is this true?

[garrettwombat]

a response from a friend:


Tax law is incorporated with the United States Code Title 26 Chapter 1 defines the tax law. The United States Code is law binding and is used to prosecute people federally. I am sorry but as with Army Regulations you can add to but cannot take away. The United States Code adds to the the US Constitution and is approved by Congress and the Justice Department.

[Kotin]

bump for curiosity.

[Enzo]

Sounds like BS. The Tax code has been changed numerous times. And full sections have been taken out completely.

[WilliamC]

Well until the 16th amendment is repealed the income tax will always be with us.

We've got to pull it out by the roots, not just whack away at the foliage.

[Enzo]

Well until the 16th amendment is repealed the income tax will always be with us.

We've got to pull it out by the roots, not just whack away at the foliage.

The argument is still there, however, that in the text of the 16th amendment, where it states: "from whatever source derived" referring to what Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes... That the only definition of "source derived" in any and all other documentation related to or concerned with such laws... pertains to tax on Foreign companies or foreign profit.... and not US citizens income earned in the US.

There are also several cases where people have fought the IRS on this and won.

One such example:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-06-28.htm

[Rhys]

it is most definatly true. There was a law passed by congress. I asked a lawyer to look into it.

[garrettwombat]

well wtf is the movie that arron ruso made even for then?

there has got to be more to it then that...

[Cinderella]

as ron paul says....they have the guns...so its their authoratative law

[garrettwombat]

so no one can argue that statement??? i remember doing a poll a month ago and found that 1/3 of the forums was freakin lawyers...

i have no experiance in law...

i wouldnt know where to begin the research..

[jp5065]

Yes the tax code is passed by congress as are all changes to the tax code. People saying there is no law require you to pay taxes don't know what they are talking about.

[vitaminb12]

Yes the tax code is passed by congress as are all changes to the tax code. People saying there is no law require you to pay taxes don't know what they are talking about.

Ron Paul must not know what he is talking about then. He clearly states in Russo's film that there is no law.

[slamhead]

I thought the cases that prevailed had to do with not filing a tax return. IIRC there was no law that specified people are required to file a return...I could be wrong.

[Ranger29860]

ok this is what i found after a quick search apparently in here it says we have to

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.shtml

i cant find where i have to file a tax return also note that the irc is law but if it doesnt have anyware in the code that requires you to file than there is now law under the irc

also the 16th amendment gave congress no new powers to tax as seen in
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1

now ive heard the argument that congress had the power to tax before hand so the 16th amendment doesnt matter only the apportioned part

if i read this right this is where Mr. Chief Justic e White gave the opinion of th court

the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment

can any lawers take a look at this ?

[MalcolmGandi]

well wtf is the movie that arron ruso made even for then?

there has got to be more to it then that...

There is. The law is unconstitutional unless they make a provision that it is entirely VOLUNTARY. Hence the term "voluntary compliance". There is an online book called "Federal Mafia" that explains it in great detail.

[MalcolmGandi]

By "the law," I mean the nonexistent law.

[Enzo]

My understanding is that it comes down to the legal language.

And the language used in the 16th amendment to the Constitution, and how it is further defined in the Tax code and regulations... does not give the Federal government the specific authority to tax the income of citizens earning money in this country.

[Rhys]

no one can argue the statement. The movie was wrong. That was the first thing my lawyer told me. I also asked my accountant. Both said the tax code is the law, per a LAW passed by congress in the 80's I guess, I forget when exactly.

However, what is true is that we shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

[Rhys]

There is. The law is unconstitutional unless they make a provision that it is entirely VOLUNTARY. Hence the term "voluntary compliance". There is an online book called "Federal Mafia" that explains it in great detail.

sorry, another thing about the tax code is, it is not voluntary. i forget what the legal answer was. this was like 2 months ago that i had it checked out and no one was interested in the truth back then because they were mad at me for even suggesting the movie is wrong.

[IPSecure]

Try this on for size:

A Bill in order to become LAW, must be introduced in Congress, and signed into law by the president.

The Congressional Research Committee has NO such record!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[affa]

no one can argue the statement. The movie was wrong. That was the first thing my lawyer told me. I also asked my accountant. Both said the tax code is the law, per a LAW passed by congress in the 80's I guess, I forget when exactly.

However, what is true is that we shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

Nothin' against you man, but referencing an unnamed lawyer and an unnamed accountant doesn't mean much. in fact, referencing a named lawyer and accountant wouldn't mean much either - since people disagree on the topic!

[coffeewithchess]

Ron Paul must not know what he is talking about then. He clearly states in Russo's film that there is no law.

He does? LINK please...

[Rhys]

Nothin' against you man, but referencing an unnamed lawyer and an unnamed accountant doesn't mean much. in fact, referencing a named lawyer and accountant wouldn't mean much either - since people disagree on the topic!

it's cool. You don't have to "agree" but I'm sayin what the law is. The lawyer's name is Fred DiMarria in New Jersey. Don't bug him please cause he's a freind and I don't want to be responsible for 100 RP fans calling him about this. Pay a lawyer if you want legal research. The accountant shall remain annonomous because he'd get angry if I post his name here.

anyway, you can "agree" but it's the same as saying it's up to you to "agree" not to steal. You can "disagree" that it's against the law to steal, but you'll find the police and courts "disagree" with you.

[sratiug]

it's cool. You don't have to "agree" but I'm sayin what the law is. The lawyer's name is Fred DiMarria in New Jersey. Don't bug him please cause he's a freind and I don't want to be responsible for 100 RP fans calling him about this. Pay a lawyer if you want legal research. The accountant shall remain annonomous because he'd get angry if I post his name here.

anyway, you can "agree" but it's the same as saying it's up to you to "agree" not to steal. You can "disagree" that it's against the law to steal, but you'll find the police and courts "disagree" with you.


It doesn't really matter what the judges and lawyers say, it's what the jury says that's important. The jury has the right to throw out the law entirely.

http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html

[Rhys]

It doesn't really matter what the judges and lawyers say, it's what the jury says that's important. The jury has the right to throw out the law entirely.

http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html

that's like winning the lottery and I'm still gonna pay my taxes.

That's also why we should all run for office. Getting lucky off a sensitive jurry is outsider think... be an insider and change the law.

[tstorey]

there is no written statute that supports the collection of the income tax.

Watch Russo's film before debating this...there is a ten minute interview with a former treasury secretary....ok? Feel better now?

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Don't pay your taxes? They hammer you a$#....no kidding.

Are they going to announce through their media that they have no legal basis (in the form of a written statute to collect the income tax? Well, are they?

Are they going to put Ron Paul and his views on the front page of the New York Times...are they?

MSM mentions in the last 30 days...Obama 23,000...Ron Paul 22.

No conspiracy here...move along.