Freedom to Fascism: Notes from a Lawyer

R

Rhys

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,642
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.
 
Lawyer Tom Cryer started the exact same way, and he ended up winning his case vs the IRS.
 
a guy in Louisiana (Shreveport) won a jury trial about 6 months ago on the premise that he didn't have to pay taxes.
 
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...
 
akijikan said:
this has what to do with grassroots campaigning?
Click to expand...

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."
 
Rhys said:
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.
Click to expand...

People have won individual cases
 
hawkeyenick said:
People have won individual cases
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
show me the law!

Rhys said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
lynnf said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Rhys said:
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.
Click to expand...

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..”
 
MattMinnesota said:
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..”
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
RFK Jr. Moves to Cut Soda from List of Approved Food Stamp Purchases
Replies
18
Views
171
TheTexan
TheTexan
dannno
Nick Rekieta, MN lawyer and YouTuber, facing drug/gun charges
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
TheCount
TheCount
Anti Federalist
Biden awards Frankie the Red (Pope Francis) a medal of freedom
Replies
0
Views
521
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Swordsmyth
El Salvador to accept deportees from the US of all nationalities and US violent criminals
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Invisible Man
I
PAF
Freedom from Digital Hell Depends on Trump’s “Multiple Personality Disorder”
Replies
0
Views
471
PAF
PAF
Back
Top