Freedom to Fascism: Notes from a Lawyer

[Rhys]

A very good friend of mine is a 'power lawyer'. I asked him to watch Freedom to Fascism and see what he thinks.

He did and said (the jist of it at least)

"it's interesting. There's something strange happening but the movie jumps to some conclusions. For instance, the movie and non-lawyers in it make some untrue conjectures as how the legal system works. For one, the Supreme Court ruling on 'income' doesn't constitute the final word on the meaning on 'income'. Also, there has to be something the movie is not saying because if it were true, someone since 1913 would have won on appeal. There is something fishy and I'll do more legal research on it. I'm going to start with the 16th Amendment because that seems to be where the most grounds are."

Then he said "Do you want to be the test case?"

I said "How much jail time?"

He said "years in Federal Prison where you can shout from your cell "Taxes are illegal!"

lol

he will look into it more though. Hope this isn't a Hot Topics cause I was seriously curious what he would think of the movie. Accademicly I was curious, not in a tin foil hat sort of way.

[Ricochet]

Lawyer Tom Cryer started the exact same way, and he ended up winning his case vs the IRS.

[hueylong]

a guy in Louisiana (Shreveport) won a jury trial about 6 months ago on the premise that he didn't have to pay taxes.

[tsetsefly]

let him start, he will end up in a dead end, like the movie shows people tried to win the 50,000, maybe your friend can win it...

[AnalogDan]

Whatever he finds out, he should send it to Wesley Snipes.

[akijikan]

this has what to do with grassroots campaigning?

[Rhys]

this has what to do with grassroots campaigning?

Last I checked, the constitutionality of the Tax code is one of our talking points...


anyway... I forgot that I also asked my accountant. He got a squeamish look on his face when I said "I don't have to pay my taxes? they're illegal?"

He said "pay your taxes."

[Xonox]

this has what to do with grassroots campaigning?

New grassroots project... stop paying taxes :rolleyes:

[rpfan2008]

one word:Kafka-esque

[hawkeyenick]

A very good friend of mine is a 'power lawyer'. I asked him to watch Freedom to Fascism and see what he thinks.

He did and said (the jist of it at least)

"it's interesting. There's something strange happening but the movie jumps to some conclusions. For instance, the movie and non-lawyers in it make some untrue conjectures as how the legal system works. For one, the Supreme Court ruling on 'income' doesn't constitute the final word on the meaning on 'income'. Also, there has to be something the movie is not saying because if it were true, someone since 1913 would have won on appeal. There is something fishy and I'll do more legal research on it. I'm going to start with the 16th Amendment because that seems to be where the most grounds are."

Then he said "Do you want to be the test case?"

I said "How much jail time?"

He said "years in Federal Prison where you can shout from your cell "Taxes are illegal!"

lol

he will look into it more though. Hope this isn't a Hot Topics cause I was seriously curious what he would think of the movie. Accademicly I was curious, not in a tin foil hat sort of way.

People have won individual cases

[m72mc]

Many people have won trial cases on this issue, check the facts

[Rhys]

People have won individual cases

I forgot about that.... he said it matters how. For instance, the one case got overturned not because there is no law, but because the Jury wasn't shown it.

I forgot something else...

He said that the Tax code does say you have to pay taxes, he said red lights are compulsory, and so are taxes.

However, he said there should be question as to "does the IRS have the authority to make the law?" and he said "the answer seems to be yes after 100 years, or someone would have won in appellate court since 1913."

That is why he wants to look into the 16th Amendment and if it was actually ratified.

He is checking the facts. That was part of the point in the first place.

Where he's not checking is Google. lol I believe he's starting with Lexus Nexus.

[DAFTEK]

People have won against going to Jail but they still had to pay the taxes! They wore talking about this on tv last week on Wesley S...

[lynnf]

I forgot about that.... he said it matters how. For instance, the one case got overturned not because there is no law, but because the Jury wasn't shown it.

I forgot something else...

He said that the Tax code does say you have to pay taxes, he said red lights are compulsory, and so are taxes.

However, he said there should be question as to "does the IRS have the authority to make the law?" and he said "the answer seems to be yes after 100 years, or someone would have won in appellate court since 1913."

That is why he wants to look into the 16th Amendment and if it was actually ratified.


another question is: do you have to file (implying that no file means no pay)? that
may be a source of confusion in there.....

lynn

[Rhys]

another question is: do you have to file (implying that no file means no pay)? that
may be a source of confusion in there.....

lynn

He said you DO have to file, according to the tax code. Which is I beleieve when he asked, does the IRS have the right to make law with the tax code.

[liberteebell]

New grassroots project... stop paying taxes :rolleyes:


Now that's something I could get behind :cool:

[Green Mountain Boy]

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/asset-protection-estate-planning/9421-public-money-right-direct-experiences-please.html

[MattMinnesota]

I forgot about that.... he said it matters how. For instance, the one case got overturned not because there is no law, but because the Jury wasn't shown it.



That jury wasn't shown the law because there IS no law. Numerous cases have been won saying the income tax is not legal. Even the Supreme Court stated that the 16th amendment confers no new powers of taxation. If the whole income tax premise is built upon the 16th amendment, and the 16th amendment has been declared to not alter the governments powers of taxation then the whole income tax is then void.

I'm not a lawyer, but many lawyers have tackled this issue and have not been able to make a direct case for the income tax being legal. Some have though, but mostly through rhetoric and strong armed tactics.

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollack… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”

EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245 (1920):
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’.”

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
Regarding the lack of any new taxing powers: “…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..”

[Rhys]

That jury wasn't shown the law because there IS no law. Numerous cases have been won saying the income tax is not legal. Even the Supreme Court stated that the 16th amendment confers no new powers of taxation. If the whole income tax premise is built upon the 16th amendment, and the 16th amendment has been declared to not alter the governments powers of taxation then the whole income tax is then void.

I'm not a lawyer, but many lawyers have tackled this issue and have not been able to make a direct case for the income tax being legal. Some have though, but mostly through rhetoric and strong armed tactics.

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollack… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”

EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245 (1920):
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’.”

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
Regarding the lack of any new taxing powers: “…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..”

I'll send him those cases, but as for there being no law...

he would say "prove they didn't show the law because it doesn't exist... ie prove the law doesn't exist." Which means, legaly, nothing has changed.

[Ricochet]

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321

Tommy Cryer discusses tax case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

Lawyer who beat IRS sues agents
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59515

Wesley Snipes to Go on Trial in Tax Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14tax.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Edu]

Let him know about the status issue. There is no "law" because when you own someone, you also own everything they own and anything they make via work.

Since the government doesn't want to dole out toilet paper and food, they let you keep a little bit.

Specifically what I am talking about is being a U.S. Government citizen, or citizen (lower case "c") of (meaning belonging to) the United States (a government entity, not the "geographic" sense as in a map of the states of the union).

It's a status issue, either you are one of theirs or you aren't. Picture it as the same as when you sign up for military service, at that point they own your body.

The movie doesn't talk about this because it's hard to explain.

Just ask yourself who is the United States? United States District Court, who's court? United States District Atty, who's atty? Etc...

Lots more info online if you look.

The government has no duty to tell you what you can contract to do, if you want to give your body to them, who are they to say no?

[ItsTime]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.


I'll send him those cases, but as for there being no law...

he would say "prove they didn't show the law because it doesn't exist... ie prove the law doesn't exist." Which means, legaly, nothing has changed.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Let him know about the status issue. There is no "law" because when you own someone, you also own everything they own and anything they make via work.

Since the government doesn't want to dole out toilet paper and food, they let you keep a little bit.

Specifically what I am talking about is being a U.S. Government citizen, or citizen (lower case "c") of (meaning belonging to) the United States (a government entity, not the "geographic" sense as in a map of the states of the union).

It's a status issue, either you are one of theirs or you aren't. Picture it as the same as when you sign up for military service, at that point they own your body.

The movie doesn't talk about this because it's hard to explain.

Just ask yourself who is the United States? United States District Court, who's court? United States District Atty, who's atty? Etc...

Lots more info online if you look.

The government has no duty to tell you what you can contract to do, if you want to give your body to them, who are they to say no?

It looks like someone gets it.

[Fox McCloud]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.

precisely...

let's not forget that most lawyers are trained to pick technicalities apart (loopholes) and win with them....one of the many reasons I don't like Laywers...*chuckles* Ron Paul is on the record of saying he doesn't like them much either (Hey, do you blame him?).

[Rhys]

you can not prove a negative. If its not a law, its not a law you cant prove its not.

lol tell that to the Federal Prisoners whom agreed with you.

Listen... I'm 100% on your side, but we need to do this with the system. Half of what he gets paid for is introducing doubt and double-think. Wait... no, probably three quarters.

You don't have to prove a negative if you refuse to provide the positive.

confused yet? I am.

[Rhys]

precisely...

let's not forget that most lawyers are trained to pick technicalities apart (loopholes) and win with them....one of the many reasons I don't like Laywers...*chuckles* Ron Paul is on the record of saying he doesn't like them much either (Hey, do you blame him?).

Lawmakers are the problem... big government.... lawyers are the only ones who know how to maneuver in the manure the government spits out.

[Goldwater Conservative]

"For one, the Supreme Court ruling on 'income' doesn't constitute the final word on the meaning on 'income'."

Does that also apply to rulings on abortion, gun rights, segregation, voting rights, etc.?

[Rhys]

Does that also apply to rulings on abortion, gun rights, segregation, voting rights, etc.?

lol i dunno. i'm just saying what he said. he always says "if the Supreme Court says the First Amendment is unconstitutional, it is" whenever I challenge him on stuff like this. So there's obviously more to it than what I know.

[Deborah K]

New grassroots project... stop paying taxes :rolleyes:

I would love nothing more than a tax revolt. :D

[torchbearer]

Ask him how is it constitutional for the IRS to use your own testimony(your signed income returns) against you in a court of law... I was under the impression that the constitution forbids the government from forcing someone to be a witness against themselves.???????

[Goldwater Conservative]

lol i dunno. i'm just saying what he said. he always says "if the Supreme Court says the First Amendment is unconstitutional, it is" whenever I challenge him on stuff like this. So there's obviously more to it than what I know.

I know, I just find it funny how so many people have a cafeteria philosophy about judicial activism. "I choose this, and this, and this, but not that..." :)

[Deborah K]

The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.

"History, Mr. W. said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon the luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Roman Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling national politics with their vast and ever-increasing fortunes. By reading the Congressional Record, House and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law journal articles of the time and the writings of the people who were intimately involved in the development of the 16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the net annual income from personal property. Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.

Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax.

Senator Norris Brown from Nebraska, the man who wrote the 16th Amendment, defined clearly what income was and what the income tax was intended to accomplish. Not once did Sen. Brown mention that Congress intended to pass an amendment that would grant the federal government a new power to directly tax the wages or salaries of working people.

[Edu]

When you have items in inventory, or even a farm with cattle, you put a serial number on them, so you can keep track of what you own.

You can also borrow against your "assets", or even your cattle, and use them as security for the loans.

When cows produce milk it's yours to sell, because you own the cows. They are resources that produce for you.

So, does this serial number look familiar? XXX-XX-XXXX

Could there be human resources?

Get your original birthright back! Be one of the Citizens (cap "C") of the several States of the Union.

Educate yourself, just for fun:
http://www.usavsus.info/
http://www.abrrp.us/