lawlessness (from his perspective) with a form of lawlessness of our own. Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.

This advice has been offered on other occasions. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986) (tax protesters "must choose other forums, and there are many available"). In the circumstances, the sanctions imposed by the district court were appropriate. With particular reference to the injunction limiting Miller's access to the federal courts, we note that the district court was struggling with a persistent tax protester who was undaunted by his failure in two previous cases in as many years. A monetary sanction of $ 500 in the latter of those two cases did not prevent Miller from returning to the federal courthouse for yet a third time with the identical claims. The district court was thus faced with a plaintiff as intransigent as the tax protester we [**17] sanctioned in Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987), and properly drew upon the injunctive relief we imposed in Lysiak to fashion a remedy to address the parallel strains that Miller's frivolous filings were having on its crowded docket and limited [*242] resources. Id. at 313. Miller may exercise his right to access the federal courts upon a simple showing that his claim is colorable. See Coleman, 791 F.2d at 72 (there is no constitutional right to bring a frivolous suit). We therefore reject Miller's claim that the sanctions were excessive and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The present appeal is a patently frivolous one that has generated additional costs for the defendants and this court. Five years ago we warned plaintiffs like Miller that while the doors of the courthouse are open to good faith appeals, "we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments . . . In the future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax [**18] appeals and will not hesitate to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances." Granzow v. C.I.R., 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1984). This is such a circumstance. Although Miller is acting pro se, he knew or should have known that his position was groundless. Coleman, 791 F.2d at 71 (a court may and should impose sanctions if a person knows his position is groundless). Each of the three district judges before whom Miller has appeared have taken pains to explain the meritlessness of his position. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984) (reassertion of issues disposed of in prior proceedings is sanctionable). In conformity with our policy for such tax protester cases, Coleman, 791 F.2d at 73, we hereby sanction Miller $1500 in lieu of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

The judgment of district court is affirmed, with double costs and $1500 in damages imposed against the plaintiff-appellant. Miller is ordered to make payment to the Clerk of this court within thirty (30) days by a check made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

So ordered.


Miller challenged the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, not whether the amendment was properly ratified and that Secretary of State Knox knowingly declared the amendment to be properly ratified according to the constitution. The courts are unwilling to address that issue, as is the congress.

Lawrence did not file for a summary judgment the DOJ filed. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than having the DOJ asking for a summary dismissal with prejudice. The DOJ did not state a reason for their turn around, and as far as I know they are refusing to do so.

Allow me to address some issues.

1. This is a Constitutional Federal Republic; it is not a democracy. The mere fact that every member of congress and almost every judge in this country, including the 9 terrorists on the SC, refer in their decisions to this being a democracy should be terrifying to everyone, even you. Try reading a few thousand decisions and you'll come up with that glaring inconsistency and slap in the face to the American people and their Republic. In a democracy there are those who would side with tyranny, in this republic as it was formed, you would be chastised by your fellow citizens and isolated. However, ignorance of the law rules supreme today.

2. There is no constitutional tenor for a DOJ.

3. There is no constitutional tenor for a frivolous lawsuit proclamation by the courts. This country was built on questioning the government and it is one of our basic principles. There was a ruling a couple of years ago in which, I think it was the 3rd circuit, the court claimed that no matter what the facts the government was not required to Redress a Grievance. This happens to be the fundamental aspect of the First Amendment; if a right is withheld an individual must be afforded a remedy & relief.

4. There is no constitutional tenor for immunity. The courts have afforded themselves the ability to dismiss any remedy for the people while guaranteeing that they cannot be punished for their malicious acts. Read Edwin Vieira's 'Constitutional Homeland Security.'

5. And this should be engraved in the hearts of every freedom loving American because it is the paradigm under which all governments operate; All political power is derived from the barrel of a gun. Unchecked the courts can rule anything they choose. Where in the Constitution were they given the authority to interpret the law?

For those who subscribe to abdicating freedom to the courts, who long ago abandoned adhering to the Constitution, I invite you to continue on a path of protecting a runaway government. But when all is said and done, you to will be a victim of policies designed to slowly and steadily deplete the will of the people.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 01:43 PM
That is one of the problems, or they dismiss cases they know they will lose and possibly set a precedent. The party on the other side normally lets them dismiss because they don't have unlimited resources. Then they delay, delay and try to put pressure on from other angles if you don't "give in". That's why the system is skewed and you don't see that many people "winning".

I understand, and by all means, pay any *lawful* taxes. It's a shame when people ask their government some simple questions that they get nothing but fines and penalties for trying.

Under common law things have to be simple and clear so anyone can understand. Can't they just do that? Is it really that hard? And since they don't, doesn't that set them up to be the ones who have to do all the explaining, even if it costs them a little more time to do it?

Some things bug me, like this one: United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n. 8 (9th Cir.1980) (court has jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how appearance is effected). (from Studley, 783 F.2d 934 1985)

Meaning if they can drag you off to one of their courts, they have jurisdiction, (if this is true, I didn't completely research it). But it looks in that case, that was the ONLY way they had jurisdiction and possibly someone with a habeas corpus could have stopped that, not sure.

It's also not clear if they had jurisdiction from something that happened before, if you want to research it, go ahead. I would call it a kidnapping.

And I would have really liked to hear your responses to my last post, other than "funny". I mean, what do you think about the principals behind what I was trying to say?

You might want to read a little at http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articles-news/ the info is a little hard to discover, you might want to use google to search and access it. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/

All trial courts do not set precedent. Appellate courts do set precedent. But you dont have jury trials in appellate courts. But in criminal proceedings, once acquitted the govt. cannot appeal the decision. But if you lose, then you can appeal. But upon appeal you wont have a jury.

That is why in criminal cases, juries that are comprised of like minded tax protester citizens. People that have seen Freedom to Fascism or visited any one of the numerous seminars on the subject, end up siding with the tax protester.

Even if the judge gives instructions to the jury making it impossible for them to side for the tax protester, there is a thing called jury nullification...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what the law is or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be, or the legitimacy of a law itself. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 01:53 PM
Miller challenged the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, not whether the amendment was properly ratified and that Secretary of State Knox knowingly declared the amendment to be properly ratified according to the constitution. The courts are unwilling to address that issue, as is the congress.

Lawrence did not file for a summary judgment the DOJ filed. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than having the DOJ asking for a summary dismissal with prejudice. The DOJ did not state a reason for their turn around, and as far as I know they are refusing to do so.

Allow me to address some issues.

1. This is a Constitutional Federal Republic; it is not a democracy. The mere fact that every member of congress and almost every judge in this country, including the 9 terrorists on the SC, refer in their decisions to this being a democracy should be terrifying to everyone, even you. Try reading a few thousand decisions and you'll come up with that glaring inconsistency and slap in the face to the American people and their Republic. In a democracy there are those who would side with tyranny, in this republic as it was formed, you would be chastised by your fellow citizens and isolated. However, ignorance of the law rules supreme today.

2. There is no constitutional tenor for a DOJ.

3. There is no constitutional tenor for a frivolous lawsuit proclamation by the courts. This country was built on questioning the government and it is one of our basic principles. There was a ruling a couple of years ago in which, I think it was the 3rd circuit, the court claimed that no matter what the facts the government was not required to Redress a Grievance. This happens to be the fundamental aspect of the First Amendment; if a right is withheld an individual must be afforded a remedy & relief.

4. There is no constitutional tenor for immunity. The courts have afforded themselves the ability to dismiss any remedy for the people while guaranteeing that they cannot be punished for their malicious acts. Read Edwin Vieira's 'Constitutional Homeland Security.'

5. And this should be engraved in the hearts of every freedom loving American because it is the paradigm under which all governments operate; All political power is derived from the barrel of a gun. Unchecked the courts can rule anything they choose. Where in the Constitution were they given the authority to interpret the law?

For those who subscribe to abdicating freedom to the courts, who long ago abandoned adhering to the Constitution, I invite you to continue on a path of protecting a runaway government. But when all is said and done, you to will be a victim of policies designed to slowly and steadily deplete the will of the people.






The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).

It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)

Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:

“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”

Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).

These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.

But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).

Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:

“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”

Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).

In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.

The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Tax Protester “Evidence”

A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:

1.

By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that “the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not more than five states.)
2.

A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.
3.

On January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress reported that “the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same.” Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.
4.

Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that “the said state has become one of the United States of America.” Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).
5.

Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.

So what’ the problem? When Ohio was preparing for the 150th anniversary of its statehood, researchers discovered that they couldn’t establish the exact date that Ohio became a state, and that there was some confusion on the issue. For example, the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gave the date as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gave the date as November 29, 1802. Further research showed that Ohio was unique because Congress declared that Ohio would become a state upon fulfilling certain conditions but had never formally declared that the conditions had been met. In admitting other states, Congress either declared that the state would be admitted as of a certain date, or passed an enabling act and then later declared that the state was admitted. In the case of Ohio, Congress passed an enabling act but never formally declared that the conditions of the enabling act had been met, either due to an oversight or due to a belief that a formal declaration was not intended and not needed.

In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.

So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 01:59 PM
Miller challenged the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, not whether the amendment was properly ratified and that Secretary of State Knox knowingly declared the amendment to be properly ratified according to the constitution. The courts are unwilling to address that issue, as is the congress.


Did you forget to read this paragraph in Miller?

In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir. 1986) HN5

[**13] (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal [*241] instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State. . . . Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. . . . [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized [**14] to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . [his] decision is now beyond review.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 02:14 PM
what seems to be happening is that the tax protest movement is discovering the wonderful world of law and courts.

When someone murders someone, they go to court... and in some cases, a technicality will cause a case to go a certain way. That is what lawyers try to do.

We argue for whichever side we are on. The tax protest movement is essentially acting like they are a lawyer. They are reading the law, or finding out how the law was passed and making arguments that would favor them.

They are reading case law looking for any definition that will favor their cause.

But the problem is that most of these people have never been to law school, or are not a lawyer or a judge in any capacity. It is great to be inquisitive and to learn about such things, but never act on your own interpretation of case law or statutes etc. or based on information contained on some website.

Be suspicious of websites that offer advice on these subjects. Companies pay top dollar to lawyers for a reason, to advise them on various issues to minimize their legal liability.

The courts system has been exhausted in this respect. The most of the tax protester arguments have been addressed by the courts, to no avail. There are many other forums to instigate change:

1. run for public office
2. voting like minded people to office
3. education campaigns.
4. etc.

The court system may be the easiest way to change things... but apparently this avenue has been exhausted. Time to switch gears.

The reason why I disagree with taking this to court is because of the nature of this... People are persuaded to believe that if they dont pay their taxes, and bring these arguments to court, then they will win. But in reality 99% of the time, they end up having to pay the back taxes AND a fine of up to $25,000.

Many people do not know this, and are being tricked... they end up worse off than how they were in the beginning.
Think about the guy that watches Freedom to fascism and thinks "oh wow, i'm not paying taxes anymore, cause that guy won his case in the movie" "I will just say, show me the law, and when they cant, I win"... These same people stop paying their taxes without consulting a lawyer or any other piece of information except for the movie.

Then the IRS comes calling one day, and by then it is too late.

Truth-Bringer
02-29-2008, 02:51 PM
you are trying to interpret the code.

The code has been made unnecessarily complex and distorted in order to hide the truth.

And nothing in your post refuted anything in my last post. You are incapable of having an honest debate.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 03:08 PM
The code has been made unnecessarily complex and distorted in order to hide the truth.

And nothing in your post refuted anything in my last post. You are incapable of having an honest debate.

How's Lompoc treating you?

Truth-Bringer
02-29-2008, 03:14 PM
How's Lompoc treating you?

How's Fallacy Central? Your training there still going well?

Truth-Bringer
02-29-2008, 03:20 PM
what seems to be happening is that the tax protest movement is discovering the wonderful world of law and courts.


Those who do it right, and discover the truth, are immune to prosecution. IMF Decoder has taken over 20,000 people through its program of using Freedom of Information Act requests to decode their IMF files. No one has ever been indicted. Why? Because the government could not conceal the evidence of the Administrative Remedies being Exhausted in such a case.

Again:

"The overwhelming majority of taxpayers appear to be perfectly willing to face serious adverse action without bothering to make any significant effort to learn what the agency knows about them or how they came to be in that situation. In fact, even subjects of major criminal investigation seldom bother to make such inquiries, apparently being willing to face trial and risk imprisonment without writing a simple letter which could produce information which could literally save their freedom.”

- Marcus Farbenblum, Chief of the Freedom of Information Branch, IRS National Office, from his book, “The I.R.S. and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of 1974,” regarding FOIA requests

Anti Federalist
02-29-2008, 03:37 PM
Ionlyknow wrote:


Think about the guy that watches Freedom to fascism and thinks "oh wow, i'm not paying taxes anymore, cause that guy won his case in the movie" "I will just say, show me the law, and when they cant, I win"... These same people stop paying their taxes without consulting a lawyer or any other piece of information except for the movie.

Then the IRS comes calling one day, and by then it is too late.

I doubt that anybody of financial substance would quit filing and complying with IRS based on watching one dvd.

I know a few, some of them worth quite a bit of money. They are well aware of the fact that, if and when it comes to court, they'll probably lose. But their motivation lies elsewhere, not in hoping or pressing for a fair day in court, but rather resistance to an unjust law and bureaucracy as a matter of principle.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 06:55 PM
Ionlyknow wrote:



I doubt that anybody of financial substance would quit filing and complying with IRS based on watching one dvd.

I know a few, some of them worth quite a bit of money. They are well aware of the fact that, if and when it comes to court, they'll probably lose. But their motivation lies elsewhere, not in hoping or pressing for a fair day in court, but rather resistance to an unjust law and bureaucracy as a matter of principle.

Well, that leaves about a substantial amount of people that probably would fall prey to it...

Most people do not make a lot of money. And the average IQ is 100. Just look at this election cycle, if someone can be persuaded by MSM to vote for someone, then I think that those same people could be convinced to stop paying their income tax by watching one DVD.

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 06:56 PM
How's Fallacy Central? Your training there still going well?

LOL :p

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 06:58 PM
How's Fallacy Central? Your training there still going well?

How's "I believe everything Alex Jones says" going? 17/8/84?

Anti Federalist
02-29-2008, 07:02 PM
Well, that leaves about a substantial amount of people that probably would fall prey to it...

Most people do not make a lot of money. And the average IQ is 100. Just look at this election cycle, if someone can be persuaded by MSM to vote for someone, then I think that those same people could be convinced to stop paying their income tax by watching one DVD.

Jeez, if it was only that easy, watching one dvd, we would have wrapped this thing up.:cool:

But really, is that a bad thing, hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions defying the IRS, swamping the courts and clogging the system with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until something has to be changed?

Aside from the personal risk to those involved, substantial no doubt, what's the downside here?

ionlyknowy
02-29-2008, 07:55 PM
Jeez, if it was only that easy, watching one dvd, we would have wrapped this thing up.:cool:

But really, is that a bad thing, hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions defying the IRS, swamping the courts and clogging the system with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until something has to be changed?

Aside from the personal risk to those involved, substantial no doubt, what's the downside here?

Even if only 10 people watched the DVD and stopped paying taxes and thereby ruined their lives, I would be against it.

I suspect that many but not most have or will stop paying their taxes after watching the video.

No one likes the income tax. We all want more money in our pockets, BUT the courts are never going to rule in favor of abolishing the income tax. Just look at all of the tax protester arguments in this thread that turned out badly for the individual involved. There are probably hundreds maybe even thousands more.

what is going to happen, and it already has started happening, is the people involved in these cases i.e. judges, lawyers, IRS people. Are going to develop ways to easily dispose of such cases. They already have a way to dispose by way of summary judgment.

Soon, they may even make a law that says any argument whose end goal would be to abolish the income tax either directly or proximately will no longer be heard and will be dismissed beforehand. In that case, the tax protest movement would be forced to change strategies.

They can already dispose cases without juries in civil cases, and injunction type cases. But in criminal cases I think the const. says you have a right to jury trial. That is why people are getting out of the criminal aspect, assuming that your jury is privy and sympathetic to tax protester arguments.. but the IRS doesnt care, because you still have to pay the taxes. You just dont go to jail. But they can take everything you own.

Anti Federalist
02-29-2008, 08:09 PM
Ionlyknow wrote:


Even if only 10 people watched the DVD and stopped paying taxes and thereby ruined their lives, I would be against it.

And also wrote:


No one likes the income tax. We all want more money in our pockets,

Maybe here lies the "disconnect" that I'm sensing.

On the first statement, consider this for a moment: that the vast majority of men who signed the Declaration of Independence had their lives ruined, homes and businesses seized or destroyed, family harassed, imprisoned or killed outright.

And then the second about having more money in our pockets.

Now, I can't speak for all of the people doing this, but I can say about myself and the few others I know that are or have gone down this road, that it is not primarily about the money, it's about the principle. That I am required to submit to a self incriminating process with none of the protections of law afforded to any other criminal process, all for the purpose of extortion at the barrel of a government gun.

Of course, that can begin to look like martyrdom, but I prefer to look at it as "civil disobedience".

Truth-Bringer
03-01-2008, 07:22 AM
How's "I believe everything Alex Jones says" going? 17/8/84?

Obviously, your training is going well...that's another false statement and an Appeal to Ridicule...