The FED Inspector General Has No Idea Where The 9 Trillion Dollars Went

[sealybobo]

A code is law. The entire body of federal law is in what is called the United States Code. Abbreviated as U.S.C.

26 U.S.C. § 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

US CODE: Title 26,7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Law, set out in the US code, explicitly stating that any person who attempts to evade the payment of any tax, which includes the income tax because that is a tax, is guilty of a felony.

You can look up the statute yourself. Google 26 USC 701 and there are numerous sources for this law.

Or you can ignore clear and uneqivocal evidence that is right in front of your face and continue to put your faith in some guy you found on the internet who has been proven by numerous reliable sources to be wrong in just about every thing he says.

There's Statutes (the actual laws) blabla.

Fuck it. Continue to pay way more than you should to the politicians.

I don't mind now that its liberals in charge spending our money on progressive entitlements.

Are you denying statute which clearly requires payment of income tax that this is a law? Are you arguing that the United States Code are not laws?

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code.

Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'

Russo claimed that all the tax revenues went to pay interest. You've been shown reliable evidence to the contrary, as well as the fact that what he claims doesn't even make sense logically with $11 trillion in debt and $2.5 trillion in revenues.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've been shown reliable evidence of exactly such a law.

Why do you keep defending this guy so faithfully? What is it about him that you put absolute faith in what he claims as fact in face of the stacks of reliable evidence that he is just flat out wrong?

Because I watched the DVD and it answers all these questions.

Aaron Russo sits down with a former IRS Exec who now works for a famous law firm and he gets the guy so rattled. I wish I had the DVD here to watch it so I could make the same point he was making. And he didn't say Buyer Beware. It was something yiddish like this: •Es vet gornit helfen! - Nothing will help you

I'm done explaining this to you. If you won't watch the best dvd ever on this subject, you will just remain under informed.

Of course this isn't clear cut. If it was, they wouldn't be getting away with it. Hell, you got me stumped. But there are people out there you could not stump, and I've listened to them, and I believe them over you.

 

[Toro]

Like what? What they say doesn't prove anything. And they can't answer Aaron Russo's questions so suck it.

I love it how people who don't believe conspiracy theories don't because they are not obvious or proven without a shadow of a doubt. If they were, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories.

Like now that we proved Bush lied about WMD's, that one went from conspiracy theory to fact. And yet no one apologized for calling us conspiracy theorists.

You'll swallow anything NASA says about their faked moon landing.

Can't prove Cheney is the one that mailed the anthrax so you say the idea is rediculous. No it isn't.

No matter how fishy 9-11 looks, you won't believe Cheney/Bush wanted it to happen. Hell, even allowed it to happen so they could launch a war.

Even though they would sacrafice more soldiers and money than 9-11 did.

Like I said, you guys are all malleable to virtually any conspiracy theory, no matter how improbable. If its on youtube or someone makes a movie, all the better.

So I assume you don't pay income taxes then, Sealy.

 

[Iriemon]

There's Statutes (the actual laws) blabla.

Fuck it. Continue to pay way more than you should to the politicians.

I don't mind now that its liberals in charge spending our money on progressive entitlements.

Are you denying statute which clearly requires payment of income tax that this is a law? Are you arguing that the United States Code are not laws?

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code.

Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'

Russo claimed that all the tax revenues went to pay interest. You've been shown reliable evidence to the contrary, as well as the fact that what he claims doesn't even make sense logically with $11 trillion in debt and $2.5 trillion in revenues.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've been shown reliable evidence of exactly such a law.

Why do you keep defending this guy so faithfully? What is it about him that you put absolute faith in what he claims as fact in face of the stacks of reliable evidence that he is just flat out wrong?

Because I watched the DVD and it answers all these questions.

Aaron Russo sits down with a former IRS Exec who now works for a famous law firm and he gets the guy so rattled. I wish I had the DVD here to watch it so I could make the same point he was making. And he didn't say Buyer Beware. It was something yiddish like this: •Es vet gornit helfen! - Nothing will help you

You can look up "caveat emptor" on the web yourself. You don't have to believe me.

I'm done explaining this to you. If you won't watch the best dvd ever on this subject, you will just remain under informed.

I watched the clip you cited. And some of the film. It is largely based on "facts" that Russo states without any evidence or proof, like his claim that Congress was bribed to pass the Fed reserve act. What is the proof that happened? Why should we believe Russo?

He says the Congress knows about the fraud. Do you really believe that Representatives and Senators have for 95 years known about a massive fraud, participated in it, and no one has pointed it out? Is that even fathomable?

Of course this isn't clear cut. If it was, they wouldn't be getting away with it. Hell, you got me stumped. But there are people out there you could not stump, and I've listened to them, and I believe them over you.

Again, why do you have absolute blind faith in this guy is accurate as to the facts? Simply because he says stuff in a video? It's like a religious belief.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've seen several, I've shown you one in the previous post. You can verify that is the law by numerous websites or go to your nearest law library and look it up in the US code.

You have irrefutable proof that what Gross says is flat out wrong. You always say open your eyes. Are yours?

Give you know he is wrong about one of his chief points, why do you have blind faith in everything else he says ?

 

[Toro]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

 

[Iriemon]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

 

[Toro]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Ah, but we have sealy, Terral and 9/11 inside job to straighten us all out. Thanks fellas!

 

[sealybobo]

Are you denying statute which clearly requires payment of income tax that this is a law? Are you arguing that the United States Code are not laws?

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code.

Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'

Russo claimed that all the tax revenues went to pay interest. You've been shown reliable evidence to the contrary, as well as the fact that what he claims doesn't even make sense logically with $11 trillion in debt and $2.5 trillion in revenues.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've been shown reliable evidence of exactly such a law.

Why do you keep defending this guy so faithfully? What is it about him that you put absolute faith in what he claims as fact in face of the stacks of reliable evidence that he is just flat out wrong?

Because I watched the DVD and it answers all these questions.

Aaron Russo sits down with a former IRS Exec who now works for a famous law firm and he gets the guy so rattled. I wish I had the DVD here to watch it so I could make the same point he was making. And he didn't say Buyer Beware. It was something yiddish like this: •Es vet gornit helfen! - Nothing will help you

You can look up "caveat emptor" on the web yourself. You don't have to believe me.

I'm done explaining this to you. If you won't watch the best dvd ever on this subject, you will just remain under informed.

I watched the clip you cited. And some of the film. It is largely based on "facts" that Russo states without any evidence or proof, like his claim that Congress was bribed to pass the Fed reserve act. What is the proof that happened? Why should we believe Russo?

He says the Congress knows about the fraud. Do you really believe that Representatives and Senators have for 95 years known about a massive fraud, participated in it, and no one has pointed it out? Is that even fathomable?

Of course this isn't clear cut. If it was, they wouldn't be getting away with it. Hell, you got me stumped. But there are people out there you could not stump, and I've listened to them, and I believe them over you.

Again, why do you have absolute blind faith in this guy is accurate as to the facts? Simply because he says stuff in a video? It's like a religious belief.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've seen several, I've shown you one in the previous post. You can verify that is the law by numerous websites or go to your nearest law library and look it up in the US code.

You have irrefutable proof that what Gross says is flat out wrong. You always say open your eyes. Are yours?

Give you know he is wrong about one of his chief points, why do you have blind faith in everything else he says ?

Everything you say is arguable. Watch the DVD then get back to me.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.


The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home

Did you go do the work or are you just "taking someones word for it too".
Is Ron Paul wrong saying that Congress has no power???? Maybe if you look in the constitution you'll see he is right, and so am I. Why are you such a income tax defender? Its so clearly the key to the scam. Its how they control/own us. You aren't free if they can tax your labor. Wake up. Either Ron Paul is wrong or he is right on this.

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax.

Taxes | Ron Paul .com

 

[sealybobo]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Ah, but we have sealy, Terral and 9/11 inside job to straighten us all out. Thanks fellas!

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

 

[sealybobo]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Oh you can find attorney's who would agree.

I suspect most of them fall in line just like the majority of you do. Jillian DOES NOT believe this stuff.

But I talk to conspiracy theorist tax attorneys and CPA's all the time. I sell the Internal Revenue Code. I tell people at work all the time about what I'm telling you. They don't care/don't believe/don't have all the facts/don't think anything can be done about it even if it were true.

Or they just feel that if the government ends the income tax, they'll just stick us somewhere else. They are the masses. They know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.

 

[Iriemon]

Because I watched the DVD and it answers all these questions.

Aaron Russo sits down with a former IRS Exec who now works for a famous law firm and he gets the guy so rattled. I wish I had the DVD here to watch it so I could make the same point he was making. And he didn't say Buyer Beware. It was something yiddish like this: •Es vet gornit helfen! - Nothing will help you

You can look up "caveat emptor" on the web yourself. You don't have to believe me.

I watched the clip you cited. And some of the film. It is largely based on "facts" that Russo states without any evidence or proof, like his claim that Congress was bribed to pass the Fed reserve act. What is the proof that happened? Why should we believe Russo?

He says the Congress knows about the fraud. Do you really believe that Representatives and Senators have for 95 years known about a massive fraud, participated in it, and no one has pointed it out? Is that even fathomable?

Of course this isn't clear cut. If it was, they wouldn't be getting away with it. Hell, you got me stumped. But there are people out there you could not stump, and I've listened to them, and I believe them over you.

Again, why do you have absolute blind faith in this guy is accurate as to the facts? Simply because he says stuff in a video? It's like a religious belief.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've seen several, I've shown you one in the previous post. You can verify that is the law by numerous websites or go to your nearest law library and look it up in the US code.

You have irrefutable proof that what Gross says is flat out wrong. You always say open your eyes. Are yours?

Give you know he is wrong about one of his chief points, why do you have blind faith in everything else he says ?

Everything you say is arguable. Watch the DVD then get back to me.

Watching it, just for you.

I said contrary to Russo and you that there was a law that requires you to pay tax.

I and Toro have shown you statutes and laws saying you have to pay income taxes, or go to jail. Complete opposite of what Russo claimed.

What is arguable about what I said and the statute I cited about whether it says you have to pay taxes?

Edit: The rest of you post talks about the ratification of the 16th amendment. That is irrelevant to the question - is there a law that requires you to pay taxes. Russo says no. You've seen the law with your own eyes.

The constitutionality is another subject -- that might address whether the law is valid, not wether there is a law. And if Mr. Russo feels the law is unconstitutional, he can file a lawsuit with the courts and have that issue addressed. It is done all the time. But my guess is it was done and decided long ago.

Why do you believe Russo that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes when you've seen it with your own eyes?

 

[Iriemon]

Russo: "Income is not defined in the internal revenue code"

Wrong again:

Sec. 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II
(sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from
gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

TaxAlmanac - Internal Revenue Code:Sec. 61. Gross income defined

Why do you think this guy is believable again?

 

[Iriemon]

Russo decepition:

12:05 into the video. Shows a quetion being asked to someone identified as Dale Hart, IRS Asst. Commissioner. The question posed are people required to pay taxes?

Before she can answer, the video is clipped and replaced with someone identifed as Mark Everson, IRS commissioner, who explains why he thinks taxes are necessary for society. There is no video showing what question was asked of Mr. Everson.

The foreboding black screen that follows: "Why didn't he answer the question?"

LOL -- we don't even know what question he was asked because the video clipped from a different question!

This kind of hack job deserve blind faith that it is the truth? When there are statutes black and white that say you have to pay taxes?

Why would you trust Russo?

 

[Iriemon]

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Ah, but we have sealy, Terral and 9/11 inside job to straighten us all out. Thanks fellas!

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

So ... why doesn't Russo or anyone else file a lawsuit in federal court pointing out that the IRS is unconstitutional, and have the Supreme Court overturn the tax code?

Laws are challenged all the time and overturned for violating the constitution. We have a lot of strict constructualists on the Supreme Court now that I'm sure would be happy to overturn an unconstitutional law.

 

[Iriemon]

My favourite is that for a century, everybody has been paying income tax when they didn't have to, and that the thousands and thousands of people who have been elected to government and appointed to the bench are either dumber than a sack of hammers or are part of a conspiracy, and the only people who know "the truth" believe in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there.

Hilarious.

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Oh you can find attorney's who would agree.

I suspect most of them fall in line just like the majority of you do. Jillian DOES NOT believe this stuff.

But I talk to conspiracy theorist tax attorneys and CPA's all the time. I sell the Internal Revenue Code. I tell people at work all the time about what I'm telling you. They don't care/don't believe/don't have all the facts/don't think anything can be done about it even if it were true.

Or they just feel that if the government ends the income tax, they'll just stick us somewhere else. They are the masses. They know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.

That's fine for them Sealy. Most people don't care. But I'm not doing that. I (and Toro) am taking my time to research and I am answering your questions about whether there is a law that requires you to pay taxes by showing you the laws that explicitly require you to pay income taxes.

How can you continue to believe there is no law that requires you to pay taxes when you have it right before you eyes?

 

[sealybobo]

You can look up "caveat emptor" on the web yourself. You don't have to believe me.

I watched the clip you cited. And some of the film. It is largely based on "facts" that Russo states without any evidence or proof, like his claim that Congress was bribed to pass the Fed reserve act. What is the proof that happened? Why should we believe Russo?

He says the Congress knows about the fraud. Do you really believe that Representatives and Senators have for 95 years known about a massive fraud, participated in it, and no one has pointed it out? Is that even fathomable?



Again, why do you have absolute blind faith in this guy is accurate as to the facts? Simply because he says stuff in a video? It's like a religious belief.

Russo claims there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. You've seen several, I've shown you one in the previous post. You can verify that is the law by numerous websites or go to your nearest law library and look it up in the US code.

You have irrefutable proof that what Gross says is flat out wrong. You always say open your eyes. Are yours?

Give you know he is wrong about one of his chief points, why do you have blind faith in everything else he says ?

Everything you say is arguable. Watch the DVD then get back to me.

Watching it, just for you.

I said contrary to Russo and you that there was a law that requires you to pay tax.

I and Toro have shown you statutes and laws saying you have to pay income taxes, or go to jail. Complete opposite of what Russo claimed.

What is arguable about what I said and the statute I cited about whether it says you have to pay taxes?

Edit: The rest of you post talks about the ratification of the 16th amendment. That is irrelevant to the question - is there a law that requires you to pay taxes. Russo says no. You've seen the law with your own eyes.

The constitutionality is another subject -- that might address whether the law is valid, not wether there is a law. And if Mr. Russo feels the law is unconstitutional, he can file a lawsuit with the courts and have that issue addressed. It is done all the time. But my guess is it was done and decided long ago.

Why do you believe Russo that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes when you've seen it with your own eyes?

It may come down to the concept that it is unconstitutional.

Schulz’s We The People Foundation is transforming the often subterranean struggle to deny the legitimacy of the income tax. For decades this movement has been an inchoate collection of small congregations following varied gurus. Schulz and his crew, by contrast, offer a unified church with a canon of Right Arguments. The anti-income tax movement now has, through Schulz, a united, highly activist national membership organization claiming around 5,000 dues-paying members, a mailing list of 64,000, and local coordinators in 39 states and 600 counties.

While in the past evangelists of the "income tax is a fraud" message have tended to sell books and seminars, the We The People Foundation has the advantage of being hard to blithely condemn as a scam. It is not a business selling advice but a nonprofit dedicated to spending money -- more than $1 million since taking up this fight -- to spread the word.

"when people say ‘tax protester movement,’ it drives me nuts. I do not protest taxes. I think they are absolutely necessary. I protest illegal confiscation of assets, which is what the income tax is." She has no problem, she assures me, with sales taxes, property taxes, or corporate taxes.

The partisans of the tax honesty movement go beyond complaining that the income tax is too high, or that out-of-control IRS agents enforce it in thuggish ways. They claim, for a dizzyingly complicated variety of reasons, that there is no legal obligation to pay it.

Also last year, Texas plastics manufacturer Dick Simkanin was finally brought to trial for failure to withhold income taxes for his dozens of employees. Simkanin had been a poster child in We The People-sponsored ads in USA Today, featured as a businessman who honestly believes it is his right under law not to withhold. Two grand juries who had gotten to speak to Simkanin failed even to indict him. Finally a third grand jury, whom he didn’t get to speak to, did indict. But at the end of his first trial in November, the jurors could not reach a verdict.

The We The People conference brought together many of the movement’s leading lights. It also presents some new strategies. Schulz, with the help of superstar radical lawyer Mark Lane, is in the process of launching a class action lawsuit to call the government’s cheating hand on this whole income tax matter.

He’s famous for being one of the first Warren Commission revisionists with his 1966 book Rush to Judgment and for being the lawyer for People’s Temple death cultist Jim Jones. He has successfully defended some tax honesty clients, though he tells me: "I pay taxes and never advise any client not to. But I can tell you, I’ve read all these cases, and I don’t see where it says you have to pay, and I don’t understand why the government doesn’t answer [Schulz’s] questions."

The planned suit relies on interestingly fresh grounds: Schulz is claiming that all these government officials who refuse to answer his questions about the income tax are violating his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Surely, after all, that right must include the ability not merely to send in such petitions but to get some sort of reasonable response.

 

[sealybobo]

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Oh you can find attorney's who would agree.

I suspect most of them fall in line just like the majority of you do. Jillian DOES NOT believe this stuff.

But I talk to conspiracy theorist tax attorneys and CPA's all the time. I sell the Internal Revenue Code. I tell people at work all the time about what I'm telling you. They don't care/don't believe/don't have all the facts/don't think anything can be done about it even if it were true.

Or they just feel that if the government ends the income tax, they'll just stick us somewhere else. They are the masses. They know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.

That's fine for them Sealy. Most people don't care. But I'm not doing that. I (and Toro) am taking my time to research and I am answering your questions about whether there is a law that requires you to pay taxes by showing you the laws that explicitly require you to pay income taxes.

How can you continue to believe there is no law that requires you to pay taxes when you have it right before you eyes?

I think I found the answer

You hear this all the time. When presented with the simple request to "show me the law that unambiguously requires me to pay income tax," I was told, everyone from congressmen to tax lawyers to IRS agents is stymied, even when Schiff and others offer enormous rewards to anyone who can do so. It didn’t take me long to find what seemed to be an answer to that question.

In U.S. Code Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I, Section 1, it says, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...," followed by subcategories that seem to include most Americans, complete with tables showing the percentage owed for each income range. (Subchapter A even comes close to that magic word liable that many in the movement insist is nowhere applied to personal income taxes -- it’s called "Determination of Tax Liability.")

But "taxable income" is the rub. Tax honesty types claim the "constitutional" definition of income, as set forth in such Supreme Court cases as Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers (1918), is corporate profits, not individuals’ wages. (Courts have knocked down this claim regularly during the last 30 years.)

At the conference you learn that taxing violates our natural rights; and anyway, the Constitution does not permit an unapportioned direct tax like an income tax; and if you think the 16th Amendment took care of that, well, it wasn’t properly ratified; and even if it was, it didn’t give any new taxing powers to Congress; and even if it did, the statutes and codes of the IRS as written aren’t officially U.S. law; and even if they were, they don’t define liability and income such that any normal working American owes taxes

SEE, THE STATUTES & CODES AREN'T OFFICIALLY LAWS.

 

[sealybobo]

You gotta wonder how tax attorneys can possible pass a bar exam, when the whole lot of them are so stupid they can't figure out there is no law that requires you to pay income taxes.

Or maybe all the tax attorneys are part of the great conspiracy of rich bankers.

Oh you can find attorney's who would agree.

I suspect most of them fall in line just like the majority of you do. Jillian DOES NOT believe this stuff.

But I talk to conspiracy theorist tax attorneys and CPA's all the time. I sell the Internal Revenue Code. I tell people at work all the time about what I'm telling you. They don't care/don't believe/don't have all the facts/don't think anything can be done about it even if it were true.

Or they just feel that if the government ends the income tax, they'll just stick us somewhere else. They are the masses. They know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.

That's fine for them Sealy. Most people don't care. But I'm not doing that. I (and Toro) am taking my time to research and I am answering your questions about whether there is a law that requires you to pay taxes by showing you the laws that explicitly require you to pay income taxes.

How can you continue to believe there is no law that requires you to pay taxes when you have it right before you eyes?

Remember I said something yesterday about some conspiracy theorist warning me about spelling your name in all caps? I found somethign on it:

Larry Becraft is a lawyer who has actually won a handful of acquittals -- including one for Vernice Kuglin -- in defending people on trial for tax evasion. He gives a talk that is basically a warning to the movement to get its act straight and stop being absurd. Among the beliefs even others in the movement condemn as silly are the notions that by using a ZIP code or allowing a government document to spell your name in all capital letters, you surrender your sovereignty and make yourself a serf of the federal government, and that the income tax applies only to people who live in a federal territory or district, not to residents of the states.

 

[sealybobo]

I get hit with a hilarious application of Schiff’s verbal judo as he attempts to convince me and another apparently confused attendee that "compensation for services" could not mean the same thing as "wages" for tax liability purposes. (This all fits in with his argument that only corporate profits should be considered "income.") He shows us a place in the code that seems to define "compensation for services" as taxable while not mentioning "wages." The other guy objects that surely a wage falls into the category of a "compensation for services."

"It’s not the same!" barks Schiff, the Socrates of the tax code. "And I’ll prove it to you: Can a corporation receive compensation for services’"

His interlocutor admits that yes, wise Schiff, it cannot be denied this is indeed so.

"Can a corporation receive wages’"

The guy pauses a moment, then grants that this proposition seems doubtful.

"See!" Schiff is pleased. "They’re not the same!"

"It's So Simple, It's Ridiculous": Taxing times for 16th Amendment rebels. - Reason Magazine

 

[sealybobo]

The IRS and the judges it brings cases before are corrupt and don’t care what the law says. Which is why, since February 2003, Schiff has had his Las Vegas office raided and records of all his clients seized; the IRS has moved for judgment on $2.5 million in back taxes and penalties it claims he owes; and a federal judge has banned the sale and distribution of The Federal Mafia by Schiff and forbade him from publicly saying what he believes about the income tax. (That ban is under appeal now.)

 

[Iriemon]

Everything you say is arguable. Watch the DVD then get back to me.

Watching it, just for you.

I said contrary to Russo and you that there was a law that requires you to pay tax.

I and Toro have shown you statutes and laws saying you have to pay income taxes, or go to jail. Complete opposite of what Russo claimed.

What is arguable about what I said and the statute I cited about whether it says you have to pay taxes?

Edit: The rest of you post talks about the ratification of the 16th amendment. That is irrelevant to the question - is there a law that requires you to pay taxes. Russo says no. You've seen the law with your own eyes.

The constitutionality is another subject -- that might address whether the law is valid, not wether there is a law. And if Mr. Russo feels the law is unconstitutional, he can file a lawsuit with the courts and have that issue addressed. It is done all the time. But my guess is it was done and decided long ago.

Why do you believe Russo that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes when you've seen it with your own eyes?

It may come down to the concept that it is unconstitutional.

But that is not what Russo claims! He says there is no law. You've seen it with your own eyes! Can we agree that Russo is flat out wrong on his claim that there is no law that requires you to pay taxes?

Schulz’s We The People Foundation is transforming the often subterranean struggle to deny the legitimacy of the income tax. For decades this movement has been an inchoate collection of small congregations following varied gurus. Schulz and his crew, by contrast, offer a unified church with a canon of Right Arguments. The anti-income tax movement now has, through Schulz, a united, highly activist national membership organization claiming around 5,000 dues-paying members, a mailing list of 64,000, and local coordinators in 39 states and 600 counties.

While in the past evangelists of the "income tax is a fraud" message have tended to sell books and seminars, the We The People Foundation has the advantage of being hard to blithely condemn as a scam. It is not a business selling advice but a nonprofit dedicated to spending money -- more than $1 million since taking up this fight -- to spread the word.

"when people say ‘tax protester movement,’ it drives me nuts. I do not protest taxes. I think they are absolutely necessary. I protest illegal confiscation of assets, which is what the income tax is." She has no problem, she assures me, with sales taxes, property taxes, or corporate taxes.

The partisans of the tax honesty movement go beyond complaining that the income tax is too high, or that out-of-control IRS agents enforce it in thuggish ways. They claim, for a dizzyingly complicated variety of reasons, that there is no legal obligation to pay it.

Also last year, Texas plastics manufacturer Dick Simkanin was finally brought to trial for failure to withhold income taxes for his dozens of employees. Simkanin had been a poster child in We The People-sponsored ads in USA Today, featured as a businessman who honestly believes it is his right under law not to withhold. Two grand juries who had gotten to speak to Simkanin failed even to indict him. Finally a third grand jury, whom he didn’t get to speak to, did indict. But at the end of his first trial in November, the jurors could not reach a verdict.

The We The People conference brought together many of the movement’s leading lights. It also presents some new strategies. Schulz, with the help of superstar radical lawyer Mark Lane, is in the process of launching a class action lawsuit to call the government’s cheating hand on this whole income tax matter.

He’s famous for being one of the first Warren Commission revisionists with his 1966 book Rush to Judgment and for being the lawyer for People’s Temple death cultist Jim Jones. He has successfully defended some tax honesty clients, though he tells me: "I pay taxes and never advise any client not to. But I can tell you, I’ve read all these cases, and I don’t see where it says you have to pay, and I don’t understand why the government doesn’t answer [Schulz’s] questions."

The planned suit relies on interestingly fresh grounds: Schulz is claiming that all these government officials who refuse to answer his questions about the income tax are violating his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Surely, after all, that right must include the ability not merely to send in such petitions but to get some sort of reasonable response.

If the IRS is unconstitutional we have a mechanism and body to determine that. It's a lawsuit and the courts determine whether it is unconstitutional or not.