IRS Shuts down website

[Jeff556]

Hey this might have been brought up before so sorry if it is a dupe thread.


A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge.

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Judge McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNtaxevasionsiteclose.htm


The website that was shut down is: http://givemeliberty.org.

That is the website of the We The People foundation that was featured in Aaron Russo's film Freedom To Fascism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173).

The lesson that can be learned here is: Be careful when practicing civil disobedience. It shows that the government is growing concerned about the number of people that are learning about the legality of the income tax.

[michaelwise]

Hey this might have been brought up before so sorry if it is a dupe thread.


A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge.

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Judge McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNtaxevasionsiteclose.htm


The website that was shut down is: http://givemeliberty.org.

That is the website of the We The People foundation that was featured in Aaron Russo's film Freedom To Fascism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173).

The lesson that can be learned here is: Be careful when practicing civil disobedience. It shows that the government is growing concerned about the number of people that are learning about the legality of the income tax.How could it incite criminal conduct, if the judge cannot produce a copy of the law that it incites?

[born2drv]

Hey this might have been brought up before so sorry if it is a dupe thread.


A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge.

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Judge McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNtaxevasionsiteclose.htm


The website that was shut down is: http://givemeliberty.org.

That is the website of the We The People foundation that was featured in Aaron Russo's film Freedom To Fascism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173).

The lesson that can be learned here is: Be careful when practicing civil disobedience. It shows that the government is growing concerned about the number of people that are learning about the legality of the income tax.

damn, now i really want to know what was on that website!!! :)

[Lord Xar]

try::::

http://www.archive.org/index.php

and enter the websites name in the module for "way bach machine"


or just follow this link: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://givemeliberty.org/




.

[cjhowe]

How could it incite criminal conduct, if the judge cannot produce a copy of the law that it incites?

I'm sure the judge is more versed in the law than I am...and I was able to find it.

Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Fraud and false statements

[spacebetween]

Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

The government has feelings?

This judge needs to get a clue. The Constitution that he cites provides rights of the PEOPLE, not the GOVERNMENT!

[derdy]

that's a crying shame, they are some very intelligent and talented people.

thanks for that archive link.:)

[Harry96]

damn, now i really want to know what was on that website!!! :)

Do a Google search for Irwin Schiff, or search Amazon or ebay for his books; I'm pretty sure that site is at least similar to his ideas, if not directly derived from them or tied to him.

I don't agree with the income tax or with government censorship, but this idea that you can legally not pay income taxes is a scam. Schiff has been to prison about four times for income tax evasion; every time, he evidently spends his time there figuring out what he thinks went wrong with his plan, and when he gets out, he starts peddling it again, with some changes so that it "has" to work this time. Then, within a few years, he's charged with evading taxes again, is convicted again, and goes to prison again. He was sentenced again a year or two ago, and he was given a long enough sentence this time that, at his age (about 80), he'll die in prison. It's sad.

One aspect of his plan is to send in what he calls, if i remember correctly, a "zero return," which is a tax return claiming no taxable income and flaunting your reasons for arriving at the conclusion that you owe nothing. That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and is even stupider than not even filing (not that I recommend that either).

[Craig_R]

they'll be back up and running full speed soon enuf. they got thier court date bumped up, I deleted the email that had the details in it but I think its the 14th

[Craig_R]

Do a Google search for Irwin Schiff, or search Amazon or ebay for his books; I'm pretty sure that site is at least similar to his ideas, if not directly derived from them or tied to him.

I don't agree with the income tax or with government censorship, but this idea that you can legally not pay income taxes is a scam. Schiff has been to prison about four times for income tax evasion; every time, he evidently spends his time there figuring out what he thinks went wrong with his plan, and when he gets out, he starts peddling it again, with some changes so that it "has" to work this time. Then, within a few years, he's charged with evading taxes again, is convicted again, and goes to prison again. He was sentenced again a year or two ago, and he was given a long enough sentence this time that, at his age (about 80), he'll die in prison. It's sad.

One aspect of his plan is to send in what he calls, if i remember correctly, a "zero return," which is a tax return claiming no taxable income and flaunting your reasons for arriving at the conclusion that you owe nothing. That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and is even stupider than not even filing (not that I recommend that either).

where irwin goes wrong pete gets it right www.losthorizons.com

[blazin_it_alwyz]

1st amendment anyone? This is very, VERY scary, I was thinking about doing something similar to this, but hearing about this makes me scared.

Furthermore, there have been many people who have gotten away with not paying income taxes, went to court, fought the charges, and they were dropped, since there is not 1 law that says you have to pay them. This kind of thing sickens me, citing inducement of criminal activity is subjective, by that very same definition, the part of the constitution that says "If the Government is corrupt, people have a right to take arms and overthrow government" could ALSO be construed as inducing criminal activity.

This really pisses me off..................... is no one scared about this?

[Zydeco]

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Welcome to the Soviet Union of Amerika, where thug judges' top priority is to protect the state from the people.

I don't accept it.

[Delivered4000]

The government has feelings?

This judge needs to get a clue. The Constitution that he cites provides rights of the PEOPLE, not the GOVERNMENT!
Exactly what I was thinking. Pissed me off.

[Sematary]

I'm sure the judge is more versed in the law than I am...and I was able to find it.

Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Fraud and false statements

They have never shown the law in the Brown case.

[catwoman]

I'm sure the judge is more versed in the law than I am...and I was able to find it.

Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Fraud and false statements

I don't see anything in what you posted that says the money you received in exchange for your labor is subject to taxation. That as I hope you know is the cruxt of the argument.

[Madison]

What can we do to combat judges who aren't upholding the law? (which these days seems to be a growing army of them)

[netmasta10bt]

I believe this page

http://web.archive.org/web/20051027133226/www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/AffidavitJuly-04.htm

containing the version 2 affadavit naming the federal government as defendants in a court case to be what the judge is crying about.

Basically it states that the people are requesting the government to answer the questions (the right to petition it's government for redress of grievances) listed -- including direct un-apportioned tax on labor (the income tax). And until these grievances are addressed they are not paying.

[synapz]

I wonder what would happen if thousands of people filed suit, individually and simultaneously, against the IRS for, well, being nefarious. I'm sure some law student could come up with a viable reason.

Anyway, what would happen? Would they crumble under the weight of the lawsuits? Would the legal system be locked up?

I think we could get that kind of organization. :)

[blazin_it_alwyz]

you would need lots, and LOTS of money and manpower to fight the IRS, and Bush can go and pardon everyone at the IRS at any time. Also, the IRS is going to come after all the people who try to sue them, claiming unpaid taxes, easily jail almost all opposers. Very dangerous to try to do something like that to a powerful group like that.

[catwoman]

I've always heard that the government can refuse to be sued. Does anyone know if this is correct?

[Bossobass]

I find it extremely odd that the judge would cite cases of people who (alledgedly) broke the law, incited by the website, yet not issue a warrant for the arrest of the website owners.

What? They get a warning?

This country has become so corrupt (Iraq had more credible elections) that any decree by any federal judge is a joke to me.

Bosso

[cjhowe]

They have never shown the law in the Brown case.


I don't see anything in what you posted that says the money you received in exchange for your labor is subject to taxation. That as I hope you know is the cruxt of the argument.

Constitution gives Congress the ability to impose tax
Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 imposes an income tax
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co deems W-G unconstitutional because it does not apportion the proceeds based on census or enumeration
16th amendment specifically excludes the income tax from being apportioned based on census or enumeration
10,000 laws that tweak W-G since then and we have today's income tax.

[cjhowe]

I find it extremely odd that the judge would cite cases of people who (alledgedly) broke the law, incited by the website, yet not issue a warrant for the arrest of the website owners.

What? They get a warning?

This country has become so corrupt (Iraq had more credible elections) that any decree by any federal judge is a joke to me.

Bosso

The law does not have to be broken for someone to be enjoined from speech that encourages others to break the law. If Michael Vick is on a corner encouraging people to have dog fights, his speech is not protected, nor should it be.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

Constitution gives Congress the ability to impose tax
Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 imposes an income tax
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co deems W-G unconstitutional because it does not apportion the proceeds based on census or enumeration
16th amendment specifically excludes the income tax from being apportioned based on census or enumeration
10,000 laws that tweak W-G since then and we have today's income tax.

There is no law that says you have to pay an income tax. Watch the movie Freedom to Fascism.

And even if there was a law, it would be deemed unconstitutional by GUESS WHO? The constitution. And as long as you have a smart jury, that can easily be overturned, setting a precedent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1085&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That's the movie freedom to fascism, if you haven't watched it already.

[jj111]

I wonder what would happen if thousands of people filed suit, individually and simultaneously, against the IRS for, well, being nefarious. I'm sure some law student could come up with a viable reason.

Anyway, what would happen? Would they crumble under the weight of the lawsuits? Would the legal system be locked up?

I think we could get that kind of organization. :)

You would get fined for court costs for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit, and any lawyer you hire would also be fined.

The government controls the courts, the gov't and the courts are both corrupt, so you are never going to solve this problem nationally via the court system. One out of a thousand can beat the system if they are lucky and smart and have a halfway decent judge and jury, but that is unusual.

If you try to fight the gov't head on face to face, you usually are going to lose a lot. Either your time, money, and/or freedom. It's like trying to have a sensible debate with a hungry lion or shark.

[fj45lvr]

What can we do to combat judges who aren't upholding the law? (which these days seems to be a growing army of them)

That is the main breakdown of the "checks" and "balances" for which there exists no recourse...the "precident" of legal interpretations trumping the actual "intent" of the law itself. LAWYERS have the most power.

[Ninja Homer]

To me, the scariest part about this is the judge ordering that all the customers info be turned over to the government.

Any existing tax freedom sites should look into offshore hosting, where the US government has no power, like Amsterdam and Malaysia. Something like http://www.offshorehostingsolutions.com/

I do some reseller hosting on the side, and I'm sure none of my customers have anything like this to worry about from the US government. However, after hearing about this, I'll consider moving to an offshore hosting service just on general principal. This isn't right!

[cjhowe]

There is no law that says you have to pay an income tax. Watch the movie Freedom to Fascism.

And even if there was a law, it would be deemed unconstitutional by GUESS WHO? The constitution. And as long as you have a smart jury, that can easily be overturned, setting a precedent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1085&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That's the movie freedom to fascism, if you haven't watched it already.

If it was in a fauxumentary, it must be true :rolleyes: . Are you unable to follow the sequence of history that I laid out?

The Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.

The Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income

In 1895, the Supreme Court decision Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co ruled the Wilson-Gorman Act unconstitutional because it did not apportion the proceeds based on census or enumeration. Note, the SCOTUS deeming something unconstitutional does not repeal any laws. It is still a law on the books in Louisiana that abortion is prohibited, it is just not enforceable.

In 1913, Congress and the States ratified the 16th Amendment which specifically excludes the income tax from needing to be apportioned. This made Wilson-Gorman constitution and enforceable.

Wilson-Gorman has been superseded by thousands of additional acts that bring us to the income tax system we have today.

The IRS and income tax need to be abolished for many reasons. Focus talking to people about those reasons. You look foolish repeating what is in A:F2F.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

If it was in a fauxumentary, it must be true :rolleyes:

calling a documentary by the Award winning, late great Aaron Russo a fauxumentary? :rolleyes:

Seeing as how some known ex-IRS figures don't pay any income tax, and actually have been proven innocent by the court of law, I don't exactly follow what your saying. There is a lot of documentation that backs what this film has said. If you know something I don't, by all means, but I have never seen any laws that make you pay it.

Like RP said, an income tax is assuming that the government owns what you make, and can take what they want at any time, and that's unconstitutional, something of that nature.

[Craig_R]

The Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income

sure does, Income defined :
Profit from the exercise of federal privilege

I dont work for the government therefore my earnings are not "Income" (the legal term)

[cjhowe]

calling a documentary by the Award winning, late great Aaron Russo a fauxumentary? :rolleyes:

Seeing as how some known ex-IRS figures don't pay any income tax, and actually have been proven innocent by the court of law, I don't exactly follow what your saying. There is a lot of documentation that backs what this film has said. If you know something I don't, by all means, but I have never seen any laws that make you pay it.

innocent of what exactly? They all still owed the tax.



Like RP said, an income tax is assuming that the government owns what you make, and can take what they want at any time, and that's unconstitutional, something of that nature.

An income tax is immoral, not unconstitutional. The only thing RP mentions that is unconstitutional about the income tax is the breakdown of due process in the enforcement of it.

[cjhowe]

The Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income

sure does, Income defined :
Profit from the exercise of federal privilege

I dont work for the government therefore my earnings are not "Income" (the legal term)

You can search the forum, this entire bunny trail is proven to be a dead end and I don't have time to repeat it. Stop fighting it's applicability and start fighting to overturn it.

[Craig_R]

You can search the forum, this entire bunny trail is proven to be a dead end and I don't have time to repeat it. Stop fighting it's applicability and start fighting to overturn it.

The only thing I'm interested in fighting is ignorance.

[cjhowe]

The only thing I'm interested in fighting is ignorance.

And how exactly are you accomplishing that by insinuating that the income tax doesn't apply to your income when, in fact, it does?

[Bossobass]

The law does not have to be broken for someone to be enjoined from speech that encourages others to break the law. If Michael Vick is on a corner encouraging people to have dog fights, his speech is not protected, nor should it be.

I don't care what Michael Vick does or did or will do. He is irrelevant.

"Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct."

"Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm."

If stopping paying taxes is a crime, and the judge decreed that some people were incited to stop paying taxes, then did he order the websites shut down for those reasons or not?

Is 'causing the government harm' a crime in this case? What federal statute is violated that causes the harm to the government?

It's not clear to me what the ruling is. If he ordered the site shut down because it incited criminal acts (as the judge stated, not that people MAY have been incited to or MAY have committed a crime), then the site's owners are criminally liable...or are they?

If your website has guns for sale, are you criminally liable if your patrons might commit crimes with the product you sell? Could a judge decree that something on your site can be construed as 'inciting' a criminal act and that 'people who came to the website committed acts that harm the government' therefore order your website shut down without issuing a warrant for your arrest?

Sounds like a Totalitarian State to me.

Bosso

[cjhowe]

I don't care what Michael Vick does or did or will do. He is irrelevant.

"Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct."

"Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm."

If stopping paying taxes is a crime, and the judge decreed that some people were incited to stop paying taxes, then did he order the websites shut down for those reasons or not?

Is 'causing the government harm' a crime in this case? What federal statute is violated that causes the harm to the government?

It's not clear to me what the ruling is. If he ordered the site shut down because it incited criminal acts (as the judge stated, not that people MAY have been incited to or MAY have committed a crime), then the site's owners are criminally liable...or are they?

If your website has guns for sale, are you criminally liable if your patrons might commit crimes with the product you sell? Could a judge decree that something on your site can be construed as 'inciting' a criminal act and that 'people who came to the website committed acts that harm the government' therefore order your website shut down without issuing a warrant for your arrest?

Sounds like a Totalitarian State to me.

Bosso

The ruling is about inciting others to commit crimes. If they were presenting evidence that crimes had been committed, then the owners of the website would be charged with conspiracy to commit those crimes.

That the action being incited would cause the government harm, gives the government standing in the case to have his speech enjoined.

The buying and selling of arms is not inciting a criminal act. Someone using as a selling point that you can pop three shots in your neighbor before they knew what hit them, would be inciting a criminal act and that speech can be prohibited.

[American]

I was going to comment on this troll cjhowe but then I realized this person is in Texas.

I'm not going to waste my time.

http://tree3.com/861/index.html

Joe Banister ex IRS enforcement officer agree's. Not required to pay a personal income tax.
http://www.josephbanister.com/
http://joebanister.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_archive.html

Joe talking at the Ron Paul rally in Mountain View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAZYqIVvTIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bUFf9JLAhc

Actually, you might be right, if you read the fine print it says you have to pay my income tax as well....thats what it says..

[AZJV]

without a doubt the best tutorial on the income tax code is:

"Theft by Deception. Deciphering the Federal Income Tax"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687&q=income+tax&total=1013&start=50&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

If you are really interested in learning why people dispute the legality of the tax code YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO.

It is very nicely done and they make it easier to understand a very complicated issue.

[Craig_R]

And how exactly are you accomplishing that by insinuating that the income tax doesn't apply to your income when, in fact, it does?

I've told you I dont have an "income" , if in fact the IRS was entitled to a portion of my earnings , they wouldnt not be sending them back to me, they did attempt to protest but they cut the checks just the same.

I am not alone, there are many americans who know the law and keep thier money.

If you are aware of some law that exists that would entitle the IRS to keep peoples earnings perhaps you should inform them of it, because as it stands today they havent been able to find one.

[aunt_shoes]

But what about the US Supreme Court stating that the 16th Amendment gave the federal gov't no new taxing power - that it just put the income tax back into the category of excise where it belonged?

[cjhowe]

I've told you I dont have an "income" , if in fact the IRS was entitled to a portion of my earnings , they wouldnt not be sending them back to me, they did attempt to protest but they cut the checks just the same.

I am not alone, there are many americans who know the law and keep thier money.

If you are aware of some law that exists that would entitle the IRS to keep peoples earnings perhaps you should inform them of it, because as it stands today they havent been able to find one.

Did you receive any compensation for your labor? If so, then you have committed a "Spies-evasion" by claiming that you have no income. Which is much worse than willful failure to file.

Of course there is no law that exists that entitles the IRS to keep people's earning. However, there is a law that imposes a tax on your income and there are laws that require employers to collect that tax prior to issuing you compensation for your labor.

[cjhowe]

But what about the US Supreme Court stating that the 16th Amendment gave the federal gov't no new taxing power - that it just put the income tax back into the category of excise where it belonged?

The Congress already had the power to levy and collect an income tax, granted to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The 16th amendment alleviated the requirement that the proceeds of that tax be apportioned to the states based on census or enumeration.

[aunt_shoes]

You are so far off the mark.

[cjhowe]

You are so far off the mark.

Please feel free to elaborate.

[aunt_shoes]

You believe the gov't has Constitutional authority to tax the fruits of my labor? How much of my fruits are they allowed to take, 50%, 100%?

Do I have any rights?

[cjhowe]

You believe the gov't has Constitutional authority to tax the fruits of my labor? How much of my fruits are they allowed to take, 50%, 100%?

Do I have any rights?

While the Government does not have the moral authority to tax the fruits of your labor, they certainly have the Constitutional authority to do so. Stop wasting your time focusing on applicability of the law and instead focus your efforts on the morality of the issue and educate others on the importance of our laws to be representations of our morality..

[aunt_shoes]

Even Ron Paul responded to me that he can find no law.

The income tax is an excise tax. Income included in such a tax must fit the definition of income as understood at the time of the 16th amendment and must be derived from an exciseable activity.

[Craig_R]

Did you receive any compensation for your labor? If so, then you have committed a "Spies-evasion" by claiming that you have no income. Which is much worse than willful failure to file.

Of course there is no law that exists that entitles the IRS to keep people's earning. However, there is a law that imposes a tax on your income and there are laws that require employers to collect that tax prior to issuing you compensation for your labor.

while I'd love to sit and argue the finer points of law with you all day, I have to go earn a living. If you'd like to see what I'd say to you just go to www.losthorizons.com

Perhaps you could start a discussion with Mr. Hendrickson I'm sure he'd love to point out where you are full of it. ;)

[Lord Xar]

while I'd love to sit and argue the finer points of law with you all day, I have to go earn a living. If you'd like to see what I'd say to you just go to www.losthorizons.com

Perhaps you could start a discussion with Mr. Hendrickson I'm sure he'd love to point out where you are full of it. ;)

Its not Cjhowes job to disrupt that forum. It is his job to refute and debunk this forum. See, there is reference after reference after reference that the constitution has no authority to levee taxes on personal income from working. Yet, he sites code/sections as if its definitive. I wonder where all these filmmakers and Ron Paul himself could have missed this - yet our resident mole, cjhowe found it.

Cjhowe, you bit here is completely understood by most. I suspect you are using your law degree to bend and tilt things to your advantage because you kNOW the common lay person here does not know specific sections of code as you. YET, those references you site are not definitive, and you know this. Yet, to the casual reader they will think you are sighting truth. This is the great mischief of those like you... you spread misinformation not by being candid and honest but by being underhanded and not forthcoming with the 'whole' truth.

Don't you find it odd, that almost EVERY thread you impose upon you are disagreeing from the main tenets of Ron Pauls following and beliefs? Yet you do the ol' routine.... The bait and switch... you disagree on ALL the major points that ground most peoples beliefs, you will argue and discuss NEVER EVER giving an inch, and then to lighten the load you bring out some half-baked "support" on your end to appear that you concede to this "other minor belief"...

Is it me? Doesn't anybody else see how transparent this guy is?

[cjhowe]

while I'd love to sit and argue the finer points of law with you all day, I have to go earn a living. If you'd like to see what I'd say to you just go to www.losthorizons.com

Perhaps you could start a discussion with Mr. Hendrickson I'm sure he'd love to point out where you are full of it. ;)

Yeah, full of it... These people are filing fraudulent documents with their tax returns.

pdf link
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/files/united_states_sues_nine_in_nationwide_crackdown_on _taxrefund_scam.pdf

[cjhowe]

Its not Cjhowes job to disrupt that forum. It is his job to refute and debunk this forum. See, there is reference after reference after reference that the constitution has no authority to levee taxes on personal income from working. Yet, he sites code/sections as if its definitive. I wonder where all these filmmakers and Ron Paul himself could have missed this - yet our resident mole, cjhowe found it.

Cjhowe, you bit here is completely understood by most. I suspect you are using your law degree to bend and tilt things to your advantage because you kNOW the common lay person here does not know specific sections of code as you. YET, those references you site are not definitive, and you know this. Yet, to the casual reader they will think you are sighting truth. This is the great mischief of those like you... you spread misinformation not by being candid and honest but by being underhanded and not forthcoming with the 'whole' truth.

Don't you find it odd, that almost EVERY thread you impose upon you are disagreeing from the main tenets of Ron Pauls following and beliefs? Yet you do the ol' routine.... The bait and switch... you disagree on ALL the major points that ground most peoples beliefs, you will argue and discuss NEVER EVER giving an inch, and then to lighten the load you bring out some half-baked "support" on your end to appear that you concede to this "other minor belief"...

Is it me? Doesn't anybody else see how transparent this guy is?

Wow Xar, I didn't think you'd end up on this thread. What happened to enforcing the law?

[cjhowe]

There are very real reasons to get rid of the IRS, to get rid of the Fed, to end the war on drugs, to have welfare reform, etc. Spouting the half-baked claims that people in this forum espouse for making the reforms that our country need, does not advance the issues. It only creates more ignorance. You can only effect change by making arguments that cannot be brushed aside.

Making the claim that there is no law, provides no reason to get rid of the income tax or the IRS. Why get rid of something that only effects the lives of foreigners? Calling the Fed a conspiracy forces you to prove a conspiracy in order to get rid of the Fed. Claiming that illegals are soaking up all of our welfare does not advance the fact that in a free society, people need to accept personal responsibility and that responsibility should not be handed over to your neighbor by stealing from his wages.

[aunt_shoes]

Exactly what law would that be?

[cjhowe]

Exactly what law would that be?

The Wilson-Gorman Tarrif Act of 1894 and every law that has modified it since.

[PennCustom4RP]

Its not Cjhowes job to disrupt that forum. It is his job to refute and debunk this forum. See, there is reference after reference after reference that the constitution has no authority to levee taxes on personal income from working. Yet, he sites code/sections as if its definitive. I wonder where all these filmmakers and Ron Paul himself could have missed this - yet our resident mole, cjhowe found it.

Cjhowe, you bit here is completely understood by most. I suspect you are using your law degree to bend and tilt things to your advantage because you kNOW the common lay person here does not know specific sections of code as you. YET, those references you site are not definitive, and you know this. Yet, to the casual reader they will think you are sighting truth. This is the great mischief of those like you... you spread misinformation not by being candid and honest but by being underhanded and not forthcoming with the 'whole' truth.

Don't you find it odd, that almost EVERY thread you impose upon you are disagreeing from the main tenets of Ron Pauls following and beliefs? Yet you do the ol' routine.... The bait and switch... you disagree on ALL the major points that ground most peoples beliefs, you will argue and discuss NEVER EVER giving an inch, and then to lighten the load you bring out some half-baked "support" on your end to appear that you concede to this "other minor belief"...

Is it me? Doesn't anybody else see how transparent this guy is?

You know it isn't just you Xar, its everyone. Maybe we should start the thread called 'Supporters of CJ' or maybe called 'Pick on Chris'

How about that challenge cjhowe? Find and post those who have warmed to your bullshit in any of your positions in threads you pester... Its doubtful you can.

I will of course continue to run your tally as the issues arise...

[Bossobass]

The ruling is about inciting others to commit crimes. If they were presenting evidence that crimes had been committed, then the owners of the website would be charged with conspiracy to commit those crimes.

That the action being incited would cause the government harm, gives the government standing in the case to have his speech enjoined.

The buying and selling of arms is not inciting a criminal act. Someone using as a selling point that you can pop three shots in your neighbor before they knew what hit them, would be inciting a criminal act and that speech can be prohibited.

I have to say that this is as BS an answer as you could have offered.

Read the post again, would ya? The judge ruled that..."the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm."

This implies that the judge has cases of convicted criminals, tied directly to the site, as reference, which he does not. He goes on to order the private info of all patrons of the site be handed to the gestapo for further intimidation.

He may as well have thrown in his opinion that the site incites people to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater.

Bosso

[constituent]

He may as well have thrown in his opinion that the site incites people to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater.

I wonder what would happen if he yelled 'ron paul!' instead?

we may disagree on stuff, but enough of the name calling. i've been called a 'mole' apparently and i don't think i'm a 'mole' -whatever that is (someone out there watches too much t.v.)... i think all this i'm more real than you are drivel has gotten out of hand. people are allowed to have differing opinnions...

even if they are shills. i'm sorry to be the one to have to say this, but free speech and protecting liberties includes (shudder) even their speech and liberties.

let's debate on facts and that, but try to leave the name calling at the door. it just encourages people to get riled up and take shit too personally and leads to the death of some very good threads...

just thought i'd toss in my moley nickel.

[Oddball]

Is it me? Doesn't anybody else see how transparent this guy is?

Figgered it out last week. ;)