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.
SchulzÂ’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 didnÂ’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 movementÂ’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 governmentÂ’s cheating hand on this whole income tax matter.
HeÂ’s famous for being one of the first Warren Commission revisionists with his 1966 book Rush to Judgment and for being the lawyer for PeopleÂ’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, IÂ’ve read all these cases, and I donÂ’t see where it says you have to pay, and I donÂ’t understand why the government doesnÂ’t answer [SchulzÂ’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.
