Why the present day income tax is illegal

[dude58677]

In 1909, Republican President Taft proposed a tax on dividends for the 16th amendment. The amendment passed in 1913. The Democrats along with Democrat President Wilson took control of Congress for the first time in 18 years proposed a tax on wages but it only applied to a small number of Americans. It wasn't till 1943 that FDR enacted the Federal Tax Witholding which applied to most Americans. The federal courts rubber stamped the law and any laws after that.
The federal courts though are not the final arbiters on the Constitution and it is State Nullification, Sheriffs First, Jury Nullification, underground economy, and second amendment as a last resort that protects us from illegal taxes. This has been much easier because of the Tea Party led by Ron and Rand Paul.

[Danke]

Wrong, dude.

[ChristianAnarchist]

It's illegal because it's THEFT!!

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong, dude.

C'mon man, give the people more than that.

[dude58677]

It's illegal because it's THEFT!!

Well yea.

[Danke]

C'mon man, give the people more than that.

It has been in my signature for years. For one thing, the Act of Congress levying a tax on "wages" dates back to 1862.

Edit: a recent interview: http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/may14/PowerHour/0514142.mp3

http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/may14/PowerHour/0514143.mp3

[dude58677]

It has been in my signature for years. For one thing, the Act of Congress levying a tax on "wages" dates back to 1862.

It wasn't Constitutional and the 16th amendment added nothing.

[Anti Federalist]

It has been in my signature for years. For one thing, the Act of Congress levying a tax on "wages" dates back to 1862.

Edit: a recent interview: http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/may14/PowerHour/0514142.mp3

Better, better.

[oyarde]

It has been in my signature for years. For one thing, the Act of Congress levying a tax on "wages" dates back to 1862.

Edit: a recent interview: http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/may14/PowerHour/0514142.mp3

http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/may14/PowerHour/0514143.mp3

The 1860's brought the National Bank Act , the Second and Third Legal Tender bills , etc.

[mrsat_98]

it's perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. However it doesn't apply to the peoples wages, salaries tips and commissions unless they are involved in activity that has been made liable for income tax. These activities that have been made liable are things people do not have the right to do.

http://howyoubecomeliable.com/

http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php/law-library/who-is-liable

here is a good start

[Peace&Freedom]

All taxation is theft, yes, but at least it's legalized theft in many cases. The modern income tax is legal tax that is fraudulently misapplied to most Americans, making it illegal theft in any case. A tax on wages (if construed as income) is constitutional if done based on apportionment. The modern tax has tried to get around that by being technically a government excise or gift tax, that uses income activity as a point of reference (thus allowing it to be called an "income tax" while not being a tax directly on income).

Thus the alleged passing of the 16th Amendment gave the government no new taxing power (according to the Supreme Court) but the amendment provides it a propaganda victory in establishing its credibility with the 'don't sweat the details' public, by conveying the impression that the IRS taxing power and jurisdiction was universal or without limits. The public then complies with what it thinks the law is, while actual liability is not a matter of law, but the bureaucratic process assessing everyone as being subject to its determinations. Even this conniving terminology would make it apply only to a minority of Americans (those involved in federal work), so legal words of art and presumptive administrative procedure have been used to justify misapplying the tax to almost everybody.

[Sonny Tufts]

It wasn't Constitutional and the 16th amendment added nothing.

Of course it was constitutional -- the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it in 1881.

The 16th Amendment authorized an unapportioned tax on investment income, thereby overturning the result in the 1895 Pollock case, which had held that such a tax was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. A tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax.

The validity of the income tax doesn't depend on federal privilege, "taxable activity", or any other crackpot theory that has been consistently rejected by the courts.

[ZENemy]

Illegal or Legal it doesn't really matter, at this point we are literally financing Crack smoking, gun smuggling representatives and a congress that turns its eye to the killing of American's....weird but it seems like its pretty LAWFUL at this point to stop paying murderers and drug dealers.

[ZENemy]

Of course it was constitutional -- the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it in 1881.

The 16th Amendment authorized an unapportioned tax on investment income, thereby overturning the result in the 1895 Pollock case, which had held that such a tax was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. A tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax.

The validity of the income tax doesn't depend on federal privilege, "taxable activity", or any other crackpot theory that has been consistently rejected by the courts.

“It is difficult to get a man (a Judge, a cop, anyone who works on that side of the white line) to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

[Czolgosz]

"Legality" is irrelevant. The action is backed by force and defeated by force.

N3rd

[Sonny Tufts]

“It is difficult to get a man (a Judge, a cop, anyone who works on that side of the white line) to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

If you think the Court always sides with the government, explain why it invalidated the income tax on investment income in 1895.

[ZENemy]

"Legality" is irrelevant. The action is backed by force and defeated by force.

N3rd


Great quote, I collect quotes, Ill be using this if you don't mind.

[ZENemy]

If you think the Court always sides with the government, explain why it invalidated the income tax on investment income in 1895.

Can you tell me who benefited from that move? Was it the common man or big money and big investors? How much money after taxes does the average person have to invest?

[Sonny Tufts]

Can you tell me who benefited from that move? Was it the common man or big money and big investors? How much money after taxes does the average person have to invest?

So when the Court isn't ruling for the government, it's ruling against it. And when it's not ruling for the rich (the 1895 Pollock case), it's ruling against the rich (the 1916 Brushaber case). Just whose pocket do you think the Court is in?

[Weston White]

FTFY


A tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax. A tax on gains, profits, or incomes (less its originating investment) is properly an indirect tax, while a tax upon capital, principal, or stock has always been held to be a direct tax.

The validity of the income tax doesn't depend on federal privilege, "taxable activity", or any other crackpot theory that has been consistently rejected by the courts.

And sure it does, that is where tax impositions and assessments come into play; ergo, the taxable activity is the bona fide gain, profit, or income, wherefore, otherwise this equation can be neither determined nor completed.

[dude58677]

Of course it was constitutional -- the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it in 1881.

The 16th Amendment authorized an unapportioned tax on investment income, thereby overturning the result in the 1895 Pollock case, which had held that such a tax was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. A tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax.

The validity of the income tax doesn't depend on federal privilege, "taxable activity", or any other crackpot theory that has been consistently rejected by the courts.


You didn't read my original post. Read the bottom of it again. The federal courts are not final arbiters because they just rubber stamp anything the Feds do and why wouldn't they? It's not just taxes that the fed courts rubber stamp but all laws. Very few laws of any kind are struck down by the courts.

[dude58677]

If you think the Court always sides with the government, explain why it invalidated the income tax on investment income in 1895.

Explain why the lower courts are ignoring DC vs Heller!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

whether it's legal or not illegal is a technicality. is it immoral? Yes

[PRB]

It wasn't Constitutional and the 16th amendment added nothing.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm

[dude58677]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/judges-rubber-stamp

Mr. Neily notes: “Between 1954 and 2002, Congress enacted 15,817 laws, of which the Supreme Court struck down 103 — just 0.67 percent. The Court struck down an even smaller portion of federal administrative regulations — about 0.5 percent — and a still smaller proportion of state laws, just 454 out of 1 million passed, or less than 0.05 percent. In any given year, the Supreme Court strikes down just three out of every [5,000] state and federal laws passed.” This abdication of responsibility to uphold the Constitution and individual liberty has resulted in the often tyrannical regulatory state, which sucks away our economic vitality. According the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, the United States has fallen from No. 1 in the world in 1980 to a miserable 38 in 2011 in protecting legal and property rights.

[dude58677]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/judges-rubber-stamp

Mr. Neily notes: “Between 1954 and 2002, Congress enacted 15,817 laws, of which the Supreme Court struck down 103 — just 0.67 percent. The Court struck down an even smaller portion of federal administrative regulations — about 0.5 percent — and a still smaller proportion of state laws, just 454 out of 1 million passed, or less than 0.05 percent. In any given year, the Supreme Court strikes down just three out of every [5,000] state and federal laws passed.” This abdication of responsibility to uphold the Constitution and individual liberty has resulted in the often tyrannical regulatory state, which sucks away our economic vitality. According the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, the United States has fallen from No. 1 in the world in 1980 to a miserable 38 in 2011 in protecting legal and property rights.

This isn't just for taxes but for everything and so the federal courts are not the final arbiters.

[PRB]

This isn't just for taxes but for everything and so the federal courts are not the final arbiters.

Saying Congress passed 15800 laws is pointless, since it assumes all of which are in dispute. Of course only 100 are struck down, how many are actually taken to SCOTUS to rule on?

Why did this person start from 1954?

[Danke]

All taxation is theft, yes, but at least it's legalized theft in many cases. The modern income tax is legal tax that is fraudulently misapplied to most Americans, making it illegal theft in any case. A tax on wages is constitutional if done based on apportionment. The modern tax has tried to get around that by being technically a government excise or gift tax, that uses income activity as a point of reference (thus allowing it to be called an "income tax" while not being a tax directly on income).

Thus the alleged passing of the 16th Amendment gave the government no new taxing power (according to the Supreme Court) but the amendment provides it a propaganda victory in establishing its credibility with the 'don't sweat the details' public, by conveying the impression that the IRS taxing power and jurisdiction was universal or without limits. The public then complies with what it thinks the law is, while actual liability is not a matter of law, but the bureaucratic process assessing everyone as being subject to its determinations. Even this conniving terminology would make it apply only to a minority of Americans (those involved in federal work), so legal words of art and presumptive administrative procedure have been used to justify misapplying the tax to almost everybody.

Everyone needs to read this and let it sink in.

[dude58677]

[QUOTE=PRB;5534738]Saying Congress passed 15800 laws is pointless, since it assumes all of which are in dispute. Of course only 100 are struck down, how many are actually taken to SCOTUS to rule on?

Why did this person start from

About 9,000 cases are brought to the federal courts and only 50 are ruled on and of these only a handful get struck down.

[dude58677]

Saying Congress passed 15800 laws is pointless, since it assumes all of which are in dispute. Of course only 100 are struck down, how many are actually taken to SCOTUS to rule on?

Why did this person start from 1954?

Of the 9,000 cases filed each year only a handful are heard in the Supreme Court and very few of these cases are won over a lawsuit striking down a law on unconstitutional grounds.

[PRB]

About 9,000 cases are brought to the federal courts and only 50 are ruled on and of these only a handful get struck down.

9000 cases, not 9000 different laws.

[dude58677]

9000 cases, not 9000 different laws.

I'm going to speak to you about this ...very...very...slooowwwlllllyyyy. Either way no one has a chance of winning over any law so the courts are biased in favor of the government and soooo.......it is not legitimate. Get the picture? Probably not! Or you are so pompous you can never be wrong!

[PRB]

I'm going to speak to you about this ...very...very...slooowwwlllllyyyy. Either way no one has a chance of winning over any law so the courts are biased in favor of the government and soooo.......it is not legitimate. Get the picture? Probably not! Or you are so pompous you can never be wrong!

No, I can be wrong. But you're not trying hard enough.

Who is/should be the final arbiter?

[Weston White]

No, I can be wrong. But you're not trying hard enough.

Who is/should be the final arbiter?

My vote favors that is should remain the well thought maxims beset throughout our Nation's birth certificate and constitution.

[anaconda]

An interesting site:

http://www.tax-freedom.com/

And this one:

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

[PRB]

My vote favors that is should remain the well thought maxims beset throughout our Nation's birth certificate and constitution.

and what does the Constitution say? that SCOTUS is the 3rd branch of our government.

[dude58677]

No, I can be wrong. But you're not trying hard enough.

Who is/should be the final arbiter?


State nullification, county and municipal nullification, jury nullification, sheriff first, underground economy, and the second amendment.

[dude58677]

An interesting site:

http://www.tax-freedom.com/

And this one:

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

Dan Evans is biased as he is a tax attorney.

[PRB]

State nullification, county and municipal nullification, jury nullification


Which not only hasn't been overruled by SCOTUS, but also hasn't been used since when?



, sheriff first, underground economy, and the second amendment.

Second amendment is still there, sheriff first is a conspiracy theory, underground economy is nice, but what does that have to do with constitutionality or taxes?

[anaconda]

Dan Evans is biased as he is a tax attorney.

Good to know. The first of the two links seem like a very anti-tax activist perspective. Also, what would be the downside or bias of an attorney's perspective?

[tommyrp12]

Who's debt does the national debt belong to ? Treasury and the FED. What gives the treasury authority to emit credit/bond's (bondage) based on your labor ?

Where does a tax apply ? Not a satisfied transaction at the time of the transaction. So no one, other than people using debt instruments .

Who owns the fruit of your labor ? You.

So it seems pretty simple ,don't be in debt. Contract outside of the FED/debt system.

23:00 - 24:00 - 24:09 24:36 - forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPCFKHCCKF0



Conceptually what can a government tax that they don't own ? nothing. So they either own everything as feudal lords and we are complete subjects , or there is a alternative.

What is worth sustaining ? Its all voluntary absent the states presumptions and violence.

How to qualify as a subject VVVVVVVVVVV


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9idrc1EHI

Confusion of Things ServANT KING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJdju_2h74

[dude58677]

Which not only hasn't been overruled by SCOTUS, but also hasn't been used since when?



Second amendment is still there, sheriff first is a conspiracy theory, underground economy is nice, but what does that have to do with constitutionality or taxes?

The Supreme Court ruled that federal laws against State medical marijuana were
Constitutional. This did not stop 14 States from passing medical marijuana laws. Finally you know the rest with Colorado. So much for your Supreme Court ruling against medical marijuana.

The Supreme Court has said a lot of things over the years but it has no enforcement power and there are other ways to enforce the Constitution. They can't stop the underground economy and some individuals are in it because they see the governments intrusion as unconstitutional.

Of course with you being a liberal and posing as a libertarian I can understand that you are too dense to understand any of this and you throw out anything contrary to your ideology.

[dude58677]

Good to know. The first of the two links seem like a very anti-tax activist perspective. Also, what would be the downside or bias of an attorney's perspective?


A tax attorney would have nothing to litigate without the illusion of a tax. Follow the money. The ones against people like Irwin Schiff have no career. CPA's, tax attorney's, H&R Block, welfare recipients, politicians, etc. of course they try to make an example out of him to keep their scam going. The real question is what would these people do and say if tax evaders were pardoned?

[PRB]

The Supreme Court ruled that federal laws against State medical marijuana were
Constitutional.


Supremacy clause.



This did not stop 14 States from passing medical marijuana laws. Finally you know the rest with Colorado. So much for your Supreme Court ruling against medical marijuana.


Ruling and enforcement are 2 different things, so good point.



The Supreme Court has said a lot of things over the years but it has no enforcement power and there are other ways to enforce the Constitution. They can't stop the underground economy and some individuals are in it because they see the governments intrusion as unconstitutional.


And aren't we glad they see that?



Of course with you being a liberal and posing as a libertarian I can understand that you are too dense to understand any of this and you throw out anything contrary to your ideology.

Am I?

[Weston White]

and what does the Constitution say? that SCOTUS is the 3rd branch of our government.

Really, is that all that is states?

[Weston White]

Good to know. The first of the two links seem like a very anti-tax activist perspective. Also, what would be the downside or bias of an attorney's perspective?

Nothing, unless of course they have ulterior motives themselves, such as the forum member here named Sonny Tufts (suspected of being Jay Adkisson, the founder of Quatloos a pro-tax Website (along with nearly 100 other forum Websites that he has setup to peddle his vast series of self-help captive insurance books, meanwhile traveling the country giving speeches on the subject, who holds dozens of awards from the IRS, and has presented on an IRS steering committee along with his long time friend J.J. MacNab, who is mentioned below) that is home to your earlier cited Website Daniel Evans, and J.J. MacNab a self-proclaimed “sovereign citizen” specialist that has appeared on several mainstream media broadcasts and articles to speak on the subject a few years back (for example, HERE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/)), has supposedly been working on writing a book on that very subject for nearly a decade now, works as a CPA, had gone “undercover” to setup Irwin Schiff during his criminal trail, blogged the entirety of Wesley Snips’ criminal trial, and is married to a D.C. lobbyist.

The Bar Rules for professional conduct prohibits attorneys from knowingly excluding sources that counters or disproves the argument they are inclined to support, the level of raging bias is apparent all throughout Daniel Evans’ Webpage of one-million words.

[Sonny Tufts]

Dan Evans is biased as he is a tax attorney.

So what? Everything on his website is accurate.

[Sonny Tufts]

Nothing, unless of course they have ulterior motives themselves, such as the forum member here named Sonny Tufts (suspected of being Jay Adkisson, the founder of Quatloos a pro-tax Website

Suspected by whom? Clueless paranoids?


The Bar Rules for professional conduct prohibits attorneys from knowingly excluding sources that counters or disproves the argument they are inclined to support, the level of raging bias is apparent all throughout Daniel Evans’ Webpage of one-million words.

Mr. White, you know less about bar rules than you do about tax law, which is pretty low to begin with. What the bar rules require is that in a judicial proceeding an attorney must disclose to the tribunal any legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of his client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

The plain fact is that there is no legal authority supporting the idiotic anti-tax arguments made by tax protesters, so there is nothing for Mr. Evans to cite (even assuming he were before a tribunal, which he isn't). To his credit, however, he occasionally explains the genesis of tax protester arguments and shows how they take language in court decisions completely out of context and shoehorn it into their preconceived notions about taxation.

If you really want to see a violation of the bar rules, go no further than Tommy Cryer's pathetic memorandum, which fails to cite the overwhelming body of law that contradicts his moronic theories.

[dude58677]

Supremacy clause.



Ruling and enforcement are 2 different things, so good point.



And aren't we glad they see that?



Am I?


LOL, article 6 proves my point. Only laws pursuant to the Constitution are the Supreme law of the land and in article 6 clause 3 everyone must swear to uphold the Constitution and that concludes everyone other than judges.

[dude58677]

So what? Everything on his website is accurate.


LOL, says people that support big government.

[Sonny Tufts]

LOL, says people that support big government.

Non sequitur. Explaining what the law is doesn't mean that one is in favor of it. You are free to try to point any inaccuracy on Mr. Evans's site. Good luck with that.

[Weston White]

So what? Everything on his website is accurate.

Oh sure, and are we all expected to take you at your word because you are just such an astutely honest individual? …As you have consistently failed to show us all time after time, time and time again.

The truth is much of what is on his Webpage (i.e., speaking at least to the present debate) is an utter distortion of reality, it is new-age court decisions with opinions based upon nothing but the steadily flowing opinions of a tiny panel of progressive-minded judges, all the while performing no truly in-depth or foundational analysis or review of anything actually relevant. It is nothing more than mindlessly upholding the government’s particular flavor of Kool-Aid.

The fact is if one removes all of those contrived cases from the equation there is no longer any substantive or viable source in existence, notwithstanding those opinions, which would be supportive to the deducing of those opinions. They were literally invented out of thin air over the course of the last century. There is not any empirical author in agreement with them, goodness man, not even Karl Marx agrees with such wildly insane assertions.


Suspected by whom? Clueless paranoids?

The presumptuousness and overbearingness is your tell-tale, anybody running a Wikipedia user profile like Famspear’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famspear) or 100-Websites or flying an American flag in his office like Jay Adkisson is not to be dissuaded by mere scruples or ignominies.


Mr. White, you know less about bar rules than you do about tax law, which is pretty low to begin with. What the bar rules require is that in a judicial proceeding an attorney must disclose to the tribunal any legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of his client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

I am aware of enough to know that all you did was quote from ABA Rule 3.3(a)(2) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM#Rule_3.3), which is to state that is respectively what I had paraphrased in my original post (further pointing out that while Daniel Evans Website is not being presented in a court proceeding, and with his disclaimer aside, clearly it is his intention to play the part of a tax law attorney doling out his “expert” and “worthwhile” legal advice concerning taxation to the open public—being in actuality, obviously one-sided and thereby untruthful throughout its context.)


The plain fact is that there is no legal authority supporting the idiotic anti-tax arguments made by tax protesters, so there is nothing for Mr. Evans to cite (even assuming he were before a tribunal, which he isn't).

Then why has it taken him over 1,000,000 words to argue about nothing that is worse yet, idiotic to begin with? Is this your admission that Daniel Evans is actually a dolt or has become imbecilic?


If you really want to see a violation of the bar rules, go no further than Tommy Cryer's pathetic memorandum, which fails to cite the overwhelming body of law that contradicts his moronic theories.

So, it is alright for your lil’ buddy, Daniel Evans to be one-sided, at least so long as they are not part of the THM?

And yea, really pathetic: IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability (http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42749/)

Reads like pure genius to me (Mr. Cryer RIP):


Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He 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.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

[Weston White]

Non sequitur. Explaining what the law is doesn't mean that one is in favor of it. You are free to try to point any inaccuracy on Mr. Evans's site. Good luck with that.


http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae192/lbr218/GIFs/lolcopter.gif

[Sonny Tufts]

The truth is much of what is on his Webpage (i.e., speaking at least to the present debate) is an utter distortion of reality, it is new-age court decisions with opinions based upon nothing but the steadily flowing opinions of a tiny panel of progressive-minded judges, all the while performing no truly in-depth or foundational analysis or review of anything actually relevant.

New age? His citations go back to 1795, for heaven's sake.


The fact is if one removes all of those contrived cases from the equation there is no longer any substantive or viable source in existence, notwithstanding those opinions, which would be supportive to the deducing of those opinions.

The only thing contrived about some of the cases are the ridiculous arguments tax protesters have raised (e.g., wages aren't income; the income tax doesn't apply to private-sector pay; a tax on wages has to be apportioned), all of which have been rejected for the intellectual garbage that they are.


There is not any empirical author in agreement with them, goodness man, not even Karl Marx agrees with such wildly insane assertions.

Marx was hardly an expert on federal income tax law. Tell you what, though, cite us any law professor or contemporary credentialed economist who disagrees with anything on Evans's website. With all of your complaints about Evans, you have yet to cite a single specific inaccuracy; instead, you simply regurgitate verbal diarrhea as a substitute for critical analysis. Time to put up or shut up, Mr. White.


Then why has it taken him over 1,000,000 words to argue about nothing that is worse yet, idiotic to begin with?

Because ignorant people like you keep coming up with incredibly absurd arguments.


So, it is alright for your lil’ buddy, Daniel Evans to be one-sided, at least so long as they are not part of the THM?

It's not one sided to tell the truth and expose idiocy.


Reads like pure genius to me (Mr. Cryer RIP)

Yeah, and that genius did what for his tax liability? Oh yeah, tax deficiencies, interrest, and over $500K in penalties.

[dude58677]

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae192/lbr218/GIFs/lolcopter.gif


LOL! There is no point wasting time with these people!

[dude58677]

New age? His citations go back to 1795, for heaven's sake.



The only thing contrived about some of the cases are the ridiculous arguments tax protesters have raised (e.g., wages aren't income; the income tax doesn't apply to private-sector pay; a tax on wages has to be apportioned), all of which have been rejected for the intellectual garbage that they are.






Marx was hardly an expert on federal income tax law. Tell you what, though, cite us any law professor or contemporary credentialed economist who disagrees with anything on Evans's website. With all of your complaints about Evans, you have yet to cite a single specific inaccuracy; instead, you simply regurgitate verbal diarrhea as a substitute for critical analysis. Time to put up or shut up, Mr. White.







Because ignorant people like you keep coming up with incredibly absurd arguments.



It's not one sided to tell the truth and expose idiocy.



Yeah, and that genius did what for his tax liability? Oh yeah, tax deficiencies, interrest, and over $500K in penalties.


You have been reported to the forums for making frivolous arguments. We have heard them all and no one wants to waste time with them anymore.

[dude58677]

New age? His citations go back to 1795, for heaven's sake.



The only thing contrived about some of the cases are the ridiculous arguments tax protesters have raised (e.g., wages aren't income; the income tax doesn't apply to private-sector pay; a tax on wages has to be apportioned), all of which have been rejected for the intellectual garbage that they are.



Marx was hardly an expert on federal income tax law. Tell you what, though, cite us any law professor or contemporary credentialed economist who disagrees with anything on Evans's website. With all of your complaints about Evans, you have yet to cite a single specific inaccuracy; instead, you simply regurgitate verbal diarrhea as a substitute for critical analysis. Time to put up or shut up, Mr. White.



Because ignorant people like you keep coming up with incredibly absurd


It's not one sided to tell the truth and expose idiocy.






Yeah, and that genius did what for his tax liability? Oh yeah, tax deficiencies, interrest, and over $500K in penalties.

How would you react if Rand Paul became President and pardoned all tax evaders?

[Acala]

The truly sad thing about all the arguments about the Federal income tax being illegal is this: it doesn't matter in the slightest whether it is or not.

If the income tax truly were illegal based on statute, Congress would amend the statute tomorrow. Any argument beyond that is undertaken just for the sake of having an argument.

[dude58677]

The truly sad thing about all the arguments about the Federal income tax being illegal is this: it doesn't matter in the slightest whether it is or not.

If the income tax truly were illegal based on statute, Congress would amend the statute tomorrow. Any argument beyond that is undertaken just for the sake of having an argument.

More people are getting into the underground economy as a result. With the Tea Party being so popular and making the federal government very unpopular, more people will join the undereconomy. As Ron Paul says the government is going to collapse. People are not wrong to join the underground economy because it the present tax laws are unconstitutional and immoral.

[Sonny Tufts]

How would you react if Rand Paul became President and pardoned all tax evaders?

First of all, he wouldn't do it. Second, if he did he would demonstrate beyond doubt that he's a fool.

Do you see a difference between someone who evades taxes on moral grounds and one who invents bogus legal reasons why the tax doesn't apply and then sells the snake oil to gullible people who rely on it to their detriment (e.g., 3-time losed Irwin Schiff)? Or do you feel that the end justifies the means and that even con artists should go free?

No, the income tax laws are not unconstitutional. I suggest you read I.8.1 and the 16th Amendment.

[dude58677]

First of all, he wouldn't do it. Second, if he did he would demonstrate beyond doubt that he's a fool.

Do you see a difference between someone who evades taxes on moral grounds and one who invents bogus legal reasons why the tax doesn't apply and then sells the snake oil to gullible people who rely on it to their detriment (e.g., 3-time losed Irwin Schiff)? Or do you feel that the end justifies the means and that even con artists should go free?

No, the income tax laws are not unconstitutional. I suggest you read I.8.1 and the 16th Amendment.


LOL, I knew you were biased and I knew you liked big government. How do you know he wouldn't do it when Irwin Schiff is a close friend of Ron Paul? Oh right, you'd vote for Hilliary. You probably voted for Obama. Or you are a federal employee/DC lobbyist, either way you have no credibility. LMAO!
Or you voted for John McCain but as opposed to Hilliary, what difference does it make? LMAO!

[anaconda]

Nothing, unless of course they have ulterior motives themselves, such as the forum member here named Sonny Tufts (suspected of being Jay Adkisson, the founder of Quatloos a pro-tax Website (along with nearly 100 other forum Websites that he has setup to peddle his vast series of self-help captive insurance books, meanwhile traveling the country giving speeches on the subject, who holds dozens of awards from the IRS, and has presented on an IRS steering committee along with his long time friend J.J. MacNab, who is mentioned below) that is home to your earlier cited Website Daniel Evans, and J.J. MacNab a self-proclaimed “sovereign citizen” specialist that has appeared on several mainstream media broadcasts and articles to speak on the subject a few years back (for example, HERE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/)), has supposedly been working on writing a book on that very subject for nearly a decade now, works as a CPA, had gone “undercover” to setup Irwin Schiff during his criminal trail, blogged the entirety of Wesley Snips’ criminal trial, and is married to a D.C. lobbyist.

The Bar Rules for professional conduct prohibits attorneys from knowingly excluding sources that counters or disproves the argument they are inclined to support, the level of raging bias is apparent all throughout Daniel Evans’ Webpage of one-million words.

Thanks for information.

[Acala]

More people are getting into the underground economy as a result. With the Tea Party being so popular and making the federal government very unpopular, more people will join the undereconomy. As Ron Paul says the government is going to collapse. People are not wrong to join the underground economy because it the present tax laws are unconstitutional and immoral.

People are not entering the underground economy because the income tax is illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. They are entering the underground economy because the income tax is punitive to enterprise. No legal analysis involved at all.

[dude58677]

People are not entering the underground economy because the income tax is illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. They are entering the underground economy because the income tax is punitive to enterprise. No legal analysis involved at all.

Some are some are not. You can't speak for everyone.

[Sonny Tufts]

LOL, I knew you were biased and I knew you liked big government. How do you know he wouldn't do it when Irwin Schiff is a close friend of Ron Paul? Oh right, you'd vote for Hilliary. You probably voted for Obama. Or you are a federal employee/DC lobbyist, either way you have no credibility.

There's not a single true statement in this drivel.

[dude58677]

There's not a single true statement in this drivel.

LMAO, whatever Jay Asskisser!

[otherone]

They are entering the underground economy because the income tax is punitive to enterprise.

lol. economics 101.

[Weston White]

New age? His citations go back to 1795, for heaven's sake.

The problem is that the lion’s share of those older cases are being completely misrepresented by individuals such as yourself—the older (and more legally relevant) cases are not whatsoever supportive to the myriad of new-age Circuit decisions being quoted to throughout his Webpage (e.g., 1970’ to the present), which is what I was referring to by “new-age” and that intention should have been obvious to you, being that you are so very astute and whatnot.


The only thing contrived about some of the cases are the ridiculous arguments tax protesters have raised (e.g., wages aren't income; the income tax doesn't apply to private-sector pay; a tax on wages has to be apportioned), all of which have been rejected for the intellectual garbage that they are.

No, again you are being intentionally idiotic, as succinctly stated by Tommy Cryer: “the underlying issue is not that complicated—that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.”

Ergo, when debating over federal income tax laws, its originating context must be regarded (i.e., due to its vast ambiguities statutory canons, legislative history, and original intent must be taken into consideration upon its reading, such as pari materia), it is a tax upon wealth and not mere competence, and thusly its scope of imposition and assessment is only upon constitutional income and not all income.


Marx was hardly an expert on federal income tax law. Tell you what, though, cite us any law professor or contemporary credentialed economist who disagrees with anything on Evans's website. With all of your complaints about Evans, you have yet to cite a single specific inaccuracy; instead, you simply regurgitate verbal diarrhea as a substitute for critical analysis. Time to put up or shut up, Mr. White.

Karl Marx was a philosophical economist advocating communism—to wit, politics and taxation naturally go hand-in-hand. Thusly, if anybody was qualified to speak on the subject of income taxes it would be him and guess who his primary source was... Why Dr. Adam Smith of course. He just entirely bastardized the notion and concept of private property, excluding of course those holding the political power of a nation-state.

As per your request, I am confident that you will find many such economists at the Cato Institute and Mises Institute.

Again see my signature, I have in-fact “put up” and with great effort.

Moreover, the entirely of the evolving THM effectively shreds people such as you before breakfast, runs you down like a yellow-light before rush-hour, and takes you out along with the trash before nightfall. Enjoy it.


Because ignorant people like you keep coming up with incredibly absurd arguments.

If we truly are so very ignorant and our arguments so vastly absurd and idiotic, then why bother, for there is no logical purpose in having done so, as any response serves to be just as moot as the inciting argument, no?

As was famously stated by Dwight K. Schrute (The Office), “Before I do anything I ask myself: “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing.”

Clearly, you are not being entirely honest in your response.


It's not one sided to tell the truth and expose idiocy.

Ah, but it is when you leave out facts that are contrary to you own perception of what is the “truth”.

Furthermore, true idiocy works to expose itself—it does not need any help from the likes of people such as you or Daniel Evans, for instance.


Yeah, and that genius did what for his tax liability? Oh yeah, tax deficiencies, interrest, and over $500K in penalties.

Again, he was acquitted in 2007 and passed away during the delay of his trial in 2009, which given his prior performance, the odds were greatly in his favor; especially when compared to an inexperienced or misled pro per battling the disingenuous tax leviathan on their own.

Consequently, this raises many issues concerning IRS intentionally violating redress, due process, and double-jeopardy. Such as shouldn’t the IRS be prohibited from asserting cherry-picked civil/criminal charges against an individual that has previously defeated them in court when the later circumstances are identical to earlier tax-periods; and when an individual has defeated the IRS for a given tax-period, shouldn’t that defeat retroactively apply to all preceding tax-periods where the circumstances were identical; or from duplicating civil/criminal charges for the same tax-period because an individual was required to submit a number of tax forms with many of them including individual jurats; or from relying solely upon an IRS W-2 as damning evidence when that form is statutorily intended to be purely informational in nature and nothing more, and is itself a third-party out of court statement, making it otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence and by definition does not even qualify as an affidavit, in comparison to an IRS W-3 that is maintained by the SSA?


Or do you feel that the end justifies the means and that even con artists should go free?

Certainly, that is an odd question for you to ask, being that “the end justifies the means” is the haute credo of those in your demographic.


No, the income tax laws are not unconstitutional. I suggest you read I.8.1 and the 16th Amendment.

True, but it is the vapid misperceptions of people such as you and Daniel Evans, including “trained” IRS employees that flounders income tax laws deep into the abyss of unconstitutionality.

[dude58677]

The problem is that the lion’s share of those older cases are being completely misrepresented by individuals such as yourself—the older (and more legally relevant) cases are not whatsoever supportive to the myriad of new-age Circuit decisions being quoted to throughout his Webpage (e.g., 1970’ to the present), which is what I was referring to by “new-age” and that intention should have been obvious to you, being that you are so very astute and whatnot.



No, again you are being intentionally idiotic, as succinctly stated by Tommy Cryer: “the underlying issue is not that complicated—that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.”

Ergo, when debating over federal income tax laws, its originating context must be regarded (i.e., due to its vast ambiguities statutory canons, legislative history, and original intent must be taken into consideration upon its reading, such as pari materia), it is a tax upon wealth and not mere competence, and thusly its scope of imposition and assessment is only upon constitutional income and not all income.



Karl Marx was a philosophical economist advocating communism—to wit, politics and taxation naturally go hand-in-hand. Thusly, if anybody was qualified to speak on the subject of income taxes it would be him and guess who his primary source was... Why Dr. Adam Smith of course. He just entirely bastardized the notion and concept of private property, excluding of course those holding the political power of a nation-state.

As per your request, I am confident that you will find many such economists at the Cato Institute and Mises Institute.

Again see my signature, I have in-fact “put up” and with great effort.

Moreover, the entirely of the evolving THM effectively shreds people such as you before breakfast, runs you down like a yellow-light before rush-hour, and takes you out along with the trash before nightfall. Enjoy it.



If we truly are so very ignorant and our arguments so vastly absurd and idiotic, then why bother, for there is no logical purpose in having done so, as any response serves to be just as moot as the inciting argument, no?

As was famously stated by Dwight K. Schrute (The Office), “Before I do anything I ask myself: “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing.”

Clearly, you are not being entirely honest in your response.



Ah, but it is when you leave out facts that are contrary to you own perception of what is the “truth”.

Furthermore, true idiocy works to expose itself—it does not need any help from the likes of people such as you or Daniel Evans, for instance.



Again, he was acquitted in 2007 and passed away during the delay of his trial in 2009, which given his prior performance, the odds were greatly in his favor; especially when compared to an inexperienced or misled pro per battling the disingenuous tax leviathan on their own.

Consequently, this raises many issues concerning IRS intentionally violating redress, due process, and double-jeopardy. Such as shouldn’t the IRS be prohibited from asserting cherry-picked civil/criminal charges against an individual that has previously defeated them in court when the later circumstances are identical to earlier tax-periods; and when an individual has defeated the IRS for a given tax-period, shouldn’t that defeat retroactively apply to all preceding tax-periods where the circumstances were identical; or from duplicating civil/criminal charges for the same tax-period because an individual was required to submit a number of tax forms with many of them including individual jurats; or from relying solely upon an IRS W-2 as damning evidence when that form is statutorily intended to be purely informational in nature and nothing more, and is itself a third-party out of court statement, making it otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence and by definition does not even qualify as an affidavit, in comparison to an IRS W-3 that is maintained by the SSA?



Certainly, that is an odd question for you to ask, being that “the end justifies the means” is the haute credo of those in your demographic.



True, but it is the vapid misperceptions of people such as you and Daniel Evans, including “trained” IRS employees that flounders income tax laws deep into the abyss of unconstitutionality.

Jay Asskisser completely ignores what I type as I already addressed the issue of the 16th amendment in my original post and he is clearly against Rand Paul for the Presidency. I only debate with honest people and you should avoid this asshole at all costs!

[Sonny Tufts]

Jay Asskisser completely ignores what I type as I already addressed the issue of the 16th amendment in my original post and he is clearly against Rand Paul for the Presidency. I only debate with honest people and you should avoid this asshole at all costs!

Are you having a contest with Mr. White to see who is the dumbest paranoid on this thread?

[dude58677]

Are you having a contest with Mr. White to see who is the dumbest paranoid on this thread?

LMAO, that's the best you can do?

[Sonny Tufts]

it is a tax upon wealth and not mere competence, and thusly its scope of imposition and assessment is only upon constitutional income and not all income.

The income tax doesn't tax wealth -- it taxes the receipt of income. A true wealth tax taxes the mere ownership of property, not its receipt, and can be assessed periodically. An income tax is imposed only once with respect to one's receipt of income. A wealth tax is a direct tax that has to be apportioned, whereas an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned.


As per your request, I am confident that you will find many such economists at the Cato Institute and Mises Institute.

Then you should have no problem in citing someone who can demonstrate that something on Evans's site is inaccurate. So far, you've been a misearable failure in this regard.


Moreover, the entirely of the evolving THM effectively shreds people such as you before breakfast, runs you down like a yellow-light before rush-hour, and takes you out along with the trash before nightfall.

Only in your deluded fantasies. The oxymoronically-named tax honesty movement's legal arguments are consistent losers, and people who have made them in court have been occasionally fined for wasting the courts' time with such bilge.


If we truly are so very ignorant and our arguments so vastly absurd and idiotic, then why bother, for there is no logical purpose in having done so, as any response serves to be just as moot as the inciting argument, no?

The purpose is to show people who aren't that familiar with the law that the tax-protester arguments being peddled are nothing more than snake oil, have no legal basis, and will (if relied upon) lead to very bad consequences.


Again, he was acquitted in 2007 and passed away during the delay of his trial in 2009, which given his prior performance, the odds were greatly in his favor; especially when compared to an inexperienced or misled pro per battling the disingenuous tax leviathan on their own.

His nonsensical legal arguments were rejected in both his criminal case and in his civil case.


Such as shouldn’t the IRS be prohibited from asserting cherry-picked civil/criminal charges against an individual that has previously defeated them in court when the later circumstances are identical to earlier tax-periods

The issues in the ccriminal and civil proceedings are completely different. In the former, the question was whether Cryer had acted willfully; the jury apparently felt that he sincerely believed his idiotic theories. But willfulness isn't an element in a civil proceeding, where the only issue is whether he owes the tax.


W-2 as damning evidence when that form is statutorily intended to be purely informational in nature and nothing more, and is itself a third-party out of court statement, making it otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence and by definition does not even qualify as an affidavit, in comparison to an IRS W-3 that is maintained by the SSA

Don't compound you ignorance of the law by extending it to the rules of evidence. Business records are always admissible under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule -- see Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(6). http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

[dude58677]

The income tax doesn't tax wealth -- it taxes the receipt of income. A true wealth tax taxes the mere ownership of property, not its receipt, and can be assessed periodically. An income tax is imposed only once with respect to one's receipt of income. A wealth tax is a direct tax that has to be apportioned, whereas an income tax doesn't have to

Then you should have no problem in citing someone who can demonstrate that something on Evans's site is inaccurate. So far, you've been a misearable failure in this regard.



Only in your deluded fantasies. The oxymoronically-named tax honesty movement's legal arguments are consistent losers, and people who have made them in court have been occasionally fined for wasting the courts' time with such bilge.



The purpose is to show people who aren't that familiar with the law that the tax-protester arguments being peddled are nothing more than snake oil, have no legal basis, and will (if relied upon) lead to very bad consequences.



His nonsensical legal arguments were rejected in both his criminal case and in his civil case.



The issues in the ccriminal and civil proceedings are completely different. In the former, the question was whether Cryer had acted willfully; the jury apparently felt that he sincerely believed his idiotic theories. But willfulness isn't an element in a civil proceeding, where the only issue is whether he owes the tax.



Don't compound you ignorance of the law by extending it to the rules of evidence. Business records are always admissible under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule -- see Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(6). http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803


Asskisser at it again with loony arguments! LMAO, what else is new?

PS, no one here has to address them either as they have been and what are you going to do about the large underground economy? LMAO!

[Weston White]

The income tax doesn't tax wealth -- it taxes the receipt of income. A true wealth tax taxes the mere ownership of property, not its receipt, and can be assessed periodically. An income tax is imposed only once with respect to one's receipt of income. A wealth tax is a direct tax that has to be apportioned, whereas an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned.

A tax upon an individual’s annual income is a tax upon their wealth within a specified period of time. To tax one’s yearly acquired possessions is to have taxed the receipt of those possessions during that allotted timeframe (asserting anything to the contrary is nothing more than playing a dishonest game of semantics). Ergo, an income tax is a tax upon the increased market value of a given source and without the realization of that determinable market value increase there is no receipt of income to be reported to the IRS.

You are attempting to confuse the issue by confabulating wealth taxes into the conversation. The underlying distinction is that a wealth tax is generally akin to an estate tax levied upon the living, assessing taxes with broad strokes, while income taxes, taxes with fine strokes, alternatively imposing taxes upon the acquisition of bona fide financial wealth, effectively taxing the positive monetary conversion of market-based tangibles (i.e., gains and profits).

From Investopedia on wealth taxes:


It is a tax based on the market value of assets that are owned. These assets include, but are not limited to, cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, private cars, assessed value of real property, pension plans, money funds, owner occupied housing and trusts. An ad valorem tax on real estate and an intangible tax on financial assets are both examples of a wealth tax. Although many developed countries choose to tax wealth, the United States has generally favored taxing income.

Wealth tax is imposed on the wealth possessed by individuals in a country. The tax is on a person's net worth which is assets minus liabilities. Not all countries have this type of tax; Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Iceland and Luxenberg have abolished it in recent years. The United States doesn't impose wealth tax but requires income and property taxes.


Then you should have no problem in citing someone who can demonstrate that something on Evans's site is inaccurate. So far, you've been a misearable failure in this regard.

To be a failure at something, an attempted effort is first required, which I have not nor will I bother to be part of your sickening games. I have provided you an extensive source, you are supposedly a highly skilled and successful attorney, so go do it on your own, as you should be rather effective at searching for things, or better yet have your expansive staff do it for you. Go on ahead now—it should be a fun task for your office to work on for the duration of the week. And remember Google loves you.

ETA: Actually, it would be a great idea for you and your buds, Mr. Evans, et al, to contact Cato and Mises to challenge their fellows and scholars to an open forum debate on such issues as limitless federalism, national economy and taxation. Their contact information is provided below:

http://mises.org/contact.aspx

http://www.cato.org/contact-us

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200



The purpose is to show people who aren't that familiar with the law that the tax-protester arguments being peddled are nothing more than snake oil, have no legal basis, and will (if relied upon) lead to very bad consequences.

Well if that its purpose, (1) people that are not familiar with tax laws are not going to give a care one way or the other as they are simply incapable of realizing any motivating interest in truly learning about it (e.g., the larger public is too consumed by reality TV, professional sports, new virtual-life video games, if they qualify for any more federal or state social benefits, and not to mention the newest iPhone incarnation—if you have not been noticing), (2) such individuals are not going to care whatsoever to perceive one-million words of information overload and whatever little that they do actually attempt reading is going to be largely unintelligible to them (because the public school system that they (perhaps) graduated from had intentionally raised them to lack core critical thinking and logical reasoning skills, so that they might serve society as worker-robots and not as knowledgeable philosophers), (3) the entirety of his Webpage neglects to establish its facts with respect to the empirical evidence available and fails to effectively express both side of the argument so as to permit its readers to make a truly informed decision, and (4) there is a very legitimate reason why people that actually take the time to learn and study about matters of great public concern actually begin to question the government’s assertions, such as with: 9-11 or Waco; ever expanding police abuse; the DHS-TSA, NSA, and blanket surveillance; or taxation. It is just that most individuals are a combination of either too busy with the own personal affairs and family or too damned afraid to do anything about it, let alone take a stand against it.

No, it is far more likely that Webpage serves as nothing more than a one-stop shop for DOJ and IRS employees and Internet sock-puppets alike, from which to gleam quotations and post them all across the vast expanses of the Interweb.


His nonsensical legal arguments were rejected in both his criminal case and in his civil case.

Oh so that explains why he was acquitted. …And also why Dave Champion is still walking out and about a free and productive man.


The issues in the ccriminal and civil proceedings are completely different. In the former, the question was whether Cryer had acted willfully; the jury apparently felt that he sincerely believed his idiotic theories. But willfulness isn't an element in a civil proceeding, where the only issue is whether he owes the tax.

And you do not see any problem with that (being that you of all people are always ranting about the court having its time wasted by “tax-protesters”), that the government can just keep dragging a person into court time and time again concerning the same instance, using one set of charges in the prior instance, another in the next, and so on (e.g., wrongfully charging Peter Hendrickson two identical counts of 26 USC § 7206 for a single tax filing for each individual tax year (which I believe was corrected on appeal), charging James Holmes multiple counts of homicide, PC187, for the deaths of each non-pregnant victim, etc.)? At what point does it not become blatant harassment, abuse of public authority, and misuse of governmental resources? Shouldn’t that be allowable as an affirmative defense (such as a subset of res judicata or collateral estoppel), being that the government had its opportunity to seek out tax liabilities during the criminal trial, it had neglected to do so (just as similarly when a defendant fails to exercise a right or make an objection during trail they are not permitted a mulligan on appeal), anything after that renders itself moot and should be tossed out of civil court. It is accepted logic that if one throws enough spaghetti at a given wall eventually one or two pieces are going to stick.


Don't compound you ignorance of the law by extending it to the rules of evidence. Business records are always admissible under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule -- see Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(6). http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

Geez, don’t you get tired of being wrong? Seriously now!

It is arguable that an employee is presumed themselves to be involved in the activities of a “business” requiring recordkeeping on their part and that their employer is not a party to those current court proceedings, thus whatever is asserted of their employer’s legal obligations is simply not relevant to them as an employee.

It is arguable that the receipt of the W-2 by the IRS by other than by the authority or grant of the taxpayer themselves, (to be voluntarily included within their annual tax filing or its transference requested by them), involves a conspiracy to misuse personal information on the part of both the SSA and IRS—there is no existing public statute granting such authority to either agency (although, IIRC, that process is mentioned somewhere in the subordinate Regulations of either agency). See for instance (Privacy Act of 1974), 5 USC § 552a(b) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a#b). (Simply, there is no valid reason or excuse to require for every employer to generate two individual forms, the W-3 and W-2 forms, and then send them both out to the SSA. And moreover is contrary to the intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act)

It is arguable that the IRS seeks to submit the W-2 purely at its face value in-order to substantiate the entirety of its case, in conjunction with supporting public statutes and conflicting tax documents that are on file with them, and nothing more; when the W-2 is legally intended to provide only general information and is not to be lent greater weight than the filed tax documents. Wherefore, its context is being blatantly misrepresented within court in ongoing support of the IRS’ agenda.

In any case, the mentioned exception only applies when such records qualify under several stipulations, further noting that:

The W-2 is not specific to any qualifying “act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis” in itself; it is simply a summarized form displaying numerated figures, respective to annual withholdings, along with an employer address and EIN, employee identification, and other general information;

Unless the IRS is planning on bringing in payroll staff from the individual’s employer to give witness testimony the IRS (including the SSA) lacks all specific knowledge pertaining to the actual content of the W-2;

The W-2 fails the required test of self-authentication under Rule 902, as it is neither a Xerox nor carbon copy; rather it is its own separate and distinctive document from the W-3;

The IRS is neither purvey to the “source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation” and therefore cannot testify to the trustworthiness of the W-2, and;

Furthermore, the W-2 fails the original documents test of Rule 1002. A party to court proceeding has every right to demand and inspect the originals.

As further shown below:

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay:

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Rule 902(11) Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating:

Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original:

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

[ChristianAnarchist]

There are many legal arguments put forth for and against the "income tax". I used to study these arguments and I followed Irwin Schiff (I consider him my friend) but I found that the goons don't care what the "law" says. They do what they want when they want because they have the bigger guns. It's anarchy and it's always been anarchy. Those with the greater force use that force to keep the mundanes from rising up and claiming what is theirs...

There is only one argument I put up against the "income tax" now... IT'S IMMORAL !!!! You cannot justify taking what does not belong to you no matter what pretty words you write down on paper. MY property belongs to ME and anyone who takes it by force or threat of force is a thief...

[dude58677]

There are many legal arguments put forth for and against the "income tax". I used to study these arguments and I followed Irwin Schiff (I consider him my friend) but I found that the goons don't care what the "law" says. They do what they want when they want because they have the bigger guns. It's anarchy and it's always been anarchy. Those with the greater force use that force to keep the mundanes from rising up and claiming what is theirs...

There is only one argument I put up against the "income tax" now... IT'S IMMORAL !!!! You cannot justify taking what does not belong to you no matter what pretty words you write down on paper. MY property belongs to ME and anyone who takes it by force or threat of force is a thief...

Well said and the underground economy is the real economy.

[ZENemy]

There are many legal arguments put forth for and against the "income tax". I used to study these arguments and I followed Irwin Schiff (I consider him my friend) but I found that the goons don't care what the "law" says. They do what they want when they want because they have the bigger guns. It's anarchy and it's always been anarchy. Those with the greater force use that force to keep the mundanes from rising up and claiming what is theirs...

There is only one argument I put up against the "income tax" now... IT'S IMMORAL !!!! You cannot justify taking what does not belong to you no matter what pretty words you write down on paper. MY property belongs to ME and anyone who takes it by force or threat of force is a thief...


And on top of that; doesnt this study pretty much prove that there is zero representation for our tax dollars?

http://roarmag.org/2014/04/gilens-page-us-oligarchy-elite/


Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism


Also, according to this I live in a constitution free zone, how can they prove jurisdiction if I live in a zone where the supreme law of the land is not valid? Yea sure I understand they are calling it a "4rth amendment" free zone but I have not read anywhere that the gov is allowed to pi8ck and choose which amendments it follows, no 4rth? well then, there is also no 16th. Statist pieces of shit always aske me "What proof do YOU have that the laws do not apply to you" well HERE YOU GO!~ (as if I could even prove a negative anyway)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map


Pretty soon we may have enough evidence for Jury nullification.

*not that I realistically expect anyone in any court to actually care about any of this information even if I was 100% right the goal post would be moved and I would still be wrong.

[A Son of Liberty]

There are many legal arguments put forth for and against the "income tax". I used to study these arguments and I followed Irwin Schiff (I consider him my friend) but I found that the goons don't care what the "law" says. They do what they want when they want because they have the bigger guns. It's anarchy and it's always been anarchy. Those with the greater force use that force to keep the mundanes from rising up and claiming what is theirs...

There is only one argument I put up against the "income tax" now... IT'S IMMORAL !!!! You cannot justify taking what does not belong to you no matter what pretty words you write down on paper. MY property belongs to ME and anyone who takes it by force or threat of force is a thief...

Pfft. I'm allowed to rob you.


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

[56ktarget]

Its heartening this crackpot argument isn't believed by the courts.

[dude58677]

It is heartening that 56ktarget has been banned for his crackpot arguments. This thread can now be closed.