Law School is offering $100,000

[WarDog]

Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions



http://livefreenow.org/30K_challenge.cfm

[kyleAF]

Wow. Lawyers make more money enforcing tax laws...

It's pretty telling that this is a safe offer.

[TrueFreedom]

This is pretty stupid. Filing a tax return does not violate 5th amendment rights. Those are for court proceedings.

Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).

[nate895]

This is pretty stupid. Filing a tax return does not violate 5th amendment rights. Those are for court proceedings.

Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).

Email it to them, and you win $100,000, I am going after number three, though I wish it would be easier.

[nate895]

Question, since I now have the proof, how do I send their email to which they will not respond?

[LibertiORDeth]

Question, since I now have the proof, how do I send their email to which they will not respond?

Lol +1000

[FrankRep]

This is pretty stupid. Filing a tax return does not violate 5th amendment rights. Those are for court proceedings.

Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).

Ph: (760) 868-4271

try calling them.

[Zippyjuan]

What the IRS says about "voluntary" taxes:
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765503

[Minestra di pomodoro]

They're not going to give you the $100,000. They deliberately put in loopholes so they could get out easy.

First question: they add the qualifier "written by the Congress of the United States". Many laws are not written by the Congress, they are usually written by lawyers or lobbyists. Doesn't make them any less valid.

Second question: Ridiculous. The Government can use your name and body features to incriminate you, but telling them that would not be incriminating yourself unless you were being charged with a crime awaiting trial.

Third question: they say "_legally_ added to the United States Constitution". They probably mean ratified, which the 16th amendment was not. However, the judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution found this not to be a valid legal argument.

[ZzzImAsleep]

You could say that taxes violate the thirteenth amendment.

[sidster]

I like how their URL reads "30K_challenge", so do they mean 30K or 300K?

Also, any of you "lawyers" seen this video (Theft by Deception (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=theft+by+deception&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)) and if so
what do you think of it?

[gutteck]

There are a bunch of big mouths here. None of you can prove the existence of something that does not exist. Stop playing around with nonsense legal arguments and reference the law.

Check the link below:

IRS loses challenge
to prove tax liability

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

[Zippyjuan]

Once the case went before the jury, Cryer did not attempt to make any arguments about taxes being wrong only illegal- only to say that he thought he did not owe the taxes. There was not enough evidence to show that he willfully did not intend to pay taxes so he was aquitted of failing to file a tax return. Wesley Snipes got the same deal. They both pled ignorant and the court could not prove otherwise. The case made no point about taxes being illegal. When he attempted to make such points in pretrial motions, the court rejected them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer This case sets no precident about whether income taxes are legal or not.

[sidster]

IRS loses challenge
to prove tax liability

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

This is an interesting and "familiar" quote:


He [Tom Cryer] said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

[ionlyknowy]

Once the case went before the jury, Cryer did not attempt to make any arguments about taxes being wrong only illegal- only to say that he thought he did not owe the taxes. There was not enough evidence to show that he willfully did not intend to pay taxes so he was aquitted of failing to file a tax return. Wesley Snipes got the same deal. They both pled ignorant and the court could not prove otherwise. The case made no point about taxes being illegal. When he attempted to make such points in pretrial motions, the court rejected them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer This case sets no precident about whether income taxes are legal or not.

You are very correct, but alas, no one will listen to you... they only hear what they want to hear... I have said the same things as you have here, time and time again on this forum, but no one listens, and you will always get new posts such as these that rehash the same things...

Some people, I tell you... sheesh.

[sidster]

You are very correct, but alas, no one will listen to you... they only hear what they want to hear... I have said the same things as you have here, time and time again on this forum, but no one listens, and you will always get new posts such as these that rehash the same things...

Some people, I tell you... sheesh.

I don't understand what you are trying to say? Can you state your claim
a bit more clearly? Feel free to write a few complete sentences and fill
a few paragraphs. I don't mind reading. Thanks.